Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 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-second Meeting 

 January 8-10, 2008 

 _______________________________________________________ 

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

Health (ABRWH or the Board) was held January 8 through 10, 2008, at the 

Suncoast Hotel and Casino in Las Vegas, Nevada. The meeting was called 

by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National 

Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the agency 

charted with administering the ABRWH. These summary minutes, as well 

as a verbatim transcript certified by a court reporter, are available 

on the internet on the NIOSH/Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support (OCAS) web site located at www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

Those present included the following: 

Board Members: 

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

Michael Gibson; Mr. Mark Griffon; Dr. James Lockey; Dr. James Melius; 

Ms. Wanda Munn; Dr. John Poston; Mr. Robert Presley; Dr. Genevieve 

Roessler (telephonically); and Mr. Phillip Schofield. 

Designated Federal Officials: Dr. Lewis Wade, Executive Secretary; Dr. 

Christine Branche. 

Federal Agency Attendees: 

Department of Health and Human Services: 

Ms. Laurie Breyer, Ms. Denise Brock, Mr. Larry Elliott, Dr. Sam Glover, 

Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, Dr. James Neton, Mr. Mark Rolfes, Mr. LaVon 

Rutherford, Dr. Brant Ulsh (NIOSH); Ms. Emily Howell, Ms. Liz HomokiTitus (Office of General Counsel); Ms. Chia-Chia Chang (Office of the 

Director of NIOSH); Mr. Jason Broehm (CDC Washington); Mr. David 

Staudt, (CDC Procurement). 

Department of Labor: Mr. Jeff Kotsch. 

Department of Energy: Mr. Greg Lewis, Dr. Patricia Worthington. 

Contractors: 

Dr. Arjun Makhijani, Dr. John Mauro and Dr. Steve Ostrow, Sanford Cohen 

& Associates. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 2

Congressional Staff Members: 

Ms. Sara Bermingham (Senator Charles Schumer); Ms. Sharon Block 

(Senator Edward Kennedy); Mr. Steven Hill (Congressman Shavitz); Mr. 

Frank Rowe (Senator Joe Lieberman); Mr. Robert Stephan (Senator Barack 

Obama). 

Other Participants:

See Registration. 

 * * * * *

 Tuesday, January 8, 2008

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Board Chairman, called the meeting to order. He 

called for members of the assembly to register their attendance in the 

book provided for that purpose, reminding those who wished to make 

public comment in the meeting of a sign-up sheet in the foyer for that 

purpose as well. Dr. Ziemer described materials available for those 

who wished to take advantage of them, including the agenda and 

documents associated with the deliberations for the three days of the 

meeting. 

Dr. Lewis Wade, Designated Federal Official for the Board, was 

introduced and offered regards from Mr. Mike Leavitt, Secretary of 

Health and Human Services; Dr. Julie Gerberding, Director of the 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Dr. John Howard, 

Director of NIOSH. Dr. Wade thanked the Board members for their 

service. 

It was announced that on the following morning Senator Harry Reid was 

expected to address the assembly, although that does not appear on the 

agenda. Dr. Wade added that during this meeting he will be sharing the 

Designated Federal Official's chair with Dr. Christine Branche, who 

will be assuming responsibilities of the DFO in the near future. 

 * * * * *

 MOUND PLANT SEC PETITION 

 NIOSH EVALUATION REPORT

Before the presentation began, Dr. Wade announced that Board member Mr. 

Michael Gibson had a conflict with this site and Mr. Gibson would be 

joining the audience for the presentation and discussion. He explained 

that under Board policy if a member is conflicted on a particular site, 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 3

they don't sit at the table and participate in deliberations, 

discussions, motion making and votes surrounding SEC petitions. 

Dr. Ziemer added that a conflicted member basically becomes a member of 

the public and that Mr. Gibson would be able to comment as a site 

expert or member of the public. 

 * * *

Dr. Brant Ulsh, 

NIOSH 

Dr. Ulsh explained that generally DOE facilities were either 

production-type facilities or focused more on research, such as the 

National Laboratories. He observed that the Mound facility is unique 

in that it had significant production operations as well as significant 

research activities, which presents unique challenges in moving forward 

with evaluation of the Mound petition. 

Dr. Ulsh provided some background into the Mound mission. He explained 

that a major mission was in polonium-210 production and research. 

Polonium-210 was used in initiators in nuclear weapons. Research 

included research into the use of radium-226 and actinium-227 as 

alternatives to polonium-210, which had some undesirable 

characteristics. There was also research involved with the civilian 

nuclear power program, including various isotopes of uranium, 

protactinium-231 and plutonium-239. Also included was the Radioisotope 

Thermoelectric Generator (or RTG) program which first involved 

polonium-210 and later plutonium-238. Mound was also involved in some 

research activities with tritium. Dr. Ulsh cautioned that these were 

the major programs at Mound and this list is not intended to be allinclusive. There were many smaller programs. 

As a part of his presentation Dr. Ulsh also provided some history of 

the Mound site. The activities were transferred from the Dayton 

Project, also known as the Monsanto site, with the transfer completed 

in 1949. In February of 1949 the Mound site was occupied and began 

operations. Production continued through 1994. Dr. Ulsh commented 

that he wasn't going to make that a hard date because the RTG program 

continued beyond 1994, but the focus of the site was shifted from 

production to decommissioning and decontamination in '94 and continued 

up through 2006. 

Two petitions were received from this site. Petition 00090 was 

received in early June of 2007, qualified for evaluation mid-August of 

2007. Petition 00091 was received in mid-June of 2007 and qualified 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 4

for evaluation in late September. Those petitions were merged into 

one. 

The initial class definition was "all employees who worked in all areas 

within the boundaries of the Mound plant from February 1949 to the 

present." The NIOSH proposed class is for "all employees who worked in 

all areas of the Mound plant from February 1949 through August 17, 

2007." NIOSH preferred to put a definite end date and so used the 

qualification date of the earlier petition. Dr. Ulsh explained this 

was the class definition established at the beginning of the evaluation 

process in order to provide parameters for the NIOSH considerations. 

Dr. Ulsh described some of the activities surrounding the site as far 

as communications between NIOSH, SC&A and claimants, which included 

preparation of the six Technical Basis Documents which make up the site 

profile. Those were issued between March and October of 2004. Sanford 

Cohen & Associates, the Board contractor, reviewed the TBDs and issued 

their draft review report in July of 2006. Worker outreach meetings 

were held with PACE and with Dayton Building and Construction Trades 

Council in January of 2005. During the petition evaluation process 

interviews were conducted with approximately 25 former Mound workers. 

In addition to that information, other data resources for determining 

feasibility of dose reconstruction included dosimetry records, Mound 

environmental safety and health plutonium reconstruction and polonium 

reconstruction databases and hard copy records, ORAU site research 

database, and documentation provided by the petitioners and site 

experts. 

According to the NIOSH/OCAS Tracking System as of December 6, 2007, DOL 

had submitted 491 Mound cases for dose reconstruction. NIOSH has 

completed 348 of those cases; 420 of the 491 cases submitted have 

internal monitoring records, and 430 cases have external monitoring 

records. 

Dr. Ulsh listed the bases or concerns that formed the foundation of the 

petition. These included haphazard radiation monitoring of workers, 

radioactively-contaminated materials in non-controlled areas, employees 

in non-controlled areas prohibited from receiving monitoring, control 

of Mound lab documentation, record destruction, and integrity of 

radiation dose records. Dr. Ulsh addressed each of those concerns 

individually and discussed them in depth, explaining how NIOSH 

addressed each concern and the findings of their evaluation. He 

explained the petition is evaluated by NIOSH using the guidelines in 42 

CFR 83.13, and a summary of those findings is submitted in a petition 

evaluation report to the Board and petitioners. That report was issued 

in December 2007. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 5

Dr. Ulsh went on to discuss an issue that he explained wasn't raised 

explicitly in either of the petitions, but was raised in several of the 

interviews conducted with former workers. That issue involved an 

operation from October of '49 over the next ten years, the separation 

of radium-226, actinium-227 and thorium-228. He explained the source 

materials were from K-65 residues and irradiated radium. 

Describing interviews with Mound employees, Dr. Ulsh reported he likes 

his last question to offer them an opportunity to discuss anything they 

feel would be important to NIOSH in dose reconstruction that had not 

yet been discussed. That is the context in which this issue came up 

over and over. NIOSH therefore spent time evaluating and looked at 

some health physics progress reports and found language to indicate 

that contamination was not confined to the SW 19 area, which was 

referred to as the "old cave" or "radium cave" where the separation 

operations took place. That contamination spread throughout the R and 

SW buildings. 

Although Dr. Ulsh could not go into details about some of the 

information, other buildings were involved in research to support the 

separation project and he had seen air data that was sufficient to 

indicate there was a significant airborne potential for exposure. 

There are problems with interpreting the limited number of bioassay 

data available for this particular operation. It often isn't 

associated with a particular worker, et cetera, and NIOSH felt it would 

not allow them to put a sufficiently accurate upper bound on internal 

doses from this operation, and concluded that reconstruction of 

internal doses from those three radionuclides -- radium-226, actinium227 and thorium-228 -- is not feasible. 

The period that covers is from the time the material arrived on site 

until completion of the D&D of the "old cave". Giving it the broadest 

scope, they have designated that time as October 1st, 1949 through 

February 28, 1959. 

Reconstruction of internal doses is feasible from 1959 forward through 

approximately 1990. Dr. Ulsh noted that caveat is as a result of 

concerns about the situation which led to the Price Anderson Act 

violations, and related specifically to the bioassay problem. NIOSH 

continues to investigate those bioassay problems in the D&D era, which 

is the 1990s. However, reconstruction of external doses is feasible 

for all years. 

Dr. Ulsh then explained the standard two-pronged test for conducting 

the evaluation process to determine whether it is feasible to estimate 

the level of radiation doses to individual members of the class with 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 6

sufficient accuracy; and if not, is there a reasonable likelihood that 

such radiation dose may have endangered the health of members of the 

class. NIOSH recommends addition of an SEC class consisting of "all 

employees who worked in all areas of the Mound plant from October 1, 

1949 through February 28, 1959." 

The NIOSH summary is that the answer to the feasibility question for 

the specified period for internal exposures from radium, actinium and 

thorium is negative; and there is a likelihood of health endangerment. 

 In the period 1949 through 1990 it is feasible to accurately 

reconstruct dose for internal exposures from all other radionuclides, 

and therefore the health endangerment question is not applicable. 

In the period 1990 through 2006 internal exposures from all other 

radionuclides continues to be the subject of investigation through the 

decommissioning and decontamination era. 

It is feasible to reconstruct external doses from 1949 through 2006, 

and the health endangerment question is not applicable. 

Discussion Points: 

#Does NIOSH have bioassay data for the time frame of 1964 when actinium 

was processed in the new cave; 

#A question as to the differences in plutonium records summaries for 

1965, 1966 and 1967 when they range widely; 

#A question regarding the cutoff date of February 28, 1959; 

#Why does NIOSH believe it can do internal dose reconstructions after 

1959 and what changed in the process that makes that possible; 

#When the "old cave" was deconned in the late 1950s their standards 

were a bit different than standards of D&D today; 

#A discussion of the D&D period as it related to the Price Anderson Act 

violations regarding bioassays; 

#A question about whether D&D workers were appropriately monitored for 

materials they may have been exposed to, even though they were not 

denied monitoring. 

