Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


THE ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 


_________________________________________________________________ 


Summary Minutes of the Fifty-first Meeting 


Held Telephonically on November 27, 2007 


_________________________________________________________________
 

The Fifty-first Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health (ABRWH or the Board) was held telephonically on November 27, 


2007. The meeting was called by the Centers for Disease Control and 


Prevention's (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and 


Health (NIOSH), the agency charged with administering the ABRWH. These 


summary minutes, as well as a verbatim transcript certified by a court 


reporter, are available on 

Compensation Analysis and 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

the Internet 

Support (OCAS) 

on the NIOSH/Office 

web site located 

of 

at 

Those identifying themselves as present included the following: 

Board Members: 

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair; Ms. Josie Beach, Mr. Bradley Clawson, Mr. 


Michael Gibson, Mr. Mark Griffon, Dr. James Melius, Ms. Wanda Munn, Mr. 


Robert Presley, Dr. Genevieve Roessler, and Mr. Phillip Schofield. 


Designated Federal Official: Dr. Lewis Wade, Executive Secretary. 


Federal Agency Attendees: 


Department of Health and Human Services: 


Ms. Flo Black, Dr. Christine Branche, Mr. Jason Broehm, Mr. Larry 


Elliott, Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus, Ms. Emily Howell, Dr. James Neton, Mr. 


Mark Rolfes, Mr. LaVon Rutherford, Mr. David Staudt, Mr. Dave Sundin. 


Department of Energy: 


Ms. Regina Cano, Mr. Greg Lewis, Mr. Jeff Tack. 


Department of Labor: Mr. Jeff Kotsch 


Contractors: 


Dr. Hans Behling, Ms. Kathy Behling, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, Dr. John 


Mauro, Dr. Steve Ostrow. 


1
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Other Participants: 


Ms. Terrie Barrie, ANWAG; Dr. Dan McKeel, SINEW. 


* * * * *
 

The Fifty-first meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health commenced with a roll call by Dr. Lewis Wade, Designated Federal 


Official, confirming a quorum was present. He noted that, due to 


family illness, Dr. James Lockey would not be joining. For reasons of 


conflict with his academic schedule, Dr. John Poston would not be 


joining. Mr. Phillip Schofield would join within the hour. 


Dr. Paul Ziemer, Board Chairman, officially called the meeting to 


order, noting the agenda had been distributed to the Board members and 


was available on the NIOSH/OCAS web site for any members of the public 


who wished to access the document. 


When it became apparent that a recent change to the agenda had not been 


updated on the web site, Dr. Wade read the agenda into the record. 


* * * * *
 

Chapman Valve SEC Petition Issues 


Department of Energy Update
 

Ms. Regina Cano indicated that Dr. Pat Worthington was unable to be on 


the call today and that she would be speaking on her behalf. Ms. Cano
 

expressed appreciation for the modification of the agenda in order to 


accommodate the travel schedule of the DOE participants. 


Ms. Cano reported that early in September NIOSH had requested DOE 


clarify whether any sources of radioactive material were identified for 


work which took place at the Dean Street facility. DOE had done 


considerable research, including going to Y-12 for that purpose. They 


obtained drawings substantiating Chapman Valve produced valves and 


manifolds during that time frame on behalf of Y-12. They also 


contacted Savannah River Site to see if they had any information on 


Chapman Valve. Springfield Economic Development Center was also 


contacted for information or records pertaining to the Dean Street 


facility. 


Ms. Cano explained their research indicated the street was still there, 


but the building had been torn down in the late '40s, and state 


archives had no record about the mission at that location. As a 


result, DOE is still unclear as to what kind of work the Dean Street 


2
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


facility performed. 


Mr. Jeff Tack added that documents indicated a reference to purchases 


by Stone and Webster for the Y-12 facility, acting as an agent for DOE. 


