Summary Minutes April 5, 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 Forty-fifth Meeting 


held telephonically on April 5, 2007 
 _______________________________________________________ 


The Forty-fifth Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health (ABRWH or the Board) was held telephonically on April 5, 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 

web 

the NIOSH/Office 

site located 

of 

at 

Those present included the following: 

Board Members: 

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair; Ms. Josie Beach, Mr. Michael Gibson, Mr. Mark 


Griffon, Dr. James Lockey, 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. Downs, Mr. Larry Elliott, Dr. James Neton, Mr. Dave Sundin (NIOSH); 


Ms. Emily Howell, (Office of General Counsel); Ms. Chia-Chia Chang 


(Office of the Director of NIOSH); Ms. Anstice Brand, (CDC Washington). 


Contractors: 


Dr. Hans Behling, Ms. Kathy Behling, and Dr. John Mauro, Sanford Cohen 


& Associates. 


Congressional Staff:
 

Ms. Michele Jacquez-Ortiz, Congressman Tom Udall's office. 


Members of Congress:
 

Senator James Bingaman, New Mexico. 

Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Other Participants:
 

Ms. Kay Barker, Ms. Terrie Barrie, ANWAG; Mr. Allen Callaway, Mr. Ray 


Beatty, Fernald Medical Screening Program; Mr. Mike Kessler, 5280 


Magazine; Mr. John Ramspott, General Steel Industries and Dow 


claimants; Dr. Dan McKeel, Southern Illinois Nuclear Workers. 


* * * * *
 

INTRODUCTIONS AND WELCOME
 

Dr. Wade called roll and found a quorum to be present, and the meeting 


was officially called to order. Dr. Wade made note of a few points of 


etiquette for telephone meetings, requesting that participants identify 


themselves when they speak. He also asked that participants mute their 


phones, if possible, when not speaking. 


Dr. Ziemer announced that Senator James Bingaman from New Mexico had 


indicated his desire to address the Board at noon concerning the Los 


Alamos petition. Any business being conducted at the time the Senator 


was connected on the call would be suspended in order for him to 


deliver his thoughts to the Board. 


Ms. Michele Jacquez-Ortiz indicated that, depending on the Senator's 


comments, she might wish to add a comment on behalf of Congressman Tom 


Udall. 


* * * * *
 

LIMITING TIME OF INDIVIDUAL 


 PUBLIC COMMENT
 

Dr. Ziemer indicated several Board members were concerned that some 


public commenters were making lengthy statements, causing other 


participants to become discouraged and leave without speaking. The 


question arose as to whether the Board should impose time limits on 


commenters. 


Dr. Ziemer read into the record a fax he had received from ANWAG, a 


worker advocacy group, urging that any limitations be not less than ten 


minutes. 


Dr. Wade noted the Board has been very accepting with its time, but the 


issue was that some people felt they couldn't stay and so left before 


having the opportunity to make their comments. 


2
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Discussion Points:
 

#The same individuals get up meeting after meeting and read the same 

comments each time, often taking up to 30 minutes. 

#If someone has a presentation that will exceed 10 minutes, they could 

clear it first with the Chair or the DFO. 

#Priority should be given to people who have not previously had an 

opportunity to speak to the Board. 

#Exceptions have to be made for SEC petitioners. 

#The sign-in sheet could reflect the amount of time needed, with those 

needing longer moved toward the end of the session. 

#Petitioners are given a separate time for expression of their 

comments. The issue is the general public commenters. 

#If a commenter is addressing an issue specific to a site of particular 

interest at a given meeting, they might be given priority even if 

not a new speaker. 

#Long technical comments could be presented in writing, with a summary 

of the comments made verbally within the time limitation. 

#The full comments would not be a part of the meeting transcript if 

presented in writing, but could be posted on the web site. 

#The information from long presentations is often complex, and when 

presented in writing would give the Board members an opportunity 

to review them without having to wait for the completed 

transcript. 

#The gist of those lengthy comments, presented verbally, would be more 

than adequate for most people. 

