DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

and 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 

OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

EIGHTH MEETING OF THE ADVISORY BOARD 

ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 

October 15-16, 2002
 

RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS 
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS
 

Executive Summary of the Sixth Meeting .......................................................................................1 

Records of the Eighth Meeting 

October 15, 2002 

Opening Session...........................................................................................................10 

OCAS Status Report ....................................................................................................10 

Dose Reconstruction Contract Award .........................................................................12 

Dose Reconstruction Workgroup Update ....................................................................15 

Examples of Completed Dose Reconstructions. .........................................................17 

Residual Contamination Study Progress Report ..........................................................20 

Update on DOL Activities ...........................................................................................22 

Public Comment Period ...............................................................................................23 

October 16, 2002 

Site Profile Development Status Report ......................................................................28 

 Special Government Employees’ Interactions with the Public...................................29 

IREP Update ................................................................................................................33 

ABRWH Working Session ..........................................................................................35 

Review of Minutes.......................................................................................................35 

Dose Reconstruction Contract .....................................................................................36 

RFP for the ABRWH Contractor.................................................................................37 

Public Comment Period ...............................................................................................39 

ABRWH Business .......................................................................................................40 

Attachments: 

Attachment #1: Current NIOSH/ABRWH Action and Topic Item(s) 

1
 
 

 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

October 15-16, 2002 

Executive Summary of the Eighth Meeting
 

List of Acronyms: 

ABRWH — Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

AEC — Atomic Energy Commission 

AWE — atomic weapons employer 

CBD — chronic beryllium disease 

CDC — Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

CPWR — Center to Protect Workers’ Rights 

DCF — dose conversion factor 

DOD — Department of Defense 

DOE — Department of Energy 

DOL — Department of Labor 

DTRA — Defense Threat Reduction Agency 

EEOICPA — Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Act 

EML — Environmental Measurements Laboratory 

FAB — Final Adjudication Branch, DOL 

FUSRAP — Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program 

GAP — Government Accountability Project 

HERB — Health-Related Energy Research Branch, NIOSH 

HHS — Department of Health and Human Services 

IREP — Interactive Radio Epidemiological Program 

LAHDRAP — Los Alamos Historical Document Retrieval and Assessment Project 

LANL — Los Alamos National Laboratories 

LAPOWS — Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

NCEH — National Center for Environmental Health 

NDAA — National Defense Authorization Act 

NCI — National Cancer Institute 

NIOSH — National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 

OCAS — Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 

ORAU — Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

ORISE — Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education 

OWA — Office of Worker Advocacy 

PACE — Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical and Energy 

 Workers International Union 
PC, PoC, POC— probability of causation 

RECA — Radiation Exposure Compensation Act 

RFC — request for contract 

RFP — request for proposals 

RSO — radiation safety officer 

SEC — Special Exposure Cohort 

SGE — Special Government Employee 

TLD — thermoluminescent dosimeter 

TSE — time since exposure 

HHS and NIOSH convened the eighth ABRWH meeting on October 15-16, 2002 in Santa Fe, 

New Mexico. 

OCAS Status Report: 

David Sundin presented data as of September 30, 2002. DOL is currently processing ~13,700 

non-SEC cancer cases and transferred 8,032 cases to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. OCAS 

sent 6,794 data requests to DOE and received 3,590 responses. To date, 164 telephone 

interviews have been conducted with employees and survivors; 36 dose reconstructions are 

underway. OCAS sent draft dose reconstruction reports and completed close-out interviews with 

11 claimants; 9 final dose reconstructions and complete administrative records were returned to 

DOL for final adjudication. 

OCAS recently completed the Residual Contamination Progress Report. HHS published a 

Notice of Proposed Rule-Making for Adding Classes to the SEC on June 25, 2002. A revised 

rule in response to public comments or a second proposed rule may be published in January, 

2003. The HHS/DOE Memorandum of Understanding is still being negotiated. Some ABRWH 

members expressed concern about OCAS’s ability to maintain pace, particularly since DOE’s 

backlog of outstanding data requests is increasing and OCAS staff is limited. 

Dose Reconstruction Contract Award: 

Dr. James Neton reported that the five-year dose reconstruction contract was awarded to a team 

headed by ORAU on September 11, 2002. The original RFP called for the reconstruction of at 

least 8,000 doses per year. ORAU will provide support to OCAS in database management; data 

collection of claims and SEC petitions; dose reconstruction research; claimant interviews; dose 

estimating and reporting; and technical and program management support. To address conflict 

of interest concerns, NIOSH required all bidders to include a conflict of interest plan in proposals 

and established several conflict of interest provisions. ORAU has installed a toll-free telephone 

number; developed a claims tracking database; designed the dose reconstruction research 

database; and completed the data security plan. 

Other activities are underway, including the recruitment process for computer-assisted telephone 

interviewers; development of procedures for internal and external dosimetry; and a review of 

DOE and DOL submissions for completeness of data. ORAU expects to begin dose 

reconstructions in early November, 2002, on files that currently have sufficient data. Nearly 90 

health physicists are now available to conduct dose reconstructions; initial training of six 

2
 
contract staff was recently completed. ABRWH engaged in an extensive discussion on data 

security, conflict of interest, transparency issues, and the OCAS staff shortage. 

Dose Reconstruction Workgroup Update: 

Mark Griffon reported that the Dose Reconstruction Workgroup held a conference call on 

October 9, 2002 to discuss selection of a contractor to assist ABRWH in reviewing the scientific 

validity and quality of NIOSH dose estimations and reconstructions. Four primary tasks were 

considered for the contractor: (1) review a selection of individual dose reconstructions; (2) 

review a selection of NIOSH site profiles for completeness and adequacy of data; (3) provide 

technical assistance to ABRWH in reviewing SEC petition determinations; and (4) review 

methods, procedures and protocols used by NIOSH or ORAU for the dose reconstruction. 

The majority of ABRWH’s comments focused on task 2. Some members were in favor of 

reviewing individual cases rather than site profiles to determine completeness of data. ABRWH 

emphasized the need to maintain credibility during its independent audit of dose reconstructions. 

ABRWH agreed to continue the deliberations on the following day after the workgroup 

presented the draft scope of work for the contractor and technical evaluation criteria to review 

proposals. The workgroup was commended on its diligent efforts to date. 

Examples of Completed Dose Reconstructions: 

Jim Neton and Grady Calhoun of the NIOSH-OCAS staff described examples of completed dose 

reconstructions. In these examples, OCAS used individual worker monitoring data; worker data 

with allowance for a missed or potentially undetected dose; coworker monitoring data; and 

workplace and environmental data. OCAS has not yet completed a dose reconstruction using 

source term data. Dose reconstruction reports include an introduction, dose determination, data 

sources used and a summary. Information OCAS uses to complete a dose reconstruction include 

annual dose records, verified employment dates, verified cancer reports, diagnosis date, 

radiological records and data on the history of the dosimetry program. When the data are 

ambiguous, OCAS makes claimant-favorable assumptions. 

To avoid inconsistencies and ensure that contractors use the same methodologies as OCAS, a 

series of bulletins will be issued. This strategy will also provide contractors and subcontractors 

with the most recent data. OCAS plans to eventually consolidate the bulletins into technical 

documents or position papers. ORAU will form dose reconstruction teams at facilities to 

strengthen expertise for certain issues. AWEs will most likely be areas for which ORAU will 

develop this specialty. ABRWH and members of the public expressed concerns about OCAS’s 

reliance on coworker data to conduct dose reconstructions. Many survivors have no knowledge 

of the employee’s work activities. OCAS was advised to maintain solid records for these types 

of cases. 

3
 
Residual Contamination Study: 

Grady Calhoun discussed the residual contamination study in which NIOSH will attempt to 

determine whether significant contamination remained in any AWE facility or beryllium vendor 

after the facility discontinued nuclear weapons production. If significant contamination did 

remain, NIOSH will determine whether it could have caused or substantially contributed to 

cancer or a covered beryllium illness. NIOSH will review information on web sites for the DOE 

OWA, Formerly Utilized Site Remedial Action Program and other groups; use a snapshot of 

these data as a reference point for the study; and conduct onsite visits if necessary. 

Each facility has been classified into one of three categories: minimal potential for significant 

residual contamination outside the listed period; potential for significant residual contamination 

outside the listed period; or further investigation is warranted. For radioactive contamination, 

117 facilities required additional information, 74 showed minimal potential for contamination 

and 27 showed significant potential. For beryllium contamination, 8 facilities required additional 

information, 32 showed significant potential for contamination, and 5 showed minimal potential. 

NIOSH’s progress report for the study is in the final HHS clearance process and is expected to 

be released soon. 

Update on Department of Labor Activities: 

Shelby Hallmark of DOL presented EEOICPA data as of October 3, 2002. Of 34,737 claims 

received, 21,400 have been for cancer; 1,365 for beryllium sensitivity; 1,239 for chronic 

beryllium disease; 396 for silicosis; 4,029 for RECA claims; and 7,184 for other health effects. 

Additionally, 5,477 claims were approved for final decisions and 3,345 were denied; 6,272 

claims were approved for recommended decisions and 7,370 were denied. To date, 8,400 cases 

were sent to NIOSH for dose reconstruction; 4,898 payments were issued; $354.8 million was 

paid in compensation; and $3.8 million was paid in medical benefits. In the part B program, the 

current submission of 250 new claims per week decreased from 500 per week. DOL expects to 

receive ~15,000-20,000 claims in FY’03. 

To improve performance in FY 2003, DOL’s goal is to complete 75% of AWE and beryllium 

claims within 180 days and 75% of DOE and RECA claims within 120 days. DOL expects to 

meet FY 2003 goals due to a reduced backlog and redistributed workload. The need for 

additional staff will be re-evaluated when NIOSH begins returning volumes of cases. Of 1,423 

cases received in New Mexico, 282 were referred to NIOSH; 247 were recommended decisions; 

125 were final decisions; and 10 were paid for a total amount paid of $1.5 million. New Mexico 

claims include 724 for cancer, 83 for beryllium sensitivity, 32 for chronic beryllium disease, 6 

for silicosis and 578 for other health effects. ABRWH reiterated the need for DOL to strengthen 

outreach efforts. For example, many members of the public are unaware that EEOICPA covers 

medications and does not require a change in treating physicians. 

NIOSH uses several types of data to develop site profiles. External data include dosimetry 

change-out frequencies, lower limits of detection for these devices and assumed quality factors 

historically used at sites. Internal data include the type and frequency of monitoring performed, 

detection limits, radionuclides monitored, and descriptions of techniques used. Diagnostic x-ray 

4
 
data include the frequency and type of examination, x-ray machine settings, and/or entrance skin 

dose. Area monitoring includes area TLDs and process descriptions and source terms include 

the type and quantity of material processed. Annual reports are the most common source of 

environmental data. NIOSH has received data from 15 of the major DOE sites. 

Most data gaps are for environmental and internal monitoring data, while the greatest amount of 

information has been collected for external data. Medical x-ray data have significantly improved 

since site profiles were initially developed. NIOSH is exploring mechanisms for ORAU to 

obtain data directly from sites instead of collecting information from DOE. NIOSH will 

consider whether incident reports for certain classes of workers should be captured in the 

occupational exposure matrix. The matrix is a separate but complimentary activity from the site 

profiles and will be designed to maintain workgroup monitoring data by job, site, year, and 

building. The occupational exposure matrix is in the very early stages of development, but 

coworker data in terms of air monitoring, TLD and bioassay results will be the main sources. 

Data obtained from AWE facilities are highly variable from site to site with amounts ranging 

from no information to limited personnel dosimetry. NIOSH has captured data from the Oak 

Ridge vaults and the DOE OWA. A data capture effort is planned for the Environmental 

Measurements Laboratory in New York City. ABRWH noted that chemical exposures will 

inevitably be uncovered during data capture efforts. NIOSH should develop a process to 

maintain “other exposure” data since these types of exposures also play a role in persons with 

cancer. 

Interaction with the Public by Board Members: 

David Naimon of the Office of General Council of HHS presented guidelines for ABRWH 

members to interact with the public. One, ABRWH members may not speak on behalf of the 

agency or the Department, and may not speak for the ABRWH unless a majority of members 

approve the position. Two, ABRWH members should not discuss the merits of individual claims 

whether the information was learned at an ABRWH meeting or otherwise, with anyone. Three, 

ABRWH members may discuss public information and refer all requests for information to the 

OCAS web site or office. Four, to protect personal privacy, ABRWH members should not 

speculate on the identity of claimants from dose reconstruction reviews. Five, ABRWH 

members should not speculate about dose reconstruction issues or SEC petitions. Questions 

should be directed to OCAS. 

Six, ABRWH members should not attempt to predict future agency or ABRWH actions. 

Speculations may give the impression that the agency or ABRWH decided an issue prior to full 

presentation of the topic and relevant data. Seven, ABRWH members may not assist claimants 

in filing individual or SEC claims. Claimants should be directed to the proper agency for 

assistance. Eight, ABRWH members may be fact witnesses when they have personal 

knowledge. To avoid the appearance of preferential treatment, members may not use their 

ABRWH affiliation in providing factual information. NIOSH can assist ABRWH members in 

responding to media and Congressional inquiries. 

5
 
IREP Update: 

Russ Henshaw of OCAS reported on recent concerns on cancer latency models for leukemia and 

thyroid cancer. The current IREP model assumes that two- and three-year minimum latency 

periods are necessary for induction of leukemia and thyroid cancer, respectively. NIOSH began 

to reconsider minimum latency assumptions in IREP for leukemia and thyroid cancer and later 

determined that at least some non-zero risk should be factored into all cancer models at all TSEs. 

NCI and SENES developed new alternative latency models for thyroid cancer and leukemia; 

NCI reportedly proposed that they be incorporated into the NCI-IREP. The proposed latency 

revisions would adjust leukemia and thyroid cancer models to allow non-zero risk at all TSEs; 

modify IREP by incorporating S-shaped latency reduction functions; and factor in uncertainty 

around the midpoints of the S-shaped functions. 

