Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) 

Subcommittee for Procedures Reviews 

Meeting Minutes 

June 21, 2023 

Summary Proceedings

The Subcommittee for Procedures Review meeting convened via teleconference at 

11:00 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT), Ms. Josie Beach, Chair, presiding.

Attendees

Members

Josie Beach, Chair

Victoria Cassano, Member

Loretta Valerio, Member

Paul Ziemer, Member

Non-Members

Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official

Nancy Adams, NIOSH contractor

Barton, Bob, SC&A

Behling, Kathy, SC&A

Buchanan, Ron, SC&A 

Calhoun, Grady, DCAS

Carver, Mr.

Gogliotti, Rose, SC&A

Griffiths, Richard

Habighurst, Ashton, HHS

Mangel, Amy, SC&A

Sharfi, Mutty, ORAU

Taulbee, Tim, DCAS
2

Roll Call/Welcome - Dr. Rashaun Roberts, DFO

Dr. Rashaun Roberts called to order the Subcommittee for Procedures Review at 11:00 

a.m. EDT on June 21, 2023, via teleconference. A roll call of all Subcommittee

members confirmed that a quorum was present. The quorum was maintained 

throughout the meeting. Subcommittee members, federal staff, and contractors

announced conflicts-of interest during roll call. Dr. Roberts turned the meeting over to 

Ms. Beach, Subcommittee chair. Ms. Beach noted an error in the posted agenda item b. 

It should not include “and also provide an additional case for SC&A.”

Carry Over Items from February 16, 2023, SPR Meeting

DCAS PER-049

LaVon Rutherford, DCAS reported that he had provided additional files to Kathy 

Behling, SC&A, as requested. SC&A had additional questions, which DCAS responded 

to near the end of April. Ms. Behling reported that SC&A had not yet completed their 

evaluation of the information. Consequently, this item will be discussed again at the next 

Subcommittee meeting.

DCAS-PER-092

SC&A developed one finding and four observations during their review of PER-092. At 

the last Subcommittee meeting, Scott Siebert, SC&A, provided verbal responses to 

those, that appeared to satisfy the Subcommittee. However, the Subcommittee asked 

DCAS to prepare a written version of Scott’s response to assist in establishing a record 

of the discussion. DCAS has provided that, and the Subcommittee determined that the 

finding and observations are closed. 

Peek Street

At its last meeting the Subcommittee asked DCAS to provide two additional Peek Street 

cases to SC&A for their review of this PER. DCAS has done that, and SC&A intends to 

report the result of their review in a memo. It might be ready to discuss at the next 

Subcommittee meeting.

DCAS-PER-073 (Birdsboro)

Dr. Robert Anigstein, SC&A, led this discussion. He noted that DCAS had found 

evidence that the Betatron at Birdsboro was in a separate facility, well-removed from the 

covered uranium operations, so doses from the Betatron need not be included in 

Birdsboro dose reconstructions. However, there is evidence that Birdsboro performed 

radiography using radium and maybe cobalt sealed sources, so doses from those 

radiography sources should be included. DCAS agreed to respond to this item, as well 

as the observations from SC&A’s review of PER-073, at a future date.
3

Battelle TBD-5000

Dr. Anigstein led this discussion as well. Battelle-5000 is an old document, much of 

which is no longer used. It has not been cancelled, though, so the Subcommittee had 

previously tasked SC&A to review it. That review resulted in 13 observations, 5 of which 

were closed by the Subcommittee at a previous meeting. Dr. Anigstein described the 

other 8 observations and discussed the nature of discussions up to this time. The 

methods that gave rise to 6 of the observations are no longer used, and DCAS has

described replacement methods that SC&A found acceptable. The Subcommittee 

concurred and closed those observations. DCAS is preparing documents that describe 

the technical basis for methods that replaced those that gave rise to the remaining 2 

observations. Those observations remain open.

OCAS-TIB-009, Example of “not suitable closeout for matrix 

Kathy Behling, SC&A had previously told the Subcommittee that some document 

reviews that the Subcommittee had completed might not be suitable to present to the 

full Board using the matrix format that the Subcommittee typically uses. Ms. Behling 

described the long history of the Subcommittee’s review of OCAS-TIB-009, which 

addresses worker ingestion. During the discussions, ingestion came to be considered 

an overarching issue, and was designated OVER-0002. Because of the extended 

discussion, and the amount of material presented by SC&A and DCAS during that 

discussion, several presentation slides were needed to describe it. The Subcommittee 

decided that today’s presentation was probably too much detail for the full Board. 

