Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

THE ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION

_______________________________________________________

Summary Minutes of the Forty-seventh Meeting

June 11-12, 2007

_______________________________________________________

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

Health (ABRWH or the Board) was held June 11 and 12, 2007, at the 

Sheraton Denver West in Lakewood, Colorado. The meeting was called by 

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

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

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

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

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

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

Those present included the following:

Board Members: 

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

Michael Gibson (telephonically); Mr. Mark Griffon; Dr. James Lockey 

(telephonically); Dr. James Melius; Ms. Wanda Munn; Dr. John Poston 

(telephonically); Mr. Robert Presley; Dr. Genevieve Roessler; and Mr. 

Phillip Schofield (telephonically).

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

Federal Agency Attendees: 

Department of Health and Human Services: 

Dr. John Howard, Dr. James Neton, Dr. Brant Ulsh (NIOSH); Ms. Emily 

Howell, Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus (Office of General Counsel)

Department of Labor: Mr. Pete Turcic

Department of Energy: 

Contractors:

Dr. Arjun Makhijani and Dr. John Mauro, Sanford Cohen & Associates.

Congressional Staff Members:

Ms. Carolyn Boller (Congressman Mark Udall)

Mr. David Hiller (Senator Ken Salazar)
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

2

Mr. Bill Holen (Congressman Perlmutter)

Members of Congress:

Congressman Bob Beauprez; Congressman Mark Udall

Other Participants:

See Registration

* * * * *

Monday, June 11, 2007

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

announced this was a special meeting focusing mainly on the Rocky Flats 

SEC petition, but other business will be handled as well. The agenda 

and pertinent documents are publicly available in the rear of the room.

Dr. Lewis Wade, Designated Federal Official, joined in welcoming the 

assembly and outlined the program he anticipated would be followed for 

the meeting.

* * * * *

USE OF DATA FROM OTHER SITES

Dr. Lewis Wade,

Executive Secretary

Dr. Wade explained the Board had asked the agenda for this meeting 

include a NIOSH presentation on this issue. At the previous meeting 

Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus had made a draft presentation looking at the law 

and rules, leaving open the deliberative process that moved from the 

original Congressional action to NIOSH rules. That had been omitted 

because the general law division determined that the deliberative 

process could not be shared in a public meeting if it would violate 

attorney/client privilege, or attorneys advising the Secretary and his 

staff on deliberative matters.

Dr. James Melius, as chairman of the working group on use of surrogate 

data, had since that time reinforced the importance of the Board's 

understanding of that process. Therefore the proposal is that at a 

closed session of the Board the Office of the General Counsel would 

present the Board with the deliberative process logic that is the 

foundation for using data from other sites. Following such a 

presentation the Board would have a chance to engage in discussion with 
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

3

the Office of General Counsel staff and be free, in public session, to 

debate and make its recommendations on the Bethlehem Steel SEC 

petition.

Dr. Wade then proposed that if such a process is agreeable to everyone 

after some discussion, he would schedule an administrative meeting at 

the beginning of the July Board meeting, at which time the Office of GC 

would share that deliberative process and then move into an open 

session where the Board could take up the issue.

Ms. Homoki-Titus confirmed that Dr. Wade's description of the process 

was clear and was the advice her office had received from the general 

law division. She clarified the difference between a closed session 

and an administrative session, which would be for the Board to receive 

legal advice, and that is the terminology that should be applied to the 

particular meeting between the Board and the GC. It will be doing 

preparatory work for the next Board meeting, which is outside the 

charter and the authorizing legislation.

* * * * *

SELECTION OF 8TH ROUND OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS

Additional information had been requested on a list of potential cases 

supplied earlier by Mr. Stu Hinnefeld of NIOSH. The Board was provided 

a spreadsheet, which included Privacy Act information, showing those 

cases. Ms. Emily Howell from the HHS Office of General Counsel was 

asked to explain the difference between what the Board was provided 

versus the public document.

Ms. Howell noted what was available to the public did not include two 

categories, those of job title and work area, which the Board would 

need in their decision-making process. She asked that, as the Board 

discussed the cases and made their choices, the members refrain from 

speaking about the information contained in those columns. She also 

requested that Board members either destroy the document after the 

meeting, maintain them in their sole possession, or return them to her.

Mr. Mark Griffon, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Dose 

Reconstruction, reminded the Board that in the seventh round of cases 

they had followed the same process in requesting additional 

information. He explained the change in the matrix and the addition of 

other categories.

Dr. Ziemer observed the candidate list had 43 cases and the 

subcommittee has asked the Board to narrow this to 32 cases for the 

next audit, although that is only a target number. It can be less. 
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

4

The Board discussed whether overestimate/underestimate cases were 

included on the list and what value there might be to including them. 

Criteria for selection was discussed, with various Board members 

offering opinions on whether facility, cancer model, organ of interest, 

et cetera, should be criteria for review. As explained by Mr. Griffon, 

when the subcommittee made their initial selection they were looking at 

facility and decade.

Dr. Wade offered a reminder that it is normally the subcommittee that 

looks at the selections and in the case of this special meeting there 

had not been a subcommittee meeting scheduled. At the last meeting its 

recommendations had been brought to the Board and the entire Board 

participated in selection of these 43 cases. The Board is being 

presented the task of this paring down process since it is that body 

that was scheduled to meet today. The subcommittee and the full Board 

actually share work.

After discussion of each case on the list of 43 it was ultimately 

narrowed to 30 cases. It was agreed this would represent SC&A's 

remaining workload for the fiscal year.

A motion was made and seconded that the 30 cases selected by 

the Board be recommended as the assignment to SC&A for the 

8th round of dose reconstruction audits.

