THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW 


MEETING 1 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


The verbatim transcript of the Subcommittee 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held in Naperville, Illinois on 


December 11, 2006. 

2 

C O N T E N T S
 

December 11, 2006 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 


DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO 


SEVENTH SET OF CASES 7 


SELECTION OF CASES 39 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 81 

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
 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


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 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 

5 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS
 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 


HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

6 

1 

2 

P R O C E E D I N G S


 (11:10 a.m.) 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. LEWIS WADE, DFO


 DR. WADE: We'll now begin. This now is a 


meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose 


Reconstruction. This will be the first meeting 


of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction. 


There was a Subcommittee for Dose 


Reconstruction and Site Profile Review. That 


subcommittee has now been replaced by this 


Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Review. 


The subcommittee is chaired by Mark Griffon. 


Its members include Mike Gibson, Dr. Poston and 


Wanda Munn. 


Dr. Poston, are you on the line? 


 (No response) 


Dr. Poston is not with us. Brad Clawson is 


listed first as an alternate, so Brad will be 


at the table as a voting member of the 


subcommittee for this meeting. We're waiting 


for Wanda Munn to join us, and then all of the 


subcommittee members, with Brad acting as an 


alternate for Poston, will be present. 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: She's on the phone -- she's on 


a phone call. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, Wanda's on a phone call and 


should join us in a moment. Mark, if you want 


to begin. 


SEVENTH SET OF CASES


 MR. GRIFFON: Sure. Okay, I think we've got a 


very -- very short time for the subcommittee 


today so two primary things we want to discuss 


and the first thing on the agenda is the 


seventh set of cases. And we have in your -- 


in your binders NIOSH has provided two sets of 


selected cases. The first set -- the first six 


pages include cases where, to the best of their 


ability, they've determined that it was full 


internal and external. And we've been through 


this -- this discussion of how they classify 


before. It's not -- not certain, but it's the 


best they can pull from the database. 


 The additional column, I did talk to Stu in 


between meetings and one additional field was 


added, I believe. Right, Stu? This is the 


final field here, the date the DR was approved. 


We had asked to get some indication of when 


these DRs were approved so we could better 

1 

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 

determine if we were going to look at some of 


the old TIBs that were outdated and -- and have 


since been replaced. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's correct, and this is the 


date that the draft dose reconstruction was 


approved, and so that would reflect that the 


TIBs and the technical documents in effect at 


that time, as opposed to a -- you know, a final 


as being sent to DOL or something. That may 


happen quite a bit later. So these are the 


dates that the draft dose reconstruction was 


approved. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Now the-- these aren't sorted by 


date approved, are they, these cases we got 


provided -- or anything, they're sorted -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, they're sorted by date 


approved. 


 MR. GRIFFON: They're sorted by date approved. 


They are sorted by --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- date approved. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The most recently approved -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- is on top. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Most recent to -- 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 

9

 MR. HINNEFELD: Good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. And then the second 


cases are randomly -- second handout we have is 


a random selection of -- of 200, so the random 


selection's eight pages long and it's 200 -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- cases? Okay. And... And the 


first set is -- is six pages long. How -- I 


think you told me on the phone or in an e-mail, 


is it like 250 cases as best estimates at this 


point? These are all --


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's going to be about 230. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 230? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And this is the balance, 


basically, of what you have in -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- of adjudicated cases. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, of adjudicated cases that 


are identified best estimates that have not 


already been selected by the Board for review. 


The 120 cases that were selected in the first 


six sets have been excluded from both lists. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I guess, you know, in 


terms of going forward and selecting cases, 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 

10 

couple of -- some of the discussion I had with 


Stu on the phone was, you know, other than this 


date of approval -- which I think is certainly 


an important factor in helping us decide what 


cases we want -- there may be other factors 


that -- that are not readily available in 


NOCTS. They're -- they're factors that you 


sort of have to open the case up to find out, 


such as, you know, if -- if you have -- well, 


if you have a Hanford case and -- and we 


randomly select them and they're all from the 


300 area, you know, then we're -- we're 


probably not getting a -- a good distribution 


of what we might want to look at. 


 The other criteria I was thinking of is, you 


know, in terms of there's certain TIBs that are 


used fairly often or certain site-specific 


TIBs, and we may want to look at application of 


certain TIBs. And if we don't open a case, we 


may -- we may think that a certain case, given 


that it's a certain site, would use a certain 


TIB. But until we open it up, we don't see 


whether it relies on one TIB or another TIB, 


you know, but --


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's correct, and we 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 

11 

have a handy -- you know, automatic way to 


identify that in the database. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. So I -- I -- I 


guess part of -- part of what we were -- you 


know, we were discussing was how can we best go 


forward with our sampling without doing a lot 


of treading over the same ground, getting the 


same types of cases, but -- but also, you know, 


we want to keep in mind that this is an audit 


process, that we're looking as an overall audit 


function. 


So I don't know if anybody has any thoughts on 


how -- how best to proceed. Part of my concern 


on going too far is that -- you know, I -- I 


think we need to explore the -- the parameters 


we want to get at a little farther before we 


just start selecting audit cases that may be 


redundant. That's my concern here. So --


 DR. WADE: Could -- could -- John Mauro, could 


you speak to us briefly as to -- give us a 


sense of the timing and the needs from your 


review point of view. Where are you, when do 


you need to hear from the subcommittee on the 


seventh, eighth, ninth -- 


DR. MAURO: Sure. We're in the middle 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 

12 

sixth set of cases. I would say we're probably 


not going to achieve -- get to the point where 


we're clear of that and ready for the next set 


-- six weeks, that -- on that order, when we -- 


will be good to have -- to get that started, so 


let's -- let's plan on if we had the list six 


weeks from now, that would be very -- 


 DR. WADE: Early February the Board meets 


again, the subcommittee will meet again. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And we also have a phone call 


Board meeting in there, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Right, and could do a subcommittee. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Would it be -- so I guess you don't 


have to decide today is what we're hearing. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. WADE: There is an opportunity for you in 


January to -- you know, you could sharpen your 


focus now and then make your selection and -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I -- my -- my 


preference right now is -- is -- is to have 


some dialogue on what we think about our 


sampling approach, what para-- what parameters 


we need to -- to better -- to enhance our 


audit, and then save -- you know, hold off on 

1 

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 

the actual selection of cases right now, but 


bring -- bring these criteria back to the full 


Board for a discussion and maybe fine-tune how 


-- how we want to select these cases going 


forward. 


 DR. WADE: And then we might use part of the 


next Board call to have a subcommittee call and 


possibly make the selection? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's a possibility, anyway. 


know Wanda has some questions, or you look like 


you... 