Members suggested a shorter presentation with links to documents the were prepared 

for the Subcommittee’s discussion.

Newly Issued SC&A Reviews

ORAUT-OTIB-0087, “Extremity Doses for Mound Exposures to Plutonium-238

Dr. Ron Buchanan presented the results of SC&A’s review of OTIB-0087. OTIB-0087 

contains information from dosimetry studies performed at the Mound facility. In those 

studies workers who were working with Plutonium-238 in glove boxes were monitored 

for radiation to their whole body, their wrists, and in some cases their fingers. From the 

data in those studies DCAS developed ratios of extremity dose to whole body dose for 

use for affected workers who had whole body dosimetry results but no extremity 

dosimetry results. SC&A’s review of OTIB-0087 resulted in two findings. One concerned 

the limited time period and the limited operations represented in the Mound dosimetry 

study, which would indicate the ratios might have limited applicability. The second 

finding suggested that a bounding ratio might be preferable for dose reconstruction, 

given the limited scope of the data in the Mound dosimetry study. SC&A also developed 

two observations. One noted that there were some data in the Mound dosimetry study 

which were not included in the OTIB-087 analysis, and the other that SC&A calculated 

slightly different values for the ratio means and standard deviations than appeared in 

OTIB-0087. DCAS is developing responses to these findings and observations.
4

ORAUT-RPRT-0085, “Probability of Causation Evaluation of ICRP 116 AnteriorPosterior, Isotropic, and Rotational Geometries”

Kathy Behling presented the results of SC&A’s review of Report 85. This report is a 

portion of the work that DCAS and ORAUT are completing in order to adopt recent 

guidance in ICRP-116 that describes how to convert external dosimetry measurements 

into doses to specific organs. The guidance in ICRP-116 replaces earlier guidance in 

ICRP-74, on which DCAS’s current dose reconstruction process is based. As part of her 

presentation, Ms. Behling noted that Report 85 uses data from Reports 68 and 69, 

which SC&A has not been tasked to review.

ICRP-116 contains dose conversion coefficients (DCCs) which can be used to convert

fluence rates for photons and neutrons of various energies and geometries into organ 

doses for many different organs. In their review SC&A’s team repeated the calculations 

in Report 85 for a subset of organs, radiation energies, and geometries. In most cases, 

but not all, their calculations agreed well with those in Report 85. SC&A did develop 

three observations from their review. One was that some values purportedly from 

Reports 68 and 69 and used in developing Report 85 did not appear to match the 

values SC&A found in Reports 68 and 69. The second was that SC&A derived values 

that were significantly different from Report 85’s for some organs and geometries. The 

third was that DCAS and ORAUT Team had used imprecise or incorrect terminology in 

some of these reports.

Dr. Tim Taulbee, DCAS, replied that dose reconstruction methods have not yet changed 

to conform to ICRP-116, and SC&A’s observations from this review will be helpful in that 

implementation process. He further opined that, since Reports 68, 69, and 85, all 

contained work that was done to facilitate the implementation of ICRP-116 into dose 

reconstruction methodology, it might be prudent to wait until implementation is finalized 

before responding to the findings on Report 85 or undertaking review of the other 

documents. The Subcommittee agreed that DCAS’s response to the Report 85 

observations, and review of the other reports should wait until closer to, or after, ICRP116 implementation is complete.

Preparation for August 2023 Full ABRWH Meeting: Review of 

technical guidance documents ready for full Board approval

The Subcommittee decided to present their completed review of OVER-002, using an 

abbreviated version of today’s presentation, at the next full Board meeting. They also 

decided to present their completed reviews for four other documents at that time. SC&A 

will prepare the presentation. The documents that the Subcommittee plans to present in 

addition to OVER-0002 are ORAUT-PROC-031, Rev. 1; DCAS-RPRT-005, Rev. 1; 

DCAS-PER-047, Rev. 0, and OCAS-PER-005, Rev. 0. The list might change due to 

time constraints.

Newly Issued Guidance Documents and Supplemental Topics
5

The Subcommittee tasked SC&A with reviewing four documents for the next or a future 

Subcommittee meeting. Those documents are PER-068, PER-070, PER-072, and 

RPRT-060. 

Meeting Adjourned

The Subcommittee tentatively scheduled their next meeting for Thursday, November 16, 

2023, at 11:00 Eastern time. The meeting was adjourned at 2:58 p.m. EDT.