THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 


PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


convenes the 


THIRTY-SEVENTH MEETING 


ADVISORY BOARD ON 


RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


VOL. I 


DAY ONE 


ABRWH BOARD MEETING
 

The verbatim transcript of the 


Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 


Worker Health held at the Four Points by Sheraton, 


Denver, Colorado, on April 25, 2006. 

 

2 

 7 

C O N T E N T S
 

April 25, 2006 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 


DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 


SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: SELECTION OF 5TH AND 6TH
 

ROUNDS OF INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION 13 


Y-12 SITE PROFILE 20 


ROCKY FLATS SITE PROFILE 36 


PROCEDURES REVIEWS 54 


INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS 65 


BOARD DISCUSSION 71 


BOARD SEC PROCEDURES 102 


SC&A SEC TASK UPDATES 115 


NON-PRESUMPTIVE CANCERS 153 


AMES SEC TASK UPDATE 161 


COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 179 

3 

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND
 

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 


material is reproduced as read or spoken. 


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


an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 


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


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


word(s) when reading written material. 


-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 


of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 


reported. 


-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 


the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 


available. 


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


"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 


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


without reference available. 


-- (inaudible)/(unintelligible) signifies speaker 


failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

 

 

4

1 

2 

3 

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


(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 


BOARD MEMBERS
 

CHAIR
 

ZIEMER, Paul L., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


School of Health Sciences 


Purdue University 


Lafayette, Indiana 


EXECUTIVE SECRETARY
 

WADE, Lewis, Ph.D. 


Senior Science Advisor 


National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 


Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 


Washington, DC 


MEMBERSHIP
 

CLAWSON, Bradley 


Senior Operator, Nuclear Fuel Handling 


Idaho National Engineering & Environmental Laboratory 


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


Director 


The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental 


Medicine 


Professor of Medicine 


Nashville, Tennessee 


GIBSON, Michael H. 


President 


Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 


Local 5-4200 


Miamisburg, Ohio 

 

5 

1 

2 

3 

4 

GRIFFON, Mark A. 


President 


Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 


Salem, New Hampshire 


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


Director 


New York State Laborers' Health and Safety Trust Fund 


Albany, New York 


MUNN, Wanda I. 


Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 


Richland, Washington 


PRESLEY, Robert W. 


Special Projects Engineer 


BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 


Clinton, Tennessee 


ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 


Professor Emeritus 


University of Florida 


Elysian, Minnesota 


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
 

(1:15 p.m.) 


WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS
 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR
 

DR. ZIEMER: Good afternoon, everyone. 


 MS. MUNN: Good afternoon, Dr. Ziemer. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah -- I wasn't waiting for a 


reply; I was trying to determine whether this 


mike was actually on or not. 


Just prior to lunch I recessed the subcommittee 


and I realized that actually what I should have 


done is adjourn the subcommittee, and I declare 


that the subcommittee is adjourned. 


This now is the 37th meeting of the Advisory 


Board on Radiation and Worker Health. It's our 


second visit as an Advisory Board to Denver. 


We're pleased to be here again in this locale. 


The Advisory Board members are mainly the same 


folks that were here before. We have -- just a 


couple of new members have joined our Board. 


Brad Clawson is new on our Board and we're 


pleased to have Brad aboard. Dr. Poston, one 


of our new members, is not able to be here 


today, nor is Dr. Lockey, who's ill. But 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

8 

nonetheless, we're all pleased to be here and 


to deal with the Rocky Flats petition, as well 


as other related items in our meetings today, 


tomorrow and Thursday. 


I'd like to remind all attendees -- Board 


members, staff, members of the public -- to 


please register your attendance with us in the 


registration book in the entryway. Also there 


is a sign-up sheet for members of the public 


who wish to make public comment. 


There will be a public comment period tomorrow 


evening from 7:00 to 8:30 p.m., so please make 


note of that. And if you wish to address the 


assembly at that time, please sign up to do so. 


We introduced some of the Congressional 


delegates that were here from Colorado this 


morning. I don't know if others have joined 


us. Lew, I'm --


 DR. WADE: I see the two were already 


introduced. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. Okay, as other -- other 


members of the delegation may come later today 


or tomorrow and we'll introduce them at the 


appropriate time. 


Lew, do you have any introductory remarks for 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

9 

us, as well? 


 DR. WADE: Well, a number. First of all to 


thank -- thank the Board for being here and its 


diligence. As always I bring you regards from 


the Secretary; from the Director of CDC, Dr. 


Gerberding; and from John Howard, Director of 


NIOSH. 


I would like to clarify a couple of Board 


membership issues, just in case people are 


counting noses and establishing whether or not 


we have a quorum, and I assume we will have a 


quorum for all of our business. We do have two 


new members who are fully vested and seated, 


Brad Clawson, who is with us, and Dr. Lockey, 


who will be with us part of the time by 


telephone. He turned up ill on Monday morning 


and was not able to join us. 


Dr. Poston is also making his way towards full 


Board membership. He is not at this meeting. 


He was never intending to be at this meeting. 


This meeting was scheduled before he was 


advised of his membership on the Board and he 


was not able to make the meeting. Dr. Poston 


does not have his waiver completely in place 


and therefore he is not a fully seated member 

1 

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 

of the Board at this point and would not be 


counted in our establishing a quorum. 


Also, Leon Owens has resigned from the Board, 


and I was told yesterday by the White House 


that I should assume his resignation has been 


accepted and he is no longer a member of the 


Board. 


A scheduling issue. The reason the room is 


laid out this way is we were told by our 


friends with the Colorado Delegation that 


tomorrow evening we could expect quite a crowd 


possibly, and we want to be able to 


accommodate, they thought, up to 250 people. 


And I think we can do that in this room the way 


it's configured now. We can seat 215. We can 


add more chairs as appropriate. I could well 


mean that we might have a slightly later night 


tomorrow night than the schedule dictates, and 


I know Dr. Ziemer has always been gracious in 


allowing all that have important comments to 


make to make those comments. 


So a little bit of background on why we are 


situated this way and issues of membership of 


the Board. 


We will -- as Dr. Ziemer mentioned, when 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 

11 

discuss certain of the SEC petitions, there are 


Board members who are conflicted. They'll be 


asked to step away from the table and we will 


proceed with our deliberations without those 


members present. 


 Those members do not have to remove themselves 


from the table when we talk about technical 


issues or site profile issues, as we will be 


doing some today, and therefore I won't be 


asking those members to step back from the 


table today. They can't make motions. They 


can't vote on motions that relate to the sites 


in questions. But I really don't anticipate 


there'll be any voting today. 


So sorry for the long comments, but I think we 


need to start clear with everyone. Thank you. 


 MS. MUNN: Dr. Wade --


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: -- you overlooked Mr. Presley's 

absence. 

 DR. WADE: I'm sorry. Mr. Presley is always 

with us, and he just had back surgery and is 


probably with us on the phone, and we thank him 


for his forbearance in joining us and wish him 


speedy recovery. Dr. Melius should be joining 

1 

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 

us posthaste. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. In fact, let 


me ask -- Robert Presley, are you on the phone? 


 MR. PRESLEY: That's correct, I'm --


 DR. ZIEMER: May -- may not be here at the 


moment --


 MR. PRESLEY: Can y'all hear me? 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- but he was with us most of the 


morning. 


Board members, you'll notice at the top of the 


afternoon agenda again is approval of the 


minutes. We'll defer action on any minutes 


until Friday, till you've had a chance to both 


receive and read them. 


 DR. WADE: They are -- they're here. The 


minutes for the Board are here, I believe, but 


we should delay action until they have a chance 


to look at them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But you have just received those 


today and --


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- and have not -- I'm not sure 


that they're actually in the book. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: In any event, we're hopeful that 

5 

10 

15 

20 

25 

13 

1 

2 

3 

4 

6 

7 

8 

9 

11 

12 

13 

14 

16 

17 

18 

19 

21 

22 

23 

24 

those past minutes will get to you before the 


week is over and we'll have a chance to act on 


them, probably Thursday afternoon. 


SUBCOMMITTEE REPORT: SELECTION OF 5TH AND 6TH
 

ROUNDS OF INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION
 

All of you were here this morning as part of 


the subcommittee deliberations, and you know 


that as part of that we made an initial 


selection of the next 40 cases to be reviewed 


by our contractor, and in turn by us. We 


aren't going to formalize that selection just 


yet because we agreed this morning that two 


things would happen. One is that NIOSH would 


try to gain some information about some of the 


categories of the so-called matrix that we were 


trying to address, and we probably won't have 


that information till later in the week. And 


secondly, we wanted to allow everyone a chance 


to look over the list individually in more 


detail. 


What we did have is an initial list of what we 


thought were 40 potential cases that would be 


reviewed through the help -- with the help of 


our contractor. Lew has provided you with a 


summary list, and I only count 39 here, so 


there may be one missing. But at the 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 

14 

I'm -- and we can go back and check our 


individual notes -- which one is -- did someone 


spot which one is missing? 


 DR. WADE: I will double-check -- heads will 


roll -- heads will roll over this. 


 DR. ZIEMER: But without objection, we will 


simply consider this a report from the 


subcommittee for this morning's action and we 


will have a chance then to formally receive and 


take action on these, probably as part of our 


Thursday afternoon work session. So without 


objection, we will let that stand as the report 


on the 5th and 6th rounds of individual dose 


reconstruction. 


 DR. WADE: I do have a -- some information to 


bring to the Board that relates to that topic 


if you would allow me. 


This morning I learned that Sanford Cohen & 


Associates has bid on and won a contract to do 


dose reconstructions for DTRA at the Nevada 


Test Site. As you know, those are dose 


reconstructions for people who have non-covered 


cancers. People with covered cancers are 


compensated. That creates a conflict of 


interest situation with regard to Sanford Cohen 

1 

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 

& Associates as it relates to the Nevada Test 


Site. It will come up in two or three areas. 


I mean conflicts of interest are a part of the 


business we're in. We've all realized that. 


But the reason I raise it now is it would be 


inappropriate for Sanford Cohen & Associates to 


review a dose reconstruction that related to 


the Nevada Test Site. 


That doesn't mean the Board can't select such 


dose reconstructions to be reviewed, but they 


can't be reviewed by Sanford Cohen & 


Associates. The Board could try and develop 


another mechanism. The Board could do it 


themselves. I put this information in front of 


you so you could consider it as you make your 


determination on the next round of dose 


reconstructions to be reviewed. 


It will also come into play as it relates to 


SEC work. You cannot ask Sanford Cohen & 


Associates to review an SEC as it relates to 


the Nevada Test Site. And again, I don't know 


that you're intending to do that, but it needs 


to be on the record that you cannot do that. 


Also Sanford Cohen & Associates has completed a 


review of the Nevada Test Site 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 

16 

They did that before they secured this 


additional contract, therefore that review 


stands. Any issues to resolve, issue that 


might exist between NIOSH and that review, 


would have to take place without Sanford Cohen 


& Associates involved directly in that. So if 


the Board was to have a follow-up workgroup 


meeting to work through the matrix kinds of 


issues, Sanford Cohen & Associates couldn't be 


involved in that. 


Again, the Board could take up that task 


itself. We could develop mechanisms for the 


Board to have additional support, but not with 


Sanford Cohen & Associates as it related to the 


Nevada Test Site. 


I don't know -- John Mauro, if you're in the 


audience, if you have anything you'd like to 


add. I hope I did justice to my explanation. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, you described it accurately. 


We --


 DR. ZIEMER: Is that on? 


 DR. WADE: Not yet. 


(Pause) 


DR. MAURO: How about now? Is that better? 


Yes, I would say approximately a month ago SC&A 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

17 

was awarded a contract with DTRA to be part of 


several contractors who are doing dose 


reconstructions for veterans from both the 


Nevada Test Site and the Pacific Proving 


Grounds. We have been provided with all of the 


protocols that they have developed since I 


would say 1978 for performing dose 


reconstructions, and right now we are ramping 


up with a team -- none of our team members -- a 


separate group of individuals are working on 


it, but nevertheless, as a company yes, we do 


have this contract. The contract goes through 


the end of -- of September of this year. It's 


basically to help DTRA clear a backlog of cases 


that have accumulated and we expect to be 


finished with that work by the end of 


September. But yes, we are doing dose 


reconstructions for veterans at not only Nevada 


Test Site, but also the Pacific Proving 


Grounds. 


 DR. WADE: Okay, thank you, John. I was not 


aware of the Pacific Proving Grounds, so my 


comments as related to Nevada Test Site will 


also apply to Pacific Proving Grounds. 


 DR. ZIEMER: 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 

18

 MR. PRESLEY: Dr. Wade --


 DR. ZIEMER: And let me --


UNIDENTIFIED: Hold on. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Hey, Paul, this is Bob Presley. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Robert, we're having trouble 


hearing you. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I'm having trouble with you all. 


I've been on ever since you all started, 


listening, and I'm having trouble for some 


reason coming in on the mike. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Robert, I'm going to have to ask 


you to start over again. I guess the volume 


was turned down here. Could you start again? 


 MR. PRESLEY: I've been with you since you all 


started. There's something wrong with our 


intercom system between here and there. I can 


hear you beautifully. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, we're hearing you now. Go 


ahead. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. As Chairman of the working 


group, need to kind of talk about this off-line 


when we get a chance. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Yeah, thank you for 


that comment. 


I would also like to ask how this affects 

1 

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 

subcontractors of SC&A; i.e., Salient, which is 


part of the support group. Does that affect 


them equally? 


 DR. WADE: I would say yes, as they have a 


business relationship with SC&A. Again, all of 


these issues can be reviewed and -- and looked 


into in more detail, but my immediate reaction 


would be, as Salient has a business 


relationship with SC&A, I would see the same 


prohibitions applying to Salient. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Board members, 


do you have any questions or comments 


concerning that particular issue? And the 


implication I think, from John's remarks, is 


does -- does the conflict go away even after 


the conflict ends? I mean our conflicts of 


interest continue on sort of forever. You 


know, I was at Y-12 for one week in 1958 and 


I'm conflicted. Does it -- so does this carry 


past the end of that contract? 


 DR. WADE: It could well. I mean, again, we 


would have to look --


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll have to examine that. 


 DR. WADE: -- at the specific details of it, 


but it certainly is an issue that would have 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 

20 

be looked into. 


Again for the record, let me say that, you 


know, conflict of interest are a part of what 


we do for all of us. It's a relatively small 


world and it's not surprising that conflicts 


exist. The important thing is that we 


recognize them, we deal with them and we take 


appropriate actions, and work goes on, so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I think that John Mauro 


explained that those dose reconstructions are a 


different population group at the Test Site. 


Isn't that correct? These are the veterans, as 


opposed to the civilians, or is that 


distinction made? 


DR. MAURO: Absolutely. It only applies to the 


veterans. However, at the same time, we have 


looked into the matter and there's reason to 


believe that there are many civilians that 


worked side by side with the veterans. So you 


know, make -- that separation is real and -- 


administratively, but from a physical 


perspective, there really -- many of them were 


working side by side. 


Y-12 SITE PROFILE


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, let's continue 

1 

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 

on then in this part of our agenda. We have 


the Y-12 site profile and the Rocky Flats site 


profile status reports. Mark, you gave us some 


preliminary comments on these as part of the 


subcommittee deliberations this morning. We 


now have I believe the matrices that were 


discussed. And Mark, if you'll take us through 


the additional comments that you have regarding 


these two site profiles. And again, we're 


directing this to site profiles, not to the 


Special Exposure Cohort petitions per se. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. If -- if people have 


identified this matrix, it's titled "Y-12 Site 


Profile Review, Matrix of priority Issues 


potentially relevant to SEC petition review, 


prepared by the workgroup" and it should 


actually say April 22nd. This is revised as of 


April 22nd. It says March 27th right now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So change the date? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mark is saying to change the 


date on that copy that you have to April 22nd. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So this -- this reflects the -- 


the final closeout of actions after we had a 


April 20th workgroup conference call. And 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 

22 

-- this again is the site profile issues. On 


April 7th we reviewed -- we received the SEC 


evaluation report, but we're -- we're 


discussing only the -- the issues that were 


sort of pre-identified within the site profile 


review context here. And I'll just go -- I'll 


just go through -- this is very -- fairly short 


matrix so I'll just go through some of the 


issues and give you a sense of what we -- how 


we -- how we moved these issues along. 


If you look at Item 1a, Items 1 and 2, they -- 


this falls under the category of validity of 


bioassay data, and on -- in the workgroup 


process we had -- we had lengthy discussions 


about the -- the -- actually demonstrating that 


the data from internal and external, we'll get 


to external later, was reliable for the 


purposes of dose reconstruction within a 


compensation program. And you can see -- these 


actions listed 1 through 6 -- these are NIOSH's 


final responses to the actions. And if you go 


back -- refer back to matrices that I produced 


on March 27th and on February 27th, they follow 


the workgroup meetings through. So these --


these have evolved as we've worked on these 

1 

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 

issues and this is sort of the final resolution 


as of the last meeting. 


Now I -- I would point you to -- to several of 


them which -- like number 2 and number 3, at 


the -- at the very last line it indicates that 


the assess-- for in-- for example, in number -- 


item number 2, under issue 1a -- I know this 


gets a little confusing, these matrices -- but 


it indicates the assessment of these issues, 


along with documentation of interviews, has 


been included within Appendix 1 of the SEC 


evaluation report, SEC Number 0028. And the --


the reason for that reference is that that will 


be part of -- that's sort of rolled into the 


SEC evaluation report and we've also asked SC&A 


to help us review that report. So the matrix 


is finalized, but it -- it's again going to be 


assessed within the review of that evaluation 


report. All right? And that -- so the -- the 


-- these first items under 1a discuss the CER 


bioassay data validation. And most of -- most 


of the -- most of what this gets at is the CER 


bioassay data is -- is a database data, 


electronic database, and this electronic 


database, they -- NIOSH has developed models 

1 

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 

from this to use for their coworker models. So 


the question becomes, you know, what is the 


pedigree or -- or what is the -- you know, what 


is the reliability of that data and have they 


checked it against any raw data sources. So in 


the process of this -- these meetings that 


we've had, NIOSH has gone back and -- and 


reviewed -- and I'm not going to summarize 


everything here, but they've -- they've looked 


for raw data, including in this case some urine 


punch cards. They identified health physics 


reports they ga-- that were -- that they were 


able to cross-walk with the database and 


demonstrate reliability. And -- and they had 


several different references that they looked 


at. 


 Additionally, if you look at number 6, Item 


number 6 in this first block at the bottom of 


the page, NIOSH pointed out early on in this 


process that -- that they had every indication 


that the electronic record was accepted by the 


Department of Energy as the -- as the official 


record, basically. And that suggested, at 


least to NIOSH, that -- the -- the implication 


there was that DOE had done some sort -- sort 

1 

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 

of quality review that the program was 


effectively capturing and accurately capturing 


the data, and that the electronic record was 


good enough; they didn't need to maintain punch 


cards, et cetera. They never could find the -- 


the actual DOE communication, but they did find 


a secondary reference within a health physics 


report, I believe it was, by Hap West, as is 


indicated here, which referenced that letter 


being transmitted. So -- so they had a number 


of sources they looked at to -- to test the 


reliability of the bioassay data. 


And then I can do on here. You'll see several 


of these items on the matrix -- the next four, 


in fact -- basically after -- we initially had 


them on the matrix and then after further 


discussions, deliberations, it was basically 


decided within the workgroup -- and this is 


with -- with SC&A and NIOSH and the workgroup 


involved -- that these issues were likely not 


SEC issues because they would not preclude the 


estimation of a maximum dose under plausible 


circumstances. So they -- they still may be a 


site profile concern. They still may have some 


minor issues, but it doesn't prevent -- these 

1 

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 

issues wouldn't stand in the way of NIOSH 


determining whether there was an SEC class, and 


so therefore we dropped it from this -- this 


SEC review process and so that's why those are 


closed out that way. 


