THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes 


MEETING TEN 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


ABRWH SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING
 

The verbatim transcript of the Subcommittee 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held at the Four Points by Sheraton, 


Denver, Colorado, on April 25, 2006. 

 

2 

C O N T E N T S 

April 25, 2006 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. LEWIS WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

7 

SELECTION OF 5TH AND 6TH ROUNDS OF INDIVIDUAL DOSE 

RECONSTRUCTION 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

11 

WORK GROUP STATUS REPORTS: 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, WORK GROUP CHAIR 

PROCEDURES REVIEWS 

INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS 

SITE PROFILE REVIEWS 

76 

76 

82 

91 

WORK GROUP REPORT: Y-12 SITE PROFILE UPDATE 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, WORK GROUP CHAIR 

95 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 105 
3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/(unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

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


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


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


Director 


The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental 


Medicine 


Professor of Medicine 


Nashville, Tennessee 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 

 

5 

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 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


STAFF
 

LASHAWN SHIELDS, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 

6 

SIGNED-IN AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS
 

BEACH, M. JOSIE, NCO 


BEATTY, SR., EVERETT “RAY” 


BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 


BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 


BOLLOR, CAROLYN, CONG. MARK UDALL 


BRENTLING, PAULA, USDOL 


BROEHM, JASON, CDC 


BROWN, GLENN 


CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, HHS 


DAUGHERTY, NANCY M., ORAU 


DEHART, JULIA 


DUKE, LAURA, CONG. BOB BEAUPREZ 


FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A 


HILLER, DAVID, SEN. KEN SALAZAR 


HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH 


HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 


IMSE, ANN, ROCKY MOUNTAIN NEWS 


JOSEPH, TIMOTHY, ORAU 


KENOYER, JUDSON 


KIEDING, SYLVIA, USW 


KIMPAN, KATE, ORAU 


KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 


LAWSON, DIANE, ROCKY FLATS 


LEWIS, MARK 


MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 


MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 


MCFEE, MATTHEW, ORAUT 


MCGOLERICK, ROBERT, HHS 


MILLER, RICHARD, GAP 


MORMAN, KAREN, DOL 


MORRIS, ROBERT, CHEW AND ASSOC. 


NETON, JIM, NIOSH 


POSEY, ROBERT V., ROCKY FLATS 


RINGEN, KNUT, CPWR 


ROSE, WILMA 


RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 


SHEPPARD, BOBBIE, ROCKY FLATS 


STACK, VICTORIA 


TURCIC, PETE, DOL 


ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH 

7 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

P R O C E E D I N G S
 

(9:15 a.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

DR. ZIEMER: Good morning, everyone. I'm going to 


call the meeting to order. This is the meeting 


of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and 


Site Profile Reviews of the Advisory Board on 


Radiation and Worker Health. Although most of 


the Board members are here, I remind you that 


this is a subcommittee meeting; that we will 


not act as a full Board in this session but 


will be preparing various recommendations that 


will come to the full Board. 


 For your information, today Mr. Presley is not 


with us. He may be with us later by phone, I'm 


not sure. 


 MS. MUNN: He's planning on Wednesday. 


 DR. ZIEMER: He's planning on at least at 


certain times being available. 


Let's see, Mr. Owens resigned from the Board 


and I understand his resignation was accepted 


just within the last couple of days by the 


White House, so he's not with us. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

Dr. Melius will be joining us for the full 


Board sessions. 


Let me see, Dr. Poston will not be with us 


today due to a conflict that we knew about 


actually when we set the meeting, and somebody 


else is --


 DR. WADE: Dr. Lockey. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. Lockey is sick today, I 


believe, so -- but basically we -- we have a 


quorum both of the subcommittee and of the full 


Board, as it is right now. 


This is our second visit to Denver. It's been 


a while since we've been here and we're pleased 


to be back. I suspect that many of the local 


folks will be present at our later sessions. 


don't see too many of them here yet, but we 


certainly are pleased to be back in Denver. 


The usual reminders I give to all the Board 


members and staff and visitors, to register 


your attendance in the hallway at the 


registration book. Also make -- please avail 


yourselves of the various handouts in the back 


of the room. 


Lew, I'm going to give you the mike for a 


minute --


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 

9

 DR. WADE: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and you can add some comments. 


 DR. WADE: Yeah, I'd like to provide some 


clarifying comments on members here and not 


here. Dr. Poston is not here. When we 


originally scheduled this meeting, before he 


was nominated and accepted to the Board, he was 


not able to make these dates. Dr. Poston has 


not had his waiver finalized. That paperwork 


is not done, so he is technically not a member 


of the Board at this point, although his 


paperwork will be done and completed before 


he's able to attend the next meeting. 


Dr. -- Drs. Lockey and Mr. Clawson are through 


the process and are full members of the Board, 


voting and -- and otherwise. I did speak to 


the White House and they are in receipt of Leon 


Owens's letter and told me that we could assume 


that his resignation had been accepted and he 


is not a member of the Board. 


Those issues are important as we establish 


quorum. It shouldn't be a problem for any of 


our sessions, but I wanted to be more precise 


as to who is on the Board and who is not on the 


Board at this moment. 

1 

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 

We will be discussing this morning, and even 


later today, some issues related to Y-12. For 


example, we have some Board members who are 


conflicted on Y-12. The Board's processes and 


procedures would have those members remove 


themselves from the table when we talk about 


the Y-12 petition itself. They can remain at 


the table as we talk about site profile and 


technical issues, but they cannot make motions 


or vote during those discussions. I don't 


think we'll be having votes on Y-12 site 


profiles, but just to have that on the record. 


When we do discuss the petition itself, I'll 


identify those members and they'll have to 


remove themselves from the table. 


Unfortunately, from my point of view, one of 


those members is our esteemed Chair, Dr. 


Ziemer. And I'm told that rules will have me 


try and fill in for Dr. Ziemer when he is not 


the Chair -- not a situation I relish. 


Welcome. We appreciate your efforts before, 


during and after the meeting. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's a formidable task, Lew. 


Let's then turn our attention to the agenda 


itself that you have before you. One of the 

11 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

usual items that shows up is the approval of 


the minutes, but I point out to the 


subcommittee that the -- we're talking here 


about the minutes of the subcommittee meeting. 


We do not have those, and I'm not going to ask 


for their approval sight unseen, so we will 


defer action on those minutes until they're 


actually available to us. 


SELECTION OF 5TH AND 6TH ROUNDS OF INDIVIDUAL DOSE 


RECONSTRUCTION
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR


 So without objection, we'll move on to the next 


item, which is the selection of the 5th and 6th 


rounds of the individual dose reconstructions. 


You recall we've -- we've had four rounds of 


selection. We are basically at -- we've 


completed the first round in terms of all the 


iterative steps of coming to a final 


recommendation for the Secretary. The second 


round is pretty well along, still needs some 


closure, as does the third round. We will also 


be looking at the preliminary or initial matrix 


for the fourth round here in our sessions today 


-- or this week. And what has been suggested 


here is that we go ahead and make the selection 


of the cases for the 5th and 6th round. 


Basically this would be 40 more cases, or 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

12 

enough cases so that we have 40 to work with. 


Now because of the press of other issues, SC&A 


has had to divert some of their attention to 


other issues, but this will at least get the 


cases in the pipeline so that they can be 


looking ahead, and this would basically -- I 


think, Lew; correct me if I'm wrong -- at least 


align the cases for this year's workload as -- 


as we look ahead. 


So in your -- your first tab in your book, Stu 


Hinnefeld has assembled a table of closed 


cases, and Stu, if you would, describe for the 


Board what's in the table. I'm assuming the 


cases that have already been selected from the 


closed cases are not in the table, although I 


did not go back and check the numbers, but is 


that correct? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I believe that's correct, that 


the ones that were already selected were 


excluded. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So describe for us what we have 


here. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, there are four -- four 


documents or collections of documents that are 


relevant to the selection today. There are 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 

13 

tables that look like this, these multiple-


paged tables of cases. And then there are two 


pages with excruciatingly small print that are 


the statistics of cases selected so far and the 


analysis of those cases in terms of what site 


they came from, what kinds of cancers were 


represented, what types of employee was 


represented. So those are -- that's the 


collection of information. One of the 


excruciatingly small pages is actually double-


sided, so I guess that's three pages of very 


small print. 


The two lists of cases were selected as we did 


last time. We selected one list of what we 


consider full internal and external dose 


reconstructions. You know, if you recall, at 


the last time we selected dose reconstructions 


for review we generated the list of, for lack 


of a better term, best estimate cases. These 


are neither, you know, clear overestimates or 


clear underestimates, but rather the reviewer 


who reviewed this, the health physics reviewer 


who reviewed this indicated that this was a 


full internal and external dose reconstruction, 


and so it -- that's a particular type of dose 

1 

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 

reconstruction. And again, we have compiled 


the entire list and it does have the words 


"full internal and external DR" at the top left 


of that column. So this is the entire list of 


-- of the available to -- for review full 


internal and external dose reconstructions. 


The other table was, again, randomly selected 


cases from the entire population of cases that 


are available for review. And there may --


these were strictly randomly selected, and so 


some of the -- some of the cases on the other 


sheet may also appear on this. That's the one 


thing we need to worry about if we -- when we 


start selecting if we use both of these 


rosters. 


The pieces of information on here are the same 


as we provided in the past in terms of the 


probability of causation value that was result­

- resulted from the case, the cancer -- IREP 


cancer and the facility and the number of years 


worked, the decade of employee's start. 


 DR. WADE: Stu, just for clarification, the 


randomly selected cases are not all full 


internal and external dose estimations? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That's correct. The statistics 

1 

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 

of the cases today -- I'll speak first from the 


-- the portrait page, the page that's printed 


in portrait style. This is the count of the 


cases received from each of these sites -- it's 


actually two counts. One, the far right 


column, is the total cases that we've received 


-- that have been referred to NIOSH from those 


sites. The second from the right, the column 


headed "cases available for review," those are 


the number of cases from that site that have a 


final determination and are done and therefore 


available for review. 


The count number -- in other words, the first 


column of numbers which is the closest column 


to the site names -- is two and a half percent 


of the cases available for review number, which 


was -- the original thought was two and a half 


percent -- maybe review two and a half percent 


of the cases, so that's what the -- that value 


-- that column represents. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Stu, in cases where the 


numbers are very small, did you just truncate 


that to... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the -- Excel did that for 


me. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

16

 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in some cases it shows a 


zero, some cases a one, so it is a rounding? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You don't default to a one. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: No, no, that was whatever 


Excel's rounding up did, that's what happened. 