The cases selected were read into the record by Dr. Wade. 

The motion carried by a unanimous vote of 10-0.

It was agreed that the Chair and the DFO would prepare a proposed list 

of teams for the 8th round of reviews to have ready for presentation at 

the July meeting.

* * * * *

PLANS FOR SC&A CONTRACT TASKS FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR

Dr. Wade noted it was time to look at tasking the Board's contractor 

for the next fiscal year. He suggested deliberations at this meeting, 

with enough specificity to ask SC&A to develop specific proposals, to 

include ranges of products for next year. Those proposals could be 

brought to the July meeting, with the Board moving toward making a 

decision for the next fiscal year. That schedule would put the status 

in synch with the government's funding time lines and plans. 

Discussion could be held today and, if necessary, tomorrow to move 

toward finalizing the request for proposals.
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

5

The SC&A contract has a number of tasks, the first of which is review 

of site profiles. Dr. Wade reported he had requested Dr. John Mauro

from SC&A share with the Board details of a status report on the work 

they have done to date. Dr. Mauro confirmed there are a total of 21 

site profile reviews authorized from the beginning of the project, and 

all but three or four have been delivered.

A list of 44 work sites for which NIOSH has developed technical 

documents was provided to the Board. That represents the universe of 

sites for which there are site profiles. He observed the Board has 

started its reviews of large sites early on, with a population of sites 

the contractor has not yet been asked to evaluate. SC&A has been 

looking at six reviews annually and the question for the Board is 

whether to continue that pace or deviate from it for some reason.

* * *

Discussion Points: 

#Whether the Board should increase the number of sites or maintain the 

six annual reviews;

#Concern about keeping up with site profile review closeouts on those 

already started and the ability to be auditing individual DRs at 

the same time;

#Of the 21 site profiles already done, approximately 11 are in the 

closeout phase;

#The remaining ten closeouts have not even started;

#An indication that closeout process is not initiated means the ball is 

in the Board's court and is not SC&A's issue;

#The only site profile from last year underway in the closeout process 

is the Fernald site, which means SC&A is a year ahead of the Board 

in terms of producing the site profile reviews;

#This year's work is in various stages of another six site profile 

reviews;

#The situation is complicated by site profiles that are undergoing or 

have undergone major revisions;

#A more detailed look should be taken at where things stand with 

various site profile reviews and closeouts to get an estimated 

time for the Board and NIOSH to do their work;

#Some of the site profiles being reviewed now have an SEC aspect added 

to that review, which make for a more confounding problem;

#There are both personnel and money constraints that are of concern;

#There are no major worries with contract funding for this year and 

adequate funding is expected for next year as well;

#SC&A has a highly skilled staff that is not inexpensive, and every 

time they're asked by the Board to perform some task, it costs a 
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

6

good bit of money, which adds up quickly and could result in 

something else not getting done because the budget is limited;

#The NIOSH budget also comes into play because resolution of issues 

depends on NIOSH being at the table during that process;

#The DR audits are being done now in fewer work hours per case and will 

probably be coming in under budget on that task, as well as the 

procedures review task, so there exists the option that those 

resources could be moved to the Task V SEC review.

Dr. Ziemer observed this opens the door for discussions tomorrow and 

reminded the Board that there are also blind dose reconstruction 

reviews coming up which is an unknown in terms of what it will take in 

time and effort. The number, however, is small enough that it isn't 

expected it would have a major impact on funding.

* * * * *

SANDIA LIVERMORE SEC PETITION

NIOSH Evaluation Report

Dr. James Neton,

NIOSH

Dr. Neton reminded the assembly that at the last Board meeting NIOSH 

had presented an SEC evaluation report of SEC Petition 0059, which had 

been issued on March 26. In that presentation NIOSH concluded they 

could reconstruct dose to the class of workers proposed. That was a 

class definition that encompassed X-ray technologists and materials 

technicians between 1967 and 1990 in certain rooms within Sandia 

National Laboratory. The petitioner had been unable to attend the May 

meeting but had a letter prepared which was read into the record at the 

meeting, with many issues raised in that letter. Among other things 

was the non-homogenicity of the exposures to workers on X-ray 

diffraction units, and in particular the inability of the film badge to 

accurately measure the radiation exposure to various parts of the body.

Because of this letter the Board delayed discussion of the petition 

pending a NIOSH review and evaluation of those statements, and that has 

been done. NIOSH is re-evaluating their position and Dr. Neton

reported they had done literature reviews to try to get a better handle 

on the types of equipment used in the laboratory, and on the exposure 

geometries in those unique settings. The petitioner had raised the 

idea that these were not standard exposure geometries, but there were 

some home-made calibration jigs and such made to accommodate various 

size samples at Sandia.
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

7

The petitioner has also been interviewed to get further statements 

regarding his exposure situation and the geometries involved. NIOSH is 

still re-interviewing a health physicist who covered and is still 

available to discuss that. A supplement to the evaluation report is 

being prepared at this time and will be issued shortly. It is not 

available for this meeting, but it is targeted to be available prior to 

the July 17 Board meeting, it is hoped in time for everybody to be able 

to review the document a couple of weeks before the meeting.

* * *

Petitioner Response

Mr. Gerald Giovaccini,

Petitioner

Mr. Giovaccini was on the line and raised the question of NIOSH having 

enough dose information to accurately calculate the dose incurred by 

the proposed class. He discussed the definition of the word 

"accuracy", noted the petition was filed because exposures went 

unmonitored and are inadequately recorded. Mr. Giovaccini asserted 

that sick applicants are being penalized for careless record-keeping of 

those entrusted with their health and safety.