 * * *

 PETITIONER RESPONSE

Mr. Larry Russell, husband of the SEC 00090 petitioner [name redacted], 

spoke about their concerns with the evaluation report relative to 

monitoring procedures of operating contractors, commenting that there 

were six different contractors during the time [identifying 

information] worked at the facility. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 7

Ms. Judy Miller, petitioner under SEC 00091, spoke on behalf of her 

deceased mother, [name redacted], who worked at Mound from 1956 to 

1983. She presented a slide show of photographs and described her 

mother's life and work history, her illness, and commented she was 

happy her mother had been awarded on her claim under the Part E portion 

of the program before her death. She also discussed the area where her 

family lived and the contamination of water in that area. She also 

described [identifying information] death from cancer, as well as the 

illnesses of her brother and herself. 

 * * * 

Mr. Jason Broehm from the Washington CDC office read into the record a 

letter from Senator Sherrod Brown from the State of Ohio expressing his 

support for the Mound SEC petition. 

Also circulated was a letter from a former Mound employee, Mr. Fred 

Stanley Radwanski, a retired engineer with 57 years experience. It was 

distributed to Board members, but Mr. Radwanski had not asked that it 

be read into the record. 

A full transcript of all statements is available on the NIOSH/OCAS web 

site at www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

 * * *

Discussion Points: 

#There is not a working group on Mound; 

#There is a site profile review done by SC&A; 

#It would be in order to form a group to follow up on the petition and 

deal with the site profile; 

#Should the Board decide to approve the actions NIOSH has recommended, 

it does not preclude later actions on other parts of the petition; 

#Taking action as recommended would put part of the workers into an SEC 

class; 

#Confirmation that the 1949 to 1959 time period presented by NIOSH 

would involve all workers on the site, as well as the later time 

period would include all workers during that time period, 

presuming they meet the other requirements of the SEC, such as the 

250-day requirement, et cetera; 

#Discussion of the item on the summary indicating reconstruction of 

external exposure from all other radionuclides is feasible from 

1949 through 1990 creating confusion relative to dose 

reconstructions for non-SEC cancers; 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 8

#An individual whose POC can be shown to be more than 50 percent -- 

without taking into account the radium, actinium and thorium -- 

would be compensable through dose reconstruction. 

 * * *

Dr. Ziemer outlined the possible paths forward. This report was 

received very recently and is extensive, with a lot of backup material. 

 Action could be delayed if the Board is not comfortable with acting on 

the subset recommended as an SEC class. 

 A motion was made and seconded that the NIOSH recommendation 

for an SEC class for the years 1949 through 1959 for the 

entire mound site be accepted.

 The motion carried by a vote of 11 to zero, with one member 

of the Board having been recused due to conflict of interest.

The formal wording to be sent to the Secretary of Health and Human 

Services is attached hereto and made a part hereof. 

 A motion was made and seconded to establish a workgroup to 

oversee the review of the petition evaluation report, as well 

as make an effort to resolve issues related to the site 

profile review, and that SC&A be asked to work on issues 

related to the SEC petition evaluation report.

 The motion carried by a vote of 11 to zero, with one Board 

member having been recused due to conflict of interest.

Dr. Ziemer observed that five Board members had expressed interest in 

participating in the working group, and he would make his decision for 

appointments and announce them later in the meeting. 

 * * * * *

 LAWRENCE LIVERMORE NATIONAL LABORATORY SEC PETITION 

 NIOSH EVALUATION REPORT

Dr. Sam Glover, 

NIOSH 

Dr. Glover presented the NIOSH evaluation report on the Lawrence 

Livermore National Laboratory SEC petition. He explained this is an 

83.14 petition which was submitted by a claimant whose dose 

reconstruction could not be completed by NIOSH because of a lack of 

sufficient dosimetry-related information. This claimant had been 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 9

employed at the Laboratory during the DOE operational period as an 

experimental physicist. 

Background on the site included the fact that from 1942 to 1950 the 

facility was a Navy base. The Atomic Energy Commission first occupied 

the site in 1950, still as part of the Navy base, and in 1951 the 

property was transferred to the AEC, now the Department of Energy. The 

site was previously known as University of California Radiation 

Laboratory at Livermore, and later as the Lawrence Radiation Laboratory 

at Livermore. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory consists of two 

sites, the main laboratory site located in Livermore, California, and 

an explosives test site located near Tracey, California, previously 

known as Site 300. 

Dr. Glover explained the radiological operations, which included the 

original mission of thermonuclear weapon development and that since 

1957 there have been diversified activities, including nuclear 

propulsion, fusion research, et cetera. Off-site nuclear weapons 

testing took place at Pacific Proving Ground, Nevada Test Site and 

Amchitka, Alaska. He described other testing with non-fissile 

materials which occurred on-site and occurred during periods of 

moratorium and in support of research activities. 

Dr. Glover explained weapons testing activities included weapons test 

materials, or shot samples, which were returned from test sites for 

analysis and were handled in many facilities at the site. These highly 

radioactive samples contained weapon-induced fission and activation 

products, plutonium, uranium and higher-order actinides. Other 

radiological activities included reactors and reactor research, linear 

accelerators and Cyclotrons, fuel testing, biomedical and waste 

disposal. 

As a part of his presentation, Dr. Glover produced a chart showing 

current building numbers and the operations or activities conducted 

within those buildings. There were some 26 buildings related to 

chemistry, nuclear and radiochemical analyses and tests, et cetera; ten 

buildings associated with accelerator studies; and all buildings in 

areas of Site 300 which were associated with linear accelerators, 

radiography and the Plowshare programs; in addition to reactor, 

biomedical studies and waste operations buildings. 

The documented radiological source terms indicate the predominant 

radionuclides were plutonium, radium and tritium. Fission and 

activation products were from shot samples, fuel fabrication, weapons 

research, et cetera. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 10

In vitro monitoring data is available on the MAPPER database and 

contains 16,750 results for uranium from 1958 to 1996; 7,700 results 

for plutonium from '57 to '96; along with other transuranics, gross 

alpha and gross beta-gamma results. 

Dr. Glover explained that in vivo data was not contained in LLNL's 

MAPPER database, but logbooks indicate approximately 50 to 200 in vivo

counts were performed each year beginning in 1965. Whole body counters 

were primarily in a state of research and testing prior to 1974. 

He discussed the workplace monitoring data which dated back to 1953 and 

was available for many buildings and Site 300. Those results, Dr. 

Glover indicated, were mostly total or net alpha or beta activity, with 

some results including the actual element that was analyzed. 

In 1961 LLNL began using environmental air monitoring at two site 

perimeter stations and nine stations beyond the site boundary, and in 

1971 established a network of permanent outdoor stations for evaluating 

airborne radiological levels, both within the site and at its 

perimeter. 

As of July 23, 2007 NIOSH has access to individual results reported for 

617 claimants; 88 percent of the claims have external data and 53 

percent have internal data. Dr. Glover also noted that records for 

less than five percent of the claims contained bioassay results for 

mixed fission products. 

He explained that coworker models have been developed using the MAPPER 

bioassay data -- uranium starting in '58, mixed fission products 

beginning in '74 -- and the models can be used to reconstruct dose for 

those radionuclides and time periods for all LLNL workers in all LLNL 

locations. 

Addressing feasibility of reconstruction for internal doses, Dr. Glover

observed that, based on the minimal bioassay data for the period prior 

to '73 for mixed fission and activation products, NIOSH concluded it is 

not feasible for workers who were monitored or should have been 

monitored for those exposures from 1950 through 1973. Therefore a 

health endangerment determination is required. 

In that regard, the evidence reviewed indicates some workers in the 

class may have accumulated chronic radiation exposures through 

unmonitored exposure to fission products. The site generated or 

processed unknown quantities of mixed fission products during the 

proposed class period as part of the work conducted for DOE. As a 

result NIOSH is specifying that health may have been endangered for 

those workers covered in this evaluation. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 11

Addressing feasibility of external dose reconstructions, Dr. Glover

remarked that recorded external dosimetry photon data are extensive and 

sufficient. 

The NIOSH recommendation is that for the period January 1, 1950 through 

December 31, 1973 they have found internal radiation dose estimates 

cannot be reconstructed for compensation purposes, so the feasibility 

finding is negative, and positive for health endangerment. 

The proposed class is for "all employees of the Department of Energy, 

its predecessor agencies and DOE contractors or subcontractors who were 

monitored, or should have been monitored, for internal exposure to 

mixed fission and/or activation product radionuclides while working at 

the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for a number of work days 

aggregating at least 250 work days from January 1, 1950 through 

December 31, 1973, or in combination with work days within the 

parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in 

the Special Exposure Cohort. 

Dr. Glover commented that although NIOSH does have access to documents 

describing some activities and radionuclides specific to certain 

buildings, they do not have sufficient data to document quantities and 

types of most fission products and activation products. They also do 

not have sufficient information to rule out the use of fission and/or 

activation products in other buildings where radioactive material was 

handled and stored. NIOSH has no indication that exposures to mixed 

fission and activation products would have been a concern in 

administrative areas outside the radiological areas, such as 

cafeterias, libraries and office areas. 

Dr. Glover added that additional documentation and sample dose 

reconstruction scenarios are available for the Advisory Board's review. 

Discussion Points: 

#Is NIOSH assuming cafeteria workers or workers in the non-radiological 

areas did or did not have access to radiological areas; 

#For people who worked in non-radiological areas, DOL has to make the 

determination; 

#Can the Board assume that the list of buildings shown in the chart is 

essentially all the covered areas for which this class would be 

approved; 

#The buildings shown were those that had radiological materials; 

#Department of Labor would have to determine if a claimant had access 

to those buildings; 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 12

#The evaluation and recommendation for the class would not include 

people who worked in the cafeteria or library or were strictly 

clerical, but NIOSH is not confident that the list is the total 

list; 

#Even though there's a lot of monitoring data for the site, it is a 

complicated site in terms of different exposures and NIOSH is not 

really able to determine what people were doing during various 

time periods when they were or were not being monitored; 

#The rationale for the cutoff in '73 was the introduction of whole body 

counting, which provides more data with which coworker statistics 

can be used to develop a coworker model; 

#A discussion regarding DOL determining whether people entered 

radiological areas, even though they might not have been assigned 

to work in them; 

#In many cases the only thing separating a person working in a 

radiological area and a non-radiological area was a few two-byfour studs and some sheetrock; 

#Did these workers actually go to off-site test sites such as Amchitka 

and NTS; 

#Claimants' time spent at one of the off-site test locations would 

enable them to accumulate time in those SEC classes and add to 

their required 250 days; 

#The definition language of monitored or should have been monitored has 

been consistently considered anyone who had the potential to 

receive more than 100 millirem exposure annual should have been 

monitored, and that's what would be considered by DOL; 

#DOL also considers affidavits from petitioners or claimants to make 

that determination; 

#A 100 millirem exposure limit is a small exposure to have to 

demonstrate; 

#Further discussion of the 1973 cutoff and changes that occurred at 

that time, as well as development of the coworker model; 

#Is the coworker model based on in vitro or in vivo; 

#The coworker model would be released as a Technical Information 

Bulletin by NIOSH and would therefore be something available for 

Board review as a procedure; 

#The way the definition has been characterized might be worth 

discussing more; 

#An invitation for the representative from DOL to join the discussion 

about how to establish whether or not a claimant has been in a 

radiological area. 

 * * *
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 13

 PETITIONER RESPONSE

Ms. Raili Glenn spoke about her husband, David Glenn, a physicist with 

LLNL for 25 years. She discussed his illness, his work history, and 

his death in 2005. She commented that the lab had destroyed all of her 

husband's X-rays and badges do not show what he had inhaled, although 

X-rays taken in the hospital show his lungs had been contaminated by 

radiation. 