The -- the other page, the landscape printed 


page provides this breakdown of sites that are 


-- of the cases that have been done, compared 


to some statistics of overall. The -- the 


number of cases or the projected cases from 


currently available, that first number there, 


should match the number on the other sheet. 


That's the two and a half percent of the total 


available. 


And then the count number next to that is the 


number of cases that have already been selected 


and reviewed from the first 80. Now if you'll 


see, that total is 86 at the bottom. That's 


because there were six counts of multiple 


employment. In other words, a case was 


employed at more than one site, so if you put 


it -- if you count it in the Y-12 column and 


the K-25 column, you're going to add up to more 


than 80 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 

17 

The next column of information reflects the 


cancer by IREP code. These are the IREP 


models. And the number of diagnoses in the 


currently-available pool -- that's, in other 


words, the ones that are finally adjudicated -- 


was counted, and in this case we counted -- if 


a person had multiple cancers of the same 


diagnosis; for example, if they had multiple 


basal cell carcinomas, that was counted once in 


the basal cell carcinoma column. If a person 


had a basal cell carcinoma and say a prostate 


cancer, he was counted twice, once in the basal 


cell carcinoma, once in the prostate. So 


that's how those counts were arrived at. 


And then the count column to the far right of 


that little block of information is, again, the 


breakdown of the cases reviewed so far in the 


first 80, and we have 84 because there were 


some multiple cancer cases in that -- in that 


population. 


The remainder of these are other pieces of 


information about them -- about the first 80 -- 


in terms of job groupings, the decade first 


employed, number of years worked -- that's over 


on the back side. So anyway, that's sort of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

18 

the statistics of the cases so far to give some 


understanding of what's -- what's been reviewed 


in the first 80, we thought if you want to use 


that to help you out in your selection of the 


additional 40. 


 DR. WADE: Stu, a clarifying question. On your 


landscape, side A, the left-most column where 


we're looking at the site listings, there are 


two columns. I know that the -- within that 


brace the -- the far right, the 86, those are 


the numbers of cases we've looked at to this 


point. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct. 


 DR. WADE: The column to the left of that, the 


total's 236. That's two and a half percent? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so that's -- that's the number 


of two and a half percent, that's the -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Two and a half percent -- 


 DR. WADE: -- target number. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Two and a half percent of the 


currently available cases to review. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, do you have 


questions for Stu while he's at the podium? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Stu, clarify -- the -- when 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 

19 

say full internal/external, are those all best 


estimate cases or... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The -- well, for lack of a 


better answer, yes. That is selections -- that 


is selected by the health physics reviewer. 


All the -- all the dose reconstructions are 


reviewed by a NIOSH health physicist, health 


physics reviewer, who then affixes his 


signature before the draft is sent -- draft 


dose reconstruction is sent to the claimant. 


That health physics reviewer, when he approves 


this result done on, you know, electronically ­

- of electronic -- computer-driven work 


process. When that person approves the dose 


reconstruction, he is presented with a drop-


down menu and is required to select a type of 


dose reconstruction, and those types might be 


overestimate primarily external, overestimate 


primarily internal, overestimate internal and 


external, and then the same categories for 


underestimate. And then it'll be full -- full 


internal and external, so when the health 


physics reviewer selects full internal and 


external in terms of his -- what he believes 


this dose reconstruction to be, the type of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

20 

dose reconstruction, that's how that field gets 


populated. 


Now, it's a pick list, and so there could be 


mistaken -- there could be some mistakenly-


chosen numbers in there. You know, that 


category could be chosen by mistake, and it 


could be that HP reviewer read it and felt that 


-- that maybe overlooked some overestimating 


approach that was done and selected it in 


error, so there's -- so it is the selection of 


one HP reviewer at the time they approved the 


draft dose reconstruction. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now I want -- I want to make sure 


that everybody has a good grasp of what you 


have here in terms of these four tables 'cause 


we're going to be digging into them in a 


moment. Basically the last one summarizes what 


we've done to date in the selection process and 


allows you to look at the different criteria, 


such as cancer type, job categories, work years 


and so on and see what areas we need to 


populate further, as well as locations. 


Everybody okay with the material before we dig 


into it? 


 DR. WADE: Before you start to work, I might 

1 

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 

just sort of add two issues for you to think 


about, not at this session of the subcommittee, 


but you know, you sort of get the sense from 


the numbers that we've done 80, we've got 240 


is our target sample. That's another three 


years of work. The Board at some point needs 


to decide if it's comfortable proceeding at 


this pace, if it would like to accelerate the 


pace. Again, you don't need to decide that 


now, but it is an issue that we need to -- to 


make some judgment on as we look at the use of 


the SC&A contract overall. 


 Then secondly, I'd like to ask John Mauro to 


come up and -- John, since this work sort of 


affects you, is there anything you would like 


to put on the record as -- before the Board 


begins its deliberations here? You can come 


any way you like. 


DR. MAURO: One of our observations -- is this 


live? One of our observations is when you look 


back -- in fact, it might be an appropriate 


time to do this, I don't know -- at the -- the 


80 that have been completed, what emerges from 


it in terms of what does it tell us and what is 


it that we should be doing in the future, 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 

22 

we've done this before. If you recall, we had 


a session like this before regarding what have 


we learned. And if you remember, we made a 


transition that said well, we were working the 


min/max primarily and -- and during that 


process we learned something, that there were 


these workbooks that started to standardize 


things, and as a result we're starting to 


realize that when you step back, we -- we see 


the same types of -- I'll call them errors, or 


disparities. And if you go through each of our 


summary sheets, there's a recurring theme, so 


almost a sub-- a major subset within our 


findings on the 80 cases when you sort of 


collect them up is that there's these -- I'll 


pick a number, 60, 70 percent of the findings 


are a recurring observation that, to a large 


extent, is being or has been resolved as a 


result of the workbooks. Okay? So -- so I 


would say to a large extent we've accomplished 


a lot in moving from -- oh, I guess picking the 


array of places where there are 


incompatibilities and consistencies with the 


procedures, and the workbooks have solved that. 


Now what's happening is the cases that we're 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

23 

looking at were on occasion -- now we -- we 


could almost think about the last set of 20 as 


certainly not -- you know, we just began to 


work with the Board, you've seen our big thick 


report, you say okay, what do those -- what do 


those 20 cases tell us that's new and that's 


important. And it turns out when you look at 


that, I would say and -- and I would -- maybe 


there are three or four cases in the 20, the 


last set of 20 that we looked at, that revealed 


information that's important -- that's very 


important, that -- that needs to be brought to 


the attention of the Board. So in spite -- in 


a funny sort of way, you've received the last 


book, which is probably the thickest one we've 


sent out yet. But if you say loosely boiled 


down in all of this, what does it -- what -- 


what do we -- what do we find out that's 


pervasive and important to the process. And I 


would argue that in -- in working with Hans -- 


and I'm really speaking for Hans right now 


because I can see Hans is not here in the room 


but maybe Kathy could help me out -- I know in 


working with them, and I did some of the cases 


myself, that we're starting to see -- it's hard 

1 

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 

to know where they are, but as we went through 


this set of 20, several emerged as being 


important, and I think the Board is aware of a 


couple of those 'cause we brought them to the 


attention of the Board real early. 


Now given that, I'm not quite sure in terms of 


okay, what do we do with that information, that 


we're starting to realize that imbedded in 


these sets that are being drawn out -- it's 


almost stochastic, we once in a while come 


across something important. Most of the time 


it's what I would say the same old same old, 


and we really haven't added very much value. 


NIOSH is aware of the concern. They're coming 


to grips with it. The workbooks are solving 


it. But every once in a while we come up with 


something important. And I have to say, 


standing here -- you know, what -- what do you 


do about that. How do we -- how do we -- how 


do we zero in in a way, within the population 


of cases, to try to pick the ones that are 


going to give us some in-- some new insight 


into areas where we could im-- add some value. 


And I -- and I have to say that this is 


probably a subject of conversation of a working 

1 

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 

group because I do not have an answer to that 


question. So that right now I would say there 


is a certain amount of inefficiency. We pick 


20, we go through the 20, we find out 60 to 70 


percent of our comments same old same old, but 


they're -- every so often something important 


comes up. How do we design the selection 


process of the next set of cases in a way that 


will more likely grab the cases that are going 


to advance the quality of the process, and I 


really don't have an answer right now, but I 


hope that helps. 


 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, John. That is helpful 


and in fact, as we look at cases today, that's 


one of the issues that one struggles with in 


any event. Obviously you don't know, a priori, 


what you're looking for, so there is a sense in 


which you can't decide what those parameters 


are fully in advance. You -- you do need to 


leave it open and maybe something will surprise 


you. 


Kathy, you want to add to -- 


 MS. BEHLING: Yes, if I could just add a few 


statements to what John said. 

1 

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 

In the cases that we've done, it's not like we 


haven't made an impact. I think we have, 


because I think we've helped to correct certain 


procedures, helped to maybe streamline some 


things, helped to hopefully make this process 


for the dose reconstructors a little bit easier 


for them because of ambig-- ambiguities that we 


found in procedures or procedures that were 


conflicting or too many options available maybe 


for dose reconstructors. So up to this point 


in time, based on the cases that we've done, I 


think what John was trying to say, we have 


found a pattern there. And hopefully between 


the Task III work and the Task IV work so far, 


we're working with NIOSH and we've corrected 


some of those -- what we think are systematic 


types of problems. 


If I were going to make a suggestion as to what 


to be looking at from the Board's point of 


view, I think it's important, as Stu's trying 


to point out here, there was some selection 


criteria that was established early on with 


regard to what types of sites -- make sure that 


you look at a variety of the sites, that you 


look at the variety of cancers and that type of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

thing. So I personally would like to see, as 


doing these dose reconstructions, cases that 


involve sites that we haven't looked at so far. 


We've done a lot of Hanfords, a lot of Savannah 


Rivers, and I know a lot of cases come from 


there. But I think it's important also as 


you're selecting these to look at sites and 


cancers that haven't been looked at yet. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me add that it's probably 


important to recognize that lack of a finding 


does not mean there's no value added. In fact, 


there's much value added if you say, you know, 


we're not finding any new problems. That's 


also value added, so I hope the contractor 


doesn't get the feeling that you have to find a 


case where you can come up with something, 


because I think there's value added either way. 


I want to also insert here, and then we have a 


couple of other comments, that the -- the 235 


cases is really based on basically 10,000 


closed cases, and there's another 10,000 or so 


in the pipeline, I believe, roughly. Is that 


correct, Larry? Yes. So the 235 really 


doesn't take us to the end; it takes us about 


halfway to the end, so we need to keep that in 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

28 

mind. There'll presumably be another couple of 


hundred after that coming down the pipeline. 