 MS. MUNN: Well, I'm a little puzzled about how 


much information we will need from these data 


in order to satisfy our own personal desires 


for a wide distribution of cases. And I guess 


my thought is, what am I going to ask Stu to 


bring me in addition to --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- this list right here. And as you 


pointed out, in a case that I'm familiar with, 


sure, it makes a big difference what area 


people work in. But I am questioning whether 


that's easy information for -- 


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 

14

 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- us to find. And I -- I don't 


want to send NIOSH back to go through, blow by 


blow, each one of these files -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, the other --


 MS. MUNN: -- so I guess -- might we consider 


the other approach, might we consider making 


our selection based on the information we have 


here and then ask, from that number -- which 


will be a considerably smaller number than 


these pages of data that we have here -- if we 


could ask, from that number, if there is 


perhaps one additional item of information, 


like if it's -- if it's a job category for a 


specific -- or whether it's -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah --


 MS. MUNN: -- another --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that's sort of what I -- I 


have two -- two follow-ups and I -- I mean I 


think that's sort of what I was thinking, and 


then -- then part of my concern is on -- on 


doing that, but it's sort of a screening 


device. I -- I mean we -- we'd be -- 'cause 


we'd have -- we'd select and then we'd have to 


open the cases and, you know, who is -- who is 

1 

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 

"we" I think is an important factor, too -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it is. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but I think we'd have -- we -- 


we have to decide our parameters, maybe, and 


then ask NIOSH to open those cases so we 


wouldn't -- you know, I mean -- you know, it -- 


it is an audit, so I -- we don't want to open a 


case and look and say well, that one looks like 


a real good case. You just want to open the 


case to be able to look at certain parameters 


of interest for -- for sampling. 


 MS. MUNN: It is, in my view, our 


responsibility as the subcommittee to identify 


what those parameters are -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- for Stu, and I -- I really don't 


want to ask him to bring me another rock until 


I tell him specifically what rock it is. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I agree. I -- I -- I don't ­

- I -- I agree with you on that standpoint. 


would -- I wouldn't ask him to do it for two 


fif-- 250, you know --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that -- that doesn't make 


sense. The other thing I -- I -- I wondered if 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16 

we could go back and examine our statistics 


that we have from our last six sets of reviews 


and -- and -- and add that -- this parameter 


which we don't know necessarily what they are, 


but it might be work area. I know to some 


extent we -- we -- in our original matrix that 


I talked about different parameters we were 


interested in, we talked about job title, and 


we also -- I understand why it's not in this 


matrix because it's difficult. People change 


job titles, it's not readily -- something you 


can readily pull from NOCTS, but maybe in our ­

- in our summary matrix of -- of the six sets 


that we've done so far we can say okay, then we 


can sort and look and say okay, we've got 


Hanford cases --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I can --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, we -- we've got, you 


know, 15 cases and they cover -- you know, are 


they all from the same area, are they all -- 


you know, we can start to outline it that way, 


and then when we -- so -- so we have the -- the 


past set to deal with, too. That's supposed to 


help us -- you know, the -- the original notion 


was that as we track this, we find out what 

1 

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 

we've done and we fill in those other cells so 


that we see that we've covered a range of 


different cancers, a range of different, you 


know, years worked and sort of things like 


that. 


 MS. MUNN: Do you have a feel for what specific 


other categories you might be wanting to focus 


on? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I think the two I've 


just raised were the -- the -- that work area, 


work location, and I'm not sure exactly how 


easy that is even to determine. If people were 


all over the place, that's tough. But work 


area and -- and I guess the external and 


internal methodology. And -- and I think in 


most cases it can be either -- you know, even 


in -- even in -- and correct me if I'm wrong, 


Stu, but even in best estimate cases it's not 


always that you use an individual's urinalysis 


data to calculate their intake and dose. In 


some cases you use the site-wide model -- 


right? -- for --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure, there'd be some sites 


where there'd be a site dose model that would 


be used. 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Site dose model, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: There would be some cases where 


an inter-- or a coworker dataset may be used to 


fill in monitoring gaps or moni-- you know, 


unmonitored periods or -- yeah, unmonitored 


periods. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so those would likely be 


considered best estim-- or could be considered 


best estimates. Use of a coworker model would 


not exclude something from being a best 


estimate. There -- there are some 


overestimating techniques which would exclude 


them from being a best estimate. There may be 


a fit to the bioassay to -- the individual's 


actual bioassay, so there are -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: But even --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- a handful -- a handful of 


techniques that would fit into the -- the best 


estimate category. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. And instead of just saying 


overestimating technique, then we might have a 


column that says, you know, TIB whatever. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: TIB whichever, right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You know, and then we -- and then 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

19 

we could say -- you know, that would tell me 


okay, we've -- you know, we've sliced and diced 


TIB-8 and 10 up and down across the board, you 


know. Maybe we don't need five more cases that 


-- that use TIB-8 and 10. You know what I 


mean? That's -- that's -- so I guess the -- 


the work area and the -- the -- the -- you 


know, what -- what method was applied for a DR 


-- external and internal, what TIB or what 


method was used. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know how --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: You think it -- it -- is --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the only --


 MR. GRIFFON: Are we getting to a place where 


we get a combination of methods for a lot of 


cases or --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. Yeah, you'll have 


bioassay for a certain period and coworker for 


others maybe, have a single employee, could 


happen like that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, so even that might not work 


too well then. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You have -- you know, it -- 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 

20 

have people who -- who didn't work their entire 


career in the same location, but you know, 


maybe worked from 300 to 400 area to 100 areas, 


moved over the course of their employment -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so they'd be at multiple 


locations. I mean we can list all the work 


locations that are identified. Work locations 


aren't always known. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Job titles aren't always known. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Lew --


 MR. HINNEFELD: We will always --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- I'm sorry to interrupt, 


but the subcommittee's going to have to be 


aware that at some point this is going to 


become identifiable and these may have to go 


into closed session if all of this information 


is going to be on documents that are made 


public. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I think --


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Be aware. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- things like, you know, 


specific years, how many years they've worked 


at this location, how many years they worked 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 

21 

that location, that -- it lends more and more 


toward being identifiable, and so the more we 


put on here the more we have to worry about 


that. The dose reconstruction technique I 


think won't matter. I don't think there's any 


one -- I don't think anyone will necessarily be 


able to tell from that -- could be identified 


from that. 


 MS. MUNN: Right, I wouldn't think so. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So that -- I don't know if you 


have any parameters in mind, Wanda, that you 


were thinking. 


 MS. MUNN: I don't have any specific parameters 


that I could put in an envelope and say this is 


the -- this is specifically what I want 


because, for just the reason that Stu has 


indicated, this is a -- from -- it appears that 


we're getting into an amorphous zone where I -- 


from my personal knowledge of the site you've 


already mentioned, workers freely moved from 


300 to 400 to 200 --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- and the type of the work that 


they did and the type of exposure to which they 


might have been privy was pretty much the same. 

1 

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 

But nevertheless, it would -- would have 


varied. I don't think there's any way we can 


get specific without crossing over the line of 


identifiability, and I -- and I -- what I'm 


grappling with is not wanting to send them away 


asking for more information without being very 


concrete about what we need. And I'm not --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- able to come up with that myself. 


I'm hoping someone else can. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well --


DR. MAURO: I have a suggestion and it might be 


a shortcut. It's neutron dosimetry, over and 


over and over again, places that emerge whether 


we're doing a site profile or doing a dose 


reconstruction audit, the area that is always 


the most sensitive, that tests the robustness 


of the work that's being done, is neutron 


dosimetry -- from an external point of view. 