Ms. Glenn commented that had he been working in a private company he 

would have made four times his wages, but he loved his job and that was 

why he worked there. She went on to say that the medical bills and 

expenses associated with his illness she calculated to have been 25 

percent of his earnings. 

 * * *

Discussion Points: 

#A continuation of the discussion on the list of buildings and people 

working in them, and what limitations may be indicated; 

#This is similar to Los Alamos where the words "radiological areas" 

were used, and then NIOSH will work with DOL to define what is 

considered to be a radiological area; 

#The list of buildings is a starting point; 

#If other areas are discovered later, NIOSH can recommend they be 

included and DOL can make that adjustment through their technical 

bulletin process; 

#The table in the evaluation report is the basis for defining the 

Special Exposure Cohort class, with the understanding there may be 

other locations not listed. 

 * * *

 A motion was made and seconded to add to the Special Exposure 

Cohort the class described in the NIOSH evaluation report. 

The precise wording to be forwarded to the Secretary will be 

presented on the last day of the meeting. 

 The motion carried by a unanimous roll-call vote of 11 to 

zero, with one member away from the table due to conflict of 

interest.

Dr. Ziemer asked that the workgroup on Special Exposure Cohort issues, 

chaired by Dr. James Melius, take this issue as part of their task to 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 14

monitor and work with NIOSH, and SC&A if necessary, to look at open 

questions on this particular petition. 

 * * * * *

 NIOSH PROGRAM UPDATE

Mr. Larry Elliott, Director 

NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

Mr. Elliott presented the program status update and update of program 

issues, commencing with overall initial claim information. He reported 

that 26,108 cases had been referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction; 

74 percent of those have been returned to Department of Labor, either 

with a dose reconstruction report or having been pulled from dose 

reconstruction by DOL for miscellaneous reasons or having been pulled 

due to addition of an SEC class. Twenty-five percent of those cases 

remain at NIOSH for dose reconstruction, with one percent having 

currently been administratively closed. Mr. Elliott used various 

graphs to illustrate cases completed by NIOSH tracking number, 

submittals versus production, total administratively closed records, 

receipt and completion of cases returned by DOL for reworks. 

Mr. Elliott noted that NIOSH is building another backlog due to a 

variety of reasons, one of which is the funding constraints that has 

affected NIOSH for the last three quarters of FY07. Another is an 

increase in recruiting of claims by DOL. Although NIOSH welcomes those 

claims so they can be worked, it has nevertheless increased the 

workload. Pending is the award for contract support which, when in 

place, will enable NIOSH to return to the 2006 capacity. 

Mr. Elliott explained that in the past reworks typically represented 

demographic issues such as a new survivor, new cancer, additional 

employment, et cetera, which requires reworking the dose 

reconstruction, with very few representing a technical change in the 

dose reconstruction approach. With the advent of Program Evaluation 

Reviews there is an increase in reworks, primarily as a result of the 

PER on the super S or highly insoluble plutonium issue. 

These PERs are done whenever there is a technical change in their dose 

reconstruction approach which could increase dose for a claim or set of 

claims. There are currently 32, which can be found on the web site. 

Noting his slide indicated 13,077 claims could be affected, Mr. Elliott 

commented this was somewhat inflated because many claims would be 

affected by multiple PERs. To date 157 claims have experienced an 

increase in their POC to a compensable level, 5,380 claims have had no 

change, and 7,540 claims are awaiting evaluation. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 15

There are currently 553 outstanding requests to DOE for exposure 

records, 170 of which are more than 60 days old. 

Turning to technical support and dose reconstruction activities on AWE 

sites, Mr. Elliott noted that TBD 6000, which serves as a site profile 

for AWEs which worked uranium and thorium metal, now has 15 sitespecific appendices completed, with three in review and none currently 

in development. TBD 6001, which serves as a site profile for AWEs 

which refined uranium and thorium, has five completed site-specific 

appendices, with none in review and none currently in development. 

Mr. Elliott announced that 25 Special Exposure Cohort classes have been 

added since 2005. Sixteen of those have come through the 83.13 

process, with nine through the 83.14 process which identifies a claim 

NIOSH was unable to complete due to lack of information. The added SEC 

classes represent workers from 19 sites and 1,519 potential claims. 

Mr. Elliott spoke about the Quality Assurance and Quality Control 

program instituted at NIOSH in processing claims. He discussed quality 

control processes embedded within the dose reconstruction approaches 

and technical documents used to complete those DRs. Mr. Elliott

described the peer reviews, technical reviews and OCAS approval. The 

QA programs identify documents and correct program deficiencies. 

Public health advisors are at each meeting to assist claimants. 

Also discussed were mechanisms in place to ensure corrective actions 

are implemented to correct problems or deficiencies. NIOSH tracks and 

trends performance, with feedback channels in place to let people know 

how they're doing with regard to the quality of work. He noted 11 

self-assessments have been documented. An automated program has been 

created which runs every night to check 55 potential data discrepancies 

in every case that has been modified. Any discrepancies found are then 

given to the public health advisor assigned to that particular case for 

correction. 

Updating the contract award process, Mr. Elliott explained that the 

Request for Proposal was published May of 2007 with proposals due by 

mid-June. Reviewers' questions prompted an amendment, with proposals 

to be submitted by mid-October. Those proposals are being processed in 

Procurement Review and, to avoid interruption of service, the ORAU 

contract has been extended until February 1, 2008, with further 

extensions if necessary until the award of a new contract. 

Discussion Points: 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 16

#What kind of questions resulted in the extension of the time to submit 

proposals; 

#Questions were from both reviewers and proposers, and the extension 

was in effort to make a level playing field for all proposers; 

#Has the issue causing difficulties with DOE providing records at the 

Hanford site been resolved; 

#Will the remaining 59 cases from the first 5,000 be converted into an 

83.14 petition; 

#An observation that it's “absurd” that someone cannot get their claim 

processed in over five years, with a call to re-examine the whole 

process; 

#A detailed presentation on the QA/QC process at an upcoming meeting 

would be helpful; 

#The workgroup on procedures might be in a position to look at that as 

a starting point since they haven't looked at any QA/QC 

procedures; 

#What percentage of potential discrepancies does the automated program 

catch and is it procedure driven; 

#What types of things are included in the 55 issues it checks; 

#NIOSH can make a presentation on that program in the future; 

#Is that automated system part of the QA. 

 * * * * *

 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public comment was solicited on the first two days of the meeting. The 

members of the public who spoke on this day are listed below. A full 

transcript of their remarks is available on the NIOSH/OCAS web site at 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

Ms. Antoinette Bonsignore for Linde Ceramics workers; Mr. Sherman 

Jenkins, former LLNL worker; Dr. Dan McKeel, SINEW; Ms. Patricia Cook, 

NTS claimant; Ms. Teri Sepulvida, NTS survivor; Ms. Dorothy Clayton, 

NTS survivor; Ms. Brenda Sieck, NTS survivor; Ms. Denise Brock reading 

into the record statements of Ms. Linda Buckles, NTS survivor rep, and 

Ms. Sandy Jackson, NTS survivor rep; Mr. John Funk, NTS worker; Mr. 

Michael Brew, NTS worker; Ms. Kay Barker, ANWAG. 

 * * * * *

 With no further public comment offered, the Board officially 

recessed until 8:30 a.m.

 * * * * *
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 17

 Wednesday, January 9, 2008

The second day of the meeting was called to order by Dr. Ziemer, who 

gave a brief summary of the agenda for the morning. 

 NEVADA TEST SITE SEC PETITION 

 NIOSH EVALUATION REPORT

Mr. Mark Rolfes, 

NIOSH 

Mr. Rolfes began his presentation by providing some history of the 

Nevada Test Site, the area chosen, the period of atmospheric testing, 

et cetera. He described site functions, which also included research 

into nuclear reactors and rockets, peaceful uses of nuclear energy and 

management. 

Mr. Rolfes gave a chronology of when the two petitions were submitted 

for the site. SEC 00084 was qualified for evaluation April 4, 2007 and 

SEC 00070 was merged with SEC 00084 April 10, 2007. The evaluation 

report on the merged petition was issued September 27, 2007. The 

proposed class definition included "all employees of the Department of 

Energy or any DOE contractor or subcontractor who worked in any areas 

of the Nevada Test Site from January 1, 1963 through September 30, 

1992." 

Mr. Rolfes enumerated the variety of sources of available information, 

from the Department of Energy's Radiation History data through 

Technical Information Bulletins and Technical Basis Documents, rad safe 

reports, the NIOSH site research database documents, interviews with 

NTS and LLNL employees and experts, case files, and documentation and 

affidavits provided by petitioners. 

Also discussed was the availability of dosimetry data, with Mr. Rolfes

citing the numbers of claims submitted in total, as well as the numbers 

of dose reconstructions completed and numbers of cases pulled by DOL 

for the earlier petition covering the 1952 through 1962 time period. 

He also provided information relative to claims meeting the definition 

of this particular class under evaluation, the number of those claims 

which contained internal dosimetry and those containing external 

dosimetry. 

Mr. Rolfes enumerated the petition bases and petitioner concerns, which 

included hot particle exposures, ambient dose reconstruction, 

radiological incidents, destroyed or lost records, and practices 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 18

defeating universal badging. He then addressed each concern 

individually, elaborating on the concern itself and describing the 

evaluation findings and how those findings are being addressed in the 

dose reconstruction process. 

Two sample dose reconstruction scenarios were presented by Mr. Rolfes

in great detail, describing a hypothetical employee's work history, 

sex, age, cancer information, date of diagnosis, lifestyle where 

applicable, internal and external exposure potential in all work areas, 

assigned exposures where applicable, and the reconstructed dose through 

to probability of causation. One case was a hypothetical claimant 

whose POC would have been compensable; the other hypothetical claimant 

was found to be non-compensable. The purpose of the examples was to 

demonstrate how dose reconstructions are produced. 

Mr. Rolfes explained that NIOSH evaluates a petition using the 

guidelines provided in 42 CFR 83.13, and submits a summary of those 

findings in an evaluation report to the Board and the petitioners. 

That report was issued in September 2007. Mr. Rolfes reiterated the 

two-pronged test of feasibility and health endangerment, describing 

that NIOSH had found the available monitoring records, process 

descriptions and source data are adequate to complete dose 

reconstructions with sufficient accuracy for the proposed class of 

employees. With that finding, a determination of health endangerment 

is not required. 

The chart of feasibility findings indicated that NIOSH found dose 

reconstruction was feasible for internal exposures to uranium, 

plutonium and fission products, and for external exposures to gamma, 

beta, neutron and occupational medical X-rays. 

Mr. Rolfes added that additional documentation and sample dose 

reconstruction scenarios are available for the Advisory Board's review. 

Concluding his presentation, Mr. Rolfes expressed his thanks to all 

former and current NTS workers for their contribution to the security 

and defense of the country. 

Discussion Points: 

#Were people specifically asked in interviews if they had been properly 

badged; 

#The majority of the interviews cited were telephone interviews, which 

are scripted and no deviation from the script is permitted, and 

that question is not asked specifically; 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 19

#Fifteen to 20 interviews were conducted specifically asking about the 

badging issue and none of those individuals indicated the practice 

of removing a badge had been adopted by them; 

#NIOSH has had six years to ask the Office of Management and Budget to 

change the questionnaire if they wanted to do so; 

#Claimants don't want somebody else's data to be used for 

reconstruction of their dose; 

#A surprisingly large amount of logbooks and specific exposure 

information has been discovered for this site; 

#How does NIOSH handle a situation where, when a draft reconstruction 

report is sent to the claimant with a request for any additional 

information, it comes back with a comment that they were told to 

stop using their badge; 

#There are supplemental records in logbooks and at least one 

compilation of data that can help, but each case has to be 

addressed individually; 

#In many cases, information is there if the researchers dig hard enough 

to find it; 

#A suggestion that the records NIOSH is using for coworker data be put 

in a reading room available to the public so people can verify 

what NIOSH and DOL are saying because claimants don't want to just 

take somebody's word; 

#A suggestion that the same level of documentation be available to the 

claimants so they may corroborate their dose reconstructions from 

their personal files. 