It is expected that NCI will send a letter to NIOSH to confirm adoption of the models. NIOSH 

has not yet made a decision on the proposed revisions because the agency is not comfortable 

with making changes that would result in a decreased PoC for any TSE. The epidemiological 

evidence for the minimum latency assumption is based primarily on the Life Span Study of 

Japanese atomic bomb survivors. These data are somewhat ambiguous. There is no hard 

evidence for the shape of the proposed S curve. A valid and plausible cutoff point is also an 

uncertainty. In the proposed thyroid latency adjustment model, the reduction factor is more 

claimant-friendly at six years TSE, but less at three and four years. 

With the correct IREP code and an increased sample size of 2,000, higher PoC results at latency 

periods equal to, or greater than, 5 years was no longer present in the current model. NIOSH can 

exercise one of three options with the IREP. One or both new latency functions favored by NCI 

could be adopted without modification. The NIOSH-IREP could be modified to allow non-zero 

risk at all TSEs, but differently than NCI. For example, the NIOSH-IREP could be adjusted to 

ensure that the upper 99% PoC does not decrease compared to the current IREP at any TSE. In 

the third option, not favored by NIOSH, the current minimum latency assumptions could remain 

the same; NIOSH-IREP would not be modified. 

Board Working Session: 

During the ABRWH working session, the minutes of the sixth meeting on August 14-15, 2002 

and minutes of the seventh meeting, via conference call on August 22, 2002, were unanimously 

approved with changes as noted in the record. 

ABRWH unanimously approved two motions to address conflict of interest in the conduct of the 

dose reconstructions by ORAU. First, NIOSH should make available to each claimant 

information about the contract personnel doing his or her dose reconstruction and the primary 

reviewer of that dose reconstruction. The information should include a brief summary of 

educational and professional qualifications of these individuals, previous DOE/contractor 

employment and expert witness participation. The summary should be accompanied by a letter 

from NIOSH or the contractor outlining procedures for assigning dose reconstruction personnel 

and the procedures for claimants to express concerns about the assignment. Second, NIOSH will 

make available on its web site background information and previous work histories of all 

6
 
contract personnel involved with dose reconstructions and reviews. ABRWH agreed this 

information should be posted on the web site only to the extent legally possible. 

ABRWH generally agreed to the following process for the Dose Reconstruction Workgroup to 

proceed with its activities. The Workgroup will continue to finalize the draft scope of work and 

technical evaluation criteria and also to draft the business plan. ABRWH will hold a conference 

call to review and approve the revised drafts prior to the next meeting. The revised drafts will be 

circulated to the members and posted on the OCAS web site for public access prior to the 

conference call. After ABRWH reaches consensus on the scope of work and technical 

evaluation criteria, NIOSH will initiate the procurement process if possible. NIOSH will make 

necessary preparations for ABRWH to convene an executive session at the next meeting for 

review and approval of the draft business plan and independent government cost estimate. 

Public Comment Period: 

The ABRWH Chair opened the floor for public comments at the times noted on the published 

agenda. Statements were made by LANL former workers, survivors of deceased LANL workers, 

representatives of worker advocacy groups, and Congressional delegates. In addition to the 

agenda items, the public spoke about the need to provide independent technical assistance to 

survivors in completing the questionnaire; the unfair burden placed on claimants and survivors to 

prove illness; ORAU’s conflict of interest; the use of former workers and other non-DOE 

contacts as resources to fill data gaps in the dose reconstruction process; and efforts to uncover 

data beyond records provided by LANL and other DOE sites. 

Other Business: 

In a discussion of ABRWH business, OCAS announced that the action items table was 

restructured to provide more specificity on whether ABRWH or NIOSH will take action on a 

particular item. Time will be designated on each future agenda for ABRWH to review and 

provide comments on the action items list. ABRWH approved a motion with a majority vote to 

establish a workgroup to make recommendations to the Board at its next full meeting regarding 

(1) issues related to IREP, including how the Board should prioritize and handle IREP and other 

scientific issues at future meetings; (2) whether a long-term subcommittee or short-term 

workgroup is needed to accomplish these activities; and (3) coordination of IREP issues with 

other governmental organizations that are also using the IREP model. 

Action items and agenda topics raised during the meeting were noted for the record. The next 

ABRWH meeting will be held on January 7-8, 2003, in Cincinnati, Ohio; a portion of the 

proceedings will be closed for review and approval of the business plan. Another ABRWH 

meeting is tentatively scheduled for February 5-6, 2003, to be held in the Savannah River, 

Georgia area to discuss the SEC Rule. An ABRWH conference call will be held on December 

12, 2002, from 1:00-3:00 p.m. EST to review and approve the draft scope of work and technical 

evaluation criteria. 

7
 
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

October 15-16, 2002 

Santa Fe, New Mexico 

Minutes of the Meeting 

The Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Centers for Disease Control and 

Prevention (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) convened a 

meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH). The proceedings 

were held on October 15-16, 2002 at the Inn at Loretto in Santa Fe, New Mexico. A court 

reporter transcribed ABRWH’s deliberations; the complete transcript is available on the Internet. 

The following individuals were present to contribute to the discussion. 

October 15, 2002 

Attendance: 

ABRWH Members: 

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair 

Dr. Henry Anderson 

Dr. Antonio Andrade 

Dr. Roy DeHart 

Mr. Richard Espinosa 

Ms. Sally Gadola 

Mr. Michael Gibson 

Mr. Mark Griffon 

Dr. James Melius 

Ms. Wanda Munn 

Mr. Leon Owens 

Mr. Robert Presley 

Dr. Genevieve Roessler 

Designated Federal Official: 

Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary 

Federal Agency Attendees: 

Mr. Grady Calhoun (NIOSH/OCAS) 

Ms. Tracey Gilbertson (NIOSH/OCAS) 

8
 
Mr. Phillip Green (NCEH/LAHDRAP) 

Mr. Shelby Hallmark (DOL) 

Mr. Russ Henshaw (NIOSH/OCAS) 

Ms. Cori Homer (NIOSH) 

Ms. Elizabeth Homoki-Titus (HHS) 

Mr. Ted Katz (NIOSH) 

Mr. Jeffrey Kotsch (DOL) 

Mr. David Naimon (HHS) 

Dr. James Neton (NIOSH/OCAS) 

Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer (DOD/DTRA) 

Mr. David Sundin (NIOSH/OCAS) 

Ms. Rose Toufexis (DOL) 

Guests and Members of the Public: 

Mr. Floyd Archileta (Espanola, New Mexico Resource Center Chief) 

Ms. Joni Arends (Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety) 

Ms. B. Jo Bear (Los Alamos National Laboratories-Survivor of Former Worker) 

Mr. Joe Bermudez (Laborers’ Health and Safety Fund) 

Ms. Julia DeHart (Nashville, TN) 

Ms. Dolores Garcia (Office of Senator Bingaman) 

Mr. Jonathan Garcia (Los Alamos National Laboratories-Former Worker) 

Mr. James Griffin (MJW Corporation) 

Mr. Rob Hager (Attorney) 

Mr. Phil Harrison (NURVE) 

Ms. Epithenial Hawkins (Los Alamos National Laboratories-Survivor of Former Worker) 

Mr. Ritchie Howles (Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association, Local 49) 

Ms. Michele Jacquez-Ortiz (Office of Congressman Udall) 

Mr. Jeffrey Klemm (Science Applications International Corporation) 

Mr. Jerry Leyba (Los Alamos National Laboratories-Former Worker) 

Mr. Peter Malmgren (Los Alamos Oral History Project) 

Mr. Richard Miller (Government Accountability Project) 

Mr. Paul Montoya (Los Alamos National Laboratories-Former Worker) 

Mr. Ben Ortiz (Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety) 

Mr. James Platner (Center to Protect Workers’ Rights) 

Ms. Louise Presley (Clinton, TN) 

Mr. Frances Quintara (Santa Fe, NM)
 

Mr. Adam Rankin (Albuquerque Journal) 

Ms. Betty Jean Shinas (Los Alamos National Laboratories-Survivor of Former Worker) 

Mr. Phillip Schofield (Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety) 

Mr. Joseph Shonka (SRA) 

Mr. Ken Silver (Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety) 

Mr. Alex Smith (Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety) 

Mr. Robert Tabor (Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Council) 

Dr. Richard Toohey (Oak Ridge Associated Universities) 

9
 
 

Ms. Gloria Tribio (Los Alamos National Laboratories-Survivor of Former Worker) 

Mr. Robert Vazquez (Office of Congressman Udall) 

Mr. Thomas Widner (ENSR Corporation/LAHDRAP) 

Opening Session: 

Dr. Paul Ziemer, the ABRWH Chair, called the meeting to order at 8:30 a.m. on October 15, 

2002. He welcomed the attendees to the proceedings and particularly recognized two new 

members: Mr. Michael Gibson and Mr. Leon Owens. Mr. Larry Elliott, the ABRWH Executive 

Secretary and NIOSH Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) Director, 

announced that a report is being prepared for submission to the HHS Office of Committee 

Management. The Federal Advisory Committee Act requires the report to be developed each 

fiscal year-end and describe a committee’s purpose, activities, accomplishments and process to 

conduct business. ABRWH’s FY 2002 report will be distributed to the members. 

Mr. Elliott reminded ABRWH about waivers that were prepared for each member. Since 

ABRWH’s deliberations will focus on more specific issues at future meetings, the process for 

members to recuse themselves from any discussion that presents a conflict of interest will need 

to be followed. 

Dr. Ziemer deferred action on approving the minutes of the August 14-15, 2002 meeting and the 

August 22, 2002 conference call until the following day. He noted that many members had not 

yet reviewed the documents. No members objected to tabling this agenda item. 

OCAS Status Report: 

Mr. David Sundin, the OCAS Deputy Director, presented data on the program as of 

September 30, 2002. The Department of Labor (DOL) is currently processing ~13,700 nonSpecial Exposure Cohort (SEC) cancer cases. Of the 8,032 cases DOL transferred to NIOSH for 

dose reconstruction, 6,801 (85%) are non-atomic weapons employees (AWE) and 1,231 (15%) 

are AWE employees. NIOSH is currently receiving ~200 cases per week from four DOL district 

offices. After receiving referrals from DOL, OCAS immediately sends a letter to each claimant 

confirming receipt of the claim for dose reconstruction, outlining all steps in the claims process, 

and providing contact information for OCAS staff. Each case is logged, tracked, and monitored 

through OCAS’s computerized and paper filing systems. 

DOL attaches a summary sheet to each claim referred to OCAS. The document lists verified 

covered sites where employees worked and allows OCAS to direct requests for personal 

radiation exposure data to appropriate points of contact in the Department of Energy (DOE). Of 

the 6,794 data requests sent to DOE, OCAS received 3,590 responses. OCAS closely 

collaborates with the DOE Office of Worker Advocacy (OWA) and on-site points of contact to 

ensure relevant exposure information is obtained to conduct dose reconstruction in a timely 

manner. However, OCAS is exploring mechanisms to expedite data requests from DOE. Each 

DOE point of contact receives periodic reports from OCAS on the status of outstanding data 

requests and exposure information received. 

10
 
To date, 164 telephone interviews have been conducted with employees and survivors; 36 dose 

reconstructions are underway. OCAS sent draft dose reconstruction reports and completed 

close-out interviews with 11 claimants; 9 final dose reconstructions and complete administrative 

records were returned to DOL for final adjudication. Communications to OCAS have 

dramatically increased from the first to fourth quarters, i.e., 189 to 3,572 telephone calls for a 

total of 6,712, and 43 to 318 e-mail messages for a total of 602. OCAS’ goal is to respond to 

each e-mail message within 24 hours. 

OCAS awarded a five-year dose reconstruction contract to Oak Ridge Associated Universities 

(ORAU) on September 11, 2002 and recently completed its Residual Contamination Progress 

Report. HHS published a Notice of Proposed Rule-Making for adding classes to the SEC on 

June 25, 2002. The public comment period closed on August 26, 2002. Public comments 

submitted by 23 individuals, labor organizations, advocacy groups, and scientific organizations 

can be viewed on the OCAS web site. Many comments focused on the feasibility and timeliness 

of dose reconstruction as well as the use of the NIOSH Interactive Radio Epidemiological 

Program (IREP) to determine health endangerment. NIOSH is currently drafting solutions to 

substantially improve the proposed rule. 

A decision will need to be made on whether the revised rule can be published as final or released 

as a new proposed rule and reissued for a second public comment period. OCAS believes a 

revised rule or second proposed rule can be published in January 2003. Responses to public 

comments will most likely be provided in the preamble of the new proposed rule. OCAS and 

DOE are continuing discussions on the HHS/DOE Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). 

OCAS expects to receive comments from DOE on the last draft of the MOU and hopes 

agreement will soon be reached on the process for HHS and DOE to implement responsibilities 

and undertake collaborative efforts. However, OCAS is not delaying progress on its activities 

pending resolution of the MOU. 

Some ABRWH members expressed concern about OCAS’ ability to maintain pace, particularly 

since DOE’s backlog of outstanding data requests is increasing and OCAS staff is limited. 

Drs. Melius and Andrade inquired if OCAS projected its workload and developed a time-line to 

process claims. For example, ~5,000 cases were still being processed by DOL as of 

September 30, 2002. Referrals of most, or all, of these cases to NIOSH for dose reconstruction 

may become problematic. Dr. Melius was also interested in steps that have been taken to 

increase OCAS staff. 

Mr. Sundin noted that ABRWH’s questions on OCAS capacity, scope of work, and future 

backlog would be better answered during the dose reconstruction contract presentation. 

However, he reported that DOE submitted corporate contact information for many AWE sites. 