* * *

Discussion Points: 

#It might be helpful to have SC&A review the re-evaluation;

#Two issues on exposure for X-ray diffraction units are the possibility 

of direct beam exposure and the issue of scatter;

#These are low energy X-rays;

#One question would be what cancers in an SEC model would be caused by 

X-rays at this low energy;

#An observation that the purpose of the contractor is to provide 

technical information the Board might not be able to deal with by 

itself as a group;

#This will be a relatively short and easy-to-absorb document;

#The petition and site profile are not that complex and there was a 

suggestion the contractor not be involved until the Board has 

identified that the issue is too complex to handle without help.

* * *

The Chair ruled this presentation will take the nature of a status 

report and the item will be on the agenda for the next meeting to 
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

8

determine whether the Board is prepared to make a recommendation at 

that point that SC&A conduct a review.

Dr. Melius called for a consensus of the Board to his suggestion that 

SC&A become involved now. The consensus was to see the NIOSH report 

first and then make a determination whether additional help is needed.

* * * * *

Agenda and Location for July Meeting

Dr. Wade announced that since the issue has been raised, he will move a 

topic from tomorrow's agenda, which is the matter of the July meeting 

agenda. At the moment it is scheduled to be in the Hanford area and, 

unless another location appears to have some urgency, that plan will 

remain for July 17, 18 and 19 in Richland, Washington.

* * * * *

Dr. Ziemer noted there were minutes enclosed in the members' 

information packets for the April 5 meeting and asked that Board 

members read them tonight so they can be approved tomorrow.

* * * * *

ROCKY FLATS SEC PETITION

Dr. Wade announced Ms. Josie Beach is conflicted on this site and is 

seated in the audience during this presentation and discussion.

The plan outlined by Dr. Wade was to hear from NIOSH on issues the 

Board raised at the May meeting. There will be a report from the Board 

working group and an opportunity for discussion of both these 

presentations. Later in the afternoon and into the evening will be a 

public comment period, with continued discussion and comments on the 

petition and presentation from the petitioner tomorrow, after which 

appropriate motions and actions by the Board on the Rocky Flats 

petition are anticipated to take that to closure.

* * *

Update on NIOSH Evaluation Report

Dr. Brant Ulsh,

NIOSH
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

9

Dr. Ulsh began by recapping the events from the initial evaluation 

report in April of last year, and those from May of this year when the 

Board met relative to this petition. He noted three issues on which 

the Board had requested NIOSH provide supplemental information, and 

briefly outlined how NIOSH had arrived at this point.

One of the biggest issues for the working group was the issue of data 

integrity, and was approached from a number of angles. One was 

individual data integrity; NIOSH's conclusion on that issue was based 

on examination of concerns expressed by the public, the petitioners and 

the working group. What NIOSH found was issues that had safety 

implications, but they were the types of issues typically found in 

large dosimetry programs and none systematically prevented NIOSH from 

doing dose reconstructions.

The next angle of approach on the issue of data integrity dealt with 

logbooks. The concern expressed was that some workers felt exposures 

experienced in the field were not reflected in their dosimetry records 

and suggested a review of field logbooks from the time to see if a 

mismatch would be found between logbooks and worker rad files.

Sixty-five logbooks with useful information were located. This was 

specific bioassay results, internal dosimetry results, notations of 

people who had gone for a lung count on a particular day. A random 

sampling was pulled and compared to the information found in those 

individuals' radiation files. What was found was a 94 percent 

agreement between the two sources of data. Again the conclusion was 

that there was no systematic evidence of a problem that would prevent 

NIOSH from doing dose reconstructions.

Last angle of approach on the data integrity issue involved safety 

concern documents. Dr. Ulsh explained this was a formal mechanism at 

Rocky Flats for workers to submit to management items of concern from a 

safety standpoint. Management was required to respond. If a worker 

was not satisfied, it could be elevated to a joint company/union safety 

committee.

The petitioner informed NIOSH of a database of 5,000 safety concerns 

and NIOSH examined those. NIOSH and SC&A worked to identify, based on 

title or description of content within that universe of 5,000, 

individual concerns that might have data integrity implications. A 

detailed analysis was done for those identified, and some important 

issues were found, some with very important safety implications. But 

none were found that would prevent NIOSH from doing dose 

reconstructions.
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

10

Those three approaches that the working group took to look at the data 

integrity issue was a big part of the investigation that has occurred 

over the last year. Dr. Ulsh commented that as a participant in the 

workgroup meetings he could verify the working group took to heart all 

the concerns expressed by petitioners and workers. They requested 

information from NIOSH and SC&A to support their investigation. And 

while some people have been dismayed by the length of time the process 

has taken, which is understandable, the level of detail gone into by 

the working group far exceeds what would be seen at other sites and is 

a testament to the seriousness with which they have taken those 

concerns.

Meanwhile NIOSH has been accumulating completed dose reconstructions 

from Rocky Flats and has completed 1,052 of the 1,230 cases referred 

from the Department of Labor for dose reconstruction. Dr. Ulsh

commented that he understood it's been a long process and that some 

have expressed the opinion that during this time NIOSH has changed the 

way dose reconstructions are handled, and take that to mean that in 

some manner it should be the basis upon which the SEC petition should 

be granted. He emphasized that Rocky Flats is the same as any other 

site. Dose reconstructions are done and, as new information becomes 

available, adjustments are made to the way those DRs are conducted.

Dr. Ulsh observed that the alternative would be to sit on the claims 

and wait until perfect information was available, which would never 

happen and nobody would get an answer. Therefore it's handled the way 

it is both here and at other places: They proceed with dose 

reconstructions and new information is incorporated as it is received. 

Completed claims are reviewed in cases where the new information might 

have an effect.