Dr. Ziemer observed that it appears that in many cases information is 

there, if there is the ability to dig for it sufficiently, to actually 

get more precise or accurate dose reconstructions than would be 

available otherwise by the estimating procedure. He cautioned, 

however, that in most cases they have found from experience that the 

probability of causation is higher where estimates are made because of 

the overestimating assumptions. Of course it's important to try to get 

the actual data, but in most cases that tends to lower values to the 

individual and affects the POC. 

 * * * 

 ADDRESS BY SENATOR HARRY REID

Nevada Senator Harry Reid addressed the assembly, expressing his 

appreciation to the Board for the work they've done. He described 

growing up in Nevada within 100 miles of the Test Site, watching the 

glare in the sky from aboveground tests. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 20

He remarked the petitioners in this current petition were just as 

valuable in winning the Cold War as were those involved in the 

underground test phase. He recalled explanations his father had given 

him about the dangers of tunnel reentry too soon, based on his 

experience as a hard rock miner, indicating that some of those 

situations were similar to those of the men at the Test Site. 

Senator Reid observed the Cold War was won by different people in 

different ways, and that one prime reason this country was able to 

prevail is what went on at the Nevada Test Site. He commented that NTS 

is still conducting tests and explained computerization has allowed 

tests to stop short of an actual explosion. 

Remarking that he had done the right thing in support of the passage of 

EEOICPA, Senator Reid expressed his dismay at how he feels the program 

is failing some people who worked at NTS. He contended NIOSH is being 

short-sighted and unfair, and urged the Board to acknowledge the 

shortcomings with the petition evaluation. He commented that NTS 

workers have faced injustice and urged the Board to understand that the 

badging issue was a widespread practice and the people are not lying 

when they say they did not always wear them. He observed that reality 

and protocol are two different things, and the Board needs to 

understand that. He cautioned that everyone should be careful of NIOSH 

judgment. 

Senator Reid went on to comment that Congressional intent was to 

provide workers with timely and adequate compensation. He concluded by 

remarking that the topic of discussion is not a chapter in a book, but 

the lives of human beings who are being hurt as a result of work they 

did for this country. He expressed his belief that fairness dictates 

the petition be granted. 

 * * *

 PETITIONER RESPONSE

Ms. Laurie Hutton introduced herself as lead petitioner, the daughter 

of a former 8-year NTS worker who was diagnosed with cancer five years 

later, passing away just months after his diagnosis when she was 16 

years old. She discussed the workers who are suffering, some too ill 

to be present, and many who have already passed away. Many feel the 

government is waiting for them to die so it won't have to pay their 

claims. 

Ms. Hutton asked all NTS workers in the audience who took off their 

badges while working in radiation areas to please stand. She indicated 

that demonstrated it was not only common, but sanctified by 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 21

supervisors. She contended that NIOSH refuses to acknowledge this is a 

widespread practice. 

Ms. Hutton suggested another issue very important to the SEC petition 

is the 250-day requirement, claiming that radiation doesn't take 250 

days of exposure to cause harm. 

 * * *

Mr. Paul Stednick spoke on behalf of the petition, describing his work 

history of 28 years at the Test Site in the drilling department. He 

talked about the need for wives to work to make ends meet and the 

various medical problems people are facing, how the work was done in 

the drilling department. He noted the workers had taken for granted 

that rad safe was taking care of their exposure issues. 

 * * *

Mr. Peter White talked about how the program is not at all what workers 

had expected. They thought it was supposed to support and help the 

claimants, and he's worn out from trying to work through it. He 

commented that on his first day at NTS his badge was burned because of 

welding and that to this day welders can't be badged. He was told that 

if he ever came in to get a new badge because it had been burned, he 

would no longer work there. He also remarked that in that era there 

weren't many jobs, and what jobs you had, you hung onto. He indicated 

he simply wanted to be judged on his own exposure, not on somebody 

else's. 

 * * *

Ms. Raili Glenn spoke by telephone on behalf of her husband, who worked 

at Lawrence Livermore National Lab but often traveled to NTS, 

describing his work and his life. She told about taking a tour offered 

to family members and scientists in the early '80s where they visited 

the Test Site, and the guide told them if they stayed at the Sedan 

crater more than ten minutes they would get too much radiation. 

She described her husband's work and his education, his illnesses 

before his death. 

 * * *

Dr. Ziemer explained there is a Nevada Test Site workgroup which is 

charged with reviewing the site profile and would give a status report, 

but they are not addressing the petition nor do they make a 

recommendation on it. He reminded the Board that at the last meeting 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 22

they had requested that SC&A begin reviewing the petition issues, but 

that report has not yet been received. He remarked that, in his 

judgment, the Board is not in a position to take action on the 

petition. 

 * * * 

 REPORT FROM NTS SITE PROFILE WORKGROUP

Mr. Robert Presley, Chairman, described the composition of the 

workgroup and that they have been meeting for about two years now. He 

explained they had met in mid-December when they reviewed all 25 

comments with SC&A. Most were determined to have been closed. Just 

before this meeting the group met to discuss the review of findings of 

those remaining comments. He explained one had to do with correction 

factors for external environmental dose and the other with internal 

exposures due to non-use of film badges. He observed the first issue 

is not just an NTS issue but is related to more than a few sites. 

Therefore it will be discussed by SC&A and NIOSH and will continue to 

be worked on for a while longer. The other comment was discussed at 

length. The finding was resolved to the satisfaction of NIOSH and SC&A 

and the issue has been closed. 

Mr. Presley went through all 25 comments individually and how they had 

been resolved. 

Discussion Points: 

#Will this workgroup's purpose be expanded to address the SEC petition; 

#Everyone involved should be using all avenues possible to get every 

bit of information available because of the film badge issue; 

#It is a travesty that so much information is missing; 

#It is impossible for widows of former workers, advanced in years, to 

be able to get information that couldn't even be discussed during 

the years of employment because of classification; 

#A call to declassify certain reports that might assist claimants in 

finding more information on incidents that happened while they 

were not badged. 

Ms. Wanda Munn commented that a debt of gratitude is owed to the 

workers on every site in this country. Many comments have expressed 

frustration with what has been referred to as "the government". She 

pointed out that the government is comprised of people, and often 

people are encountered whose bureaucratic mind which makes it difficult 

to communicate. She explained the work done by these petitioners and 

other workers at NTS provided scientists information which ultimately 

gave them the ability to calculate the worst possible exposures that 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 23

could have been received, even though individual exact doses are not 

available. Ms. Munn added she wanted to thank the workers personally, 

and expressed to them that when decisions are made by this Board, the 

members try to do it with the best science possible. 

Dr. Ziemer announced that, by consensus, the NTS site profile workgroup 

would be expanded to address the SEC issues. The Board will not take 

action on the NIOSH recommendation that the SEC not be granted for this 

class because they can reconstruct dose. The vote on that issue will 

be delayed until the Board hears from the contractor and the workgroup 

has an opportunity to evaluate the SEC issues and present their 

recommendation. 

 * * * * *

 COMBUSTION ENGINEERING SEC PETITION 

 NIOSH EVALUATION REPORT

Mr. LaVon Rutherford, 

NIOSH 

Mr. Rutherford explained that the Combustion Engineering petition was 

submitted when NIOSH determined that dose reconstruction was not 

feasible for a particular claimant. The evaluation also considered a 

class of workers similar to the petitioner. Mr. Rutherford reminded 

the assembly of the evaluation process, which includes the two-pronged 

test of feasibility of dose reconstruction and likelihood of health 

endangerment. 

Background was provided on the company, which is located in 

Connecticut, noting that the company was a contractor for the Atomic 

Energy Commission starting in the 1940s. Radiological activities 

covered under this Act did not begin until 1965 and ended at the end of 

1972. Mr. Rutherford described the radiological processes that were 

relevant to the class covered by the petition, which included research 

and development of nuclear fuel, fabrication of fuel from high enriched 

uranium, et cetera. Radiological sources relevant to the class 

included uranium compounds from fuel fabrication, et cetera, and 

cobalt-60 from R&D activities, although the time period for this 

particular work is uncertain. 

The information available for dose reconstruction was summarized and 

included data capture attempts from requests to the current operator, 

the Nuclear Regulatory commission, DOE Germantown, National Archives, 

et cetera. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 24

Mr. Rutherford described the internal monitoring data available 

included two uranium bioassay samples for a single individual during 

the covered period. Those results were below detection limits. There 

were no workplace, breathing zone or general area monitoring data. 

Although a '64 report indicated some sampling was performed, NIOSH has 

not located any results. Ventilation effluents were also sampled by 

Combustion Engineering. Average and high values were found in the 

above-referenced 1964 report. No similar reports could be found, 

however, for the time period '65 through '72. 

Source term data is available from uranium shipments from Combustion 

Engineering to Fernald during the covered period, but is not available 

for other activities, nor are detailed process descriptions available. 

As to external monitoring data, NIOSH has whole body monitoring data 

for four claimants. Two had monthly results and the others had annual 

summaries. NIOSH has been unable to find any radiation surveys for the 

covered time period, and the only source term information discovered is 

for the uranium shipped to Fernald. 

In describing how this petition came to be, Mr. Rutherford explained 

that NIOSH was unable to obtain sufficient information to complete a 

dose reconstruction for an existing claim. A claimant was notified of 

this fact, provided with a copy of Form A, which is a SEC petition 

short form. That petition was completed and submitted to NIOSH on 

October 9 of 2007. The conclusions of the evaluation are that, 

addressing feasibility, NIOSH lacks monitoring, process, or source term 

information sufficient to estimate external or internal radiation doses 

to Combustion Engineering employees for the period January 1, 1965 to 

December 31, 1972, which is the entire covered period. 

NIOSH believes it does have sufficient information to estimate external 

dose from medical exposures for that period. 

Since NIOSH has determined it is not feasible to complete with 

sufficient accuracy external or internal radiation doses, and that the 

health of the covered employees may have been endangered. Evidence 

indicates that workers in the class may have accumulated intakes of 

uranium and other radionuclides during the covered period. 

On the summary chart for this petition dose reconstruction is feasible 

only for external doses from occupational medical X-rays, and is not 

feasible for internal exposures from uranium or other radionuclides or 

external exposures from beta-gamma or neutrons. 

The NIOSH proposed class definition is for "all AWE employees working 

at the Combustion Engineering site in Windsor, Connecticut for a number 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 25

of work days aggregating at least 250 work days from January 1, 1965 

through December 31, 1972, or in combination with work days within the 

parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in 

the SEC." 

The recommendation is that NIOSH finds that radiation dose estimates 

cannot be reconstructed for compensation purposes for that period. The 

answer to the feasibility question is no, and to the health 

endangerment question the answer is yes. 