Dr. Ziemer indicated that he would not ask for a formal motion, but he 


would take it as the sense of the Board that a 10-minute time limit 


will be imposed on public speakers at future meetings; effort will be 


made to prioritize the list of speakers in terms of time needed and 


whether they are first-time attendees; written comments will be asked 


for in the case of those with more complex or lengthier pieces of 


information to present to the Board. 


Dr. Wade agreed that written comments could be posted on the web site, 


and indicated he would work to design a sign-in sheet that conveys the 


Board's wishes and enables the prioritization process. He remarked he 


would try to get it out to everyone before the next meeting and 


possibly use the sign-in sheet then. 


* * * * *
 

REVISIT BOARD POLICY ON SC&A 


VISITS TO THE HILL
 

3
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. Ziemer reminded the Board that from time to time its contractor, 


SC&A, is requested to brief various congressional staff members. The 


issue has to do with whether there should be a requirement that a Board 


member or members be present during such briefings. Since this issue 


has come up in the past, Dr. Wade provided members with pertinent pages 


from those meeting transcripts which contained the discussion. 


Dr. Wade explained the agency issues between HHS and the relationship 


with congressional staff and various government contractors, of which 


SC&A is one. The Secretary and the contracting officer instruct 


contractors as they think appropriate under the contract. It will 


likely continue to be the policy that the Hill would have unfettered 


access to SC&A, as appropriate. 


Maintaining the intention to act within the spirit of the Board's 


policy, Dr. Wade went on to explain it was felt the current policy is 


consistent with that. Should the Board adopt a policy refusing Hill 


visits, he could not promise the Department would act consistent with 


such a change. 


Dr. Ziemer explained currently when SC&A receives a request, Dr. John 


Mauro notifies Dr. Wade and the Chair a request has been made, who made 


it and when. After the visit, a written report of the discussion, 


items addressed, questions asked and answered is provided. Dr. Wade
 

added Board members are also notified of the request, and any who would 


like to participate are welcome to express such interest. Any such 


request is then made to the congressional entity initiating the 


briefing. If agreeable, the Board member may attend. If the 


congressional office says no, that wish is honored. 


Caveats include that SC&A must be careful to inform the Board is often 


looking at draft material. Participating Board members need to 


identify whether they're conflicted on a site in question. And Board 


members don't speak for the Board unless they've been authorized to do 


so. 


Dr. Ziemer observed the issue is whether the Board should demand or 


make mandatory a Board presence in such briefings. If so, it would go 


as a recommendation to the Secretary. Whether the Secretary would 


honor it is a separate question. 


Discussion Points:
 

#Comments that come back to the Board from congressional members and 

their staff make it clear that the contractor is seen as an 


auditor, not a reviewer. 


4
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#It is important for both the Board and the staffers to understand the 

status of the materials and the status of the presenters. 

#SC&A has tried to make that clear, though not always successfully. 

#It's also clear many times congressional staff has had information 

provided to them long before the visits. 

#There seems to be an adversarial component in the congressional view 

of Board activities, which is perhaps why it has not always been 

possible for Board members to participate in the interactions. 

#That is a cause for legitimate concern by the Board and the agency. 


#Are the questions and answers recorded during meetings. 


#A meeting summary is prepared by SC&A. 


#Originally those summaries were sent only to Dr. Ziemer and Dr. Wade, 


but SC&A has recently begun sending them to all members. 

#They provide an education as to the concerns of the congressional 

members. 

#SC&A will provide a full set of all summaries to all Board members. 

#Logistically, SC&A is better positioned to attend such meetings. 

#Their invitations are often to provide technical updates on issues 

raised by a constituency, perhaps assurances a particular issue is 


getting appropriate review, and SC&A is often more up to date on 


that. 


#Access to the contractor adds to the overall credibility of the 

program. 

#With the summaries, any concerns about the way an issue was raised or 

handled can be discussed with SC&A or Dr. Wade. 

#Board members should be notified as soon as possible. 

#The summaries have not been but could be posted on the web site. 

#Summaries should identify the principal staff members present, as well 

as SC&A personnel. 

#If a Board member's request to participate is denied, it should also 

be included in the summary. 