ORAU may undertake this task under the new contract. He confirmed that OCAS has no 

knowledge of the number of referrals to expect from DOL in the future. DOL must verify 

employment and disease condition. Any number of the 5,000 cases can fail on either of these 

two conditions and, thus, not be referred to OCAS. DOL’s case load is also continuing to 

increase with new applications. With respect to staff, OCAS support will be expanded with its 

11
 
prime contractor, clerical staff and other onsite contract personnel. However, OCAS has reached 

its current allocation for federal employees. 

Dose Reconstruction Contract Award: 

Dr. James Neton, the OCAS Health Science Administrator, reiterated that the five-year 

incrementally funded contract was awarded to a team headed by ORAU on September 11, 2002. 

Dade Moeller & Associates in Richland, Washington, and MJW Corporation in Buffalo, New 

York, will serve as the two primary dose reconstruction partners under the contract. The original 

Request for Contract (RFC) called for the reconstruction of at least 8,000 doses per year and 

provisions to expand or decrease this amount to meet fluctuating demand. It is likely that more 

than 100 contract personnel will be committed to the project. 

The contract will provide support to OCAS in six areas: database management; data collection 

related to claims and SEC petitions, including the establishment of site profiles; dose 

reconstruction research related to job descriptions, work areas, exposure profiles, etc.; claimant 

interviews; dose estimating and reporting, and; technical and program management support. 

NIOSH will own, operate, and control the database, but ORAU will maintain parallel databases 

to track claims, develop profiles, and conduct other activities. 

Since many dose reconstruction personnel have a relationship with DOE or DOE contractors, 

conflict of interest has been of key interest to NIOSH and stakeholders in awarding the contract. 

To address these concerns, all bidders were asked to include a conflict of interest plan in their 

proposals. The conflict of interest provisions of the ORAU plan are summarized below, and the 

complete set of provisions are posted on the OCAS web site. 

•	 First, no contractor, subcontractor or employee will supervise, perform or review dose 

reconstructions for claimants from a given DOE-AWE site if they previously 

performed work that affected or established policies on radiation dosimetry 

assessments, dosimetry programs or records at that site or if they were involved with 

dose assessments or reconstructions for workers from that site. 

•	 Second, no contractor element will participate in or review dose reconstructions for 

DOE sites or activities where it is the prime contractor, team member to a prime 

contractor, program manager, or subcontractor managing dosimetry programs or 

intends to be one within 12 months. 

•	 Third, individuals will not perform, supervise or review radiation dose 

reconstructions if they acted as an expert witness or non-testifying expert on behalf of 

DOE or a DOE contractor in defense of radiation dose claims or suits. 

•	 Fourth, individuals will not perform, supervise or review radiation dose 

reconstructions for coworkers, DOE facilities at which they were formerly employed, 

or for contractors by whom they have been employed. 

12
 
•	 Fifth, no contractor or subcontractor element will be permitted to perform or bid for 

collateral work on radiation dosimetry program support for those sites where it is 

conducting dose reconstruction. 

•	 Sixth, “key personnel” of the ORAU team will not have a conflict of interest with 

respect to managing this project or carrying out or marketing radiation protection and 

health physics services elsewhere in DOE. 

•	 Seventh, each supervisor, dosimetrist, and reviewer will be required to complete and 

sign a form agreeing to abide by the above requirements. The forms will be 

maintained as audit-able records of this project. If NIOSH concurs, these forms will 

also be scanned and posted on a web page ORAU will maintain for this project. 

Links to the ORAU page will be provided for the NIOSH/OCAS and DOL web pages 

for this project. 

•	 Eighth, a form identifying the dosimetrist who performed the dose reconstruction and 

the supervisor who reviewed and approved it will be attached to each dose 

reconstruction and provided to the claimant, along with short biographical sketches. 

The form will include a detailed employment history of the dosimetrist. 

ORAU is on track to meet the deadlines for early deliverables outlined in the RFC. The toll-free 

telephone number was installed, and the claims tracking and dose reconstruction research 

databases have been designed and delivered to NIOSH. The latter database includes the data 

dictionary, data elements, and plans for secure links with the NIOSH database. ORAU also 

completed a data security plan to address privacy issues when claimant information is 

transmitted over a national web-based system. All of these deliverables are currently under 

review by NIOSH. The recruitment process for the computer-assisted telephone interviews is 

underway. Procedures for internal and external dosimetry are currently being developed with 

NIOSH input. Initial dose reconstruction training of six contract staff was recently completed. 

DOE and DOL submissions are being reviewed to ensure each record is complete and suitable to 

conduct dose reconstructions. OCAS will submit follow-up requests to DOE for all claims 

identified with insufficient data. For records that are found to be complete, ORAU expects to 

begin dose reconstructions in early November, 2002. Claims managers with health physics 

backgrounds have been identified and will be assigned to DOL regions that are parallel to the 

NIOSH structure. ORAU currently occupies temporary office space in Cincinnati, but expects to 

occupy their permanent facility in November, 2002; 30-40 ORAU team partners will be housed 

in the Cincinnati location. 

ABRWH’s deliberations on the dose reconstruction contract focused on data security, conflict of 

interest, transparency issues, and the OCAS staff shortage. Dr. Ziemer asked whether computer 

security experts evaluated ORAU’s data security plan to determine adequacy. He also asked 

about ORAU’s time-line to completely manage the project. 

13 
Dr. Melius noted that the second conflict of interest provision only applies to contractor elements 

with current and future participation in dose reconstructions; past involvement is excluded. The 

type of information NIOSH distributes will be critical in terms of public perception and 

credibility. Data will be posted on the web site, but all claimants will not have access to the 

Internet. Supervision of the contract, oversight of conflict of interest provisions, and quality 

control of the overall project will be virtually impossible with limited OCAS staff. Dr. Neton 

and Mr. Elliot replied that OCAS will soon be submitting a proposal to NIOSH for additional 

staffing. Additional staff are needed particularly to review dose reconstructions, receive and 

process claims, and communicate with claimants. Dr. Melius suggested that ABRWH go on 

record to formally support the need for more OCAS staff and address the HHS/DOE MOU. 

Dr. DeHart questioned whether OCAS will incorporate guidelines from the Health Information 

Privacy and Portability Act (HIPPA) to verbally and electronically transfer data. Mr. Sundin 

replied that NIOSH has reviewed HIPPA, but the language primarily applies to health care 

providers. Nonetheless, OCAS subscribes to its principles regarding privacy and confidentiality. 

Mr. Griffon was concerned that data reviews may be conducted before site profiles are 

developed, which could lead to premature determinations. 

Mr. Elliott, Dr. Neton, and Mr. Sundin responded to ABRWH’s questions and concerns 

regarding data security and confidentiality. Dr. Richard Toohey, the ORAU Project Director, 

provided input as well. NIOSH and all other CDC centers, institutes and offices are required to 

submit security plans on database management systems. These plans are rigorously reviewed, 

evaluated, modified, investigated, and approved by highly qualified staff in the CDC Information 

Resource Management Office. Potential security breaches of database management systems are 

taken very seriously by CDC, since the agency maintains data on AIDS and other personal, 

confidential, or sensitive matters. 

In terms of the second conflict of interest provision, the language can be revised to be 

retroactive. “Intent” to review or participate in dose reconstructions will be determined if a 

contractor submitted proposals for these activities. In six to nine months, NIOSH plans to 

commission an independent review of conflict of interest. The evaluation will determine the 

process by which conflict of interest is addressed, managed, and controlled within OCAS, 

ABRWH, and contractors. NIOSH welcomes input from ABRWH on the independent review. 

NIOSH realizes that transparency issues are still unresolved. ORAU has instructed all team 

members to collect information on subcontractors and submit completed and signed forms for 

these personnel. 

NIOSH is currently revising its routine use authority under the Privacy Act to address disclosure 

issues when responding to Congressional inquiries and requesting dose information on claimants 

from DOE. ABRWH will be notified by e-mail when the revision is published in the Federal 

Register and posted on the OCAS web site. 

With respect to priorities, site profile development is underway and will contain the four 

necessary components of environmental data, medical x-rays, internal exposure, and external 

14
 
exposure. A data capture effort was recently undertaken at Oak Ridge; another is planned for 

early November 2002 at the New York City Environmental Measurements Laboratory (EML). 

OCAS and ORAU staff will visit the Los Alamos site on October 16, 2002 to review records and 

develop a data retrieval plan. 

ORAU and its partners anticipate hiring ~24 personnel. Nearly 90 health physicists have 

agreements with ORAU to conduct dose reconstructions, but these staff members must first be 

trained in the Privacy Act, conflict of interest provisions, and other procedures outlined in the 

contract. ORAU expects to begin dose reconstructions within the next two weeks. ORAU and 

NIOSH are currently developing performance measures and a plan to address the backlog of 

claims. NIOSH will be informed if ORAU’s progress is impaired by delays in receiving data 

from DOE sites. 

Dose Reconstruction Workgroup Update: 

Mr. Mark Griffon, the Workgroup Chair, introduced the members: Dr. DeHart, Mr. Espinosa, 

Mr. Presley and Dr. Roessler. Dr. Neton serves as the NIOSH liaison. He announced that the 

members held a conference call on October 9, 2002. In general, the workgroup discussed 

ABRWH’s role in selecting contractors to assist in reviewing the scientific validity and quality of 

NIOSH dose estimations and reconstructions. In particular, the deliberations focused on the 

procurement process; the workgroup’s role in developing the request for proposal (RFP) and 

evaluation plan; conflict of interest, personnel and other technical requirements of the contractor; 

and ABRWH representation on the NIOSH review panel to evaluate bids. 

The Workgroup acknowledges that conflict of interest issues will be a major component of the 

evaluation plan. While drafting the RFP, the workgroup considered four primary tasks for the 

contractor: 

•	 Task 1 would be to review a selection of individual dose reconstructions. In year 1, 

the contractor would review ~200 cases using a “basic,” “advanced” or “blind” 

protocol. Only data used by NIOSH or ORAU in dose reconstructions would be 

examined in the basic review, while the entire administrative record would be 

examined in the advanced review. Dose reconstructions would be produced from raw 

data in the blind review. The contractor would not be provided with input files or 

dose data generated by NIOSH or ORAU. 

•	 Task 2 would be to review a selection of NIOSH site profiles for completeness and 

adequacy of data. The Workgroup will continue to be challenged by defining the 

scope of this task until negotiations on the HHS/DOE MOU have been resolved. The 

contractor will encounter difficulties in accessing DOE and onsite experts, but 

interviews with former workers, health physicists, supervisors, line managers, and 

other experts identified by ORAU may be an option to overcome this barrier. 

•	 Task 3 would be to provide technical assistance to ABRWH in reviewing SEC 

petition determinations. The scope of this task is undetermined at this time. 

15 
•	 Task 4 would be to review methods, procedures and protocols used by NIOSH and 

ORAU for dose reconstructions. 

For the next steps in the process, the Workgroup plans to present the draft RFP to ABRWH; 

complete the draft evaluation plan for proposals; and further discuss the potential notification 

list, budget issues and ABRWH’s representation on the bid review panel. The selection of cases 

can be delayed until after these more urgent tasks are completed. 

******Dr. Ziemer explained that ABRWH can only discuss budget issues of the RFP during an 

executive session. Since no announcement was made in the Federal Register, the ABRWH 

meeting would be closed at the end of the proceedings on the following day if an executive 

session would be necessary. The majority of ABRWH’s comments focused on Task 2 in which 

site profiles would be reviewed to determine completeness of data. Dr. Melius opined that, at a 

minimum, a subset of individual cases should be used in this effort, while Dr. Ziemer noted that 

site profiles might be sufficient for some claims. Ms. Munn was mindful of the balance between 

ABRWH’s level of involvement in reviewing dose reconstructions and fulfilling its charge. 

ABRWH should assist both NIOSH and claimants without making the process more difficult for 

either group. 

Mr. Owens emphasized the need for ABRWH to maintain credibility due to public skepticism of 

previous government activities. In addition to data issues, Mr. Gibson noted that claimants will 

also express concerns about individuals conducting the dose reconstruction. Dr. Anderson 

commented that a modification of Task 1 might resolve this dilemma. Instead of randomly 

selecting cases, the contractor could flag cases where individuals raised exposure concerns. An 

evaluation could then be made on whether NIOSH or ORAU appropriately addressed the issue, 

investigated the problem, or responded to the individual. Ms. Munn expressed concern with the 

degree of detail that ABRWH is trying to involve itself in, that ABRWH may be exceeding its 

charge. She commented that ABRWH’s role is to assist both the claimant and NIOSH in their 

activities, not to make things more difficult for either of them. 

Dr. Melius pointed out that this audit process would exclude survivors or claimants with limited 

knowledge of the site or exposures. He reiterated the need to resolve Task 2 issues in terms of 

determining completeness of data. This discussion could be continued on the following day after 

the workgroup presented the draft scope of work for the RFP. He also proposed that the agenda 

be revised to accommodate ABRWH’s discussion and formulation of recommendations on 

conflict of interest and transparency issues. Several ABRWH members commended the 

Workgroup on its diligent efforts to date. 

Mr. Elliott clarified several issues with the procurement process. Only ABRWH members, 

together with Dr. Neton and Mr. Elliott, can be present during budget discussions of the RFP. 

An executive session cannot be recorded or transcribed. (Note: It was later determined by 

General Council that executive sessions do have to be transcribed.) NIOSH is pleased that 

resolution has been reached for an ABRWH member to serve on the technical review panel to 

evaluate bids, but all reviewers must first be trained in procurement procedures. The 

Workgroup’s evaluation plan will be used as criteria to assess each proposal. For claimants who 

16
 
 

raise concerns about dose reconstructionists, DOL can remand these cases to NIOSH for further 

evaluation if new information is uncovered. 