Mark and -- oh, Roy -- Roy and then Mark. 


 DR. DEHART: One of the other criteria that was 


employed was the probability of causation. We 


-- we looked at some of those cases that were 


close to the 50th percentile, for example, 


selectively. And I don't find that in your 


last table -- there's no attempt to try to 


identify the POC for -- for any of those cases. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Breakdown of the 80 selected. 


No, it's -- it's not included, you're right. 


It can be added. 


 DR. DEHART: Could that be added --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. DEHART: -- at a later time? I mean --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. DEHART: -- we may not need it for this, 


but --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah. 


 DR. DEHART: -- as we go forward. Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just wanted to say one 


thing about John and Kathy's statements, that ­

- you know, I think -- well, I agree with Paul 

1 

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 

that, you know, a negative finding isn't 


necessarily no value added. But also I think 


this same old same old might become important 


if the cases that we're reviewing came after 


the findings that you identified. So if we're 


not seeing modifications in practices or -- or 


policies, then that -- that becomes something 


we should note, you know, and -- and that 


becomes important. I mean it's -- it's -- you 


know, I'm not -- I'm not clear on these cases. 


I -- I imagine most of these cases, since we 


haven't even completed our second matrix of 


findings, I imagine most of these were 


completed before any of -- of our results were 


back or any of -- you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I'd say that's quite likely. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and we might want to --


and not -- again, not for this round, but we 


might want to consider adding a field of when 


the DRs were completed 'cause then we could see 


if it was after some of our findings. Then we 


can pick some of those. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a sharp cut-off date that 


we know, or is that sort of a fuzzy time band 


as to where the workbooks kind of took over 

1 

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 

from the old procedures? It's probably not 


clear cut. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: It's -- it's -- there's not a 


date when almost everything was workbooks. 
I 


mean there'll be dates when the Savannah River 


workbook, for instance, went into use, and 


there'll be dates when -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: But if we had the information Mark 


describes, we can tell us -- if it's very 


early, we know it's in the previous regime and 


if it's very recent it's in the new regime, 


then we can date other fuzzy ones, I guess. 


Other comments while Stu's at the podium? 


 (No responses) 


If not, Board members, we -- our task is to 


pick two sets of 20, I believe, and maybe with 


a couple -- we picked a couple extras in each 


case --


 DR. WADE: Yeah, you should. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- for spares. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Just -- just a first impression 


on the selections -- I mean I don't know that 


we need -- but Paul, I -- in -- in doing a 


quick run-through, I -- I'm not sure that -- 


that -- I have 20 -- more than 20 cases 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 

31 

I'd want to look at out of this batch, so I 


don't know. We'll do 20 at a time, I'm sure, 


but... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: At least the first 20, and then 


see where we are. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Bob, is that you? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah, I've been on for a while. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Welcome, Bob. How are you doing? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Fine. We had trouble this 


morning with the telephone connection, so I've 


been on for about 20 minutes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, good to -- good to hear from 


you and our regards to Louise, as well. Are 


you out of bed, Bob? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Not right now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Not right now, okay. Well, we're 


glad to have you aboard. Do you have some 


additional com-- do you have the materials that 


we're looking at, Bob? 


 MR. PRESLEY: No, I don't. That's all right, 


I'm listening. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Other comments, Board 


members? 


 (No responses) 


 Okay, then let us proceed and see if we can 


begin to identify cases. I notice Mark, you've 


already started highlighting some things. Do 


you have some starting suggestions there? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I guess we can run right 


down the -- the listing, I don't -- I -- I 


would tend to want to focus more on the best 


estimate cases, but you know, certainly we can 


also (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Let me also -- Stu or Larry, the 


selection ID number is an -- it's not the case 


number; that's correct. 


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


 DR. ZIEMER: This is a unique number for our 


selection purposes, and is there any pattern 


here in terms of this order? Is this order 


randomly selected? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The random -- on the random -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: As opposed to being sequential in 


time or sequential in any parameter. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The randomly selected list is 


random. That's random -- you know, it's -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

33 

it's in a random order. The full internal and 


external DR list is quite likely in approximate 


age order, meaning the oldest -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Age of the case or --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Age of the dose reconstruction. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, when -- when the dose 


reconstruction was --


 MR. HINNEFELD: And act-- no, I'm sorry, age of 


the submittal, age of when it was referred to 


us. These would be probably approximately in 


that order. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Not necessarily when it was 


completed. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Correct, not necessarily when 


the dose reconstruction was done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I just want the Board to 


have that in mind so -- so we're not biasing 


our selection by some parameter that we're 


unaware of. 


Okay. So in essence these earlier ones have 


what property -- are these likely to be ones 


that also then were done under the earlier 


regime? Say -- tell -- tell us again, what -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think it's hard to draw any 


judgment about what -- you know, what you can 

1 

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 

draw from the order, the reason being that it's 


the age of the referral to us. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. And many of those early 


ones you actually didn't get -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: They may have been done quite a 


lot later. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay. So perhaps that in 


itself kind of randomizes things, so -- okay, 


very good. Thanks. 


Wanda, did you have an additional comment 


before... 


 MS. MUNN: I just wanted to comment that I 


really took to heart the suggestion that we 


look at some of the sites that we have not 


really and truly done much with. And in the 


absence of our previous lists, which as John 


pointed out constitutes a significant amount of 


paper I don't carry around with me, it would -- 


I really look forward to a summary sheet next 


time of what we've actually done and what the ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: Now, that last sheet -- 


 MS. MUNN: -- (unintelligible) were, that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the fine print --


 MS. MUNN: -- would help a lot. 

1 

2 

3 -- 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35

 DR. ZIEMER: -- Wanda, the last sheet in the 


fine print tells us how many cases we have from 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- each site. 


 MS. MUNN: Right, the cases for the site. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, those 80 -- 86. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, did not include the type of 


cancer that we looked at, and I -- I've 


forgotten -- I think I remember most of them, 


but some of them we did not, so with -- with 


that in mind, you know, on the first page I can 


see three right away of sites that we haven't 


looked at, probably four, that would be helpful 


for us to consider starting. 


 DR. WADE: Now the type of cancer is somewhere 

on this. 

 MS. MUNN: Yes. Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Let's go ahead and start 


discussing the cases that you'd like to see on 


the list. Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: On the first page I'd say case 


number 2, 6, 8, 10 --


 MS. MUNN: Whoa, whoa, whoa, don't go so fast. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Two is a -- you know, I'll go 

1 

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 

through these so Bob can -- Presley can hear 


them. Case 2 is a colon cancer from Savannah 


River site with a 46 percent probability of 


causation. Now we're just suggesting these at 


the moment, we're not necessarily adopting 


them. And 20 -- almost 27 years of work 


experience. 


Okay, Mark, 4? 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, 2, 6. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Six. And 6 is a lung cancer from 


Savannah River site with a 42 percent 


probability of causation, 35 years of work. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Then 8. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Then 8 is a colon cancer from 


NUMEC -- that's Nuclear Materials and Equipment 


Corporation -- 35 years of experience, 55 


percent POC. And --


 MR. GRIFFON: And 10, possibly -- these are all 


possibilities. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah -- yeah, just possibilities ­

- 10 is a Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, a 


non-melanoma skin cell and male genitalia 


cancers, and 54 -- 55 percent POC, 30 years of 


experience. 


And let's go to Wanda, you have a couple there, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 -- 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

37 

too? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, sorry, I was -- we were trying 


to get on the right page here because some of 


us have a few pages missing. You had said 2, 4 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, 2, 6, 8 and 10. 


 MS. MUNN: Two, 6, 8 and 10. I had suggested 8 


and 9, even though it's a very small POC. I 


don't know that we've done much in Huntington. 


And --


 DR. ZIEMER: And is that one likely to be a 


maximizing? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, it says full, but that's -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, it says full. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- that's what's throwing me off, 


yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's the kind that I was thrown 


off by. It says --


 MS. MUNN: They all say --


 MR. GRIFFON: They would be full? 


 MS. MUNN: They all say full and -- yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It says that they're full, so -- 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So even though it's low, 

1 

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 

maybe... 


 MS. MUNN: So I would -- I would probably 


include that one, and like also number 20, the 


CLL, Elk River Reactor. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well... 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. Yes, the leukemia. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, leukemia. This -- that 


number 20 is a -- is the Elk River Reactor. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's a leukemia, POC of 61, ten 


years of work. Where does Elk River show up on 


our list. Is that in "others"? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Should be in "others," yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's the combined --


 MR. HINNEFELD: That would be in the 


combination of other sites. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm looking to see if we've had 


any from that category. Have we? Is that the 


one, Stu, that you're calling "sample of 


industry groups" or -- or remaining or -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, the "all other sites" 


category there, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 


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


sites other than the ones listed above it. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

39

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. There's six suggestions so 


far on this first page. We can come back. 
I 


kind of want to go through these and identify 


the ones that look interesting, and then from 


that we can make selections, if that's 


agreeable. 


Any others on the first page? And keeping in 


mind the facility distribution, as well. 


 (No responses) 


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


 MR. GRIFFON: I have -- whatever you want to 


call it. I have --


 DR. ZIEMER: Mark, did you have one? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I have 43. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Forty-three --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- is a Feeds Material Production 


Center, a bladder cancer, 47 percent POC, 27 


years of work experience. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And then 44 and 49 we might 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Forty-four, a lung cancer, 


Hanford, 31 percent POC with 14 years of work 


experience. And --


 MR. GRIFFON: Forty-nine. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: -- 49 is a colon, that's Oak Ridge 


National Lab, X-10, 12 years experience, colon 


cancer, 12 percent POC. 


 Anyone else on that second page? 


 MS. MUNN: We might consider 55, even with the 


low POC. We've only had one from there, I 


believe I'm reading the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: The only reason I didn't -- 


 MS. MUNN: -- (unintelligible) right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I thought about that one -- 


 MS. MUNN: Oh, but it's a -- but it's another 


bladder. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I thought --


 MS. MUNN: Sorry --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- about it, and also -- 


 MS. MUNN: -- mark that out. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we're doing an SEC review on 


that --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- so I figured we'd... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, that was a Blockson one, 


bladder cancer, so it appears we'd maybe leave 


that off for the moment. 


Any others on that page? 


 MS. MUNN: I don't think so. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, let's look at page 3. 