Discussion Points: 

#The cobalt-60 presence was determined from a FUSRAP survey; 

#Since NIOSH was not able to characterize the site very well, but 

somewhere the FUSRAP program was able to uncover information about 

where things took place, did the FUSRAP report reference documents 

that were not available to NIOSH; 

#The FUSRAP survey was done between '94 and '98, and there's very 

general information in that report because work had continued 

after 1972, and the report has no details but a lot of the 

information was on processes that occurred between '72 and '94; 

#Is there information on the type of uranium product shipped to 

Fernald; 

#It is NIOSH policy that if data integrity is established, that would 

be used for partial dose reconstruction for non-SEC cancers; 

#For partial dose reconstructions, if individual data exists, it would 

be used to the best advantage of the claimant; 

#A lot of the FUSRAP information came from interviews conducted at the 

time as opposed to reports, so that wouldn't necessarily provide 

exposure monitoring or air monitoring information. 

 * * *

 PETITIONER RESPONSE 

Mr. Dan Greenberg commented that the Army Corps of Engineers is working 

on the site cleanup and contamination currently there. The building 

his father worked in still exists and has not been torn down because of 

the contamination. He expressed a concern that their claim had been 

submitted in 2001 and that he hasn't seen any movement regarding it 

since then. 

 * * * 

Mr. Frank Rowe from Senator Joe Lieberman's office had been on the 

phone earlier and had been called away. He left a statement to be read 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 26

into the record by Mr. Jason Broehm from the CDC Washington office, 

which was to say that Senator Lieberman was hopeful the process would 

expedite relief to claimants who have been waiting so long for a 

positive outcome. 

 * * *

 A motion was made and seconded to accept the NIOSH 

recommendation. 

 A roll call vote carried the motion unanimously.

 * * *

Mr. Mark Griffon was not on the phone call at the time of the vote, but 

his vote will be solicited. 

Dr. Ziemer noted that the Board is recommending Special Exposure Cohort 

status for the class and that, along with a similar recommendation from 

NIOSH, it will go to the Secretary of Health and Human Services who 

will make the final recommendation to Congress. 

 * * * * *

 SCIENCE ISSUES UPDATE

Dr. James Neton, 

Associate Director for Science, 

NIOSH/OCAS 

Dr. Neton explained there are two classes of science issues, one 

related to risk models and one to dose reconstruction process. There 

are seven risk model issues and ten dose reconstruction issues 

previously identified by the Board. NIOSH has completed addressing 

three of those and has either issued TIBs or is in the process of 

finalizing TIBs for three of the ten. His report today is on their 

progress on the science issue related to workplace ingestion. 

Dr. Neton provided an overview of the issue, describing the three major 

routes of entry into the body and that it must be specifically modeled 

when bioassay data is unavailable, and is most applicable at AWE 

facilities. TIB 009, the estimation of ingestion intakes, was 

developed to account for that pathway and was reviewed by SC&A during a 

procedures review. The basis of the TIB 009 model has been questioned. 

 A diagram of the ingestion model was provided to illustrate the method 

of that intake. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 27

Dr. Neton explained TIB 009 addresses ingestion from settling material 

on food or drink, and transfer of material from contaminated surfaces 

to the mouth. He described the calculation used and the relationship 

that was evaluated using data from Bethlehem Steel and Simonds Steel, 

with a graph to demonstrate those findings. 

Further evaluation included a literature review of over 35 applicable 

references and model evaluation. They also reviewed the applicability 

of NUREG CR-5512. That document was developed by the Nuclear 

Regulatory Commission to evaluate doses from occupancy of contaminated 

buildings, and NIOSH was trying to see how TIB 009 compared to that 

model. 

Dr. Neton presented a chart comparing ingestion rates between the two 

models. He noted that in all cases the NIOSH value is in range or 

higher than the comparison model, which led them to believe that they 

were very much in the right ball park and that the approach is 

appropriate. Also discussed by Dr. Neton was the significance of 

uranium ingestion since those doses are a small fraction of the dose 

from inhalation. 

Dr. Neton then presented the NIOSH conclusions, noting that they were 

comforted by them. 

Discussion Points: 

#Is the model applicable for all isotopes of uranium; 

#What was the reference for the box model; 

#Resuspension is another issue that's being worked on; 

#The comparison model is not based on uranium, but NIOSH intends to 

apply it to uranium at AWE facilities; 

#This analysis will be written up into a Technical Information Bulletin 

and would be available for review by the Board upon completion. 

 * * * * *

 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY UPDATE

Dr. Patricia Worthington, 

Department of Energy 

Dr. Worthington reported on DOE support to the EEOICP. She described 

DOE activities as their major responsibilities under EEOICPA, which 

included responding to exposure records requests. She reported the 

numbers associated with various portions of those responsibilities such 

as employment verifications, dose documentations and document 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 28

acquisition requests for employee work histories, with a bar graph 

illustrating the increases in completed requests as the program has 

progressed. 

Dr. Worthington explained the funding issues that had presented 

challenges for their work in the past year. She described the effort 

with DOL to gather information to assist and support their activities 

on various sites, which at DOE is referred to as the site exposure 

matrix. She described places which DOE has researched, organizations 

they have worked with in the past year, records research efforts for 

NIOSH and ORAU, as well as records research support for the Board 

itself. 

Dr. Worthington commented that a key responsibility for DOE is research 

and maintenance of a covered facilities database, the 343 covered DOE 

and AWE facilities, as well as beryllium vendors. She discussed some 

of the research currently underway and the cooperation with the Office 

of Legacy Management in completing the research efforts. 

Dr. Worthington described some of the 2007 DOE initiatives and the 

progress made in having named a point of contact within her office, 

conference calls with members of NIOSH and SC&A, et cetera. 

Dr. Worthington reported that DOE had conducted audits at three of the 

sites to evaluate records process and contractor efficiency. She 

wanted to continue to do that and visit additional sites, but feedback 

thus far indicates people are doing a good job. Nevertheless, they do 

recognize where there are opportunities for improvement and are able to 

move forward and address those concerns. 

Discussion Points: 

#Is there anything the Board or NIOSH can do to help the claimant 

retrieve information from DOE, and is there anything DOE is doing 

to assist the claimants with those requests; 

#DOE is trying to be driven by the information rather than set a path 

of where to look for records; 

#Some of the DOE slides may need to be updated; 

#Has there been any freeing-up of funding necessary for records 

retrieval at Hanford; 

#In Mr. Elliott's presentation earlier he had mentioned 75 percent of 

the outstanding requests to DOE were more than 60 days old and 

from one location, and that might be something for DOE to look 

into; 

#Before Ms. Libby White moved into a different area of DOE she was 

working on clearances for some Board members and contractor team 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 29

members who are running into problems now with access because 

their clearances have expired. What is DOE doing to address these 

issues. 

 * * * * *

 DEPARTMENT OF LABOR UPDATE

Mr. Jeffrey L. Kotsch, 

Department of Labor 

Mr. Kotsch began his presentation by remarking that DOL has present at 

this meeting the Director of the Las Vegas Resource Center, as well as 

three members of the Seattle District Office, including their District 

Director, available to speak to claimants and attempt to answer 

questions or address issues. He noted they had begun that practice 

again at the Chicago meeting and it seems to be a useful thing, along 

with the NIOSH public health assistants. 

Mr. Kotsch explained that the DOL portion of the program has two parts, 

Part B, the part the Board addresses, dealing with cancer, silicosis, 

beryllium sensitivity, et cetera. Mr. Kotsch provided background on 

that part and explained that all of his slides are giving statistics as 

of December 25, 2007. 

The other part of the program is Part E, which deals with toxic 

exposures, asbestosis and other conditions other than cancers. That 

part was the old Part D program which was transferred from Department 

of Energy in June of 2005. Mr. Kotsch provided statistics on that 

portion of the program. 

Mr. Kotsch noted that as of the end of 2007 the program has paid $3.2 

billion in compensation, $2.2 billion in Part B with $1.7 billion for 

cancer and $272 million for the RECA claims adjudicated by Department 

of Justice; $938 million have been paid for Part E claims and $187 

million in medical benefits. There have been a total of 36,653 payees 

under the program. 

Mr. Kotsch explained that approximately 79 percent of the Part B cancer 

claims have final decisions, with slightly over 4,300 cases at NIOSH. 

There are slightly more than 2,000 cases in the initial development 

stages, being developed for survivor, medical and employment 

information. There have been 11,111 approvals for compensation and 

19,024 decisions for denial. Also included were numbers on reasons for 

denial, which included non-covered employment, POCs less than 50 

percent after dose reconstruction, insufficient medical records, noncovered conditions or ineligible survivors. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 30

Over 26,000 cases have been referred to NIOSH for dose reconstruction, 

with 19,656 returned. A little more than 2,000 were withdrawn, not 

requiring dose reconstruction for various reasons. The percentage of 

referred cases having completed dose reconstructions is approximately 

74 percent. There have been 1,495 cases pulled for review to determine 

their status under newly-added SEC classes; 1,326 of those cases have 

received final decisions, 59 have recommended but not final decisions, 

43 are pending, and there have been 67 closures. There has been $917 

million paid in compensation in NIOSH-related cases, $748 million on 

dose reconstructed cases and $169 million on added SEC classes. 

Mr. Kotsch also provided information on the sites having SEC petitions 

to be discussed at this meeting. The information included cases in 

Parts B and E, dose reconstructions completed, final decisions, 

approvals for Parts B and E, and total compensation paid. 

Discussion Points: 

#In December the Linde site was redesignated from an AWE site to a DOE 

site; why was that done and is the decision final; 

#Forty-four of the claims remaining at NIOSH were among the first 5,000 

claims submitted and five or six years seems an unacceptable 

amount of time for a claim to be pending, so would DOL have any 

comment on that. 

 * * * * *

 FISCAL YEAR '08 TASKS FOR 

 SANFORD COHEN & ASSOCIATES 

Dr. Lewis Wade led the Board through a discussion of tasking the 

Board's contractor for this fiscal year. He remarked that this has 

been discussed at the last two Board meetings and that progress is 

being made. He indicated he wanted to discuss each task under the 

contract; in some cases there are decisions to be made by the Board and 

in others there are not. 

One of the simpler issues is under Task IV, the review of individual 

dose reconstructions. The subcommittee met yesterday and offered the 

potential of 60 cases to be reviewed this year. Dr. Wade discussed the 

options available under the circumstances of those cases and the 

additional need for blind review cases and whether more proposed cases 

would need to be developed based upon Board consensus as to acceptance 

of all or part of those 60 cases recommended. The contractor is close 

to being fully tasked on that category. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 31

There are two lists involved in the recommendations of those cases. 

One is a list of all cases and then a list of best estimate cases. 

Those are available to Board members and discussion of that is on the 

agenda for 10:45 a.m. the following day. 

Next is Task III, the procedures review. There is an ongoing workgroup 

associated with that task. There is a possibility of up to five 

additional procedures to be reviewed, but assignment on that will be 

held to see how things unfold. There will be reports from all 

workgroups tomorrow and a status report on procedures reviews will be 

presented at that time. 

Task V is the SEC task for review of the NIOSH evaluation reports. 

There may be six reviews to be done this year. The NTS petition is 

under review at this time. A Mound review was assigned yesterday. 

When this was last discussed the Board had decided to wait on 

additional assignments to see what is before them. Tomorrow Mr. 

Rutherford will present a report on the SEC petition status, so there 

may be some information gleaned from that report that the Board may use 

to decide how to task the contractor. Dr. Wade remarked that it's not 

necessary that they do that, it's just that it should be kept in mind 

during Mr. Rutherford's presentation. 

There was a discussion on the differences between the SEC review task 

and the site profile review task, Task I, and how those tasks work 

together. Suggestions were made for potential site profile reviews. 

Under Task I SC&A was told to expect four new site profiles to be 

reviewed this year, and they have been assigned Sandia and Argonne 

East. They are also reviewing TBD 6000, 6001 and Appendix BB under 

that task. 

