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 

MEETING THREE 

SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION AND 

 

SITE PROFILE REVIEWS 

 

The verbatim transcript of the Subcommittee for 

Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews, 

Meeting 3, held at the Adam’s Mark, St. Louis, 

Missouri, on February 7, 2005. 
2

C O N T E N T S

 

February 7, 2005 

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES, MEETING 2 14 

DR. PAUL ZIEMER, CHAIR 

DR. LEW WADE, EXECUTIVE SECRETARY 

SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION –- 15 

CASE SAMPLING MATRIX 

SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION –- 30 

SUMMARY OF 1ST SET OF CASE REVIEWS/ 

PREPARE RECOMMENDATION FOR FULL BOARD 

SUBCOMMITTEE SELECTION –- 66, 102 

3RD SET OF INDIVIDUAL CASES FOR BOARD REVIEWS 

WELCOME FROM SENATOR BOND 93 

SUBCOMMITTEE ADJOURN 115 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 116 
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. 

In the following transcript (off microphone) 

refers to microphone malfunction or speaker's neglect 

to depress "on" button. 
4

 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

ANDERSON, Henry A., M.D. 

Chief Medical Officer 

Occupational and Environmental Health 

Wisconsin Division of Public Health 

Madison, Wisconsin 

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

Director 

The Vanderbilt Center for Occupational and Environmental 

Medicine 

Professor of Medicine 

Nashville, Tennessee 

ESPINOSA, Richard Lee 

Sheet Metal Workers Union Local #49 

Johnson Controls 

Los Alamos National Laboratory 

Espanola, New Mexico 
5

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

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 

OWENS, Charles Leon 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-550 

Paducah, Kentucky 

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/VENDORS

CORI HOMER, Committee Management Specialist, NIOSH 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, Certified Merit Court Reporter 
6

AUDIENCE PARTICIPANTS

AHIRA, KEN 

ALEXANDER, OLIVE M. 

ALEXANDER, TERRY 

ALLEN, GEORGE 

AMANN, DEBORAH 

ANBLE, JOHN, KTVI 

ARRO, MICHAEL R. 

BAFARO, MARILYN, NIOSH 

BASCHERT, BETTY J. 

BEATTY, EVERETT RAY, SR., FERNALD ATOMIC COUNCIL 

BEHLING, HANS, SC&A 

BEHLING, KATHY, SC&A 

BELL, R. THOMAS, SC&A 

BERRY, CHARLENE 

BEST, CHARLINE 

BEST, RAYMOND 

BIEST, JOAN 

BLANKENSHIP, CINDY 

BOGNAN, JOHN 

BOYD, JAMES 

BLOSSER, FRED, NIOSH 

BRALASKI, RITA 

BRAND, ANSTICE, CDC 

BROCK, DENISE, UNWW 

BROWN, THOMAS, BSCAG 

BRYANT, DOROTHY 

BULGER, HAROLD 

CALLAWAY MOOCH, FERNALD ATOMIC COUNCIL 

CHISHOLM, MILLIE 

COFFELT, EVELYN 

CONRAD, JAMES 

COTTER, GARY 

COTTER, WILLIAM D. 

COVALESKY, SHIRLEY 

CRONK, JAMIE 

CURTISS, JOANN & RICK 

DANIEL, GWEN 

DAVIS, RICKY, KTVI 

DEEP, HEIDI, NIOSH 

DEICHMAN, MATT, WBII-TV 

DILLARD, HOMER & HALENE 
7

DOLAN, JACQUELINE E. 

DOLAN, WILLIAM E. 

DORNFELD, DEBBIE, JIM TALENT 

DOWNS, DEB 

DREY, KAY 

DUDLEY, MARTIN 

EATON, CLARISSA, UNWW 

ECHEMENDIA, AIDA 

EHLMANN, PAT, UNWW 

ELLISON, CHRIS, NIOSH 

ESPY, RICHARD 

FAGAS, JANE 

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A 

FRISCHMAN, BILL 

FULKERSON, ROBERT 

GARNER, DON 

GENERI, MARY 

GILLARD, LORRAINE A. 

GRAHAM, MAYOR, CITY OF O’FALLON 

GREEN, JAMES 

GREUBLATT, B., UPI 

HABBIG, JOHN K. 

HALLMARK, SHELBY, LABOR 

HARGIS, JOHN 

HARRIS, WALTER 

HARRISON, KATHY 

HART, ALISON, SENATOR HARKIN 

HAWKINS, BRENDA 

HEADRICK, WILLIAM 

HEISTER, MELANIE, NCRP 

HENNITS, DOROTHY 

HERBERT, NICHOLE, NIOSH 

HERTZ, DOROTHY 

HINNEFELD, STUART, NIOSH 

HOLLAND, MARTIN 

HOLTMEYER-MAUNE, JERRINE 

HODGES, CARRIE 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HORGAN, TOM, SEN. BOND 

JOHNSON, MARY L. 

JOHNSON, PAT 

KATZ, TED, NIOSH 

KELLER, LILLIAN A. 
8

KELLY, PATRICK, SC&A 

KENOYER, JUDSON, ORAU 

KIEDING, SYLVIA 

KIMPAN, KATE, DOE 

KLOTZ, STEVE, KTRS 

KOENEMAN, BARB, UNWW 

KOENEMAN, RAYETTA 

KOENEMAN, TANYA, UNWW 

KORDING, GLENN 

KORDING, SHARON 

KOTSCH, JEFFREY L., DOL 

KRAICHELY, MARY, UNWW 

LACKEY, MELBA 

LAMBKIN, DON, UNWW 

LAVERY, KEVIN M., KWMU 

LEA, JEFF, KMOV 

LEAHMANN, SHIRLEY 

LITTLE, JAMES 

LYNCH, CINDY 

LYNCH, HELEN 

MACK, HUY, POST DISPATCH 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

MCINTYRE, JOAN 

MCKEEL, DAN, MD, WASHINGTON UNIV. 

MCKEEL, VIRGINIA, VILLAGE IMAGE NEWS 

MCNUTT, ROBERT 

MESSALA, DAVE & JAN 

MILLER, RELADA L., NIOSH 

MILLER, RICHARD, GAP 

MITAS, JIM, CONGRESSMAN AKIN 

MOUSER, TERRI, UNITED NUCLEAR 

MURPHY, DAN P. 

MUSCKE, EDWARD C. 

NAES, NORVILLE 

NESVET, JEFF, DOL 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

NOVAK, JUSTINE 

NUGENT, MARY, US GAO 

O’HARE, FRANK W. 

OJEDA, THERESA, KMOV 

PATTON, JACK 

PHEGLEY, RAYMOND, AIRPORT 

PIPER, WILLIAM 
9

PORTER, DIANE, NIOSH 

PRESLEY, LOUISE S. 

PRIEST, CHRISTINE 

RACH, CHARLES L. 

RAMSPOTT, CHRISTINE 

RAMSPOTT, JOHN 

REMPE, VIRGIL J. 

RETKONSKI, RICHARD 

REUSS, ANN 

RINDALL, TINA, UNITED NUCLEAR 

RINGEN, KNUT, CPWR/BCTD 

ROBERTSON-DEMERS, KATHY, SC&A 

ROSENTHAL, JAMES 

ROTHROCK, AMY 

RUTHERFORD, LAVON, NIOSH 

RYAN, FRAN 

SACKS-LONG, DONNA J. 

SCHESLER, ELAINE 

SCHNEIDER, CLARENCE 

SCHNEIDER, MARILYN, UNWW 

SCHRUMM, RUTH 

SCOTT, SYLVIA 

SOMRATY, ANDREW 

SOVAR, RICH AND EVELYN 

SPICKETT, DAVID 

SPICKETT, EVELYN 

STEGER, RON 

STEGER, RONI 

STEINKAMP, JUDIE 

STEMPFLEY, DAN, NIOSH 

STRAPES, FLO 

STROUSSNER, DONALD A. 

STUCKENSCHNEIDER, DOLORES 

STUDT, ARLENE 

SUERMANN, ZELDA 

SULLIVAN, MICHELLE, WBII-TV 

SWABODA, JAY, ST. LOUIS LABOR TRIBUNE 

TASCHLOR, JOHN 

TAULBEE, TIM, NIOSH 

TEAGUE, CARLOTTA, NCRP 

TENFORDE, THOMAS S., NCRP 

THORNHILL, CHARLENE 

THORNHILL, GEORGE 
10

TOOHEY, R.E., ORAU 

TURCIC, PETE, DOL 

UNDERWOOD, LEWIS, NIOSH 

VACEK, PENNY, SENATOR GRASSLEY 

VERHOFF, GWENDOLYN 

WALKER, ED AND JOYCE, BSCAG 

WATSON, DAVID P., JR. 

WHITE, WALTER, JR. 

WIESEHAUS, JOHN J. 

WINDISCH, ANTHONY 

WOLFF, TOM 

WOODS, JANET 

ZIEMER, MARILYN 
11

1 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 (8:40 a.m.) 

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

4 to call the meeting to order. This is the 

5 Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site 

6 Profile Reviews. This is not the full Board 

7 meeting, even though a good fraction of the 

8 Advisory Board will be in attendance at this 

9 session. But this is a session of the 

10 Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site 

11 Profile Reviews. 

12 This particular subcommittee will be meeting 

13 most of the morning to cover several items 

14 which are on the agenda. 

15 I have a few announcements and pieces of 

16 information before we get into the agenda. 

17 First of all, we'd like to ask all attendees 

18 who are here in the room, if you have cell 

19 phones or beepers we ask that you turn them off 

20 while you're in the room. If you need to make 

21 calls and so on, please do that in the hall, 

22 but we've had problems in the past with cell 

23 phones and beepers interfering with the meeting 

24 and the sound system. So if you would, please 

25 do that. 
12

1 We apologize for the late start. We ourselves 

2 had problems getting all the sound up and 

3 running here this morning, as well. 

4 The sessions throughout the meeting will be 

5 taped by Louise McKeel, who's with the Village 

6 Image, and they will be taping throughout, so -

7 - and just so you're aware of the fact that 

8 that is occurring. 

9 Later in the morning we expect a visit from 

10 Senator Kit Bond, and at the point at which 

11 Senator Bond arrives, we will interrupt 

12 wherever we are on the agenda in order to 

13 accommodate his schedule. He does wish to 

14 address the Board or those that are here at 

15 that time, and we'll try to accommodate that, 

16 and he will bring some greetings and some 

17 related remarks relative to this week's agenda. 

18 I'd like to ask everyone who is here, Board 

19 members, visitors, to be sure to register your 

20 attendance on the registration book that is out 

21 in the hallway. 

22 Also on the rear table you will find many 

23 handouts, including the agenda and other 

24 support and supplementary materials relating to 

25 this meeting and other Board-related 
13

1 information. 

2 I'm going to introduce Dr. Lew Wade, who is 

3 serving as our Executive Secretary and 

4 Designated Federal Official today. Lew, do you 

5 have a few remarks as we get under way? 

6 DR. WADE: Yes, just very briefly. I'll make a 

7 more formal welcome to the full committee when 

8 it arrives, but I think I needed to explain why 

9 I'm in the chair and will remain in the chair 

10 throughout not only the subcommittee meeting 

11 but the full Board meeting as both Executive 

12 Secretary and Designated Federal Official. 

13 As you know, Larry Elliott has ably served in 

14 those roles at previous Board meetings, but as 

15 we looked at this agenda and the likely agenda 

16 of subsequent Board meetings, there are a 

17 number of items that will require Larry to 

18 interact with this Board as the program head of 

19 OCAS within NIOSH. And therefore, to free 

20 Larry up to do that, and also to avoid any 

21 appearance of a conflict between his role as 

22 the head of OCAS, as well as his role on this 

23 Board, I'll sit in the chair. 

24 I would start by apologizing to the Board that 

25 I don't have the depth of experience that Larry 
14

1 does, and I will unashamedly seek advice and 

2 guidance as it's needed to serve the Board. 

3 But if you have any issues or needs, please let 

4 me know and I consider it at this late stage in 

5 my career really an honor to be able to sit in 

6 this chair. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you very much, Lew, 

8 for those remarks. 

9 REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES, MEETING 2

10 Subcommittee members, you have in your folder, 

11 in the binder, the minutes of the subcommittee 

12 meeting that was held in December at Livermore. 

13 I'd like to call attention to those minutes and 

14 ask if anyone has any corrections or additions 

15 to those minutes. 

16 (No responses) 

17 DR. ZIEMER: If not, I'll entertain a motion to 

18 approve the minutes. 

19 DR. DEHART: So moved. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: It's been moved -- and seconded? 

21 Has it been seconded? 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Second. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Seconded, thank you. All in favor 

24 of approving the summary minutes of the 

25 December subcommittee meeting, please say aye. 
15

1 (Affirmative responses) 

2 DR. ZIEMER: And any opposed? 

3 (No responses) 

4 DR. ZIEMER: And the motion carries and those 

5 minutes then are approved. 

6 SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION_-- CASE SAMPLING MATRIX

7 Following our meeting in Livermore we asked a 

8 working group to work with our contractor and 

9 with NIOSH on developing the responses to both 

10 the first set of 20 dose reconstruction 

11 reviews, as well as the site profile review 

12 that had been completed. In that connection, 

13 that workgroup had developed a matrix for 

14 assisting us in the selection of cases as we go 

15 forward in selecting cases -- dose 

16 reconstruction cases for audit. And Mark has 

17 kind of had the lead on developing that matrix. 

18 I'm going to call on Mark -- Mark, are we ready 

19 to present that? I don't know if we have the 

20 handouts yet or -- 

21 UNIDENTIFIED: (Unintelligible) 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Well, one thing you do have 

23 at your -- at your desk is the summary 

24 materials, and actually NIOSH provided this, as 

25 they committed to last time. And that gives 
16

1 breakdowns of the cases that we have looked at, 

2 as well as the numbers of cases from the 

3 various sites and the categorization of cases. 

4 If you look at this, first of all by location, 

5 by cancer type, by year of first employment, by 

6 number of working years, total cases that have 

7 been processed and the projected number of 

8 cases from the various sites and so on. So 

9 this will help us as we select future cases to 

10 make sure that we are getting representations 

11 by site, by cancer type, by other parameters 

12 that we may wish to emphasize. 