So in picking a case -- and I know it's not on 


your list -- in addition to all the other 


parameters, whenever we are -- we find problem 


areas that we need to discuss, it seems to be a 


recurring theme -- how was neutron dosimetry 


dealt with and is it scientifically sound, 

1 

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 

whether it's a coworker model or it's the 


actual measurements that were used. So if it 


hel-- and that goes toward a lot of all the old 


OTIBs we were talking about, and it's probably 


pretty easy when you go into your case to say 


well, did -- was neutron a contributing dose to 


this particular person's POC. And if the 


answer is yes, I know that it would probably 


make for a place -- a place for auditing that 


would lend insight into the robustness of the 


dose reconstruction. 


 MS. MUNN: Thank you, John. So perhaps that 


gives us one guideline. I don't think I would 


want that to be the only guideline -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- but perhaps we might ask that 


half of the cases we choose fall into that 


category and the other half that it not be such 


a -- an --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I'm not ready to give up on 


my undefinable parameters, as you seem to have. 


But -- I mean I -- I know work area is not an 


easy -- easily definable area, but -- and -- 


and we do get in-- possibly into the privacy 


issues, but -- I mean you have that information 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 -- 

24 

in the files. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sometimes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sometimes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Not always. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean you can say unknown. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And we can say -- you know, we 


can list -- you know, if -- if they list three 


or four --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we can list three or four. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know that it's -- you 


know, I know it -- it's -- it's not going to be 


a perfect criteria. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think to be at all -- have a 


manageable amount of work for that -- I mean 


that, to me, is -- as far as I know, is a 


manually opening the case and looking at -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- the records from the site 


and see what you know about where the guy 


worked. So as you said earlier, we would want 


to have a manageable number of cases to look 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 

25

 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, yeah, yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- as opposed to 250 -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I'm talking post-- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- or 230 --


 MR. GRIFFON: This is kind of a screening 


thing. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Sure, if we select, you know -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: We select them --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- 25 or 30 or something -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and we would go characterize 


those, that's probably a manageable -- I -- 


well, it would be quite a bit of work, but it's 


at least a doable amount of work. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can I say something as an 


alternate? 


 DR. WADE: Yes, uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Along with the neutron dose, can 


you not go back and look at your higher 


probability in job descriptions? Now what I'm 


saying is you go in and you look at your job 


descriptions of the people that had the higher 


probability of exposure. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we could make some 


subjective judgments about that. 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 

26 

just sort of -- what we think, you know, with 


jobs that would be more highly exposed. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Again, job -- we don't always 


have a job title. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: But for the cases were we do -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we could make some judgment 


about that. Some job titles are easier than 


others --


 MR. PRESLEY: Right, I realize that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- in terms of deciding, but 


you know... 


 MR. GRIFFON: And what about -- what about this 


potential of the method used, Stu? How --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, that's -- I mean that's 


open and look. I mean if we're going to open 


the case and look for some things, we could 


have a list of things that we're going to 


check. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We could check the -- the -- 


that would be a fairly -- I mean that should be 


capturable (sic) in every case -- 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- that you could list what was 


the internal technique or internal dosimetry 


method and what was the external dosimetry 


method -- or methods --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and so that should be 


discernable in every case and it's just a 


matter of opening the dose reconstruction 


report and looking. So that's discernable. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And that would be more or less 


captured in the DR report, wouldn't it? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, it'd be in the DR report. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, so you wouldn't have 


to open the whole case file. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Wouldn't have to have the whole 


case file. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The raw data or anything. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: For -- for location --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- for work location -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Location. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you're going -- you're -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- going to have to look 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 

28 

file. And depending upon where the person 


worked, you may have to look in different 


locations. Like some sites, if you op-- if 


there are dosimetry records, you've got a 


pretty good indication of where a person worked 


from their -- especially Savannah Riv-- like 


Savannah River bioassay record is -- is really 


pretty good, you know, you know -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- what area they were in or 


what reactor they worked at. But other sites 


may not be so good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I mean the -- and some -- some 


sites are okay for some years and not so great 


for other years, so it would be a little tricky 


to kind of summarize work location. We could 


give -- I mean it may have to be sort of like a 


freeform field, you know, as opposed to data 


elements that you could come up with a dataset 


element for. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. But the -- the external 


and internal method shouldn't be as -- as -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't think -- I don't 


envision any -- any problem. Now maybe I'm 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

29 

overlooking something. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Shouldn't be as resource-


intensive as the -- the work area one, I don't 


think. Would it? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm thinking it would not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it would not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean the other -- and we can -- 


I -- I'd propose that we bring this to the full 


Board and whatever we discuss and maybe coming 


to a final, but I mean I would almost propose 


to try the work area, the external/internal 


method, the neutron dosimetry -- just for this 


first -- if we go through this seventh set, 


let's select 20, let's do try that with these 


20. You know, let NIOSH -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We can put -- we can put job 


title on, because if we have a job title it'll 


be in our database. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and job title, I'm sorry. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So we can put job title in -- 


or job titles. Sometimes we'll have one, 


sometimes we'll have more than one. Sometimes 


the one --


 MR. GRIFFON: Now how --

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: -- we have will be the last one 


they had. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- how we disseminate this, we'll 


have to be careful with the Privacy Act 


concerns. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we'll -- what we do, when 


we generate a list we'll send it up to our OGC 


and -- and have them tell us if it's okay or 


not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. It may be that we can't 


show this full matrix in -- in -- in open 


session. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But we can still use it, you 


know, for our purposes, yeah. 


 MS. BEHLING: Excuse me, Mark, this is Kathy 


Behling. It seems to me that if you're 


interested in determining how the dose 


reconstructions were done and the types, you 


should be able to easily look at the reference 


list on the DR report, bo-- I would think that 


that's not too terribly difficult of a 


screening method. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, I think that's what Stu -- 


Stu agreed with me on that. Thanks, Kathy -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31

 MS. BEHLING: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah. 

 MS. BEHLING: Thanks. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. So -- I mean as a -- as a 

preliminary -- I don't know if there's other 


factors that we want to consider, but I think 


that's some preliminary parameters that I might 


be interested -- I think we should pull -- pull 


this as a discussion piece back to the full 


Board and see if, you know, we -- we've 


selected 20 cases, we want NIOSH to sort of 


pre-screen those for us and give us this extra 


information before we finally select. Maybe we 


want to do more than 20, maybe we want to do 


30. Yeah, just -- you know. 


 MS. MUNN: That would sound reasonable to me, 


based on the fact that --


 MR. GRIFFON: We're going to --


 MS. MUNN: -- we're -- we're saying we're going 


to sift these --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, right --


 MS. MUNN: -- after we see them. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I apologize, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: And -- and I -- I guess the 


methodology of the DR is -- is an easy enough 

1 

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 

thing to do, but I'm -- I'm still a little 


concerned about being a little more definitive, 


if we can be, in terms of what any other 


selective categories we come up with. 