Dr. John Mauro from SC&A indicated that work will largely consume the 

resources for the year. He explained the money he holds in reserve to 

address the closeout portion of site profile reviews done by SC&A but 

not completed by the Board. There is currently about $800,000 being 

held. The question for the Board now is whether to give SC&A new site 

profiles to review and spend into the reserve or wait and see how 

things progress. 

Another issue is with the end of SC&A's contract approaching, in the 

event a new contractor is put in place, how the old contract could be 

continued or overlap to allow the closeout process on items already 

delivered. The reason site profiles have been reviewed but not closed 

out is because there simply are not enough workgroups to work on 

everything. There is a backlog, and either through the Board's 

priorities or through priorities that have been thrust upon it 

politically, there are pressures to get certain sites done and that's 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 32

just the way things have developed. That is the reason the ability to 

track those reviews has become an issue, and that will be discussed 

during tomorrow's session. 

There are currently 12 site profile reviews completed and delivered, 

but there has been no action on working through a workgroup and closing 

them out. This is also a reason some have suggested additional Board 

members may be necessary in the future to help share the load, because 

all the members are on multiple workgroups. Limited resources of NIOSH 

also play into the building of backlog with their contractor, staff and 

funding. 

A major issue with site profile closeouts is that site profiles 

continue to change. A possibility of segmenting site profile reviews 

was discussed to potentially provide more flexibility in dealing with 

issues as they arise. Consideration of whether to maintain the two and 

a half percent of completed cases to be reviewed by the Board is still 

a reasonable number. With 20,000 completed dose reconstructions, that 

would be 500 reviews and the Board has just completed 200. The pace 

was slow to begin with and now things move somewhat faster. 

Mr. Mark Griffon is in the process of preparing a review of the first 

100 cases, which he's shared with the subcommittee, so that's another 

issue to be considered and discussed. The subcommittee is finding it 

difficult to come up with enough best estimate cases to warrant review, 

and there have already been enough over- and underestimates so the 

subcommittee doesn't feel it's productive to continue to do those. 

The contractor might be asked to give alternative ways to conduct the 

site profile reviews. There is the capability under the project 

management task of the SC&A contract to have SC&A do some strategic 

thinking beyond site profile issues. 

A discussion ensued relative to the types of issues that recur in site 

profile reviews, such as the 250 workday issue, radionuclides, badging, 

that come up at various sites and might be removed from the general 

site profile reviews because they can get lengthy and a lot of time and 

money can be spent on that. 

Also floated as a topic for consideration is the likelihood of having 

more subcommittees and a reliance on them for taking action to reduce 

the amount of time the full Board has to deal with specific issues. 

There might be developed a better way for workgroups to report back to 

the Board on not only their recommendations, but how they arrived at 

those recommendations. The requirement of a Federal Register notice 

for a subcommittee meeting could add a bit of rigor and time to 

announcing those meetings, but it isn't a major issue. Workgroups 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 33

don't have that requirement, but subcommittees can also have 

workgroups, if needed. Subcommittees can have consultants, but 

subcommittee members have to also be members of the Board. A federal 

advisory board can have subcommittee members that do not sit on the 

main board; however, they have to go through the appointment process 

and be appointed by the President and confirmed by the Secretary. 

Workgroups can ask ad hoc people to support their efforts and would not 

be required to be members of the Board; they wouldn't be voting 

members. 

 * * * * *

 UPDATE ON SELECTION OF THE BOARD CONTRACTOR 

Mr. David Staudt from the CDC Procurement Office explained that they're 

at the point now where the Board has had the opportunity to review the 

draft Statement of Work and evaluation criteria, and he's now ready to 

ask the Board to allow him to go ahead and proceed with the normal 

procurement process. He explained it is about a six-month process, and 

he anticipated there will be several Board members to sit on the 

technical evaluation panel. Mr. Staudt remarked that there will be no 

need for a pre-proposal conference since there is a huge amount of 

information available for any bidder to review. At this point nothing 

further is needed from the Board, and he could provide an update in a 

couple of months as they go through the process. 

Dr. Wade commented that there is a draft Statement of Work and an 

evaluation plan. He has received one comment from a Board member which 

goes to the Q clearance requirement for the contractor. He added that 

if there are other things the Board members would like to suggest, this 

is an opportunity to do that. 

Discussion Points: 

#The Board should be sensitive to the situation that NIOSH is letting a 

contractor review their own work. That is mandated by Congress 

and the review is supposed to be independent of the Agency, so 

it's important for transparency to the process, recognizing the 

need for layers of review; 

#If individual Board members are submitting comments or suggestions, 

those should be shared; 

#It would be helpful if the Procurement Office could say the Board 

member input has been heard and describe its effect; 

#It would also be important for the Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction 

Review to have input into the Statement of Work; 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 34

#A suggested change that there be some method in the Statement of Work 

in terms of site profile review and SEC evaluation report review 

that would allow those to be done in an incremental fashion rather 

than a specific number each year; 

#An observation that the more instructive this type document becomes, 

the more difficult it becomes for the individuals attempting to 

meet requirements; 

#The idea is to inform the contractor what needs to be done rather than 

telling them how to do it; 

#Call for an explanation of corporate experience in the evaluation 

criteria; 

#The four Board members having expressed interest in being on the 

technical evaluation panel were Phillip Schofield, Bradley 

Clawson, Mark Griffon and Dr. Paul Ziemer. 

 * * * * *

 SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATE

 Bethlehem Steel Company

The issue of the surrogate data had been assigned to a workgroup for 

review. Dr. James Melius, as workgroup chair, reported that SC&A had 

produced two reports for his workgroup. He indicated he was to produce 

a report for review by the workgroup, and eventually by the Board, 

discussing the criteria to be utilized in evaluating the use of such 

data, a set of guidelines. Dr. Melius commented it was not yet ready, 

but he hoped to have it circulated by the end of the month for 

discussion at the February conference call or the April Board meeting. 

Dr. Ziemer observed that although Dr. Melius' report is intended to be 

somewhat generic, it has direct implications on Bethlehem Steel. Until 

it is in hand, there is no action to be taken regarding the petition. 

A letter from Senator Charles Schumer was read into the record. It 

urged the Board to approve the petition. 

Mr. Ed Walker, petitioner, commented by telephone that when he began 

his journey through the process, he understood the site profile was to 

be completed for use in dose reconstruction and site experts were to be 

consulted. That was never done. He discussed various shortcomings in 

the TBD for the site and the lack of cleanup, and that Simonds Saw was 

not a good surrogate for Bethlehem Steel. 

 * * *
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 35

 Blockson Chemical Company

Ms. Wanda Munn, chair of the Blockson workgroup, discussed the fact 

that two petitions from the site were merged into one and qualified in 

2006, and gave a general history on the petition. The technical 

contractor reviewed the evaluation report and provided six technical 

items at issue. The workgroup quickly closed on four, with interaction 

between NIOSH and SC&A people. Ms. Munn described the two remaining 

issues as revolving around what happened to thorium in the site's 

process, and the lack of written data as to how the process was 

performed. Based on expert advice from chemists familiar with the 

process to reassure themselves that their information was accurate, 

they asked that NIOSH present white papers on their review of the 

documentation and a final report from SC&A with respect to any 

outstanding issues. This was provided in December 2007, leaving no 

unresolved issues. 

Ms. Munn explained she had assumed at that time that the group would be 

recommending the Board accept the NIOSH recommendation on the petition. 

 However, at this point she understands Dr. Melius, a member of the 

workgroup, has reservations with respect to the data, so she is unable 

to make that statement. She requested that Dr. Neton from NIOSH give a 

quick review of the NIOSH recommendation. 

Dr. Neton commented that NIOSH was in agreement with SC&A on all issues 

related to Blockson Chemical evaluation report, and the only outcome 

resulting in a change to the site profile was modification to allow for 

existence of solubility class M and S for thorium in Building 55. That 

modification was reissued in late November and has been available to 

the Board and petitioners. Petitioners have also been provided with a 

copy of SC&A's final report. 

In July of 2007 the NIOSH opinion was that monitoring records, process 

description and source term data available are sufficient to estimate 

radiation doses with sufficient accuracy for the proposed class of 

employees, and that is still the NIOSH opinion. NIOSH believes 

internal exposure calculations can be done for uranium and associated 

progeny, as well as radon, thorium and progeny, and dose reconstruction 

for external exposure to beta-gamma and occupational medical X-rays. 

The NIOSH position has not changed since last July. 

Ms. Kathy Pinchetti, petitioner, inquired if there would be a vote 

today. She indicated she had submitted a petition on behalf of 

[identifying information] coworkers in Building 55. She related 

information on his work history, his illness, the lack of monitoring, 

et cetera. She contended that there are references to estimations, 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 36

probabilities and assumptions, and that the compensation program has 

morphed into something it wasn't intended to be. 

Dr. Ziemer acknowledged the lack of unanimity in the workgroup in terms 

of path forward, and invited Dr. Melius to share his concerns. His 

unease was with the robustness of the available sampling data and the 

methods used for estimating radon exposures. 

Dr. Genevieve Roessler, a workgroup member, commented that it was her 

understanding at their last meeting that all issues were cleared. Dr. 

Melius' expression at this point comes as a surprise to her. 

Dr. Melius explained the radon issue was a concern raised by Mr. Mark 

Griffon. Dr. Melius had asked him to look at the issue again to see if 

he is satisfied, but Mr. Griffon was not on the call at the moment. 

Ms. Munn announced that, as she sees the issue now, the workgroup has 

fulfilled its charter and the contractor has done as they have been 

asked. The resolution of issues raised, as presented by NIOSH, has 

been accepted and at this point she has no feel for how the workgroup 

can go further. Her instinct would be to recommend accepting the NIOSH 

position, and she's prepared to make a motion to that effect if the 

Board wishes to hear it and vote on it at this time. If not, she would 

request at least some concept of when a response might be expected from 

Dr. Melius and Mr. Griffon.

Discussion Points: 

#Did SC&A address the two points raised and say the data is robust and 

the radon issue has been addressed; 

#A call for an opportunity to review some of the work from the 

workgroup, with a comment that when there's an issue within the 

workgroup it's important to have the information upon which to 

make a decision; 

#Agreement to provide the Board with full record of the documents, 

transcripts of workgroup meetings and all the information they 

have before it is discussed on the record, potentially leading to 

a vote; 

#Discussion as to how the materials would be provided, described, how 

to indicate everybody had read the materials, et cetera, with the 

goal being a vote at the April meeting. 

 * * *

Dr. James Lockey made a detailed, three-part proposal that would 

involve NIOSH and SC&A in an intensive statistical review of badge 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 37

samples, et cetera, relative to Nevada Test Site. A discussion ensued 

among Dr. Ziemer, Dr. Mauro and Dr. Neton as to the time and effort 

that would be involved in such a proposal. 

 * * * * *

 PUBLIC COMMENT

Public comment was solicited on the first two days of the meeting. The 

members of the public who spoke on the second day are listed below. A 

full transcript of their remarks is available on the NIOSH/OCAS web 

site at www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

Ms. Doris Gyorody, NTS survivor; Ms. Andrea Matson-Morse, NTS survivor; 

Ms. Brenda Sieck, for Mr. Robert Lemons, former NTS worker (statement 

read) and her mother, an NTS survivor; Ms. Deb Jerison, for her mother, 

a Mound survivor; Dr. Dan McKeel, SINEW; Mr. John Taylor, NTS claimant; 

Ms. Carol Pittaro, NTS survivor (statement read); Mr. William Vasconi, 

former NTS worker; Mr. John Ramspott, for GSI workers; Ms. Rosemary 

Hoyt, Hanford petitioner. 