If we can go on to Item 1b, another big 


category -- and these are sort of the big 


categories that we ended up discussing within 


Y-12 -- is characterized here as other 


radionuclides. And in Y-12 primarily a uranium 


-- uranium exposures at the site, but in the 


course of the site profile review SC&A brought 


up several, and I think NIOSH may have self-


identified other radionuclides that -- that 


could have been in quantities of significant 


concern for exposures that needed to be 


addressed within the site profile. And you 


know, this included such things as recycled -- 


the recycled uranium could have had 


transuranics as well as fission products in it 


so that could have resulted in some exposures. 


They also had other radi-- other -- other 


operations within the -- the Cyclotron where 


they had some work with a laundry list of sort 


of exotic radionuclides, albeit, you know, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

27 

small -- probably small production -- or small 


quantities, but they did have that as an 


ongoing potential source of exposure, and they 


did have some work with plutonium separations 


in the very early years. So we're talking -- 


again, this -- this whole matrix, again -- I -- 


I didn't say this at the outset, it focuses on 


the years '48 through '57 'cause that's sort of 


when we're thinking about its SEC-relevant 


issues within the site profile, so in those 


early years they -- they did do some plutonium 


separation work, as well. And -- and so that's 


all sort of captured under this category of 


other radionuclides. 


On Number 2 here, and I won't go through 


everything in how we've closed out all these 


items unless there's really questions, but on 


Number 2 you'll see that it was left 


highlighted, and I -- since this draft was 


created on Saturday, or whenever it was 


created, I have talked to -- to NIOSH and they 


indicated that on the -- the last conference 


call we actually did discuss -- they did 


discuss their methodology for performing the 


dose reconstructions with regard to these 

1 

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 

exotics and -- and it's -- it's basically an 


approach that they will use on -- on 


identifying the data and reviewing the data. 


They have specific data related to the 


incidents around those exotic exposures. And 


they weren't provided necessarily in our 


workgroup discussions, some of them, but they ­

- but they can be readily pulled from this -- 


this other database, which we refer to as a 


delta view database further down here, so -- so 


that was highlighted, meaning that it was still 


an outstanding action item but I think we have 


that action item provided right now and I would 


-- you know, I would say at this point that 


that's sort of been provided and is sort of 


rolled into our SEC evaluation report 


discussions. 


Moving on to the -- the entire next page 


actually -- all those were deemed not issues 


that would affect a decision with regard to an 


SEC. So it doesn't mean they're completely -- 


they're -- it doesn't mean they're non-issues, 


but it -- it -- in terms of defining an SEC, 


they're not relevant. 


And it -- we go down to the next page, which 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 

29 

external -- external radiation expo-- external 


dose concerns. And again Number 1a is again 


the validity question, and NIOSH did a similar 


track as they did on the internal with the 


external radiation records where they tried to 


cross-walk raw data sources with the electronic 


database to -- to check the reliability of the 


data within the database for use in coworker 


models. So these coworkers models are -- are ­

- actually I guess a -- a -- an important point 


here I think for Y-12 is that the coworker 


models are going to play an important role 


because I think it was up to -- up to 80 


percent of the claimants do not have their own 


monitoring records so you'll be relying on 


coworker models, so it's a -- it's especially 


important that -- and I guess that's why we 


pursued this so much in the workgroup process 


so the -- so these items all relate to either 


testing the reliability of the data within the 


database or some questions came up with regard 


to the coworker model. And -- and the coworker 


model and the -- the sort of basis of the 


coworker model. I think I'll leave it at that. 


Then the next page has again no -- no SEC 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

30 

issues. 


Did I miss something? 


DR. NETON: Is there a copy? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I thought it was. 


DR. NETON: I don't see it there. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe LaShawn only made a limited 


number, I don't know. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Apparently there are copies. 


Well, Jim has one. 


DR. NETON: I only have the internal side. I 


don't have the external. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, okay, sorry about -- there's 


more pages. 


 DR. ZIEMER: There's more pages -- actually, 


how many pages do you have, Jim? 


DR. NETON: I have three pages. 


 DR. WADE: It's double-sided. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: There should be -- your external 


should start on --


 MR. GRIFFON: We're all getting tired, huh? 


 MS. MUNN: It starts with the internal. 


DR. NETON: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So then I'm -- I'm down to Item 


2a on the matrix and this -- this was the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

31 

question of -- of whether the -- of badging of 


the maximally exposed individuals, and one of 


the premises laid out in the coworker model was 


that in the early time period the likely 


highest exposed workers were monitored. So we 


went through a series of steps asking to -- to 


verify that or validate that and -- and these 


are the actions and -- and you know, again, I 


think any -- there's no outstanding actions 


here that -- that model is further presented 


and elaborated on in the evaluation report, so 


we -- we will discuss that more tomorrow 


morning, I'm sure, under the SEC evaluation 


report review. 


And I think the last -- 2b is the neutron 


coworker models. Am I correct in -- 


DR. NETON: Beta. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, beta, I'm sorry. I'm getting 


Rocky and -- okay. This is the -- the beta 


coworker models and during this process 


actually NIOSH was in the process, while the 


workgroup -- workgroups were ongoing, NIOSH was 


in the process of developing and -- and modi-- 


and fine-tuning a beta coworker model and I 


think now it -- it is in final form or draft 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

32 

form or -- it's in final draft form and so that 


was -- and also -- also it -- one of our 


examples included a -- a -- a dose 


reconstruction example that used -- they relied 


on that model as some... 


And that takes us -- you know, that -- that is 


the -- the last item actually is kind of 


important 'cause we did ask that -- that sample 


dose reconstructions be provided, and really 


this is to -- to sort of -- as additional 


materials, not really a supplement to the 


evaluation report but as sort of supporting 


materials to the evaluation report, and this 


goes back to our -- our draft policy as a Board 


that we -- we asked NIOSH -- as we're doing 


this it would be very beneficial to all of us 


to see sort of proof of principle, so when we 


see a draft -- our sample DR is we're not 


talking about full dose reconstructions that 


have gone through the whole quality assurance 


process and -- and all the T's crossed and I's 


dotted, but we wanted proof of principle for 


certain key elements of the -- of how they're 


going to do dose reconstructions on the full 


set of claimants, and that's what we mean by 

1 

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 

draft DRs, and I think for Y-12, Jim, was it 11 


-- nine, nine draft DRs were provided to cover 


these different areas of -- of importance that 


were identified through the workgroup process. 


And that's where we stand on the site profile 


review, so -- so again, all these items are 


closed out, but several of the final models 


that we were getting in the workgroup process 


are relied upon in the evaluation report and -- 


and SC&A did -- did just complete a review of 


that report, as well, that we'll be discussing 


tomorrow morning, so -- or I think they're 


presenting it this afternoon and then we'll 


discuss it tomorrow morning. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Mark, I assume -- I think the 


Board has received this, is my recollection. 


There is a larger matrix which contains all the 


issues from the site profile review, so this is 


a subset of those, the subset that appears to 


be most related to the site profile (sic) 


issues. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Are we confident that in fact 


there aren't any site profile (sic) issues on 


the main matrix 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 

34

 MR. GRIFFON: Well, this -- this was -- you 


know, we -- we --


 DR. ZIEMER: This is sort of consensus between 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we -- we had to go -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- through this process and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- S -- we asked SC&A to cull 


down -- you know, to -- to sort of -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- reduce that list to SEC 


issues. They came back to us and really the -- 


the most intense deliberations of the workgroup 


started with this product. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: But at this point, my feeling is, 


you know, we have the evaluation report out 


there so any SEC discussions -- you know, the 


matrix is no longer driving this process. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And so this part of the -- 


of the site profile review will be helpful in 


our deliberations. Tell us quickly where we 


stand on the rest of the site profile matrix. 


Are there a lot of issues yet to be dealt with? 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

35

 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think we stand anywhere. 


I -- I -- I mean I don't think it's any further 


along than -- than it was when it was first 


submitted. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's -- that's remained fairly 


static because of this, yes. I just want to 


get that in the record so that everybody's 


aware that there still is -- for closing out 


the site profile, there's a ways to go yet. 


Thank you. 


Board members, any questions on Mark's report? 


Yes, Roy DeHart. 


 DR. DEHART: Mark, if you would, just remind us 


how -- by whom and how you deleted these 


particular items, saying whether or not they're 


not important in order to -- to go ahead and 


continue to look at the SEC. They may 


important -- be important otherwise -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean I think -- I think, you 


know, by whom, it was the full workgroup 


process. But always when it was deleted, NIOSH 


and SC&A had to be in agreement that they -- 


you know, so there was agreement on both sides 


and -- and you know, again, it's not that 


they're not important, but they're not driving 

1 

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 

for -- driving concerns for the SEC decision. 


 DR. DEHART: Right. Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: For example, you know, a lot of ­

- a lot of -- a lot of the cases I can think of 


is that, you know, if -- if -- how certain 


solubilities were treated, for instance. And 


it may be something that -- that there might 


still be more comments outstanding on, but 


given that they could assume worst case if 


necessary, then it went away. You know, they ­

- they would use a claimant-favorable approach 


if they didn't know any differently, and that 


seemed to satisfy the workgroup and SC&A as far 


as being an SEC issue. So it's -- it's -- 


that's just an example. But that's -- every 


one of those items was agreed upon by the 


workgroup and SC&A before we would remove it 


from the matrix. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments or 

questions? 

 (No responses) 

 Again, this doesn't require any action at the 


moment. It's mainly to update you on the 


status. 


ROCKY FLATS 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 

37 

Let's now address the Rocky Flats matrix. This 


one's a little longer. Well, he's going to 


tell us how it's not. Anyway, go ahead, Mark. 


Does everyone have -- this is -- is it 13 


pages? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, 13 -- 13 pages and... 


Okay, the -- this again -- take note of the 


title. The header is important on all these 


matrices, and if you want to really track back 


the details, I've got matrices from each -- in 


between each workgroup meeting that sort of 


show how these items were closed out or where 


they stood when we were discussing them. And 


I'm -- and -- so -- so I've always referred to 


the previous matrix. You know, when -- when we 


started I actually tried to do additional 


columns, but I realized that I'd have, you know 


-- I'd need D-sized paper to put the matrix on 


pretty soon so we -- I referred back to the 


previous matrix on these items. And the -- the 


note on the top that -- that becom-- that comes 


important later, but there were -- additional 


issues may arise as a result of the review of 


the petition and amendments and NIOSH's 


evaluation report. And the petitioner in this 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

38 

particular petition for -- Petition Number 0030 


actually supplied a -- a fairly volumous (sic) 


report and -- and there was a number of 


allegations -- affidavits in there that, you 


know, should probably be looked into, but those 


were not -- as, again, we started from the site 


profile on this process. 


So going through this quickly, comment number 


2, and the reason -- again, the reason it's not 


a 1, it's a 2, is -- is that we asked it to be 


reduced to SEC items, so likely 1 got dropped 


off of the first matrix. Item number 2 talks 


about the -- the super S plutonium quest-- a 


question whether -- whether and how NIOSH was 


going to treat this super S ex-- potential 


super S exposures at Rocky Flats, which is a 


very insoluble form of plutonium. And in -- in 


the process of this workgroup they finalized a 


draft of TIB 0049. This -- this draft relies 


on -- it actually provides an approach for 


dealing with the super S based on some case 


data. And in the process of this workgroup 


discussions, NIOSH also provided the case data 


and USTUR data, which is the uranium -- United 


States TransUranium Registry data that was also 

1 

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 

used in part to sort of check the -- the TIB 49 


to -- to validate TIB 49 and -- and in the 


process of this workgroup NIOSH provided all 


those materials to SC&A and -- and again we 


closed out all these items 'cause -- 'cause 


NIOSH did present a -- a method -- methodology. 


SC&A did have a chance to do preliminary review 


of this model and -- and -- and at this point 


it's -- it's in final form in the evaluation 


report, so you know, any further comments of 


that is deferred to the evaluation report, I 


think. 


For -- the next item involves the -- a question 


on the americium -- the americium within the 


plutonium mix and how -- what assumptions were 


going to be made with regard to the amount of 


americium when people were exposed to the 


plutonium and again NIOSH provided background 


material indicating how this was handled at the 


site and their rationale for the assumptions 


they made in the TBD. In discussing this 


issue, we -- a secondary issue was -- came out 


of the workgroup, which was direct exposures to 


americium. So the -- the first point that 


we're making is that we're -- we're trying 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 

40 

figure out how -- it -- it's really they're 


using americium from the lung counts to back-


calculate the amounts of plutonium that a 


person inhaled. And in Item Number 2 we 


realized that there could have been some -- 


some people that were directly exposed to 


americium 'cause they had an americium 


separation operation. So in that case you'd be 


more concerned about americium exposures than ­

- than americium as a way to calculate the 


plutonium. So there were two separate items, 


both of them NIOSH presented methodologies on. 


At this point, again, they're deferred to the 


evaluation report. 


Item 6 and Item 7 relate to the methodology for 


neutron dose reconstruction at the Rocky Flats 


site, and for this Item 6 NIOSH provided that 


there -- the coworker method and -- and TIB 50, 


which I think is in -- again, in final draft 


form at this point, was provided. TIB 50 


outlines the coworker approach for neutron dose 


reconstruction, and it has -- it has quite a 


few twists and turns, I think. You know, 


different periods of time they're -- they're 


using different approaches, so there's some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

41 

nuance in here that -- that -- that's not a -- 


you know, obviously not captured in a little 


matrix item like this, but that's one thing we 


want -- we -- we examined on the Board and, 


again, the full approach is, you know, any 


outstanding items -- any -- any further 


discussion on this issue is -- is deferred to 


the review report of the evaluation report. 


Item 9 -- Item 9 is -- is the -- is actually a 


preliminary item that talks about data 


integrity related to the Rocky Flats site. And 


this was actually -- it became a very large 


part of our discussions for the Rocky Flats 


workgroup calls. Several -- you can see 


several action items down here related to data 


integrity and/or sort of this validation of 


data that I described for -- a similar -- 


similar thing that we described for Y-12, the 


question of whether the electronic database 


could -- could -- basically refl-- reflected 


the raw data, so they had to check the 


reliability of the electronic database. NIOSH 


did state that for Rocky Flats the -- when I 


mentioned before, Y-12, 80 percent of the cases 


would rely on a coworker model. For Rocky 

1 

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 

Flats they've indicated that it's a very small 


percentage of the cases so far found that would 


use coworker models, so none-- nonetheless, 


it's still not a -- we still pursue this 


because it's not clear -- at least for me it's 


not clear, and this -- I apologize 'cause we've 


been in the process of non-stop workgroup 


meetings for the last month or so, but it -- it 


-- at least in my mind it's still a little 


unclear as to what the claimant's records 


contain, whether it -- if they have raw urine 


cards or if they have printouts from a 


database. If they're -- obviously if they're 


printouts from a database, the same question 


remains about reliability against the raw -- 


comparison against the raw data. The printout 


from the database is obviously going to match 


up nicely with the database, we would -- we 


would assume. So that -- that issue may not 


completely go away just 'cause you're not 


relying on coworker models. 


Item Number 5 I think on this list -- on the 


right side there gets into some of the concerns 


that -- that have come up about the practice of 


recording zeroes when the badges were 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 

43 

turned in and, you know, we've heard this term 


-- I think from the petitioners, as well, the 


concern about zeroing the dose. And this -- a 


lot of this data integrity -- a lot of these 


data integrity issues and, to some extent, the 


elec-- the check of the reliability of those 


electronic records, remain for this evaluation 


report. A lot of those -- and I will cut this 


off at Item Number -- or Issue Number 11 on our 


matrix, and you'll be happy about that, aft-- 


after Issue Number 11, all -- I believe every 


one, and I may -- I may have to check this, but 


I believe every one of those issues relates to 


data integrity, and many of those issues were 


derived from the petition itself. Some were 


from SC&A's follow-up from some of the 


petitionary allegations, but they all revolve 


around this question of data integrity. And I 


think, especially where the petition -- you 


know, has several affidavits on -- on the 


concern and lengthy amounts of material 


discussing this concern, we thought it's 


necessary from the evaluation report -- or from 


the SEC review point of view to look into those 


and follow up on those in depth. All -- 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 

44 

think that's best saved for the discussion of 


the Rocky Flats petition, which we'll do 


Thursday morning, so I'm not going to go 


through the rest of the matrix after -- after 


Item -- after Item 11. 


And I skipped ahead a little bit. Item 10 was 


a question about this -- this -- what's called 


roll-up data, and this -- this gets into a 


little bit of the thing I described earlier. 


It's -- it's related to neutron -- well, I 


guess and -- and photon exposures in this case, 


but for a time period at the site they -- the 


electronic data -- within the electronic 


database the records were rolled into one 


penetrating dose and -- and NIOSH, for the IREP 


calculations for the probability of causation 


calculations needs -- needs to separate out 


photon and neutron exposures, and they've 


provided a meth-- a methodology within -- I 


think it's within TIB 50 still -- within TIB 50 


to sort of deconvolute those results and 


provide neutron and photon doses separately and 


-- and that's what's described here. 


And then Item 11 is -- oh, Item 11 was a very 


specific question about -- related to a neutron 

1 

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 

algorithm, so it's a similar neutron dose 


question and I think, again, this specific one 


was closed out but the overall neutron coworker 


model will remain a discussion within the SEC 


evaluation report review. 


And I -- I think that's it. Again, with --


with -- through the rest of the matrix I won't 


-- I won't go through all those items. A lot 


of them relate to -- I think all of them relate 


to data integrity. I will note that in -- in 


there I have tried to shade or highlight -- and 


on this it appears as a gray shaded area -- 


items that were -- that -- that were not 


completely resolved in our workgroup process. 


Responses were provided by NIOSH, but I think 


there -- they certainly remain as an issue to 


be pulled into the SEC review discussion and I 


-- I -- I don't think we need to go through 


those, but you might want to look at those as 


you're reviewing this tonight. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Mark. Questions? As I 


understood it, 12 and all the way through to 


the end are data integrity issues. Is that 


right, 12 through the end? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, data integrity 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 

46 

There may be a few that -- that -- that are 


sort of, you know, maybe not completely data 


integrity issues, but they all either came out 


of the petition -- allegations by the petition, 


and most of those were related to data 


integrity, so... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: Just one comment. Some of those 


data integrity questions were an issue that 


involve that one prove a negative, that you -- 


that you prove that something did not happen as 


opposed to something did happen. And for that 


reason, from some viewpoints it might be 


impossible to resolve them completely and for 


all time. It seems -- it seems that one of the 


biggest hurdles that some of us had in the 


working group was the issue of how much is 


enough in terms of ascertaining how much truth 


can be derived from the records that we have. 


And that, I think, is the ultimate question 


with all of these integrity issues, and one 


that is never going to be resolved to 100 


percent certainty, especially when we're 


talking about trying to prove a negative. So I 


think it is incumbent upon the Board to come 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 

47 

grips with that specific issue, how much is 


enough, in accordance with the wording of the 


law, which I believe is fairly clear that it 


needs to be sufficient. So I -- I -- the 


toughest thing, I believe, is going to be our 


decision about what is sufficient. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And I mean we -- we'll have more 


discussion on this when we look at the SEC, but 


-- but you know, some things -- discussions 


that we had in the workgroup was that -- and -- 


and actually the actions that we described, if 


you looked at these highlighted actions, 


especially the -- the last three are really 


worth looking at, 30 -- 30, 31 and 32 are -- 


are really -- are -- are -- are new action 


items as of the last meeting, I believe, and 


these came out of SC&A sort of consolidating 


some of these data integrity issues. And what 


we -- the way I tr-- we tried to word the 


actions was -- was to reflect sort of what -- 


what Wanda said, which is that, you know, we 


want NIOSH to attempt to go back and track 


these issues back, but we understand totally 


that we may end up with a inconclusive result, 


so they -- they track it to the extent they 

1 

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 

can, understanding that if they get to certain 


raw records, it still may be ambiguous for -- 


for ex-- you know, I guess the -- the one 


example I can think of is that there were 


claims that people worked in certain hot jobs 


and their doses weren't recorded accurately 


during those time periods when they worked a 


hot job. Well, if you look in the database and 


they have records there, then if you go back to 


log books and you see exposure rate 


measurements that are high, you don't -- you 


still don't necessarily know if the worker was, 


you know, near where those surveys were done, 


you know, so you still may be inconclusive. 