He contacted S&W for additional information on the site, their role, 


et cetera, and they were surprised to have heard from him, noting that 


government records would have gone back to the government. They no 


longer had anything in their control or possession. 


DOE had also been requested to take a look at the potential of 


responsive information in the basement of Western Massachusetts 


Committee on Occupational Safety and Health. Their response was that 


the information in their possession was specific to employees and did 


not contain information that would change DOE's opinion on the site. 


Mr. Tack explained that the drawings at Y-12 made it clear Chapman 


produced certain products for the Y-12 facility during its 


construction. There was no indication those products would have been 


produced from anything other than common materials; i.e., iron, bronze, 


cast iron, low carbon steel, stainless steel. Nothing indicated in the 


drawings would have requested products manufactured from radioactive 


materials, nor could there be determined any other source of 


radioactive material going back and forth at the time. 


Discussion Points: 


#The workgroup issue includes the fact that valves had gone to Y-12 and 

part of the process had been that they were brought back to be 

repaired or refurbished at the Dean Street facility; 

#There is no documentation available to indicate there were such 

transfers back and forth; 

#Petitioners contend that valves and manifolds were returned for 

rebuild and refurbishing at the Dean Street facility and shipped 

back to Y-12; 

#DOE conversations with some of the Chapman Valve retirees indicate 

they're not clear, other than that they also had a significant 

mission relative to providing valves and manifolds to the 

military, which could very well have been at the same period the 

Navy Nuclear Program started, in the late '40s; 

#There is no way to determine otherwise, and Y-12 has done extensive 

searches; 

#Documentation indicates the Dean Street facility was no longer owned 

by Chapman Valve after 1947, and through the 1948-1950 City 

Registers it appears the building was dismantled; 

#Petitioners contend the Dean Street facility still exists and 

currently contains an auto body shop, but the main Chapman Valve 

3
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


facility has been dismantled; 

#DOE will be traveling to Massachusetts shortly to interview one of the 

former Chapman Valve employees to see if any additional leads or 

information can be provided; 

#Currently there is no information that would change the DOE 

classification; 

#Department of Labor will await information from DOE; 

#DOE was unable to find any shipping records from Y-12 back to Chapman 

Valve; 

#Pre-remediation and post-remediation documents indicate that the one 

enriched sample that was found resulted in no change in the 

remediation approach; 

#There is a 785-page remediation certification docket available to the 

Board on the O drive; 

#DOE is in the process of responding to the letter from Senator 

Kennedy's office relative to contract numbers; 

#The formal letter in which DOE will give a final response to the NIOSH 

request for further investigation on this site will also be 

provided to the Board. 

* * * * *
 

Dow Madison SEC Petition Issues Update
 

Ms. Regina Cano from DOE reported DOE had gone to the NNSA side of the 


agency and requested information from them. The information has been 


received and DOE is in the process of reviewing it. They also have 


received results from the FBI on their request for help in deciphering 


the text of the five purchase orders in question. There were 


difficulties in the way the FBI characterized their report, and DOE has 


asked them to re-write the report to clarify some of the issues. FBI 


wasn't thorough enough in their evaluation. FBI has accommodated DOE 


on that request and been very cooperative, and the new information will 


be reviewed as soon as possible. 


Additionally, DOE has received information from the Livermore lab, and 


that information is also being reviewed. 


* * *


 Petitioner Response
 

Dr. Dan McKeel spoke on behalf of the petitioners, thanking the DOE for 


its investigations. He indicated he had also had conversations with 


the FBI, and reported on what he had learned. The FBI has recently 


been requested to interpret what they found, and that is part of the 


4
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


clarification mentioned earlier. 


Dr. McKeel reported on a conversation with a former employee of Dow and 


her recollection of the thorium/magnesium alloy, and did not recall 


shipments from Dow Madison to Rocky Flats, as had been suggested. 


Dr. McKeel went on to describe his FOIA requests based on a set of 14 


questions to NIOSH, eight of which were converted into FOIA requests. 