 * * * * *

 With no further public comment offered, the Board officially 

recessed until 8:30 a.m.

 * * * * *

 Thursday, January 10, 2008

Dr. Ziemer called to order the final day of the meeting, commenting 

that Dr. John Poston had had to leave and that Dr. Genevieve Roessler

and Mr. Mark Griffon, who were participating by telephone, were 

expected to join shortly. 

Dr. Christine Branche announced that she would be serving as Designated 

Federal Official for this day. 

 * * * * *

 SEC PETITION UPDATE

Mr. LaVon B. Rutherford, 

NIOSH Health Physics Team Leader 

Mr. Rutherford presented an update on upcoming SEC petitions, reporting 

that as of mid-December NIOSH had received 104 petitions, with four in 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 38

the qualification process; 51 have been qualified to date, of which 39 

evaluations have been completed, with 12 in progress; 49 of the 

submitted petitions were not qualified. 

The evaluation reports currently with the Advisory Board for their 

recommendation were listed, with Mr. Rutherford explaining the 

background and history of each and providing their current status. 

Those petitions included Chapman Valve, with DOE to provide an update 

at this meeting. Blockson Chemical has a couple of issues being looked 

into by Dr. Melius for the workgroup. Feed Materials Production Center 

workgroup review is ongoing. Bethlehem Steel update was provided 

earlier in this meeting. Sandia National Laboratory Livermore, an 

update is scheduled for this meeting. Hanford Part 2 petition and 

evaluation report are with the Advisory Board and SC&A for review. 

Nevada Test Site ('63 through '92) evaluation report has been sent to 

the workgroup for review. Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory ('50 

through '73) action was taken during this meeting to recommend addition 

of that class to the SEC. Mound Plant (1949 to present), Advisory 

Board agreed with the NIOSH recommendation to add a class for the 

earlier years during this meeting, and agreed that work should continue 

on the later years. Combustion Engineering (1965 to 1972), Board 

concurred with the NIOSH recommendation to add a class to the SEC 

during this meeting. 

Mr. Rutherford announced the SEC petitions currently in the evaluation 

process and the dates those evaluation reports are expected to be 

completed. They are: Pantex, with expected completion in April, but 

not in time for presentation at the April meeting; Texas City 

Chemicals, on hold awaiting Board decision on Blockson Chemical; Santa 

Susana Field Laboratory, expected completion in January; Horizons, 

Inc., expected completion in February. The last three will be 

completed for presentation at the April meeting, along with 

Westinghouse Power Development. 

There are three 83.14 petitions where NIOSH has identified through an 

existing claim that dose reconstruction is not feasible. Those include 

Kellex Pierpont, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and SAM 

Laboratory, all of which are anticipated to be presented in April. 

Mr. Rutherford also explained there are seven additional sites in the 

early phases of the 83.14 process, with a bit more work to be done. 

However, one of them, the NUMEC Parks petition, is expected to be ready 

to present at the April meeting. 

Discussion Points: 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 39

#If the Pantex report isn't going to be ready for the April meeting, 

the Board's schedule should be reconsidered relative to location; 

#The SEC evaluation workgroup has been reviewing 83.14 petitions prior 

to their presentation, and it would be helpful to have those 

provided to the workgroup ahead of the April Board meeting. 

 * * * * *

 STATUS REPORT ON SPECIFIC SEC PETITIONS WITH ONGOING ISSUES

 Chapman Valve

Dr. Patricia Worthington from DOE commented that DOE will come to the 

Board with updates and final decisions as soon as possible, and they do 

recognize the need to be timely. She cautioned that a quick response 

is not necessarily a complete one, so they make an effort to follow all 

leads. 

Dr. Worthington explained the Chapman Valve facility is covered as an 

AWE for the period 1948 to 1949 for work with uranium for the 

Brookhaven National Lab. NIOSH asked DOE to research whether there 

were any additional sources of radioactive material which may have 

contained enriched uranium. DOE tasked research specialists to look 

into the relationship between Chapman Valve's Dean Street location and 

work done with AEC. Dr. Worthington described the research efforts, 

including document searches, public testimony, and employee interview. 

Dr. Worthington commented she would give the results in two parts. One 

is that, based on research, DOE recognizes the Chapman Valve building 

on Dean Street was part of the parent Indian Orchard facility. DOE 

will update their facility list database to reflect that determination. 

As to the search for additional radiation sources, DOE was unable to 

substantiate that work involving additional sources of radioactive 

material was conducted on behalf of the AEC. Those findings have been 

forwarded in a letter report to DOL and NIOSH. 

Discussion Points: 

#What are the next steps to occur; 

#This report has just been provided to NIOSH, and the official change 

in designation by DOL has probably not occurred yet; 

#If DOE research did not identify additional sources of radiation 

exposure, nothing will change in the NIOSH evaluation report; 

#There may be a slight modification of the class definition; 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 40

#The fact that, of three uranium samples, one was enriched, can be a 

part of deliberations, but it was covered by the NIOSH evaluation 

report; 

#If another source of material is found it can be covered under an 

additional petition; 

#SC&A should follow up on this issue if the petition is going to be 

dealt with at the April meeting; 

#Chapman Valve workgroup can follow up on what's needed. 

 * * *

 Dow Chemical, Madison

Dr. Patricia Worthington announced this is a final report from DOE. 

There have been a number of questions raised as to whether the facility 

sold magnesium/thorium alloys to AEC; and if so, whether that would be 

a sufficient basis to satisfy the statutory requirement for additional 

coverage as an AWE under EEOICPA. 

Dr. Worthington explained that DOE has determined that sheets and 

plates made from magnesium/thorium alloys went directly into atomic 

weapons from 1956 to 1969, and that Dow Madison produced and sold such 

sheets and plates to the AEC during the late 1950s. The selling of 

magnesium/thorium alloy sheets and plates to the AEC required an AEC 

license and meets the definition of an AWE, as defined by EEOICPA. DOE 

will update the description of the covered facility to state that Dow 

Madison supplied magnesium/thorium sheets and plates to the AEC from 

1957 to 1958. 

Dr. Worthington thanked workers and interested parties for providing 

information that helped DOE come to their decision, noting that 

cooperation and shared information is very helpful. DOE feels there 

was enough information available to render a fair decision. She 

discussed requirements for designation as an AWE, and described 

investigations conducted in order to determine those requirements had 

been met. 

Discussion Points: 

#Formal action necessary by the Department of Labor; 

#Action required by NIOSH in terms of class designation; 

#The cleanup period may now come into play; 

#NIOSH will have to determine if they can reconstruct doses for thorium 

exposure during the residual contamination period, which hasn't 

been attempted yet because up until now it was not required under 

the Act; 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 41

#NIOSH will give this issue a very high priority in research efforts to 

arrive at an answer as soon as possible; 

#This issue will affect approximately 100 workers, so it would be good 

to have the meeting perhaps in St. Louis when this petition is 

ready for action; 

#Discussion surrounding whether petitioners will have to prove the 

magnesium/thorium alloy went into nuclear weapons; 

#A call from petitioner to ask SC&A to review information they 

submitted on this issue; 

#The resolution should be handled as expeditiously as possible; 

#NIOSH has not yet developed a methodology for, or even determined if 

they can, reconstruct the thorium dose, which would need to be 

done before SC&A could review their product; 

#Perhaps by the phone meeting NIOSH will know where they are and the 

Board can determine at what point they can ask SC&A to assist; 

#The SEC workgroup was asked to follow the Dow situation, and perhaps 

with this development perhaps the workgroup can get involved again 

and keep things moving, and have a mechanism to report back to the 

Board; 

#NIOSH can keep the workgroup informed; 

#Additional discussion regarding the length of time, accepting 

statements from workers, sharing information with petitioners; 

#Has the SC&A report of August 2007 been provided to the Board; 

#Clarification that the report has been provided, but it has not been 

formally addressed. 

 * * *

 Fernald

A letter from Senator Sherrod Brown was read into the record expressing 

his support for the Fernald petition. He discussed creation of the 

compensation program in 2000. Workers at Fernald were involved in 

important work and dangers were frequently unknown. Lack of available 

information prevents full and accurate dose reconstructions. The SEC 

was created so workers and survivors would not be denied benefits due 

to incomplete information. Granting SEC status would fulfill the 

intent of EEOICPA. Senator Brown urged the Board to make a prompt 

decision in favor of the petition. 

Mr. Bradley Clawson, workgroup chair, added that SC&A had established a 

matrix of their findings which the workgroup has completed reviewing. 

They are dealing with several issues in order to work through the 

process, and hope to have another meeting in late January or mid-
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 42

February. They are awaiting some documentation that will have to be 

reviewed. 

Discussion Points: 

#Has there been progress in the preparation of site profile revisions; 

#The SEC evaluation discussion and ultimate decision will probably 

result in several chapter revisions; 

#When a dose reconstruction approach is changed, NIOSH has to reevaluate completed cases, and they would like to have the impact 

of as many changes as possible evaluated before publication of 

revisions; 

#The petitioner will be kept abreast of changes as they come about; 

#Effect of changes on the timeliness issue was discussed; 

#NIOSH would like to minimize any further delays. 

 * * *

 Sandia National Laboratory, Livermore

Mr. Rutherford indicated he didn't have any additional material, all 

documents have been provided to the Board. If anyone has a technical 

question concerning the evaluation and the NIOSH decision, Dr. Sam 

Glover, who is the lead on this petition, is available for those 

answers. 

 * * * * *

 SUBCOMMITTEE AND WORKGROUP REPORTS

Hanford site profile and SEC petition workgroup chairman Dr. James 

Melius indicated he didn't have anything additional to report. The 

main issue has been the holdup on access to records and there will be 

reports to circulate among the group shortly. Dr. Melius and Dr. Arjun 

Makhijani from SC&A had a conference call with NIOSH and he reported 

briefly on that discussion. 

 * * * 

Savannah River Site site profile workgroup report was given by Mr. 

Bradley Clawson in chairman Mr. Mark Griffon's absence. The group had 

gone to the site and reviewed some data in the incident database and 

have been working through that. They plan to set up a meeting to 

process some of that information, but no time has been set yet. 

 * * * 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 43

SEC Issues, including 250-day issue and preliminary review of 83.14 

petitions workgroup chairman Dr. James Melius reported the workgroup 

met a couple of months ago. They have been discussing NTS and Ames 

Laboratory regarding the 250-day issue. They have decided the approach 

to dealing with the Ames issue is as a dose reconstruction issue rather 

than an SEC issue. Dr. Neton is looking into the feasibility of doing 

that. As to NTS, the workgroup has reached out to DTRA for some 

information. SC&A is working on that ongoing issue. There will 

probably be a workgroup meeting sometime in the next month. 

 * * *

Procedures review workgroup chairman Ms. Wanda Munn reported that the 

workgroup had met this week. They have a number of items approaching 

closure. They've spent a considerable amount of effort working with 

SC&A to revise the format being used for review. The new method for 

reporting may become more widely used by the Board and other groups 

because it provides a method for archival retrieval. After they have 

finished what they're working on, they are able to follow through stepby-step what was done. Problems in setting up the database have been 

resolved. Population of data is the major issue and will take a 

considerable amount of input. 

The group anticipates that before their next meeting NIOSH will have at 

least one white paper regarding OTIB-17. Ms. Munn described additional 

issues under consideration and review by the workgroup, and when they 

anticipate completion of those issues. 