That look-back leads to the three issues on which the Advisory Board 

requested NIOSH provide supplemental information. At that same time 

the Board recommended addition of a class of worker to the SEC for 

anyone who was or should have been monitored for neutron exposure from 

1952 to 1958.

The three issues are thorium, Building 881 external monitoring in the 

1950s, and neutron doses from 1959 to 1970. Dr. Ulsh proceeded to 

address each issue individually and in great detail.

The NIOSH conclusions relative to thorium are that the activities at 

Rocky Flats were limited, involved small quantities and few workers. 

Detailed information has been provided on when and how these activities 

occurred and who was involved. There is no evidence that a thorium 

intake ever occurred. Thorium does not present SEC implications.
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

11

After addressing the second issue, the Building 881 external monitoring 

data in the 1950s, and providing considerable detail about NIOSH's 

background and investigation into this issue, Dr. Ulsh announced that 

NIOSH conclusions were that the Building 881 uranium workers' exposure 

potentials were below ten percent of the regulatory limit. The 

coworker models NIOSH is using in dose reconstruction are very 

favorable for these workers. Minor plutonium contamination presented 

insignificant external exposure potential. This issue does not present 

SEC implications.

The third issue, neutron doses from 1959 to 1970, were also addressed 

in considerable detail by Dr. Ulsh. NIOSH conclusions on that issue 

were that the 87,943 films evaluated by the NDRP form a reliable basis 

for neutron dose reconstruction. NIOSH concurs with the NDRP 

Scientific Advisory Committee that NDRP provides a reliable basis for 

NIOSH dose reconstruction. The methods described are even more 

claimant-favorable than NDRP, and the issue does not present SEC 

implications.

* * *

As a sidebar to the thorium issue, Dr. Ulsh also offered a possible 

explanation for the conflicting testimony between Rocky Flats workers 

and Dow Chemical workers as to large shipments of thorium/magnesium 

alloy from the Dow Madison plant to Rocky Flats. Rocky Flats workers 

on the shipping/receiving authorization committee were interviewed, the 

people who were in charge of receiving materials that came onto the 

site, and nobody had recollection of magnesium alloy from Dow Madison 

or from anywhere else.

It is known that magnesium alloy was used in the aircraft industry and 

in missile construction because of its heat resistance, light weight 

and strength, and affidavits submitted by Dow Madison workers have 

indicated their alloys were used in missiles, specifically the Titan 

missile. It is also known that Titan missile work was performed in 

Colorado at Rocky Mountain Arsenal, not at Rocky Flats.

Dr. Ulsh offered his personal knowledge that, as a former Denver 

resident, unless you worked at one of the two facilities, even Colorado 

residents got Rocky Mountain Arsenal and Rocky Flats confused.

Mr. Griffon had asked Dr. Ulsh to contact the individual from Dow 

Madison who had indicated he had seen the crates of alloy going to 

Rocky Flats, which Dr. Ulsh did. He asked the worker if it were 

possible the facility was Rocky Mountain Arsenal rather than Rocky 

Flats, and the person indicated that he didn't know there were two 

different facilities.
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

12

Dr. Ulsh submitted that confusion between the two facilities is the 

most plausible explanation, with Rocky Flats workers and Dow Madison 

workers offering conflicting testimony. There is no evidence in the 

inventory records that magnesium alloy came to Rocky Flats, and no 

evidence that it was found in the chem risk reports that inventoried

radionuclides and toxic chemicals. There is no evidence that magnesium 

alloy ever came to Rocky Flats.

* * *

Discussion Points: 

#The sources of information for the NIOSH response;

#The presentation quotes from the Scientific Advisory Committee from 

the NDRP, but there is no reference to that in the report;

#That body never produced a peer-reviewed report, but did provide 

minutes and recommendations;

#The NDRP was a ten-year program and the expert panel functioned just 

as this Board, overseeing the process and producing minutes after 

each meeting from the beginning to the end of the project;

#Questions about the bar graph on the thorium strike data;

#Whether the fairly significant process changes and sub-critical 

experiments done in Building 881 were looked into;

#Clarification on predicted versus measured dose in the neutron slides;

#Clarification on how to read the graph.

* * *

Congressman Udall read a prepared statement into the record. As author 

of House Resolution 904 designed to reinforce Congressional efforts to 

provide compensation and care for nuclear weapons workers made sick by 

on-the-job exposure to radiation. He thanked the Board for taking on 

their difficult task and urged consideration of several technical 

issues that will expand the exposures covered and number of workers 

deserving benefits.

Congressman Udall's statement is available in its entirety in the 

transcript of the meeting, which is available on the NIOSH web site at 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

* * *

Rocky Flats Workgroup Report

Mark Griffon, Chair
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

13

Mr. Griffon introduced Ms. Wanda Munn and Mr. Robert Presley, and Mr. 

Mike Gibson who was present by telephone, as the members of the Rocky 

Flats workgroup. Mr. Griffon indicated he would be addressing the same 

three issues discussed by Dr. Ulsh. 

He began by discussing the workgroup process and some of the issues the 

workgroup resolved through the resolution process with SC&A and NIOSH. 

He described their establishment of lines of inquiry, the numbers of 

meetings and conference calls. Issue papers have been exchanged 

between NIOSH and SC&A to facilitate working group discussions.

The procedures outlined the scope of review. Timeliness is addressed 

by which issue should be considered. Some of the major issues resolved 

by the workgroup include the high-fired plutonium, the external and 

internal data completeness, data reliability, internal dose coworker 

model and D&D internal dose.

Mr. Griffon went into detail on each of those issues, the specific 

concerns, workgroup conclusion and any continuing work on the issue, as 

well as Program Evaluation Reviews.