But -- but we asked them to track back to the 


extent they could because there were reports 


that some of these log books and some of these 


documents contained at least secondary sort of 


dosimetry, so we asked -- again, we asked NIOSH 


to track back, to the extent they could, 


understanding that we may get a result back 


that says, you know, we weren't able to 


conclude either way or, you know -- and then -- 


and then we still do have that remaining 


question of how much is enough when 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 

49 

looking at this reliability. 


 MS. MUNN: And the one other point I'd like to 


make is with regard to the coworker data. I'd 


like to re-emphasize what Mark said when he 


pointed out that the number of cases that would 


be involved in the Rocky Flats petition that 


would require coworker data is very small 


indeed -- if memory serves, less than one 


percent of the total -- 


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

- I carefully worded that when I said it, 


'cause I said NIOSH stated that a very small 


percentage -- and I must say, as I was putting 


together the status report for Thursday 


morning's meeting I have -- I have some 


questions as to what exactly is meant by a 


coworker model and what's not meant by a 


coworker model 'cause seems to me for a lot of 


-- for many of the neutron doses they may rely 


on coworker adjustment factors, and I don't 


know if that's considered a coworker model or ­

- I have some questions there, you know, but 


that was -- that was stated, that it was a very 


small percentage. I don't know, we might want 


clarification and this might not be the time 

1 

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 

for it. Might be -- Brant wants to speak to -- 


 DR. ULSH: Is this on? Okay. What we're aware 


of right now, we've had about 1,100, give or 


take, cases referred to NIOSH from DOL for 


Rocky Flats. We've completed approximately 700 


of those cases and we currently have two cases 


on hold for coworker data, so it is a pretty 


small number. 


 Mark, what you're referring to with the neutron 


coworker data I think refers to the neutron-togamma ratios that were calculated as part of 


the NDRP that will then be applied to workers 


who were not explicitly monitored for neutrons. 


So --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ULSH: -- I don't know if you want to -- if 


you define that as a coworker model or not, but 


it's not -- it's not a coworker model -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that -- that -- that's what 


I was thinking of, especially since the NDRP 


report -- I mean I think we -- we heard that 


the NDRP report -- the NTA film program in the 


early years was -- was intended to monitor the 


most highly exposed workers for neu-- or the 


most likely high exposed workers for neutron 

1 

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 

exposures, but in the -- in the summary report 


they do admit that -- for instance, Building 


771 was not included for the most part, or only 


-- only some workers were included from that 


building, and they -- they do admit that that 


was a high source of neutron exposures. So 


then somehow you ha-- I think you have to rely 


on coworker -- and that's what -- different 


time periods rely on different elements for 


neutron calculations, so that's why I'm not 


definitively saying this. I'm -- I'm saying I 


still l have a question on it --


 DR. ULSH: No, I understand, it -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- as to whether that was a 


coworker approach used to calculate their 


doses, and if any of those were in your 


claimants then I would consider that at least 


in part coworker -- you know, part of their 


dose reconstruction involved use of a coworker 


model, so --


 DR. ULSH: Yeah, there were different time 


periods, as laid out in the NDRP, where they 


did -- they used different methodologies to 


reconstruct the neutron doses up to -- I think 


the NDRP covered up to the end of 1969, 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 

52 

that was the end of the NTA film era. After 


that they used thermoluminescent dosimeters to 


measure neutron. And one of the methods that 


they used in the NDRP was in fact what you 


said, the neutron-to-gamma ratio. And so 


you're right that the ratios that were 


calculated as part of that NDRP would be 


applied to other individuals, you know, as 


appropriate. But yeah, we'll probably have to 


revisit that in a -- in a working group 


meeting, I suspect. 


 MR. GRIFFON: And -- and the other -- I think 


the other time period is '70 to '76. I don't 


think the TLDs started till after '76. 


 DR. ULSH: No, they actually started in 1970, 


and from '70 to '76 you had the combined -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: That's it. 


 DR. ULSH: -- the combined issue that you 


mentioned earlier, so -- is -- is that -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: Clear as mud for all. 


 DR. ULSH: Clear as mud, okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean that's why I'm saying 


there's different methods over -- over the 


course of time for that. 


 DR. ULSH: 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 

53

 MR. GRIFFON: Some at least relied on coworker 


 DR. ULSH: Ratios. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- factors or coworker -- 


 DR. ULSH: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- ratios. Right? 


 DR. ULSH: That is true, yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Other comments, 


questions? 


 (No responses) 


So I -- okay, a comment, Lew? 


 DR. WADE: No --


 DR. ZIEMER: No? 


 DR. WADE: -- in terms of if we're done with 


that issue, then the two issues we carried over 


from this morning. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Well, again, this doesn't 


require action at this point. It really 


updates us as to where they are in terms of -- 


of the site profile issues that may impact on 


the SEC, so --


 MR. GRIFFON: I think we have the same status 


on the --


 DR. ZIEMER: On the rest of the --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

54

 MR. GRIFFON: -- overall site profile issues 


that is -- is that there is no status. I mean 


we -- that is still outstanding, so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: The rest of the issues remain on 


the back burner. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. 


 DR. WADE: Now we have the two issues from this 


morning, the -- the --


(Pause) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, the Chair wants to -- this 


is a reminder to remind everybody to turn off 


their cell phone. 


 DR. WADE: Well done. Very well done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Perfect timing. It's probably my 


wife or something. 


PROCEDURES REVIEWS


 DR. WADE: We have the two issues from this 


morning, the procedures matrix that's now in 


front of us and then the findings on the second 


20 individual dose reconstructions. We now 


have those materials. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. The procedures matrix is 


entitled "Summary of Task III Procedure 


Findings Matrix" prepared by workgroup April 

1 

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 

22nd, 2006. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That was a busy day. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Now Mark, this morning you 


actually summarized pretty much where we were 


on this. Are there any additional comments 


that need to be made that -- we didn't have 


this final version before us, but our 


recollection is that the -- the Board actions 


are indicated in every case. There are some 


that will require follow-up, but -- 


 MR. GRIFFON: I think it might be a good time ­

- it might be a good time to call Stu -- Stu, 


you talked about a tracking mechanism that we ­

- 'cause part of what we have here is in the 


Board actions. A lot of times they're 


deferred, that NIOSH will correct this, it's a 


-- whether it may be a low priority, high 


priority. Sometimes you'll see some action -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Statements like NIOSH will 


evaluate further, which kind of leaves it 


hanging. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, there are other actions 


here, that SC&A will review, so they might have 


replaced a procedure with a new ver-- a new 


procedure, and SC&A is doing another set of 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

56 

procedures reviews, so we state in here that 


SC&A is reviewing the next -- the next 


procedure in the line. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So some of these, you know, we're 


moving the ball down the road here, but we 


don't want to lose track of these actions. So 


Stu had a --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I've got an idea about 


how to -- how to keep track of the various 


actions that come out of these reviews, and 


what I -- what I would suggest is that we 


establish essentially an action for -- where we 


have committed or whether it's the -- the 


Board's action is recommends that NIOSH do 


something, whether it be amend a site profile 


or revise a procedure or something. We would 


capture that as an action item, give it the 


same number as the dose reconstruction number 


and finding. Like 1.1 would be the first 


finding of DR number one. Provide that action 


number and a name and sort of put in one last 


column in the matrix and then kind of leave the 


matrix alone after that, once we've identified 


the action. And then on some other -- some 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

57 

other vehicle -- you know, to get away from 


these big things, some other vehicle track 


progress toward the completing of the promised 


action. So you know, whether that would be on 


a Gant chart or just a status report 


periodically that we could, you know, update 


regularly as -- as progress is made. So it 


kind of addresses our obligation to keep track 


of the things, you know, what comes of these. 


And I guess the only remaining question then is 


as we take these actions -- as, you know, we 


take an action that we believe fulfills the 


intent, is there someone who's going to say yes 


-- I mean will the Board say yes, we agree your 


action fulfills the intent, or -- or what's the 


-- that -- that question, that yes, we did it 


right sort of question. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, this -- this can be kind of a 


non-ending exercise. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I hear you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: If it says something such as NIOSH 


will modify the procedure, it would seem to the 


Chair that once you've done that, you report 


it, the issue is closed. Now it's true at that 


point there's a modified procedure out 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 

58 

but we also have an ongoing obligation to -- as 


we move ahead to review new procedures, revised 


procedures. So basically, in my view, that 


puts it back in the population of things that 


may be -- may or may not be addressed at some 


future time. But it -- it brings closure to 


the immediate thing. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Otherwise you -- otherwise you say 


okay, they'll revise it. Then do we have to 


approve the revision, does SEC -- or SEC, SC&A 


review it on our behalf? It just goes on and 


on and on. We need to be able to come to 


closure on -- on these things and I think if 


you do the action that's stated, that should 


close it. Whether or not it's the right action 


remains to be seen. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I mean of course it's always the 


right action, but whether we like it or not is 


the... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: With the -- with this -- with the 


procedures review specifically I think the way 


we tried to handle that is that if we saw -- if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

59 

we felt that it was going to be large changes 


or -- or was a ver-- you know, quite different 


procedure that was going to be in place, we 


tasked SC&A with reviewing -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- it anyway. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: So we kind of captured that, and 


on these other ones, like IG-1 and IG-2 -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- I think what -- you know, a 


lot of it was editorial and style, you know, 


and I think that -- I agree with Paul that we ­

- you know, we would close that out and -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, some of -- some of these 


were the procedure could be written more 


clearly. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: You know, well, okay, you rewrite 


it and is it more clear? Someone could decide 


that later, but at least you've done your task 


at that point. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Can -- I was going to ask, 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 

60 

you -- is it possible maybe that by next Board 


meeting you can provide this vehicle to us or 


its -- a sample of it that -- 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: -- we can see how you're going to 


do this and how --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, that was my -- my intent. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MR. GRIFFON: That would be good. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll look forward to receiving 


that then. Yes, Roy. 


 DR. DEHART: I was wondering, as a point of 


clarification, on the action that NIOSH is 


taking to indicate what the action is, who the 


action's to be conducted by and a suspense date 


-- a suspense date as the last... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I -- I can provide a 


scheduled date. I mean -- are you talking 


about a date -- a completion date? 


 DR. DEHART: A completion date for that item in 


the matrix --


 MR. HINNEFELD: Recognize that --


 DR. ZIEMER: You mean an anticipated -- 

 DR. DEHART: Exactly. 

 DR. ZIEMER: 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 

61

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


know by next Board meeting. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, well, let's consider that as 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The reason I say that is --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- a possible... 


 MR. HINNEFELD: The resources that do these 


fixes are the same resources that do the -- the 


SEC petition evaluations and the dose 


reconstructions and -- and all the other tasks 


that we're doing. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I think we --


 MR. GRIFFON: At least have it as a maybe, you 


know, yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we already agreed that many 


of these were low priority, and you would do 


them on an ad hoc basis as you were able to, 


that we weren't going to sweat them, and I 


think you could indicate on the matrix if it's 


a low priority item that, you know, the fix -- 


we know how to use the item. It wasn't worded 


so well, but it's still useable. If you say 


we're going to do this in a year, I think we're 


all right with that, whatever it is. Right? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Certainly if you put a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

62 

date -- if you put a scheduled date on 


something, it's more likely to get done than if 


you don't put a scheduled date on it. That is 


certainly true. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. But it doesn't have to be ­

- you've got to look at it in terms of what the 


real urgency is and is there a real need to do 


this right away. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think with flexibility on 


those dates -- I mean feeling like if a date 


slides past and it didn't get done, with that 


understanding that dates may have to be 


adjusted based on manpower loading on other 


tasks, along with that understanding, I have no 


real problem with it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think it's a living document 


itself and you're -- you're going to update us 


on a regular basis and -- and here's the 


changes. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Wanda? 


 MS. MUNN: Although we all recognize we have to 


stay flexible with respect to some of these 


procedures, it is very desirable for everyone 


concerned to really put a period at the end of 


as many of these as we possibly can. As a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 -- 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

63 

simple process, might it be reasonable for us 


to -- once NIOSH has put together the list for 


us so we know what the list is, then as those 


things are addressed, perhaps they could advise 


the Board that they have been addressed by 


electronic means, so that at the next Board we 


will have had an opportunity to look at the 


revised procedure and we can then, as a Board, 


actually act on what has transpired on these 


action items if there is an action that's 


necessary. Is that a reasonable process, Stu? 


 MR. HINNEFELD: I think so. I can provide the 


Board what -- whatever it -- when we finish a 


product I can provide the Board with whatever ­

-


 DR. ZIEMER: If you modify something, a 


procedure in some way as directed in the matrix 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Uh-huh. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- if we're provided with that -- 


is what you're asking. Right? 


 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Just tell you that it's been 


revised or send you the revised -- 


 MS. MUNN: Tell us it's been revised so that we 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

64 

can go look at it ourself and -- and then when 


we have our next Board meeting, when you give 


us our report then on what's been done, we will 


already have seen the updated procedure, and if 


we have some concerns we can express that at 


that time. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay, sure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll give that a try, at least. 


 MR. GRIFFON: The other thing I would offer is 


since I think we're going to try to close out 


the procedures review and the second set of 


cases and the third set of cases for the next 


Board meeting, and I -- I -- just glancing 


through again, not that I haven't looked at 


this matrix enough, but looking at the Board 


actions with this in mind, I think there's some 


that -- that we can fine-turn the wording on 


the action so that it's not a -- sort of open-


ended, so I will work with -- with NIOSH and 


SC&A on just one final crack at a few of those 


final action items so that they're something 


that has more of a period at the end of the 


sentence. 


 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any other comments on this Task 

1 

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 

III matrix? 


 (No responses) 


Then we'll take it by consent that the attempt 


to do the tracking on closures will occur, and 


basically that will bring this to a final 


version with -- with Mark's final editing. 


Okay. 


INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS


 DR. WADE: Next we have the second 20 DRs. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now we have the matrix on dose 


reconstruction findings for cases 21 through 


38. You'll remember that was -- originally was 


21 to 40, but there were two cases that I think 


were removed from the final decision list or 


something, I forget. So they lost their 


eligibility for being considered so we ended up 


with 18. There were 18 cases. So the matrix 


for those has been distributed. It's a 29-page 


matrix. We're not going to go through the 


items individually, but Mark, again, you want 


to summarize or make any statements on this? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, there -- there's -- again, 


we'll try our best to clo-- to make these 


resolutions sort of more definitive and have a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

66 

period at the end of them. There are some in 


here, for instance, where we -- NIOSH indicated 


that they were going to re-evaluate the case so 


they -- it became, you know, a whole new review 


of the case. I think that also implies that 


SC&A would then look at their re-evaluation. 


There -- there are also -- and -- and you'll 


see in some of the ones -- page -- I'm trying 


to find the page here -- page 8, for instance, 


has a few of the NIOSH resolutions and -- and 


we -- we've been back and forth with e-mail on 


this. This is in track change mode, obviously, 


and NIOSH suggested rewording these resolutions 


this way. Jim and I agreed to rethink this 


language 'cause it -- it -- I thought it didn't 


quite reflect what had been discussed on the 


workgroup calls, so there -- wherever there's 


highlights, and there's not that many left, we 


still had a little bit of disagreement -- not 


so much on the intent, but on the -- the way 


the resolution was stated. And other than 


that, I think all issues are closed. 


I received this morning, actu-- or -- or I 


worked on it this morning. I received 


yesterday -- SC&A had some final edits, and 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

67 

most of those were -- several examples are on 


pages 15 or so -- or 14 through like 17. 


There's a bunch of cases where NIOSH relied on 


the workbooks to a large extent for the dose 


reconstructions, and at the time of these 


initial reviews SC&A didn't have access or 


wasn't aware of the -- the -- the workbook use 


in these cases so they couldn't definitively 


match the numbers or, you know, cross-walk the 


cases. And since then they've been able to do 


that and they indicate the result of them -- of 


their research back to the actual workbooks, 


the Excel spreadsheets that -- that supported 


the written document of the case, so -- and 


that's sort of the summary of where we're at. 


The final thing that needs to be done also is a 


-- the last column is a Board action column, 


and if you remember, the first set that we did 


of these we have Board action, ranking -- Board 


actions 1 through 7. And to tell you the 


truth, I'll have to revisit the first matrix. 


I'm going to include that as a footer on each 


one of these matrices so that we don't forget 


what 1 through 7 means, but there will be a 


final Board action in these, as well. For --

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

68 

for those who -- for those who don't or haven't 


looked at these matrices before, there is a 


distinction made between the case ranking -- 


it's the one, two, three, fourth column, the -- 


a couple of skinny columns in the middle of the 


page. There's a case ranking and there's a 


site or program-wide ranking. And these are 


low, medium or high in both cases, but the case 


ranking is did this finding -- or would -- is 


this finding low, medium or high as it pertains 


to that individual case and the decision made 


on that case. And the other -- or -- or in the 


dose estimation in that case, I should say, not 


-- not necessarily the probability of causation 


determination. 


The other column is a site or program-wide 


rank, and that is sort of an impression of 


could this finding have a broader effect on all 


cases that were done at that si-- at that site, 


or, you know, program-wide cases that all 


relied on a certain procedure, you know, so we 


tried to get -- and these are -- are 


subjective, obviously, but -- try to give you 


an indication of whether it's a very low 


concern for program-wide, as opposed to a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

69 

higher concern program-wide, so that's what 


those mean if you haven't seen these before. 


And that's -- that's about it for that -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So what -- what needs to 


happen --


 MR. GRIFFON: -- summary. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- is that the workgroup would 


recommend the Board action, and then the Board 


would have to approve that at our next meeting. 


And just for the record, I pulled out the -- 


what 1 through 7 means, and I'm just going to 


read it into the record and here's what it is. 


A 1 says NIOSH agrees and accepts the findings, 


and basically that closes the item. 


NIOSH disagrees but will comply is 2. 


Number 3, NIOSH disagrees and will not 


implement unless the Board recommends action 


through HHS. 


 Number 4, NIOSH disagrees and the Board and 


NIOSH reach a compromise. 


Number 5, NIOSH disagrees and the Board 


concurs. That is we -- we take NIOSH's 


position and therefore that closes the item. 


Number 6, the issue's deferred to a site 


profile, TBD or other procedure review process. 

1 

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 

That -- that was the case where some other 


aspect or some other procedure would govern 


that -- supersede it. 


And number 7, SC&A concurs with NIOSH's view, 


so -- and again that would close it. 


So those are the -- the various Board action 


possibilities, and the workgroup will make a 


recommendation for each of the items in the 


matrix, then we'll have a chance to concur with 


that. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Again, this is where Stu's 


tracking tool is going to come in -- into play 


because we -- the last matrix I think we had a 


fair number that were number 6, and that meant 


that the -- the action was deferred to the 


review of a site profile, 'cause we were in the 


process of doing a site profile anyway and we 


were digging in much more depth into those 


issues so it didn't make sense to discuss it in 


parallel so we deferred it to the site profile 


process, but we can't lose track of that 


action. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And you'll notice that there are 


only a couple of these that really require 


tracking. Most of these are closure items. 