 DR. BEHLING: Mark, this is Hans Behling. Also 


if we're going to select on a basis of neutron 


exposure, try to select neutron exposure prior 


to the use of the multi-purpose TLD. In other 


words, prior to 1972, because that's really 


where the NTA film and the problems with 


neutron assigned exposures -- 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. BEHLING: -- comes into play. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you're saying pre- and post­

'62, if they can give us that -- 


 DR. BEHLING: '72. 


 MR. GRIFFON: '72, I'm sorry, '72, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: While you have a pause -- this is 


Lew Wade -- I just -- and again, I don't think 


it will influence this discussion one way or 


the other, but I think it's always important to 


keep in mind what the chartered purpose of the 


committee and subcommittee is. And very 


simply, the Advisory Board on Radiation Worker 

1 

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 

Health shall advise the Secretary of HHS on the 


scientific validity and quality of dose 


reconstruction efforts performed for this 


program. So really that is your charter, and I 


don't think you're straying from it. I think 


it's always good to have that on the record as 


you have these discussions, though. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: Excuse me, I have a radical idea. 


Instead of 20, could you give us 30? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- we just said 30. 


DR. MAURO: Oh, I'm sorry, I didn't hear -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- I wasn't even listening, I'm 


sorry. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause we're going to lose some ­

-


 DR. WADE: Well, you say give you 30 or -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh --


DR. MAURO: When the time comes to turn over 


the seventh set to us, rather than selecting 20 


-- 'cause you know, we've been being delivered 


sets of 20, three a year. Now what's happening 


is, as you probably notice, is that we are 


still working on our sixth set -- which were 

1 

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 

last year. Right now the seventh is going to 


be for the new fiscal year, which in theory 


started October 1st. What I'm getting at is 


that the machinery of processing the cases -- 


it's -- certainly it will take more time to do 


30 than 20, but it -- remember the cycle we go 


through. We go through -- we prepare it, then 


we interact on a one on one. There's -- there 


is an iterative process. Now in my mind, and 


I'd like to very -- matter of fact, this is the 


first time I'm bringing this up and I haven't 


even spoken to Hans and Kathy about this, but 


if we were mov-- if we had a pulse of 30 moving 


through the system as op-- two pulses of 30 as 


opposed to three pulses of 20, I have a feeling 


that we'll be able to get through the 60 by the 


end of the fiscal year more effectively than if 


we tried to push three sets of 20. This is an 


idea that just struck me as I was sitting here 


and I -- you know, and I'm not quite sure 


whether Hans and Kathy see it the same way -- 


and whether you see it the same way, whether or 


not that would be --


 MR. GRIFFON: My --


DR. MAURO: -- positive or not. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 -- 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 -- 

23 

24 

25 

35

 MR. GRIFFON: My -- my only reluctance on that 


is that in order to get -- assign you 30, then 


we'd probably have to pick 45, and then NIOSH 


would have to get all these parameters for 45 


cases, when it's really a trial balloon. I 


mean it -- you know, I'm not sure how that work 


area field -- we may do it once and say you 


know what, this isn't really helping us and we 


end up dropping it. So I'd rather -- at least 


for this cycle -- do -- have NIOSH do 30, with 


the product at the end of the day being to 


assign you 20 out of that. I think that makes 


 MS. MUNN: I agree. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- especially where we're trying 


to -- you know, this is preliminary. 


 DR. WADE: But I think John's idea in time -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, in time --


 DR. WADE: -- could prove --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I agree with you, yeah. But 


for the first cycle I think -- let's make sure 


 MS. MUNN: Let's do. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- these fields aren't wasting a 


lot of time and not giving us what we want 

1 

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 

anyway, you know, so... But -- so I would 


propose at least as a draft on the subcommittee 


that we -- we do this. We select 30 cases for 


NIOSH to pre-screen based on the parameters, 


including neutron dosimetry pre- and post-'72, 


work area, job title, external methodology and 


internal methodology. 


 DR. WADE: And you're thinking of selecting 


those 30 today? 


 MR. GRIFFON: If we -- if we have time. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, we do. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But first of all, do people agree 


with that -- that premise, the parameters? 


 MS. MUNN: Well, I --


 MR. GRIFFON: At least as a preliminary 


approach. 


 MS. MUNN: I'm still a little concerned about 


the -- the lack of clarity on the edges of 


those parameters, but yeah, you're right, this 


is a trial balloon and if -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- if NIOSH --


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


 MS. MUNN: -- thinks they can handle it -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm not exactly sure what some 

1 

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 

of those fields are going to look like when we 


ask --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- them to fill them, but I think 


if we try it in a preliminary fashion, and then 


if it's not the -- it's not going to give -- 


yield the information we want, I think we then 


drop it from future requests, you know. 


 MS. MUNN: That's certainly a reasonable 


approach, I think. 


 DR. WADE: It's a working plan then. So to 


play it out, if we were to pick 30, we'd give 


them to NIOSH, ask NIOSH to report back to the 


subcommittee prior to the Board call on the 


11th of January --


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: -- at which time the subcommittee 


could also meet and possibly make its selection 


of 20. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, that's a plan. All it takes 


is 30, the selection of 30. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: How bad is it if we are not 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

ready by the -- by the conference call? 


Because it's a fair amount of work. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It'll be a fair amount of work 


to get this information for these 30 cases. 


 DR. WADE: It doesn't mean you're a bad person, 


Stu. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'm just saying that we may not 


be able to be ready in a month, with the 


holidays in between. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So it may go to the next -- 


like whatever -- some date after that or the 


next Board meeting before we'd be able to 


provide the additional or the more robust list. 


 DR. WADE: And that would mean that we would be 


alerting SC&A of the next -- of the seventh set 


the first week in February. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Acceptable, John? 


DR. MAURO: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. All right. So we've got 


15 minutes. Do we want to deci-- want to try 


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 

39

 DR. WADE: I don't care if you people eat lunch 


or not, it doesn't bother me. You're paid the 


same. 


 MS. MUNN: Thanks ever so -- and I have such a 


wonderful luncheon plan laid out. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess we should try to -- try 


to proceed through. 


 DR. WADE: Or come up with an algorithm and 


just -- might work quickly. 


SELECTION OF CASES


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, let's -- let's just start ­

- I -- I guess we could start with the full 


external/internal cases and the date the DR was 


approved certainly goes from most current to 


least, so it would make sense to start from 


page one, I believe, 'cause we want to avoid 


some of these older TIBs that we've already 


reviewed. 


 DR. WADE: Correct. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So any -- I'm looking at ID 


number 301. It's a Y-12 case. Any votes for 


or -- or I'll -- I'll just go down the list, as 


Paul usually does this function, 302, 


Huntington Pilot Plant? 


 MS. MUNN: Hold on. Non-melanoma, respiratory. 

1 

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

 MR. CLAWSON: Is there any special criteria you 


want or just a rough --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, our -- our normal criteria 


here, and then we're going to have NIOSH look 


in these other criteria, you know, and so I 


think, you know, the usual criteria that we've 


-- how we've selected these. 


 DR. WADE: We try to be about -- around the 


probability of causation or... 


 MS. MUNN: And --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, not necessarily -- 


 MS. MUNN: -- and --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- but yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: And various -- and a full spread of 


sites, as well. So sure, that looks good to 


me, 302. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Huntington? 