A response has not been received and he expressed his discontent with 


that process. He indicated he had sent a series of questions to Ms. 


Regina Cano and Dr. Pat Worthington at DOE, and hoped that they would 


be able to provide some answers. 


Dr. McKeel further expressed a hope that there would soon be dose 


reconstructions commenced on the people who fall outside the approved 


SEC class for Dow. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#When will the FBI come back to DOE with a revised report; 


#Dr. McKeel's FOIA requests are far ranging and require extensive 


searches, and they are being worked through currently, with a 


partial response expected within 30 days. 


* * * * *
 

Fiscal Year '08 Tasks for SC&A 


Including Site Profiles, Procedures and DR Reviews
 

Dr. Ziemer noted that Dr. Wade had circulated some recommendations 


based at least partly on the fact that funds set aside for the coming 


year may not be adequate to do all the tasks the Board had hoped for. 


Dr. Wade explained the Board had tasked SC&A with general work for the 


current fiscal year, and that included the start and completion of four 


new site profile reviews under Task I; the beginning and completion of 


30 new procedures reviews, including review of a PER, under Task III; 


the review of 60 new dose reconstruction reports and two blind DR 


reviews under Task IV; and under Task V was set up the mechanism for 


SC&A to undertake six SEC petition evaluation report reviews, as 


instructed by the Board. Those are the general parameters for this 


year's work. SC&A has not been tasked with specific reviews in all 


categories. 


Dr. John Mauro from SC&A had provided a report on November 15 outlining 


5
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


where SC&A stood in terms of the contract tasks they both had and were 


expecting, and what that means in terms of their ability to complete 


all work relative to available monies. The report was earlier provided 


to Board members and included Dr. Mauro's indication that, to begin and 


finish everything previously on SC&A's plate and what will be put on 


their plate this year, there is a potential shortfall of approximately 


$1.2 million. 


Dr. Wade explained that his interpretation is that the situation is not 


as alarming as one might think, in that the review process has been 


constantly expanded by the steps that have been gone through, and it is 


unlikely that in a given fiscal year work would be begun and finished. 


It almost always carries over. This information is intended just as a 


heads-up. 


Dr. Wade went on to explain that he had taken the information and 


shared with the Board his recommendations as to how to proceed. He 


remarked he would like to give SC&A some work to begin, and preserve 


the need to proceed with caution relative to the money. Dr. Wade had 


also asked Dr. Mauro to provide the Board members with his thoughts on 


new work assignments, which was circulated via e-mail. Additionally, 


Dr. Wade had requested the Board be provided a list of all site 


profiles completed by NIOSH but which have not yet been reviewed by the 


Board. That list has been sent by Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld from NIOSH. 


With those materials before the Board, Dr. Wade proposed consideration 


of assignment of a site profile or two for SC&A to begin in January, 


with a suggestion that it be discussed now. 


Relative to the procedures reviews, Dr. Wade suggested that since there 


is a workgroup on procedures, and new procedures to be reviewed are 


coming up, perhaps the Board not assign 30 at this time but hold open 


the fact that they would be assigned to SC&A as the Board or workgroup 


felt appropriate. Dr. Wade went on to remark that he felt it would be 


appropriate to consider the assignment of one PER for SC&A review since 


these Program Evaluation Reports are a new wrinkle in the mix. 


As to the individual DRs, he noted Dr. Mauro has suggested the Board go 


into the January meeting prepared to select the next 60 cases to be 


reviewed. Dr. Wade commented that serious thought should be given to 


tasking SC&A with from two to four blind reviews. 


On the SEC task Dr. Wade discussed the fact that it's always been the 


process to assign these reviews to SC&A as they became topical with the 


Board. There are a couple looming, and the Board may want to ask SC&A 


to begin to review those now. Dr. Wade explained he's not trying to 


rush the Board to any sort of judgment, but a discussion is appropriate 


6
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


at this point, and coming to closure on these issues in January would 


be a good idea. 