1 

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. GRIFFON: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: The one that requires tracking is 


where the -- NIOSH disagrees and will not 


implement the Board -- unless the Board 


recommends, and the other would be that the 


issue is deferred to a site profile, TBD or 


other procedure review, then we'd have to 


review that, so -- okay. 


BOARD DISCUSSION


 Any other comments on the -- on the dose 


reconstruction matrix? 


 MS. MUNN: I guess I have one. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 


 MS. MUNN: I think it's interesting to note 


that in almost all cases, unless I -- my memory 


fails me, in all cases the actual impact of the 


comments and concerns on the single dose itself 


had been -- was low. The impact -- the change 


that would have occurred in either case on the 


individual case was very low, but we -- where 


these were of greatest value I think was in 


identifying one or two items which might be 


much more broadly applied than to that 


individual case. That's been helpful I think 


for the working group in kind of following 

1 

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 

through on -- on our other -- not dose 


reconstructions necessarily, but as they're 


applied across the site or across the entire 


complex. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 DR. WADE: I have a couple of issues. 


We are a little bit ahead of schedule and I 


thought maybe we could use the time -- at least 


I'd like to float several issues for the Board 


to consider, either now or at a -- at a later 


meeting, and let me define them and then we can 


talk about them. 


I mentioned one this morning, and that is you'd 


originally set out to audit two and a half 


percent of individual DRs. We're proceeding at 


the rate of about 80 per year. I think it's 


important for the Board to consider whether 


that original strategy and pace is still 


appropriate. Maybe it is. I think it would be 


good to get on the record a discussion of that 


strategy and pace. 


And then the second issue, really very 


different than -- from that is the -- the 


working group that has been reporting to you is 


-- has taken on a tremendous amount of work, 

1 

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 

and I think the Board should talk about that 


and decide whether it wants to continue loading 


that working group. I'm not saying it's not a 


fine working group and they've done outstanding 


work, but I think it's reasonable to pause and 


consider and then take action, whatever that 


action is. 


So I think those are two issues that warrant 


some discussion. We have a little bit of time 


now, possibly we could spend that time talking 


about them. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Certainly both of tho-- both of 


those are important issues to consider. The --


the two and a half percent pace -- and 


currently we're at about -- we're at about 


eight tenths of one percent. We're not --


we're not halfway there on -- 


 DR. WADE: No --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, let's see, we'll be -- if we 


select the next 40 cases, we will be at 240 I 


believe. Right? We'll have six -- no, we'll 


be at 120. We'll be at 120. 


 DR. WADE: 160. If we select the next 40, 


we'll be at --


 DR. ZIEMER: Let's get some high-powered math 

1 

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 

here. 


 DR. WADE: Okay. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We have -- we have selected for -- 


we'll have six groups of 20 selected, which is 


about half of where we need to be if there were 


no more cases. 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And -- and obviously there will be 


more cases, so that if -- if we're talking 


about the next three years, for example, then 


we are really in a sense behind the pace 


because if -- if we're -- if we're turning 


around 60 a year and want to get to two and a 


half percent of roughly 20,000 cases, you're -- 


you're talking about -- about 450 cases, so -- 


 DR. WADE: Right. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- we're talking about a four to 


five-year task there at the present rate, which 


is maybe a little longer than we want to go. 


 DR. WADE: And maybe it's not. I mean I think 


that's a reasonable estimate. You've got maybe 


another three years' worth of work to get to 


the target of the two and a half percent of the 


20,000. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Now I also point out to the Board 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

75 

that two and a half percent was in essence an 


arbitrary number. We're not locked into that 


by anything other than our own -- 


UNIDENTIFIED: (Inaudible) 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, all right. The John Till 


group talked about two and a half percent for 


the DTRA program, I think, something like that. 


 DR. WADE: Right, there's some precedence. 


 DR. ZIEMER: There's a little precedent for it. 


On the other hand, if -- if -- if one is pacing 


along and you're -- you're basically doing this 


not to get to a magic number of any percentage, 


but to identify issues. So that's -- that's 


the -- what's really -- what you want to be 


doing, and are we doing that at a good enough 


pace. 


Yes, Mr. Elliott, a comment. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yeah, if I could, I'd like to -- 


is this on? It's on? It's not up. 


 DR. ZIEMER: It doesn't sound like it's on. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: It's on but it's not up. 


DR. WADE: Why don't you go to the one in the 


back, Larry. 


(Pause) 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I'd just like to add a little 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

76 

more context for your consideration. Dose 


reconstruction program started a little over 


four years ago, as you know, and we were doing 


what we called cherry picking at the time, as 


you know. We were doing 


overestimates/underestimates, using our 


efficiency process. And then as we proceeded 


through those easier-to-do cases through the 


efficiency process, we working into some what 


we called best estimates. You realized that I 


think in your third round of review that there 


was this kind of -- this concept of a best 


estimate or a full-blown dose reconstruction. 


 You are seeing in your reviews, your 20 sets of 


reviews, you're seeing snapshots in time of the 


evolution of our dose reconstruction program 


and its process. And why am I saying this? 


Well, we have reached a pinnacle, I think, in 


that and in our evolution we've -- we've 


achieved a level where we're doing more best 


estimates. We're doing more difficult cases, 


and we're doing cases for sites where we have a 


-- a small number of cases and we really don't 


treat those, in many situations for many 


facilities, with a site profile development 

1 

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 

tool. We use some other standard type 


approach. And I think -- you know, I'm not 


sharing anything that's new, but I think you 


need to think about this as you're looking and 


thinking forward in the pacing of your reviews. 


You're going to see different snapshots of our 


evolution in time, so I would just add that to 


-- to be a little more context for your 


consideration. 


One other thing I'd like to remark upon. I --


as we go back and forth in the matrices comment 


resolution with the working groups and SC&A, I 


think words become very important. Words such 


as "issues," you'll hear us use words such as 


"questions" when we don't believe it's an 


issue. I think also that we all need to be 


careful when we develop a document and we put 


it out for display in -- in the public realm, 


whether it's on the table back here, on the web 


site or we share it in working group sessions ­

- that we put the appropriate labels and 


disclaimers on those documents. They are 


viewed by people as being final in nature, in 


some cases, and we all have to explain where 


they really, truly are in -- in the process 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 

78 

deliberation and scientific debate. So I would 


just ask that you think about that, as well. 


And one more comment, if I may belabor the 


Board's time here. As -- as we hear and 


observe and engage each other in this exchange 


of concerns and ideas and issues and have this 


scientific debate, I want you all to realize 


that we take -- oh, wow -- we take those issues 


and comments and questions and concerns that 


are raised in that scientific discussion to 


heart, and we make changes. We're not waiting 


to see whether or not the Board is going to 


make a recommendation to the Secretary that 


says this has to be done. So you're going to 


see that, as well as -- when you look into the 


dose reconstructions you're reviewing and into 


the procedures, we are making those changes. 


We are taking the comments and the concerns 


that are raised, we're taking them to heart, 


we're considering them very carefully, and we 


are modifying either the profiles or the 


Technical Basis Documents that we use, and we 


are reflecting upon those changes in the dose 


reconstructions that are occurring. So I just 


wanted to add that for further consideration. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

79

 DR. WADE: Thank you. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Larry, that's very 


helpful. 


 DR. WADE: If you -- just if I could pose the 


question. If you're looking at 20,000 dose 


reconstructions, an audit rate of two and a 


half percent, that's about 500. If we're doing 


about 60 a year, that's about eight years' 


worth of work. Doesn't mean we don't stay the 


course. I just think it's important for the 


Board to consider that and, you know, and 


reinforce its position or modify its position 


as appropriate. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Wanda, you have a comment? 


 MS. MUNN: It's hard to evaluate, I think, 


whether we have done the majority of the heavy 


lifting that's necessary to establish a really 


sound basis for future activities. My sense is 


that we have done that, looking -- doing the 


site profile reviews and doing the -- 


especially doing the procedure reviews. I 


would hope that we have all established a 


better basis so that we understand how we are 


proceeding a little better than we did the 


first year or so when we were first beginning. 

1 

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

 Also, it's not clear to me how many additional 


site profile reviews we are going to be dealing 


with. It would seem likely, given what I now 


know, that for the next year our workload and 


the workload of NIOSH and our contractor, are 


likely to be very similar to what they've been 


over the last year. Following that, I would 


think that perhaps our work might diminish 


somewhat. 


 Given that background, I'm hesitant to suggest 


that we accelerate our review of dose 


reconstructions quite yet. I would hope we 


might be able to do that a year from now, but 


right now -- as has been pointed out before -- 


the same people have to do this work that are 


doing the work that the claimants are so 


painfully waiting to have accomplished. 


My personal preference would be to stay the 


course for the time being, defer the decision 


on acceleration perhaps for another -- at least 


until we've completed these that we've chosen 


today, and possibly a year from now. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Other comments? Roy. 


 DR. DEHART: As I recall, when we started 


looking at some way of sampling, there were 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 

81 

reasons that we were going to do that. One was 


to assure scientific methodology, and that 


certainly was critical in the front end. The 


second is quality assurance, and that not only 


is front end, that is a continuation process. 


I would ask if we have any data on issues of 


reconsideration of objection or formal appeal 


on the part of those cases that have already 


gone forward, and to what impact that has had. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. That -- that's a more 


than rhetorical question. I think you're 


really asking NIOSH that question, and Larry, 


I'm not sure if you caught that fully, but -- 


restate it -- Larry --


 DR. DEHART: The question was what have we had 


in terms of reconsideration of objections or of 


formal hearings with regard to those cases that 


have already been resolved initially. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, we've not -- I don't 


believe that we've had -- of the 60 cases that 


you've finished your review on and the 20 that 


are in the fourth set that we have SC&A's 


comments on, I think Wanda stated this earlier, 


we have not seen any review comment that would 


have changed the compensation decision on those 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

82 

cases. 


We have heard that in some ways our efficiency 


process has been overly generous in some ways, 


and we have taken stock of that, looked at 


that, but we want to give benefit of the doubt 


to the claimants, as our rule indicates we 


should where -- where science does -- does not 


give us any further advantage. 


We have not, in my understanding, had any cases 


out of those that have been completed and sent 


back to Department of Labor, I believe there's 


only one case that has been moved through the 


FAB process and into a district court 


situation, and I think that's a recent -- 


recent -- recent case. It's not a case that -- 


none of the cases that you all have reviewed, I 


believe, have had any further scrutiny within 


DOL's Final Adjudication Branch or have gone 


into a district court situation. The case 


that's at district court has not been part of 


your review. 


 DR. WADE: I think --


 DR. DEHART: I thought you were going to answer 


my question totally --


 MR. ELLIOTT: I'm sorry. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

83

 DR. DEHART: -- which was really the 


fundamental part, and I have -- I apologize for 


not being clear. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: No, I'm probably not -- 


 DR. DEHART: Of all the awards made, of all the 


-- all the cases reviewed by NIOSH and the 


Department of Labor, what -- how many have -- 


have been questioned or gone in for review or 


whatever -- by the claimant. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Oh, okay, so -- oh, I'm sorry. 


So you're talking about those cases that have 


gone on -- that have been appealed at the Final 


Adjudication Branch level? 


 DR. DEHART: That's correct. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I'd have to -- DOL would have to 


answer that question. I don't have those 


numbers. I can tell you that the number of 


remands that we get back are less than two 


percent. I don't know how many -- and those -- 


those remands are not always on dose 


reconstruction methodology. They're on -- you 


know, the majority of those remands are on 


additional cancers identified after the claim 


has been done or dose reconstruction has been 


done and we have to redo the 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 

84 

reconstruction, or additional employment that 


might have been developed after we had 


completed the case. There's very -- there's -- 


there's been some technical concerns raised, 


but by and far the majority of that two 


percent, I believe -- less than 800 reworks, 


Mr. Turcic is telling me from the -- from the 


bleachers here, and that includes technical and 


-- and the other case development issues. 


Does that answer your question? I'm sorry I 


didn't understand what your... 


 DR. DEHART: That's fine. I was glad to hear 


both parts of that. That speaks to quality 


assurance. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Other comments, 


questions? 


 DR. WADE: John Mauro has a... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, John Mauro. 


DR. MAURO: Yes, Dr. Ziemer. I've been giving 


this some thought because it's a very 


interesting problem, and recently I think a 


part of the answer emerged. Bear with me for a 


minute. 


When we were looking at the data validity issue 


related to Y-12, what we found out, in 19-- 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 

85 

bear with me; this is related to what we're 


going to be talking about. In 1953 there were 


14,222 urine analyses taken. Okay? That's how 


many samples were collected, 1953. 


NIOSH went in and sampled randomly 22 of those. 


See -- okay. So we went over to our 


statistician, say what does that tell us? We 


went in and we sampled 22 -- and by the way, 


all 22 came back okay. So in other words, we 


went in and -- it's almost like a standard -- 


this is a very standard statistical tool for 


quality assurance. So our statistician says 


well, you know what that means. It means you 


could be 90 percent certain that less than 10 


percent of those samples are bad apples. So in 


other words, it's a very powerful statement. 


The twenty-- when someone -- we -- we were 


surprised the answer came out that way. Stay 


with me for a minute. 


Wow, so there's 14,222 urine samples. You go 


in and just randomly pick 22, and out of the 22 


all come back okay. Statistically that means 


you could be 90 percent certain -- and you're 


going to hear more about this later when we 


talk about Y-12; Arjun will be speaking to 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 

86 

-- you could say with a 90 -- at a 90 -- at a 


high level of assurance that -- that less than 


90 -- ten percent are a problem. Now. 


Now let's move on to the question before us. 


We sampled 80 cases. Okay? They're sort of 


like the 22 in the urine sample. And there are 


-- I don't know how many thousands of cases out 


there, but we pulled 80. Now here's -- here's 


what has to happen. Out of those 80, some 


collective judgment has to be made, how many of 


those do we feel are problematic, and there's 


the -- there's the nub, and that's going to be 


a judgment call that has to be made 


collectively. Now the -- granted that they may 


not have -- that they -- that they don't result 


in a reversal. Well, sure, that's one 


criteria, certainly, if we find one that the 


result wasn't -- and we don't come to that 


conclusion, but let's say we find that we have 


a certain critique, the critique is evaluated, 


for example. And when you're done you say oh, 


my goodness, yeah, we did mess this one up. 


This is a reversal. Well, that's certainly a 


problem. 


But it's very hard to say out of those 80 how 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

87 

many of those would collectively the Board say 


you know, I think that's a significant enough 


problem that we would consider it to be a 


problem, for whatever reason, a judgment is 


made and -- now, once you have that, let's say 


you decide that well -- and here's -- here's 


the tough problem. You want to be able to say 


out of the sample that we collected we want a 


high level of assurance that there are very few 


number of bad actors, and we have the 


wherewithal to do that. So there's a two-step 


process here. One is a judgment has to be made 


on the part of the collective judgment of the 


Board, I would say, or even a larger decision-


making body, what -- what fraction of the total 


number of cases processed ha-- have to -- or -- 


have to be found to be -- or -- there should be 


-- the question goes we need to have a high 


level of assurance that the fraction of 


problematic cases is less than some percent. 


don't know what that number is. But once you 


get to that point and you come up with that 


decision criteria, then the next step is okay, 


we reviewed 80. Out of the 80, or whatever 


number is picked, we come -- we walk away and 


I 
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

88 

say we can say with -- and let's say -- let's 


say, just for the sake of argument, two -- two 


out of the 80 -- we sampled 80, two of them are 


problematic to the extent we consider them to 


be a problem that shouldn't have -- you know, 


it's -- it's an error. 


 (Whereupon, Dr. Melius joined the other Board 


members at the table.) 


DR. MAURO: What I'm getting at is that is a 


very classic statistical problem that's very 


tractable and manageable. The tough question 


is what percent do you folks feel would 


represent an unacceptable situation out of the 


population of cases, and at what level of 


confidence do you want to make sure that that 


sample is acceptable. Do you want to get that 


prescriptive, because that's a -- it's almost 


like a suicide pact. When you start to make 


numbers that prescriptive, you're in a 


situation where it's a switch, and when you go 


-- once you turn that process on, it's 


automatic, and the outcome would be yes or no. 


So all I'm offering up is as a result of the 


experience we had looking at the 22 urine 


analysis samples out of the 14,222 actual urine 

1 

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 

analyses that existed in 1953, we were able to 


make a statement, 90 percent confident that 


less than 10 percent are a problem. I think 


you have exactly the same situation here. 


Whether or not you want to engage this -- you 


know, this issue in that manner is -- is, I 


would say, an important subject that needs to 


be discussed. I hope that's helpful. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That's very helpful, John. Let me 


point out one difference here. That is that 


these cases are actually a little more complex 


than a urine analysis, which is very 


prescriptive -- a single variable situation. 


 The other thing I'll comment, and I guess it's 


obvious in everybody's mind, is that the end 


point that is of maj-- most concern is the 


decision. Are we making the right compensation 


decision. Now we're also looking -- I think we 


all hope that we're not making that decision 


based on the wrong reason and criteria. I mean 


even if you came out right, you don't want to 


be doing it that way, so we also want to say 


are we doing the right science along the way, 


are the dose reconstructors doing it right to 


reach the right decision. So it's -- it 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 

perhaps more complex. But ultimately that 


issue of are -- are we suddenly finding that 


there's a lot of wrong decisions being made, 


that would be a major, major problem -- as 


opposed to yes, the right decisions are made, 


but this reconstructor did it a little bit 


differently but it didn't make any difference 


or whatever. 


And Larry has a comment and Mike has a comment, 


I think Mark has a comment. Go ahead, Larry. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you, Dr. Ziemer. I just 


wanted to follow on what Dr. Mauro had to say. 


There's a whole science of what he was talking 


about, and that's -- you know, the military has 


developed that statistical approach, strategic 


sampling, to determine an error. There are 


calculations that we can present to the Board 


to show you how to go about sampling at a 


statistical significant level to achieve a 


sense of confidence and comfort that a 


inappropriate, wrong decision has not been 


made. If that's what the Board wants to see, 


we can certainly provide that in support to the 


Board. 


I agree with you, Dr. -- Dr. Ziemer, in what 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

91 

the program's policy has been, we do not want 


to see one -- one dose reconstruction result in 


a -- a negative determination on compensability 


that should have been compensable. That's what 


we've been striving for. Certainly we have 


seen cases go through dose reconstruction and 


get compensated, and some people might say that 


they did not deserve that. I'm not going to 


say that. I'm saying that our dose 


reconstruction was accurate in that instance. 


What I do not want to see happen is a case that 


we reconstruct a dose for and a decision is 


given, no, you're not compensable -- and we 


find out that we missed the mark. That's not 


what we want to happen. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Michael? 


 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, I just -- I'd like to agree 


with Wanda. You know, I think that there are a 


lot of sites that we don't have the site 


profiles done for, a lot of the bigger sites -- 


well, I don't know how many, but several. And 


I'm just afraid if we go ahead and pick out 


cases without having all the knowledge from the 


site and everything else, we may be looking at 


dose reconstruction that perhaps NIOSH didn't 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

92 

even have enough information at the time to 


make a decision. So I would almost rather see 


us maybe from back down to 20 instead of 40 and 


maybe slightly slower the pace until -- even if 


it does take a few years more out, we've got 


more information at hand rather than just say 


this looks like an interesting case. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I -- I'm reluctant to -- 


certainly reluctant to escalate, as well as 


Wanda said, and part -- part of it I think is 


that, you know, I'm not sure that the -- what's 


in our -- our pool to sample from right now. 


think that might be a useful thing to -- to 


reflect back on. I know it's -- I know we've 


asked for it before, but it might be, again, 


time to get a snapshot because I think some -- 


some stuff is done batch-wise, for obvious 


reasons because you complete your site profiles 


and you -- so we may be missing some -- some 


sites that we definitely want to take a large 


sample from. So -- and also just the ongoing 


work, I think it -- you know, it -- it makes 


sense to either keep the pace the same or -- or 


maybe decelerate just a hair. 