 MS. MUNN: 302, Huntington. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do we have a -- a -- I don't have 


my list handy of the sites that we've sampled 


already, the statistics of -- 


 MS. MUNN: I don't, either. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- sites we've sampled thus far. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You've done one from Huntington 


Pilot Plant. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41

 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just done one, yeah. 


Well, let's just -- let's just go through and 


get a preliminary list anyway -- 303? 


 MS. MUNN: No, we've done similar ones. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Likewise 304. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Likewise 305. Wait a minute, 306? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 306? We haven't done a lot of 


Mound and this one is over -- over 50, but how 


many Mound cases have we done? Sorry, Stu, 


to... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Looks like three. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That is a full DR. Worth looking 


at? All right, 306 we got. 307? 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 308, 309? 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 310? 


 MS. MUNN: Hmm, 311. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 311? Again, it's over the 50 


percentile, thyroid cancer, Hanford. We've got 


quite a few Hanfords, but... 


 MS. MUNN: I don't remember how many thyroids 

1 

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 

we've done --


 MR. PRESLEY: That's what I was going to say, I 


don't -- I don't think we've done a whole lot 


of thyroids. 


 MS. MUNN: I don't think we've done a lot of 


thyroid, that's what caught my eye. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If you'll look ahead at 314's 


also a thyroid from Hanford but it's less than 


50 percent if you want to look at that one. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 314 looks like -- 


 MS. MUNN: Maybe that's a better choice. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- maybe a more interesting one, 


yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 314? Moving on down the 


list, 315, Savannah River? 316 --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 317 through 321 are all Y-12. 


 MS. MUNN: 322 is not very high, but it's a 


different --


 MR. GRIFFON: Kansas City Plant, we -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we haven't really seen that. 


 MS. MUNN: Might be good. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

43

 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 322. 


 MS. MUNN: Hmm, 26 --


 MR. GRIFFON: We got some just around 50 


percent, several just over 50 percent. 


 MS. MUNN: 327's interesting. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Certainly a different facility, 


huh? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, brand new. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 327. 28, 30, 31, 32 -- 


going on to the next page. 


 MS. MUNN: I suddenly jump from 333 -- to page 


3, that's why. 


 MR. GRIFFON: What's that, Wanda? I couldn't ­

-


 DR. WADE: It was just --


 MS. MUNN: Oh, I'm muttering to myself. I 


missed the page. 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can I suggest one? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 335, urinary organs excluding the 


bladder for Mound, that's different, would it 


not be, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Hang on a sec. 

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: 335. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 335. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: You've done a few, done maybe 


four out of 120. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 339 is a Fernald -- how many 


Fernald cases have we done? 


 MS. BEHLING: I show nine, Mark. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Nine? 

 MS. BEHLING: Yes. 

 DR. WADE: You want to say yes or no? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I'm -- I'm skipping it. 


 MR. CLAWSON: You going to skip --


 MS. MUNN: Oh, what about 337? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Livermore. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 337? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: How ma-- Lawrence Livermore, have 


we -- I don't know how many we've done on that. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Three, according to my list. 


 DR. WADE: Okay? 


 MR. GRIFFON: All right, 337. The next number 

1 

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 

that comes up, people can speak up. I'm down 


to 345. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 345's interesting, an unknown POC 


and cancer. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, sorry, I should have -- I 


tried to fill those in. When I got this query 


there were a couple missing and I tried to fill 


those in. I can find it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know that it's essential 


in this process. 


 DR. WADE: There's a Bridgeport Brass coming 


up. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, 348. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that's a different 


Bridgeport Br-- is it? 


 MR. PRESLEY: You got a... 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 348. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is that a different Bridgeport 


Brass? It's not Havens Lab, it's -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct, there's -- one's 


called Ha-- one's Havens Lab and the other one 


is Adrian, Michigan. Havens Lab is in the east 

1 

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 

coast somewhere, I forget -- northeast 


somewhere. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: Reasonable, 348, or not? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Which one, 348? Again, it's over 


50 percent. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, it is. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Several of them we've picked 


already over 50. 


 MS. MUNN: Then what about 351? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. Yeah, I like that better. 


I think that makes -- that's Havens Lab, 


though, yeah. 351 you said, Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. WADE: Yes? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Are we going to -- what about 354, 


very low POC but it's a site -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- we haven't done --


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


Aliquippa Forge, have we? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't believe we have. 
I 


don't have that one handy. 


 DR. WADE: 354? 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: 354, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Same is true of 363. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 363? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Superior Steel? 


 MS. MUNN: Another low POC, but 


(unintelligible) site. 


 DR. WADE: So 363? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 363, I --


 MR. PRESLEY: 363 is --


 DR. WADE: Superior Steel. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Question on that -- the Superior 


Steel, is that one model for the site? Is that 


a site model or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe Superior Steel is a 


dose model. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it's a dose model, but 


I won't --


 MR. GRIFFON: A dose model for all workers at 


that site. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think, I don't know for sure. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And have we done Superior Steel 


before? I thought we did one of those ca-- 

1 

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 

yeah, John's nodding yes. 


 MS. MUNN: So we have one. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Huh? 


 MS. MUNN: We have one already. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We've done one and it's the same 


dose model for all workers, so I don't think we 


 MS. MUNN: No, no point. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So forget 363. 


 MS. MUNN: Likewise 365. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm on to page three, I don't -- 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. So 374, again, over POC, 


but again, it's a site. 


 MR. PRESLEY: How many have we done for 

Pinellas? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we see a pattern 

here. We see some uranium facilities and 


Hanford and Savannah River a lot, you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I don't know -- it -- I mean ­

-


 MR. PRESLEY: How many have you done for 


Pinellas? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: According to my count, 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 

49 

haven't done any for Pinellas. 


 MS. BEHLING: I show one. 


 MS. MUNN: And that's --


 DR. WADE: Bless you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Was that you, Kathy? 


 DR. WADE: Kathy said one for Pinellas. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That was one bark for Pinellas. 


Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: 375 is on then? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 375, yeah, we'll add 375, 


Pinellas. Okay. Have we done Paducah? We've 


done at least --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we have, but I don't remember 


how many --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don't know, either. 


 MS. MUNN: -- we've done. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I have two. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You have two? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: My -- my list shows two. 


 MS. BEHLING: I have two, also. 


 MS. MUNN: Sounds like it's two, and the 


diagnosis is very similar to the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: -- preceding one. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

50

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I don't think we need that 


one. 


 MS. MUNN: There's another Harshaw down there 


very interesting, 393. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Harshaw, 393? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. I'm just scanning down the 


whole next page. It looks like Savannah and 


Bethlehem. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Have we done very many from 


Chapman Valve? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we've done several, it seems 


to me. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I don't -- have we done any 


Chapman Valve? 


 MS. MUNN: Am I wrong? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: According to my list, there's 


been one in the first 120. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But we also have it on the table 


at -- we did do one? 