Mr. Griffon elaborated on the three issues from the workgroup's point 

of view, noting that at this point the workgroup simply wants the Board 

to have discussion. It has no specific recommendations to make right 

now, and would also ask if it would be possible for NIOSH to provide 

information backing up the graph from Dr. Ulsh's report related to the 

predicted versus measured doses so that the workgroup could have that 

information to review. Based on that request, Mr. Griffon had no 

motions to offer at this time.

There were no questions posed relative to the workgroup report.

* * * * *

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

The following is a list of the members of the public who spoke. A full 

transcript of their comments is available on the NIOSH/OCAS web site, 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

Lieutenant Governor of Colorado Barbara O'Brien; Senator Joan 

Fitzgerald, President of the Colorado State Senate; Mr. David Hiller 

(Senator Ken Salazar's staff); Mr. James Horan, former Rocky Flats 

worker; Ms. Judy Padilla, former Rocky Flats worker; Mr. Tom Haverty, 

former Rocky Flats worker; Ms. Kay Barker, ANWAG; Ms. Terrie Barrie, 

ANWAG; Mr.George Barrie, former Rocky Flats worker; Mr. Robert Carlson, 

former Rocky Flats worker; Mr. Dennis Romero, former Rocky Flats 
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

14

worker; Ms. Michelle Dobrovolny, claimant; Mr. Raymundo Salazar, 

claimant; Mr. Jerry Mobley, claimant; Mr. Jeff Schultz (reading 

statement from a survivor); Ms. Laura Schultz, petitioner; Ms. Nila 

Adkins, survivor; Ms. Donna Quinlan, survivor; Ms. Carmen Blackmon, 

survivor; Mr. Charlie Wolf, claimant; Ms. Elena Ramer, survivor; Ms. 

Genie Haynes, former Rocky Flats worker; Mr. LeRoy Moor, Rocky Mountain 

Peace & Justice Center; Mr. Randall Weiner, environmental attorney; Mr. 

Elliott Stokes, former Rocky Flats worker; , former Rocky Flats 

worker; Mr. Jim McCabe, former Rocky Flats worker.

* * * * *

Dr. Ziemer announced the Board would reconvene the following morning at 

8:00 a.m. at which time the main focus would be continuation of 

deliberations on the Rocky Flats petition. He urged all interested 

parties to be in attendance at that time.

* * * * *

With no further business to come before the Board, the 

meeting adjourned until 8:00 a.m. on Tuesday, June 12, 2007.

* * * * *

Tuesday, June 12, 2007

Dr. Ziemer called to order the second day of the meeting, making his 

standard announcements of available materials, and a reminder that for 

the Rocky Flats portion of the meeting Board member Ms. Josie Beach

would be seated in the audience due to her conflict of interest with 

that site.

* * * * *

ROCKY FLATS SEC PETITION

Workgroup Report (continued)

Discussion Points: 

#Clarification on thorium strikes, where and when;

#Confusion has resulted from conflicting documentation;

#Changes in the way buildings were numbered adds to the confusion;

#Has the working group seen the air data referred to by Dr. Ulsh; 

#New information with regard to potential neutron exposures, the type 

of dosimetry for neutron exposures, when it changed, when various 

types were in place.
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

15

* * *

Petitioners' Response

Ms. Jennifer Thompson, petitioner spokesperson, introduced Mr. Anthony 

DeMaiori, former President of the United Steel Workers of America, 

original Rocky Flats petitioner.

Mr. DeMaiori introduced Congressman Bob Beauprez, who led the assembly 

in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Ms. Thompson expressed her thanks to the Board, working group, workers, 

Colorado Congressional delegation, Governor and Lieutenant Governor for 

their work on and support given for the Rocky Flats SEC petition. 

Displaying some of their photographs, she led a moment of silence in 

remembrance of Rocky Flats workers who died waiting for their 

compensation. She remarked the reason for being at the meeting is for 

the sick workers and their spouses, who have a difficult time working 

through the process. Ms. Thompson commented the workers should not 

have to fight for their lives and fight with the government at the same 

time in order to get their claims compensated.

Reiterating the actions taken earlier to approve what she called three 

small, carved-out classes, Ms. Thompson announced they were present 

today to press SEC status for the entire class of RF workers. She 

cited some statistics she contended NIOSH doesn't announce, such as the 

number of days it takes a claim to be processed, the number of workers 

who died waiting to be approved, the percentage of workers with cancer 

that have been denied, et cetera.

Ms. Thompson opined that the charter of the Advisory Board is to 

evaluate the petition, not to help the government fix wrongs, and that 

the RF petition is valid. She asserted some of NIOSH's basic 

assumptions were very flawed, and that at this point they're still 

arguing about fundamental facts about the history of buildings.

The question of why the Neutron Dose Reconstruction Project is still an 

outstanding issue was raised by Ms. Thompson. She discussed shameless 

misrepresentations regarding activity after the 1969 fire. She 

reported the petitioners believe there are substantial process issues 

and that if they end up in appeal the two things they will discuss will 

be science and process.

Ms. Thompson remarked on conflicting reports from SC&A and NIOSH, 

asserting that because NIOSH is going to have to do 3,000 repeat dose 

reconstructions for 3,000 people, it sounds like they couldn't 
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

16

reconstruct dose accurately to begin with. She commented that with 

remaining issues on high-fired oxides, particle size, retention in the 

lungs, that is an indication dose reconstructions cannot be done 

accurately.

The definition of the word "plausible" as used by NIOSH was discussed 

by Ms. Thompson. She commented the petitioners believe there are so 

many unresolved issues at this point that for that reason they are 

asking the Board to vote on the petition in its entirety.