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 

93 

The other thing I think might be useful is, as 


we discussed earlier, having the -- the dates 


when cases became available in the pool -- or 


the dates when the cases were dose -- were -- 


were completed, were dose reconstructed. And 


the reason I asked for that is -- you know, I 


hear what Larry's saying is that, you know, as 


we're ongoing with this workgroup process and 


the Board process, they -- they're making 


changes to these things. But if -- if we're 


sampling from things that were done in the 


original, we're -- we're not going to even see 


those changes in what we review so we're going 


to come down -- you know, so that might be 


useful, too. We might be sort of wasting our 


resources to resample and find the same issues 


from those early cases, which we already 


captured and discussed thoroughly. So it might 


be useful to -- to have a little more 


information of what we're sampling and -- and 


get the -- you know, use our resources more 


wisely to... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Dr. Roessler? 


DR. ROESSLER: I think I'm just going to 


confirm --

1 

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

 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley, can you hear 


me? 


DR. ROESSLER: -- what a couple of people have 


said. I think what Mike is saying and I'm 


looking at is perhaps we have higher priority 


things to do, things where we can get more 


information and advance things better. 


The other thing is, I'm not sure that this 


sophisticated statistical evaluation of this -- 


I don't think it's like the urine samples. I 


think what we have here -- it's a much more 


complicated situation where it's probably very 


difficult to put some numbers on it because 


it's ongoing. And like Mark says, you know, 


we're going way back doing some that were done 


at the beginning. We need to have time to 


evaluate that, find out where the problems are, 


and those problems can be corrected. So we 


might be looking at having done a bulk of them 


where things can be corrected where we don't 


have to go, in my view, maybe to that full two 


and a half percent. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and -- and like I was 


saying, in many cases those problems may have 


been corrected already, but if we sample from 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

95 

cases that were done before that -- that date, 


we're going to see the same problem and wonder 


-- wait a second, you know, so -- so I think we 


want to take that into account, you know. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it certainly appears that 


there's not a big sentiment for speeding up or 


increasing this process right now, but to maybe 


stay on course, having some degree of 


selectivity because the procedures are 


changing, the pool of people is changing as 


well, and that allows us to be flexible as we 


move forward in the process. 


 DR. WADE: I think so. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And Arjun, did you have an 


additional comment? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yeah, Dr. Ziemer, something -- 


a suggestion you might consider. We -- we 


spent a lot of time going through the matrices 


and -- both in -- well, in the dose 


reconstruction reviews, in the SEC reviews and 


in the site profile reviews, and in that 


context I think certain difficult issues come 


up where it could be very useful to audit or 


pick dose reconstructions that have been 


completed with realistic or best estimates 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 

96 

exemplify the issues we've identified as 


difficult so that we can consider them resolved 


or make recommendations or the Board might want 


to make recommendations as to how they might be 


resolved, the problems, or -- so there might be 


a different way than if the -- if the idea is ­

- is not to determine if in the pool NIOSH has 


got good and bad cases, but rather to solve 


identified problems so dose reconstruction can 


be better, we might go through a comment 


resolution and pick cases that way. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I think to some extent that 


reflects the intent of some of the things we've 


been doing. It's basically a targeted 


selection or -- of -- of cases based on -- that 


could be one of the criteria, as well as others 


that we have used, so thank you for that 


suggestion. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Paul --


 DR. ZIEMER: If there's no objection, let me... 


Yeah, go ahead, Brad. You have another 


comment? 


 MR. CLAWSON: Well, no, I just -- I was hearing 


Mr. Presley on --


 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Bob, are you -- Bob, 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 

97 

probably have your sound turned down there. 


Hang on a second, we'll get you cranked up 


and... 


 MR. PRESLEY: Can you hear me? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, go ahead now, Bob. 


 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. I didn't know where 


you -- I tried to comment a couple of times. 


feel like the rest of the Board members. I do 


not think that we should increase the number of 


cases to review. We need to put our resources 


on the SEC petitions and move on with our jobs. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Yes, thank you very much 


for that comment. 


Bob, what's happening here is that when you're 


not speaking we're turning your volume down 


'cause the -- the phone hookup is kind of 


hissing here, so when you want to speak you'll 


have to yell real loud to catch our attention, 


then we'll crank you up. 


 MR. PRESLEY: I can do that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Yeah, Brad is listening for 


you. Let's turn our attention for a few 


moments to this issue of the load of the 


working group. Let me start with an 


observation and then we'll get some additional 


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 

98 

comments. 


Number one, I think the idea of having 


different working groups to address the dose 


reconstructions, small working groups, has 


worked rather well. Likewise, we've gone into 


a mode of having now individual working groups 


for individual sites, so I think we're moving 


from the one where we had a working group doing 


site profiles. And as we get through this 


process and get past Y-12 and Rocky, I'm 


hopeful that we'll be at the stage where we in 


fact do not have one working group trying to 


handle all of the site profile reviews. 


The final piece of this is then the dose 


reconstruction part -- that part of the matrix, 


and I don't know that we would need to 


necessarily solve this today, but we could 


think about doing something similar there where 


we might have a team responsible for the matrix 


of, you know, the first 20, second 20, third 20 


-- 'cause you now all have experience and, you 


know, we kind of developed that process and it 


worked well having one working group to 


spearhead that. And now that we're into more 


of an operational mode with that, that seemed 

1 

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 

to me it would be rather easy to say okay, Gen 


Roessler's team will take the next 20 cases and 


they'll be responsible for the matrix, or 


something like that. 


Give that some thought and maybe -- maybe at 


the next meeting we -- well, and -- and let me 


-- let me say this. The other thing I would 


like us to think about is -- in that connection 


is restructuring how we do subgroup -- 


subcommittee work, 'cause the subcommittee work 


ends up being the full committee acting as a 


subcommittee and there's some inefficiencies in 


doing that 'cause we sit together and do our 


work and then repeat it. So -- and if we get 


into this other mode, maybe most of this work 


could be done by workgroups and then brought 


back fully. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Hang on a minute. 


 DR. ZIEMER: I'd like to hear other comments on 


this. 


 (No responses) 


No other comments? 


 MS. MUNN: Yes. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Only -- I mean the only -- the 


only thing I would say is in the beginning 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 

100 

talked about doing this as a subcommittee, but 


my vision of it was not a -- not a subcommittee 


of the full committee. It was a subcommittee. 


And the only -- I mean it might be worthwhile 


considering that because I think the important 


part of this is consistency, although I guess ­

- you know, we -- we've -- we've got some -- 


you know, we've got some history here with the 


60 cases and then 80 cases, and as we're going 


forward I think it's important for -- although 


we all get reported -- you know, the 


information reported back to us, but I think 


there is a certain element that we want to be 


consistent with our actions for certain types 


of findings and that sort of thing. So if we 


have a lot of workgroups working separately, 


then when we put them together -- could see 


some inconsistencies so I don't know. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Well, give it some thought. 


I don't think we have to necessarily change 


anything today. 


The other -- the other thing is one of the 


reasons we had the subcommittee set up the way 


we did was to assure that there were -- the 


meetings were always open. But in fact the way 

1 

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 

we're operating now, our workgroup meetings are 


open anyway. You know, we had that -- the 


distinction as a subcommittee has to be open 


and announced and so on, workgroups do not. 


But in fact we're almost operating them like 


subcommittees. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Jim. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, I would just concur with 


Mark in the sense I think we need to provide -- 


continue some consistency on the dose 


reconstruction review, whereas I think sort of 


ad hoc workgroups for site profiles, SEC 


petitions, evaluations make sense, but I -- I ­

- I do think there's enough complication of 


this and so forth that we need to keep the 


subcommittee process going, at least for that, 


or at least a smaller consistent -- whether 


it's a workgroup or subcommittee, we can. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We don't have this on the agenda 


to do anything today, but I think Lew at least 


wanted us to be thinking about the workloads 


there. 


 DR. WADE: Right. And thank you. On both 


issues that's what I hoped we'd accomplish, a 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

102 

discussion on the record and, you know, tee up 


some issues and we can deal with them as 


appropriate. I would like to again thank the 


workgroup that Mark chairs for a tremendous 


effort. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And we -- we all -- everyone on 


the Board is very thankful for that, as well. 


We're going to take a break and then we'll 


reconvene at 3:30. 


 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 3:13 p.m. 


to 3:40 p.m.) 


BOARD SEC PROCEDURES


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we're ready to reconvene. 


The next item on our agenda has to do with the 


Board's SEC procedures. You may recall, Board 


members, we adopted a kind of an operating 


paper a meeting or so ago on how we would 


proceed to handle SEC petition reviews. 


Meanwhile we also had the contractor reviewing 


the issue of how they would address SEC 


petitions, as well as some recommendations on 


Board procedures. Jim Melius has headed up the 


workgroup on the Board's SEC procedures, so 


Jim, if you'll kick it off, and then I think 


John Mauro or one of his colleagues are going 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

103 

to jump in here in a minute, as well, so... 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. I have to first start by 


apologizing. I had a little computer glitch in 


my office on Friday, so when I tried to send 


this information to the working group, as I had 


promised I would do, you didn't receive it. So 


-- but it turns out I think we're -- I think 


this is relatively straightforward. 


As we talked on our workgroup call a few weeks 


ago, SC&A had proposed a set of procedures for 


reviewing SEC evaluations -- reports from -- 


from -- from NIOSH, and we had worked out -- in 


our last meeting we had talked about a 


procedure where we would -- in terms of forming 


working groups and then figuring out how we get 


our working groups and SC&A started on doing 


some of the review work on an SEC evaluation 


prior to the -- NIOSH having produced the 


evaluation report -- has some obvious 


difficulties so I think -- I think in some 


cases it can be a -- it can work out, as I'll 


talk about in a second. 


So what I'll do is I'll sort of present sort of 


my modifications of what SC&A proposed, and 


then John Mauro will sort of talk about the -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

104 

some more of the details which I was actually 


proposing to delegate to them to sort of work 


out the details from their -- procedurally. 


Most of it would involve modifying some of 


their procedures to incorporate our guidelines 


for SEC review. 


So in the original SC&A proposal to us they had 


proposed three phases. I'm sort of reducing 


that down to two phases, and -- to make it 


simpler and I think it -- it works just as 


well. Phase one is a -- when a petition has 


qualified, and at that point -- up until that 


point we really hadn't seen the petitions. We 


haven't had a chance to re-- to know much about 


-- we may know of their existence, but we don't 


know scope often and Larry and his staff is 


going through the process of determining 


whether that petition does qualify for further 


review. 


They then -- he -- Larry then notifies us, the 


entire Board, whenever an SEC petition has 


qualified. And at that point what I'm 


proposing is that -- or shortly thereafter. 


Now some of this timing may have to do with -- 


with where we are relative to a Board meeting 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

105 

and so forth, but I think the logistics can be 


pretty straightforward. I'm proposing that the 


Board form a workgroup that would evaluate -- 


be ones that would monitor and evaluate that 


particular petition and follow it through. If 


we have a -- or we have a group that's 


reviewing a site profile for that same site, it 


may make sense to have them continue, which is 


really what we've done with -- with Y-12 and 


Rocky Flats. But if not, we can form a -- form 


a workgroup. 


And at the same time we work with Lew and NIOSH 


to authorize SC&A to conduct some preliminary 


work that -- to start to evaluate that -- that 


petition. And what -- that's later. What that 


preliminary work would involve would be to, 


one, review the petition and the supporting 


documents, and there's usually -- at least we 


found with -- with Ames there's -- there could 


be a large set of supporting documents with 


that; to interview the petitioners to better 


understand what their concerns are and what 


other information they may have that would be 


in support of the petition they may not have -- 


have included in that petition. NIOSH may 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 

106 

some additional information at that -- that 


point, also. 


And -- and then for SC&A to start working to 


sort of evaluate the petition, the site profile 


-- any site profile review that are -- that's 


been done to identify sort of a preliminary 


list of key issues that may be important in the 


SEC evaluation. 


Now that I would view as sort of -- not as a -- 


as a very in-depth review, but rather a way of 


getting familiar with the work, the information 


about the site and about the -- what the 


petitioners' concerns are, about the supporting 


documentation for the petition and so forth. 


It would be essentially independent of NIOSH's 


work in terms of evaluating that petition, 


which I think is important, and it's -- keeps 


us at sort of a parallel path to -- to NIOSH's 


work I don't think -- would not unduly 


interfere with -- with what Larry and his staff 


is doing, but I think would at least get us 


better prepared at the time the evaluation 


report is -- is finally ready and published. 


If -- if warranted and approved by the 


workgroup, SC&A could also begin review of what 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

107 

I'm calling critical databases. These are the 


sources of monitoring data that are obviously 


going to be critical to the decision on the 


particular petition. They most likely -- they 


-- if they do exist they would have been things 


that would have been identified in the site 


profile. I think it would be -- most part 


pretty obvious datasets. They may not be -- we 


may not identify those on most petitions and -- 


and at this stage, and I don't think we want to 


create a lot of work here that's unnecessary, 


but if there is something obvious that needs to 


be -- be looked at, I think that it may make 


sense to get started 'cause that will save time 


at a later step in the process. 


So then we get to the next phase which is what 


-- my phase two, which is NIOSH has published 


their evaluation report and at that point in 


time I propose that the workgroup meets again ­

- this may be by -- by conference call to -- 


you know, based on the evaluation report, to 


sort of re-review what's been done, talk to 


SC&A, what -- what have they found and they 


report to date, what are going to be the key 


issues for reviewing the NIOSH report. SC&A 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

108 

will go through that part of the process based 


on our evaluation guidelines, so forth. As 


part of this, SC&A may make -- conduct -- our 


contractor may conduct site visits, interview 


key site personnel, whatever, so -- and so 


forth that would be relevant to that SEC 


evaluation review. 


We would then poll -- do -- what we have been 


doing is having workgroup meetings with NIOSH 


and petitioners, be announced to the public, 


discuss preliminary review, resolve critical 


issues, develop further plans for resolving 


other issues and so forth and, again, process ­

- I think is really is what's carried out from 


that point in -- point in time. 


So what I would like to do now I -- I would 


propose that -- now that I turn it over to John 


Mauro who then can sort of fill you in on -- on 


some of the details here. I think to implement 


this approach we would need to have SC&A do 


some re-writing of their procedures, not as 


much for the phase one and phase two as much as 


it is to incorporate our guidelines into -- 


more explicitly into their procedures for doing 


SE -- SC&A for SEC reviews -- too many S -- 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 

109 

- S and Cs here -- do that. But before I turn 


it over to John, does anybody have any 


questions or comments? 


 Yeah, Lew. 


 DR. WADE: Just a clarifying question, Jim. 


You would do this for each and every petition 


that qualified or you would select certain 


petitions to -- to engender this process on? 


 DR. MELIUS: I -- I think we would do it for 


all petitions that are generated from the 


outside petitions -- all outside petitions. 


Petitions such as Nevada Test Site that were -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: 83.14. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, the -- thank you, Larry -- 


the 83.14 petitions, which are in some sense 


generated by the dose reconstruction process. 


I think we're going to have to make a decision 


on -- on -- individual decision on those. Some 


of them are so small -- I guess -- yeah, 


they're really discrete, they don't cover a lot 


of people and I don't think we need to generate 


this much work for them. When you have those 


type of petitions like we do with Nevada Test 


Site, which -- even though they're discrete, 


but there's a sort of a large -- larger picture 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

110 

out there, I think we're going to have to 


decide what's the best way of engaging those. 


We may want to actually -- in that -- those 


cases, really the first we hear about those is 


when NIOSH produces an evaluation report, so we 


may want to see the evaluation report, have it 


presented at a meeting and then decide what the 


-- the prop-- you know, the best way is of -- 


of going forward on that. And I would also add 


that there may be other part of this that we -- 


we may -- the petitions where we may decide 


that we don't need to even have SC&A be 


involved in it. We may -- the Board may feel 


comfortable with -- with that. We may want to 


wait until the NIOSH report comes out in order 


to evalua-- --


 DR. WADE: Yeah, my only --


 DR. MELIUS: -- before we can go forward. 


 DR. WADE: The only purpose of my question was 


to get a sense of the -- the scope of this in 


that we have a proposal from SC&A that we're 


operating under now that looks at six full-


blown reviews a year, and we just have to get a 


sense of scale and -- but that'll come later. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Roy DeHart and then Gen Roessler. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

111

 DR. DEHART: Jim, I assume we're talking only 


about those NIOSH reports that say they can do 


dose reconstruction. If they cannot do dose 


reconstruction, do we need to do further review 


with -- via contractor? 


 DR. MELIUS: Well, we're not going to know 


ahead of time so we're going to have done phase 


one, and I think at -- at the time the 


evaluation report is published, becomes 


available, and we have that workgroup meeting ­

- if I can go backwards -- that initial 


workgroup meeting to identify key issues, I 


think then we can decide how -- what extent do 


we need to engage SC&A to -- to go forward on 


that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So there are decision points along 


the way that will --


 DR. MELIUS: Yes. 

 DR. ZIEMER: -- determine where you go next. 

 DR. MELIUS: Right, and if I can just add that 

I think -- we'd also, I think, be on -- well, 


more solid grounds of doing so than just -- and 


the fact that we would have had some input from 


our contractor on -- on scope and they may pick 


up on things that we weren't...more -- more 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

112 

informed decision at that point in time. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Gen? 


DR. ROESSLER: I think I need to have you go 


back another slide or so. At what point does 


the workgroup, the Board, SC&A step in? And I 


think it -- like -- yeah, that was the one. 


 DR. MELIUS: Here? 


DR. ROESSLER: No, next --


 DR. MELIUS: That's Ames, but this one here. 


DR. ROESSLER: This one, like interview 


petitioners. At that point is both the 


workgroup for the Board and NIOSH going to be ­

-


 DR. MELIUS: Well, NIOSH will only -- 


DR. ROESSLER: -- talking --


 DR. MELIUS: -- have been in contact with the 


petitioners as part of the qualification 


process and so very often Larry or his staff 


will have spent a lot of interaction with the ­

- with the petitioner. I think -- I think what 


I'm proposing is that SC&A would also have 


discussions with the petitioners. We would --


could, you know, involve them in any conference 


calls and so forth that the workgroup or the 


Board has 'cause I actually think it would 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 

113 

helpful to -- for the Board and our contractor 


to be engaged with the petitioner at an earlier 


phase. I -- it -- it happens later on, and I 


don't -- I think it would be helpful -- 


DR. ROESSLER: So you're moving everything up, 


it's going to be kind of a parallel process or 


 DR. MELIUS: I think it -- I think it's -- 


yeah, but --


DR. ROESSLER: -- I'm not quite sure I -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, it's a parallel process but 


it's not an in-depth pro-- I mean NIOSH's 


evaluation's much more in -- in-depth process, 


but I -- I think it -- it's helpful to have 


some level of contact with the petitioner to 


know what their concerns are and -- and so 


forth and -- for the process. Whether the 


workgroup do that or SC&A, I don't -- not sure 


how -- how that would do. I don't see it as 


being something very extensive or involved. 


DR. ROESSLER: So the intent of your -- you're 


moving up the Board involvement in it and the 


intent is to -- to get things moving along a 


little faster? Is that it? 


 DR. MELIUS: And so that at the time 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 

114 

evaluation report comes out we're more informed 


and in better position to go forward with -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Or at least a subset of the Board 

is. 