 DR. DEHART: Sixty-eight. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Number 68, colon cancer from 

Lawrence Livermore, 50 percent -- well, that's 


just at the borderline there (unintelligible) 


and 35 years work experience. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Possibly 73. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, 73 is a colon cancer, 


Superior Steel Company -- Superior's probably 


in the "other" category, too. Right? 


 MS. MUNN: I would think so, as probably is 


number 80. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And that's a 30 percent with 25 


years of experience of work. Are you 


suggesting 80? 


 MS. MUNN: Perhaps instead of 80, what about 


78? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Seventy-eight is a stomach cancer 


at MIT --


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- 54 percent POC. 


 MS. MUNN: Eight years work. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Eight years work. 


DR. ROESSLER: 1940, that's interesting. 


 MS. MUNN: In the '40s, though. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: Is -- MIT is in the "other" group, 


also? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It appears. Okay. 


MS. MUNN: Gall bladder, there's an interesting 


one. How about number 85? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Eighty-five is gall bladder cancer 


from --


 MS. MUNN: We haven't done much of that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- (unintelligible) Safe Company. 


What is (unintelligible) Safe Company? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, what is that? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, do you know what Herrin Hall* 


Safe Company is? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was an AWE and I believe 


it was probably a uranium metal forming AWE, 


but I -- I don't remember for sure off the top 


of my head. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And when -- when those -- that -- 


that's listed as a best estimate case, that 


would be -- I mean based on -- on -- I'm 


assuming you wouldn't have individual data for 


them. Or would you? I don't 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 

43

 MR. HINNEFELD: I suspect not. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's what was unclear to me. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Typically if a case was done in 


accordance with a -- if they'd have a site 


profile -- I don't think we have a site profile 


for this one, but another one may have been 


used as an analog. For instance, Bethlehem 


Steel, which has a prescriptive site profile -- 


here's -- here's how you do it -- that's 


checked as a best estimate or full internal and 


external, so I suspect that something like -- 


something like that was done here, a prescribed 


approach was taken that, you know, doesn't -- 


doesn't say it's necessarily overestimate or 


underestimate, here's the prescribed approach 


and -- and that's why it was checked this way. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any others on that page? 


 (No responses) 


Okay, we'll move on to -- it's the fourth page. 


 DR. DEHART: Page 4? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, page 4, 4 of 7 --


 MS. MUNN: There's Harshaw. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- 101 is esophagus --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Harshaw Chemical Company, 32 -- 

1 

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 

32 years worked, 53 percent POC. I'm looking 


to see if Harshaw is... 


 DR. DEHART: One ten? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, just before we do -- I think 


Harshaw must be on the "all other cases" so 


we're getting quite a number of these "all 


others" so just keep that in mind. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, no, Harshaw's in the 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, are then in --


 MR. GRIFFON: They're in the review at least 


one section, and then there's the sample of 


percentage of the... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I'm not seeing that on the -- 


 MS. MUNN: I'm not, either. Where is it? Help 


me. I don't see it on the list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's not showing up on -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) on this list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, but it must be one of the 


ones dumped into the "all other cases" on this 


final chart. 


 MR. GRIFFON: On the final chart. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Of which we need a total of 9 -- 9 


for all time. No, I'm sorry, 32. We have 9 --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

45

 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- yeah, 9 to date. Okay. 


 DR. WADE: One ten was suggested. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Okay, 110, Roy? That is 


colon, Bridgeton -- Bridgeport Brass, 36 years 


work, had colon cancer, 61 POC. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Which is this, 110? 


 DR. ZIEMER: One ten. Ready for page 5? 


 MS. MUNN: What about 115? 


 DR. ZIEMER: One fifteen is being suggested. 


This is --


 MS. MUNN: It's another Savannah River, though. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- another Savannah River. 


 MS. MUNN: Looked like a different model. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Savannah River site, we're still 


okay on numbers there. That is respiratory, 


lung cancer --


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- 52 percent, 31 years work 


experience. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) code is that? Is that all the 


different cancers? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's the ICD code, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

46

 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I think it's all the other 


parts of the respiratory tract, Roy. Is that 


correct? It's counting that as two cancers? 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) At least. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Or more --


 MR. GRIFFON: Looks like at least two, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Three -- four, probably. 


 MR. GRIFFON: This is a multiple cancer and 


it's over 50; I'm not sure it's going to be 


that excit-- well, it's close to 50, though. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Very close to 50. 


 MS. MUNN: I just thought the model would be 


interesting. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Any more on that page? 


 (No responses) 


Page 5 of 7. 


 DR. DEHART: I keep looking at Pantex, but the 


POCs are so low on everything that we've had so 


far. 


 MS. MUNN: But -- I was looking at that, too, 


but also this one -- at 117 -- might cover some 


of the -- you know, we've -- we've heard some 


discussion, especially from public comment 

1 

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 

we've heard discussion about these types of 


cancers from employees who were not necessarily 


production workers. That might be interesting 


for us to see the type of claim, if nothing 


else. 


 DR. DEHART: This -- this patient only has 4.8 


years of employment. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Started in the '90s, yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. But my point is --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I know. 


 MS. MUNN: -- we're still getting that kind of 


conversation from public comment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So you'd like to see this one on, 


then? 


 MS. MUNN: I think it's worthwhile for us to -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so you --


 MS. MUNN: -- see it as a type. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- want to tentatively put it on. 


Okay, 117 -- for Bob Presley's benefit -- is a 


breast cancer from Pantex. It's only a 2 


percent POC. The worker only has basically 


five years of work, but it may be of interest. 


We'll put it down tentatively. 


 MR. GRIFFON: 157 is the next one I 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 

48

 DR. ZIEMER: Any more on page 5 of 7? Any? 


 MS. MUNN: We might take a look at 119. 
I 


don't know if the work decade is correct for 


that person, but if so, that might be 


interesting to look at --


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) was Superior 


Steel. I don't know if you might want to take 


73 (unintelligible) --


 DR. ZIEMER: The work decade is listed as 


1920s. That's surely not in -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: That was likely this person's 


hire date at the steel company. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, that's --


 MR. HINNEFELD: This is a steel company AWE. 


He was quite likely hired (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, that's the hire date -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: -- during that -- during that 


decade. 


 MS. MUNN: Makes sense, uh-huh. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And the covered employment, of 


course, was after World War II. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Or during and after World War 


II. 


 DR. ZIEMER: He's had 32 years from that point 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

49 

on, so -- okay. 


 MS. MUNN: And the next one had 48. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean you might consider 73 or 


119; I don't think we want both. But that 


might be a better cancer to look at. 


 MS. MUNN: Seventy-three, you've gone to the 


next page. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Seventy-three -- 73, not 173. 


 DR. ZIEMER: This is an earlier --


 MR. GRIFFON: We already picked a Superior 


Steel. 


 MS. MUNN: Oh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I had mentioned --


 MS. MUNN: See, you did go to another page. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Superior -- Superior Steel colon 


cancer is the one you have there -- 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and this is Superior Steel 


bladder cancer. 


 MS. MUNN: That would probably be interesting, 


too. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Before we do this, Superior -- or 


the U.S., what about the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: My feeling was that a lot of the 


steel -- a lot of these models are going to 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 

50 

similar, so I thought we should do -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- one or two but not get carried 


away. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Actually a lot of similarities 


between --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- 73 and 119. The cancer types 


are different. 


U.S. Steel, 120? That 120 is a rectal cancer, 


U.S. Steel, 8 percent POC, 48 years work -- 


beginning, again, in the 1920s, carrying 


through. Right now I'd find all three -- all 


of those, but (unintelligible). 


 Anything else on page 5? 


 DR. WADE: You've kept 119 in the mix? 


 DR. ZIEMER: One nineteen's in the mix at the 


moment, yeah, so that gives us two Superiors. 


We'll probably want to eliminate one of those. 


Any others on page 5? 


 (No responses) 


 Page 6? 


 MR. GRIFFON: One fifty-seven then is a 


possibility. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

51

 MS. MUNN: It's interesting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Linde I don't think -- we're not 


showing any on Linde before. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


(Due to an extreme amount of static from the 


telephone connection, it was often impossible 


to transcribe the full comments of various 


members of the subcommittee, particularly when 


they spoke amongst themselves or concurrently. 


Indication that an unintelligible comment was 


made by a specific person is included simply to 


reflect that individual's participation in the 


selection process.) 


 DR. ZIEMER: (Unintelligible) central nervous 


system, 39 percent POC, 29 years work. 


 DR. DEHART: Could we look at 154? 


 DR. ZIEMER: 154 is right at the 50 percent -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- level. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- (unintelligible) question 


mark. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Feed Materials Production Center, 


40 years work, thyroid, 54... (unintelligible) 


and we're up to page 7 then. 


 MS. MUNN: Number 181 might fit in 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 

52 

category we were speaking of earlier. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's 181? 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: That's a --


 DR. ZIEMER: Breast cancer with a little higher 


POC. 


 MS. MUNN: And a long-term employment. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'd rather see that one than the 


previous one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, 181 --


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Savannah River site -- 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- 33 years of work, 36 percent 


POC. That would be in lieu of the Pantex one, 


I think, Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: Probably. 


 DR. WADE: What number was the Pantex one? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Pantex was 117. Then we're not 


precluded from having two of those. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, so they're both on the list 


right --


 DR. ZIEMER: They're both on the list at the 


moment, see where we are. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

53

 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul, what kind of cancer 


was that one from Savannah River? 


 DR. ZIEMER: This was another breast cancer, 


Robert. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's -- Wanda was mentioning she 


had identified that Pantex one as a breast 


cancer. This is one with a higher POC and a 


lot more years of work, so it might be more 


interesting. That's number 181. 


 Okay, page 7? 


 (Whereupon, unintelligible discussions were 


held amongst participants.) 


 DR. ZIEMER: We do have one in here that's very 


close to the 50 percent mark at 48 percent. It 


is Savannah River. It's number 199. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Gall bladder, didn't we just take 


a gall bladder one from there? 


 MS. MUNN: We did one (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: That was -- that was a different 


place. That was (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Again, looking for some that are 


close to the mark, perhaps that would be worth 


(unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: What number was that, Paul, 

1 

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 

again? 


 DR. ZIEMER: That was --


 MS. MUNN: One ninety-nine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- 199, 47 percent, Savannah River 


site, 28 years work, POC of 47.8. 


 DR. DEHART: I'd like to see (unintelligible) 


211 who has both (unintelligible) and Rocky 


Flats. 


 MS. MUNN: Okay, yeah. I was just looking at 


that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, 211 is a lymphoma and 


multiple myeloma. The person worked at Mound 


and Rocky, 32 years of total work, POC is 


similar, 44 percent range, so that's an 


interesting range again. 