As a proactive measure, Dr. Neton reported that NIOSH has discussed the possibility of 

providing the claimant with a biographical sketch or work history of the dose reconstructionist at 

the time the case is assigned. Before opening the floor to the next presenter, Dr. Ziemer 

announced that ABRWH will not convene an executive session on the following day. Pursuant 

to legal requirements of the Sunshine Act, closure of public meetings must be announced in the 

Federal Register prior to the proceedings. 

Examples of Completed Dose Reconstructions: 

Dr. Neton and Mr. Grady Calhoun of OCAS described four dose reconstructions NIOSH 

completed. Four of the five types of information used in dose reconstructions are illustrated in 

the examples; NIOSH has not yet completed a dose reconstruction using source term data. 

Case A. The dose reconstruction for claimant A used individual worker monitoring data; the 

case represents an underestimate of the actual dose received. The claimant worked at a DOE 

experimental reactor facility as a health and safety worker from 1959-1986; handled radioactive 

waste; and was involved in cleanup after a reactor accident and several experiments. 

According to DOE reports, the claimant had a photon deep dose of 22.6 rem, a whole-body dose 

as reported by DOE. In addition, he received a shallow dose of photon plus beta of 28.1 rem. 

Based on the DOL verified cancer report, the claimant was diagnosed at 40 years of age with 

chronic granulocytic leukemia. Dose was determined using only the photon deep dose. All 

photons were assumed to be >250 keV; this energy range was chosen to produce a deliberate 

underestimate of probability of causation (PoC). The lowest dose conversion factor (DCF) was 

used to convert deep dose to dose to red bone marrow; this figure was also chosen as an 

underestimate. Data sources included a reported deep dose of record from DOE, verified 

employment dates from DOL, verified cancer reports from DOL and a diagnosis date from DOL. 

Based on external dose alone, the PoC was ~72%. Bioassay data indicated some internal 

exposure to cesium, but the dose did not need to be calculated since the PoC from external dose 

was already >50%. Case A required 16 hours of work to reach a conclusion, but as the learning 

curve improves, this type of dose reconstruction could be completed in two hours or less. 

Case B. The dose reconstruction for claimant B used worker data with allowance for a missed or 

potentially undetected dose. The claimant is deceased and was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 

1997, lymphoma in 1998, and basal cell carcinoma in 1999. The claimant worked in DOE fuel 

and reactor operations as a patrolman from 1948-1952 and an instrument technician from 1952-

1988. 

The claimant had a relatively high gamma recorded dose of 37.1 rem. The majority of the dose 

was from the reactor area and was assumed to be from high-energy gamma exposure of >250 

keV. The recorded neutron dose as reported by DOE was 80 mrem, but the detection threshold 

was 50 mrem. The average neutron energy level was below the dosimeter threshold. Since DOE 

did not provide individual monitoring records for badges, the claimant’s records were 

17 
supplemented with available data from the NIOSH Health-Related Energy Research Branch 

(HERB). To estimate the neutron dose, OCAS reviewed the 1996 Fix et al. study. 

In this investigation, old neutron films were evaluated using five different methods. The 

estimated neutron dose was under-reported by approximately 10%. The relative biological 

effectiveness (RBE) used in the Fix study was 10, but OCAS can assign an RBE as high as 20. 

Also in the Fix study, neutron to gamma ratios ranged from 0.13-0.73 for reactor area workers. 

The ratio was dependent on the magnitude of dose. OCAS adopted a dose-weighted average of 

0.26 that assumed a triangular distribution. Several claimant-friendly assumptions for neutron 

exposure were made in the analysis of Case B. Dosimeter and missed doses were added to 

determine whole body gamma dose. The neutron gamma ratio was based on the total 

reconstructed dose rather than the dose of record from DOE. 

The gross track count used no background subtraction. Continuous neutron exposure was 

assumed from 1953-1980. During outages, however, only high gamma exposure occurred; 

neutron exposure was virtually non-existent. The neutron ratio was also applied through 1980. 

For a patrolman, DCFs were estimated at 25% from front to back, 50% around the body and 25% 

from all directions. For an instrument technician, DCFs were assumed at 75% from front to back 

and 25% around the body. In the IREP input files for claimant B, 68 inputs were used for 

prostate cancer and lymphoma each; 106 inputs were used for skin cancer. 

For skin dose determination, the badge was capable of differentiating between beta and photon 

exposure with an open/closed window. The claimant’s file showed a skin contamination 

incident, but this factor was excluded from the analysis because sufficient dose information 

already existed to determine PoC. To expedite the claim, some occupational doses were not 

reconstructed since the PoC was >50%. In addition to skin contamination, a large fission 

product release occurred from 1945-1961. The claimant also had 44 individual x-rays during the 

length of employment and had a positive urinalysis for plutonium and uranium. 

Data sources included annual dose records provided by DOE; radiological records microfilmed 

and duplicated for HERB; and information provided by the site on the history of the dosimetry 

program. Using the formula in the Probability of Causation Rule, the claimant’s overall PoC for 

prostate cancer, lymphoma and skin cancer was estimated to be ~74%. Case B required several 

weeks to reach a conclusion. 

Case C. The dose reconstruction for claimant C used coworker monitoring data. The claimant 

died of esophageal cancer in 1986 and, according to an affidavit, worked from 1940-1980 at an 

AWE uranium facility. Survivors were unaware of the claimant’s specific work activities. The 

DOE OWA supplied OCAS with contracts and amendments, technical progress reports, a postdecontamination survey, and documentation from the Formerly Utilized Site Remedial Action 

Program (FUSRAP). 

The interview generated very little information since the survivor could not describe any of the 

employee’s work activities and believed all coworkers were deceased. However, the survivor 

was aware that the claimant did not have an office job; the employee reportedly came home from 

18
 
work dirty. The data search was also difficult because the AWE no longer exists. Moreover, the 

company that is managing retirement accounts could not describe the outcome of the AWE. 

OCAS searched the DOE web site, reviewed progress reports, examined contracts and contacted 

the only AWE extrusion plant still in existence. Efforts were made to reconstruct dose using 

typical exposures at the existing AWE; a records search was also conducted at this facility. 

The data search resulted in external dosimetry records from 1959-1960 for the claimant’s AWE. 

Additional documentation indicated that the DOE EML had taken bioassay samples; ~200 pages 

of bioassay records were obtained from the EML. OCAS located and interviewed the radiation 

safety officer (RSO) who received the 1959-1960 film badge records. During the RSO 

interview, OCAS learned that an Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) project at the AWE 

employed ~12 technicians and administrative personnel. The facility was used as a metallurgy 

laboratory only. All technicians were monitored and wore coveralls and laboratory coats. 

Workers typically did not get dirty while performing their job duties in the metallurgy lab, but 

those working elsewhere on other projects at this AWE could have gotten dirty. All extrusion 

was conducted at a different facility, the World War II Air Force aluminum extrusion facility. 

After the AWE was sold in 1961, operations were transferred to other cities. 

To calculate external dose, OCAS determined annual doses at the facility and accounted for 

missed doses to each individual each year. The highest annual dose was used as the employee’s 

annual dose for 11 years. With this approach, 550 mrem per year were assigned to the claimant. 

For internal dose, no records were located that showed the employee was sampled at the facility. 

The first few years were found to be fairly consistent, which indicates a chronic low-level 

exposure. Incidents in 1960 and 1961 were evident for several individuals. 

Based on the highest exposures in three individuals from each scenario, OCAS models were of 

one chronic and two acute exposures. The maximum annual esophageal dose to the claimant 

was calculated at 16 mrem. The exposure period was assumed to begin on the first day of the 

AEC contract and end on the date of the post-decontamination survey. PoC values represented 

an upper bound limit and were input as constant. The resulting PoC was ~15%. Based on 

coworker data, OCAS is fairly confident the claimant did not receive an exposure from the AWE 

that could result in a PoC anywhere close to 50%. In fact, this claimant’s PoC would be <50% 

even if the true exposure was five times the dose estimate. 

Case D. The dose reconstruction for claimant D used workplace and environmental data; the 

case represents an overestimate of the actual dose received. The claimant was an accounting 

specialist from 1992-1997 with administrative job duties that included bookkeeping, banking, 

billing, and preparing financial statements. Since dosimetry was not required at this work 

location, no dose was reported by DOE. The DOL verified cancer report showed a diagnosis of 

chronic myelogenous leukemia at 53 years of age prior to the end of employment. To determine 

dose, OCAS used environmental report data for the site. 

All of the following assumptions were made based on an attempt to overestimate the dose. 

NIOSH used the highest annual environmental dose from thermoluminescent dosimeters (TLDs), 

taken from the TLD station located between the claimant’s work station and the radiation source. 

19
 
All photons were assumed to be in an energy interval of 30-250 keV, which results in a higher 

PoC than using >250 keV. A DCF was not used to convert deep dose to dose to red bone 

marrow because this factor would have reduced the dose. The highest annual environmental 

perimeter air data were assumed to be represented. All gross alpha activities were assumed to be 

due to plutonium 238; all gross beta activities were assumed to be due to strontium 90. Data 

sources included site environmental reports and DOL reports that verified employment dates, 

cancer and diagnosis date. Based on this information, the annual environmental dose was 

normalized to 2,080 hours per work year. The total dose estimated was 135 mrem over the entire 

employment period. 

In calculating internal dose, OCAS assumed that the highest gross alpha and gross beta 

concentrations were inhaled throughout employment to the diagnosis date. The total dose 

estimated was 36 mrem. Despite all of these claimant-friendly overestimations, the resulting 

PoC was only ~4%. 

General Considerations. To avoid inconsistencies and ensure that contractors use the same 

methodologies as OCAS, a series of bulletins will be issued. This strategy will also provide 

contractors and subcontractors with the most recent data. OCAS plans to eventually consolidate 

the bulletins into technical documents or position papers. 

Several members of the public expressed concerns about the approach used for claimant C. 

Dr. Melius also pointed out that OCAS conducted the dose reconstruction by relying on 

information from a survivor with limited knowledge of the employee’s work activities. 

Moreover, the AWE is no longer in existence and the interview was conducted with an RSO who 

was not employed at the facility. Since facts and information can easily be lost or 

misinterpreted, reliance on coworker monitoring data will present the most significant challenge 

of the five scenarios. Dr. Melius advised that OCAS ensure the maintenance of solid records for 

these types of cases. Dr. Neton confirmed that ORAU will form dose reconstruction teams at 

facilities to strengthen expertise for certain issues. AWEs will most likely be areas for which 

ORAU will develop this specialty. He emphasized that the assumptions OCAS made for 

claimant C were more lenient than the uncertainty analysis approach. 

Residual Contamination Study Progress Report: 

Mr. Calhoun explained that the FY 2002 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) tasked 

NIOSH to undertake a study to evaluate the potential for residual radioactive and beryllium 

contamination at AWEs, and beryllium facilities that processed these materials in support of 

nuclear weapons production. To fulfill this charge, NIOSH would determine whether significant 

contamination remained in any of these facilities after activities related to the production of 

nuclear weapons was discontinued. If significant contamination did remain, NIOSH would 

determine whether it could have caused or substantially contributed to cancer or a covered 

beryllium illness. 

NIOSH implemented a three-part study design. First, information on the DOE OWA web site 

would be reviewed. Second, a snapshot of these data would be used as a reference point for the 

20
 
study. Third, information maintained on the OWA, FUSRAP, and other web sites would be 

reviewed. 

To make its determination, NIOSH classified each facility into one of three categories: 

(1) The documentation reviewed indicates minimal potential for significant residual 

contamination outside the listed period. 

(2) The documentation reviewed indicates potential for significant residual contamination 

outside the listed period. 

(3) The site warrants further investigation. 

NIOSH concluded that most facilities could be classified as category 3. For purposes of the 

study, NIOSH defined “significant” radioactivity using current DOE and National Radiation 

Council contamination standards. 

For radioactive contamination, 117 facilities required additional information, 74 showed minimal 

potential for contamination, and 27 showed significant potential. For beryllium contamination, 8 

facilities required additional information, 32 showed significant potential for contamination, and 

5 showed minimal potential. To advance the study, NIOSH will re-review the OWA web site to 

identify changes in the current and previous snapshot dates. For facilities that require additional 

information, NIOSH will collect more data from site representatives, undertake more document 

searches and conduct on-site visits if necessary. NIOSH believes the study will strengthen the 

site profiles of many facilities. The activity is designed to determine whether the listed dates are 

too restrictive and if more time will be needed for individuals to file claims. 

The floor was opened for members of the public and ABRWH members to weigh in on the 

NIOSH residual contamination study. Mr. Richard Miller, of the Government Accountability 

Project (GAP), explained that he felt NIOSH’s task was incorporated into the NDAA because 

several AWEs were not decontaminated or were poorly decontaminated after operations were 

terminated. This activity is not being conducted in a vacuum; Congress will provide a follow-up 

response after NIOSH has gathered scientific data. However, the public is now demanding 

answers since NIOSH was scheduled to submit the progress report to Congress on June 28, 2002. 

In response to Mr. Michael Schaeffer of the Department of Defense, Mr. Calhoun planned to 

review the records to determine whether the Iowa Army Ammunition Plant is included in the 

study. In the interim, Mr. Calhoun noted that the study includes only AWEs and beryllium 

facilities. To address public concern, Mr. Elliott announced that the progress report is in the 

final HHS clearance process. The document will soon be released to the six subcommittees 

identified in the NDAA. ABRWH will be notified after the progress report is posted on the 

NIOSH web site. 

Ms. Gadola pointed out that the occupational health literature and anecdotal data include some 

accidental spills related to beryllium and radioactive contamination. She questioned whether 

NIOSH has included these scenarios in its investigation. Mr. Calhoun replied that individual 

cases are excluded from the study, but instances in which facilities handled beryllium would be 

21
 
 

covered unless decontamination was documented. Based on the minimal number of beryllium 

facilities with documented decontamination, the possibility of accidental spills after 

decontamination is highly unlikely. 

Update on DOL Activities: 

Mr. Shelby Hallmark is the Director of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program for DOL. He presented data on this activity as of October 3, 2002. 