 DR. MELIUS: Subset, yeah, yeah. And -- and --

DR. ROESSLER: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Probably not the full Board. 


 DR. MELIUS: I don't remember the number of 


hours involved, but like on the -- I believe it 


was the Ames petition, John may be able to 


speak to this, they actually originally 


proposed a lot of hours on -- on the Ames and I 


was actually taken aback a little bit about how 


much they had proposed to be involved, and when 


they actually did the work that I would call 


the preliminary work, which was reviewing the 


petition -- which included an extensive lot -- 


amount of documentation, fair amount of 


supporting documentation, it was a reasonable 


amount of -- of effort and so forth involved 


and we'll be talking about it later and I think 


John has a presentation on it. I think we'll 


maybe have a better idea what was involved 


there, but it's not -- again, I think it's 


being prepared without trying to avoid 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 

115 

you know, going down -- taking false steps or 


putting too much effort into something that's 


not needed. At the same time, I think it can ­

- rather than having to have a delay for four 


or five weeks, whatever, for them to go through 


that same process and for -- for us to get 


ready for the review, I -- I think it -- it can 


be helpful. And it also can be helpful for us 


deciding not -- that further review by our 


contractor on the petition is not necessary, or 


that they really only need to focus on one or 


two key issues and that they don't need to -- 


to do additional work. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Any other questions? 


 (No responses) 


SC&A SEC TASK UPDATES
 

Then I think we're ready to hear from John 


Mauro as far as the SC&A -- sort of their half 


of this. And John, I -- we have a handout, I 


think. Is this called SC-- SC&A presentation 


on comparison of SEC evaluation guidelines 


prepared by the Board? 


DR. MAURO: That's it. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, you should all have that. 


DR. MAURO: Am I live? Kathy, could you get 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

116 

that -- thank you. 


Before I put my slides up, the discussion that 


you had is sort of like one step above my 


presentation, so let me just make a few 


comments regarding what I would call the big 


picture, 'cause I really had a presentation on 


the small picture. 


From the big picture, if you recall when we 


wrote our proposal of work related to Task V, 


we tried to make a distinction between focused 


reviews and full reviews. And I would say that 


the concept of a full review at that time when 


we sent that -- which was August 16th, 2005 -- 


was that this is going to be an awful lot like 


a site profile review. It's full review and 


it's a -- I call it a monolithic piece of work. 


Now -- now we've actually gone -- we're -- 


we're basically Ames, Rocky, Y-12, and the 


distinction is not a real distinction between 


full and focused, in my mind. What I really 


think we have here is I think very much so the 


concept that was laid out both in the Board's 


procedures or guide-- I would say criteria that 


-- that it's good to think of the Board's 


document as a criteria document and SC&A'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 

117 

document as a set of procedures that implement 


those criteria, and that's what this -- this 


presentation's about. But I for one would say 


what we're seeing is the level of effort, the 


issues that we address, unfold in an iterative 


process with the working group and the Board. 


So to designate one particular SEC petition as 


a full-blown review and another one as not, I 


think what happens is even the ones that we 


call a full-blown review will very quickly 


emer-- evolve into a focused review, so -- for 


example, on Ames we -- a team has read the 


petition, has read -- and you're going to hear 


more about this specifically -- has read oh, 


maybe 70 or so documents, has held a lot of 


dialogues with the petitioners. Okay? Total 


investment, 200 working hours. Okay? So 


relativ-- it was a relatively large document, 


so there -- so that investment was made and -- 


now the question becomes is -- okay, where do 


we go from here. You're going to -- you're 


going to hear a presentation of what are the -- 


some of the issues that at this point in time 


appear to be emerging that we need to talk 


about. But do you see what just happened? 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 

118 

turned -- SE -- Ames is going to turn into a 


focused review. 


Now that may be very well because by and large 


the petition has been granted and there are -- 


but there are certainly some issues and you'll 


hear about that by Hans. But what I think is 


going to happen is the -- is large, these six 


full-blown petition reviews are going to go 


through the same process, and we're very 


quickly going to get to the point where we have 


a dialogue with the working group and start to 


zero in on the issues that we think are 


critical. So there's going to be this 200 work 


hour investment that's going to be made up 


front, which is basically what we did on -- on 


Ames, and then we're going to start to zero in 


on Ames and -- so all of a sudden it moves into 


the focused review. The level of effort is 


going to be dictated by the process of finding 


those issues and then -- and investigating 


them, interacting, re-investigating. 


 That's exactly what's happening on Y-12. In 


fact -- something interesting. Y-12 -- I'm 


still operating. We'll get to my slides in a 


minute. Y-12, something interesting happened. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

119 

We envisioned when we wrote our proposal of 


work that says okay, we're about to move 


forward. We allocated 1,000 work hours to the 


full-blown review of Ames. So far we only used 


200. How much more are we actually going to 


use? It's going to very much depend on the 


dialogue we engage in right now. On Y-12 we 


said -- we said well, why -- wait -- Y-12, 


you're in good shape. We will review -- we 


were -- we had a site profile. We were I don't 


know how many months into issue resolution on 


the site profile. We're at a point where we -- 


we already identified the three or four issues 


that I think there was general consensus, but 


it hasn't changed very much on -- on what the ­

- what the issues are, so -- so we said well, 


you know, we're in -- we're in good shape on 


knowing what the issues are on Y-12 and now -- 


and -- and we laid out a proposal and we said, 


you know, we think we could do this in 200 work 


hours. Well, I'll tell you right now we're up 


to 400 work hours, so we didn't -- so we're way 


under budget on Ames, but we're way over budget 


on Y-12. 


Now why has that happened? Okay. You know, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

120 

well, what happens is as the -- as you unpack 


the issues and -- and I don't know how many 


workgroup meetings we had, you know. Each one 


is a day's worth of work which triggers -- 


well, we'd better look a little further into 


this and -- and there's a tracking system, and 


each one of those items become items that need 


to be closed out and tracked. Now as it turns 


out, in my opinion, probably the majority of 


to track those issues lies with NIOSH, but of 


course, as you know, as SC&A tracks and to the 


degree we feel necessary is a judgment call. 


But right now we're at the point where I think 


we're about, you know, pushing 400 work hours 


on Y-12. 


You're going to -- now you're going to hear -- 


now -- we're basically done. You've -- you've 


received our evaluation report now, and that 


really, within the scope of Task V, is the end 


product. But I have a funny feeling what's 


going to happen is out of those 11 or 12 issues 


that we're going to be talking about shortly 


we're going to see that there are maybe three 


or four that are still alive and well. There's 


a lot there we can put to bed. By the way, 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 

121 

lesson learned is yeah, starting the process 


early was great because -- think of it, the 


evaluation report, when did it come out? 


Okay. It came -- now -- and we're -- and we're 


-- as far as I'm concerned, we are way down the 


road in -- in assessment and analysis of those 


issues. Many of the issues -- and you'll hear 


more about it -- we have come to -- to a 


sensibility, and I think that this is a 


tractable. It's not a -- and others, though, 


say wait a minute, we still have some problems. 


So -- but we've delivered our product and we're 


at that point in time, which I would say maybe 


we're 80 percent home on -- on -- I'm 


speculating, but -- and so there -- so the -- 


starting early on Y-12 I think brought us a lot 


because here we are, you know, two weeks into 


after the evaluation report was -- was 


published. We've got, I think, the majority of 


the issues well in hand and -- there's still 


more work to do and we're going to hear more 


about that, so it was very wi-- not only was 


the criteria document which embraced that 


concept I think the correct decision, but we're 


actually realizing a benefit. I'm -- I 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 

122 

we're really moving aggressively forward in 


getting to the bottom of all the issues on Y12. 


Now certainly when the day is over we're not 


going to be in full agreement on everything. 


know it. 


Now Rocky, it turns out, we -- we put in place 


500 work hours so with Rocky we're -- when we 


first said well, Rocky was nowhere near the 


level of maturity in terms of addressing all 


the issues, so we felt at that time that since 


we -- we were just beginning to look at and 


unpack the issues, the site pro-- the site 


profile issues on Rocky, that it was going to 


take a lot more work. Plus, as you know, the 


Rocky site profile -- I'm sorry, SEC petition 


itself is -- is quite a large document. But 


right now, at this point in time -- and you're 


going to hear a report from Joe Fitzgerald 


related to where are we on that -- we haven't ­

- we've only burned up maybe 250 work hours on 


-- on -- on Rocky. We set aside 500. 


Now you're going to hear more about where -- 


now you -- you folks know that on Rocky, and 


you're going to hear about this, big issue is 


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 

123 

data reliability. We've had lots of conference 


calls, we want to run down these issues 'cause 


when all is said and done, read that af-- you 


read the affidavits, you read the site -- the 


SEC petition, everything stands on that rock. 


That is, that data better be reliable and be 


trustworthy, and a lot of the allegations that 


are in there need to be followed up and closed 


out, so there's where the investment needs to 


be made. But you're going to hear also that a 


large investment was also made in the -- the 


high -- the high fire pro-- the high fired 


plutonium issue. We've -- we've looked at the 


-- the americium issue. You're going to hear a 


lot about that and where we are, and we've made 


a lot of progress there. You're going to hear 


about that, and Joyce is -- Joyce Lipsztein is 


here today who did a lot of work just on the 


high fired. 


So -- but what I'm trying to get at is that 


when you step back, everything unfolded in a 


way that was different than we anticipated. 


Ames, 200 work hours invested and where -- and 


you're going to hear where we are, but we're 


well down the road on that. Y-12, about 400 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

124 

work hours, we're well down the road on that. 


Rocky, we invested about 250 and I would say 


maybe we're halfway home on that so -- I mean ­

- I'm try-- it -- it's -- it's very much a 


living process. All right? But I'd be the 


first to say beginning the process as soon as 


the document is qualified, the evalu-- the 


petition is qualified, is the only way to go. 


Could you -- 'cause it -- you could almost 


imagine if we were to start the pro-- if we had 


started this process when the evaluation report 


out, we would be months behind , and I have to 


say we're months ahead of the schedule. I 


think that -- I'm optimistic that we're -- 


we're -- you know, we're -- we're not that far 


away from being able to give you the 


information you need to vote. I think more 


work needs to be done. You're going to hear 


more about that. And I think that starting 


that process early is going to provide the 


information -- for example, the evaluation 


report that you just received is -- we're 


going to get into that and you're going to be 


able to get a sense of where and where -- 


well, we're really not there yet. 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 

125 

Now given that, I'd like to move on to -- get 


down into the weeds a little bit about my 


presentation. What -- what my presentation 


does is -- I'm just not quite sure how to 


advance these things. 


(Pause) 


 DR. MELIUS: Push the arrow key. 


DR. MAURO: Okay. Well, on -- okay, help me 


out. 


 This presentation's seven slides and it says 


are the SC&A draft -- are the S&A (sic) draft 


SE-- SEC evaluation procedures consistent with 


the Board's evaluation criteria. The question 


I asked myself last week when I put this 


together to say okay, I had the Board's 


document and I -- and go on to the next slide. 


(Pause) 


That's the one. Okay, good. I'm not sure if 


we can go through any of this easily or not, 


but you have the hard copy. 


What I did is on the left-hand side are the 


Board's criteria. That is if you were to read 


the document the Board prepared, it talks about 


timeliness and -- and then on the right-hand 


side is where in our procedure do we -- do 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 

126 

address timeliness. So -- so that you could 


see whether or not there is a correspondence 


between the criteria and the procedures that 


effectively have been written to implement 


those criteria and to evaluate compliance with 


those criteria. 


You're going to find that as you move down -- I 


put the page numbers so that under timeliness, 


the answer is yes, we have what -- we say a lot 


about timeliness and we talk about things that 


we're going to -- that we think need to be done 


procedurally to ensure that there is a timely 


review of the SEC petition and the evaluation 


report, and it's on page 6, 14 and 20 of our 


document. 


 Same thing goes with fairness, there -- there's 


a criteria called fairness, and the answer is 


yes, we do have -- we do address this issue of 


fairness and how we're going to go about doing 


it. 


But let me say something about these 


procedures. In the world of procedures there 


are prescriptive proc-- procedures and there 


are what I call more performance-based 


procedures. In other words, our procedures 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 

127 

not highly prescriptive. That is, we don't 


have numerical criteria, the kinds of things we 


were talking about before. We don't have very 


explicit things that you must do, must check. 


It's very much left up to the collective 


judgment of the working group on how far are we 


going to go to chase down particular issues. 


So in a way our procedures are more 


performance-based than prescriptive, but we can 


make them more prescriptive and we need -- and 


I think this is a subject that needs to be 


discussed. 


 For example, you're going to hear a lit-- this 


business of the 250 days. Here -- here -- 


let's say we have an SEC petition that -- where 


it's -- it's granted, but there's some question 


that -- wait a minute, what about the 


individuals that worked there less than 250 


days, are they going to be just denied? Right 


now -- and -- right now the guidance we have is 


well, if there was a potential for exposures 


that were comparable to a criticality, yes, 


they get compensated. But you know what? 
I 


think we all agree that -- that we -- that the 


procedures that govern -- the guidance 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 

128 

governs whether or not that compensation issue 


should be -- that person should be compensated, 


we need to -- we need to talk about that some 


more. Something equivalent to a criticality 


accident is, in my mind -- and this is in our 


report, part of our report -- we think that 


there are other -- there are procedures we 


could develop that would help in making that 


decision. In fact, quite frankly, the bottom 


line is that if the potential exists that over 


a relatively short period of time a person 


could have gotten exposure which could have 


kicked him over a POC of .5, as far as I'm 


concerned, that's your criteria, not this 


criticality issue, but that's for discussion 


amongst the Board. If a person was -- in 


theory, if the data showed such events occurred 


where over a short period of time a person 


could have got enough of an exposure that in 


theory could have kicked him over the 


probability of causation of .5, well, that 


probably is one criteria you want to consider. 


Right now we haven't talked about that. 


Let me move on. The next item on the list is 


understandable. That was one of the criteria 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

129 

in the document that was prepared by the Board 


is that well, you have to be able to understand 


the document. All -- all individuals, all 


stakeholders, all interested parties -- well, 


right now we don't have anything -- on the 


right-hand side you'll see we don't talk about 


that so we're on that particular matter. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Let's try this one. 


UNIDENTIFIED: Consistency. 


DR. MAURO: Okay, consistency. Okay. We do 


cite consistency as a criteria (sic) on pages 


12, 13 -- no, item number 12 and 13 on page 22. 


How much more we need to talk about 


consistency, how much cri-- do we need to 


develop some type of measure of consistency? 


Right now our procedures talk about it, but 


don't really go very far with it. And I think 


we need to decide whether we need to develop 


more -- more -- more guidelines about -- and 


what -- what types of checks you would do -- go 


through. We've made reference to certain 


cross-checking in our procedure that would -- 


that looks for cri-- consistency, not only 


within a particular document, say the 


evaluation report or a site profile, but also 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

130 

amongst a whole array of documents, so 


consistency is very much addressed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: John, let me insert here, actually 


this whole document -- one of its main intents 


is to ensure consistency, so whether or not it 


has to be built in beyond that, I think -- I 


think that's a -- sort of the basis for even 


doing this and --


DR. MAURO: That's true, but -- but how do -- 


you know, how do you -- see, in a procedure, 


how do -- what do you do, what -- what does -- 


what does any contractor do when they're 


looking at a document, look -- you know, what 


do you --


 DR. ZIEMER: I understand. You're -- you're 


looking at some maybe lower levels of 


consisten--


DR. MAURO: Lower -- yeah, how far down do -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: This is intended to do exactly 


that. 


DR. MAURO: Exactly that. Okay. Board -- now 


again -- . Scope, the guidelines talk about 


scope, pedigree of data, methodology, 


relationship to other sources. Now it turns 


out for -- the first three items, scope, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

131 

pedigree and methodology, we do talk about it 


but we don't get very prescriptive about data 


quality. And -- and I mentioned something 


before when I went up to the mike where there 


might be a procedural thing we could do 


statistically when we're looking at data and 


data quality and sampling of data. When you 


have a body of -- a dataset, and you're 


concerned about its validity, whether or not 


it's robust, I think we have -- we have a 


situation do we want to implement a 


quantitative cri-- guideline that effectively 


puts numbers to the question how sure -- I mean 


how confident do you want to be -- do you -- 


must be to -- that the amount of bad data is 


extremely small. In other words, ultimately 


that's what we're saying. We want to make sure 


the dataset that we're working, whether it's 


the CER database or whatever database we're 


working with, we -- we want data quality. The 


question becomes well, how much is enough and 


what's good enough. Right now -- we did an 


analysis that shows well, the 22 samples that 


were taken for the Y-12 CER database 


demonstrates that you can be 90 percent certain 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

132 

that less than -- that the data -- if there is 


some faulty data in there, it's less than ten 


percent. The question is, is -- is that good 


enough? Right now we haven't talked about 


that, what's good enough, so what I'm getting 


at is we talk about that in qualitative terms 


in our procedure, but we really don't get into 


quantitative determination, prescriptive 


methods. You might want to do that. 


Intern-- we have nothing -- we really don't 


have any guidance on the last item, internal 


consistency, so that's why you see it blank 


after that. 


One of the questions I'm -- I guess I'm going 


to leave with -- with the Board is should we 


rewrite our procedure so that it has one-to-one 


correspondence to the criteria, so that in 


effect the procedure reads like this. Here are 


the Board's criteria, which of course mirror 


back to the Act, and then the next in 


hierarchical fashion, perhaps our procedure 


should be written in a way that there is a one-


to-one correspondence between the Board 


criteria and the procedures we're going to be 


using to assess whether or not those criteria 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

133 

are in fact met. 


Right now the document that we delivered to you 


before this document came out is not written 


that way. In other words, it was very hard for 


me to do -- make this table. I had to re-- in 


other words, to read the Board's criteria and 


to read the document that we prepared and see 


how they met, you know, it took reading my 


document about ten times to keep -- to find the 


piece that goes to that. It would probably be 


a good idea to have it flow nice and smoothly 


so it's not so much work to see if in fact our 


procedures in fact track the Board's criteria. 


Let's keep going. 


Okay, the next is represent-- the next set of 


criteria the Board prepared is area of the 


facility -- basically are all the areas of the 


facility covered, are all the time periods 


covered, are all the types of workers and 


processes covered that is in -- in -- in the 


document that is being reviewed. Well, the --


the vast majority of our procedures goes to 


that, so in effect our procedure really, when 


all's said and done, was written to address -- 


to make sure that -- that the evaluation report 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

134 

or -- or the actual petition is -- is crisp 


with respect to identifying the areas, time 


periods and the types of work and whether or 


not you can or cannot do dose reconstruction 


for all these areas, time periods and subgroups 


of workers, so really -- in one respect I would 


say -- if anything, our procedures were written 


for that particular group, the representative 


piece of the Board's procedure. 


 Oh, okay, feasibility. This -- these matters 


of feasibility, timeliness, avoidance of 


disparate treatment of claimants, sample dose 


reconstruction, in my mind they all are 


accomplished through the sample dose 


reconstruction. In other words -- for example, 


if -- if the evaluation report prepared by 


NIOSH lays out -- oh, well, we -- you know, we 


believe it's feasible to do it and this is the 


method we're going to follow, talking about 


whether it was chest counts or urinalysis, and 


we -- we can -- we think we can do it pretty 


easily. That's where timeliness comes in, that 


-- we know how to do it. 