13 Are there any questions on the material that's 

14 been provided for us here, just -- as you look 

15 down through that, and you may not have had -- 

16 this was here at your place so you haven't had 

17 a chance to look at it in advance, but for 

18 example, if you looked at the first page there 

19 you see the Savannah River Site, the total 

20 number of cases received and you see the number 

21 of cases that we have selected already and so 

22 on, so that's how that is broken down. 

23 The second page you see the number of cancer 

24 types and the various percentages of each in 

25 the -- in the -- from the various sites and the 
17

1 numbers that we have selected already and so 

2 on. 

3 DR. DEHART: I think the other construct is 

4 that if you assume a two-and-a-half percent 

5 sampling rate, that's -- then the projected 

6 cases would be the number of cases -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, right. 

8 DR. DEHART: -- that needs to be -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: That column just to the left of 

10 the number of cases that we've already 

11 selected, the projected cases would represent 

12 the two-and-a-half percent of the total cases 

13 that would eventually be received, so that 

14 gives you some -- you can look and see where 

15 are we relative to what we may finally wish to 

16 end up with. 

17 Any questions on that? Yes, Roy. 

18 DR. DEHART: If a case goes to appeal, which 

19 has happened with our group, but is that case 

20 then removed from the total percentage that we 

21 see -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: The answer is yes. In fact, there 

23 were two cases in the last batch of 20 for 

24 which that occurred, and those were removed 

25 then immediately. So actually we have before 
18

1 us or in process now and SC&A is reviewing now 

2 18 rather than 20 cases because of that very 

3 fact. And I believe that will always be the 

4 case, if -- if it's not really final, then it's 

5 not eligible for the audit at that point. 

6 Mark. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: The -- the other thing in this -- 

8 in the handout is that there's a second pool, 

9 pool two I think it's called, that shows those 

10 same four tables, but on the available cases at 

11 this point, so it kind of gives us the numbers 

12 based on the available cases, if I'm 

13 interpreting this correctly. So that's also, 

14 you know, -- 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- consideration -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- you're on -- you're on page 5 

18 of the packet? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: And what was -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I mean it -- it's -- that's 

22 the cases that have final determinations -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes, okay. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- at this point, yeah. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 
19

1 MR. GRIFFON: So we -- you know, we don't have 

2 that overall pool available yet to sample from. 

3 That's -- that's the point they're making here. 

4 DR. WADE: Pool one is all cases received and 

5 pool two, cases that have final determination. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: I just wanted to point that out. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And it's pool two that we 

9 actually are drawing from. Right. But keeping 

10 in mind the long-term pool that hopefully will 

11 eventually be completed. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. There -- there's a 

13 couple of thing-- one thing that I think we 

14 should probably include, at least for the pool 

15 two cases, is the approved or denied, or -- or 

16 -- I think we were actually going to maybe 

17 break down the percentages on POC, and I forget 

18 how we broke those down, Paul, in our criteria, 

19 but we talked about -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Well, we did ask -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: -- less than 40, 40 to 50 -- 

22 DR. ZIEMER: We did ask in the last -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: -- selection that they indicate 

25 probability of causation -- 
20

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: -- in the final determinations, 

3 and I'm not seeing that here in the packet. Is 

4 that -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: No, what -- previously when 

6 they've pulled 20 random cases for us, they've 

7 -- they've put that POC on there, and I think 

8 it'd be good to also -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Right, let me -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- have a track to -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- ask any of the staff, is that -

12 - is that a parameter that can easily show up 

13 on this -- Stu Hinnefeld, we're just asking 

14 whether or not probability of causation is a 

15 sort that we can also see in the future on 

16 these or -- 

17 MR. HINNEFELD: In terms of the count, as well? 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, right. 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Well, it probably can, because I 

21 think they indicated that information when they 

22 gave us the cases. 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes. Yes, we can put that on. 

24 In fact, I can have it for you in a little 

25 while. It'll take me just a minute. 
21

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

2 DR. WADE: Is it the subcommittee's desire to 

3 see that information for all cases that have 

4 had a final determination made? 

5 DR. ZIEMER: I believe that was the -- kind of 

6 the consensus last time, that we would like to 

7 -- 

8 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, page 8 has the -- has the 

9 numbers of the ones that are final 

10 determination and how they broke out in terms 

11 of greater than 50 and less than 50 in terms of 

12 percentages. That's on page 8 -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Right -- 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: -- but what we don't have is 

15 the count of the 38 that have been selected. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and the other part of that 

17 was -- there was some desire to maybe focus on 

18 cases that were somewhat in the middle of the 

19 range, below the 50 but -- you know, the 40 to 

20 50 particularly we were somewhat interested in 

21 focusing on -- 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: -- if it's -- I know it's easy to 

24 sort on the yes and no, 50 and above and below 

25 50. But for example, can we get one to 40 -- I 
22

1 forget how we -- 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think we talked about 

3 zero to 40, 40 to -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Zero to 40 and then 40 to 49.999 

5 and then -- 

6 MR. HINNEFELD: And 50 and above, do those 

7 three? 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 

9 MR. HINNEFELD: I think I can probably have 

10 that before the day is over. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: That would be helpful, too. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

14 DR. WADE: And we would have that for cancer 

15 type, as well as for site? That would be your 

16 desire? 

17 MR. GRIFFON: That would just be for cases. 

18 Right? I don't know if we need that by cancer 

19 type. 

20 DR. WADE: So you would like just one number? 

21 MS. MUNN: Yeah, I think that's what we need. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: I don't think we'd need it by 

23 cancer type at this point. We start getting 

24 more detailed than we can deal with. 

25 DR. WADE: But you would like it for site? I 
23

1 just want to be sure that the -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, I -- I -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: No, I just want it by case -- 

4 DR. ZIEMER: -- no -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: -- just for case. 

6 DR. WADE: By case, so one aggregate. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Right, right, so we know sort of 

8 what fraction of these are -- have we looked at 

9 that are way low, way high and then the middle. 

10 Okay, other comments on -- this is very helpful 

11 and we thank the staff for providing this 

12 information. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: I think one thing that we had 

14 discussed in our procedure, and I -- procedure 

15 on case selection, was these other parameters 

16 that we may want to track that aren't easily 

17 obtainable from the database. One that comes 

18 to mind quickly when I'm looking at my old 

19 spreadsheet is the job type, and I know that's 

20 a difficult one to wrap our hands around maybe 

21 'cause job titles -- they might have four or 

22 five titles and -- but I think it may be 

23 important if we want to at least be able to 

24 look -- say we looked at some construction 

25 workers, some production workers, some 
24

1 maintenance type -- you know. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. And you may recall that we 

3 -- we know that we can't sort against job type 

4 a priori 'cause it's not a -- one of the sort 

5 able parameters, but after the fact -- and I 

6 guess we may need to track that or have SC&A 

7 help us track that. That -- Hans, I -- is John 

8 here this morning? 

9 DR. BEHLING: No, he's not. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: This may be something we wish to 

11 talk with SC&A, but one of the tasks is to 

12 track the cases, and it may be that that is a 

13 track able item because there is a job 

14 description, once we get the case and review 

15 it. And we can talk with SC&A. That may be a 

16 tracking effort that we may need to do 

17 ourselves at that point since it's not in the 

18 original sort able database. 

19 Are we okay on this matrix then? Anything else 

20 on the matrix itself that we need to discuss? 

21 Mark. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Just one final item that I've 

23 raised before, and I'm not sure, I -- I was 

24 looking to NIOSH or ORAU for guidance on this, 

25 is the last grouping there, sample of industry 
25

1 groups, that includes a lot of the AWEs, and 

2 I'm -- I've -- I have proposed before that it 

3 might make sense to group -- to have sub 

4 groupings, you know, like -- I know that 

5 there's a lot of uranium industries in that 

6 group, so I don't know if it makes sense to 

7 break that out in any way or just leave them as 

8 all -- as one larger group. That's -- that's 

9 the question, and maybe NI-- I thought NIOSH 

10 might have a sense of that. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: What -- Stu or Jim -- Stu, what is 

12 in the group of 83 -- oh, well, 3314 called 

13 sample industry groups? 

14 MR. HINNEFELD: That's essentially all others 

15 at this point. Since we didn't know exactly 

16 what was in there to start, we just put all 

17 others in that category. So -- now in your e18 mail you suggested some possible things, like 

19 perhaps uranium-only AWEs and -- and some of 

20 those, and we've not had any additional 

21 internal discussion about, you know, kinds of 

22 things to put in there, but we can certainly, 

23 you know, welcome your suggestions. The 

24 database is fairly query able and so we can 

25 probably put whatever we want there. 
26

1 MR. GRIFFON: Maybe my -- you know, this is not 

2 a question to answer right now, but maybe if -- 

3 in the future we could get sort of some sense -

4 - 'cause I know there's a couple of procedures 

5 that say they're applicable to several 

6 different AWE sites, so obviously they're 

7 grouping some -- they're -- they're going 

8 through this thought process of which ones 

9 belong -- which ones are sort of similar and 

10 which ones are not -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Now it might -- might be helpful 

12 then to -- if we actually had a sort of who's 

13 in that group and -- and how would you 

14 categorize them. 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: For future -- yeah. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Would -- would that be reasonable, 

18 just if -- if that's something you can sort for 

19 easily and we could take a look at it and see 

20 if that's... 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. Yeah, we can provide 

22 that to the Board between now and the next 

23 meeting? How would we do that? 

24 DR. ZIEMER: I think in the next meeting is -- 

25 we don't need it now, do we? 
27

1 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: This is, again, looking ahead as 

3 how this may be further of help to us. 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

6 DR. WADE: So we'll leave to the NIOSH staff 

7 the decision as to how to subdivide that sample 

8 and they'll bring that to you -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, what categories would make 

10 sense, yeah. Wanda Munn? 

11 MS. MUNN: With respect to categories, I guess 

12 I feel that the Board perhaps should give some 

13 direction in that regard. Are we looking for 

14 sites broken out or are we looking for what 

15 you've just mentioned, Mark, categories of 

16 employment more than anything else, operations, 

17 maintenance, construction, clerical, major -- 

18 that was my thinking when I looked at that 

19 number, rather than by site, because -- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Would it help if we knew a little 

21 more about what -- what is actually in that -- 

22 it's kind of a catch-all category. 

23 MS. MUNN: It is. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Stu, give us some examples of what 

25 are in that category. I mean it's smaller 
28

1 sites, is that not correct? 

2 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, there were -- there are 

3 some 300 covered facilities, so it's the 

4 combination of all other facilities other than 

5 the ones listed. Quite a number -- quite a 

6 large number of them are Atomic Weapons 

7 Employers, if not all. I'm not exactly sure if 

8 there -- if all the DOE sites are listed there 

9 or not, so it's -- it's the assembled mass of 

10 Atomic Weapons Employers that are covered under 

11 the program. 

12 MS. MUNN: Which -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: It could be a wide variety of 

14 types of activities, is that not correct? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: It's a -- it's a wide variety 

16 of types of activities, and there's a wide 

17 variety of durations of covered employment at 

18 the various sites. Some -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Some of it might be R&D, as well 

20 as -- 

21 MR. HINNEFELD: Yes, there's some R&D sites, as 

22 well. 

23 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: What kind of -- Wanda, did you 

25 have in mind certain kinds of categories that 
29

1 might be helpful, like -- 

2 MS. MUNN: That's what I was thinking. I was 

3 thinking if -- you mentioned R&D -- if we had 

4 research or laboratory, technical professional 

5 -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: It may be that once we see what's 

7 in there and -- and if you can identify it in 

8 some way, many of these have a -- like a 

9 single-mission site type of thing, and if it's 

10 R&D you could identify that or -- 

11 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- even perhaps the type of R&D. 

13 MR. HINNEFELD: There's some categories that 

14 come to mind readily that would capture quite a 

15 few of them, and then -- 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Why don't we try that as a first 

17 step. 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: -- beyond that, there may -- 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Would that be agreeable? 

20 MS. MUNN: That would be my thought. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, okay. 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: Okay. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Anything else on the 

24 matrix? The matrix. Okay. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Was that someone on the phone? 
30

1 MR. PRESLEY: Henry coming in. 

SUBCOMMITTEE DISCUSSION -– SUMMARY OF 1ST 2 SET OF CASE 

3 REVIEWS/PREPARE RECOMMENDATION FOR FULL BOARD

4 DR. ZIEMER: Are we ready then to proceed with 

5 the summary of the first set of case reviews? 

6 Okay. 

7 We have -- we have some materials that were 

8 just distributed. We had a working group 

9 working with SC&A and with NIOSH since our last 

10 meeting, and Mark, it turned out that although 

11 Tony was the Chair of that workgroup, Tony was 

12 actually not able to be in attendance, had a 

13 conflict at the time that -- that it turned out 

14 they needed to meet, so Mark stepped in and 

15 served as Chair of that workgroup. So Mark, if 

16 you would lead us through this then. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Sure. Cori was nice enough to 

18 quickly print off two of these -- two documents 

19 here. The main focus I think of our discussion 

20 today should be this one-page summary, which is 

21 a methodology for categorizing and ranking DR 

22 case review findings, and our -- or at least 

23 Wanda and I and Mike Gibson discussed this in 

24 McLean, Virginia, I think -- or in Cincinnati, 

25 one or the other. 
31

1 The idea -- what -- what I -- what we attempted 

2 to do, we -- we met in McLean, Virginia with 

3 SCA and NIOSH, which I should say also was a 

4 very good and encouraging process, where we 

5 went through the previously-provided DR case 

6 review reports issue by issue and did a lot of 

7 the technical back-and-forth discussions that 

8 have to occur, that worked well at that level 

9 with that number of people. And SCA has 

10 produced a -- a revised report from that which 

11 I think -- a lot of us haven't even read 

12 through that entire thing. I think we got it 

13 Friday of last week. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Let me interrupt for a moment. 

15 How many of you actually got the SC&A report? 

16 Some did not. I didn't get it. It's probab-- 

17 I would -- it's probably sitting in an 

18 electronic file back at Purdue over the 

19 weekend, but I've not seen it myself, but -- so 

20 not all the committee Board members -- a few 

21 have seen it, a few have not. Okay, thank you. 