Ms. Jacquez-Ortiz remarked she had raised concern about the issue 


following a recent meeting. After an opportunity to speak with Ms. 


Wanda Munn, who clarified the Board's concern, Ms. Jacquez-Ortiz said 


she had not fully understood and found the Board's proposal reasonable. 


Noting she could only speak on behalf of Congressman Udall's staff, 


she offered they would feel comfortable with the Board's proposal. 


* * * * *
 

REVIEW OF COMPLETENESS OF 


 BOARD REVIEWS
 

5
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. Lewis Wade
 

Dr. Wade offered three issues that had come up in discussions with 


various Board members as matters to consider in the scope of the 


Board's reviews. They are instructions to dose reconstructors, the 


PERs or Program Evaluation Reviews, and tracking issues to closure. 


Mr. Larry Elliott provided a more comprehensive explanation of when and 


why a PER is developed, and what information it provides. 


Dr. Ziemer noted no action is needed today, but the topics are raised 


for future consideration. 


Discussion Points:
 

#The Board has never come to grips with tracking through to closure, 

and issues are raised in so many settings that a formal method for 

doing so is needed badly. 

#Perhaps some process could be suggested at the next full Board 

meeting. 

#SC&A has an apparently good system it uses to track items they're 

working on, status, et cetera. 

#All identified issues, regardless of the type of review that brought 

it to light, are contained in a matrix. A paper trail exists and 

with a little work it could be pulled into a separate list for 

formal tracking. 

#NIOSH also has a growing list of items being tracked, which are 

primarily what it considers global issues, in an effort to not 

have to address them in every site profile or dose reconstruction 

review in which they occur. 

#Some linkage between matrices is needed to keep issues from falling 

through the cracks. 

#There is nothing to convey to the agency that an issue has been 

identified in a workgroup and that it should be added to the 

agency's list of global issues. 

#When an issue has been resolved, a method is needed for that closure 

information to flow back to the originating review document. 

The discussion was suspended temporarily in order for Senator Bingaman 


to address the Board. 


* * *
 

COMMENTS ON LOS ALAMOS 


 SEC PETITION
 

6
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Senator James Bingaman
 

Senator Bingaman indicated he only wanted to comment briefly that the 


[Name Redacted]SEC petition for Los Alamos was very important in his 


state. He reminded the Board that the Laboratory had not been filled 


with theoretical physicists and chalkboards, but was the nation's 


prototype laboratory for building the components of the nuclear 


arsenal. While the testing of highly radioactive materials was 


cutting-edge, 60 years ago they knew little about what they were doing 


and there was little focus on the health impact. There was little, if 


any, measurement of internal exposures. The Senator urged 


recommendation of the SEC petition so that some of the elderly 


individuals can find compensation, and asked that his comments be taken 


into consideration. 


* * * 


Ms. Michele Jacquez-Ortiz, 


representing Congressman Tom Udall
 

Ms. Jacquez-Ortiz echoed the Senator's remarks, noting the Congressman 


and his staff were working closely with the Senator's staff regarding 


concerns raised about the class definition. She expressed hope that, 


working with NIOSH and DOL, some of those concerns could be addressed 


before the May meeting. 


* * * * *
 

COMPLETENESS OF BOARD REVIEWS 


(Continued)
 

Dr. Wade defined the tracking issue as having two sides. One is to be 


sure that, when issues are raised, they're captured to be worked on. 


The other side is that when they're resolved, that information flows 


back to the originating venue so the review can be closed with 


certainty. 


Dr. Ziemer suggested at the next meeting SC&A might tell the Board what 


they could do in terms of tracking because a part of it seems to be a 


database issue, capturing and tracking. For the Board's side, a 


workgroup might be needed to consider how to best address the issue and 


what is needed. Also important is if this would fall under an existing 


SC&A task. 


Dr. Wade suggested a conference call between NIOSH and SC&A to explore 


possibilities, and then get the contracting officer involved. Without 


7
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


getting into a full Board meeting, interested members could at least 


sit in on that conversation. 


Additional Discussion Points:
 

#PERs could be tied back to review matrices. 