EEOICPA was enacted on October 30, 2000 and became effective on July 31, 2001; 

amendments were enacted on December 28, 2001. The DOL Secretary presented the first 

compensation payment on August 9, 2001. DOL is undertaking several activities to expedite the 

claims process. Data for subcontractors are being obtained and electronically tracked. DOL is 

working with the Center to Protect Workers’ Rights to obtain employment information on 

construction workers. The Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education (ORISE) database has 

been accessed online to bypass DOE record centers. This allows direct access to the data on 

>400,000 employees. DOL is working with the National Cancer Institute (NCI) to define 

specific cancers, especially as these determinations pertain to the SEC-specified cancers. 

The DOL final rule to implement EEOICPA is expected to be published soon. EEOICPA is 

administered by four DOL district offices with 146 federal staff and 25 contract staff; their 

national office with 29 federal staff and 10 contract staff; and their Final Adjudication Branch 

(FAB) with 36 federal staff and 7 contract staff. In order to balance their workload, DOL is 

working with Congressional representatives to transfer Iowa and Missouri cases from the Denver 

office to the Seattle jurisdiction. The transfer is expected to be completed within the next two 

weeks; all changes will be communicated to claimants. Of the 34,737 claims received, 21,400 

have been for cancer; 1,365 for beryllium sensitivity; 1,239 for CBD (chronic beryllium disease); 

396 for silicosis; 4,029 for Radiation Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) claims; and 7,184 for 

other health effects. DOL expects to receive ~15,000-20,000 claims in FY’03. 

DOL uses a two-stage decision process, consisting of a recommended decision in the district 

offices, and then a final decision from their Final Adjudication Branch (FAB.) Of the nearly 

9,000 claims that have gone through to final decision, 5,477 claims were approved and 3,345 

were denied. Of the >13,000 claims that have reached a recommended decision, 6,272 were 

approved and 7,370 were denied. To date, 8,400 cases were sent to NIOSH for dose 

reconstruction; 4,898 payments were issued; $354.8 million was paid in compensation; and $3.8 

million was paid in medical benefits. DOL realizes that the low figure in medical benefits is due 

to lack of public knowledge and reluctance among physicians to file claims with DOL. 

Claimants and survivors are filing medical bills with private insurance carriers or Medicare, 

despite the fact that eligible expenses are covered by EEOICPA. 

Of the 1,423 cases received in New Mexico to date, 282 were referred to NIOSH; 247 were 

recommended decisions; 125 were final decisions; and ten were paid for a total of $1.5 million. 

New Mexico claims include 724 for cancer, 83 for beryllium sensitivity, 32 for CBD, 6 for 

silicosis and 578 for other health effects. EEOICPA statistics are updated weekly and can be 

accessed on the DOL web site. 

22 
 

Increased outreach efforts are needed to fully explain EEOICPA to the public. DOL is still 

receiving a large number of claims for non-covered medical conditions, but individuals are 

provided with information on where to properly file part B claims. For the fourth quarter in FY 

2002, the average initial processing time was 216 days for AWE and beryllium vendor claims 

and 171 days for DOE and RECA claims. To improve performance, DOL has set initial claims 

processing goals for FY 2003: 75% of AWE and beryllium claims will be completed within 180 

days and 75% of DOE and RECA claims will be completed within 120 days. DOL expects to 

meet FY 2003 goals due to a reduced backlog and redistributed workload. 

In terms of resources, DOL’s current hires will increase staff by ~10%. This level will be 

sufficient since the workload will be current within the next two to three months. In the part B 

program, the current submission of ~250 new claims per week represents a gradual decline from 

the ~500 per week DOL average earlier in the program. DOL will re-evaluate the need for 

additional staff when NIOSH begins returning volumes of cases. 

Drs. Melius and DeHart commented on the need for DOL to strengthen outreach efforts. 

Dr. DeHart pointed out that many patients are unaware EEOICPA covers medications and does 

not require a change in treating physicians. Mr. Hallmark acknowledged that this information 

has not been well publicized. DOL attempts to register existing providers of claimants whose 

cases have been approved. Mr. Ken Silver, of the Los Alamos Project on Worker Safety 

(LAPOWS), made several comments about DOL’s activities. Some New Mexico workers 

diagnosed with beryllium sensitivity reportedly were referred to general practitioners or lung 

specialists in the greater Santa Fe area and received no treatment. 

Due to expertise in Denver and its close proximity to New Mexico, many workers are interested 

in receiving long-term medical monitoring from this facility. Mr. Silver questioned whether 

rejection letters sent to claimants with non-covered conditions explain subtitle D. Mr. Hallmark 

explained that DOL is attempting to develop a logical process to treat New Mexico workers 

diagnosed with beryllium sensitivity. The National Jewish Center may still be the closest and 

most appropriate facility. DOL disseminated rejection letters with no reference to subtitle D 

early in the process, but a policy was established six or eight months ago to incorporate language 

directing claimants to the DOE program. 

Public Comment Period: 

Mr. Jonathan Garcia buried radioactive material during his employment at Los Alamos National 

Laboratory (LANL) as a heavy equipment operator. He was diagnosed with leukemia and 

received a bone marrow transplant. Several comments made during the telephone interview 

were not captured in the written document. He inquired whether claimant interviews are 

recorded. NIOSH is exploring the possibility of recording claimant interviews for quality 

purposes, but this has not been done to date. Mr. Elliott noted that claimants are given the 

opportunity to edit the written record of their interview and return the corrected version to 

NIOSH. 

Mr. Ben Ortiz of LAPOWS was a LANL worker from 1969-1989 and became ill after his 

occupational exposures to toxic substances. Although LANL physicians told him that his 

23
 
symptoms were “imaginary,” he reported that he has repeatedly suffered from severe sinus 

infections, bronchial asthma, dizziness, nausea, chronic insomnia, and flu-like symptoms. He 

added that his private physicians never asked for an occupational history. Finally, Mr. Ortiz said 

that he was placed on medical leave in 1988 and was diagnosed with solvent encephalopathy 

(neurological disease associated with exposure to solvents), restricted airways and “industrial 

intoxication.” 

Mr. Ortiz reported that it took seven months of medical leave for his system to become 

detoxified, but that his liver, kidneys, and eyes are still damaged. Similar to SEC cases, he 

emphasized the need for persons injured by exposure to toxic substances to be recognized as 

well. During his 20-year employment, no safety meetings on hazards or chemicals were held 

and no protective clothing was provided. Mr. Ortiz also requested assistance in filing claims for 

medical expenses. Mr. Hallmark provided Mr. Ortiz with contact information for the DOE 

Workers’ Compensation Program. 

Mr. Ken Silver of LAPOWS made several observations about the agenda items: 

 First, many LANL workers have encountered difficulties with the New Mexico Workers’ 

Compensation Program. If appropriations were increased, he asked if DOL would be 

amenable to managing a single payer system for other toxic chemical claims. In 

response, Mr. Hallmark noted that the question pertains to pending legislation, and that 

DOL is not in a position to comment. 

 Second, during data reviews and claimant interviews on radiation exposures, a 

bibliography of toxic chemical exposures at LANL and other sites should also be 

developed and maintained. The data set should be attached to the site profile for public 

access. The bibliography could then be expanded by others as Subtitle D of the 

legislation is improved. 

 Third, many LANL workers were first exposed to radiation at the Nevada Test Site, the 

Pacific Test Program and other areas, but the legislation does not support combining 

these doses with doses covered under EEOICPA. This restriction precludes many LANL 

workers from obtaining justice. 

 Fourth, LAPOWS is quite concerned that ORAU is a major DOE contractor and has 

admitted having major conflicts of interest. 

 Fifth, former LANL workers represent a wealth of knowledge, but expertise from these 

sources is excluded from formal models used by health physicists. LAPOWS plans to 

closely monitor the dose reconstruction process to ensure workers are respected. 

 Sixth, to ensure credibility with the public, Dr. John Till of Risk Assessment Corporation, 

and other radiation experts whose integrity is well known should be included in the 

auditing process. 

24 
 Seventh, the ability to document exposures and work processes has presented a 

significant barrier to claimants and survivors. The collection of occurrence reports at 

LANL is one of the largest and most informative data sets, but has never been available 

to the public. LAPOWS recently filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request to 

obtain the entire collection of occurrence reports for eventual placement in the public 

domain. Members of the public will be encouraged to add individual recollections to the 

data set. 

Mr. Richard Miller of GAP addressed several internal issues. He opined that if ABRWH is not 

able to assist NIOSH in obtaining more full time employees for the dose reconstruction process, 

Congressional delegates could perhaps influence CDC to provide 25 additional staff members. 

With only four health physicists on the NIOSH staff, the need for additional personnel is quite 

obvious. He inquired about NIOSH’s process to implement conflict of interest provisions. The 

dose reconstruction contract requires ORAU to make public disclosures only at the direction of 

NIOSH. ABRWH should develop a simple, transparent, and thorough system because a 

claimant’s right to know outweighs the privacy rights of individuals who are conducting public 

activities. 

Mr. Miller asked about NIOSH’s procedure for persons with concerns about conflicts of interest 

to seek recourse, such as allowing claimants to select dose reconstructionists for their individual 

cases. He also questioned whether ORAU’s proposal in response to the RFP will be made 

available to the public. NIOSH plans to contact DOE sources and corporate groups to complete 

the Section 3152 Report for the residual contamination study. Mr. Miller conveyed that workers, 

Congressional delegates, state regulatory agencies, and ABRWH members who were employed 

at DOE facilities can also serve as valuable sources to fill data gaps. No community outreach 

has been conducted, to date, to publicize this activity. 

Mr. Elliott responded to Mr. Miller’s questions and comments. OCAS will need additional staff 

as soon as ORAU is completing a large number of dose reconstructions per week. A NIOSH 

public health advisor and an ORAU point of contact will be assigned to each case file to respond 

to questions and concerns raised by claimants regarding conflict of interest issues and progress 

on the claim. NIOSH and ORAU will closely collaborate to develop and implement policies and 

procedures to address claimant concerns. The selection of dose reconstructionists by claimants is 

not an option, but NIOSH will make a reassignment if concerns are valid. NIOSH plans to 

release ORAU’s proposal to the public, but the document is now being reviewed to delete 

proprietary information. Mr. Elliott confirmed that NIOSH will solicit input from other data 

sources while conducting the residual contamination study. 

Mr. Jerry Leyba is a former LANL radiological control technician who handled several different 

radionuclides during his employment, and currently is a representative of the University 

Professional Technical Employees (UPTE.) UPTE is conducting an organizing drive at LANL. 

Mr. Leyba questioned the rationale for applying radio-epidemiological data gathered in Japan to 

the IREP model. This methodology, he stated, is inappropriate for U.S. nuclear workers; data 

from the 12 nuclear facilities in the DOE complex should be used instead. Secondly, he 

25 
expressed concerns about conflicts of interest admitted by ORAU; claimants have a right to 

know all aspects of the dose reconstruction from the time their cases are assigned. 

Mr. Leyba also inquired about the petition process and guidelines that will be established if 

LANL becomes a part of the SEC. He urged NIOSH to assist workers who died or are currently 

suffering from cancer while serving their country. He noted several problems with the current 

system. He stated that many workers have not filed an EEOICPA claim due to intimidation by 

management and fear of job loss. He added that because of budget constraints DOE will only 

pay for a medical review or a medical examination, but not both. Although EEOICPA was 

established for the people, the burden of proving disease is unfairly placed on the claimant. 

Ms. Epithenial Hawkins, Ms. Betty Jean Shinus and Ms. Gloria Tribio are sisters whose father 

was employed by LANL for 35 years as a sheet metal worker. Their father died of throat cancer; 

they commented on the claims process from a survivor’s perspective. The sisters stated that the 

questionnaire is virtually impossible to complete since survivors are unable to answer for a 

deceased worker. The questionnaire is also unnecessary because exposure is a given, 

particularly since their father worked in “hot spots” at the facility. Moreover, NIOSH should be 

able to determine exposure from dosimetry records. 

They added that LANL implemented no safety measures, provided no protective equipment, and 

did not regularly monitor workers. Overall, the questionnaire complicates the dose 

reconstruction process. Instead of placing the burden of proof on survivors, the government 

should prove that workers were not exposed. The sisters posed several questions about the dose 

reconstruction process related to extreme delays in completing claims; cumulative effects from 

nuclear exposure; types of cancer and affected organs; and workers who can assist survivors in 

completing the questionnaire. The sisters noted that many workers will not become involved in 

the dose reconstruction process due to fear of job loss. 

Mr. Elliott, Dr. Neton and Dr. Ziemer responded to the sisters’ questions and comments. The 

questionnaire is technical and scientific in nature, but is designed to assist NIOSH in determining 

exposure. There is a separate questionnaire written specifically for survivors, however, and this 

questionnaire is designed to collect information about coworkers or other persons with 

knowledge about the employee’s work activities. The burden is not placed on survivors to 

contact coworkers of the deceased claimant. If survivors provide NIOSH with names of 

coworkers, the agency will make the contacts and conduct the interviews. 

In addition to dosimetry records and other technical information, survivors are encouraged to 

provide photographs, recount stories the worker shared with family members, or submit a written 

description of work activities. Survivors should provide all information, even if non-technical 

and/or anecdotal, that may be relevant to the claim. Anecdotal data are beneficial to the process 

and will be included in the claimant’s file for consideration during the dose reconstruction. 

NIOSH welcomes input on mechanisms to simplify the questionnaire and also encourages 

feedback on difficulties in completing the document. With respect to delays in claims 

processing, NIOSH awarded the dose reconstruction contract to ORAU on September 11, 2002. 

26
 
Provisions of the contract require the completion of at least 8,000 dose reconstructions per year. 

ORAU’s capacity to adhere to this time-line depends on obtaining complete records from DOE. 