22 DR. WADE: It's a 300-page document and NIOSH 

23 has not had a chance to see it or review it at 

24 this point. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 
32

1 MS. MUNN: It's been seen, not reviewed. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Proceed. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: So after -- you know, after the 

6 meeting in McLean, Virginia where we went 

7 through all these cases, you know, we -- we -- 

8 as a working group we -- we were tasked with 

9 the -- with the notion of coming up with some 

10 criteria on how to pull these reviews together 

11 in a summary fashion to present to the full 

12 Board. And -- and this -- this product here, 

13 this one-pager, is sort of a draft methodology 

14 of how we might go about, number one, ranking 

15 the individual findings -- and I had proposed 

16 here and one to five ranking system, with five 

17 being the most serious -- and -- and I think 

18 some of these parameters are -- or some of the 

19 bullets listed below the rankings there are 

20 important to consider. Did the -- did the 

21 finding -- could the finding have affected the 

22 dose significantly, only modestly or very -- 

23 very minor effect on the dose estimate; would 

24 it have affected the final determination of the 

25 probability of causation, would it -- was it 
33

1 that significant of a -- of a finding. And the 

2 other -- the other one to think about I think 

3 when -- when trying to rank these findings is 

4 did the finding affect only that individual 

5 case; could it likely affect -- affect other 

6 cases from that site, or could it likely affect 

7 a lot of cases throughout the program. So did 

8 it have -- was it a broader finding or was it a 

9 very narrow finding. I think that's important 

10 in -- when we consider this numerical sort of 

11 ranking of the seriousness of the finding. 

12 And then I also wanted to try to categorize or 

13 group these findings, and I -- I sort of have a 

14 -- two groupings, kind of -- may be a little 

15 difficult to describe, but they probably -- at 

16 least ring true to some people. The first one 

17 in the next-to-last paragraph from the bottom 

18 of the page talks about procedural, technical, 

19 quality control or regulatory findings, so -- 

20 so taking individual findings, going through 

21 and -- and saying was this -- and understanding 

22 that there's probably a little overlap on some 

23 of these findings, that some are procedural and 

24 technical mixed, but you know, was it primarily 

25 a procedural issue, was it a -- a technical 
34

1 issue, was it quality control-related, sort of 

2 -- sort of categorize them like that. 

3 And then additionally I thought it was useful 

4 to group them by the -- sort of some of these 

5 scope of work criteria, or the way we -- we 

6 sort of structured the task order. The 

7 categories in the task order include data 

8 collection -- this is at the very bottom of the 

9 paragraph -- data collection, the interview 

10 process -- which is the CATI interview -- the 

11 internal dose, external dose, medical dose or 

12 general. And -- and I must admit when I first 

13 went through these, general -- general was the 

14 category where I put some ones where I couldn't 

15 find a category for, but -- but they do -- in 

16 some ways they are a -- a few of the ones that 

17 were identified in this first meeting seemed to 

18 -- seemed to cross the category, so there were 

19 more -- more generic findings about the DR 

20 reports themselves. 

21 And that's -- that's sort of what we came up 

22 with. I think that -- Wanda, I don't know if 

23 you have anything to add. We -- we -- this was 

24 a -- a -- a limited group of the working group 

25 that discussed this, you know, draft. 
35

1 MS. MUNN: Yes, and frankly, we haven't had a 

2 chance to rework these -- these initial 

3 comments of Mark's. Just going over them, I 

4 don't see any major difference to what we had 

5 discussed. I think you captured most of the 

6 high points that we considered appropriate for 

7 this type of review. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. Then we will 

9 consider this to be a recommendation to the 

10 subcommittee from the working group and as such 

11 it will constitute a formal motion. This group 

12 then can adopt this and recommend it to the 

13 full Board. It can modify it. You can discard 

14 it, do whatever you wish, but it now is before 

15 us as a formal motion. 

16 Let me open the floor for questions or 

17 comments. Let me ask the first question. 

18 On the rankings, Mark, the one to five ranking 

19 system, you have three bullets. What would be 

20 -- would bullet one be, for example, a five? 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, these are -- are things to 

22 consider when -- when thinking about the 

23 seriousness of -- so -- so the first bullet 

24 actually could be a one or a five -- one 

25 through five, anywhere. It says that -- would 
36

1 the finding affect only the individual claim -- 

2 in that case you'd probably lean it toward a 

3 lower -- a lower -- a less significant finding 

4 -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so you're not -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- many claims on the site would 

7 be a -- you know, middle, and then if it 

8 affected program-wide, you might give it a 

9 higher ranking. But you also have to -- these 

10 three criteria, you sort of have to think about 

11 them all at the same time -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: -- because if it only affected 

14 one case, but it could have pushed it over the 

15 50 percentile POC, I'd say that would be a 

16 pretty serious -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: -- serious-ranked finding. 

19 Right. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: So actually the three bullets are 

21 simply questions you ask to arrive at a score. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: And -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: There's no prescriptive sort of -

25 - 
37

1 DR. ZIEMER: Are you suggesting that the 

2 contractor would do this initially, or that the 

3 Board would do this? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: That -- that's open, certainly. 

5 I -- I should -- this -- this might be a -- a -

6 - well, I don't know, you can tell me, but this 

7 -- SCA, in their report that we just received, 

8 which no one's seen -- that's the -- why I'm 

9 not sure if it's appropriate to bring it up 

10 here or not, but they have come up with a two11 page matrix on -- on way -- on their own 

12 ranking system, which -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Somewhat like -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: There's a lot of commonality 

15 here, but -- but they're not exactly the same, 

16 so there's some differences, so you know, I -- 

17 I think that if we -- I think if we set up a 

18 system, we could probably ask the contractor to 

19 do it, once we've agreed -- sort of meshed 

20 those two -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: To the parameters, uh-huh. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: -- agree upon the system, and 

23 then let the contractor do it. That would make 

24 a lot of sense, I think. Just my opinion. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: And you would -- you would see 
38

1 this as a continuum of scores from one to five, 

2 or discrete -- you know, one, two, three, four, 

3 five -- or maybe you haven't discussed that 

4 kind of detail, but how -- how much specificity 

5 to these grades would you envision? 

6 MR. GRIFFON: I don't think I got that far, 

7 although when I did this -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, it's more conceptual at the 

9 moment then, yeah. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right, when I did -- compiled 

11 this other document here, I found myself doing 

12 -- you'll -- you'll notice on the first page of 

13 that matrix one to two, three to four -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: -- so... 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Roy DeHart. 

17 DR. DEHART: Would it not be best to have an 

18 experience by using this second product that 

19 has -- has been generated so that we can get a 

20 better feel of just how this page is applied 

21 and whether it makes sense before we actually 

22 act upon this? 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, good question. That's not 

24 necessarily a rhetorical question. If somebody 

25 has the response to it, they can -- Wanda Munn. 
39

1 MS. MUNN: I don't have the response. I guess 

2 in terms of the three bullets and ranking, it 

3 may not be clear what the thinking was at the 

4 time that these were generated. Correct me if 

5 I'm wrong here, Mark, but I think our general 

6 thought process was is this finding of major 

7 importance to this claim only, or is it of 

8 major importance across the board, so that 

9 rather than three categories there, in my mind 

10 there were two -- whether this is a broad 

11 concern or whether it's a narrow concern. And 

12 within those two definitions, then there is the 

13 issue of whether it's -- would affect final 

14 dose reconstruction numbers or significantly 

15 affect the dose estimate, so the -- the wording 

16 of the three bullets -- I don't know, perhaps -

17 - am I clarifying it -- 

18 MR. GRIFFON: No, that's -- 

19 MS. MUNN: -- or just muddying the water better 

20 -- more? 

21 MR. GRIFFON: No, that's -- that's pretty 

22 accurate. That first one, I -- I guess broad 

23 and narrow really -- really defines it well. I 

24 was adding in that -- that it may be that it 

25 could affect a lot of -- a lot more cases, but 
40

1 only at that individual site, not beyond into 

2 the programmatics. I was giving three -- three 

3 tiers there, but really it's broad versus 

4 narrow is a good description of that. And then 

5 the other big component is this significance of 

6 the finding on the final dose, so that -- those 

7 are -- that boils it down. And maybe we -- we 

8 can certainly work with this wording. I mean 

9 that -- you know. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Other comments? 

11 MR. GRIFFON: I can respond to Roy's idea. I 

12 mean I think it is worthwhile. The only thing 

13 about going through this other matrix here that 

14 I've come up with is that I generated this 

15 while SCA was generating their final report, 

16 and then I tried to -- last night, mostly -- 

17 compare the two documents and edit as necessary 

18 because I think it -- at the meeting in McLean, 

19 some findings were -- some findings basic-- 

20 basically were -- may have been dropped as a 

21 result of that meeting, once it -- once they 

22 got clarif-- once SCA got clarification from 

23 NIOSH, I think there were some that were 

24 dropped. It was a misunderstanding on the 

25 auditor's part. Others, NIOSH had agree-- 
41

1 agreed with the finding. And then there was 

2 this third category which I tried to capture in 

3 -- in the NIOSH response section of this 

4 matrix, and the third category was some -- 

5 required further investigation or follow-up, so 

6 -- so this is pretty draft -- you know, if we 

7 wanted to look at it in terms of how this 

8 methodology worked, that's one thing, but it's 

9 -- it's -- understand it's very draft and may 

10 not even represent SCA's final product. That's 

11 what I fear, you know, as far as... 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Mark, could you also put 

13 this in context with the concept of findings 

14 versus observations that SC&A used in their 

15 first report. Is this applying only to 

16 findings, as opposed to observations? 

17 MR. GRIFFON: I didn't think -- and SCA -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: I think -- I think those were the 

19 -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- SCA -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- and double-check with Hans, 

22 perhaps. We had findings, observations and 

23 then there was maybe a third category, which I 

24 can't remember -- and he can't remember either, 

25 maybe. 
42

1 DR. BEHLING: I'm not sure I really fully 

2 comprehend the difference a findings 

3 observations because in many instance we were 

4 trying to tone down the rhetoric and use 

5 terminology that would be acceptable, such as 

6 "issues of concern" as opposed to the use of 

7 "errors" or things like that. So when we 

8 talked about findings and observations, I'm not 

9 sure we really differentiate between those two 

10 -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, and actually now that I 

12 think about it, I'm also mixing site profile 

13 reviews with dose reconstruction reviews. I 

14 think in the site profile reviews you actually 

15 had the findings and observations as a -- as 

16 specific categories that you folks made. 

17 DR. BEHLING: I think we used them 

18 interchangeably. I don't think there was any 

19 attempt to differentiate the findings from an 

20 observation. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: My sense in this report -- and 

22 again, I've -- I've only -- did a cursory 

23 review of the final one, but my sense is that 

24 they didn't really distinguish, so these 

25 findings -- I didn't really want to use the 
43

1 terminology of findings and observations. 

2 Rather I thought if people wanted to see the 

3 significance of a finding, they should look at 

4 the ranking, so the ranking sort of says is it 

5 a serious -- is it a serious matter or is it a 

6 less serious matter instead of -- 'cause 

7 observation and finding's pretty -- pretty 

8 vague terminology, too. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: So that -- that's the way, at 

11 least in this method, that we're proposing it. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: And then also help us think about 

13 sort of the -- the cross-walking between the 

14 ranking of the findings and the categorization. 

15 For example, is a procedural five ranking 

16 versus a quality control five ranking -- does 

17 one -- is there any different level of 

18 seriousness or is a five a five? 

19 MS. MUNN: A five's a five, yeah. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: I think a five's a five. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: A five's a five. 

22 MS. MUNN: Yeah. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: That makes sense. 

24 MS. MUNN: That's big stuff. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. You have a comment, Wanda? 
44

1 MS. MUNN: Yes, I do, with respect to the issue 

2 of findings and observations. If there's not a 

3 clear delineation there, there may be some 

4 significant confusion to people who are 

5 accustomed to seeing very clear 

6 differentiation. To me, a finding is something 

7 which is of significant enough importance that 

8 some decision must be made on it. An 

9 observation is just exactly that, it is calling 

10 to your attention something which might or 

11 might not cause other issues to raise in 

12 people's minds. And the third category -- in 

13 my parlance, which is not widespread, I'm sure 

14 -- is a comment, which is simply an 

15 acknowledgement that something was noted or -- 

16 or something was observed that wasn't worthy of 

17 boosting it up to a significant level. If we -

18 - if we use findings and observations 

19 interchangeably, my perception is that that 

20 will be confusing, both to the casual reader 

21 and to some researchers. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. My -- my impression was 

23 similar, that both the observations and the 

24 comments were items that the audit may wish to 

25 call attention to, but it had a priori very 
45

1 little significance in the scheme of things, 

2 but may be something that ought to be done 

3 differently, that it didn't affect outcomes but 

4 it was something perhaps that some attention 

5 has to be given to. If it's in the finding 

6 category, it automatically takes on a -- an 

7 importance, and then -- 

8 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- the ranking would tell us -- 

10 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: -- is that of narrow importance or 

12 widespread -- 

13 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- importance in the scheme of 

15 things and -- 

16 MS. MUNN: Exactly. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: -- would -- but it may be helpful 

18 to -- if we do go forward using terms such as 

19 findings versus observations and comments, that 

20 there be a clear distinction between those. 

21 John Mauro has walked into the room and I had a 

22 comment, John, and I think this was -- probably 

23 dealt more with the site profile reviews, but 

24 you -- you did distinguish between a finding 

25 and an observation, did you not, in the site 
46

1 profile reviews, as I recall? 

2 DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) Yes, we did. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, and the finding was 

4 inherently of more serious nature than an 

5 observation. 

6 DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) Yes, in effect, 

7 the -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: You may need -- does he need -- 

9 DR. WADE: Would you get to the microphone, 

10 please? 

11 DR. ZIEMER: This is John Mauro from SC&A, the 

12 contractor. 

13 DR. MAURO: The way I like to communicate it, 

14 to sort of bring it down to the simplest -- a 

15 finding is we -- we believe we've found a -- a 

16 problem, something that needs to be fixed. An 

17 observation is -- you know, there's an issue 

18 here that you may want to look into the 

19 literature a little further, to get further 

20 clarification. So in other words, it's not 

21 that there's necessarily something that's 

22 wrong, but it's something -- something that is 

23 probably worthy of additional consideration. 

24 So there's a pretty clear -- we're trying to 

25 make a clear boundary between the two. 
47

1 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And that was more focused 

2 on the site profile reviews, but it may be that 

3 a similar nomenclature could be used in the 

4 dose reconstruction reviews, as well. 