Ms. Thompson went on to enumerate other issues, such as accuracy of 

monitoring, timeliness, neutron doses, timeliness to process a claim, 

missing records, new methods where models have not been sufficiently 

tested, as further reasons to grant the petition.

* * *

Mr. Bill Brady, law professor at the University of Denver's Sturm 

College of Law and who represents cancer victims exposed to toxic 

substances, spoke about his claimant client, Charlie Wolf, who has been 

granted medical benefits under Part E but has still been denied under 

Part B based on a dose reconstruction with less than 50 percent 

probability of causation.

Mr. Brady expressed his desire to share evidence presented at the 

hearing on Mr. Wolf's claim and which he thought might be useful during 

the Board's deliberations.

A plutonium working group report done by the Department of Energy in 

1994 was discussed. The report related to environmental safety and 

health vulnerabilities associated with the Department's plutonium 

storage program, with five pages devoted to Rocky Flats.

Reports by Dr. Jim Ruttenber, University of Colorado Health Sciences 

Center, were cited. These reports specifically deal with Rocky Flats. 

One recent report submitted in draft form is entitled "Risk Estimates 

of Brain Tumors and Ionizing Radiation". A second report, entitled 

"The Mortality of Plutonium Workers at the Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons 

Plant", was submitted at the Part E hearing.

Also submitted were reports from Sanford Cohen & Associates which Mr. 

Brady felt were critical of the dose reconstruction process at work, 

citing specifically a January 2005 letter to Mr. David Staudt from Dr. 

John Mauro. Mr. Brady concluded there is a great deal of scientific 

uncertainty surrounding the process of dose reconstruction.
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

17

Several other reports and criticisms were outlined by Mr. Brady. He 

compared his law students to the scientific community and how they deal 

with what they don't know, and the danger of thinking they know 

something that isn't accurate, what he called "an air of benevolent 

arrogance." Mr. Brady went on to describe an alternative approach 

known as "the precautionary principle", a goal of preventing rather 

than reacting to harm. He discussed reasonable doubt and whether 

reasonable doubt is being given to the workers.

Mr. Brady closed his presentation by asking the Board to adopt a 

precautionary approach and approve the petition.

* * *

Mr. Jerry Harden, past president of Steel Workers Local 8031, who was 

employed at Rocky Flats for 37 years, described his lifetime exposure 

and the high lung count discovered in 1988. Mr. Harden explained he 

had been a radiation control technician, and when he was hired was not 

given a baseline radiation analysis, something that did not regularly 

occur until after the 1969 fire.

Mr. Harden discussed the film badge he was issued when hired, and 

various activities at Rocky Flats. He remarked on the types of 

exposures that haven't been mentioned in the evaluation, such as radon, 

beta exposures, tritium exposures and that there was a sequence of 

incompetence, deception, distortion and omission at play.

He talked about the money spent by the government soliciting workers to 

participate in the Transuranium Registry by donating their remains so 

that scientists can analyze the data gleaned during autopsy. He 

contended that information has been ignored in this program.

Mr. Harden concluded his remarks by stating that the government has 

conveniently hidden behind the cloak of secrecy and, by using pseudoscience created by arrogant intellectuals, is denying the workers and 

the public access to the truth.

A question was raised by the Board and discussed by Mr. Harden related 

to materials given to workers when entering an area for 

decontamination, how it affected them, and the mixtures they would come 

up with.

* * *

Colorado Congressman Bob Beauprez spoke in support of the petition. He 

commented that the workers at Rocky Flats did their jobs with the 

assumption that, if something unforeseen happened to them, somebody 
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

18

would be there to take care of their injuries. He observed that a 

nation able to figure out how to win a cold war should be big enough to 

have compassion and caring and justice to take care of the warriors who 

won it. He remarked that what frustrates people about government is 

that, as big and great as the nation is, it sometimes can't find the 

means to do what is blatantly obvious.

Congressman Beauprez addressed the Act itself, noting he was present 

for the legislation and voted for it. He commented that if the record 

isn't perfectly clear, he and his colleagues, as representatives of the 

taxpayers, were saying these people should be taken care of. They 

earned it, deserve it, showed up, did the job and took the risk. Some 

are paying the ultimate price. They did not intend them to wait 

through volumes of work while a reason to deny is found. They intended 

reasons to approve, and do it in 180 days or less.

* * *

Mr. DeMaiori announced the period for petitioner comment was closed.

* * *

Open Forum

Dr. Ziemer opened the floor for discussion and recognized a gentleman 

believed to be part of the petition group. The gentleman never 

identified himself, but raised a question regarding what documentation 

NIOSH used, other than bioassay, and protection factors of various 

respirators.

A number of unidentified members of the audience, who spoke without 

benefit of microphone, interjected comments as questions were being 

asked about types of respirators. Dr. Ulsh explained in NIOSH dose 

reconstructions there were no reductions in intake considered because 

of respirators. They assume no protection factor at all, but rely 

strictly on the bioassay data, so it wouldn't matter whether a 

respirator were malfunctioning or inappropriate for the purpose. It's 

as if they were not wearing a respirator.

There followed a dialogue between Dr. Ulsh and the unidentified 

audience member about the issue, after which Dr. Ziemer added that the 

Board had examined the methodology and agrees that NIOSH gives the most 

claimant-favorable outcomes.
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

19

Ms. Judy Padilla raised a question about the 50 percent probability of 

causation, asking 50 percent of what. She contended the petitioners 

never know what the number is or how NIOSH arrived at the number.

An open forum discussion followed with unidentified audience members, 

Dr. Jim Neton and Mr. Bill Brady. 