 MS. MUNN: Should we consider (unintelligible)? 


I know we've looked at (unintelligible) a lot, 


but we haven't looked at Pinellas much, have 


we? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Which one is that, is that -- 


 MS. MUNN: One eighty-eight. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I just thought we could save it 


for another type of case. That was -- I had 


looked at that one, too, but... 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

55

 DR. ZIEMER: What's your pleasure on 188? 


 DR. WADE: That would give you 25 preliminary 


selections. You could go back and weed some 


out and have 20. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we still have the other -- 


the over -- the other list. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, 188 is Pinellas Plant. It's 


a 51 percent POC, non-melanoma skin, squamous 


cell and non-melanoma skin, basal cell -- both. 


And 25 years work. 


 MS. MUNN: And our total count on that type of 


cancer's not that high. 


UNIDENTIFIED: How many is that? 


 DR. WADE: Twenty-five by my count. Some we've 


identified as likely (unintelligible) one or 


the other, but 25 is where we stand now. We do 


have the other lists (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Clarify for the Chair, the random 


list is -- Stu, what -- what's the overlap with 


this other list? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The randomly selected list 


could very well include cases on the other list 


(unintelligible) assessment. Now the randomly 


selected list shows, on the right-hand column, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

the dose reconstruction type, so if you have a 


dose reconstruction type on the random list 


that is a full internal and external, it should 


also appear on the other list, so you've 


already kind of checked those. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So they're not different 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: So it's not like you can go 


through this list and find neces-- you may be 


picking the same ones (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: Or you could look at some of the 


over or underestimates -- maybe a few. I 


wouldn't say that we'd want to focus a lot on 


those, but... 


 DR. ZIEMER: It may be -- maybe it would be 


useful to go ahead and go through that list -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- so that we have the full scope 


of what's available before we pin it down, so 


let's go ahead and take the time to go through 


that. Is that agreeable? So we're in the 


random list now. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes, perhaps it's -- maybe I'm not 


understanding, but -- no, I'm not 


understanding. Forget what I was going to say. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57

 DR. WADE: Consider it forgotten. 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. Unring that bell. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Strike that from the record. 


 DR. WADE: Shall we start with --


 DR. ZIEMER: For example, the second one on the 


random list, 200604--


 MR. GRIFFON: That's an overestimate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: --002 -- oh, that's -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Those -- those IDs are just a new 


-- a new set of IDs I think they created. 


 MS. MUNN: (Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Unfortunately, we can't link them. 


That's what I was (unintelligible) link them. 


 MR. GRIFFON: They just generated a new set of 


numbers (unintelligible). 


 DR. WADE: Well, we can probably find it if 


you'd give me a minute. I'm sure with the 


probability of causation I can find it. 


 MS. MUNN: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so you can't tell 


immediately... 


 DR. WADE: That's why you have able staff. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But the only overlap's going to 


be these ones that say full external/internal. 

1 

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

 DR. WADE: There's a few --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: -- of those and (unintelligible). 


 MR. GRIFFON: There's only a few, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And probably we can identify from 


the other data whether it's the same one. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so let's proceed down this 


list. 


 DR. DEHART: I'd suggest 001 as a likely 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Y-12 plant, 31 years work, male 


genitalia, 35 percent POC. Okay, put that on 


the list for now. 


 DR. DEHART: (Unintelligible) overestimate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's an overestimate. 


 DR. DEHART: 03 is a Rocky Flats --


 MS. MUNN: 03, right. 


 DR. DEHART: -- (unintelligible) overestimate 


(unintelligible). 


 MS. MUNN: Good. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So suggesting 03 then -- 003, 


Rocky Flats, nervous system, 42 percent POC, 19 


years -- 20 years (unintelligible). 


 Any others? 

1 

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

 MS. MUNN: 006 is an overestimate. 


 MR. GRIFFON: It's Bethlehem Steel. I think 


we've been up and down through that model. 


 MS. MUNN: Well... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, that's -- Bethlehem Steel 


lung, that's probably -- that's -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- pretty straightforward. 


(Unintelligible) other nominee from page 1, 


we'll go to page 2. 


 MS. MUNN: If we won't do underestimates, then 


we're not going to do anything over 50 percent. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, Wanda, did you have a 


comment? 


 MS. MUNN: I was just commenting that if we're 


not going to do any underestimates, then that 


automatically eliminates anything with a POC 


over 50. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That wasn't my rationale for not 


wanting that case, though. It's that we've 


been through Bethlehem Steel -- 


 MS. MUNN: I understand. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: We have done that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I still -- 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 

60

 DR. ZIEMER: And page 2? 


 MS. MUNN: Twenty-eight would probably be a 


better Pantex choice. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Twenty-eight -- 28 is a colon 


cancer, Pantex plant, 35 percent POC, 32 years 


of work. 


 MS. MUNN: There 39, small POC but interesting 


site and disease. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Only a year and (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Only a year and a half of work, 


which probably, in part, accounts for the low 


POC, I would think. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I would imagine. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And that's an overestimate. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You want to see that anyway? 


 MS. MUNN: Well, just depends on what we're 


trying to look at. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any -- any others on that page? 


 MR. CLAWSON: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Did Brad -- you're suggesting 41? 


 MR. CLAWSON: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Nevada Test Site, 41 is a male 


genitalia, 33 percent POC, ten years work, 


overestimate. 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 

61 

Ready to go to page 3? 


 MR. GIBSON: Paul? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh, Mike. 

 MR. GIBSON: What if we tried to find an 

overestimate and a underestimate from the same 


site and see if we can see any dissimilarities 


or anything (unintelligible). 


 DR. DEHART: Forty-five is a (unintelligible). 


 MS. MUNN: I don't think we have, either. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Number 45, 26 percent POC, 29 


years work. Keep Mike's comment in mind as you 


go here. 


 MS. MUNN: If you look at 48 and 52 -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Hang on just a second -- just a 


second. We're still on 45. Comment on 45? 


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


keep in -- you know, as we're looking through 


these I'm not -- it's not clear in the ma-- in 


what we have in front of us whether -- like for 


Sandia, it may not be anything site-specific. 


It may be like the 28 radionuclide model that 


they used that's across the complex, so we 


won't learn anything about Sandi-- I'm not 


sure, but you know, without seeing more details 


we won't know, so I -- that's -- that's why, 

1 

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 

you know, I would say let's maybe be cautious 


about how many overestimates we pick 'cause we 


may not get what we think we're going to get. 


You know, it might not be anything site-


specific. It might be the generic models that 


they used. So I don't know, maybe we can 


tentatively as-- you know, and have Stu check 


on that or something, I -- you know. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Paul, is this Sandia Albuquerque 


or Sandia Livermore? 


 DR. ZIEMER: It's Sandia National Lab, so that 


is Albuquerque, is it not? 


 MS. MUNN: That's Albuquerque. 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's Albuquerque. 


 MS. MUNN: Based on what Mike was suggesting 


earlier, we might look at 48 and 52, both from 


X-10. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Forty-eight is an --


 MS. MUNN: An underestimate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- an underestimate from Oak Ridge 


and -- and 52 --


 MS. MUNN: Is an overestimate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- is an -- so the -- oh -- oh, 48 


is an underestimate --


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: -- 52 is an overestimate. 


Now it's -- there's always these other 


variables, but -- but nonetheless one can look 


and see how those are possibly being carried 


out. 

 DR. DEHART: Forty-eight, and what was the 

other one? 

 DR. ZIEMER: Forty-eight is Oak Ridge National 

Lab, lung cancer, 53 percent POC, 34 years of 


work and it's an underestimate reconstruction. 


Fifty-two is also Oak Ridge National Lab, 


pancreatic cancer, 18 percent POC, 25 years 


work, it's an overestimate. And you know, 


that's -- that's one sort of mirror image one. 


There might be some others, Mike, as we go 


along --


 MR. GIBSON: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- if you spot, you know, another 


Y-12 -- we've got a Y-12 overestimate here and 


we've got a Rocky Flats overestimate. You want 


to keep your eyes open for underestimates that 


would mirror image those. 


 DR. DEHART: But notice most of the 


underestimates are lung. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, yes. Yeah. Okay, are 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 

64 

done with page 3? We're going to page 4 of 10. 


DR. ROESSLER: Paul? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 


DR. ROESSLER: If you look at number 64, it's 


Pantex and breast cancer. This one might be 


more informative than the other one because it 


is an overestimate. It comes pretty close, 


it's a 44 POC. We might get more information 


out of that one than the other one that had a 


POC of -- of around 1. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Which number is this? 


DR. ROESSLER: Sixty-four. 


 DR. ZIEMER: What was that other Pantex one? 


It was from the other list. The other -- the 


other Pantex breast cancer was 117 on the first 


list. POC there was only 2 percent. But that 


-- and that was a full dose reconstruction. 


This is a -- an overestimate, which in itself 


might have caused that difference in -- in 


those numbers. 


 MS. MUNN: Maybe we could take 117 off. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's -- or you may want to see ­

- may want to see both of them because 


they're... 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

65

 MS. MUNN: For comparison. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, first the -- the -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: One's from the '90s. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, different work decades and 


different -- many different years of work, but 


nonetheless may be of interest. 


More on page 4? 


 (No responses) 


Ready for page 5? 


 DR. DEHART: Ninety-six is another one of those 


multiple report sites, and actually multiple 


diagnoses, as well. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, 96, it's male genitalia and 


non-melanoma basal -- skin basal cell cancer, 


so there's two cancers. There's two sites, 


Paducah and Oak Ridge National Lab. POC is 54 


percent, years worked 36 and it's an 


underestimate. 


Any others of interest on page 5? 


 (No responses) 


Ready for page 6? 


 (No responses) 


None on page 6? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Pass. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, page 7. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66

 DR. DEHART: Six cases (unintelligible). 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: None on page 7? Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: What about -- I don't think we've 


had an Alcoa before, 144, an overestimate, 


colon. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But again, I -- I don't know what 


that means 'cause I don't think it's going to 


be anything to do with Alcoa. You know, the 


model's probably just going to be a generic 


overestimate technique, or underestimate 


technique. 


 MS. MUNN: Well --


 MR. GRIFFON: I guess we can look into it, but 


I --


 MS. MUNN: -- it's just we won't know until we 


see the case. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: And especially with AWEs, how can 


you tell any more? 


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


that they have that --


 MS. MUNN: It's a 1940. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- database. 