5 DR. MAURO: That's true, although our -- 

6 although I'd like to ask Hans to -- because we 

7 have come up with a -- a checklist, as you may 

8 be aware, where we've taken a different tact. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and unfortunately, not all 

10 the Board members have had a chance to see that 

11 yet. Mark referred to the fact that there is a 

12 -- a matrix now that you are using, and it 

13 somewhat parallels these ideas and we may need 

14 to merge them conceptually, as well. 

15 DR. BEHLING: If I may, I would just like to 

16 make a comment. When we talk about whether 

17 something is significant and whether or not 

18 that significance spreads to other issues, 

19 sometimes that distinction is very, very 

20 difficult to make. And I guess the best way to 

21 illustrate this to give you an example, and I'm 

22 sure that, for instance, Mark will agree 

23 because he's been party to some of the 

24 discussions we've had. When we, for instance, 

25 have an individual who has had an exposure that 
48

1 is part of -- in the record; in other words, we 

2 have TLD data or we have film badge dosimetry 

3 data. And in certain number of cases that 

4 we've reviewed to date, the individual dose 

5 reconstructioner failed to actually introduce 

6 the issue of uncertainty for that dose. And I 

7 won't go into the details to what causes here, 

8 but again we want to say is this a significant 

9 issue? Well, it's insignificant if the dose of 

10 record -- let's say for that individual, for 

11 the years that he was employed is a modest 

12 let's say 200 millirem, the uncertainty of an -

13 - the exclusion of uncertainty at most, even if 

14 he doubled it, would be 200 millirem. But 

15 we've had other individuals whose dose of 

16 record was something like 30 rem. Now the 

17 absence of including the uncertainty now 

18 becomes a significant issue. So how do you 

19 classify it? It's relative to the issue of 

20 what was that individual's exposure. So the 

21 absence of uncertainty is not something you can 

22 categorize without defining what the actual 

23 dose was for which the uncertainty was not 

24 included. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: And that's -- that's why, you 
49

1 know, you -- we have the-- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: -- not only the effect on the 

4 dose, but also the broad versus narrow nature 

5 of the finding and -- 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Right, and would that particular 

7 situation affect other cases, and you've made 

8 an example here where yes, it might not affect 

9 this case, but broadly could affect many other 

10 cases, so that would be an example -- and in 

11 which case you would give it a higher ranking 

12 as a finding. Uh-huh. 

13 Did you have a comment, Lew? No. Okay. Other 

14 comments, subcommittee? 

15 It may be that you will wish to adopt -- I'm 

16 sorry? 

17 MR. PRESLEY: Henry just came -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, Henry, I'm sorry. Okay, 

19 welcome. Henry Anderson is on the phone. He's 

20 somewhere in the far reaches of the world. 

21 Henry, where are you this morning? 

22 DR. ANDERSON: (Via telephone) I'm in 

23 Anchorage, Alaska. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Anchorage, Alaska. 

25 DR. ANDERSON: (Unintelligible) 
50

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. His question is would you 

2 see this fitting into Table E. 

3 DR. ANDERSON: (Unintelligible) 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Is it -- where -- I'm not 

5 sure if we all have access to that table, 

6 Henry. Is that the table in the new SC&A 

7 report? 

8 DR. ANDERSON: (Unintelligible) 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Unfortunately not all the 

10 Board members have gotten that report yet, so -

11 - 

12 DR. ANDERSON: (Unintelligible) 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Right, as -- but not -- not all of 

14 us have gotten that report yet. 

15 DR. ANDERSON: Oh, okay. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, so -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Kind of generally, Henry -- 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, here's Mark. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Generally I thought that there -- 

20 we have overlap in the approaches -- 

21 DR. ANDERSON: Yeah, you had a little more -- 

22 you had a few more elements, I think, that you 

23 added, as in broadly impacting other cases and 

24 things like that, but I... 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 
51

1 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. Conceptually we 

2 would have to somehow merge these concepts, I 

3 would -- I would guess. 

4 What I'm wondering is if the subcommittee would 

5 wish to recommend that the Board adopt this 

6 methodology in a general sense, with -- with 

7 the details of the scoring and so on to be 

8 worked out. This is -- at this point is more 

9 of a conceptual piece than it is a -- a detail 

10 on how you would actually do it. 

11 Would that be a fair characterization, Mark, 

12 Wanda? 

13 MS. MUNN: Yes, I believe that it would be. I 

14 would suggest that the motion be that we accept 

15 this concept in principle, the details to be 

16 worked out. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We can consider that kind 

18 of a friendly amendment to the original motion 

19 to adopt the document, would be to adopt it as 

20 a -- say the words again, if you're -- 

21 MS. MUNN: As a concept. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: As a concept. 

23 MS. MUNN: The details -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: With the details to be worked out. 

25 MS. MUNN: -- to be worked out in the short 
52

1 term. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. Is that a -- that's 

3 agreeable as the true nature of the motion 

4 that's before us. Mark, before we vote do we 

5 need to look at your supplementary material at 

6 all? Oh, this -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I spent a lot of time -- 

8 no. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: You'd really like to work on -- 

10 look at it then. The supplementary material 

11 really takes the, quote, findings from the 

12 first 20 cases -- right? -- and tries to 

13 actually categorize them, according to this 

14 concept. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right, that's -- that's right. 

16 And there -- there -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: And tell us -- on the table here, 

18 for example, the -- the reference numbers on 

19 the left -- 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, on the left-hand side -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- refer to -- 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Reference numbers refer to the -- 

23 the document we worked from in McLean, Virginia 

24 had finding numbers or issue numbers for each 

25 case, so I took the case number and issue 
53

1 number, so it's case number one, issue one is 

2 1.1, case one, issue two, so forth, down the 

3 line. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: And then I grouped them -- I 

6 sorted these by internal dose being the first 

7 several pages here, and then you'll see other 

8 groupings. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: So you've done the categorization, 

10 such as you talked about in your -- your -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: -- bottom section of your -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: At least for most -- 

14 DR. ZIEMER: -- categorizing paper. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: At least for most of them there's 

16 a ranking -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: So you've got them categorized by 

18 internal dose, external dose, external medical, 

19 interview and data collection. Correct? 

20 MR. GRIFFON: And then general at the last. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: And some general. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: And then in each case you've 

24 summarized the findings, you've summarized 

25 NIOSH's response, you've -- 
54

1 MR. GRIFFON: And in some cases, either 

2 parenthetically or -- or underlined, I -- I 

3 noted that there -- at least from my notes, 

4 there was an agreement from either NIOSH or SCA 

5 to -- you know, more investigation was required 

6 or several of them NIOSH and SCA agreed that -- 

7 that these comments were better resolved in the 

8 site profile reviews which were ongoing. They 

9 were slightly broader issue, but were also 

10 being discussed in the site profile reviews, so 

11 they sort of were left to that discussion. So 

12 I tried to note -- note sort of what the action 

13 was when I -- when I could remember -- when my 

14 notes were good enough to tell me. 

15 And the last thing I'll say is that this is the 

16 matrix that -- that their -- SC&A report has in 

17 it, and this matrix -- I tried to go through 

18 issue by issue on my sheet and match up where 

19 they had a -- an item checked off on their 

20 matrix to match with the finding, and for the 

21 most part I was successful. There were some 

22 where I questioned what -- what -- how to match 

23 them, so -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. Let me insert here, let me 

25 ask this question. Is the SCA report available 
55

1 today to the public? I mean is it -- is it 

2 here? 

3 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Yes. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: And it's on the back table? 

5 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

6 (Unintelligible) 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So -- and it's a -- it's a 

8 lengthy report. How many thousand copies of 

9 this 300-page report have we -- 

10 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

11 (Unintelligible) 

12 DR. ZIEMER: We have enough. Okay. So that 

13 report is available, and Board members who did 

14 not get a chance to get that report before you 

15 came, please pick one up. It seems to me it's 

16 going to make sense for us to lay this side by 

17 side before our Board meeting and look at these 

18 two -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: And I would just recom-- 

20 DR. ZIEMER: -- and see how they track. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: I would recommend, too -- it's 

22 useful to lay -- 

23 DR. ZIEMER: So Mark, you can -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: -- methodology next to this -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. 
56

1 MR. GRIFFON: -- matrix. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, what you're referring to -- 

3 and I want to make sure members of the public 

4 have this -- is what, a summary in the front of 

5 the SC&A report? 

6 MR. GRIFFON: It's a summary that they have in 

7 front, and then in the front of each case, 

8 also. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Throughout the document. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: And there's an overall -- overall 

12 summary, as well? The document you just 

13 referred to, give us an identification table, 

14 for the record. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: All I have as a reference is 

16 Table 2, case review checklist. Is that -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Table 2, case review checklist. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Wait, it might be... 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yes? 

20 MS. BEHLING: My name is Kathy Behling. Just 

21 to clarify, we put an executive summary into 

22 the report, and that table is ES-1, in which we 

23 summarized -- we -- all of the 15 DOE facility 

24 cases -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 
57

1 MS. BEHLING: -- that we reviewed, and -- 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. 

3 MS. BEHLING: -- and within the -- excuse me, 

4 I'm sorry -- within the report, in each 

5 individual tab, there's also a table for that 

6 particular -- for the 15 DOE facilities. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Excellent, thank you. So 

8 that will be a way of kind of looking at this 

9 matrix that Mark has here and kind of laying it 

10 side by side to get a feel for that. 

11 Yes, Stu Hinnefeld. 

12 MR. HINNEFELD: Yeah, I just wanted to make 

13 sure everybody understands, we're seeing the 

14 matrix that Mark prepared for the first time 

15 today, and I haven't seen anything in it I 

16 disagree with or I think mischaracterizes the -

17 - the discussion in McLean, but we would want 

18 to be able to make sure that, you know, we see 

19 that and -- and it has captured what we recall 

20 having been said. I haven't seen anything yet 

21 that doesn't, but I just thought -- we haven't 

22 seen it yet and everybody should know that. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Right, nor have we. 

24 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: I agree. In fact, there's 
58

1 several of them which I -- I was unclear 

2 whether SC&A had agreed to drop the finding or 

3 not, so I think it's definitely -- 

4 MR. HINNEFELD: Right. I'm sure that's the 

5 case. Right. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: Right. And let's -- let's 

7 understand that Mark's -- Mark's sheet here is, 

8 again, working the concept at this point 'cause 

9 we haven't had a chance to really see what the 

10 final report from SC&A -- well, some have but 

11 most haven't -- yeah, and Hans, please. 

12 DR. BEHLING: Yeah. I just want to clarify a 

13 point. I think there was some misunderstanding 

14 that Cori had to -- stated that the report was 

15 available on the back table. It is not. The 

16 report in question was made available, has 

17 already been acknowledged, to each of the Board 

18 members by e-mail, electronically. At this 

19 point I'm also expecting three copies, hard 

20 copies, to be sent to us here at the hotel 

21 sometime today for distribution, just the three 

22 copies, limited distribution. And of course 

23 each and every Board member will also receive a 

24 hard copy that will be mailed sometime probably 

25 today and when you get back to your office you 
59

1 will find -- find a hard copy of that report. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

3 DR. BEHLING: So right now there is no hard 

4 copy as we speak. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 

6 DR. BEHLING: Only what we will expect to get 

7 sometime -- by FedEx today for distribution. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: And I believe as soon as 

9 available, that report will also be made 

10 available on the web site. Is that not 

11 correct? 

12 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) I believe so. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. We want to make -- 

14 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

15 (Unintelligible) 

16 DR. WADE: It has to be Privacy Act reviewed. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, after a Privacy Act -- 

18 DR. WADE: You are having a discussion of this 

19 generic methodology, so I think your materials, 

20 and then possibly I could work with SC&A and 

21 see that some summary of their generic material 

22 could also be made available to the Board for 

23 consideration tomorrow, short of the full 

24 report. So I would try and work with you, 

25 John, to see that we could get that material. 
60

1 But the -- the full report has not been looked 

2 at from a Privacy Act point of view. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: So that needs to occur before it's 

4 widely distributed. Okay. Yes, Shelby. 

5 MR. HALLMARK: Dr. Ziemer, Shelby Hallmark, 

6 Labor. Just in looking at this report for the 

7 first time this morning, and in light of the 

8 discussion that was held earlier about the 

9 ranking system and the fact that the rank 

10 that's being applied in this report applies at 

11 some points to the individual reconstruction 

12 itself and at other points to the 

13 methodological, broad scale, a suggestion from 

14 our vantage on this would be that maybe there's 

15 a need for two ranks, one applicable to the 

16 individual case and another applicable to the 

17 broad impact. And obviously some method-- some 

18 of the items that are shows as fours here go 

19 across all the different dose reconstruction 

20 reports and are in fact important 

21 methodologically, but with respect to the 

22 individual case they may not have an impact as 

23 far as outcomes and so on, and so I think it 

24 would be more transparent to the public if you 

25 had two scales. 
61

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. The comment then would be 

2 to -- to break those two apart, and that's 

3 certainly a possibility, that you have a -- a 

4 ranking for the case and a separate ranking for 

5 the impact overall as a broad finding, and it 

6 may very well be that making that separation 

7 will be helpful, as well. Thank you for that 

8 comment. Wanda? 

9 MS. MUNN: And Shelby's comment is well10 accepted. It would be, I think, simpler to 

11 see. 

12 I wanted to express real appreciation to Mark 

13 for having put together this summary, which is 

14 very much in line with what I believe the 

15 working group was thinking. I personally made 

16 a weak effort to try to do a similar kind of 

17 thing, and found my notes from the McLean 

18 meeting seriously lacking and therefore gave up 

19 in frustration. So thank you very much, Mark. 

20 I have one question. I notice that in some of 

21 the cases you had underscored the response -- 

22 the NIOSH response comments that you had -- 

23 that they were going to resolve the general 

24 issue with NCA (sic) and with others that was 

25 not underscored. Was there a reason for the 
62

1 underscoring or is that just clerical? 

2 MR. GRIFFON: Probably cl-- probably late at 

3 night and didn't -- I wasn't consistent with 

4 that application, probably. 

5 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I have to go through that 

7 again, but -- 

8 MS. MUNN: Thanks. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: So the underscoring doesn't have a 

10 particular -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Usually I tried to capture when 

12 there was an outstanding issue for either SCA 

13 to follow up on or NIOSH, but I -- I agree, I 

14 probably have to go back through that -- 

15 MS. MUNN: Okay. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: -- and edit. 

17 DR. ZIEMER: It may not -- it may not have been 

18 consistent at this point? Thank you. 