#The instructions or guidelines issue is scheduled for discussion at 

the next meeting of the subcommittee. 

#The guidelines are ever-changing and not proceduralized, but it would 

be helpful to have whatever guideline was used for a particular 

dose reconstruction placed in the case file as additional 

information should that case be reviewed during the audit process. 

#The subcommittee will take a first look at that issue and report back 

to the Board. 

* * * * *
 

ASSIGNMENT OF TWO-MEMBER TEAMS 


TO REVIEW INDIVIDUAL DRs 


Dr. Ziemer reminded everyone the subcommittee had recommended 28 cases 


for review in Round Seven. The teams were rearranged from 3-member 


teams to 2-member teams, as follows: Poston/Presley, Roessler/Lockey, 


Griffon/Clawson, Gibson/Ziemer, Melius/Schofield and Munn/Beach. Dr. 


Ziemer explained he had assigned five cases to most groups, with two 


groups having four cases. 


Because the list contained identifiers which could not be made public, 


assignment of cases was attempted using POC and site as substitute 


identifiers. It became apparent that method was confusing. Dr. Wade
 

and Dr. Ziemer agreed to get together and clarify the assignments, and 


Dr. Wade would send them out for comment. If none were heard, they 


would assume the assignments were made. Dr. Wade noted this would 


happen quickly as SC&A needed the assignment information so they could 


proceed with their work on this seventh set of case reviews. 


* * * * *


 BOARD CORRESPONDENCE
 

LETTER FROM DR. LAURENCE FUORTES
 

Dr. Ziemer announced he had distributed a number of letters and asked 


Mr. Elliott to put the correspondence from Dr. Fuortes into procedural 


perspective. 


8
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Mr. Elliott indicated an SEC petition had come forward from Dr. Fuortes
 

which dealt with a time frame and work activities not included in the 


previous class established for Ames University. The correspondence 


provided information that is being considered within the NIOSH 


evaluation of that petition and will be reported to the Board in May or 


June. 


A second set of correspondence from Dr. Fuortes related to his petition 


submission regarding workers at the Pantex facility over a number of 


years. NIOSH consulted with Dr. Fuortes and two other petitioners 


concerning elements of information needed in order for that petition to 


qualify for evaluation. Dr. Fuortes wanted to appeal the determination 


that there was no remedy to the petition's deficiencies, and ask that 


the Board look into the situation. Thereafter Dr. Fuortes did provide 


new information and Mr. Elliott has informed him the petition is still 


under evaluation. Another consultation will take place to explore 


whether the additional information has indeed cured the deficiencies. 


If not, the option for appeal remains open. Dr. Fuortes has been so 


informed. 


* * * * *
 

SCHEDULE OF FUTURE BOARD MEETINGS
 

Dr. Wade announced that he had received a request for one change on his 


previously-provided schedule of Board meetings through June 2008. 


Therefore he was proposing the face-to-face meeting scheduled for March 


25-27, 2008 be changed to April 9-11, 2008. He asked if there were any 


major conflicts that would cause a problem with the change. 


With no objections raised, the change was made. 


* * * * *
 

BOARD WORKING TIME
 

Working Group Updates
 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction 


Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair
 

A meeting is planned for April 11 to go over the fourth set of reviews. 


The updated matrix from NIOSH on the fifth set was just received, 


along with other items such as the DR guidelines. 


* * * 


Nevada Test Site Site Profile, 


Mr. Robert Presley, Chair
 

9
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


The group met on the 15th and went through 20 of the 25 or 26 issues. 


A conference call is scheduled for the 18th (months not specified). 


* * *
 

Savannah River Site Site Profile, 


Mr. Mike Gibson, Chair
 

The Q-cleared members of the group visited the Savannah River facility 


and went through the classified database. They had to leave their 


notes for classification review and they have not yet been returned. 


There remain a few open questions related to the database. 


* * * 


Rocky Flats Site Profile and SEC Petition, 


Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair
 

SC&A has a number of reports due the group which are undergoing an 


expedited privacy review. A draft final report is expected to be 


delivered within a day. SC&A made a trip to the Rocky Flats records 


center and checked some of the 450 boxes, primarily to follow up on the 


question of relevant logbooks for time periods not captured in the 


original action. While some information may have been found, it is not 


expected to change any conclusions. 