 MS. MUNN: 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 

67

 MR. GRIFFON: They started employment in 1940, 


yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, so --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 MS. MUNN: -- if we don't see the case, you 


can't tell. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it might be of interest to look 


at, 144, Aluminum Company of America -- Alcoa ­

- colon cancer, 41 percent POC, 45 years work, 


overestimate. 


 MR. GRIFFON: No, my only point on those, 


Wanda, is that if we're reviewing the same 


model -- you know, if we think we're reviewing 


different sites but it's always the same model, 


then it's probably -- we won't -- we don't want 


to do a lot of those, you know. 


 MS. MUNN: Well, that's true. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But it's hard to tell until we 


see the case. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, without seeing the case, can't 


make that judgment. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Page 8? 

 DR. DEHART: One five four. 

 DR. ZIEMER: One five four. 

 DR. DEHART: Basal cell carcinoma, three 
1 

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 

different work sites. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And a POC that just bumped over 


the edge, 51 percent POC. 


 MR. GRIFFON: (Unintelligible) underestimate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Underestimate. Non-melanoma basal 


cell is the diagnosis, Idaho National Lab, Los 


Alamos National Lab, Argonne National Lab West, 


which is in the Idaho complex but nonetheless 


three different sites. Okay. That's 


interesting. 


Any others on page 8? 


 MS. MUNN: It might be -- I have a personal 


interest in 166, even though it's a very low 


POC and practically no work experience. That's 


-- that particular site may show up again in 


some other things. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MS. MUNN: Again, that's just a personal 


interest of mine. I can always look that up 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Years worked, it looks like about 


a month. 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. I don't think it even meets 


the criterion, would it? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69

 DR. ZIEMER: Hallam Sodium Graphite Reactor, is 


that considered a separate site? 


UNIDENTIFIED: It's at Hanford, isn't it? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah -- no, no. No, Hallam was not 


Hanford. Yeah, that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, or anyone --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, off the top of my head, 


I'm not terribly familiar with it off the top 


of my head. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- is Hallam considered a site -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: In order to be listed there, it 


must be listed as a -- as a specified site -- a 


covered site in order for us to have it in the 


database there. 


 DR. ZIEMER: This says the person worked a 


tenth of a year, which is roughly a month, so 


they're --


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah, maybe --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: -- not, just my (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: One month in the 1960s. 


 MS. MUNN: I'll look it up myself. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, you want -- do you want to 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

70 

have it looked at or not? 


 MS. MUNN: No -- no. (Unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Off the list. Any others on that 

page? 

 (No responses) 

How about page 9? 


 MR. GIBSON: (Off microphone) Sixty-nine's an 


overestimate (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, 60 -- 69? 


 MR. GRIFFON: We've (unintelligible) through 


that -- 169, I think it was on the last page, 


8. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You want to add that? 


 MR. GIBSON: (Off microphone) If you don't mind 


the jump back a couple of pages, there's a 


(unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, 169 is Mound Laboratory, 


breast cancer, 30 percent POC, 26 years of 


work. 


 MR. GIBSON: (Off microphone) And if you jump 


back to case 95 on page 5, there's an 


underestimate (unintelligible) two years work 


in the '60s, so (unintelligible) that case 


(unintelligible) difference. 


 DR. ZIEMER: At the Mound 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 

71

 MR. GIBSON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And that's 51 -- case 095 is 51 


percent POC, non-melanoma skin, basal cell, 


Mound plant, 23 years work. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Back on page 9? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh, page 9 again? Did you 


have one on page 9? Anyone on page 9? 


 (No responses) 


None on page 9? And there's a few more on page 


10. 


 DR. DEHART: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 


back to page 9, there's a diagnosis of 


pancreatic cancer. We haven't seen many of 


those. They are rather rare. This is 188. 


 DR. ZIEMER: One eight eight is a Nevada Test 


Site case, (unintelligible) years of work, 


pancreatic cancer, POC of 32 percent by the 


overestimate procedure. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul, that's one I'd like to 


see put in there if it's possible. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The pancreatic? 

 MR. PRESLEY: Yeah. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we got it. Thank you, Bob. 

 DR. WADE: As if by the wisdom of Solomon, 


that's 40 cases. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

72

 UNIDENTIFIED: Of course. 


 DR. WADE: Now again, we have some we need 


obviously to -- to consider. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Is that 40? 


 DR. WADE: By my count. 


 DR. ZIEMER: What -- what we -- yeah. What we 


might want to do is -- is consider these as a 


recommendation to the full committee, but in 


the meantime you'll have a chance -- 'cause I 


think the most of you -- first time -- we just 


got this list this morning, and you may wish to 


study it and at the time of the full Board 


meeting this can be amended to add or delete 


cases. Would that be agreeable? This will 


give us a base of 40 as our starting point to 


make a recommendation to the committee. Right? 


Roy. 


 DR. DEHART: Is --


 MR. GRIFFON: Is there any way -- I'm sorry. 


 DR. DEHART: Is it possible for someone to kind 


of preview these cases and, where they're 


formulas and that's all, to let us know? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Whether they're -- they're done by 


a sort of system-wide approach versus a site-


specific --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

73

 MR. GRIFFON: Just for those 


overestimate/underestimate (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- is that something we could get 


readily, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, we can get it. It'll 


take some time. I'm trying to figure out the 


best way to do it 'cause it'll involve looking 


at each case. I mean that -- that piece of 


information isn't databased, and so it will 


involve looking at each dose reconstruction and 


so it'll take a little time. I don't know if I 


can get it before this afternoon or not. 


 DR. DEHART: The point was made that it's only 


the over/underestimates. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: And it --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, it's for 13 cases -- or 15 


cases, I guess, yeah, so still, you know. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, we can give it a shot, I 


think. But I -- I really don't know because it 


will require an HP reviewer or an HP to look at 


every case and say what was the internal method 


and external method, and they may come up -- 


you know, they could be generic, you know, and 


tell you nothing about the site at all, if I 


understand the question. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

74

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: So it takes a little time to do 


it. We can give it a try. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Perhaps if you're able to get 


that, that will inform the final selection 


process. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Even -- even if it's by the end of 


the week, if we need to modify. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Can I take it by consent that 


we'll consider this set of -- do we have 40? 


Lew, you're counting. Right? 


 DR. WADE: By my count. What I'll do is I'll 


make up a list and get it to everyone as to -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Lew's pretty good at counting to 


40. 


 DR. WADE: Well, I get much above 25, I get 


into some problems. I'm really good with the 


low numbers. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So without objection, we'll 


consider this -- at least the first cut on this 


-- as a recommendation to the full Board later 


in the week, and --


 DR. WADE: Later today. 

1 

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

 DR. ZIEMER: -- or later today. 


 DR. WADE: But we do have working time on 


Thursday if we need to (unintelligible). 


 DR. ZIEMER: If we need to modify it further. 


Okay. Any other comments on that? 


 DR. WADE: That takes us to break. We're a 


little bit behind, but we're not hopelessly 


behind. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Let's take a 15-minute 


break. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is somebody on the line? 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yeah, I'm sorry. This is 


Liz Homoki-Titus. I just wanted to let you 


know (unintelligible) -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, hi, Liz. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- that I joined about 7:30 


your time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Welcome, Liz. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Take a break, Liz. 


MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Great, thanks. 


 DR. WADE: (Off microphone) We'll break till 


(unintelligible). 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 10:45 a.m. 

76 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

to 11:20 a.m.) 


WORK GROUP STATUS REPORTS:
 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, WORK GROUP CHAIR


 DR. ZIEMER: I'll call the session back to 


order. There's been a little delay 'cause 


we're waiting for some paperwork to arrive, but 


in the meantime there's several pieces to the 


workgroup report -- workgroup -- Mark Griffon's 


workgroup is going to report a little bit on 


the Y-12 site profile and give us an update, 


likewise on the Rocky Flats site profile, and 


then some individual information or reports 


concerning the dose reconstruction reviews, 


procedures reviews and site profile reviews. 


Maybe you'll want to start at the back end of 


this --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and give us an update, Mark, on 


where we are on the site profile reviews and 


then -- in a moment we'll get to Y-12 and 


Rocky. 


PROCEDURES REVIEWS
 

 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I -- I can't -- you picked 


the one item that I'm not prepared to do, but I 


can do the procedures review -- I think 


verbally we can talk about the procedures 

1 

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 

review, where we're at with that, and the case 


reviews. And -- and we have the modified -- 


the edited matrices for -- for those are 


coming, but I can at least describe where we're 


at and the details will be available in the 


handouts. 


 The procedures review, and this is the first 


procedures review we started. Most of them -- 


I'm not sure exactly when this was initiated, 


but it was a while ago. It's got many of the 


earlier procedures, and at this point we've -- 


we've taken it through our workgroup process. 


We have NIOSH resolutions for I believe all -- 


all of the findings. And I -- I should say, 


and you'll see this when you get the -- the 


matrix, some of these resolutions are that 


NIOSH will modify another -- a procedure, or 


NIOSH is drafting a new procedure that will 


supersede this previous procedure. And I 


talked to Stu Hinnefeld earlier and we are -- I 


think NIOSH is going to recommend some sort of 


a -- a tracking system so that we don't lose 


these items. But as far as a response -- you 


know, as far as going through all the findings 


and a -- a path forward on all the findings, 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 

78 

think we have that and we have the final matrix 


for the procedures review. 


SC&A is -- is also been tasked with doing 


additional procedures review for some new 


procedures and workbooks, I believe, so that's 


a separate task. But for that first item, I 


think we're in final form, and we'll have that 


ready and -- and I guess we can present it to 


the Board -- right, Paul? We --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Mark, the findings matrix I 


think you distributed last week -- somebody 


did, an undated copy of the matrix, but -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, I'm -- undated --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- do I have the -- I'm wondering 


if I have the very final copy. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that's what -- the one that 


LaShawn is printing off is the -- and I think I 


did some editing on this as -- as recently as 


last Friday, so I wouldn't guarantee that's the 


latest. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, in any event, whether this 


is the actual final copy or the one that you're 


handing out, which may or may not be identical, 

1 

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 

but I think we basically are at closure on all 


the Board actions, are we not? With the 


understanding that there's some tracking 


involved in some of those closure items. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But I don't think there's any 


unresolved issues between SC&A and NIOSH on the 


outcomes. Is that a correct statement? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That -- that's correct. I guess 


-- I -- I guess, you know, the only question 


would be, and this is a tracking question, is 


that a lot of times NIOSH indicated they would 


modify it, but obviously we haven't seen how -- 


necessarily how it was modified, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and in many of these we 


didn't have a specified date for modification, 


just understanding that modification would 


come. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And in some cases I depended on 


the urgency or whether in fact that procedure 


was even being used anymore. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's correct, we did try to 


prioritize --


 DR. ZIEMER: So I think for -- for practical 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

80 

purposes, we can say that we have completed the 


-- the findings re-- or the procedures findings 


matrix. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. And we will have the final 


copy for the Board yet at this meeting. Is 


that correct? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And if it remains undated, I 


should probably put a header and footer -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- with dates on it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I would like to see -- make 


sure that -- because there've been several 


versions --


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- of this and you want to make 


sure you're looking at the right version. 