19 Further discussion? We're still on a motion as 

20 to adopting this idea or this concept. Yes, 

21 Roy. 

22 DR. DEHART: Just a point of clarification on -

23 - on the summary sheets. Were you intending to 

24 leave out the ranking on pages 2 and 3? 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, I think some of these the -- 
63

1 the issue disappeared because it was resolved 

2 between the -- is that correct? 

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

4 DR. ZIEMER: 'Cause that's what -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Page 2 and 3 are actually a 

6 specific site, and the -- these weren't 

7 discussed in McLean, Virginia because they were 

8 under discussion with the site profile 

9 discussions, so I didn't really have a sense of 

10 the ranking until I -- I think we hear from 

11 those discussions, so they were intentionally 

12 left blank -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Oh. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: -- in that case, yeah. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. So not necessarily resolved 

16 at that time -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: -- but under discussion. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Right, they -- they weren't 

20 discussed at that McLean meeting. They were 

21 held for further discussions on the site 

22 profile task. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Are you ready to vote 

24 on the motion? It appears that we're ready to 

25 vote on the motion. 
64

1 All in favor of accepting, say aye? 

2 (Affirmative responses) 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Those opposed, say no? 

4 (No responses) 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Any abstentions? 

6 (No responses) 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. The motion carries. 

8 Thank you, Wanda. Thank you, Mark, for 

9 excellent work on this. Let's see, Mike was 

10 also involved, and thank you, Mike, appreciate 

11 that. 

12 DR. WADE: I'd certainly like to add my thanks 

13 to all three, particularly to Mark. I think 

14 this is a tremendous contribution. Thank you 

15 very much. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: The agenda indicated that we would 

17 prepare a recommendation to the Board on the 

18 summary of the first set of case reviews. But 

19 in essence, what -- what we've done here is 

20 adopted a kind of methodology for going 

21 forward. We have -- we now have the revised 

22 report from our contractor. That is, it in 

23 essence is in our hands or close to being in 

24 our hands right now. But is, again, a rather 

25 lengthy report and needs to be looked at in 
65

1 light of this approach so that -- it appears to 

2 the Chair that we will not be in a position of 

3 actually recommending an action on the report 

4 itself from SC&A. Is that the sense of the 

5 subcommittee at this point, that we're -- we're 

6 not at a position of making a recommendation on 

7 the -- on an action on that first set of 20. 

8 Nonetheless, this has been good progress 

9 because we are developing a methodology which 

10 will be useful and helpful in all succeeding 

11 audits and therefore this will help streamline 

12 the process for the future. So even though it 

13 seems a little slow for the first 20, but we're 

14 learning a very good process. I think it's 

15 been helpful to the Board, helpful to the 

16 auditors, as well as to NIOSH. So certainly 

17 the sense of the Chair that that's where we are 

18 on this and that we have reached close to a 

19 closure on the methodology for how we handle 

20 these audits as we go forward. 

21 We're going to do the selection of the next set 

22 of cases, but I think it would be appropriate 

23 to have a brief break here before we proceed 

24 with that, so I'm going to declare a 15-minute 

25 recess and then we'll reconvene to handle the 
66

1 next piece of business. 

2 (Whereupon, a recess was taken from 9:45 a.m. 

3 to 10:10 a.m.) 

SUBCOMMITTEE SELECTION –- 3RD 4 SET OF INDIVIDUAL CASES 

5 FOR BOARD REVIEWS

6 DR. ZIEMER: We're now ready to consider the 

7 selection of the third set of individual dose 

8 reconstruction cases to be reviewed by the 

9 Board. Before we do that, I'm going to ask Stu 

10 Hinnefeld from NIOSH to provide us now with the 

11 information on the previous selected cases as 

12 to the numbers that were compensable and not 

13 compensable. Stu, could you give us a quick 

14 summary? 

15 MR. HINNEFELD: Right, of the -- of the 38 

16 cases in the first two selection populations or 

17 first two groupings, eight of those cases were 

18 above 50 percent POC and 30 of them were below 

19 50 percent POC, so that's the breakdown of the 

20 consolidation of the first 38. 

21 With respect to a little more definition of 

22 where those fell, I know there was interest in 

23 the 40 to 50 percent band, I don't have that 

24 information for the full 38, but I have it for 

25 the second grouping, the 18 that were selected 
67

1 in the second population. Of those 18, 11 were 

2 less than 40 percent, five were between 40 and 

3 49.99 percent, and two were above 50 percent. 

4 So those are the -- that's what we -- that's 

5 what I can provide right now is about the 

6 breakdown of that stratification. 

7 I also know that the -- for the sampling pool 

8 as a whole as of December, for -- using that 

9 same breakdown of less than 40, 40 to 50 and 

10 above 50, 67.4 percent of the cases from that 

11 total sampling pool in December were less than 

12 40 percent; 8.1 percent of the cases were 

13 between 40 and 50 percent; and 24.5 percent of 

14 the cases were above 50 percent. So that was 

15 of the sampling population as of December. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: How many total cases in that 

17 number? 

18 MR. HINNEFELD: There were some 3,000 in that 

19 population. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Could I ask you just to repeat 

21 those again, those percentages? 

22 MR. HINNEFELD: For the December? For the 

23 population -- 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

25 MR. HINNEFELD: -- break down in December, 67.4 
68

1 percent were less than 40 percent; 8.1 percent 

2 were between 40 and 50 percent; and 24.5 

3 percent of those cases were greater than 50 

4 percent POC. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Any -- Board members, 

6 any questions on the information Stu's just 

7 provided you? 

8 Okay. Now in your packet, tab one behind the 

9 summary minutes of the subcommittee meeting, 

10 you will find the randomly-selected cases that 

11 have been generated for our use here today. In 

12 order that we not run into the problem that we 

13 had last time where we ran out of cases before 

14 we had finished selecting, I asked Larry 

15 Elliott to make sure we had a good pool here to 

16 work from, so we have -- is this right, 98 -- 

17 the next 98 random selections are here. 

18 Now perhaps one other piece of information 

19 that's been asked that we have a report on 

20 before we make the selection, all of you have 

21 received your copies of your cases as a -- as 

22 subteams for which cases you will review. It 

23 would be helpful if we could have a report from 

24 SCA as to their timetable on review of the -- 

25 that -- that second 20 -- it's actually 18 
69

1 cases, and Board members also need to know at 

2 what point they can be plugging into those 

3 discussions. So either Hans or John, can you 

4 tell us where we are on that timetable on those 

5 second 18 cases? 

6 DR. BEHLING: At this point I can only say that 

7 we've begun to look at them. We have not 

8 firmly made any written reports or informal 

9 reports regarding those cases. And in truth, 

10 the cases that I'm personally going to be 

11 reviewing I have not looked at because of all 

12 the other commitments I've had in dealing with 

13 task three, as well as the revised first 20 

14 cases. So as soon as I get back from this 

15 meeting that's going to be my priority to start 

16 looking at these dozen or so cases that I 

17 personally will review. So at this point only 

18 a handful of those second 20 set of cases have 

19 been looked at by other people who are part of 

20 the SC&A team. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. And I think -- I think 

22 we can assume that the process will be similar 

23 to before, you will have a time in which you 

24 will come together and do the internal review, 

25 at which time the individual Board members can 
70

1 be available either in person or by phone to 

2 review their cases with you and provide input. 

3 DR. BEHLING: Can I assume that we will use the 

4 same protocol, identifying the same -- 

5 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

6 DR. BEHLING: -- individuals as we did the 

7 first 20, that will be again -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

9 DR. BEHLING: -- assigned two at a time for 

10 each -- 

11 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct, and the -- the 

12 assignments were made at our last meeting, so 

13 if you don't have those, make sure that we get 

14 those to -- to you so you know who's on each 

15 case. 

16 DR. BEHLING: As soon as we are prepared we 

17 will obviously then notify the Chair and -- and 

18 make arrangements for a common agreed time to 

19 again come to SC&A and by telephone conference 

20 conduct this initial review, as we did the 

21 first go-round. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Mark? 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, I don't know if this is the 

24 point to discuss this. We can certainly do the 

25 case selection process first if you want, but I 
71

1 think we need to discuss just -- just the 

2 process of ongoing work here. You know, just 

3 the thing we just left a -- before the break 

4 was the -- the summary report, the matrix, that 

5 I drafted, and rough draft certainly. 

6 Someone's got to take the SCA report, together 

7 with those -- that draft matrix and come to a 

8 final conclusion on that report -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: -- and if we want to do it in a 

11 subcommittee meeting next time or -- you know, 

12 just the process of -- of ongoing events here. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. During the break we -- 

14 we got a copy of the SC&A matrix, and we'll 

15 have a copy that is in a sense redacted. It's 

16 just the general matrix, and we're going to get 

17 copies of that made for the Board so that when 

18 we have the discussion tomorrow -- is it 

19 tomorrow? 

20 DR. WADE: Yes. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: -- of the -- of this 

22 subcommittee's recommendation, we will have the 

23 opportunity to lay your proposed scheme side by 

24 side with the SC&A matrix, and that I think 

25 will help us to in a sense merge those concepts 
72

1 and perhaps have a -- an agreed-on scoring 

2 system. So that would be one piece of that. 

3 DR. WADE: We also do have the Board's six-step 

4 process that you had agreed upon last time and 

5 we can look at that and sort of schedule out 

6 the remaining steps in that process. We've 

7 only come -- really now approaching the third 

8 step, so I think we need to lay that all out 

9 tomorrow. 

10 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, so on the first 20 cases 

11 there are a couple of steps that remain to be 

12 done before that's finalized, and then 

13 presumably that same process then would be used 

14 with the next 20, or actually the next 18 

15 cases, a similar procedure. And now that that 

16 process is in place, that hopefully will move 

17 along a little more smoothly. 

18 Now the way we would normally proceed on -- on 

19 this next group would be to move through them 

20 one at a time and -- and vote up or down -- 

21 whether to retain them in the next group that 

22 are reviewed. However, you also have the 

23 option to pick out particular ones that meet 

24 criteria. The criteria may be probability of 

25 causation criteria, it may be facility 
73

1 criteria, may be cancer type criteria, so we 

2 can always jump ahead to identify ones that 

3 meet criteria of interest. 

4 And the object will be now to get the next 20 

5 cases. 

6 DR. WADE: Will we look for 22 now to make up 

7 the deficit? 

8 DR. ZIEMER: My sense of it is that the way 

9 we're -- in terms of our own numbers and SCA's 

10 handling, we're -- we're better prepared to 

11 handle 20 at a time. The fact that we only had 

12 18, I -- I don't want to necessarily overload 

13 the system by saying we'll do 22, although 

14 that's certainly up to the Board if you wish to 

15 -- it means a couple of the teams will have to 

16 handle extra cases if you wish to do that. 

17 Otherwise we would stick with the 20, but we 

18 can certainly go to 22 if this group wishes to 

19 recommend that. Any comments on that? Owen -- 

20 Leon Owens. 

21 MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, I would like to do the 

22 22 cases. 

23 DR. ZIEMER: You recommend that we go ahead and 

24 select 22? 

25 MR. OWENS: Yes, sir. 
74

1 DR. ZIEMER: Any other sentiment, pro and con, 

2 on that or -- Wanda? 

3 MS. MUNN: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

4 DR. ZIEMER: That mike doesn't appear to be on. 

5 Is there a switch on it? 

6 (Pause) 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Is there a lavaliere mike on the 

8 podium? Try that. Use that, Wanda, the 

9 lavaliere mike. Just make sure it's snapped 

10 on. Is there an on switch there? 

11 MS. MUNN: I think -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, you're working, Wanda. 

13 That's good. 

14 MS. MUNN: Based on our past experience and 

15 assuming that our process is now a little 

16 smoother than it was during the first two 

17 groups that we looked at, the suggestion that 

18 we do 22 rather than 20 is probably quite 

19 manageable without any difficulty. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Others are nodding -- I think in 

21 assent, so I will take it by consent that we 

22 will do 22 cases. Thank you very much. We'll 

23 proceed on that basis. 

24 I'm going to propose that we proceed down 

25 through the list, unless particular members 
75

1 wish to recommend particular cases based on any 

2 of the parameters that we mentioned, such as 

3 probability of causation or other such 

4 parameters. 

5 The first case on the list is -- and I'll just 

6 use the right-hand digits -- case one, the 

7 colon cancer, Bethlehem Steel. I'm going to 

8 ask for yeas, yea meaning let's keep it on the 

9 list. Am I going too fast? 

10 DR. WADE: Nope, I think they got you. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, nays? 

12 (Negative indications) 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, preponderance of nays. 

14 Incidentally, as we do each one we might review 

15 how many such cases we have. For example, on 

16 Bethlehem Steel we have already on our matrix 

17 four cases from that facility. 

18 Okay, the next case is Savannah River Site, 

19 malignant melanoma. Yes? 

20 DR. DEHART: Could I suggest we exclude 

21 Savannah from this survey? We've got nine -- 

22 THE COURT REPORTER: Dr. DeHart, that's not 

23 working. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Dr. DeHart is suggesting that we 

25 exclude Savannah on this list. We already have 
76

1 nine Savannah River cases. 

2 MR. PRESLEY: I would -- I would go along with 

3 that suggestion. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: So any Savannahs that come up 

5 here, you want to exclude for the time being. 

6 Is that agreeable to the group? So -- 

7 MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer -- 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, Leon? 

9 MR. OWENS: -- I would be agreeable, unless the 

10 probability of causation is at such a point 

11 where -- in the high 40's. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Easy way to handle that 

13 then, as these come up I'll just ask if anyone 

14 wants to include it as -- if it's a Savannah 

15 River Site. Otherwise, we're going to drop it. 

16 So we've excluded number two. Number three is 

17 another Bethlehem Steel, acute lymphocytic 

18 leukemia. Yes? No? No voting? Let me see 

19 the no’s again. Okay, the no’s have it. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, is it just the subcommittee 

21 voting? Jim was asking. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Well, you remember that everyone 

23 here is officially a member of the 

24 subcommittee, so you can all vote at this time. 

25 It will have to be re-voted on by the full 
77

1 Board later, but all -- all who are here can 

2 vote. 

3 Here's a Savannah River Site -- any yeas for 

4 that one? Then it's off. 

5 Another Savannah River Site, any yeas? It's 

6 off. 