DR. MAURO: Chapman Valve is interesting 


because the -- they use a generic exposure 


matrix, and that exposure matrix was 


substantially revised on October 16th, last 


month, so I suspect most Chapman Valves 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 

51 

have been done, if they were done prior to the 


-- and I don't believe there've been any 


Chapman Valves done -- dose reconstructions 


done using the new exposure matrix, so -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, this is 6/22/05, this one. 


DR. MAURO: I think that -- I don't think there 


are any adjudicated Chapman Valves that have 


been completed that were performed using the 


most recent version of the exposure matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So you may have to re-evalu-- and 


I don't know if NIOSH is re-evaluating -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: This -- this'll -- this'll be 


re-evaluated --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so --


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- Program Evaluation Report, 


really there's a -- there's an open discussion 


about Chapman Valve and what will the -- you 


know, what will the final dose model look like, 


if there is a final dose model -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so it -- at that point then, 


once we have one -- if we have one -- then 


we'll go back and evaluate the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- cases that were done 

1 

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 

previously. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay, I just --


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not sure it's worthwhile 


picking it up now. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Right, I --

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MR. CLAWSON: -- understand that. I just -- I 

didn't think we'd had very many. 


 MR. PRESLEY: How many have we done for Iowa 


Army Ordnance, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: According to my list, we've -- 


gosh, I've only done one. But now --


Iowa -- that's an SEC -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- so -- and it is a dose 


model, so any non-presumptive cases that are to 


be done -- I mean there may be presumptive 


cases in here that were done before the SEC was 


added. Well, those would have gone the SEC 


route by now. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: If it's a non-presumptive 


cancer case, then it would be in accordance 


with the dose model for Iowa Ordnance Plant 


that's been published since the SEC for 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 

53 

non-presumptive cases, so -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: This one was done 2004. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't remember dates. 
I 


don't remember when it was -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: So I don't know if those are 


worth looking at --


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- yeah, since we dealt with it 


in the SEC. I'm looking on page five -- 


 MS. MUNN: Five? Whoa, we went right past 


four. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, there -- there's just so 


many of the same sites showing up, so -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, I see. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm trying to -- skimming past 


them. I'm wondering if we, you know, might 


want to get into the random list. What time is 


it? Oh -- that's all right, we can work 


through lunch. 


 DR. WADE: Through lunch, okay. 


 MS. MUNN: But on page four, down at the 


bottom, it's the first time I have seen that, 


455. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Page four at the bottom? 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: On page four, item 455, what is the 


POC? 

 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Fifty. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's at 50. 

 MS. MUNN: That would be kind of interesting, 


to me. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No significant digits, either. 


 MS. MUNN: I haven't -- I haven't seen that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Well, we've done quite a 


few Savannah River, though. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, we have done a lot of them. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: But the POC alone is interesting 


enough to me to... 


 MR. PRESLEY: What do we do in a case like 


that? Does that get compensated when it comes 


out to -- if one does come out to 50? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Greater than or equal to. 


 MS. MUNN: It has to be more than. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Greater than or equal to? Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I -- how -- how many do we 


have for Savannah River? Quite a few, but... 

1 

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

 MR. HINNEFELD: By my count there are 21 out of 


the first 120. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Twenty-one, and what was our 


target for that -- is that on that same sheet? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, yeah, the -- based on the 


cases available for review from Savannah River, 


there are like 1,600-plus cases available for 


review from Savannah River. So at two and a 


half percent, that would be a 41 target. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, so we're not bad. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Let's -- let's add that on. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, we're adding --


 MR. PRESLEY: Which one? 


 DR. WADE: -- 455. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 455. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Here's another new site, Birdsboro, 


480. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 480, Stu, Birdsboro Steel and 


Foundry, site-wide model? I'm sure you don't 


know all these off the top of your head, but... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it probably is. Some 


of these --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Some of these places we 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 

56 

almost complete -- like external dosimetry 


records for, so some of these cases -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- you know, we'll have a model 


from -- built from that data, and -- but we may 


also look -- you know, we may actually have the 


claimant's data, you know, just by chance, so ­

-


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, let's try it. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't really know for sure on 


Birdsboro --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, let's try it, 480. This'll 


be a good reason to see those other parameters 


that we asked for, you know, and -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, besides, it's two years old so 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Hmm. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know how many we have, 


but it's not close to 30. 


 DR. WADE: We got 13. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 13. 


 MS. MUNN: 490? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 490? 


 MS. MUNN: The site, low POC. 

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: 28 years. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yep, I can -- American Bearing 

Company --

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we haven't done that --


 MS. MUNN: Huh-uh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I'm sure of it. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Just below that's another Anaconda, 


492. Did we have one earlier? 


 MR. GRIFFON: An Anaconda, no. If -- if these 


ones are on this list, Stu, does it necessarily 


mean that they would have a si-- at least a 


site-specific model, or could they be a -- like 


a TIB-4 or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right -- right now I can't -- I 


don't know why American Bearing Corp. and 


Anaconda Company are on this list. I don't 


recall --


 MR. GRIFFON: That's what I'm saying. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- I don't know that we've 


published a site profile for either of those. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And so I don't know what would 


have been done here. You know, it might be 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 

58 

had the data for the claimant. I -- I'm just 


guessing. I'm -- I don't know if that happened 


or not, so I don't -- I don't really know why 


those are on the list. I can't really explain 


why they're on the list. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, since we're trying a new 


system anyway to find out whether that tells us 


anything --


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, why don't we try one of 


them? 


 MS. MUNN: Okay, fine. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Which one? 


 MR. GRIFFON: The 490. All right? 


 DR. WADE: Okay, 490. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is that okay --


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Let's try one and -- 'cause I 


can't imagine there's a -- well, maybe there 


is, but... 


(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 

59 

I'm moving into the randomly selected list, 


unless other people have found something on 


that last page. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Question on that last page before 


we go on. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Uh-huh? 


 MR. PRESLEY: 509, Argonne National West, oral 


cavity and pharynx, have we done -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Have we done or --


 MR. PRESLEY: -- a large number or any of those 


for any of the sites? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: By my count we've got one at 


Argonne West. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I mean I realize that's a low 


POC, but still that's a -- that's something 


that we haven't run up on is that -- 


 MS. MUNN: Oral cavity, yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- esophagus area. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm okay with that, 509's -- 


 DR. WADE: 509? 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- let's add that on, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: That's our 15th. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, 15 more out of the random. 


 DR. WADE: Uh-huh. 


 MS. MUNN: How about 013? 

1 

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

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that looks like an 


interesting one, 013, Brookhaven. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Which number was it? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 013. 


 DR. WADE: On the random list. 


 MR. CLAWSON: Okay. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Page one of the random list, 

right. 

 MS. MUNN: There's another interesting one. 


There's another thyroid at PNL. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Was that a suggestion, Wanda, or 


-- I didn't hear --


 MS. MUNN: No, it -- it's a -- you know, a 


thought. 


 DR. WADE: Which one? 


 MS. MUNN: PNL, out -- the -- 015. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 015? 


 MS. MUNN: We were looking at a -- at a Hanford 


thyroid on the other list, but this was -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: It is 38 years worked and it's an 


underestimate with external -- and they got 59 


percent. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: On the next page, 017 is a lung 


at PNL, was there 17 years and they've got 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 

61 

low POC, an 18.29 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, that might be a -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's a possibility, 17, 


let's put 17 down. 