Board members, any questions on the matrix or 


on -- on the procedures review? 


 DR. WADE: How will then -- is -- is it the 


Board's pleasure then to transmit these 


findings to the Secretary in some way or how 


would we bring closure to the issue? This goes 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

81 

again to the -- to the GAO sort of comments 


that were made as to, you know, bringing issues 


to closure. So just something to think about. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I -- I think we probably need to 


-- to do a similar letter report -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah -- saying what we --


 DR. ZIEMER: This could be a letter report 


simply describing the process that was used, 


what the outcome is and we would probably not 


necessarily have to ask the Secretary to direct 


anything be done, but simply inform what has 


been done, indicate that NIOSH is -- is 


prepared to track any open issues and it would 


seem to me that would suffice. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: If we could have a letter like that 


drafted for the consideration of the Board when 


we met in June, then we could put this item -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct. 


 DR. WADE: -- so --


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we can certainly do that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: We can draft a letter at the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

workgroup --


 DR. ZIEMER: The working group can simply draft 


the letter that would go to the Secretary, 


reporting on the -- the final outcome. That 


would be good. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Sure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Board members, any other comments 


on that particular item? 


 (No responses) 


Okay. 


INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS


 MR. GRIFFON: Then the... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Go ahead, Mark. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The second set of cases is -- is 


another item, so we have the case reviews, 


which are the individual dose reconstruction 


case reviews, and we did a first set of cases ­

- we reviewed them and I believe we -- we did 


transmit a letter report? 


 DR. ZIEMER: I -- I have not transmitted that 


to --


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the Secretary yet. I've still 


to merge the data we got from Stu into the 


sample letter, and that's almost ready to go 

1 

2 -- 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83 

and I will distribute that to the Board shortly 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in preparation for transmitting 


it to the Secretary. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So the Board --


 DR. ZIEMER: We basically approved a draft 


letter report already to the Secretary, but it 


-- it had some blanks to fill in on the various 


numbers, which Stu has generated for us. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So that's -- the first 20 cases 


are basically ready to go. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. The -- the second set of 


cases, where we stand as of -- of late last 


week, I got -- I received some edits from NIOSH 


on some of the NIOSH resolutions, and as of 


last night I received some edits from SC&A, so 


I did a final editing of this this morning, so 


remember the time period when this was 


produced, so there may still be some editorial 


problems. In the second set of cases, most 


actions I believe at this point are also 


resolved. There are a few blanks in the NIOSH 


resolution column that remain to be completed, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

84 

and there's also the final column, which I 


haven't completed yet, which is the Board 


action. Which if you remember, we have a 1 


through 7 sort of system, but I was -- I was 


getting edits real time here so I didn't 


complete that final listing, either. 


But this -- I think this second set is very 


close to being closed out. We've had dis-- 


workgroup discussions with SC&A and NIOSH, and 


I think we have agreement on all the NIOSH 


resolutions at this point, so we're ready to 


close it out. It's just a matter of fine-


tuning the -- the Board actions, as well as a 


couple of the -- of the NIOSH resolution 


fields. And we're also getting copies of that. 


I think there's -- I'm not sure how this will 


appear in the black and white copy, but there's 


a few NIOSH resolutions that I left highlighted 


that we're still trying to resolve, so -- but 


that's a handful, maybe four or five out of the 


-- out of the 40-page matrix, so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: So it appears that what we would 


be looking at would be final closure at the 


next Board meeting to approve the final column, 


which are the Board actions. Is that correct? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

85

 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. I believe so, yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Next Board meeting meaning the June 


meeting? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. And again, if -- it's 


possible we could also have a draft letter to 


the Secretary, or you may want to wait until 


after that meeting to -- to do that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I would suspect the draft 


letter would look somewhat similar in -- in -- 


at least framework-wise. Not in specifics, but 


it would be constructed in a similar manner. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And my -- my -- my hope would be 


that we'd have a third set, which is out there 


which we've also had deliberations on the 


workgroup level, and -- and we -- we also in 


most cases came to resolution on all the 


findings. However, there are -- are several -- 


and this is more than in the second set; 


there's quite a few where my NIOSH resolution 


says that NIOSH needs to further investigate, 


and I think we don't -- we don't want to leave 


it that open-ended, so we're -- we're holding 


off on the third. But I would -- I would hope 


that we could have the second and third set 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

86 

closed by the next meeting. That would be my 


hope. We'd have a couple of months in between 


meetings and I think we're far enough along on 


both those sets that we can close them both out 


and maybe transmit them under one letter 


report. 


 DR. WADE: And then where do we stand on the 


fourth set and what on --


 MR. GRIFFON: On --


 DR. WADE: -- our plan? 


 MR. GRIFFON: On the fourth set I believe where 


we stand -- and I might need some help here, 


but I -- I -- SC&A submitted their report and 


we -- they are in the process of developing a 


matrix from their -- their full report, but 


they haven't provided the matrix to the 


workgroup or to NIOSH, so we -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: No, we -- the Board has just -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we haven't started the 


deliberation process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The Board has just -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- received, within the past week, 


I think, roughly --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

DR. MAURO: That's correct. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- the set -- or the comments on 


the fourth set. John, any -- any other -- 


DR. MAURO: Yes, really we're -- we're at the 


point where the product has been delivered. 


It's a big report. As you may have noticed 


there was a supplement submitted because of 


some production problems that everybody on the 


Board received where we had to replace the -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: There were a couple of page 


replacements, yeah. 


DR. MAURO: -- page replacements, which is the 


checklist. So in effect right now, what we 


have before the Board and the working group is 


our work product. We are now at the stage now 


to begin the closeout process where we build a 


matrix and go through the process. So we're at 


what I would consider to be the beginning of 


the issue resolution/closeout process for the 


fourth set. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I -- I should say, in between 


the last meeting and this meeting SC&A did 


conduct the meetings with individual Board 


members --


DR. MAURO: Oh, yes. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88

 MR. GRIFFON: -- over -- over their particular 


cases and --


DR. MAURO: Yeah, I'd like to point out that -- 


yeah, to -- to get to that part -- the product, 


the thick report, to get to that point -- of 


course before we put that out, we do have our 


what I call one-on-one dialogues where we -- 


where the -- each designated members of the 


teams, the two-man teams, have a chance to 


spend a couple of hours with Hans and Kathy 


going over the designated cases where there is 


inter-- interchange, clarification, then we 


revise our drafts that went out to those 


individuals and put out the product that you 


see. So the product you have now is in fact 


our draft deliverable that now brings us over 


that what I consider the watershed into the 


closeout process where a matrix needs to be 


built and the process needs to be -- to begin, 


as we did for the last set. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I believe we'll -- we'll -- 


you know, I -- I would say we -- we'll roll 


that right into our workgroup process and -- 


and those -- I mean tho-- those -- they're -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

89 

they're difficult on the Board level, but they 


work very well on the workgroup level where we 


go through finding by finding and have the 


technical discussions about each finding. So I 


would assume we'd roll that right into the 


workgroup process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Any comments on any of 


these first four sets? So good progress being 


made and thank you to the workgroup for helping 


to facilitate that. 


 DR. WADE: One consideration could be -- 


embodied in the first three sets we have a 


year's worth of work. We're doing these dose 


reconstructions by year, and that's -- we have 


-- if you'd remember, we have some -- I forget 


the terminology we used for the -- the various 


reviews, but it might be appropriate to offer 


an annual report of dose reconstruction 


reviews. Some -- take the first three, roll 


them together and then issue some summary 


statement to the Secretary. Again, I think it 


shows that the Board is indeed on task and 


producing product, and I would suggest that we 


do that for the first 60 at the next meeting. 


DR. MAURO: I'd like to add to that and that 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 

90 

very much within our scope of work, as defined 


explicitly in our Task IV work. So yes, we owe 


you that product, and it's probably an 


appropriate time to do that. 


 DR. WADE: And that's the first year's worth of 


work. 


DR. MAURO: First set of three, the three sets 


of 20, which constitute one year's worth of 


work. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


DR. MAURO: It -- it is ap-- an appropriate 


time to -- to regroup and sort of capture the ­

- and we're in a very good position to do that 


because we can -- all that data, those -- those 


checkmarks, they're all sitting in a relational 


database, and there's a lot we can do. In 


fact, how we present that material and capture 


it probably is a -- is a good subject for a 


working group meeting on how to summarize that 


information. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 


 DR. WADE: So can we assume that the working 


group, with input from SC&A, will consider the 


issue of the -- the first annual review before 


the next Board meeting, and then product would 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

come to the next Board meeting so the Board 


could close on this issue? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Yeah. 


 DR. WADE: I think that's an excellent -- an 


excellent milestone. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, without objection, we'll 


proceed on that basis then. 


 DR. WADE: And this is the hardest working 


working group I've ever encountered in my time 


in government, so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mark, do we have the materials 


ready for the Y-12 -- 


 DR. WADE: Well, we'll have to look... 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, this'll be hard without the 


matrix. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Without the matrix? 


 DR. WADE: We can go on to the -- the next it-- 


 DR. ZIEMER: What about -- yeah. 


SITE PROFILE REVIEWS


 DR. WADE: If you remember, the Board set up 


working groups to look at individual site 


profile reviews, and I thought maybe we could 


just review that and -- I don't know that 


there's any status to be given, but just sort 


of to remember where we are on that 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 

92 

see what our path forward is. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 DR. WADE: For example, if we look at the 


working group on the Savannah Test Site (sic), 


that working group was chaired by Dr. DeHart, 


included Gibson, Griffon and Lockey. What say 


you, Mr. Chair? 


 DR. ZIEMER: A quick status report, in other 

words. 

 DR. DEHART: Currently we're waiting the two 

documents for purpose of comparison and seeing 


how they could be matrixed, as we've done with 


the other sites. 


 DR. WADE: Those two documents are the -- the 


NIOSH report and --


 DR. DEHART: The NIOSH report and the -- our 


research group who -- who are yet to conduct 


that. They -- they've been kind of heavy-hit ­

-


 DR. WADE: I understand --


 DR. DEHART: -- recently. 