7 Another Bethlehem Steel, any yeas? It's off. 

8 We have a Y-12 Plant, female genitalia, 

9 probability of causation zero. Sounds 

10 interesting. Any yeas on that one? Nays? 

11 It's off. 

12 MR. PRESLEY: Abstain? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Abstaining, Robert Presley. I 

14 should ask for the abstentions on all of these 

15 -- or tell me if you're abstaining so we have 

16 it in the record. 

17 Paducah, male genitalia, 44 -- 45 percent POC, 

18 yeses? 

19 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

20 DR. ZIEMER: It's on. 

21 MR. OWENS: Abstain. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: Abstain, Leon. 

23 Savannah River Site, lung, any yeses? It's 

24 off. 

25 Argonne West, eye cancer, any yeses? No’s? 
78

1 Off. 

2 Idaho National Engineering Lab, lymphoma, 

3 there's a 44 percent POC. Yeses? Abstentions? 

4 It's on. 

5 Keep in mind, this -- all these have to be 

6 ratified by the full Board later in the 

7 meeting, but this will be the form of a 

8 recommendation. 

9 Idaho National Engineering Lab, central nervous 

10 system, 7 percent probability of causation. 

11 Yes? No? Abstaining? It's off. 

12 Incidentally, that, I believe, is the first 

13 Idaho case we will have looked at now, just 

14 FYI. And ultimately we are looking for 19 

15 Idaho cases. I just want you to keep that in 

16 mind as you have rejected. They're not all 

17 going to be in the 40 percent range, so just 

18 alert you to that. Okay? Is anyone having 

19 second thoughts on the one you rejected? Okay. 

20 Portsmouth, lymphoma, less than 1.1 POC. 

21 Yeses? No’s? Abstentions? It's off. 

22 Here's another Idaho, female genitalia, less 

23 than point -- or less than one percent POC. 

24 Yes? No? Abstentions? Off. 

25 Los Alamos, breast cancer, 17 percent POC. On 
79

1 Los Alamos thus far we have no cases. We're 

2 looking eventually toward 17. Yeses? No’s? 

3 Abstentions? That's a yes then. 

4 Another Savannah River, lung cancer, 59 percent 

5 POC, roughly. Yeses? No’s? Abstentions? 

6 It's off. 

7 Another Savannah River Site, non-melanoma, 

8 squamous cell, 1.4 percent POC. This is case 

9 17. Yes? No? Let me see the no’s again? 

10 Okay, abstentions? That's off. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: I thought we were skipping 

12 Savannah River unless somebody -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, if the Chair notices that 

14 it's Savannah River and it registers, we'll 

15 skip it; otherwise we may end up voting on it 

16 anyway. I'm not trying to pressure anybody. 

17 Okay, Feed Materials Production Center, male 

18 genitalia, roughly 38 percent. Yeses? And 

19 no’s? And abstentions? Will -- no, that's on 

20 then. 

21 I just want to see where we are on Feed 

22 Materials. We have -- this will be the fifth 

23 case out of 14, so let's keep abreast of where 

24 we are on that. 

25 Next we have another Hanford one, non-melanoma 
80

1 skin basal cell and esophagus. A yes? Any 

2 yeses? No’s? Any abstentions? 

3 MS. MUNN: Abstain. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: One abstention, and that's off. 

5 The next one is a Bethlehem Steel. Any yeses? 

6 No’s? Off. 

7 Another Bethlehem Steel, lung cancer. Yes? 

8 No? Abstentions? It's off. 

9 Chapman Valve. Chapman Valve I think would 

10 appear in that sample of small industry groups. 

11 This is a pancreatic cancer, 4 percent POC. 

12 Any yeses? I see two yeses. No’s? One, two, 

13 three, four, five no’s. Abstentions? It's 

14 off. 

15 On those small industry groups, eventually 

16 we're looking for two cases, so... 

17 Next we have Dana Heavy Water Plant. I believe 

18 this is in that same category of small -- of 

19 sample industry groups. Here we have 

20 esophagus, 14 percent probability of causation. 

21 How many yeses? One, two, three, four, five. 

22 No’s? One. Abstentions? One. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) I'm not 

24 (unintelligible). 

25 DR. ZIEMER: No? 
81

1 MR. GRIFFON: (Off microphone) I'm sorry. 

2 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. That one we're on. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Paul, I wanted to -- to correct 

4 your last point. Small industries were -- 

5 eventually we want 83 cases. We're projecting 

6 -- 

7 DR. ZIEMER: I'm sorry, we have -- yes -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: We have two. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- you're right. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Eventually we want a lot of cases, 

12 yes, I -- sorry, 'cause there are ultimately 

13 several thousand in this category, so we do 

14 need cases in this group. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: And I think the nature of those 

16 cases also we should consider when we're 

17 selecting 'cause sometimes they end up being 

18 almost a site profile review, you know, or -- 

19 or... 

20 DR. ZIEMER: Uh-huh. Thank you. The Chair now 

21 recognizes another Savannah River Site. Are 

22 there -- anyone -- anyone want to pull this one 

23 back on? Okay, that stays off. 

24 Here's a Hanford site, pancreas, 28 and a half 

25 percent POC. Yes? One, two, three, four, 
82

1 five. No’s? And abstentions? 

2 MS. MUNN: Abstain. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: One abstention, and that one will 

4 be on. 

5 Idaho, malignant melanoma, .02 POC. Yes? No? 

6 Abstaining? That one is off. 

7 Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion Plant, male 

8 genitalia, 38.6 percent. Yes? One, two, 

9 three. Abstaining? Two. Off? One, two -- 

10 right at the moment that stays on. 

11 The next two Savannahs, anyone wish to keep 

12 either of those on? Okay. 

13 Y-12 Plant, ovary, 8.4 percent POC, case 31. 

14 Yes? No? 

15 MR. PRESLEY: Abstain. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Abstain? Two abstentions. That's 

17 off. 

18 Bethlehem Steel, respiratory, 57 and a half 

19 POC. Yes? No? Abstaining? And it's off. 

20 Okay. 

21 Y-12 Plant -- incidentally, on Y-12 we're 

22 eventually looking for 59 cases. We have two -

23 - well -- yes, two so far. This is a lung 

24 cancer, 59.9 percent POC. Yeses? No’s? Four 

25 no’s. Abstaining? Two. It's off. 
83

1 Rocky Flats, on Rocky we're looking for 

2 eventually 24 cases. We have four thus far. 

3 This one is a colon cancer with 4.5 percent 

4 POC, case 34. Yes? No? Abstaining? That one 

5 is off. 

6 Okay, pause for a moment. We have garnered six 

7 cases from that page -- 

8 MR. PRESLEY: Seven. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Seven? Let's make sure I -- case 

10 eight, case 11, 15, 18, 23, 25 and 27. 

11 MR. PRESLEY: That's seven. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Seven cases. Okay. I guess we're 

13 making vast strides of progress. 

14 Next page, case 35, Savannah River Site then we 

15 would skip, unless someone wishes to keep this 

16 one on. It's a POC of over 37 percent. Okay, 

17 omitting that one. 

18 Nevada Test Site, for Nevada we're looking for 

19 26 cases and we have one to date, and there's a 

20 lot of yeses on this one. It's a 41 percent 

21 POC. 

22 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) 

23 (Unintelligible) abstain (unintelligible). 

24 DR. ZIEMER: And abstentions, let's see the 

25 abstentions -- one abstention. But this one 
84

1 stays on. 

2 Dana Heavy Water Plant, malignant melanoma, 33 

3 and a half percent POC. Yes? One, two, three, 

4 four, five yeses. No’s? Six yeses. No’s? 

5 One no. Abstentions? That one -- this is the 

6 second Dana we will have had. It's staying on 

7 for the moment. 

8 Idaho, bladder cancer, 18 percent POC, case 38. 

9 Yeses? One, two. No’s? Okay. Abstentions? 

10 And that goes off. 

11 The next Idaho, 44.9 percent POC, male 

12 genitalia, case 39. Yes? All yeses. And any 

13 no’s? And any abstentions? So that stays on. 

14 Here's another Rocky Flats, male genitalia, 

15 28.9 percent POC, case 40. Yes? No yeses? No 

16 yeses. Yes no’s? Any no’s? All no’s. Any 

17 abstentions? Case is off. 

18 DR. ANDERSON: (Via telephone) I'm abstaining. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yes, Henry. 

20 DR. ANDERSON: I can't see it, so that's okay. 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. Henry, we haven't gotten 

22 your votes on these others. I apologize to 

23 you. 

24 DR. ANDERSON: That's okay. That's okay, I'm 

25 just quietly listening. 
85

1 DR. ZIEMER: If you -- do you not have the 

2 list, Henry? 

3 MR. GRIFFON: He doesn't have the list. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: You don't have the list. You're 

5 hearing a brief description. If you object to 

6 any of them, yell out, will you? 

7 DR. ANDERSON: (Unintelligible) 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Next case, 42, is a 

9 Bethlehem Steel colon cancer, 9.5 percent POC. 

10 DR. ROESSLER: You skipped one. 

11 DR. WADE: You skipped -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: What did I skip here? Oh, I 

13 skipped -- I'm sorry, I skipped the -- 

14 DR. ROESSLER: Number 40. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: I skipped -- I skipped Fernald, 

16 number 41, did I not? Okay. I'm sorry, this 

17 is case 41, bladder cancer, 30.9 percent POC. 

18 This is the Feed Materials Production Center. 

19 Yes? One, two, three, four yeses. Any no’s? 

20 Two no’s? Abstaining? It stays on. 

21 Now we're ready for case 42, Bethlehem Steel. 

22 Yes? No? Many no’s here. Abstentions? Those 

23 were all no’s. Okay. 

24 Y-12, bladder cancer, 33.5 percent POC. Yeses, 

25 one, two, three, four yeses. No’s? 
86

1 Abstentions? Two. That stays on. 

2 Y-12, lung cancer, 61.7 percent POC, case 44. 

3 Yes? One yes. No’s? One, two, three, four 

4 no’s. Two abstentions. 

5 Lew, could I ask you to continue through this 

6 list? I'm losing my voice here. You can 

7 proceed -- 

8 DR. WADE: Sure, I'll -- 

9 DR. ZIEMER: -- the same way. We're at -- 

10 we're at case 45. 

11 DR. WADE: We've completed 45? 

12 DR. ZIEMER: We've completed 44. 

13 DR. WADE: Okay. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: We're going to pause here for a 

15 moment. I'm informed that Senator Bond has 

16 arrived and we'd be pleased to have the Senator 

17 address the panel, as well as those here in 

18 attendance. Here --here we come. 

19 UNIDENTIFIED: The Senator's answering 

20 questions for the press. 

21 DR. WADE: The Senator is answering questions. 

22 I mean it could take a while or he could appear 

23 at the door any minute, I guess. Shall we do 

24 several more? 

25 MR. OWENS: Yes, sir. 
87

1 DR. WADE: Okay. Okay, so we have now to do 

2 case 45, which is a Savannah River Site with 

3 the Chair's option. Does anyone want to have 

4 us consider case 45, Savannah River Site? 

5 Seeing no yeses, we'll move on. 

6 Case 46, also Savannah River Site, does anyone 

7 want to make an argument for yes for case 

8 number 46 from the Savannah River Site? Seeing 

9 no argument, we'd move on to case 48. 

10 From the Y-12 Plant, probability of causation 

11 28.43, breast cancer. Can I see a show of 

12 hands for yes? One yes. A show of hands for 

13 no? One, two, three, four. Abstaining? One, 

14 two. So that would be a no. 

15 Case 49, Hanford, 2.12 probability of 

16 causation. A show of hands for yes? A show of 

17 hands for no? One, two, three, four -- 

18 everyone. Abstaining? Wanda abstains. 

19 On to 50, again Savannah River Site, using the 

20 Chair's discretion, does anyone want to say yes 

21 to Savannah River Site, case number 50? Seeing 

22 none, we'll move on. 

23 Case number 52, Idaho and the Nevada Test Site, 

24 probability of causation 22.72. Yeses? One, 

25 two, three, four, five yeses. No’s? Two no’s. 
88

1 Abstain? So that one would get added to our 

2 list. 

3 Number 53 from Han-- from Hanford, urinary 

4 organs excluding bladder, thyroid, 55. Yeses? 

5 DR. ROESSLER: We need some over 50. 

6 DR. WADE: Okay. With the comment that we need 

7 some over 50, we have four yeses. No’s? Two 

8 no’s and one abstaining, so that would be a 

9 yes. 

10 You only need to ask and you get what you ask 

11 for. 

12 Number 54, lung from the FMPC, 75 percent 

13 probability of causation. Show of hands for 

14 yes? Show of hands for no? One, two, three, 

15 four, five, six, seven -- everyone. That's a 

16 no. 

17 Number 55, all male genitalia from Savannah 

18 River. Again, does anyone want to make the 

19 argument that we should add this Savannah River 

20 Site case? Hearing no arguments, it'll be a no 

21 and move on to 56. 

22 Other respiratory, also Savannah River. Anyone 

23 want to make the argument for including this 

24 Savannah River Site? Hearing none, it's a no 

25 to 56. 
89

1 On to 57, another respiratory from the Y-12 

2 Plant, 9.54 probability of causation. A show 

3 of hands for yes? One. No? One, two, three. 

4 Abstain? One, two. That would be a no. 

5 Number 58, Lawrence Livermore National Labs, a 

6 nervous system, 13.82 probability of causation. 

7 Yeses? One, two, three, four, five, six -- 

8 everyone says yes. No no’s, no abstaining, so 

9 that's added to the list. 

10 Number 59, Savannah River Site, 57, thyroid, 

11 anyone want to make the argument to add? 

12 Seeing no argument, we move on to number 60. 

13 INEL, 15.5, lymphoma. Show of hands for yes? 

14 I see none. Show of hands for no? One, two, 

15 three, four, five, six. Abstain? That's a no. 

16 Number 62, Pacific Northwest National 

17 Laboratory and Hanford, lymphoma at 28.13 

18 percent. A show of hands for yes? One, two, 

19 three, four, five. A show of hands for no? 

20 One. Abstaining? One. So that would be added 

21 to the list. 