There was a technical call between NIOSH and SC&A on neutron/photon 


ratio issues. This will be followed up in the SC&A final report. It 


is expected the workgroup will need to address that issue a bit further 


at a scheduled April 19th meeting. 


* * *
 

Chapman Valve SEC Petition, 


Dr. John Poston, Chair 


In Dr. Poston's absence, Dr. Wade indicated his recollection was that 


the group had met on February 23 and was scheduled to meet again on 


April 10. Workgroup member Dr. Genevieve Roessler confirmed. 


* * *
 

SEC Issues 


(Including 250-day Issue and 83.14 Petitions), 


Dr. James Melius, Chair
 

10
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


This group has not met since the last Board meeting. There is some 


NIOSH information-gathering being done, primarily related to NTS, that 


will take some time, so they're waiting for that. 


SC&A has finished a draft report related to the 250-day issue relative 


to the Ames Lab and the workgroup's findings. That report will be sent 


out shortly. 


There is an 83.14 petition pending on the W.R. Grace plant. There has 


been an area set up on the O drive regarding that site for the 


workgroup's use. After the individual members take a look at the 


material, a decision can be made whether to schedule a workgroup 


conference call before the next Board meeting. 


There is no meeting currently scheduled. 


* * * 


SEC Petitions, Failed to Qualify, 


Dr. James Lockey, Chair
 

The group met on March 28 with Ms. Laurie Ishak-Breyer and Ms. Denise 


Brock participating by phone, and four additional recommendations came 


from that. A draft of all recommendations was sent to the working 


group members. No objections have been received, so those 


recommendations will be formally presented to the Board at the next 


meeting. 


* * * 


Hanford Site Profile, 


Dr. James Melius, Chair
 

The group met in Cincinnati recently, primarily focusing on the neutron 


exposure ratio. NIOSH is gathering some documents that will be useful 


and will be available on the O drive. The next meeting will depend on 


review of further documents. 


There is also currently a Hanford SEC petition, and the workgroup's 


focus on the neutron issue is expected to be relevant to the petition 


evaluation. The group is going in a direction to be able to address 


the evaluation report when it is completed by NIOSH in a month or two. 


Drs. Wade and Ziemer agreed the workgroup's name should be changed to 


reflect its new thrust and will henceforth be known as the Hanford Site 


Profile and SEC Petition workgroup. It was also noted that Mr. Phillip 


Schofield has joined that group. 


11
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


* * * 


Board Conflict of Interest Policy, 


Dr. James Lockey, Chair
 

A meeting is scheduled for May 11. Ms. Emily Howell from counsel's 


office has sent out to all workgroup members a background notebook of 


the current policies and procedures for SC&A, NIOSH and other federal 


advisory boards where there is an established COI policy. 


Any workgroup member who did not receive the notebook should contact 


Ms. Howell directly for a copy. 


* * *
 

Procedures Review, 


Ms. Wanda Munn, Chair
 

This group has not met, nor has a date been established for a first 


meeting. NIOSH will be providing information on upgraded procedures by 


late May. 


* * *
 

Blockson Chemical SEC Petition, 


Ms. Wanda Munn, Chair
 

The workgroup has not formally met, though members have met with 


workers. The thorium/uranium relationship was the primary issue 


necessitating a redo of the plant site profile. That has been 


undertaken by chemical experts and is in the process of being written. 


Until the release of the corrected site profile, the workgroup has 


nothing to go on. When that will occur has not been announced. 


* * *
 

Fernald Site Profile and SEC Petition, 


Mr. Brad Clawson, Chair
 

In Mr. Clawson's absence, workgroup member Mr. Mark Griffon reported 


the group has not met. Dr. Wade noted NIOSH's responses to the matrix 


prepared by SC&A will trigger a meeting. That work is underway, and a 


meeting is anticipated after May 11. 


* * *
 

12
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


LANL Site Profile and SEC Petition, 


Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair
 

This group's first meeting is anticipated sometime after the May Board 


meeting. 