Dr. Mauro added that Dr. Wade's characterization of the budget status 


and the need to move forward was accurate, but he would suggest, 


relative to his projection of a shortfall in resources on the site 


profile reviews, that it is something associated primarily with the 


closeout process. There are 18 complete site profiles, and some of 


those have not yet even begun the closeout process. That led him to 


project that at some time in the future, toward the end of the fiscal 


year, SC&A is likely to run into resource problems. This coincides 


with the end of their contract. 


Discussion Points: 


#Who sent what e-mails when and to whom; 

#It might be beneficial to select a couple of site profiles for review 

and have them in line, and they could be coordinated with 

questions arising from the DR reviews; 

#Two cases were selected for blind review and one those is no longer 

available for some reason so a replacement case will have to be 

selected; 

#There was a general consensus earlier to do two blind reviews to 

ensure that the Board is getting out of the process what they 

expect before they ask SC&A to do more of that type review; 

#From the perspective of the procedures workgroup, it makes sense to 

assign procedures for review as issues arise as a result of other 

activities rather than trying to develop a list; 

#SC&A has delivered to NIOSH and the Board its review of TBD 6000, and 

Appendix BB to that document will be deliverable the week of 

December 3; 

#Of the various site-specific Appendices, the only one tasked for SC&A 

review is Appendix BB emphasizing the concerns relative to 

Betatron exposures; 

#The procedures workgroup is leaning towards having SC&A review TBD 

6001 as well; 

#Considering the new site profiles for review, there was a clear 

consensus for Sandia National Lab and Argonne East National Lab, 

with two additional site profile suggestions to be discussed at 

the January meeting. 

As to Task III, there was Board consensus that PER 009 would be 


authorized for SC&A review, as well as TBD 6001 is under serious 


consideration. However, authorization is pending workgroup review 


since a meeting is scheduled for the very near future. 


7
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


As to Task IV, two blind reviews are close to being underway as soon as 


the subcommittee passes on the material to SC&A. And in January the 


subcommittee will look to identify 60 cases for review. 


With Task V SEC review assignments being made as appropriate, Dr. Wade
 

noted that Dr. Mauro had suggested the possibility of Mound, 


Rocketdyne, the underground test phase at Nevada Test Site, and 


Lawrence Livermore National Lab as potential reviews. Hanford has been 


assigned under the 2008 assignments and Fernald is being reviewed as a 


2007 assignment. Dr. Mauro observed that six SECs for Fiscal Year 2008 


can be authorized, and there are three unspecified still for 2007, 


which in theory leaves nine in scope. He noted that realistically, in 


terms of the budget, they would probably only be able to do six. Of 


those six, Hanford is the one that has already been assigned. 


After discussion of moving items around, it was concluded that six SEC 


petition reviews can be assigned to SC&A, with sufficient budget and 


resources to handle the work. 


A motion was made and seconded to task Sanford Cohen & 


Associates to proceed with the SEC Petition evaluation report 


review process for the Nevada Test Site. 


The motion carried unanimously by roll call vote. 


* * * * *
 

Procedure for Selection of Board Support Contractor
 

Dr. Wade reminded the Board that the SC&A contract will run out this 


year and there will be a recompetition. He observed the two 


possibilities: That SC&A will be back serving the Board; and that they 


may not. Dr. Wade commented that if SC&A is not selected, there will 


likely be work left to be done in some of the closeout, which would 


require the government to extend the performance period of the current 


contract to see that the work was brought to completion. The period of 


performance for each task could be extended, as appropriate, without 


extending the entire contract. The possibility also exists that the 


government could decide not to task SC&A to bring that to completion, 


but rather have that done by a new contractor. 