22 Number 63 from Rocky Flats, a breast cancer at 

23 36.82 percent probability of causation. Show 

24 of hands for yes? One, two, three, four, show25 - five. Show of hand for no? One. 
90

1 Abstaining? That would be added to the list. 

2 We move on to 64 from Bethlehem Steel, stomach, 

3 lymphoma and multiple myeloma, 5.8. Show of 

4 hands for yes? Show of hands for no? One, 

5 two, three, four, five, six. Abstaining? 

6 That's a no. 

7 Number 65, all male genitalia from Hanford, 43 

8 percent. Show of hands for yes? One, two, 

9 three. Show of hands for no? One, two, three. 

10 Abstaining? One. Henry are you on the phone? 

11 DR. ANDERSON: (Via telephone) Yep, I'm here. 

12 DR. WADE: What do you say as to number 65? 

13 DR. ANDERSON: I -- I can't -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: He doesn't have the sheet. 

15 DR. WADE: Doesn't have a sheet? I'm sorry. 

16 Okay, we'll have -- that one -- 

17 DR. ZIEMER: The Chair will vote for it and 

18 we'll keep it on. 

19 DR. WADE: The Chair will vote for it so it 

20 will be on. 

21 Number 66, all male genitalia from Rocky Flats 

22 at 17.73. Show of hands for yes? Show of 

23 hands for no? One, two, three, four, five, 

24 six, seven -- everybody says no, that's a no. 

25 Number 67, a Savannah River Site with a low 
91

1 probability of causation. Anyone want to make 

2 the argument to include? Hearing no argument, 

3 that's a no. 

4 Number 68 from Bethlehem Steel, lung, 56.90. 

5 Yes? One. No? One, two, three, four, five, 

6 six. No abstentions. It's a no. 

7 Number 69, colon from Paducah, 34.25 percent 

8 probability of causation. Yes? One, two, 

9 three. No? One, two. Abstaining? One. So 

10 that's three to two yes? It'll be added. 

11 Number 70, Pantex, 18 percent probability of 

12 causation, non-melanoma skin, basal cell. Any 

13 yeses? One, two, three, four, five, six. 

14 No’s? Abstaining? That's added. 

15 Number 71, Y-12 leads a long list, all male 

16 genitalia at 31.68. Yeses? 

17 MR. OWENS: I have a question on this case. It 

18 shows the years worked as 56.8 years, and the 

19 decade is 1970. Is there some problem with 

20 the... 

21 DR. WADE: It would appear. Can we have 

22 clarification from the NIOSH staff? Stu? 

23 MR. HINNEFELD: Well, I wish I could but I 

24 can't, so I can try to figure out back at the -

25 - I can call back and try to figure it out, but 
92

1 I don't have an explanation right now. 

2 DR. WADE: Please do, Stu. Thank you. Do we 

3 wish to table that one or we want to vote on it 

4 now? 

5 DR. DEHART: You already have 20. 

6 DR. WADE: Anyone object if we move past that 

7 one, given the fact that the data is confusing? 

8 Hearing no objection, we take a deep breath and 

9 we take stock and we are at 20. Is that 

10 correct? 

11 DR. DEHART: I think so. 

12 DR. WADE: Okay. 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Two more. 

14 DR. WADE: Two more? Let's continue on. 

15 Number 72, Rocky Flats, breast cancer, 42.88 

16 percent. Yeses? One. No’s? 

17 DR. ROESSLER: Yeses? 

18 DR. WADE: I'm sorry, yeses? We'll do yeses 

19 again. One, two, three. No’s? One, two, 

20 three, four, the no’s have it. 

21 We move on to 73, INEL, bladder at 32.25 

22 percent. Yeses? One, two. No’s? One, two, 

23 three, four, five. No. 

24 Number 74, colon at Hanford at 40.16 percent. 

25 Yeses? One, two. No’s? One, two, three, 
93

1 four. Abstaining? One. That's a no. 

2 Number 75 is a Savannah River Site. Anyone 

3 wish to raise the issue that this should be 

4 included? Hearing none, we move on to 76. 

5 That's a lung at Bethlehem Steel, very high 

6 probability of causation, 83.17. Yeses? No’s? 

7 One, two, three, four, five. Abstaining? One. 

8 We move on to 77. 

9 FMPC at 56.16 percent, let's suspend 

10 discussions there. I think the Senator is 

11 about to join us. Paul? 

12 WELCOME FROM SENATOR BOND

13 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. We're pleased to have 

14 Senator Kit Bond from Missouri with us today. 

15 Senator, this is the Advisory Board on 

16 Radiation and Worker Health. We're pleased to 

17 have you here with us this morning. You can 

18 use the podium up here. Welcome. 

19 SEN. BOND: (Off microphone) Thank you very 

20 much, and thank you so much for coming. Thank 

21 you very much for coming. 

22 (Pause) 

23 SEN. BOND: (Off microphone) Currently I'm not 

24 too worried about having a microphone. Since 

25 the time when I was first campaigning for 
94

1 office I was addressing a group in a large room 

2 like this and somebody in the front said I 

3 can't hear, then somebody in the back said I 

4 can't hear the speaker, and a fellow in the 

5 front said I can and I'd be happy to trade 

6 places with you, so Charlie, is it working back 

7 there? Charlie? 

8 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) Yes, sir? 

9 SEN. BOND: (Off microphone) The guy in the 

10 back of the room can't hear. 

11 UNIDENTIFIED: (Off microphone) No, we can't -- 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah, let's wait just a moment 

13 because we also -- we are required to record 

14 what you say, Senator, for our proceedings, so 

15 we'll get one here shortly. Or we can use one 

16 of these. There we go. 

17 SEN. BOND: All right. Now, this is -- this 

18 may work a little bit better. Well, good 

19 morning and on behalf of my constituents in 

20 Missouri, it's my pleasure to welcome you to 

21 St. Louis and the great state of Missouri. I 

22 extend a very special thanks to the members of 

23 the NIOSH Advisory Board on Worker Safety and 

24 Radiation Health for your dedication and 

25 service in ad-- in advising NIOSH on the 
95

1 numerous complex issues that come before your 

2 Board. Your input and guidance in helping 

3 NIOSH resolve these issues is crucial to the 

4 effective implementation of NIOSH's 

5 responsibility under the Energy Employees 

6 Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act 

7 of 2000. EEOICPA, for those of us who like 

8 acronyms in Washington. 

9 But the President, the Congress and affected 

10 stakeholders in Missouri all appreciate your 

11 efforts in helping to make sure these former 

12 nuclear workers or Cold Warriors are 

13 compensated appropriately in a timely manner. 

14 I thank Dr. John Howard, Lew Wade and the rest 

15 of the staff at NIOSH for coming to St. Louis 

16 to make a recommendation on the Special 

17 Exposure Cohort site designation for the 

18 Mallinckrodt downtown or Destrehan site. I've 

19 had many, many telephone conversations and I 

20 appreciate the good work that Dr. Howard and 

21 his staff have done with my staff. 

22 But over a year -- and I offer a formal 

23 statement regarding the Special Exposure Cohort 

24 for the downtown site and ask that it would be 

25 submitted for the record. I will refer to the 
96

1 Special Exposure Cohort and its acronym of SEC. 

2 Over a year ago I wrote to the Secretary of 

3 Health and Human Services, at that time the 

4 Honorable Tommy Thompson, about the urgent need 

5 to designate the former Mallinckrodt nuclear 

6 production sites in Missouri as an SEC under 

7 the EEOICPA. At the time, I cited the fact 

8 that the Mallinckrodt sites, particularly the 

9 downtown site, have the same extraordinary 

10 circumstances as the four existing SEC sites in 

11 Alaska, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. These 

12 circumstances include missing or incomplete 

13 medical and personal exposure records, as well 

14 as the fact that Mallinckrodt workers handled 

15 highly toxic radionuclides such as plutonium, 

16 refined uranium and the extremely dangerous 

17 Belgian Congo pitchblende ore. In fact, a 

18 former Atomic Energy Commission official said 

19 that the Mallinckrodt downtown site was one of 

20 the two worst plants in the country in the 

21 terms of levels of radioactive contamination. 

22 The Mallinckrodt downtown site had levels of 

23 contamination that were over ten times the 

24 level at the Paducah site, which was previously 

25 considered the worst, and is one of the four 
97

1 existing SEC sites. 

2 In the letter I sent to Secretary Thompson I 

3 also told him I'm convinced that the 

4 Mallinckrodt sites in Weldon Spring and 

5 downtown St. Louis met the two statutory 

6 criteria for inclusion in the SEC. These 

7 criteria, as you well know, are, one, it is not 

8 feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy 

9 the radiation dose that a class of employees 

10 received; and two, there is a reasonable 

11 likelihood that such a radiation dose 

12 endangered the health of members of a class of 

13 employees. 

14 Now this one is pretty obvious for the 

15 Mallinckrodt workers. All you have to do is do 

16 what I have done and -- to look at the 

17 Mallinckrodt workers, the workers with cancer, 

18 the ones who have already died of cancer, and 

19 the other illnesses they've experienced. 

20 Well, unfortunately, it's now over a year later 

21 after I wrote to Secretary Thompson and there's 

22 been no designation or resolution for these 

23 workers. In the meantime, these former workers 

24 are dying while waiting for NIOSH to perform 

25 its dose reconstructions. So far, over 30 more 
98

1 Mallinckrodt workers have died while waiting 

2 for NIOSH to process these claims. 

3 I've had the privilege, as I said, to meet a 

4 few of these workers before they passed away. 

5 Just last month I wrote again once more to 

6 Secretary Thompson to make him aware of 

7 additional newly-uncovered evidence which 

8 indicates an accurate dose reconstruction for 

9 Mallinckrodt employees is not available, and 

10 that those employees should be designated as a 

11 Special Exposure Cohort or SEC. This new 

12 evidence includes, one, documentation from 

13 Mallinckrodt and Atomic Energy Commission 

14 officials identifying missing and possibly 

15 destroyed records of the Mallinckrodt downtown 

16 site, which would be critical to any matching 

17 of workers to jobs and exposure levels; two, a 

18 memo from a Mallinckrodt safety official to an 

19 AEC contractor suggesting that the contractor 

20 conceal or not include in his records the 

21 results of an important dust study at the 

22 downtown site as a way to limit the company's 

23 liability for exposing employees to high levels 

24 of radioactive dust; three, a Mallinckrodt 

25 document indicating that the company's chemical 
99

1 laboratory will be unable to analyze routine 

2 urine samples of Mallinckrodt personnel at the 

3 downtown site -- in the same document, lab 

4 officials said that these lab -- these samples 

5 should no longer be sent to them; four, a 

6 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works document which 

7 indicates that Mallinckrodt officials falsely 

8 recorded internal, external and breath radon 

9 exposures as having zero exposure, when in fact 

10 no exposure tests were conducted for these 

11 employees at the downtown site. 

12 So we have fraudulent data here. How can NIOSH 

13 perform the accurate dose reconstructions when 

14 we have evidence of these -- these problems and 

15 that they -- we -- they cannot adequately 

16 complete dose reconstruction for those 

17 employees. 

18 In February of 2004 NIOSH wrote these same 

19 former employees and their survivors, saying 

20 that they were ready to proceed with their dose 

21 reconstructions. Now, almost a year later, 

22 NIOSH says they need to resolve some more 

23 issues before they can proceed with those dose 

24 reconstructions. My question is, how long do 

25 these people have to wait. A good portion of 
100

1 these workers have been waiting for dose 

2 reconstruction for over four years now. 

3 With all due respect, I believe this current 

4 pace of dose reconstruction is not consistent 

5 with the intent of the passage and signing of 

6 EEOICPA, which is to compensate these diseased 

7 workers in a timely manner. I believe that 

8 this newly uncovered evidence clearly shows it 

9 is simply not feasible for NIOSH to perform any 

10 type of dose reconstruction on these former 

11 Mallinckrodt workers with any degree of 

12 accuracy. There are too many complicating 

13 factors and too much missing and inaccurate 

14 worker data that make it virtually impossible 

15 for NIOSH to proceed with dose reconstructions 

16 for these workers with any degree of 

17 credibility. This is especially true of the 

18 former workers at the downtown site. 

19 Even before these new disclosures came to 

20 light, the case for Mallinckrodt workers was 

21 strong, in my opinion. With these recent 

22 discoveries, I'm even more convinced that these 

23 former workers and their survivors have waited 

24 over 50 years for the Federal government to 

25 compensate them for the heroic and costly 
101

1 sacrifices they made in helping America win the 

2 Cold War. 

3 Now I know that this Board has very difficult 

4 issues to resolve, and there have been calls 

5 for additional information and more 

6 information, and I understand that. I like to 

7 act on the best information available. But I 

8 respectfully suggest that the information that 

9 one would want is probably not going to be 

10 there. It's faulty, it didn't exist or it was 

11 fraudulently changed. Under these 

12 circumstances, I believe the time has come to 

13 bring this issue to a conclusion. 

14 The only acceptable decision, in my view, is 

15 for NIOSH and the Advisory Board to make this -

16 - we -- would be to allow the immediate 

17 compensation from the Federal government. A 

18 Special Exposure Cohort designation for all the 

19 former employees who worked at the Mallinckrodt 

20 downtown site from 1942 to 1957 would do just 

21 that. 

22 I earnestly submit these suggestions. I thank 

23 you very much for giving me the opportunity to 

24 speak. As you know, this was not supposed to 

25 be a presentation day, but I happen to have a 
102

1 responsibility to go punch a time clock in 

2 Washington late this afternoon and will not be 

3 able to be with you. I know that you'll hear 

4 some very interesting and I hope compelling 

5 testimony. But most of all, on behalf of the 

6 Mallinckrodt employees and the people of this 

7 metropolitan area who are following their case 

8 very closely, I extend our sincere thanks to 

9 you for being willing to do this very difficult 

10 job and to take on this task. And I wish you 

11 well in the exercise of that task. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Senator Bond, we thank 

13 you for taking time out of your busy schedule 

14 today to be with us, and we appreciate your 

15 remarks, all of your remarks, and your written 

16 testimony will be of course on the record. We 

17 recognize that you do have to head back to 

18 Washington, but thank you for taking the time 

19 to be with the Advisory Board today. We 

20 appreciate your being here. 

21 SEN. BOND: I'm honored to have the 

22 opportunity. Thank you, Mr. Ziemer. 

3RD 23 SET OF CASES FOR BOARD REVIEWS (CONT’D)

24 DR. WADE: Okay, Mr. Chairman, we'll get back 

25 to the work at hand? 
103

1 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, I think we have two 

2 additional cases to select. 