I think in the end, in order to evaluate 


whether or not it is feasible to reconstruct 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

135 

doses in a timely fashion and don't come up 


with disparate results that don't make sense 


between different groups of people, it's the -- 


the methodology as proposed, it's not apparent 


-- it's not going to be self-evident from the 


methodology that it easily . What will be --


where the rubber meets the road is the sample 


dose reconstructions. I think that's critical 


to do demonstration that yes, it's feasible and 


can be done in a timely fashion. And our --


our procedures don't talk about that. It's 


very important. Sample problems that address ­

- that demonstrate yes, you can do it. So in a 


way -- and this is an important judgment -- 


what I'm saying is that you could have a lot of 


good intentions and we believe we can do -- we 


have the data, we believe we have the 


methodologies -- I'm speaking as NIOSH now -- 


to do X, Y and Z for all these groups and 


subgroups -- and you're going to hear more 


about that when we get into Rocky and Y-12 -- 


but until you see the actual application -- one 


-- one of the things that -- I'm sorry for 


taking so long, but one of the things I 


originally was thinking about was saying well, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

136 

listen, as long as there's a sense that yeah, I 


think you can do it, you don't have -- in other 


words, as long as a demonstration -- an 


argument can be made yeah, it looks like it's 


feasible to do it, at that point you could stop 


and say well, a judgment is made yeah, I think 


-- I think you can do those calculations given 


these data. But what's happening is we're 


starting to realize that -- I'll give you an 


example. 


The exotic radionuclides, you're going to hear 


a lot about the exotic radionuclides Y-12. All 


right? And in principle -- during our 


conference call on the 20th NIOSH said well, 


listen, we have lots of incident reports with 


lots of data that will allow us to reconstruct 


the doses to any workers who might have been 


exposed to some of these exotic radionuclides 


that were handled in gloveboxes or as part of 


the Cyclotron operations and -- and -- and you 


know what, in principle that sounds good. So 


one could argue -- we -- we believe that. We 


believe that there are incident reports out 


there and if you go into it you can identify 


the workers that were exposed, and from 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 

137 

incident reports there's enough data for you to 


be able to reconstruct the dose that way. You 


know what? I'm starting to think that -- I'd 


like to see those incident reports. Now they 


did provide one. I'm almost like taking the 


wind out of the sails of Arjun. I think we 


need to see enough of those. How much is 


enough is a tough question, but I think that's 


where the working group comes in. At some 


point the working group has to say I think 


we've seen enough to feel convinced that yes, 


it can be done. 


So regarding this slide, what I'm getting at is 


feasibility and timeliness and avoiding 


disparate treatment of claimants all come down 


to the sam-- the sample dose reconstructions. 


You could have good intentions, could make good 


arguments, but until we see it done we're 


really not that quite sure. 


Okay, I think this is the last one -- 


procedural. There -- under the Board criteria 


there was the last two pages that was called 


procedural. What was called a petition 


evaluation -- NIOSH would provide an evaluation 


plan that reflects the criteria provided by 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 

138 

Board. We very much embrace this on page 16 of 


our procedures, but one of the problems we -- I 


think this was discussed earlier. How much can 


you really expect NIOSH to be able to compile 


in their evaluation plan? That is, you know, 


ideally, one -- once the document is qualified 


and then an evaluation plan before it, there'll 


be lots of material in the evaluation plan. 


But I suspect that's not going to be very 


possible. I think the reality of the situation 


is that as NIOSH moves through the process of 


evaluating the petition, SC&A would -- working 


through the working group -- would be there in 


almost real time, just exactly the way it's 


been going on at Y-12 and Rocky, to -- to 


evaluate the unfolding nature of the issues as 


-- and so I think -- our original intent under 


our procedure was that there would be a whole 


bunch of great material we could look at as 


soon as the evaluation plan -- as soon as the 


document was qualified. I think the reality is 


that's probably not going to happen. I'd 


certainly like to leave that to NIOSH to say 


whether they're in a position to do that or 


not, but ideally the more information that 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 

139 

be made available to the working group as soon 


as the document was qualified, the better 


position everyone is going to be in to start 


the process that, so I'm not quite sure how -- 


whether or not the fir-- the petition 


evaluation -- whether it could start -- how 


early it could really start. 


Site profile review. It says if a site profile 


exists, it should be reviewed before the SEC 


petition is evaluated. Well, we say that -- 


exactly the same thing on page 26 of our 


report, and of course. And I think that we 


very much would embrace that. That philosophy 


is exemplified by the way in which we handled 


both Y-12 and Rocky. So I -- with this 


presentation, trying to show that there is a 


large degree of correspondence between the 


criteria that the Board prepared and the 


procedures that we prepared. However, it's -- 


it probably needs a re-write of the procedures 


so it tracks the criteria in a little more 


systematic way. And there's also some 


discussion on how explicit or prescriptive we 


should get. 


 I'm concluding with two important observations, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

140 

some of which have already mentioned. One is I 


think we need to talk a lot more about this -- 


this worker who was there less -- who -- who's 


a member of a -- who's worked at a facility 


such as the Ames site, was only there for a few 


days -- less than the 250 days -- and what 


criteria are we going to -- we going to use to 


determine that -- whether or not his exposure 


was significant enough in that short period of 


time. I don't think those criteria exist right 


now. I think a little bit of work needs to be 


done on that. 


 Second, statistical criteria for data adequacy. 


Well, you've heard a little bit about that 


before. That is, when you go in and start to ­

- there -- if there is a -- some question, 


especially if it's raised by the claimants that 


there is distrust in the robustness, validity, 


completeness of the dataset, then certainly 


explicit steps need to be taken to -- to 


convince yourself and the petitioners whether 


or not there's a problem with the data 


validity. I think what NIOSH has done in 


Appendix 1 for Y-12 is a very good example of 


the kinds of things that need to be done. 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 

141 

sampling on those 22 urine samples that they 


took out of the 14,222 is exactly the kind of 


thing that needs to be done. 


And then -- and then -- now the only problem we 


have, though, is that -- the statistical 


acceptance criteria. Okay, all I can say right 


now is that tells me that I'm 90 percent 


confident that less than 10 percent of the -- 


of the samples might be a problem. We need to, 


I guess, come to some kind of judgment is that 


good enough, and that concludes my 


presentation. 


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


John. We're ready to open this up for 


comments, and I think this really pertains to 


not only John's presentation but how it meshes 


with the criteria that Jim -- group developed 


and how they interact here. And I might 


observe that, for example, on -- on the issue 


of petition evaluation where we say NIOSH 


should provide a plan that reflects certain 


criteria, that really is directed toward NIOSH 


as opposed to a directive toward SC&A. So if 


you -- if you look at SC&A procedures, then you 


have to say well, what is it you do 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 

142 

relates to that? Maybe what you do is 


something like looking at -- to see whether or 


not in a petition that has actually occurred, 


something like that. But that -- that's a 


detail and really you're saying what should we 


do with this; should we change it in some way 


so that there's a more of a one-to-one 


correspondence. 


Jim? 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, what I would propose, what ­

- want to observe, I think NIOSH has changed 


the formatting and the approach for their 


evaluation reports to reflect those guidelines. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 


 DR. MELIUS: So I think that SC&A should sort 


of develop a procedure document that reflects 


the procedures and the -- the general criteria 


as -- as outlined in -- in those guidelines, 


also, 'cause their current document does not. 


And I think for sake of completion -- 


completeness and so forth, it -- should NIOSH 


not address particular factor or something, 


that that -- want to pick up on that, but that 


-- you also should have procedures in place 


that -- that -- that address that. I don't 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

143 

think that we want your procedures to be more 


prescriptive at this point in time. I find it 


-- hard-pressed to think of a statistical 


approach or whatever that's going to be 


appropriate or applicable to all evaluations 


and so forth. I think -- in some cases the 


issues are well, how do you take a samp-- you 


know, a small sample out of a huge number of -- 


of observations, but in other cases there's 


issues -- are particular years missing and 


things like that that I -- don't lend 


themselves as readily to an overall statistical 


approach. And I don't think -- I think we're 


better off dealing with those on a case-by-case 


basis. Certainly at this point in time -- we 


can, you know, maybe address that a few years 


from now or something, but I think right now 


it's a case-by-case -- and I think we'd be -- 


I'd be -- certainly be satisfied just having 


your, you know, procedures, you know, follow 


ours -- ours better, and I think that would -- 


would suffice. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So Jim, in terms of speaking for 


your working group, are you proposing that as a 


Board action, that we so direct the contractor, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

144 

or --


 DR. MELIUS: If you and Roy and Mark agree, 


that's --


 DR. ZIEMER: Now --


 DR. MELIUS: -- then I can speak for the 


working group, I... 


 DR. ZIEMER: We actually, since -- since that 


formal recommendation never did reach us in 


time, but --


 DR. MELIUS: Well, and actually we had 


originally planned to have a meeting of the 


workgroup while we're here, and whoever put 


together the agenda sort of rushed us through 


here a little bit. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well --


 DR. MELIUS: We didn't have time for a meeting 


of the workgroup before -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: But we've heard the issues and -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- Roy, do you want to speak to 


this? 


 DR. DEHART: Actually if one will read the 


document that SC&A has prepared on -- in this 


regard, the procedures are almost there. In 


fact, I don't know that we need the contractor 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

145 

continue that. You've done the job. I think 


it's a page that we're talking about that's 1, 


2, 3, 4 with A, B's and C's and that's it. 


It's -- it's essentially been done. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Other comments? Wanda. 


 MS. MUNN: Am I missing a copy of that proposed 


procedure? 


 DR. ZIEMER: The SC&A procedure actually was 


distributed before our last meeting and -- 


Roy's got it there. 


 DR. DEHART: It's dated November --

 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, it was last fall. 

 DR. MELIUS: last fall in an e-mail. 

 DR. ZIEMER: It's -- it's -- we've had it -- 

 MS. MUNN: Oh, my. Oh, my. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 


 MS. MUNN: No wonder it's not here. 


 DR. MELIUS: Just -- if this helps in terms of 


chronology, they -- their proposed procedures 


came out in late November of last year. It was 


the same time we were discussing the 


guidelines, so we never really took up their 


procedures 'cause we were -- our meetings 


around that time were dealing with the overall 


guidelines for reviewing the proc-- you know, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

146 

NIOSH evaluations of SEC petitions. 


 MS. MUNN: Uh-huh. 


 DR. MELIUS: So we're really coming back around 


to addressing that, and -- and I would propose 


that they, you know, do the appropriate 


revisions. I agree, I don't think they're -- 


you know, they'd take a lot of effort, but take 


a little bit of effort and then re-present that 


to the Board and go from there. I think in 


essence we're -- they're following those 


already is de facto because of the evaluation 


reports they've received from NIOSH 'cause 


NIOSH is basically addressing those -- those 


items in -- in their reports. 


 MS. MUNN: Again, perhaps I need to be brought 


up to speed. I seem to recall early on when 


this Board first met that we took the position 


we were not going to address any decision that 


Congress had made with respect to this Act. Is 


not that 250-day prescription a part of the 


Act? 


 DR. MELIUS: Can I --


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah --


 DR. MELIUS: -- it's part of the Act only as it 


applies to the SEC cohort groups that were 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

147 

included in the original Congressional Act -- 


original EEOICPA Act, so -- and that applied to 


the enrichment facilities -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, but there is a --


 DR. MELIUS: -- and so forth so -- so -- and 


now the second place it's included is in the 


regulations -- for doing that. It was not --


it's in the part of the regulations that deal 


with health endangerment, and so our 


guidelines, the guidelines that the Board -- 


the workgroup did and the Board has sort of 


tentatively adopted did not address the 


endangerment issue, so it did not address the 


250 days 'cause that's sort of a separate -- a 


separate issue and I had actually in our 


workgroup call -- I can't remember if you were 


on it during that time period or not -- 


-- actually proposed that we needed to discuss 


that -- that issue relevant to these issue -- 


but it's sort of a separate discussion here and 


-- and what's in the SC&A procedures and what's 


in our -- our guidelines doesn't even talk 


about 250 days --


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, I believe our guidelines do 


in fact talk about 250 days, and Jim can speak 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

148 

to that, but it also does allow for a shorter 


period of time in episodic events that are -- 


like criticality events, so there is already a 


provision. And I thin in the case that you're 


talking, John, then the argument would be to 


what extent are these events like criticality 


in that they deliver large amounts of dose in a 


brief period of time. So as I understand our 


current -- it would be Part A(3), I guess -- 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- it actually does allow for 


that. But Jim can speak to that. 


DR. NETON: Right. The guidelines that were 


provi-- that were drafted allow for 250 days by 


default. That is essentially analogous to what 


Congress used in the legislatively-mandated 


cohorts, with the exception that I might add 


Amchitka did not have a 250-day requirement in 


the legislatively-mandated cohorts. But -- but 


by definition the 250 is a default, unless one 


can arrive at a -- some conclusion that there 


was something on the order of a criticality, 


the idea being that, you know, can we put a 


plausible upper bound on this dose 


reconstruction. If not, you look and see if 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

149 

there were episodic type exposures versus a -- 


a huge, one-time exposure, so to speak. At 


that point then NIOSH would go and evaluate 


would a lesser time period be applicable. 


I'm a little concerned when Dr. Mauro was 


proposing applying litmus tests such as 


probability of causation calculations to allow 


for shorter time frames because almost by 


definition you get in a circular logic. You 


arrive at the conclusion that you can't 


plausibly bound the dose reconstruction, yet 


you're using dose reconstruction methodology 


calculations to determine the -- to bracket the 


time period of the class. So you get into some 


real conundrums going down that path and I just 


advise the Board that we've thought about this 


long and hard and this is where we ended up and 


our -- our -- our rule is for those reasons. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And I might also remind the Board 


that we had a discussion I think at the last 


meeting relating to the 250 days, and that was 


does it apply, for example, to the Pacific 


Proving Grounds where perhaps the individuals 


were in a sense exposed 24 hours a day rather 


than eight, and so do we mean 250 working days 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

150 

and therefore talk about some kind of a 


weighted average like you would compare working 


level days for miners in terms of what a 


working week is. 


 DR. WADE: Right. Just to keep things sort of 


sorted, first of all, to the issue that Dr. 


Melius raised, the SC&A procedures and working 


group procedures really have never dealt with 


the issue of 250 days, and that's fine. 


 Jim did mention when the working group met that 


he felt the Board should discuss the 250-day 


issue and it's on the agenda for that purpose. 


Just to -- and I've done some research with our 


legal people, the dose re-- excuse me, the SEC 


rule does talk about, under health 


endangerment, either presence or 250 work days. 


When I talk to legal people within HHS, they 


tell me that there is room for interpretation. 


That has yet to be interpreted, and the 


Secretary would accept from the Board 


recommendations that were consistent with those 


language-- that language, but neither of those 


statements is completely prescriptive. 


So it does say 250 work days. If in your 


deliberations you want to talk about what 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 

151 

means in terms of actual hours, that's fair 


game. If you want to go to the other side and 


say that you think presence of a certain 


duration given events that may have taken 


place, is an appropriate criteria, that's fine. 


You can do that. But it's not part of the 


discussion of the SEC procedures that SC&A has 


developed or the working group has developed, 


but it is an important issue for this Board to 


consider as it moves forward. I think it'll be 


framed somewhat tomorrow when you talk about 


the Nevada Test Site. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Jim, did -- you put your 


flag back down so I guess your comment was 


taken care --


 DR. MELIUS: Well, I don't know whether I'll 


further confuse Wanda or clarify things, so -- 


 MS. MUNN: That's easy to do. 


 DR. MELIUS: Well, it's easy for me to confuse 


people, too, so -- but we had asked that this 


be -- these two issues be put on the agenda 


separately for discussion, and actually to hear 


from NIOSH on -- to get some input from them on 


what their current process is for making 


determinations on non-SEC cancers and this 250­
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

152 

day health endangerment-related issue, so... 


 DR. WADE: But both of these are fair game for 


the Board to discuss and offer the Secretary 


advice on. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. I want to try to come to a 


little bit of closure on the SC&A document vis-


a-vis our procedures. Jim, what was the final 


recommendation? 


 DR. MELIUS: Again, I -- I can put this in the 


form of a motion if necessary, but I think the 


-- the -- what I was proposing was that -- and 


I think John agreed -- was that we would have 


SC&A modify their procedures to reflect our 


guidelines and -- and bring that back to the 


Board and the Board would review that. I think 


we need -- do need to formally review that set 


of procedures. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a second to that motion? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I'll second. 


 DR. ZIEMER: And it's been seconded. I think 


the understanding here would be that we're not 


talk-- nobody's thinking about this as being a 


major task. I think Roy's implied at least 


that this should be a very quick and easy fix 


to just get 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 

153

 DR. DEHART: I'll not only imply, I'll 


specifically state it should be an easy task. 


It should not be a very time-consuming task, 


and it shouldn't require a great many pages. 


 DR. MELIUS: And I would just add that we've 


actually already tasked them with developing 


the procedures. We have never accepted their 


procedures 'cause we were in the process of 


developing our guidelines, so we -- we do need 


to take action on it in some way so -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: On their procedures, so whatever 


modifications are appropriate then would be the 


sense of the motion. Any further discussion? 


 (No responses) 


Then let's call the question. All in favor, 


aye? 


 (Affirmative responses) 


Those opposed, no? 


 (No responses) 


 Bob Presley? 


 (No response) 


 Motion carries. Thank you. 


NON-PRESUMPTIVE CANCERS
 

Is -- is there any -- I want to take a look 


here again, on the non-presumptive cancers 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 

154 

the 250-day, was there any formal presentation 


that NIOSH was expecting to make at this time? 


I'm not requi-- you know, suggesting that you 


must, but it -- it's here. 


 DR. WADE: I think it's important to get on the 


record how NIOSH is approaching this issue 


currently, and then the Board can react in any 


way it wants. It doesn't necessarily have to 


conclude those reactions today. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So this is just an update, in a 


sense, then. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, no formal presentation, but 


just to tell you what NIOSH's policy is with 


regard to SEC petition evaluation reports. 


It's our full intent to bring forward as sound 


a scientific evaluation as we possibly can in a 


180-day time limit that we're working within, 


and to provide a class definition that 


originates from the petitioners' definition 


based upon our scientific evaluation that -- 


that we believe to -- to -- to be based on that 


scientific evaluation and not cause undue harm 


to any one member in the class or outside the 


class. We -- in this policy we are told we 


need to abide by the regulation; that presence 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

155 

or 250 days is to be examined with regard to 


health endangerment and it's -- it's -- that's 


been our operating procedure in that policy 


effort and that's not to say that, you know, 


we're not interested in hearing what the Board 


had to discuss upon that or what they might 


recommend to the Secretary. We're certainly 


interested in that. 


I would offer that in the rule-making for the 


SEC rule there is a considerable body of 


comment on 250 days and health endangerment 


that the Board might want to avail themselves 


of and refresh your memories about -- about 


those comments. They also go to -- there was 


comment provided -- in fact in one rule 


proposal that we offered we -- we offered 


something similar to what Dr. Mauro had -- had 


indicated where we would do cancer-specific POC 


type evaluation to try to determine, you know, 


if health had been endangered, and that was 


abandoned because of the variety of comments 


that we got on that point. So I would just 


mention that for the Board's consideration. 


Take a look at the public comment record that's 


there for the rule-making effort. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

156

 DR. WADE: The non-presumptive cancers. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Non-presumptive cancer is -- is 


another policy-related matter that we've taken 


very -- taken to heart and given very strong 


consideration in how we examine, in our 


scientific review and evaluation of a petition, 


what dose we can reconstruct that would go to 


the non-presumptive cancer claimants that would 


not fit into that class. And as -- as our 


understanding and the development of these 


evaluation reports has evolved, we have learned 


-- we've learned through that process that we 


need to be very careful with how we couch our 


recommendations to the Secretary so that if 


there is a non-presumptive cancer that we can 


reconstruct dose for, we want to be able to do 


that and say that we can do that and clearly 


show and demonstrate how we would do that. So 


this -- this is a matter that yes, I think the 


Board needs to -- to take good, full 


consideration of as well in your deliberations. 