However, claims that currently have sufficient information will be identified and processed more 

quickly by ORAU. A decision by a claimant or survivor to decline the telephone interview will 

not delay processing of the claim. 

In terms of the dose reconstruction process, 5 rem is the current annual regulatory limit for DOE 

workers. Instead of relying on this estimate, however, NIOSH calculates each individual dose 

from a variety of sources, including input from the claimant and occupational exposure records. 

IREP is used to calculate the probability that a worker’s cancer was caused by occupational 

exposure to radiation. Cancer in any particular organ is calculated using cancer-specific risk 

models. In identifying missing doses and filling data gaps to conduct dose reconstructions, 

NIOSH takes a “worker-friendly” approach. Mr. Espinosa confirmed that several workers who 

were employed at LANL during the same time as the sisters’ father currently live in Espanola or 

Santa Fe, New Mexico. These workers can provide assistance in completing the questionnaire. 

Mr. Robert Tabor is a member of the Fernald Atomic Trades and Labor Council and worked for 

22 years at the site. He questioned whether credibility can be maintained if the contractor 

selected to support ABRWH has working relationships with DOE and NIOSH. To avoid public 

suspicion of the contractor’s integrity, a knowledgeable, credible, and well-recognized group 

must be selected. The contractor’s business should be related only to the audit. 

Ms. Joni Arends is a Waste Programs Director for Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety 

(CCNS) in Sante Fe, New Mexico. In May 2002, CCNS commissioned Steve Wing and David 

Richardson to develop a report on occupational health studies at LANL. Ms. Arends distributed 

copies of this document. 

Mr. Floyd Archileta manages the Resource Center in Espanola, New Mexico. The center 

provides claims assistance to LANL, Pantex, Sandia National Laboratories and several small 

facilities in New Mexico. Case workers are available for initial claims intake and follow-up 

activities after claims are filed, such as translating NIOSH telephone interviews from English to 

Spanish. The Center’s office at LANL is open two days per week. 

Mr. Rob Hager is an attorney who litigated the Karen Silkwood case and the Harding case in 

Paducah. He noted that Steve Wing’s study at Oak Ridge was introduced as evidence during the 

Harding case, and he urged NIOSH and ABRWH to take a close look at Steve Wing’s work. 

Follow-up remarks were made by the agencies in response to the public comments. 

Mr. Hallmark emphasized that any individual with a covered condition should feel free to file a 

claim without fear of reprisal or other negative impact. He responded to Mr. Leyba’s comment 

that only ten of 1,172 claims filed in Espanola have been compensated to date. Virtually all 

LANL claims that are eligible for the DOL program have been referred to the NIOSH dose 

reconstruction program. DOL cannot complete the outstanding LANL claims until the NIOSH 

process has been fully developed. 

27 
 

Mr. Elliott addressed concerns raised by the public about conflict of interest and the dose 

reconstruction contract. An “apparent” or “obvious” conflict of interest is one in which a person 

serves in a position and commits an act out of self-motivation that adversely affects an outcome. 

NIOSH’s goal is to have no conflicts of interest of this nature. A “perceived” conflict of interest 

is one in which an individual’s former affiliation creates a perception among the general public 

that such an act could be committed. NIOSH is closely collaborating with ORAU to address 

both types of conflict of interest, and goals have been established to resolve these issues. 

There being no further discussion, Dr. Ziemer recessed the ABRWH meeting at 5:17 p.m. on 

October 15, 2002. 

October 16, 2002 

Dr. Ziemer reconvened the ABRWH meeting at 8:35 a.m. on October 16, 2002 and yielded the 

floor to the first speaker, Dr. Neton. 

Site Profile Development Status Report: 

Site profile data typically refers to data not linked to an individual. For the purposes of this 

program, any sample that was not taken directly on the person is considered to be site profile 

data. These data include internal and external dosimetry profile data, environmental monitoring 

data, diagnostic x-ray information, area monitoring data, and process descriptions and source 

terms. 

External data include dosimetry change-out frequency, the lower limits of detection for those 

devices, and assumed quality factors that were historically used at sites. Internal data include the 

type and frequency of monitoring performed, detection limits, radionuclides monitored, and 

descriptions of techniques used. For environmental data, annual reports are the most common 

source, but environmental TLDs and air samples are of primary interest as well. Environmental 

data must be used in all cases with a likely PoC of <50% after considering all other dose sources. 

Diagnostic x-ray data include the frequency and type of examination, x-ray machine settings 

and/or entrance skin dose. However, NIOSH will request actual x-rays if this information is 

needed. Examinations must have been conducted as a condition of employment to be 

considered. For example, x-rays received during annual physicals are considered, but those 

taken for illness or injury are not. As is the case with environmental data, diagnostic x-rays must 

be used in all cases with <50% PoC to give the claimant the benefit of the doubt for all possible 

dose sources. 

Examples of area monitoring, process descriptions and source terms include area TLDs and type 

and quantity of material processed. These data sources are typically used only when personnel 

or coworker data are unavailable. With the exception of process descriptions, only a minimal 

amount of this type of information has been captured to date. However, ORAU is expected to 

collect more area monitoring and source term data within the next two months. NIOSH has 

received data from 15 of the major DOE sites, but none of the sites has submitted everything 

NIOSH needs. A shared directory has been established for all dose reconstructionists to access 

28
 
 

data; a 10-Gb electronic archive of digitized reports is being developed as well. NIOSH is 

collaborating with ORAU to create a web-based interface. 

The majority of data gaps are for environmental and internal monitoring data, while the greatest 

amount of information has been collected for external data. Medical x-ray data have 

significantly improved since site profiles were initially developed. Two full-time NIOSH 

employees are entering information into the database and verifying records, but ORAU will soon 

undertake this task. NIOSH is exploring mechanisms for ORAU to obtain data directly from 

sites instead of collecting information from DOE. At this time, however, NIOSH is still required 

to obtain personnel monitoring data from DOE operations offices. Data obtained from AWE 

facilities are highly variable from site to site with amounts ranging from no information to 

limited personnel dosimetry. Area monitoring, process descriptions, and source terms are 

sometimes available. To date, NIOSH has captured data from the Oak Ridge vaults and the DOE 

OWA. A data capture effort is planned for the EML in New York City. 

ABRWH weighed in on NIOSH’s efforts in developing site profiles. Dr. Ziemer inquired 

whether upwind and downwind air samples are captured in environmental data to determine 

contribution by a particular site. He also asked if incident reports are captured in the site 

profiles. Drs. Melius and Ziemer noted that chemical exposures will inevitably be uncovered 

during data capture efforts. NIOSH should develop a process to maintain “other exposure” data 

since these types of exposures also play a role in persons with cancer. Mr. Gibson inquired 

whether NIOSH has adequate personnel with Q clearances to gather classified data on isotopes. 

Mr. Griffon advised NIOSH to integrate site profiles and the occupational exposure matrix. This 

strategy could ensure that data from building processes, jobs and source terms are consistent with 

the worker profile database. 

Dr. Neton answered ABRWH’s questions as follows. NIOSH is obtaining air samples from 

sites, but these data have not been reviewed in terms of upwind or downwind direction. More 

emphasis is placed on an individual’s location in relation to where an air sample was taken. In 

maintaining its claimant-friendly approach, NIOSH then assumes that the highest measured 

location represents the air sample environment for the individual. Incident reports are included 

in personnel monitoring data, but are excluded from site profiles. However, NIOSH will 

consider whether incident reports for certain classes of workers should be captured in the 

occupational exposure matrix. 

The matrix is a separate but complimentary activity from the site profiles and will be designed to 

maintain workgroup monitoring data by job, site, year, and building. The occupational exposure 

matrix is in the very early stages of development, but coworker data in terms of air monitoring, 

TLD, and bioassay results will be the main sources. NIOSH presently has no plans to capture 

chemical exposures in either the site profile or occupational exposure matrix. Both NIOSH and 

ORAU have staff with Q clearances. 

Special Government Employees’ Interactions With the Public: 

Mr. David Naimon, of the HHS Office of General Counsel (OGC), explained that a special 

government employee (SGE) is “an officer or employee in the executive branch of the federal 

29
 
government who is appointed to perform temporary duties, with or without compensation, for a 

period not to exceed 130 days during any period of 365 consecutive days.” All ABRWH 

members are SGEs. Employees, including SGEs, are barred from acting as an agent or attorney 

for a specific party before any government agency in any particular matter in which the United 

States is a party or has a direct and substantial interest. This language applies whether or not the 

employee solicits or accepts compensation for such services. 

The Office of Government Ethics has established standards of ethical conduct for employees of 

the executive branch. “Employees shall act impartially and not give preferential treatment to any 

private organization or individual.” “An employee shall not use his public office for his own 

private gain ... or for the private gain of friends, relatives or persons with whom the employee is 

affiliated in non-governmental capacity.” “An employee shall not ... allow the improper use of 

non-public information to further his own private interests or that of another, whether through 

advice or recommendation, or by knowing, unauthorized disclosure.” 

The Privacy Act is a withholding statute that prohibits disclosure to any third party without the 

written consent of the individual to whom the record pertains unless one of the statutory 

exceptions applies. An individual’s name, social security number, date of birth, and medical 

history are examples of information protected by the Privacy Act. Under the Privacy Act, 

persons can sue to access records and seek compensation if they are harmed by disclosures. A 

civil penalty for improper disclosure could result in monetary damages plus attorney fees if the 

plaintiff substantially prevails. A criminal penalty for improper disclosure is a willful violation 

by an agency employee (including SGEs) and is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more 

than $5,000. To assist ABRWH members in appropriately interacting with the public, 

HHS/OGC offered guidelines for several scenarios. 

Scenario 1: ABRWH members may not speak on behalf of the Agency, or the Department. 

They also cannot speak on behalf of the ABRWH, unless a majority of ABRWH members 

approved the position. Potential question: “What is the agency’s position on the SEC?” Possible 

responses: 

 We believe everyone should be in the SEC. [Inappropriate answer] 

 No one will get into the SEC. [Inappropriate answer] 

 I cannot speak for ABRWH or the agency, but ABRWH sent a letter on this topic that 

OCAS would be glad to send you. [Appropriate answer, but avoid providing details of 

the letter, lest the details be incorrectly stated] 

 I am sorry I cannot speak on behalf of the agency or the department; you should contact 

OCAS. [Safest answer] 

Scenario 2: ABRWH members should not speak about the merits of individual claims with 

anyone, including the individual claimant, whether the information was learned at an ABRWH 

meeting or otherwise. Potential question: “I heard you reviewed a dose reconstruction similar to 

mine at an ABRWH meeting that was paid. Why was I not paid?” Possible responses: 

 Your dose was too low. [Inappropriate answer] 

30 
 OCAS could not do your dose reconstruction. [Inappropriate answer] 

 I am sorry, but as an ABRWH member, I must remain impartial. 

Therefore, I cannot discuss individual claims with anyone. OCAS will contact you 

to discuss your dose reconstruction report and what it means. [Safest answer] 

Scenario 3: ABRWH members may discuss public information and refer all requests for 

information to the OCAS web site or office. Potential question: “Can you tell me what I have to 

do to qualify for compensation?” Possible responses: 

 You need to have a minimum of 300 mrem of dose per year. [Inappropriate answer] 

 You have to gather all of your records and send them to OCAS. [Inappropriate answer] 

 The law states you can get compensation if it is shown that it was as likely as not that 

your cancer was caused by your work-related radiation exposure. Contact OCAS for 

more details. [Appropriate answer, provided that the law is accurately cited] 

 Each case is different. You should contact OCAS or DOL to discuss the merits of your 

claim. [Safest answer] 

Scenario 4: To protect personal privacy, ABRWH members should avoid speculating on the 

identity of claimants from dose reconstruction reviews. Potential question: “The last dose 

reconstruction was from location X. Do you think it was John Doe’s?” Possible responses: 

 Yes, I am sure I remember him being in that job during that event. [Inappropriate 

answer] 

 No, it was Jane Public’s. I remember her describing that event to me over lunch the day 

after it happened. [Inappropriate answer] 

 I am sorry, but as a member of ABRWH, I am not allowed to discuss the identity 

of any claimant. [Safest answer] 

Scenario 5: ABRWH members should not speculate about dose reconstruction issues or SEC 

petitions, but should stick to the facts and direct questions to OCAS. Potential question: “Why is 

OCAS taking so long to do my dose reconstruction?” Possible responses: 

 DOE is taking too long to get OCAS records. [Inappropriate answer] 

 NIOSH has recently hired a contractor to assist with dose reconstructions, which should 

greatly speed up the process. [Appropriate answer, but caution should be exercised in 

relaying any information that might be possessed by virtue of being on the Board; in 

addition, speculation by a Board member will be treated differently by the listener] 

 I cannot speak for the agency. You should contact OCAS to discuss your concern and 

get the most up-to-date information. [Safest answer] 

Scenario 6: ABRWH members should not attempt to predict future agency or ABRWH actions. 

Speculations may give the impression that the agency or ABRWH decided an issue prior to full 

presentation of the topic and relevant data. Views sometimes change and making public 

comments before a decision is made could be premature or misleading. Potential question: 

31
 
“When will HHS issue the SEC Final Rule and when will ABRWH take action on my SEC 

petition?” Possible responses: 

 We expect the regulation to be issued in December and we will take up your petition in 

January. [Inappropriate answer] 

 Your petition looks great. I am sure there will be no problem once the rule takes effect 

and we get your petition on the agenda. [Inappropriate answer] 

 I am sorry, but it would be inappropriate for me as an ABRWH member to try to predict 

future actions by the agency or ABRWH. [Safest answer] 

Scenario 7: ABRWH members may not assist claimants in filing individual or SEC claims. 

Claimants should instead be directed to the proper agency for assistance. Potential question: 

“Can you help me fill out my claim form? Question 6 is confusing to me.” Possible responses: 

 Sure, let me have it and I will bring it in tomorrow with the answer filled in. 