 DR. WADE: 017? 


 MS. MUNN: 17, it's a more diverse selection. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess 28, to me, possibly 


interesting, K-25, X-10, 30 years worked in the 


'50s. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Number 28. 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Have we -- how many Los Alamos 


National Lab cases have we had? This one's a 


low POC, breast cancer, in the '80s, but -- 


 MS. MUNN: Really low, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it is Los Alamos. I don't 


know that we've done -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I have two by my count. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just two. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: (Unintelligible) two. 


 MS. MUNN: I think we'll fine more interesting 


ones --


 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 

62

 MS. MUNN: -- than that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we should hold off 


on that. 

 MS. MUNN: Hmm, 41's interesting. 

 DR. WADE: Number, Wanda? Did you say --

 MS. MUNN: I just said 041 was interesting. 

 DR. WADE: 041? 

 MS. MUNN: Duplicate sites. Very --

 MR. PRESLEY: Two sites. 


 MS. MUNN: -- a fractional POC. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Again, I don't know how fruitful 


it's going to be with a underestimate on 


external for two sites, unless we think they 


overestimated the underestimate. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. That's -- you know. I 


would say that's not worth it right now, but -- 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 054 for bone at Bridgeport Brass, 


how do -- how do --


 MR. GRIFFON: That's Bridgeport -- Bridgeport 


Brass in Michigan, too. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right, uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's a different Bridgeport 


Brass. That might be -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63

 MR. PRESLEY: That's a different one. 


 MS. MUNN: Interesting. 


 DR. WADE: 054? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 054. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Little more interesting Los 


Alamos one, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: There's another Los Alamos. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 56. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Uh-huh. 

 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: You can put that down. 


 DR. WADE: That's 20. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're getting there. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. Here's another Pinellas, 


surprisingly. Superior Steel, 92 percent. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I don't want to suggest it, but ­

- because I have a conflict of interest, but -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: 63? 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- look at 063. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 63, I -- I'll suggest it. 


Yeah, that's a interesting one. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yes, very interesting. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We don't -- we haven't seen 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 

64 

liver cancers, either. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, it's down. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Couple pages left, what do 


we need, nine more? 


 DR. WADE: Need nine more. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Nine more. 


 MR. CLAWSON: What about 076? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Esophagus. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Pinellas. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Pinellas. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that's a good one -- 76? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Close. 

 MS. MUNN: Yeah, let's take it. There's 


another interesting Los Alamos -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah --


 MS. MUNN: -- 079. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- 79. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yep. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 81 at Idaho --


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- bladder. That's two -- two 

1 

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 

cancers, 11 years -- almost 12 years in the 


1970s, POC of 34. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think we've done many -- 


many Idahos, but -- yeah, let's -- I think 


that's reasonable. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, put it down, 81. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 81? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. And what about 91, new 


site. 


 MR. GRIFFON: What is B&T Metals? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I don't know where that is. 


 MS. MUNN: Brand new to me. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I don't know. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And does that belong on the list? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Look at the date, 1940. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's an overestimate. I'm 


guessing that's a TIB-4 case. That B&T Metals 


is probably a uranium metal forming place -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- and -- and so I'm -- I'm 


thinking that was a AWE -- you know, 


overestimating, TIB-4 -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- case. 

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: Looking at that date, I'd say 


you're right there. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Now that's the date the 


employee was first employed. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Right. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So the covered date may 


actually be later than that. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Well, you can look at the years. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Twenty-seven, they go through -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

 MR. PRESLEY: -- '67. 

 MR. GRIFFON: So here's where our -- our -- our 

dates are important -- John, I'm turning to you 


on this, this -- this one was done in 2/9/05. 


The TIB-4 that we've looked at -- TIB-4 was not 


modified till recently or when -- when was the 


recent -- see, I think part of the reason we 


wanted this date was to avoid -- 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- last year. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, '06. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So this would still fall into the 


old TIB-4 model, probably. Right? So for 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 

67 

reason I don't think we -- this is exactly why 


we wanted the date in there. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We're getting to the older dates 

here, too. 

 MR. PRESLEY: Look at -- look at 099. It's 

different. 

 MS. MUNN: Ah --


 MR. GRIFFON: It sure is. 


 MS. MUNN: -- that -- yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I think that would be a good one. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh, I do, too. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, let's add that. 


 DR. WADE: 099. Twenty-five. 


 MS. MUNN: We're getting there. Probably back 


to 2004 now. Hmm. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 102 is sort of interesting. I 


don't know how many X-10s we've had, but -- 


 MS. MUNN: A few. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- definitely in the fif-- it's 


from the 1950s. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, 102? 


 MR. GRIFFON: 102? 


 DR. WADE: 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 

68

 MS. MUNN: Well --


 MR. PRESLEY: Look --


 MS. MUNN: -- well --


 MR. PRESLEY: -- look at 104. It's different. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah --


 MR. PRESLEY: But the number of years is -- I 


don't know whether it'd be worth going through 


it or not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, .3 years. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Just got .3, so I -- and we 


haven't done anything about the 100 or the -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: 250. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- 250 days yet, so I don't know 


whether that'd be worth going through it or 


not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: What do people think on that one? 


I -- I --


 MS. MUNN: Oh, gosh. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's a lot of -- a lot of work 


for -- till we get --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: -- until we get that thing on 


that 80-day point out and see if -- this is not 


even -- we don't even know for sure that's 80 


days. It may not qualify at all. 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: As much as I'd like to see some 


for the Lab -- I mean for the Test Site. 


 MR. CLAWSON: What's all digestive? What --


just stomach (unintelligible). 


 MS. MUNN: Well, let's put it on the list for 


the moment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, all digestive, I -- I don't 


know exactly how that's -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, we don't know what's going to 


happen with it. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Connective tissue? 


 DR. WADE: What number now? 

 MS. MUNN: 104. 

 DR. WADE: Do you want it on the list? 

 MS. MUNN: Well, I just marked it, I -- 

 MR. GRIFFON: 104? 


 MR. PRESLEY: No, he's talking about 100. 104, 


I don't know whether that's going to be worth 


it or not. If there's something else from the 


Test Site there, I'd like to see it on there 


rather than -- than 104, but I don't see 


anything else. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I'd just as soon skip 104. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 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 

70

 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay. Los Alamos, which -- hmm, 


yeah, 125 is something new. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 125? Bethlehem Steel, though, 


it's --


 MS. MUNN: I know we've done a lot of them. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Beat them to death. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That would have been done 


probably with the old Bethlehem Steel model, 


too. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The old Bethlehem Steel model. 


mean one -- to me, 124 might be interesting, 


Blockson Chemical. 


 DR. WADE: Building 55. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's a low POC. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Uh-huh, 32 years. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But it is 32 years. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Blockson Chemical's been 


revised since then as well -- the site profile 


and model for (unintelligible) -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: So that's being re-evaluated 


anyway. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


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 

71

 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Forget that one. 126, X-10, 


pancreatic cancer, do we ha-- we just picked an 


X-10, I think it was a liver cancer. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, it was. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 126, people? 