3 DR. WADE: Okay. And if my notes serve me 

4 correctly, we just resolved 76, we're on to 77, 

5 which is FMPC, a 56.16 percent probability of 

6 causation. If I could see a show of hands for 

7 yes? One, two. No? One, two, three, four, 

8 five. Abstain? So that's a no. 

9 Number 78, Y-12, breast at 6.55. Yes? No? 

10 One, two, three. Abstain? One, two. No. 

11 Number 79 is a Savannah River Site. Does anyone 

12 wish to raise the point that this should be 

13 included or debated? Seeing none, we'll move 

14 on to 80. 

15 A bladder at Bethlehem Steel at a low 

16 probability of causation, 4.24. A yes? Any 

17 no’s? One, two, three, four, five -- abstain? 

18 That's a no. 

19 Number 81, Y-12 et al, rectum, 21.45. Yeses? 

20 One. No’s? One, two, three, four. Abstain? 

21 One. That's a no. 

22 Number 82, Nevada Test Site, 14.02 ovary. 

23 Yeses? No’s? Excuse me, is that -- let me go 

24 back, I'm sorry. Yeses? One. No’s? One, 

25 two, three, four, five. That's a no. 
104

1 Number eight-- abstain? I'm sorry. Mark 

2 abstains. 

3 Number 83, Savannah River Site. Anyone want to 

4 argue for this Savannah River Site? Very high 

5 probability of causation. No argument, move on 

6 to 84. 

7 Bethlehem Steel, lung, 65.96. Yeses? No’s? 

8 One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. No 

9 abstaining. No. 

10 Number 85, Bethlehem Steel lung at 74.22. 

11 Yeses? No’s? One, two, three, four, five -- 

12 no’s have it. 

13 Number 86, INEL, lymphoma, 20.97 percent. 

14 Yeses? One, two, three. No’s? One, two, 

15 three, four. The no’s have it. 

16 Number 87 is a Savannah River Site. Anyone 

17 wish to argue for this Savannah River Site? 

18 Hearing none, we move to 88. 

19 Pacific Northwest Laboratory, breast at 24.47 

20 percent. Yeses? One, two. No’s? One, two, 

21 three four. It's a no. 

22 MS. MUNN: Abstain. 

23 DR. WADE: One abstain, Wanda. Eighty-nine, 

24 Rocky Flats, other respiratory, 53,61. Yeses? 

25 One, two, three, four, five, six -- all yeses. 
105

1 Any abstains or no? So we've got our 21st. 

2 Number 90, INEL, other respiratory at 6.70. 

3 Yeses? No’s? One, two, three, four, five, 

4 six. No’s have it. 

5 Number 91, Savannah River Site -- anyone wish 

6 to argue for this Savannah River Site? Hearing 

7 none, it's a no. 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Here's one close to 40 percent, 

9 folks, in case anyone is looking for -- 

10 MS. MUNN: Yes, but it's a type that we have 

11 seen on several other occasions. If we were 

12 going to argue -- 

13 DR. ZIEMER: Just calling attention to it. 

14 MS. MUNN: If we were going to argue for a 

15 Savannah River Site I'd go back to 67, even 

16 though it's a very low POC. It's a type that 

17 we have not observed earlier, but we can do 

18 that after we're finished. 

19 DR. WADE: Right. Let me ask again for a show 

20 of hands. No on 91? One, two, three, four -- 

21 okay, so it stays a no. 

22 Ninety-two, Nevada Test Site, all male 

23 genitalia, 16.17. Yeses? No’s? One, two, 

24 three, four, five. Abstain? One. It's a no. 

25 Number 93, INEL, 15.65. Yeses? No’s? One, 
106

1 two, three, four, five, six. It's a no. 

2 Number 94, Blockson Chemical, colon, very low 

3 probability of causation. Yeses? One. No’s? 

4 One, two, three, four, five, six. It's a no. 

5 Number 95, Rocky Flats, all male genitalia, 

6 27.59. Yeses? One. No’s? One, two, three, 

7 four, five, six. It's a no. 

8 Number 96, Pantex, the pancreas at .02. Yeses? 

9 No’s? One, two, three, four, five, six, seven. 

10 It's a no. 

11 Number 97 is a Savannah River Site, all male 

12 genitalia at 35.69. Anyone wish to make the 

13 argument? Hearing none, it's a no. 

14 Number 98, Y-12 Plant, Oak Ridge Gaseous 

15 Diffusion (K-25), all male genitalia, 30.39. 

16 Yeses? One. No’s? One, two, three, four. 

17 Abstains? One, two. It's a no. 

18 Number 99, Argonne National Laboratory East, 

19 Metallurgical Laboratory, 56.65. Yeses? One, 

20 two, three, four, five, six. No’s? One. 

21 Abstains? We have our 22nd. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: That's it. 

23 DR. WADE: And last is a Savannah River Site. 

24 Mr. Chairman, it's back to you. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you very much. So this will 
107

1 constitute the next 22 cases. Well, we -- this 

2 will need to be ratified by the full Board 

3 later in the meeting, but this is -- this then 

4 will be the recommendation to the full Board. 

5 Thank you, Dr. Wade, for helping out with that 

6 process. 

7 MR. RICHARD MILLER: Excuse me, Dr. Ziemer? 

8 DR. ZIEMER: Yes. 

9 MR. MILLER: I'm sorry, I realize this is not a 

10 public comment period, but I just would -- in 

11 the course of your selection wanted to bring 

12 one detail to your attention. From an Indiana 

13 facility, which is the Dana Heavy Water Plant, 

14 they handled no radioactive material there. 

15 The -- those only -- the only reason those two 

16 cases are there -- it's a deuterium facility, 

17 and to my knowledge there was no -- there was 

18 no ionizing radiation at that facility. The 

19 only reason you have probability of causation, 

20 I believe -- and NIOSH should definitely jump 

21 up and correct me if I'm wrong, but my 

22 understanding is the only reason there's any is 

23 because of the medical X-rays, you know, or 

24 medical -- occupational medical. And so if 

25 you're using scarce resources for audit, you 
108

1 may want to consider whether you want to audit 

2 a facility like that. 

3 DR. WADE: Thank you. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you for that comment. John 

5 Mauro? 

6 DR. MAURO: Excuse me, with the permission of 

7 the Board, I would like to remind the Board 

8 that our contract calls for 62 cases, two of 

9 which will be referred to as blind profiles, so 

10 I know you have now selected a total of 60, and 

11 now we -- there still remains two more that 

12 need to be selected for what's referred to as 

13 blind dose reconstructions. And I also would 

14 like to remind the Board that I believe a total 

15 of -- out of the 60 audits, I believe 20 of 

16 them were identified as what's referred to as 

17 advanced reviews. To date we have performed 

18 basic reviews, and the distinction 

19 fundamentally between the advanced and the 

20 basic have to do with further research into the 

21 data and into the -- the CATI and the -- and 

22 the workers. I just want to alert the Board to 

23 that. 

24 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, John, for that 

25 reminder. The 62 is not ultimately the total 
109

1 worked, but it's what's covered in the current 

2 task order. And so the Board could in fact add 

3 the other two so that the -- the content of 

4 that task order could be completed. So again -

5 - leave it to the work -- or the subcommittee 

6 if you wanted to identify an additional two 

7 cases from the list, that would allow us to 

8 complete the 62 that are identified in that 

9 initial task order. Otherwise we're left with 

10 two hanging, as it were. 

11 MS. MUNN: Let's do it. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: You want to identify two more? 

13 Someone want to make a case for any of the ones 

14 that we bypassed? 

15 DR. ROESSLER: What was the one where the vote 

16 was tied? 

17 DR. ZIEMER: That one was added. 

18 DR. ROESSLER: It was added? 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Yes, the Chair voted for it, so 

20 that's already on the list. 

21 MR. OWENS: Dr. Ziemer, the case that Wanda had 

22 mentioned -- I believe it was case number 67, 

23 it's connective tissue. I know it's a low 

24 probability of causation -- 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Extremely low POC. Did you want 
110

1 to make the case for including that? 

2 MS. MUNN: In the -- 

3 MR. OWENS: Yes, sir, I would. 

4 MS. MUNN: Yeah, in light of the fact that one 

5 of our criteria was to cover as broad a 

6 spectrum of types of disease as possible, and 

7 since this is one of the few I've seen with 

8 this particular diagnosis, I would find -- even 

9 with the low causation -- that we'd have good 

10 reason to review it. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. You've heard Wanda's 

12 comments. How many of you would favor adding 

13 this one? One, two -- one, two, three, four, 

14 five. Opposed? Abstain? Two abstentions. So 

15 that one gets added. That's number 67. 

16 DR. WADE: We have Larry Elliott at the mike, 

17 as well. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Larry? 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, Dr. Ziemer, Larry Elliott 

20 with NIOSH. As it -- as I think about what Dr. 

21 Mauro just presented to you, you might want to 

22 consider -- and I think this goes to Mark 

23 Griffon's preliminary efforts in identifying 

24 basic, advanced and blind reviews -- I would 

25 suggest to you that if you select a -- two 
111

1 blind -- two cases for blind dose 

2 reconstruction by Sanford Cohen & Associates, 

3 they should not contain the POC that we have 

4 generated. So you want -- I think you would 

5 want to gene-- select those from cases that 

6 don't have that identified. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you. Then these won't be 

8 eligible for that, in that case, 'cause they -- 

9 they need to -- they need to operate in a blind 

10 fashion. Others? Mark? 

11 MR. GRIFFON: So what are -- what are we doing 

12 with that case? 

13 DR. ZIEMER: John, did the 62 incl-- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Included the two blind. 

15 DR. ZIEMER: Remind us on the task order, were 

16 the 62 the regular reviews or was it 60 plus 

17 two? 

18 DR. WADE: Sixty plus two blind. 

19 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, 60 plus two blind. 

20 DR. MAURO: Sixty plus two, and the -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

22 DR. MAURO: -- and the blind are of such a 

23 nature that we would not see the dose 

24 reconstruction or, as correctly pointed out by 

25 Larry Elliott. 
112

1 DR. ZIEMER: But this is a problem if you know, 

2 a priori, the POC, that's an issue. 

3 DR. MAURO: That -- that -- that's correct. 

4 DR. ZIEMER: So -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we've got to take it off. 

6 DR. ZIEMER: So it appears that we should hold 

7 this in abeyance then, at the moment. We would 

8 need a different list to generate those other 

9 two. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Oh, the other -- the other 

11 question I had, given Richard Miller's comment 

12 about the Dana Heavy Water Plant, I mean do we 

13 want to set those aside until we hear more 

14 about that plant and maybe reconsider those at 

15 another point, or -- or at least replace one of 

16 those maybe with this last one that -- number 

17 67, might be an option. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Are you proposing that? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: I'm proposing to keep number 23, 

20 Dana Heavy Water Plant, and drop number 37 and 

21 replace that with number 67. 

22 DR. ZIEMER: The proposal is to drop number 37 

23 and replace it with number 67. Robert? 

24 MR. PRESLEY: If we drop any right now -- I 

25 have a question on that because right now would 
113

1 be a good time to do those two. We -- chances 

2 of us doing a site profile on that small 

3 company would be slim and none. It might be 

4 good to take the information from both of those 

5 and do them at one time. 

6 MS. MUNN: I'd support that. 

7 DR. ZIEMER: What's that? 

8 MS. MUNN: Bob's suggestion. 

9 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. What's the -- what are the 

10 wishes of the group? 

11 MR. GIBSON: I second Mark's motion. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, Mark's -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: I just imagine, and I'm guessing 

14 here -- maybe NIOSH can help us out, but I 

15 imagine that the data -- the Dana Heavy Water 

16 Plant probably has one Technical Basis Document 

17 or one site profile that they're basing all the 

18 DRs on. I don't know. So if we were to do one 

19 case I think we'd get a sense for most of them. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Dana Heavy Water is essentially 

21 a site dose model, so it'll -- it'll be fairly 

22 consistent except for the -- there'll be 

23 different organ dose conversion factors, but 

24 other than that it'll essentially be the same. 

25 DR. ZIEMER: Okay. 
114

1 MR. GRIFFON: So I think reviewing one of them 

2 would be more than adequate -- 

3 DR. ZIEMER: Right. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: -- for our purposes. 

5 DR. ZIEMER: So the proposal is to drop that 

6 second Dana and substitute the case number 67. 

7 All in -- all in favor of doing that, raise 

8 your hand? Opposed? Abstentions? Okay, so 

9 we're dropping number 37 -- is that correct? 

10 DR. WADE: Correct. 

11 DR. ZIEMER: And adding number 67. We're back 

12 to 60 cases, which would be the 60 regular 

13 cases. We don't really have a list before us 

14 that we can use for the blind reviews, so we 

15 may have to select those separately. Okay? Is 

16 that agreeable then? This will be our 

17 recommendation to the full Board. Any other 

18 comments on this issue? Then we're going to 

19 recess for lunch. We -- 

20 DR. WADE: If I could just -- 

21 DR. ZIEMER: Oh, yeah, Lew. 

22 DR. WADE: I do have the SC&A sort of 

23 methodology incorporated in this table. I'll 

24 give you out copies of it. It's for us to 

25 compare and contrast to the work that Mark did 
115

1 for tomorrow's discussion, so -- and it'll be 

2 available for the public. 

3 DR. ZIEMER: These will be available for the 

4 public. It's a -- it's the rating matrix 

5 that's based on the SC&A review. 

6 We're going to then recess till 1:00 o'clock -- 

7 oh, sorry -- oh, Henry? 

8 DR. ANDERSON: I just want to know, are you 

9 going to hold to the schedule? 'Cause I'm 

10 going to then come back on for the site profile 

11 review if that's still going to be at 3:00. 

12 DR. ZIEMER: That's correct. 

13 DR. ANDERSON: Okay. 

14 DR. ZIEMER: Thank you, Henry. And -- 

15 DR. ANDERSON: (Unintelligible) go to lunch. 

16 DR. ZIEMER: Okay, so we'll -- 

17 DR. ANDERSON: I'll go have breakfast. 

18 DR. ZIEMER: Yeah. So we'll recess till 1:00 

19 o'clock. Thank you. 

20 (Whereupon, the meeting of the subcommittee was 

21 concluded 11:30 a.m.) 
116

C E R T I F I C A T E 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 February 7, 

2005; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

2nd day of March, 2005. 

__________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102