[Inappropriate answer] 

 Let’s have lunch and fill in the missing information. [Inappropriate answer] 

 I am sorry, but as an ABRWH member, I must remain impartial and cannot assist you 

with your individual claim. You should contact DOL, DOE or OCAS for assistance. 

[Safest answer] 

Scenario 8: ABRWH members may be fact witnesses when they have personal knowledge. To 

avoid the appearance of preferential treatment, members may not use their ABRWH affiliation in 

providing factual information. Potential question: “Can you tell DOL that my deceased spouse 

worked at location B from 1955-1967? You were there and I do not have any records.” Possible 

responses: 

 I am an ABRWH member and will be happy to call DOL and tell them. [Inappropriate 

answer] 

 Yes, I may sign an affidavit to that effect as a fact witness. [Appropriate answer in those 

rare situations where it would be a disservice to the claimant not to sign the affidavit, but 

it could also create the perception of favoritism] 

 I am sorry, but as an ABRWH member, I should not get involved in individual claims. It 

would be better if you could get someone else to do this. [Safest answer] 

Except as a fact witness, ABRWH members should not specifically assist persons with their 

claims, use their position to advance any claim, or share any confidential information. ABRWH 

members should explain that any information they are sharing is publicly available, may be 

incomplete, and is not official. The information is from their personal memory and more 

complete or official data can be obtained from OCAS. ABRWH members who make public 

statements should clarify they are speaking as an individual and not for the agency or ABRWH. 

These guidelines also apply to media or Congressional inquiries. Media inquiries may be 

referred to Mr. Fred Blosser, NIOSH Public Affairs Officer, and Congressional inquiries may be 

referred to Mr. Elliott. If ABRWH members choose to respond directly to the media or to 

Congress, they may first consult with Mr. Blosser or Mr. Elliott. 

32 
IREP Update: 

Mr. Russ Henshaw of OCAS provided a status report on cancer latency models for leukemia and 

thyroid cancer. For purposes of IREP (Interactive Radio Epidemiological Program), “latency” is 

defined as the interval between exposure and diagnosis. The current IREP model assumes that 

two- and three-year minimum latency periods are necessary for induction of leukemia and 

thyroid cancer, respectively. These have been more or less traditional assumptions in cancer risk 

modeling, based on the notion that induction of cancer within those time periods is biologically 

implausible. Thus, the PoC is 0% for all four leukemia models for any time since exposure 

(TSE) that is less than two years and 0% for the thyroid cancer model for any TSE that is less 

than three years. For other IREP cancer models, non-zero PoC values are produced at all TSEs. 

In mid-July 2002, NIOSH began to reconsider minimum latency assumptions in IREP for 

leukemia and thyroid cancer. This review was prompted by a dose reconstruction on a leukemia 

claim. In late July 2002, NIOSH determined that at least some non-zero risk should be factored 

into all cancer models at all TSEs. This conclusion led to discussions with SENES Oak Ridge, 

Inc., the group that created IREP. In collaboration with Dr. Charles Land of NCI, SENES 

developed new alternative latency models for thyroid cancer and leukemia in August, 2002. 

After NIOSH and NCI reviewed the alternative models in September 2002, NCI reportedly 

proposed that these new models be incorporated into their version of IREP, known as NCI-IREP. 

The proposed latency revisions would adjust leukemia and thyroid cancer models to allow nonzero risk at all TSEs; modify IREP by incorporating S-shaped latency reduction functions; and 

factor in uncertainty around the midpoints of the S-shaped functions. “Midpoints” would be set 

at three years for leukemia and five years for thyroid cancer. IREP programming for the 

proposed revisions is “ready to go,” but has not yet been implemented. It is expected that NCI 

will send a letter to NIOSH to confirm adoption of the new models. NIOSH has not yet made a 

decision on the proposed revisions because the agency is not comfortable with making changes 

that would result in a decreased PoC (compared to the current model) for any TSE. Although the 

proposed leukemia latency adjustment model would result in less of a reduction at four years 

TSE (i.e., more claimant-friendly), it would produce a greater reduction (less claimant-friendly) 

at two years TSE. 

The epidemiological evidence for the “minimum latency” assumption is based primarily on data 

from the Life Span Study, a joint U.S.-Japan long term study of Japanese atomic-bomb 

survivors. The data on minimum latency, however, are somewhat ambiguous. There is no hard 

evidence, for example, for the shape of the proposed S-curve; the model is based on expert 

judgment by Dr. Land and SENES. A valid and plausible minimum latency cutoff point is also 

an uncertainty. The proposed leukemia model has no graduated reduction between years. No 

risk is factored in below the two-year point in the current model. In the proposed thyroid latency 

adjustment model, the reduction factor is more claimant-friendly at six years TSE but less at 

three and four years. NIOSH is also uncomfortable with this proposed adjustment, again because 

PoC would be lower at some TSEs. Uncertainty in the proposed thyroid model is at the five-year 

point with the S-curve shifting at the midpoint by +40%. 

33 
To illustrate the effect on PoC for leukemia, NIOSH compared the current IREP and proposed 

models using the following data inputs: male born in 1930, diagnosis in 1980, acute exposure of 

50 rem and constant dose of photons >250KeV. The current model resulted in a slightly higher 

PoC at year 2 of time since exposure, but the proposed model showed a slightly higher PoC at 

years 3 and 4 of time since exposure. With the correct IREP code and an increased sample size 

of 2,000, higher PoC at latency periods >=5 years was no longer present in the current model. 

These adjustments also showed a slightly larger PoC of <0.1% at all points in the proposed 

model. 

Mr. Henshaw also noted that NIOSH will direct SENES to increase the default sample size from 

1,000 to 2,000 in the online version of NIOSH-IREP. This will be consistent with the sample 

size used by DOL to adjudicate claims. It had been set at 1,000 during the trial and public 

comment period for reasons of processing time, but SENES has since then greatly improved the 

processing speed. 

At this time, NIOSH is faced with three options for IREP. First, one or both new latency 

functions reportedly favored by NCI could be adopted by NIOSH without modification. Second, 

NIOSH-IREP could be modified to allow non-zero risk at all TSEs, but differently than NCIIREP; for example, NIOSH-IREP could be adjusted to ensure that the upper 99% PoC does not 

decrease compared to the current version at any TSE. A third option is that the current minimum 

latency assumptions could remain the same; in that case, NIOSH-IREP would not be modified. 

Mr. Henshaw noted, however, that NIOSH is not seriously considering option three. 

Dr. Ziemer commented that the members previously agreed to accept NCI’s model as the basis 

for IREP, but the Rule suggests that significant changes in the model should be presented to 

ABRWH for input. After NCI provides NIOSH with its formal IREP recommendations, 

ABRWH may be asked to provide feedback. 

Dr. Ziemer opened the floor for the members to react to the proposed latency adjustment models. 

Ms. Munn inquired about NIOSH’s confidence that its estimate would be better than NCI’s; 

major policy changes should not be based on the claim that prompted the NIOSH/SENES 

discussions since the claimant does not represent a significant portion of workers. Of the three 

options, Ms. Munn supported option two. Dr. Roessler asked if the proposed change would have 

any effect on the current exclusion of chronic lymphocytic leukemia. Dr. Anderson expressed 

concerns about the contributions of cumulative exposures relative to when the malignancy first 

occurred. Dr. DeHart asked if NIOSH could estimate what impact the model change would have 

on the total claimant population. Ms. Gadola noted that including an absolute two- or three-year 

latency period in the models is inappropriate due to differences when individuals present to 

physicians. She was pleased that NIOSH is reviewing this factor in the NCI-IREP. Dr. Melius 

suggested that a workgroup be formed to prioritize IREP issues and assist ABRWH in 

formulating recommendations on the proposed models. 

Mr. Henshaw responded to questions posed by Ms. Munn and by Drs. Anderson, Roessler, and 

DeHart. IREP provides no opportunity to factor in the time between disease onset and diagnosis. 

34
 
 

Only the actual date of diagnosis documented in the claimant’s record is considered. The Rule 

assumes that the PoC for chronic lymphocytic leukemia is zero. This cancer is the only one 

excluded from compensation; this will not be changed by the proposed leukemia latency model. 

Mr. Elliott and Mr. Henshaw provided additional clarification in response to ABRWH’s 

deliberations. If NIOSH selects option two and thereby deviates from NCI’s reported position, 

the decision to do so would be based on policy rather than science. This approach would be 

consistent with NIOSH’s intent to use sound science to the fullest extent possible, but to err on 

the side of claimant-friendliness when scientific evidence is inadequate. For example, in the 

claim that initiated the NIOSH/SENES latency discussion, the worker’s cumulative exposures 

after the two-year latency period resulted in a PoC of ~35%. Revising NIOSH-IREP by 

including additional exposures in the cumulative total could change the claim from noncompensable to compensable. 

NIOSH has not yet received written confirmation that NCI will adopt the revised latency 

adjustment models. The Department of Veteran’s Affairs (VA) reviewed technical documents 

that are the basis of support for NCI-IREP and recently submitted comments to HHS. The final 

version of NCI-IREP as well as NIOSH’s recommendations will be announced at the first 

scheduled ABRWH meeting after such information is available. 

ABRWH Working Session 

Review of Minutes: 

Dr. Ziemer entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the sixth meeting on 

August 14-15, 2002. 

 Page 4: Add “Dr. Anderson” and “Dr. Ziemer” to “the SEC Workgroup (Dr. Andrade, 

Ms. Munn and Ms. Gadola).” 

 Page 5/7, Executive Summary: Change “will proceed from the IREP data” to “will 

proceed with raw case file data.” 

 Page 15: Change the sentence to “Mr. Lawson now works with the medical screening 

program ...” 

A motion was properly made and seconded by voting members. There being no objections, 

abstentions or further discussion, the Minutes of the Sixth ABRWH Meeting were unanimously 

approved with the changes as noted in the record and the caveat that members can submit 

additional minor grammatical revisions. 

Dr. Ziemer entertained a motion to approve the minutes of the seventh meeting, which had been 

conducted via conference call on August 22, 2002. 

 Page 2: Change the sentence to “Mr. Mike Gibson and Mr. Leon Owens, new ABRWH 

members approved by the White House ...” 

 Page 2: Move “Mr. Frank Morales” to “Members of the public or others attending the 

call were.” Add “(GAP)” as Mr. Morales’s affiliation. 

 Attachments: Add “draft” to Attachments 1, 2 and 3. 

35 
A motion was properly made and seconded by voting members. There being no objections, 

abstentions or further discussion, the Minutes of the Seventh ABRWH Meeting were unanimously 

approved with the changes as noted in the record and the caveat that members can submit 

additional minor grammatical revisions. 

Dose Reconstruction Contract: 

To facilitate the discussion, ORAU’s written policy on conflict of interest for dose reconstruction 

under EEOICPA was distributed to the members. Dr. Melius proposed that ABRWH make 

recommendations in three areas: conflict of interest procedures for the ORAU contract; 

mechanisms to inform claimants about dose reconstructionists; and information to distribute to 

claimants or post on the OCAS web site. He suggested that the following information be 

provided to each claimant at the time a dose reconstructionist is assigned to a case: ORAU’s 

Individual Disclosure and Agreement Form; the contractor’s work history and education; and 

directions for claimants to express conflict of interest concerns. ABRWH members weighed in 

on Dr. Melius’s comments as follows: 

 Design biographical sketches to be concise and limit text to one page or less. Simply 

include the dose reconstructionist’s name, abbreviated curriculum vitae, specific projects 

and NIOSH contact information. Exclude signatures, social security numbers, home 

addresses, family information, and other personal data. 

 Inform claimants in writing that conflict of interest was reviewed, but that no conflicts 

were identified. Include a disclaimer that only NIOSH can assign dose reconstructionists. 

Send a more detailed work history only at the request of the claimant. 

 Disseminate information up front to claimants to establish trust. Include information 

about the primary supervisor/reviewer of the dose reconstruction and also the NIOSH 

staff person assigned to oversee the case. Use this approach to address public concerns 

about ORAU’s working relationship with DOE. 

 Add “plaintiff or claimant” after “expert witnesses” on page 3 of the ORAU conflict of 

interest policy. Mr. Miller explained the legislative purpose for omitting this language. 

Alternatively, delete “on behalf of DOE or a DOE contractor.” 

Mr. Toohey clarified that removing this text will eliminate Dade Moeller & Associates 

and many other contractors currently in the dose reconstruction pool. After these 

clarifications, ABRWH generally agreed not to change this section. 

Mr. Elliott and Dr. Neton made follow-up comments in response to ABRWH’s deliberations on 

the dose reconstruction contract. Distributing detailed biographical sketches may prompt 

claimants to “shop around” for dose reconstructionists. The work history should be limited to 

information that is relevant to potential conflicts of interest. NIOSH has not yet developed a 

process to identify the reviewer, supervisor and NIOSH public health advisor at the time the dose 

reconstruction is assigned, but a brief summary of the conflict of interest plan could be included 

in letters to claimants. 

ORAU will assign primary reviewers to claims, but NIOSH will oversee the process and reserve 

the right to make reassignments and listen to concerns raised by claimants. Issues related to the 

36
 
Privacy Act and provisions of the ORAU contract must be addressed before information about 

primary reviewers can be posted on the OCAS or ORAU web site. Dr. Toohey provided 

additional comments on conflict of interest issues. The ORISE contract is a collection of 

scientific, educational and emergency management programs for DOE. He stated for the record 

that ORISE is not an M&O contractor. 

Drs. Andrade and Melius made formal recommendations, but Dr. Andrade deferred to 

Dr. Melius’s version as the official motion. “ABRWH recommends that NIOSH make available 

to each claimant information about the contract personnel doing his or her dose reconstruction 

and the primary reviewer of that dose reconstruction. The information should include a brief 

summary of educational and professional qualifications of these individuals, previous 

DOE/contractor employment and expert witness participation. The summary should be 

accompanied by a letter from NIOSH or the contractor outlining procedures for assigning dose 

reconstruction personnel and the procedures for claimants to express concerns about the 

assignment.” The motion was properly seconded by a voting member and unanimously carried. 