Discussion Points: 

#It would be useful to have some sort of process where the Board could 

reach closure on procedures reviews, similar to that with dose 

reconstruction reviews; 

#With all those procedures in the first set of reviews nearing 

completion, that would be an appropriate time to make a report to 

the Board highlighting issues that were of primary concern and the 

nature of the closeout; 

#In the new format there will be a sheet that gives complete 

information and description of what transpired, what instructions 

were given, action taken and closure received; 

#Perhaps a summary report could be presented at the April meeting on 

the first group of reviews; 

#It might also be helpful to have an introduction to the new access 

database this workgroup is using, and how the Board can look at 

items there and track them; 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 44

#Do members of the Board have access to individual procedure reviews 

from SC&A through the web site; 

#Three major reports have been delivered to Board members in large 3-

ring binders, along with 3 or so smaller special deliverables such 

as the OTIB dealing with construction workers; 

#Discussion surrounding how things are reported to the Board and 

whether they should be reported to the Secretary; 

#The Board has no natural mechanism to bring procedures reviews to 

closure. 

 * * *

Worker outreach workgroup chairman Mr. Michael Gibson reported there 

was nothing new since the last conference call. Workgroup members have 

gotten some common dates together and will try to have a meeting later 

in the month. 

 * * *

Linde Ceramics site profile workgroup chairman Dr. Genevieve Roessler

reported that the group met this week, with people from NIOSH and SC&A 

and others present. Dr. Roessler provided a written report for Board 

members, but commented on some pertinent things. This week was the 

second meeting of the workgroup. At the first meeting in March of 2007 

22 issues were raised by SC&A. Dr. Steve Ostrow presented the SC&A 

matrix of those issues. There was agreement this week that 16 of those 

issues are now closed. The six remaining open issues were discussed 

among the workgroup, Dr. Ostrow, Mr. Joe Guido from NIOSH, and others. 

Dr. Roessler explained those issues were summarized in her report, but 

commented that resolution was reached five of the six. The one 

remaining open issue has to do with the burlap bags used to bring 

unprocessed uranium ore to the site. After being emptied they were 

stored behind Building 30. A site expert had stated workers would sit 

on the bags, resting or eating lunch, on into the 1950s. NIOSH has 

documentation to indicate bags had been removed by 1946. The petition 

covers the time period from October 1, 1942 through October 31, 1947. 

When the bags were there and when they were removed is important. 

The workgroup determined there was not enough information to evaluate 

the validity of the site expert's statement and the documented 

information from NIOSH. NIOSH, in consultation with SC&A, was asked to 

summarize the facts as soon as possible and present it to the 

workgroup. At that time a technical call will be set up to discuss the 

issue, with workgroup members participating. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 45

A letter from Senator Charles Schumer regarding the Linde Ceramics site 

profile and dose reconstructions was read into the record. Senator 

Schumer explained he understood there was no petition to have later 

periods added as classes of the SEC, due in part to ongoing 

difficulties former employees have had in obtaining documents from 

NIOSH. He asked the Board to direct NIOSH to cooperate fully with 

people representing the Linde workers so their cases could be decided 

on the merits. He encouraged the Board to expedite the privacy review 

of the ORAU document so it could be made public. He acknowledged that 

other difficulties were outside the scope of the Board's authority. He 

remarked on the heroic efforts of the men and women at Linde Ceramics 

and that the country owed its safety to their work and sacrifices. He 

contended a way to show a share of what is owed to them is by 

supporting their appeals for restitution. 

Discussion Points: 

#Discussion surrounding the document the Senator called to be made 

available. 

 * * * 

Rocky Flats workgroup chairman Mr. Mark Griffon was not available by 

telephone but had provided a written report which Dr. Branche read in 

part. He reported there had been a workgroup conference call in which 

the issue of DOL implementation of the SEC class was discussed, 

initiated by concerns raised in stories reported in the Rocky Mountain 

News. The data referenced in the articles was from the University of 

Colorado research, specifically Ms. Margaret Ruttenber. The workgroup 

asked NIOSH to discuss the issues with Ms. Ruttenber. The call took 

place just before the holidays and Mr. Griffon had indicated he took 

minutes from the call and will provide a draft of those for later 

review. As a result of the meeting NIOSH is to work with Ms. Ruttenber

to obtain the database developed by the University. NIOSH and Ms. 

Ruttenber believe the data are the same and that the Board has access 

to it. 

The second action is that the workgroup will have another conference 

call to discuss implementation of the class by DOL. The primary 

problem is workers with work history cards indicating they worked in a 

non-neutron building, yet the analysis in the newspaper articles 

indicates you can't be sure the worker didn't go into other areas. 

That makes it difficult to base the determination on buildings. 

 * * *
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 46

Los Alamos National Laboratory workgroup is also chaired by Mr. 

Griffon. He had not provided a report, but Dr. Ziemer commented he 

didn't believe the group had met since the last Board meeting. 

 * * *

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Reviews is also chaired by Mr. 

Griffon. Dr. Ziemer explained the subcommittee had met earlier in the 

week and identified a list of suggested cases for the next 60 dose 

reconstruction reviews. He understood Mr. Griffon is not asking the 

Board to approve them, but is providing the list for information 

because there is a possibility some may drop off. 

Dr. Branche noted that Mr. Griffon had written that the list is 

preliminary and that Mr. Stu Hinnefeld from NIOSH will provide more 

detailed information for these cases to allow the subcommittee to 

understand what procedures were used for dose reconstruction. Mr. 

Griffon had indicated he expected the Board should be able to take 

action on the list at the Board call in February. 

 * * * * *

 BOARD WORKING TIME

 Review of SEC Petition Write-ups

The SEC petition write-ups on actions taken earlier in the week were 

circulated. These were hard copy drafts of Board recommendations to 

the Secretary for Mound and Lawrence Livermore. With some minor 

editing discussed and approved, Dr. Ziemer indicated he would follow 

his usual practice of sending each Board member of what he planned to 

send to Dr. Howard for transmittal to the Secretary so they would have 

a final look at the formal language within the next three weeks. 

 * * *

 Board Redaction Policy

With questions having been raised about unredacting some things that 

were already redacted, Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus from the Office of General 

Counsel explained that the documents will be redacted for third-party 

personal information. Unredacted documents will have to be re-reviewed 

and something may still be redacted. Names of presenters would appear, 

however. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 47

Dr. Branche remarked that they appreciated the comments people made 

about the policy. It appears in Federal Register notice. The new 

policy will be applied to transcripts from a period of time when a more 

stringent policy was in place, but that will take some time getting 

those transcripts posted as it imposes additional work. 

 * * *

 Tracking of Transcripts

Dr. Wade reminded the assembly that there had been discussion on how 

quickly things could get posted on the web site. His analysis is that 

NIOSH can commit to having Board meeting transcripts on the web site in 

45 days. They are required in 30 days from the court reporter. With 

the streamlined redaction policy, cleared transcripts should be on the 

web site within 45 days. In the confusion of changing policies, 

however, the July transcript was not handled within that time period 

but will be fixed immediately. Dr. Wade commented forty-five days is 

the proposal back to the Board and he is ready to hear concerns about 

that. It is a reasonable compromise and doable. 

Discussion Points: 

#Increased SEC petitions makes this more critical than it has been in 

the past; 

#There are limitations, both for the court reporter and staff; 

#This report will be provided before every meeting; 

#Workgroup transcripts are a different issue; 

#Workgroup chairs should not go directly to the court report to request 

expedited transcripts but should coordinate their requests through 

Dr. Branche and/or Dr. Wade; 

#There are no new resources being put to this effort, so it should be 

understood that any special request for a workgroup transcript 

will delay other work in the stream. 

 * * *

A question was raised as to whether someone will be responsible for 

assuring appropriate documents are distributed to Board members and 

petitioners for items on the agenda. Dr. Branche announced she would 

be responsible for the agenda, and discussed issues involving 

appropriate timing of topics, Federal Register announcements, notices, 

and getting agenda items identified as early as possible. She 

explained they were trying to use the web site or the O drive to get 

information to Board members. She observed that often workgroup 

meetings have a very short lead time and, what with staff and travel, 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 48

there are a lot of things that have to fall into place. She asked that 

workgroup chairs use their calendars with as much sensitivity as 

practical when scheduling their meetings. 

There was an observation that it would be helpful to Board members if 

agenda items could indicate whether an issue is an action item or a 

report. 

 * * *

 Tracking of Board Actions

Dr. Ziemer observed this is the master document currently under 

development. Dr. Wade suggested it would be effective to make that 

presentation when Ms. Munn reports to the Board about the tool, because 

it will become the substance of the overall tracking activity. 

 * * *

 Appointment of Mound Workgroup

Board members Ms. Josie Beach, Mr. Phillip Schofield, Mr. Robert 

Presley, Mr. Bradley Clawson, Mr. Mark Griffon and Dr. Paul Ziemer had 

expressed interest in this group. Dr. Ziemer announced he would leave 

Mr. Griffon off this workgroup since he has an overload at the moment. 

 He added that since only four were needed, he would take the alternate 

position. If Ms. Beach is willing to chair the group, he will appoint 

her to do so. 

 * * * * *

 FUTURE PLANS AND MEETINGS

Dr. Ziemer remarked there has already been an indication of a high 

likelihood the Pantex SEC evaluation report will not be ready for the 

April meeting tentatively scheduled for Amarillo, Texas. He called for 

suggestions for alternate locations for the April meeting. 

Suggestions included Pinellas, at Tampa or Clearwater, Florida. Sandia 

Albuquerque was suggested, as well as Los Alamos. Lawrence Livermore, 

Fernald, northern California as opposed to southern California were 

also discussed. It was agreed that effort would be made to accommodate 

a meeting in either Clearwater or Tampa for the April 7 through 9 

meeting; St. Louis for the June 24 through 26 meeting; and either 

Livermore or Los Angeles, California for the September meeting. If 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 49

there is difficulty scheduling the Florida venue for April, the venue 

will be switched with the one for September. 

Dr. Branche enumerated the schedule of meetings and conference calls 

through February of 2009, and indicated that in the February 2008 

conference call she planned to propose additional dates for the 

remainder of 2009 and into January of 2010. 

Discussion evolved around meetings scheduled in the first week of 

September and the effect of Labor Day, start of school, et cetera. 

 * * * * *

 CONTINUATION OF DISCUSSION OF SC&A TASKS

Dr. Ziemer commented he was going to go through the list, which will 

not be in order. Beginning with Task IV, the Board is in the process 

of assigning 60 cases for review for next year, and there will also be 

a selection by the subcommittee of two cases for blind reviews. 

Task V is the SEC task. The NTS SEC petition evaluation report review 

assignment is being done under the funding for this year. Mound has 

been assigned for review of the petition evaluation report. 

Under Task I, SC&A has been authorized to proceed on site profile 

reviews for Argonne National Laboratory East and Sandia National 

Laboratory Albuquerque. It was agreed that Santa Susana and Weldon 

Spring could be added as a part of this year's assignment. 

It was agreed that under Task III, procedures reviews, there was 

adequate work already scheduled. 

Under the project management task it was discussed that SC&A might be 

asked to think about ways in the future of accomplishing reviews of 

site profiles in a way that would focus on a specific aspect or aspects 

of the site profile. 

It was agreed Dr. Wade and Mr. Staudt would work together to very 

quickly develop language to assign such a task. It will be e-mailed to 

the Board as a matter for an action of approval by the Chairman. Since 

the Board has previously expressed their interest in the task, it would 

enable SC&A could begin work at that time. 

 * * * * *

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

adjourned at 11:50 a.m. 
 Summary Minutes January 8-10, 2008 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

 50

 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