 DR. WADE: -- completely. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Savannah River. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Who's on that team? 


 DR. WADE: DeHart chairs, Gibson, Griffon and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

93 

Lockey, in my notes. You don't have to chair 


that --


 MR. GRIFFON: I didn't know I was on that one. 


 DR. WADE: Well, there -- okay, and then we 


have the Nevada Test Site group chaired ably by 


-- by Robert Presley, Clawson, Munn, Roessler. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Robert, are you still on the line? 


Robert Presley? Maybe he went -- 


 MR. PRESLEY: (Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Can you give us a quick update on 


the status of the workgroup on Nevada Test 


Site? 


 MR. PRESLEY: Everybody should have their 


(unintelligible), and I had hoped 


(unintelligible) update (unintelligible) and 


said that we're going to have a -- the agenda I 


have says that we're going to go through 


(unintelligible) and all tomorrow. Is that 


correct? 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct on -- on the -- 


 DR. WADE: SEC. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- on the SEC. Right now we're 


simply talking about the site profile, not the 


SEC per se. 


 MR. PRESLEY: We haven't met on the site 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

94 

profile. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Has not met yet, so that is the 


status of it. Okay. Two different things. 


Okay. 


 DR. WADE: Then Hanford, chaired by Dr. Mel-- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can you go over who was on Nevada 


Test Site? 


 DR. WADE: Nevada Test Site is Presley chair, 


Clawson, Munn, Roessler. These are my notes, 


anyway. And then Hanford group chaired by 


Melius, Clawson, Poston, Ziemer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Melius is not here, but we 


-- we have not met on the Hanford material -- 


we're --


 DR. WADE: And I think in all these cases -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- awaiting some materials. 


 DR. WADE: Right. In all of these cases, 


events have overtaken these groups. There's 


been just a tremendous burden on everyone, but 


our purpose here is just to remind you that 


these are -- these are works in progress and, 


you know, as hopefully, you know, the road 


clears a bit -- he says naively -- there'll be 


an opportunity to -- to take on this work. We 


know who Y-12 is, that group. 

95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So --


 MR. GRIFFON: I've got to go look for -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Are we -- are you looking only for 


Y-12 material, or Rocky -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Y-12 and Rocky both. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Both -- both... Any preliminary 


remarks you want to make in terms of what's 


been done before we would look at the... 


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


 DR. ZIEMER: And again, I want to emphasize 


that we're talking here about the site 


profiles. We are not talking about the 


petitions for SECs on either of these sites. 


We're only talking about site profile issues 


here. 


WORK GROUP REPORT: Y-12 SITE PROFILE UPDATE
 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, WORK GROUP CHAIR


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. Okay. On -- on -- I can 


give an update on -- until we get the matrices, 


at least. On Y-12 what -- what's happened is 


we -- we initially st-- just as a little bit of 


a background, it's difficult 'cause we're so 


involved at the workgroup level, but I'm trying 


to step back and remind others that weren't 


involved in it of the -- of where we've come 


from. There was initially a -- a site profile 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

96 

review done by SC&A, and then they developed a 


matrix from that of the findings for the site 


profile. And at some point -- and I have a -- 


some of this we'll -- we'll clarify a little 


more as far as time lines with some of the 


reports that we have for tomorrow morning, but 


at some point we -- we requested, the Board 


requested, that -- that SC&A narrow down all 


the findings on their matrix to findings that 


they felt could be potential SEC-related 


findings. In other words, they weren't -- they 


weren't -- they were large enough or important 


enough or -- or of -- of a certain nature that 


they could affect a Special Exposure Cohort 


determination, and so they refined their matrix 


and -- and we had a -- a much smaller list of ­

- of findings, albeit very difficult and 


sometimes multiple findings within one matrix 


item. But we -- we narrowed it down to SEC 


issues. And then we've had several workgroup 


meetings, either conference calls or physical 


meetings in Cincinnati, even in Boston -- they 


accommodate me at one meeting and came up to 


Boston -- where we've -- we've gone through all 


these site profile issues. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

97 

Now what -- what you'll see in the matrix is 


that for both Y-12 and Rocky all matrix items, 


I believe, have been basically closed out in 


the sense that NIOSH has provided a response. 


But this has been -- again, I've got to 


emphasize, this has been real time, and we've 


got -- we had a meeting on April 11th or 12th, 


and then we had another conference call meeting 


on April 20th. In between time we're getting 


sample DR cases. We're getting a lot of new 


materials in response to these things. So what 


I tried to indicate in the matrix that you'll 


receive is that these it-- if an item was 


closed out but SC&A didn't really review it, 


the final resolution proposed by NIOSH, then I 


tried to capture that by saying that SC&A will 


include their review of this item within their 


review of the SEC evaluation report. So we're 


kind of pulling those things out of the site 


profile SEC issues and into the official review 


of the SEC evaluation report. And you know, 


this is the problem with these things kind of 


overlapping, but that's where we stand. And --


and also in generating the review report of the 


SEC evaluation report -- and we anticipated 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

98 

this -- SC&A may have -- have some different 


findings that we didn't necessarily anticipate 


within the site profile review process, but -- 


but they came up out of reviewing the 


evaluation report that NIOSH provided for that 


SEC. 


So that's where we kind of stand. We kind --


tried to close out the matrix items in the site 


profile review. Anything that wasn't 


completely addressed or we just recently got 


materials and hasn't been completely reviewed, 


I tried to -- to capture that by saying it's 


been rolled over into the SEC review that -- 


that'll -- that we'll discuss tomorrow morning 


in depth. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I hope that makes sense. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll open it up here in a minute 


for questions. Lew, give us an update on where 


we are on this -- on the matrix paperwork that 


Mark --


 DR. WADE: Well, we --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- was just discussing. 


 DR. WADE: LaShawn is nowhere in sight, so I -- 


I can't give you an update. She has 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 

99 

answered her cell phone. My suggestion is that 


we have our brief discussion and then break for 


lunch. We have time on the agenda for the full 


Board to discuss these issues. Rather than 


keep people waiting, maybe we could take a 


lunch break and start promptly at 1:00, and 


then use that time more wisely. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. And Mark, just for clarity 


here, on both of these what we'll be looking at 


is the matrix for the site profiles -- or site 


profile reviews. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And at the moment, these do not 


require actual action. You would be simply 


updating us on where we are, what items are 


still sort of pending. Is that correct? 


 MR. GRIFFON: That -- that's correct, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So basically it's a status report 


on where we are on closing out issues that have 


arisen in the site profile review process, both 


for Y-12 and for Rocky. So after lunch what 


you will have will be simply the matrix at its 


current status, which is changed of course in 


real time over the past week or so. So there 


won't be any action actually required on this, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

100 

other than to become informed as to where they 


are, what the issues are. 


Now it's also clear that some of these issues 


will relate to the Special Exposure Cohort 


petition, so there's -- there is a relationship 


there, but at this point we're looking at it 


strictly in terms of the site profile review 


process. In fact, when we reach the point 


where we are discussing the petitions, there -- 


there will be some conflict of interest issues 


that arise in terms of who's sitting at the 


table here, so --


 DR. WADE: Right. Maybe just for -- since we 


have a moment, I could sort of -- since I'm the 


one who put this agenda together, I could sort 


of explain how I see the issues progressing. 


 Let's take Y-12, for example. After lunch the 


Board will hear from the working group on the 


Y-12 site profile issues. And you know, we'll 


explore that item, an update will be given to 


you. Then this afternoon at 4:30 SC&A will be 


presenting an update on its task work for SEC 


petition and they'll talk about Y-12. There is 


a report in your presence that represents the 


SE-- the SC&A review of the Y-12 SEC. We'll 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

101 

hear a brief report out from SC&A on that 


issue. 


All of that is leading towards a discussion at 


1:30 on Wednesday where we will deal directly 


with the Y-12 SEC petition. We will begin with 


the NIOSH presentation, followed by a 


presentation by petitioners, and then the 


working group will make its report on the Y-12 


SEC issues. And then the Board will have time 


to deliberate and vote. 


So that's how it will sort of cascade through 


the meeting. The same thing will happen with 


regard to Rocky Flats, although it'll be in a 


slightly different time frame. 


You'll hear about the Rocky Flats site profile 


after lunch. You'll hear the SC&A report on 


their task looking at the Rocky Flats SEC 


petition at 4:30 this afternoon. And then on 


Thursday morning at 8:30 we'll have a three and 


a half hour session dealing with the Rocky 


Flats SEC petition, which will encompass the 


presentation by NIOSH, presentation by 


petitioners, workgroup report and then Board 


deliberation and decision. 


So that's what's in front of you. I realize 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 -- 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

that it's happening at different places on the 


agenda, but that was really to be true to our 


process of dealing with site profile issues, 


contractor reports, and then an SEC petition 


with deliberation. So if there's any questions 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, actually now that I'm 


looking at it -- I mean this was meant to be a 


report on these site profiles to the 


subcommittee, but since we're almost all here 


anyway, we can do it after lunch and it -- it 


would be redundant to actually -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- to have done it here again. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That will work fine. Thank you 


very much, Lew. 


Board members, did you have any questions or 


comments at this time on this particular matter 


in terms of the site profile reviews? 


 (No responses) 


Also this morning -- I just want to take the 


opportunity to introduce Carolyn Boller -- is 


Carolyn still here in the assembly? 


 DR. WADE: She just stepped out. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, she just stepped out, okay. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

Carolyn Boller is a Congressional aide for 


Congressman Udall's office. She'll be with us 


all day today, and I believe will not be here 


tomorrow, so I wanted to be sure to introduce 


her, but we'll maybe catch her this afternoon, 


as well. 


 DR. WADE: Here's Carolyn right now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Carolyn, we're just 


introducing you and you had disappeared, but 


we're pleased to have you here with us today. 


We just wanted to acknowledge your presence 


with the group. 


And you have another colleague that you brought 


in. Welcome, sir. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Ray, did you catch -- could you, 


for -- for our court reporter, just repeat your 


name so we... 


 MR. HILLER: (Off microphone) I'm David Hiller. 


I'm with Senator Salazar's office. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. 


 (Whereupon, Drs. Wade and Ziemer discussed 


scheduling off microphone.) 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think this would be a good point 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

104 

for us to recess for lunch, and try to be back 


here for 1:00. If you have some good ideas on 


where to eat, the Board would be glad to find 


out what they are. 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 


(Unintelligible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 (Whereupon, the subcommittee meeting concluded 


at 11:50 a.m.) 

______________________________ 

105 

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 April 25, 


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 


26th day of May, 2006. 


STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 


CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 


CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102