Dr. Melius made a motion for “NIOSH to make available on its web site background information 

and previous work histories of all contract personnel involved with dose reconstructions and 

reviews.” The motion was properly seconded by a voting member and unanimously carried. 

ABRWH agreed that this information should be posted on the web site only to the extent legally 

possible. 

RFP for the ABRWH Contractor: 

Mr. Griffon pointed out that two drafts were distributed to the members describing the 

contractor’s scope of work and technical evaluation criteria to review proposals. The workgroup 

did not reach agreement on whether to incorporate language in the RFP to eliminate two types of 

bidders: those who ever participated in the litigation of DOE worker’s compensation or 

radiation-related claims and those who worked with DOE, ORAU, an AWE facility or DOE 

contractor in the last five years. The workgroup realizes that these restrictions will significantly 

decrease the pool of current dose reconstruction contractors. ABRWH weighed in on the drafts, 

the procurement mechanism for the contractor to complete each task, and the process to finalize 

the documents. 

 Add “the contractor will assist ABRWH” in each task where “the contractor” is 

referenced. 

 Consider conducting tasks E.1 - E-3 in parallel: review dose reconstruction methods and 

procedures; review individual dose reconstructions; and review site profiles. 

 The terms “audit” and “review” seem to be used interchangeably, but they have different 

meanings; these terms need to be clarified so as to delineate ABRWH’s charge. 

 Require bidders to submit a conflict of interest plan with proposals. 

 Consider broadening the RFP to allow Canadian health physicists to submit bids. 

 Use technical evaluation criteria rather than the RFP to evaluate bidders on conflict of 

interest. 

37 
Mr. Elliott and Dr. Neton made follow-up remarks in response to ABRWH’s deliberations. The 

contract will be more effectively performed as a task order since this mechanism establishes a 

need for technical consultation. For example, ABRWH would express an interest in procuring a 

senior dosimetrist or junior health physicist. Bids would then be submitted in response to a 

statement of qualifications for these labor categories. Bidders would be evaluated on pricing for 

each labor category and technical qualifications of personnel proposed for the task order. After 

the contract has been developed, tasks could be issued collectively or separately to the awarded 

contractor. 

An estimate of required resources, and number of hours needed to perform a specific task, would 

be submitted by the contractor. In addition to deliverables, a requirement for a conflict of 

interest of plan can be specified in the task order. Bidders can also be assessed on conflict of 

interest in the technical evaluation plan. According to the Federal Acquisition Regulations, 

government agencies are required to procure products and services from U.S. contractors as 

much as possible to obtain the best value. Contracting with Canadian professionals would 

present more difficulties, but it probably could be done. 

The draft scope of work is too incomplete for NIOSH to present to the Procurement and Grants 

Office (PGO) at this time. The workgroup, Dr. Neton, and a PGO representative should discuss 

the procurement process and options in more detail. The draft scope of work and technical 

evaluation criteria presented by the workgroup are preliminary, pre-decisional, and should be 

viewed as discussion documents only. Proposals should not be prepared at this time. ABRWH 

has not yet discussed the budget and independent government cost estimate that must be 

developed. A minimum of 60 days will be required to convene an executive session for 

ABRWH to deliberate on these issues. An executive session must be held in a face-to-face 

meeting to ensure only ABRWH members are present during the discussion. 

Another time-line ABRWH should consider is the minimum of 30 days needed by the 

procurement office to transform the workgroup’s scope of work into a full RFP before being 

released. An additional 45 days, at a minimum, will be required for bidders to submit proposals. 

However, due to the urgency of the scope of work, processing will be expedited. NIOSH could 

develop the business plan, but this process would undoubtedly raise perception and conflict of 

interest issues in the public. ABRWH must be fully involved in the procurement process to have 

as much ownership as possible in the RFP and final award. 

ABRWH generally agreed to the following process with no objections. The Workgroup will 

continue to finalize the draft scope of work and technical evaluation criteria and also to draft the 

business plan. ABRWH will hold a conference call to review and approve the revised drafts 

prior to the next meeting. The revised drafts will be circulated to the members and posted on the 

OCAS web site for public access prior to the conference call. After ABRWH reaches consensus 

on the scope of work and technical evaluation criteria, NIOSH will initiate the procurement 

process if possible. 

NIOSH will make necessary preparations for ABRWH to convene an executive session at the 

next meeting for review and approval of the draft business plan. Although the executive session 

38
 
 

will be closed to the public, deliberations on the business plan in this forum is preferable to the 

document being finalized in workgroup meetings or conference calls. Discussion topics and 

attendees of executive sessions are announced in the Federal Register; an official record is 

maintained as well. Since Workgroup activities are closed to the public and do not require 

notice, this forum may prompt public concerns. 

Public Comment Period: 

Mr. Phillip Schofield is a LAPOWS member who expressed concerns about the IREP model. 

Life span studies of Japanese atomic bomb survivors continue to serve as the primary 

epidemiological basis to determine low-level radiation hazards. However, evidence from worker 

studies suggests that excess radiation-related cancer deaths occurred at doses below current 

occupational limits. The majority of Japanese survivors had high short-term exposures, while 

U.S. nuclear workers had chronic long-term exposures. Moreover, the use of site profiles in 

conducting dose reconstructions will be problematic since differences in exposures exist among 

coworkers at the same site. 

Background papers DOE issued to the Institute for Energy Environmental Research in 1997 

revealed that radiation doses from radioactive materials inhaled or ingested by workers were not 

calculated or included in worker dose records. DOE admitted three major problems. First, 

external exposure data are often incomplete or unreliable. Second, raw dose data and electronic 

versions often used by researchers are not always consistent. Third, some worker dose records 

state that doses were zero regardless of the actual dosimeter readings. 

Mr. Michael Schaeffer recommended that a mechanism be developed to evaluate customer 

satisfaction and fairness in conducting dose reconstructions. He noted that the VA Advisory 

Committee (VAAC) is similar to ABRWH in that it is charged with overseeing the application of 

IREP tables for atomic veterans’ claims. He recommended that ABRWH and VAAC engage in 

a dialogue regarding the implementation of the revised IREP models. This activity can be 

accomplished by assigning an ABRWH and VAAC member to serve as an observer on the other 

committee. Mr. Schaeffer committed to providing ABRWH with VAAC’s meeting schedule. 

Mr. Alex Smith was employed by LANL from 1947-1982. He was concerned that dose 

reconstruction research begins with the year 1952, but he was contaminated with mercury, 

asbestos and possibly radiation as early as 1947. Dr. Neton confirmed that NIOSH is currently 

attempting to capture LANL data from 1947-1952. 

Mr. Robert Tabor noted that U.S. nuclear workers were not in Hiroshima and Nagasaki when 

atomic bombs were released and are not the largest segment in the general population. As a 

result, the NCI studies are not the most representative of, or applicable to, U.S. nuclear workers. 

Worker epidemiologic data would be more appropriate; basing IREP on the Japanese cohort is 

like comparing apples and oranges. Finally, he urged ABRWH to examine root causes and 

develop concrete solutions to address conflict of interest and transparency issues. 

Mr. Paul Montoya was employed at LANL from 1962-1993. He handled several different 

radionuclides during this time and has been diagnosed with beryllium sensitivity. This condition 

39
 
 

is not sufficient to receive compensation on a claim according to DOE, but a recent amendment 

to Congressman Bingaman’s compensation bill would cover beryllium sensitivity. The 

compensation bill was established to assist injured workers, but the process is unsuccessful due 

to involvement by bureaucrats. For example, DOL approves or denies claims, but this same 

agency is responsible for deciding appeals. An independent accounting firm should be 

adjudicating claims rather than DOL. 

Ms. B. Jo Bear’s husband was employed at LANL as a nuclear physicist for ~20 years. He died 

of lung cancer in 1991 and had never smoked a cigarette in his life. She reported her difficulty in 

obtaining worker records to conduct a credible dose reconstruction. She said that the Denver 

DOL office informed her that she would need to file a FOIA request to receive her husband’s 

records. Mr. Elliott and Dr. Neton clarified that NIOSH is responsible for obtaining worker 

records from DOE; this burden is not placed on claimants or survivors. Nor are FOIA requests 

necessary for claimants or survivors to receive worker records that will be used in dose 

reconstructions. This information is also included in the administrative record that accompanies 

NIOSH’s determination of the dose reconstruction. The entire file is then returned to DOL for a 

final decision. Claimants and survivors have a right to obtain these data as well. Dr. Neton 

offered to discuss her case in greater detail after the meeting and to assist her in obtaining her 

husband’s records. 

Mr. Ken Silver agreed that ORISE is not an M&O contractor, but stated that the company is 

commonly understood to be a major DOE contractor. ORISE has played a central role in health 

studies at DOE facilities for many years. Although ORISE represents a wealth of expertise, 

public concerns about conflict of interest must be addressed as well. Former workers, union 

representatives and other stakeholders can provide innovative strategies to build public 

confidence in the dose reconstruction process. Sole reliance should not be placed on LANL 

records to document exposure to workers. Accessing LANL historical records continues to be a 

significant problem. 

For example, a former worker described mercury poisoning that occurred in the late 1940s, but 

LANL denied the incident. However, a records search at DOE revealed that the contamination 

occurred. Moreover, portions of documents describing a spike in thyroid cancer in Los Alamos 

County in the late 1980s and early 1990s have been “blacked out.” Monitoring records from 

July 1969 for Room 401 in DP-West contain a notation that “these figures should not be 

recorded in annual reports.” Mr. Silver also pointed out that survivors are frustrated in attempts 

to interpret LANL records. He urged the government to provide independent technical 

assistance to survivors in this effort. 

Mr. Robert Vasquez read a statement prepared by Congressman Tom Udall’s office. 

Congressman Udall represents northern New Mexico and many constituents who were employed 

by LANL. He has been closely monitoring the legislation and implementation of EEOICPA. He 

is co-sponsoring the Strickland bill to address flaws in EEOICPA, and will be investigating ways 

to add LANL to the SEC. 

ABRWH Business:

 40 
Ms. Cori Homer, the OCAS Committee Management Specialist, reported that the action items 

table has been restructured to provide more specificity on whether ABRWH or NIOSH will take 

action on a particular item. The table is now categorized by meeting date and status of each 

item. Completed items will be moved to an archived list; only pending or on-going items will be 

listed on the table provided to ABRWH. The table will contain items to which ABRWH has 

generally agreed, rather than suggestions by individual members. NIOSH will maintain and 

update the list and attach the document to the minutes prior to each meeting. 

In the future, time will be designated on each agenda for ABRWH to review and provide 

comments on the action items list. No members objected to Dr. Melius’s suggestion to remove 

on-going items from the list that were adopted as ABRWH policy, such as “e-mail members of 

web site documents postings.” Dr. Ziemer proposed that the action items table also be sorted by 

topic, if necessary. 

Dr. Melius made the following motion: “The Board should establish a working group to make 

recommendations to the Board at its next full meeting regarding (1) issues related to IREP, 

including how the Board should prioritize and handle IREP and other scientific issues at future 

meetings, (2) whether a long-term subcommittee or short-term workgroup is needed to 

accomplish these activities, and (3) coordination of IREP issues with other governmental 

organizations that are also using the IREP model.” The workgroup will present its findings at a 

future ABRWH meeting. 

The motion was seconded by Mr. Espinosa, but Dr. Andrade questioned the need for this 

process. He pointed out that NIOSH provides ABRWH and the public with timely updates on 

IREP. ABRWH also has the ability to request additional presentations on IREP as the need 

arises. Ms. Munn was also comfortable with the level of information NIOSH has been providing 

on IREP to ABRWH. The motion carried with ten votes, one opposition and one abstention. For 

the new IREP Workgroup, Dr. Melius will serve as chair; Dr. Anderson and Mr. Owens will 

serve as members; and Mr. Elliott will serve as the NIOSH liaison. 

Over the course of the meeting, the following action items and agenda topics were noted for the 

record: 

 NIOSH should brief ABRWH members, perhaps at the next meeting, on the process to 

describe their employment histories and potential conflicts of interest. This instruction 

will be necessary as ABRWH begins to review individual dose reconstructions and SEC 

petitions, and members may need to recuse themselves from involvement in certain 

claims. 

 NIOSH should provide an update of AWE sites and how NIOSH is handling them, given 

the large number of incoming claims. 

 NIOSH will collaborate with the Dose Reconstruction Workgroup to identify groups and 

individuals who should receive the RFP. 

 NIOSH will apprize ABRWH of NCI’s final version of IREP, of how NCI has handled 

the leukemia/thyroid latency issue, and of what NIOSH’s recommendation is regarding 

this issue. 

41 
The next ABRWH meeting will be held on January 7-8,2003 in Cincinnati, Ohio; a portion of 

the proceedings will be closed for review and approval of the business plan. Another ABRWH 

meeting is tentatively scheduled for February 5-6, 2003, to be held in the Savannah River, 

Georgia area to discuss the SEC Rule. An ABR WH conference call will be held on December 

12,2002, from 1 :00-3:00 p.m. EST to review and approve the draft scope of work and technical 

evaluation criteria. The conference call will be announced in the Federal Register and will be 

open to the public. 

Closing Session: 

There being no further discussion, Dr. Ziemer recessed the ABRWH meeting at 5:12 p.m. on 

October 16, 2002. 

+++ 

I hereby certify that, to the best of my knowledge, the foregoing minutes of the proceedings are 

accurate and complete. 

p~~~ ~:::~~:~~ ~._Ziemer, p~ ~~~~~-~ - - - - ~ - ~ - ~ ~~~.3 Date -­

ABRWH Chair 

42 

.; 

'" , 

I II