Discussion Points: 


#An observation that it would be difficult and awkward to work through 

issues, particularly closeout matrices, that are findings from 


SC&A when a new contractor has no input; 


#SC&A would have to be present to defend their positions, elaborate or 

8
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


clarify on issues; 

#If it's necessary to start with a new contractor, it would be better 

to start from scratch; 

#By the time a new contractor gets up to speed, a lot of valuable time 

will have been lost; 

#There are site profile reviews on which the resolution process hasn't 

begun; 

#It would be awkward for a new contractor to close out a review done by 

somebody else. 


Dr. Wade reminded the Board members that prior to the last face-to-face 


Board meeting he had shared a draft statement of work, evaluation 


criteria, et cetera, and there had been a discussion of the possible 


formation of a technical evaluation committee. The Board members have 


had time to look at the documents and can now react during this phone 


call. He noted that nothing has to be finalized, but things should be 


resolved during the January meeting. 


Mr. David Staudt from the Procurement Office commented that the goal is 


to come out of the January meeting with a final statement of work and 


evaluation criteria to be incorporated into the solicitation scheduled 


to go out in late January or February. He explained it would take 


several months for proposals to be received, and the goal would be an 


award in mid summer. That would allow a couple of months until another 


contractor is selected to get ready for SC&A's assistance in any 


turnover. 


Dr. Ziemer observed that this draft is a good overview of what the 


contractor is doing. And although it's broad in general, it does seem 


to cover all the tasks. It was agreed that any suggestions or comments 


from Board members could be e-mailed to Mr. Staudt prior to the January 


Board meeting. Dr. Wade remarked that they would like to hear from 


Board members on any adjustments they would like to see in the 


evaluation criteria and point values being proposed which had been sent 


to Board members earlier. 


It was suggested that as part of the agenda for the discussion at the 


January meeting that the budget issues related to the contract be 


included. Dr. Wade commented that another thing for Board members to 


consider is their involvement in the technical evaluation panel, how 


many Board members and who they might be. Nothing has to be done 


today, but in January it would be good to get started on that. 


* * * * *
 

Update on Sandia SEC Petition
 

9
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Mr. LaVon Rutherford from NIOSH provided an introduction into the 


issues of the Sandia petition, and commented that at the previous Board 


meeting, after the petitioner's presentation, the petitioner had 


requested their materials be provided to Board members for review in 


preparation for this teleconference or the January meeting. Mr. 


Rutherford explained NIOSH has made that information available, it is 


now on the O drive, and access is available to all Board members. 


Information includes e-mails received from the petitioner. That 


notification was by an earlier e-mail to Board members. 


Dr. Ziemer commented that there is actually no action before the Board 


at this time. The evaluation report has been presented and action has 


already been taken. The materials were provided to NIOSH, whose 


position is that all issues raised therein were considered in their 


evaluation report. The only issue would be if Board members believe 


there is information in the petitioner's information to propose 


something different from what has already occurred. Since some of the 


materials were recently received, all members may not have had an 


opportunity to review everything. The Board could then ask for this 


matter to appear on the agenda for the January meeting. 


There was Board consensus that the materials would be reviewed and the 


issue would be placed on the agenda for discussion at the January 


meeting. 


* * * * *
 

Board Procedure on Interviews
 

Dr. Wade explained that SC&A, in their review of Procedure 92, had 


interviewed some individuals relative to effectiveness of the interview 


process, closeout interview, et cetera. SC&A had recommended the Board 


re-interview some of the people because they felt the information would 


be valuable in terms of the Board's review of procedures. That 


recommendation triggered a question as to whether it is appropriate for 


the Board to interview individual claimants, and Dr. Wade had been 


asked to investigate and report on what he had learned. 


Referring to the Board's charter, Dr. Wade noted that part of the 


Board's function is to advise the Secretary of HHS on the scientific 


validity and quality of dose reconstruction efforts performed by this 


program. To that end, the Board has taken the appropriate step of 


reviewing procedures. Therefore, if the Board wished to interview 


people or gather data that goes to the efficacy of procedures, those 


interviews would be legitimate. 