Dr. Genevieve Roessler observed Dr. Ruttenber is recommending a large 

epidemiological study on RF workers, and is particularly interested in 

brain cancer. She explained epidemiological studies require dose 

estimates even better than what is needed for this program, so her 

conclusion is that Dr. Ruttenber feels he can get dose estimates from 

Rocky Flats workers. A discussion of Dr. Ruttenber's study evolved as 

to whether it looked at only brain tumors.

The tritium issue was raised again to ask NIOSH if there were in fact 

tritium bioassay on any workers at Rocky Flats and was discussed at 

length by Dr. Ulsh and Dr. Melius, with Dr. Arjun Makhijani and Ms. 

Kathy Robertson-DeMers from SC&A verifying the availability of tritium 

results.

Mr. DeMaiori provided a very detailed description of the 

decontamination procedures in answer to the question raised earlier 

from the Board.

Mr. David Hiller from Senator Ken Salazar's office raised an issue of 

how members of the Scientific Advisory Board for the NDRP were 

selected. He also observed that in some circumstances NIOSH doesn't 

accept the statement of individuals as defining what occurred at the 

plant, yet they had just listened to Mr. DeMaiori provide anecdotes of 

incidents in which he was personally involved and called for an 

explanation of the dichotomy.

There was discussion of a report entitled "A History of U-233 at Rocky 

Flats", written 40 years after the fact. It relied on a classified 

document authored in 1965, just after the time of the thorium strike.

Mr. Hiller then raised the question for SC&A whether they have 

concluded that the NDRP is not accurate and reliable. Dr. Makhijani

provided a discussion of the issue and its various facets, components 

of the NDRP, the notional doses of people not monitored, badges not 

found, correction factors, et cetera. He added that the working group 

has been aware of all of those issues and has also looked at them.

Mr. Hiller's last question was addressed to NIOSH, whether they have 

analyzed how long it will take to conduct whatever reconstructions 

they're proposing, whether they have the staff to do that and whether 
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

20

it will be a period of several months or another year before those 

doses are recalculated. Dr. Ziemer suggested that they wait for an 

answer on that until they determine whether the Board will propose any 

such thing.

* * *

Board Discussion

Discussion Points: 

#Usefulness of a follow-up from NIOSH on the narrow question of '67 

through '70, with the zeroes and correction factor approaches;

#The workgroup saw a point in late '66 or early '67 where those workers 

most likely to have high neutron exposures had measured data and 

not notional data;

#There was no independent verification of the master gold standard 

reader;

#His calibrations were done by rereading calibration badges he himself 

had prepared;

#He had disciplined himself to not remember those readings; 

#The AEC did not require the archiving of TLDs once TLDs were 

introduced in 1971.

* * *

Return to Open Forum

Board discussion reverted back to the open forum with an unidentified 

member of the audience questioning zeroes or blank readings on TLDs and 

how those numbers would be assigned in dose reconstruction. Dr. Ulsh

attempted to answer the question, concluding that the TLDs are a onetime read that are reset when read, and there is no indication there 

was a systematic problem with TLDs, unlike the NTA film badges covered 

by the NDRP.

A different audience member remarked he had lived all the stuff being 

discussed and contended his readings should have been ten times higher 

than they were. He asserted big salaries were being generated for 

people who knew big words while people are dying and that the Board's 

priorities are wrong. He never saw any AEC or DOE people in the area 

with him because they stayed where it was safe.

* * *

Return to Board Discussion
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

21

Discussion Points: 

#Clarification from NIOSH on the question of the gold standard and 

reading of the NDRP film badges;

#If a standard is the one all others were testing to every day, 

multiple individuals are essentially verifying the same standard 

repeatedly simply because that's the standard to be met;

#Most of the delays the members of the audience are concerned with are 

not on the heads of people being blamed, but rather lie with the 

Board working group, and the reason they've taken place is because 

there were very detailed concerns brought forward by the 

petitioners; the Board contractor and the workgroup went through 

every activity to examine each one in painful detail;

#A call for reassurance that there are no significant operational 

changes that may negatively affect the workgroup's analysis on 

coworker models;

#Clarification on a point relative to subcritical experiments in the 

881 building raised in the petitioner's presentation.

* * *

Return to Open Forum

There was further commentary from an unidentified audience member to 

contest NIOSH statements about the number of individuals required to 

deal with the subcritical experiments.

Additional commentary related to management telling workers their doses 

were too high so they hid their badges, and other incidents that 

happened on the job.

* * *

Return to Board Discussion

As chairman of the working group, Mr. Griffon outlined the details 

supporting a preliminary motion, offering a sense of the motion first.

A motion was made and seconded to establish a class of the 

Special Exposure Cohort for all workers who were monitored, 

or should have been monitored, for neutron exposures from 

January 1, 1959 through December 31, 1966.

Discussion Points: 

#Perhaps the Board should consider the petition to include all Rocky 

Flats workers, or broaden the scope;
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

22

#Perhaps it should be expanded to include through the end of 1970;

#The highest exposed individuals from '67 through '70 were measured 

during this time period.

The question was called for a vote on the motion. A roll call vote was 

taken.

The motion carried with a vote of 8-1-1.

* * *

A motion was made and seconded that the Board accept the 

NIOSH evaluation conclusion that they have the ability to 

reconstruct dose for all radiation dose from the time period 

January 1, 1967 through 2005, and therefore deny the petition 

to add that class to the Special Exposure Cohort.