 MS. MUNN: You want it? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: 131's different. The POC's super 


low. 


 MR. GRIFFON: How many more do we need there? 


 DR. WADE: Three. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Three? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Y'all may want to look at 


something else other than that one. 


 MR. GRIFFON: What was that one, I'm sorry, 


Bob, one --


 MR. PRESLEY: 131 is an ovary. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I don't think we've done anything 


like that, but the POC on it's .01, so you 


know, it's -- that's super low. 


 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 

72

 MS. MUNN: I'd rather see 132, personally. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I agree, 132, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. PRESLEY: How many have we done for 


Livermore? 


 MS. MUNN: Huh? 


 MR. GRIFFON: What number are you looking at? 


 MR. PRESLEY: 154 is a pancreas cancer at 


Livermore with -- the POC's 26.6 and they 


worked there 17.2 years. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: By my count there've been -- 


there were three from Livermore in the first 


120. 


 MR. PRESLEY: And I'm sorry? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Out of the first 120 cases 


reviewed, three of them were from Livermore -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- by my count. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: That's (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: You want to add that one? 


 DR. WADE: 154? 


 MR. GRIFFON: And how about 141? 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, that's 30. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Now, there's a -- there's a -- 


158, there's one more on there from the Nevada 


Test Site, POC is very low, the years are low, 


starts in 1970, but it's a lymphoma -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do we have any --


 MR. PRESLEY: -- and multiple myeloma. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Do we have any Nevada Test Sites 


that we've looked at --


 MS. MUNN: We only --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible)? 


 MS. MUNN: We only had one on this list. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. No, I mean in the past. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: We've -- we've done five by my 


count --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- out of the first 120. 


 MR. PRESLEY: All right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm not sure this would be much 


different from those, yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: No, not from that. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I don't know that we want to -- 


do we want to select one or two more in case 

1 

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 

our other colleagues on the Board cross off 


some on this list? 


 DR. WADE: Well, they'll have the list, they 


could --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah, we can always 


generate a few new ones if we need -- 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, okay. 


 DR. WADE: You've done hard work. I mean I 


think if you're ready, I'll have a record of 


these. I can read them to the Board. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The only thing -- the only -- 


before we adjourn, the only thing I wanted to 


say -- we got 30, we have these new parameters 


we'll discuss. The fourth set, I -- I will 


summarize what we've done in our last workgroup 


meeting at the full Board meeting, which is 


basically that we've met with NIOSH, we've -- 


we had NIOSH's response and we -- I -- I still 


have to complete the items, bu-- or the -- the 


respon-- or the -- the re-- the Board action, I 


guess is the column, but you know, we've moved 


-- moved along and had our first meeting as far 


as the fourth set. We certainly have -- and 


I'll try to summarize -- I'll work with Stu on 

1 

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 

-- on summarizing -- not going through every 


case, but there are some cases that NIOSH has 


agreed to re-evaluate, you know, several items 


that we've come to closure on. I'll try to 


summarize it that way, in a statistical 


fashion, not line item by line item. 


 MS. MUNN: Much better. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Much better. 


 DR. WADE: John, a brief comment? 


DR. MAURO: Yes, very brief. In listening and 


-- and culling through, there are a couple of 


perspectives I'd like to put on the table, is 


one having to do with Nevada Test Site. We're 


very much involved right now in looking at 


scenarios where people could have been exposed 


for a relatively short period of time. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: The -- I see -- I see cross-


pollination here. If we do have some cases -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- that need to be reconstructed 


and they are from people who are less than -- 


well, 80 days, that would be a scenario. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, I -- I was thinking of 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 

76 

too, John, but --


DR. MAURO: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I -- I'm thinking is that .3 


years in the right area that we're interested 


in, but --


DR. MAURO: Oh, I understand, that's -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we might be able to find that 


out --


DR. MAURO: We're --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- through -- yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- we're -- yeah, we're in a stepwise process --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- where first we're looking for 


scenarios that -- whereby people could have 


been exposed. All I -- all I'm getting at is 


I'm trying to cross-pollinate between tasks to 


see how they could help. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


DR. MAURO: And the other -- the other point is 


SECs, now there are -- you realize that one of 


the steps we do when we review an SEC is -- is 


-- what I think would be very beneficial is if 


we had a couple of cases -- realistic cases, 


not the min/max cases -- that were -- 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 

77 

we're auditing as part of Task IV that's -- 


that is a pending, either it's been qualified 


or may be qualified SEC, we're -- that's an 


efficiency step. What I mean by that is we'll 


have that under our belt. We will have 


reviewed and audited a realistic case, then 


later on, if it turns out that that's an SEC 


that you'd like us to look at, we're going to 


reap the benefits from that. Do you -- so I 


think that that might be just a consideration 


when you go into a --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you, John. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Along those lines, I think we 


might want to add that one Nevada Test Site 


case that Bob was talking about, the .3 years ­

- I'll find the number -- 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- and -- and submit 31. Will 


people be agreeable to that? 


 MS. MUNN: I'd certainly be agreeable to it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 'Cause I -- it -- it would be 


useful to at least see --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- you know, where that work was 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

78 

done and where -- it might be an interesting 


case to look at for that 250-day reason, you 


know. 


 MS. MUNN: And there's -- there's one other 


Mike called my attention to, random selection 


number 166. Again, it's a diagnosis that we 


don't ordinarily see -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MS. MUNN: -- and perhaps that might be worth 


just looking at simply because of the 


diagnosis. 


 DR. WADE: Do I have that? 


 MS. MUNN: I noticed that it -- it is a longtime -- and employer (sic) from -- from back in 


the '40s with a very short date -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: 166, .7 years, though. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, but was back when. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Yes or no? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Let's add those two. Let's add 


those two and -- and -- 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so that's what number? 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- total at 32. 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 

79

 DR. WADE: So yours, Wanda, is 166 and Robert, 

your --

 MS. MUNN: That was Mike's. 

 MR. GRIFFON: That was 168, right? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 168, I think. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 168. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so now we've got 32. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, I think we need to -- 168? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: On the full list? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That random list. 


 DR. WADE: 168 then. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: 168's a Rocky Flats case. 


 DR. WADE: 168's a Rocky Flats. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, I saw .3 years and I thought 


I had the right one, I'm sorry. 158. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, that's not the right number 


of years. 


 DR. WADE: Well, we'll find it. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We'll find it. 


 DR. WADE: I'll find it and I'll -- I'll read 


it all. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'm sorry, I saw the .3 years and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

80 

I thought I had it. 


 MS. MUNN: No. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's 104. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, 104. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. So I've got it, so 104, so 


there's 32 we'll read. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yep. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, you guys need to go to lunch. 


You've worked hard. So we'll adjourn the 


subcommittee. Thank you. It's on the agenda 


for the full Board this afternoon. 


 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 12:25 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

81 

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 December 11, 


2006; and it is a true and accurate transcript 


of the testimony captioned herein. 


 I further certify that I am neither kin 


nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 


have any interest in the cause named herein. 


 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 


2nd day of February, 2007. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102