10
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Dr. Wade cautioned that the Board is not an appeals board and should 


not be reviewing individual cases as such. HHS has previously advised 


the Board that when it does engage with claimants it should engage only 


on adjudicated cases. It is a legitimate undertaking for the Board to 


speak to individuals for the purpose of commenting on the efficacy of 


procedures, but it must be very clear in the interview, both the setup 


for and conduct of, that it is not a function of an appeals board. 


It is now for the Board to decide if it wants to interview the 


individuals suggested by SC&A. The first question will be whether they 


are adjudicated cases. And if the Board chooses to continue, there is 


a path forward, although the Board doesn't have to proceed down it. 


* * * * *
 

Update on Tracking Matrices
 

Dr. Wade reminded the Board that when last they met he had been asked 


to consider committing to the Board when transcripts of Board meetings 


could be posted on the web site. There was talk of 30 days and talk of 


45 days. At this point, Dr. Wade remarked, he believes it is possible 


for transcripts of Board meetings, deliberations at Board meetings, to 


be posted 45 days after the meeting, although there is work yet to be 


done to accomplish that. 


Explaining there are two parts to this effort, one of which is getting 


the court reporter to provide the material within a 30-day time frame, 


Dr. Wade observed this has been done and all previous Board meeting 


transcripts have been delivered. The second part is the Privacy Act 


issue, particularly as it relates to redacting names of individuals who 


speak during the public comment session or during Board meetings. This 


is a laborious and time-consuming process which jeopardizes the ability 


to post transcripts in a timely manner. Dr. Wade reported he had met 


with the appropriate attorneys and other people and looked at the 


redaction policy. They have come up with a new policy, a copy of which 


was provided to Board members a few days ago. Dr. Wade read the 


proposed policy into the record. He observed this is a proposed policy 


and, absent Board members' comments, is a policy that will be followed. 


Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus from the Office of General Counsel emphasized that 


this policy applies to transcripts, as opposed to documents provided 


through some other means. Dr. Wade commented that it is assumed the 


policy would apply to workgroup meetings as well as full Board and 


subcommittee meetings. 


Discussion Points: 


11
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


#It would help to have an interim transcript of the Board meeting, with 

the affected portions redacted while those Privacy Act issues are 

being worked out, rather than hold up the entire transcript; 

#If a person discloses medical information about himself, it doesn't 

have to be redacted; 

#In general, the procedure would not be to redact information an 

individual provides about himself, but the Privacy Office has 

asked that that door not be closed completely; 

#The Privacy Act issue does not address classified information, they're 

not reviewing for classified information, and Privacy Act people 

don't get involved in that; 

#Policy has just been announced today and, although it has not been 

circulated yet, it will be made public; 

#The policy covers all the public portions of the Board meetings or 

workgroup deliberations; 

#A suggestion that Item 4 of the policy stating that all disclosure of 

information regarding third parties would be redacted be presented 

in bold letters wherever displayed. 

Dr. Wade added they were trying to work on a procedure to shortcut the 


need to wait for a full transcript in order to catch those third-party 


issues. That plan will be tried out over the next few workgroup 


meetings to see how it goes. 


* * * * *


 Subcommittee Update
 

Mr. Mark Griffon, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction 


Reviews, updated the Board on the status of the review of the fourth 


and fifth sets of cases. There has been a technical phone call meeting 


with SC&A and NIOSH to resolve some issues, and those are closer now to 


completion. It is hoped that the fourth and fifth set matrices will be 


closed out in the January meeting. 


Mr. Griffon reported that he has started drafting the summary report on 


the first 100 cases reviewed, and hopes to bring a draft to the January 


subcommittee meeting for discussion. 