And when you see our evaluation reports, 


comment -- as you -- as you should -- to us 


about that. Make sure that we're clear and you 


have a clear understanding of what we say 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 

157 

can't do, as well as what we can do. 


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah, and I know you had short 


notice on this, Larry, so it's not a criticism 


of -- of what you presented, but -- but I -- I 


really think on the -- the non-presumptive 


cancers it would be very helpful for us to have 


a full presentation by you or your staff on 


what exactly are your current procedures, with 


examples of -- of those, because the -- we have 


ventured into this area once on an SEC 


petition, I believe one of the Mallinckrodt 


petitions, on -- in making specific 


recommendations on this and -- and I think if 


we should be tempted to do so again, I think we 


need to be, you know, consistent with -- aware 


of what your current approaches are and -- and 


knowledgeable of those. It's -- it's, I think, 


a difficult area and I think we -- we need to 


try to address that systematically. I don't 


think you had time to -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: This was the first I heard that 


you --


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- you were -- you wished to 


entertain such a presentation. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

158

 DR. MELIUS: Well --


 MR. ELLIOTT: We offered it --


 DR. MELIUS: Well --


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- each one of these -- I'm 


sorry. Each one of these class designations 


have a set of circumstances around them that 


make them depend upon that set of 


circumstances, but we certainly can provide a 


presentation to the Board on where we're at 


with the current classes that we have seen 


added to the Special Exposure Cohort and what 


we're doing with regard to non-presumptive 


cases that don't fit into that class. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Is this something the Board in 


general would like to hear? Appears to be 


consensus that -- should do that at a future 


meeting, get that on the agenda -- 


 MR. ELLIOTT: I think it's also important and ­

- and an obligation that we have when we -- 


when Dr. Neton presents or others -- you know, 


staff present an evaluation report, to speak to 


this matter --


 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- as well and, you know, perhaps 


even that should be one of the 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 

159 

reconstruction examples that -- that we may 


need to provide. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah. Mark? 


 MR. GRIFFON: I mean just -- just to understand 


the -- the point further, I -- I mean these end 


up being what I would call partial dose 


reconstructions, so are -- are they used, for 


these non-presumptive cancers, for -- for both 


approvals and denials? 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

 MR. GRIFFON: Or have you gotten that far -- 

yeah. 

 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, unfortunately they are what 

we call a partial dose reconstruction, and if 


they -- if the cancer is of a type that we have 


enough dose to -- you know, we do dose 


reconstruction, as you know, to the organ of 


concern, the organ where the cancer either 


originated or if it's a secondary we have a 


list of likely primaries, and so we reconstruct 


dose to that particular tissue or organ. Skin 


cancer, if there's enough external dose, we've 


seen a number of skin cancer cases become 


compensable. Other types of cancer -- prostate 


cancer -- that's not on the list of 22 where 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 

160 

don't have enough dose, yes, we do a partial 


dose reconstruction and then come out as a 


denied comp case, but we've given it all we can 


give. 


 MR. GRIFFON: Right, I just wanted to clarify 


that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Thank you for that question --


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, we need to move ahead here. 


We -- we actually --


 DR. MELIUS: Can -- can -- can I just --

 DR. ZIEMER: Jim. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- follow up with a -- I would 

respectfully request that we have this 


presentation at our next meeting. We will be 


in Washington, since -- which is I believe 


where we're scheduled to be, and that's where 


this law was written and where this -- these 


criteria on SEC versus non-SEC were -- were put 


together and I -- we've actually -- at least 


I've been requesting this for -- some 


discussion of this for a while, so I really 


would like to get it on the record. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: Certainly, and I think we'll have 


a goodly number of classes -- 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

161

 DR. MELIUS: Yes, yes. 


 MR. ELLIOTT: -- to provide you --


 DR. MELIUS: Yeah. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So noted. Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: Thank you. 


AMES SEC TASK UPDATE


 DR. ZIEMER: We want to get updates on the SC&A 


SEC tasks, and we've got not only the 


procedures but Ames, Rocky Flats and Y-12. 


These are just updates on the tasks. These are 


-- I see some handouts, and -- 


 DR. WADE: We have Ames and we have Rocky --


 DR. ZIEMER: -- I want to -- I want to give 


SC&A a heads-up that we're going to adjourn at 


5:15, so you -- time yourselves accordingly. 


At least the Chair is leaving. I'm not sure 


about the rest of you. 


 DR. MELIUS: Okay. Can I just make a couple of 


introductory remarks -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: You may. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- on Ames, that I think you're 


doing first. Is that -- Hans? Yeah, yeah, 


just to indicate we -- our workgroup meeting 


what, two or three weeks ago, was scheduled 


with some expectation that the Ames evaluation 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

162 

report would be in our hands the previous week. 


It turns out there -- other reports were ahead 


of it and so we -- we received it I believe a 


day before or the night before our -- our 


meeting, so no one really had had time to 


review it and whatever. We did have some 


discussion, the -- some of the petitioners were 


on -- on the phone so we had some back and 


forth with them on -- on particular issues and 


-- and so forth and I think, having glanced 


through the slides that Hans is presenting, I 


think that addresses some of the issues they 


raised, also. So -- but I think it's -- prior 


to that, SC&A had done some work and I think 


they'd been able to do a little bit more work 


based on the evaluation part but we never 


really had time for any sort of workgroup 


closure on this or for full discussion. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Hans? 


 DR. BEHLING: How much time do I have? 


 DR. ZIEMER: You have a total of a half-hour 


amongst your group. You can apportion it. 


 DR. BEHLING: Thank you, John. Anyway, this is 


a Phase I review, as Dr. has already pointed 


out. It's a cursory or preliminary review, 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 

163 

I was asked by Arjun to make one corrective 


statement. It's not 200 hours, John, but only 


130, so fewer hours than even John had 


identified. 


Let me just briefly talk about two things. 


Purpose and scope, our objective here was to do 


a brief or preliminary assessment of the 


quality and completeness of data associated not 


only with worker monitoring, such as external 


and internal exposure monitoring and survey 


data, but also with the understanding of the 


types of radionuclides that people were exposed 


to, their chemical and physical properties, 


their quantities that define their source terms 


and the various processes that took place that 


would have potentially created certain 


radiological environments. 


Let me briefly identify a few of the data 


sources that we looked at. Obviously we looked 


at the SEC petition itself and its support 


documents or attachments, among which was a 


250-page PhD thesis which provided an 


incredible amount of background information and 


anecdotal data that we found very interesting. 


In addition to that we also looked at NIOSH'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 

164 

site research query and identified about 30 


documents that we felt were relevant to the 


issue of this review. Also SC&C -- SC&A held 


discussions with the petitioners, namely Dr. 


Laurence Fuortes, and also with one of the site 


experts by the name of Dr. James Worth*, who 


was a chemist at the time during the period of 


question, and he worked specifically in Pu 


separation. 


Let me briefly talk also about the principal 


facility operation since there's no TBD 


available that you may have had a chance to 


read and the process at Ames for those who may 


not be familiar. The program at Ames really 


started out as a metallurgical research 


facility that had its intention of producing 


very pure, high-quality uranium and thorium. 


Well, as it turned out, they went beyond that 


and actually went into large scale production 


and so starting in 1942 you had some uranium 


work done that -- that was -- started out in 


terms of metallurgical bench level research 


that ultimately translated into large scale 


production. And the -- there was three basic 


processes. The first one was really the metal 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

165 

production, taking uranium oxide, uranium 


fluoride and converting them into pure metal, 


and that was a very, very difficult task that 


was unknown at the time, and there were two 


processes for reducing these metal -- uranium 


metal oxides that grow as -- by way of calcium 


magnesium reduction and -- and we'll talk a 


little bit about that because they were very 


unique and -- and they were very dangerous 


processes because of their highly exothermic 


nature. 


The second one was metal casting, so once you 


have your purified uranium, you obviously 


wanted to put them into ingots that meant 


melting the material in crucibles and putting 


them into ingots. And the third one was really 


-- also in addition to casting, I'll just 


quickly mention, was the certain amount of 


machining of those ingots. 


And lastly there was the issue of uranium 


recovery. Early in the '40s there was desired 


by the Manhattan Engineering District to also 


recover uranium and in total, all -- from all 


the facilities combined, the Ames Laboratory 


recovered about 600,000 pounds of uranium 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 

166 

that process. 


 The thorium process was pretty much a parallel. 


Again it was aimed at producing a pure thorium 


metal because the interest was one of using 


thorium-232 to produce uranium-233 because it's 


a very fissile material, and so pretty much a 


parallel path was conducted there in terms of 


metal production and metal casting. And I'll 


just give you a brief overview of some of the ­

- the quantities. 


 For the uranium -- as a starting point in 1942 


their production was limited to making one 


kilogram to five kilogram ingots. By January 


1943 production rose to 300 to 3,600 to 5,600 


pounds per week. And in the peak per-- period 


of production, which turned out to be July 


1943, 130 pounds of uranium -- pure uranium was 


produced in a single month. And in total about 


2 million pounds of uranium -- pure uranium was 


processed during the period of '42 through '45. 


 For thorium, the quantity -- the total quantity 


of purified thorium that was produced was 65 


tons of it, so there were -- we're talking 


about very large quantities of both uranium and 


thorium that were produced. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

167 

In addition to -- to the actual production 


there were also other research activities that 


-- chemical and physical property studies of 


uranium and thorium and plutonium. 


You can go to the next slide. 


The next slide has just some -- some basic 


review of the radiological environments and 


potential pathways of exposure. As -- as I 


just mentioned to you, just as a background, we 


were talking about large quantities of uranium 


and thorium that were processed. In addition 


to -- to that, we're talking about a facility 


at Ames that was never really designed to deal 


with such materials and in such large 


quantities. They were certainly not equipped 


to handle material that were airborne material 


because the ventilation systems, hoods and so 


forth, they were not really prepared to do -- 


to deal with those things. 


In addition, these -- this was in the early 


'40s when the maturity of health physics was 


clearly in its infancy stages so a lot of 


things that we know now today about uranium and 


thorium were not understood. In fact, in those 


days their concern was more about the chemical 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

168 

toxicity of uranium than its radiotoxicity. 


 The radiological pathways were clearly 


obviously the -- dominated by internal exposure 


based upon the airborne environments, 


inhalation, ingestion and also potentially 


wounds and abrasions due to certain incidents, 


including bomb explosions where injuries and 


abrasions were quite common. For external 


exposure clearly we have a certain 


radionuclides that are gamma emitters, we have 


beta emitters and we also have neutrons with 


the N-alpha* reaction, so we have basically a 


primary concern for internal exposure and also 


an external exposure. As I've already 


mentioned, the concern was also one of episodic 


events that to the nature of the reduction 


processes of uranium and thorium and using 


various materials that were highly reactive and 


reached temperatures on the order of about 


2,000 degrees Celsius and frequently reaction 


that led to an explosion and of course the 


creation of large airborne environments, 


contamination, et cetera. 


Let me go quickly and go to the next slide, 


which really talks about the summary 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 

169 

available monitoring data. Given the types of 


processes, the materials, the quantities, the 


radiological environments that they created, it 


would almost be imperative that in order for us 


to have a complete assessment for internal and 


external exposures that we would be in a 


position to say there are large quantities of 


bioassay data and complete comprehensive 


external monitoring data available. Well, our 


review showed the following, and these are just 


summary slides. I'll just quickly scan through 


them because of the time involved. 


It's important to note that essentially no 


monitoring for external radiation took place 


with regard to uranium prior to -- well, 


actually none at all. I think there were a 


couple -- I saw a couple of documents that had 


some film data, but it was basically dismissed 


because the film was not calibrated , so in 


essence for uranium exposure there is no 


external monitoring data. And there's only a 


small number of workers who were assessed very 


episodically for -- by -- by urinary analysis 


for uranium, and -- and again the numbers of 


workers were in the -- a couple of dozen of the 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

170 

workers or so. And what you do see were also 


bioassay samples involving blood, and here the 


assessment was not necessarily directed towards 


the actual assessment of the radioactivity, but 


was the assessment of the dysfunction of kidney 


and liver. They were looking at various things 


such as sugar, albumin, total niacin and other 


things, so even that sparse data is complicated 


by data that is questionable in terms of our 


usage. 


Let me go to -- quickly to the next slide and 


briefly discuss -- discuss the thorium 


monitoring data. Again, if you look at the 


columns there, there -- our preliminary 


research found that there were no external 


monitoring data before 1952. That's the 


beginning of a few monitoring of personnel for 


external exposure, and no bioassay external 


monitoring before 1952. Thereafter there was a 


limited amount of external exposure monitoring, 


and also some bioassay data available. 


Perhaps the most informative piece of data that 


I found was a comprehensive survey -- a three-


day survey conducted on March 18 through 21, 


1952, and that data was fairly well done. 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 

171 

provided information on breathing air 


concentrations for thorium. It provided 


information on contamination levels, surface 


contamination levels, both fixed and smearable, 


and also provided dose rates in terms of 


ambient dose rates defined. That was probably 


the most detailed information that I found 


available. Also there was some additional data 


on bioassay, as I mentioned, but by and large 


the data was very sparse. 


With regard to a -- the -- another category -- 


plutonium and fission products, which were 


there in smaller quantities, there are no 


monitoring data that I've found available for 


discussing the exposure of personnel to 


plutonium and fission product. 


The last slide, let me just summarize it. Our 


conclusions with regard to this preliminary 


use, that there was a very sparse amount of -- 


insufficient amount of personal monitoring data 


for both internal and external. There was a 


very limited amount of air monitoring data. As 


I said, the most informative was 1952 survey 


data. That was a 3-day survey, but again that 


was only a moment in time. 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

172 

There was also a question of the difficulty 


interpreting some of the available bioassay 


data, and frankly I found some that were 


probably from -- from reproduced microfiche 


that I couldn't even decipher. I don't know 


what the units of measurement were, and we 


certainly don't understand some of the 


bioassays that were used with -- the actual 


physical methods by which these data were 


derived, so there's a question of -- of the 


data integrity and the pedigree of that data. 


And of course very important here in this case, 


it's already been alluded to, was the issue of 


how do you account for radiological events 


which happened as routine measure. In fact, in 


one of the documents -- several documents -- 


there was reference to a single day in which 


six bombs exploded and there was even some sort 


of description as to how that happened, how it 


blew out whole wall panels and people 


staggering around and so forth, so you can kind 


of in your own mind imagine the kind of 


radiological conditions that we would have to 


have data for in order to do a comprehensive 


evaluation of work exposures to these very 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

173 

episodic events. 


And lastly there was no data on plutonium and 


fission products that I could find that would 


allow us to do any kind of dose reconstruction. 


I'll go to the very last slide, and this was 


preliminary assessment really done by myself 


and -- and Arjun and at this point I guess 


we'll -- they seem to have some more focused 


issues that the Board will ask us to look at, 


so I hope that I didn't run too fast here, 


but... 


 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. I need to 


ask Lew, and then maybe Jim can also comment, 


but action-wise what is needed on this? We're 


not quite ready to take final action. 


 DR. MELIUS: But -- could I --


 DR. WADE: Go ahead. 


 DR. MELIUS: Lew and I have discussed this. 


Larry's been part of the discussion. For --


given our other workload and where -- where we 


were, NIOSH had planned on presenting their 


Ames evaluation report at our next meeting, 


which would have been the -- the June meeting. 


We actually discussed that on the conference 


call with the -- the petitioners, 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 

174 

particularly given the issue of the acute 


events which they had -- explosions and so 


forth which they had raised in their petition, 


and given that they had also just seen the 


evaluation report the night before or whatever, 


the -- they seemed satisfied with that, though 


I did get a call Friday from -- from one of the 


petitioners saying can you change that and move 


-- move it up and what I would -- Lew and I 


talked about that and I think Lew -- I don't -- 


 DR. WADE: I spoke to the petitioner. I think 


he's comfortable with what we're doing. 


 DR. MELIUS: What -- what we're doing and so 


forth, and -- and I actually think the next 


step we need to take as a Board is the 


workgroup, which is the SEC guidelines 


workgroup has got the task of dealing with 


Ames. We need to talk among ourselves as to do 


we need to have SC&A do anything more and -- 


and then -- then deal with it based on that, 


then we can make a recommendation to Lew about 


scheduling and so forth with that. 


 DR. ZIEMER: So --

 DR. MELIUS: I think the --

 DR. ZIEMER: -- the bottom line is this 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 

175 

probably be on our agenda for action at the 


next meeting then. 


 DR. MELIUS: Next meeting. I think there's 


some question whether we may want to try to 


deal with it as part of a conference call 


rather than do it -- that. I think it's 


relatively straightforward, but -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

 DR. MELIUS: -- let's talk among ourselves. 

 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. WADE: Right, just -- I mean we had 


originally asked SC&A to do a -- a total review 


of the Ames petition. I think the 


recommendation now is to focus on one or two 


issues, one issue possibly being the 250 days 


and the occurrence of criticality events, and 


to do their work in a way that would inform the 


Board before the Board would vote on Ames in -- 


in June. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Thank you. 


 DR. MELIUS: And can I -- just one piece of 


factual information. NIOSH did a quick check 


during our call about the -- given the -- a 


number of people already filed for dose 


reconstruction. I believe out of what, 40 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 

176 

50, only -- there was one person that had 


worked there less than 250 days that they were 


aware of now. So given the nature of the 


facility and so forth, I think it probably 


makes -- makes sense and so forth, but we 


should keep that in mind also. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Next we'll hear 


the Y-12 SEC evaluation report and Ar-- 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: Is that what you want, Dr. 


Ziemer, Y-12 or Rocky? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we have both on the agenda. 


You -- what you're telling me is you probably 


can't get them both in today. 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: In ten minutes? 


 (Whereupon, Dr. Ziemer, Dr. Wade and a number 


of Board members discussed how to proceed in 


the time remaining.) 


 DR. ZIEMER: The suggestion is that we include 


these discussions at the appropriate time when 


we discuss both of those sites tomorrow. In 


other words --


 DR. WADE: So we would try to do Y-12 tomorrow 


 DR. ZIEMER: -- in addi--


 DR. WADE: -- and Rocky Flats, either tomorrow 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

177 

or Thursday morning. 


 DR. ZIEMER: That way we'll have a little more 


time for more in-depth discussion on both of 


these, which is very important. Is there any 


objection, Board members, to that? 


 (No audible objections.) 


Okay, then -- any -- any -- oh, Arjun, did you 


have a question then? 


 DR. MAKHIJANI: So no presentation right now? 


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Any other -- I --


housekeeping items, Lew, that we need to 


address today? 


 DR. MELIUS: I just have -- well, one question. 


You may have addressed it already; I was late. 


Other than public comment period tomorrow 


evening, I don't see any public comment period 


scheduled. Have we --


 DR. WADE: Just tomorrow. 


 DR. MELIUS: That's it? 


 DR. WADE: Uh-huh. 


 DR. MELIUS: I would argue that we ought to be 


a little bit more flexible on that than -- 


 DR. ZIEMER: We could probably add one for 


Thursday, if necessary. 


 DR. MELIUS: -- Thursday or -- or -- you know, 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

178 

if there are people -- again, if people have -- 


that come during the daytime don't want to have 


to stay for evening, I think they should be 


allowed. 


 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Okay. 


 DR. MELIUS: Or people not speaking directly to 


the --


 DR. ZIEMER: Right. Certainly we'll add it to 


the -- can we add it to the Thursday maybe -- 


 DR. WADE: Sure. 


 DR. ZIEMER: We'll add that. Okay, then we 


will recess until tomorrow morning at 8:30. 


 (Whereupon, the day's session adjourned at 5:15 


p.m.) 

______________________________ 

179 

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