* * *
 

Linde Site Profile, 


Dr. Genevieve Roessler, Chair
 

The group met on March 26 and went over approximately 20 items on the 


SC&A-prepared matrix and the NIOSH responses. Resolution on many items 


will relate to a new exposure model NIOSH will derive from 700 newly-


found bioassays. 


No further meeting date has been set. Information is pending from both 


NIOSH and SC&A. After its receipt, the group will report back to the 


Board on its status. 


* * *
 

Worker Outreach, 


Mr. Mike Gibson, Chair
 

The group has not met. A draft scope is being compiled for circulation 


to the workgroup soliciting their input. Information is being gathered 


relative to points of contact for outreach centers, OCAS interviewers, 


et cetera. 


* * * * *
 

NIOSH PROGRAM UPDATE
 

Mr. Larry Elliott, 


OCAS
 

Mr. Elliott reported on five items. The first was to advise the MOU 


with the Department of Energy will expire at the end of the fiscal 


year, or September '07. Work is underway to have a new MOU in place 


before that time. 


The second item addressed the six findings arising from the Bethlehem 


Steel site profile working group. NIOSH had been asked to track the 


progress and Mr. Elliott has been reporting on that from time to time. 


NIOSH feels those issues have been resolved and are reflected in the 


Bethlehem Steel revised site profile. 


13
 
Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Thirdly, a GAO review has been underway since mid-June of last year 


entitled "Contractor Costs in the Energy Employees Program." The 


review has been thorough and has recently focused on the COI policy put 


in place last October by the Director of NIOSH. The GAO people will 


soon visit the Procurement Grants Office to look at all the contract 


files in place there. A report at the conclusion of the review is 


anticipated later in the fall. 


The fourth item was a status report on current and upcoming SEC 


petitions for Board planning purposes. The seven petition evaluations 


under or ready for Board deliberation include Rocky Flats, Los Alamos, 


Bethlehem Steel, Sandia National Lab Livermore, W.R. Grace, Dow Madison 


and Y-12. The nine on the immediate horizon include Blockson, Hanford; 


the Ames, Iowa Lab; and six 83.14 petitions unspecified currently but 


expected to come to maturity before the July Board meeting. 


The fifth item was to report that in the seventh month of the '07 


fiscal year, resource limitations are being faced. This is a result of 


a loss of $14 million for program funds over the last three years. 


Funds were set to cover overhead rates equal to about 9% on any monies 


transferred to the program. NIOSH budget requests have been reduced by 


9% each year through appropriations in order to exclude the CDC 


overhead, and further reduced because CDC continues to take the 


overhead rate. This has been appealed annually by NIOSH to CDC and to 


OMB through the Department of Labor. Differences in interpretation has 


resulted in the $4.5 million earmarked for the Board, which NIOSH 


considered to be in addition to its request for program funds, being 


included in their allocation. 


Mr. Elliott discussed the potential ramifications if the CDC overhead 


is not restored to the program. NIOSH will maintain dose 


reconstruction production and SEC evaluation activities as top 


priorities. When the ORAU contract expires, award of a new contract 


for technical support may be delayed. The time and pace and level of 


OCAS support to the Board and workgroups will likely also be reduced. 


Dr. Wade agreed that the direct impact to the Board would likely be 


pace of closeout activities since resources from ORAU and other 


contractors are used. Secondarily, the pace at which SC&A might be 


involved in the review process could be slowed. Longer periods of time 


between the ability to iterate on matrices could affect the schedule of 


workgroup meetings, as well as the pace at which SC&A is asked to 


respond. 


Discussion Points:
 

14
 
 

_______________________________________ 

_______________________________________ 

Summary Minutes April 5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#There is a staggering amount of material to be dealt with by the Board 

by July. 

#Receiving as much material as possible in advance of Board meetings 

will enable a more thorough review ahead of time and thus be more 

efficient. 

#The material could be sent electronically rather than in the large, 

hard-to-pack binders. 

* * * * *
 

With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was 


adjourned at 1:23 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 


Date 


15