* * * * *


 Workgroup Updates
 

Rocky Flats Workgroup Chairman Mr. Mark Griffon reported the group had 


met the previous day based on articles recently published in the Rocky 


Mountain News questioning implementation of the SEC class. Mr. Griffon
 

12
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


described the types of questions raised in the articles and that the 


phone call meeting had been a follow up. Actions as a result of the 


meeting included a talk with the reporter. Mr. Griffon also suggested 


a technical phone call meeting with NIOSH and with the reporter's 


source of information for the articles, which is a University of 


Colorado study. He plans to contact Margaret Ruttenber, one of the 


researchers on the study, and she has agreed to work with NIOSH on the 


phone call, with an eye toward seeking understanding on apparent 


differences in the newspaper articles to determine if it affects 


implementation of the class. 


Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus clarified that the Department of Labor will also 


be included in those conversations since that is the agency 

implementing the class. 

* * * 

Nevada Test Site Workgroup Chairman Mr. Robert Presley reported the 


workgroup is going through two summaries on responses to SC&A's latest 


comments. A conference call is scheduled to be held very shortly to 


discuss the findings before going to Las Vegas in January. There is 


still the possibility of a face-to-face workgroup meeting in Las Vegas 


before the meeting of the full Board. If a consensus can be reached 


during the conference call on what action needs to be taken, there will 


be no need for a face-to-face meeting in January. 


* * *
 

Hanford Site Profile and SEC Petition Workgroup Chairman Dr. James 


Melius reported that SC&A had just provided him a draft memo regarding 


the procedure for reviewing the SEC petition evaluation report and 


related issues in the site profile, outlining the issues SC&A sees with 


the evaluation report. He indicated he planned to meet briefly with 


Dr. Arjun Makhijani from SC&A, Dr. Sam Glover and Dr. Jim Neton from 


NIOSH in a few days for a brief discussion and to come up with a 


schedule of how to deal with the Hanford SEC. He noted it was a big 


petition with a lot of issues, and was further complicated by the 


federal budget issues which made it difficult to access records. That 


will also be discussed at their meeting. 


Dr. Melius indicated that he hoped by the January meeting to be able to 


move on with some parts of the SEC review. 


* * *
 

Savannah River Site Site Profile Workgroup Chairman Mr. Mark Griffon
 

indicated that the group has not met recently. There was one meeting 


13
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


some time ago, but this workgroup has been on the back burner due to 


other priorities. 


* * *
 

SEC Issues, Including 250-day Issue and Preliminary Review of 85.14 


Petitions, Workgroup Chairman Dr. James Melius reported that this group 


is meeting later this week in Cincinnati and will be reviewing two 


reports from SC&A on these matters. He will have something to report 


at the January meeting. 


* * *
 

Procedures Review Workgroup Chairman Ms. Wanda Munn reported that this 


is a complex and convoluted process in reviewing procedures, but they 


are doing well with respect to resolution of the significant number of 


issues with which they were initially faced. She noted a major effort 


is completely redoing their method of reporting and tracking individual 


findings because the matrices have become so complex and terminology 


has become unclear. SC&A, primarily Ms. Kathy Behling, has been very 


helpful in laying out suggestions for an entirely new format. They 


hope to be able to get that in place within the next few weeks. A 


face-to-face meeting is coming up very shortly in Cincinnati and the 


group will be looking at some of the new formats for the first time. 


Also to be addressed are the issues surrounding Procedure 92, and there 


is a matrix devised for that procedure. That will be another item of 


work when they next meet. 


* * *
 

Blockson Chemical SEC Petition Workgroup Chairman Ms. Wanda Munn
 

reported that every issue brought forward has now been addressed. All 


issues have been resolved. White papers substantiating the findings 


have been produced in each of those cases and will be available for all 


who want to review them in advance of the Las Vegas meeting. Ms. Munn
 

indicated it is the group's intent to declare at that meeting that 


issues have been adequately resolved, and express a willingness to 


dissolve the workgroup after hearing recommendations with respect to 


the site. 


* * *
 

Fernald Site Profile and SEC Petition Workgroup Chairman Mr. Brad 


Clawson reported the group had met earlier in the month. They have 


been working with SC&A and have gone through the complete matrix, and 


currently NIOSH is developing a white paper. The group is also 


14
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


awaiting a report on a tiger team interview from the site handled by 


Chew & Associates. There has been no time set for the group's next 

meeting. 

* * * 

Workgroup on Use of Surrogate Data Chairman Dr. James Melius reported 


there had been a conference call a week or so ago with the workgroup 


discussing some information prepared by SC&A. It had been a helpful 


meeting, and next step will be to get reactions from workgroup members 


to some of the ideas discussed. Dr. Melius indicated he took on the 


responsibility of drafting a report to be used as guidelines for review 


of the surrogate data and a fast exit dose reconstruction and SEC 


evaluation. He hopes to have a draft of that circulating within the 


workgroup within the next few weeks, and likely another conference call 


just before the Board meeting in Nevada, with a goal of having 


something to discuss with the full Board at that meeting. 


* * *
 

Workgroup on Worker Outreach Chairman Mr. Mike Gibson reported that 


over the past couple of months he and some other members of the group 


had attended various types of worker outreach meetings produced by 


NIOSH to get a feel for the differences in various meetings, how 


they're conducted, et cetera. The workgroup is trying to work through 


their schedules to arrive at a time they can have a face-to-face 


meeting sometime in January. 


* * *
 

Linde Ceramics Site Profile Workgroup Chairman Dr. Genevieve Roessler
 

reported their first and only meeting had been in March of 2007, 


transcript of which is on the OCAS web site. Tasks were assigned to 


NIOSH, the primary one of which was to look further into bioassay data. 


Dr. Roessler indicated she had just learned that they will be 


receiving the report from NIOSH in a few days, and that will give time 


for the workgroup and SC&A to review it and be prepared for another 


workgroup meeting in Las Vegas. 


* * *
 

Los Alamos National Laboratory Site Profile and SEC Petition Workgroup
 

Chairman Mr. Mark Griffon reported this group has not yet met. There 


is an outstanding question on the later time period described in the 


SEC petition and evaluation report, and the workgroup has held off on 


their meeting until NIOSH has done further work on that issue. 


15
 
 

__________________________________________ 

__________________________________________ 

 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Mr. LaVon Rutherford from NIOSH reported that the issue has not been 


settled, but will be upon issuance of the revised site profile, which 


has been slowed by resource issues. 


* * * * *
 

Board Working Time
 

Dr. Wade announced the only item, which was broached earlier by Dr. 


Melius, was the issue about DOE's funding shortfall and the impact on 


their ability to procure Hanford data. Dr. Melius commented there was 


no need for further discussion at this time, but possibly at the next 


workgroup meeting some effort can be made to figure out how to deal 


with the problem. 


Mr. Larry Elliott, Director of the Office of Compensation Analysis and 


Support, added that a week earlier his office had spoken with people 


from DOE and the Hanford point of contact, with SC&A people also a 


party to the conversation. NIOSH agreed to provide SC&A a list of 


their search indices and keywords so that they could avail themselves 


of that. Some of the OCAS staff will travel to Hanford and look at 


some of the boxes that have been retrieved. They have extended an 


invitation for SC&A to participate in any review that goes on that day. 


Mr. Elliott commented that they're in constant communication with DOE 


in trying to prioritize the work for them so that both the NIOSH effort 


and the SC&A review effort move forward as quickly as possible. 


* * * * *
 

With an agreement that the calendar of scheduled meetings through 


February 2009 and the Rocky Mountain News articles will be distributed 


to the Board members, and with no further business to come before the 


Board, the meeting officially adjourned at 2:50 p.m. 


End of Summary Minutes
 

Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë

I hereby confirm these Summary Minutes are 


accurate, to the best of my knowledge. 


Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D., Chair 


16
 
 Summary Minutes November 27, 2007 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Date 


17