Discussion Points: 

#Too many open issues have not been adequately addressed to vote at 

this time;

#The class should be added based on the experiences of the workers;

#The Board's responsibility is to deal with the issue of whether 

adequate information exists to complete reasonably accurate dose 

reconstructions for individuals who have had radiation exposure, 

rather than chemical cocktails;

#There are still gaps in the information;

#An opinion expressed that dose reconstructions cannot be done;

#NIOSH and SC&A have done their jobs and provided reports and data that 

says they can do dose reconstruction, do it accurately and in 

favor of the petitioner;

#Although it's difficult to listen to the people and sympathize with 

their health problems, NIOSH has a very detailed evaluation of the 

situation and has demonstrated they can reconstruct the doses in 

the manner required by the rule;

#Another responsibility is to render decisions in a timely manner, and 

that criterion was not met in this situation;

#The workgroup has not accepted NIOSH's word, but have had SC&A look at 

all the issues thoroughly with a resulting report of nearly 1,000 

pages containing findings consistent with what the workgroup has 

said;

#The Board owes a debt of gratitude and thanks for the extra effort 

that has gone into the project by all concerned, and it appears 

that dose can be reconstructed for this group of employees for the 

time period outlined;

#Disagreement with conclusions of the workgroup is not meant to 

criticize their efforts, but the fault is with the process and a 
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

23

site profile largely written by people with significant conflicts 

of interest;

#Based on the work of the working group, it is feasible for NIOSH to do 

dose reconstruction with sufficient accuracy to make a claimantfavorable decision;

#The workgroup has in some ways caused NIOSH to change much of what 

they were doing earlier so that, regardless of the final vote, 

dose reconstructions will be done in a much better manner than 

would have been done prior to the workgroup's efforts;

#It's unfortunate the burden has been passed to a group like the Board 

to correct what Congress should have done correctly in the first 

place, but the way the law was originally written requires the 

Board to go through a process that requires time-consuming 

efforts.

By roll call vote, the motion carried by a margin of 6-4.

* * *

An unidentified member of the audience read into the record a piece of 

poetry called "The Silent Soldiers."

* * *

Dr. Ziemer indicated there was a carry-over item that he had committed 

earlier to Mr. Hiller to try to get an answer on his question imbedded 

in the original proposal to encourage NIOSH to utilize new information 

from the working group to upgrade how dose reconstructions are done on 

this site. Although Dr. Neton and Dr. Ulsh had both left the meeting, 

Dr. Neton was reached by telephone to participate in the discussion on 

the issue of timely re-evaluation of completed dose reconstructions 

based on technical changes resulting from the workgroup process.

The four points are that NIOSH will use a modified approach for 

assessing internal dose due to super S plutonium for all affected 

cases; NIOSH will use modified internal dose coworker approach using 

the agreed-upon approach of using the 95th percentile values, the 

electronic data, in estimating worker dose via coworker internal dose 

models for all affected cases; NIOSH will use modified internal dose 

coworker approach for all D&D workers, using the agreed-upon approach 

of using the 95th percentile values of the electronic data in 

estimating worker dose via coworker internal dose model for all 

relevant radionuclides for all affected cases; and NIOSH will use 

modified approach for reassessing neutron doses for the time period 

January 1, 1967 through December 31, 1970 for all affected cases.
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

24

The question is how long will it take to implement those changes. Dr. 

Neton clarified that they would take the analysis far enough to make a 

determination that it doesn't change the outcome of the decision. And 

with that proviso in mind, it was his opinion that it would be 

accomplished within a matter of a month or two.

It was agreed that the motions made during the day's business would 

follow the standard wording and language normally submitted to the 

Secretary, including the 250-day issue. A copy of the language used in 

the motions when transmitted to the Secretary is attached hereto and 

incorporated herein by reference.

* * * * *

BOARD WORKING PERIOD

Approval of April 5, 2007 Minutes

A motion was made and seconded to approve the minutes of the 

April 5, 2007 meeting.

The motion carried unanimously.

* * *

Hanford SEC Update

While Dr. Neton was on the phone, Dr. Wade presented the update on the 

Hanford SEC petition requested by the Board and which had been left 

with him by Dr. Neton. The petition proposed to add a group of workers 

from Hanford for the period January 1, 1942 through December 31, 1990. 

An evaluation report was issued on May 18, 2007 proposing to add a 

class from October 1, 1943 through August 31, 1946. A second NIOSH 

evaluation report will be issued to address the remaining years. 

Anticipated completion date is by August 21st of this year.

There is an SEC outreach meeting scheduled for Hanford on June 18. Dr. 

Wade offered this in response to the query of whether they should hold 

a meeting in the Hanford area. He noted there is one petition 

evaluation report that recommends a class be added. There is another 

pending, and it might be good to put the Board before the workers at 

Hanford to start hearing their stories.

* * *

Plans for SC&A Contract for Next Year
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

25

SC&A is a critical part of the process and Dr. Wade expressed his 

desire to ensure SC&A's availability to the Board at the start of next 

fiscal year, October 1 of 2007. Dr. Wade and Mr. Staudt from the 

contracting office have looked at a time line to be in receipt of SC&A 

proposals for next year's work when the Board meets in July, at which 

time the Board could modify proposals or amend proposals. That would 

give Mr. Staudt the ability to get information from SC&A and issue 

modifications as needed, moving toward having SC&A funded and working 

on October 1.

Dr. Wade called for Board concurrence that he go to SC&A and ask them 

to produce cost proposals on Task I, site profile review, to include 

six site profiles presented in a way the Board would be able to see the 

unit cost so they could decide whether to adjust up or down. Task III, 

the procedures review, he would request a cost proposal to include 

review of 30 procedures, but would ask for a unit cost on three types: 

review of a new procedure, review of previously-reviewed procedure that 

has undergone major revision, and review of a Program Evaluation 

Report.

For Task IV, individual dose reconstruction reviews, he would request a 

proposal for 60 such reviews plus the cost of additional blocks of 20. 

For Task V, the SEC task, Dr. Wade would ask for six, three focused 

reviews and three general broad reviews, with unit cost for each type.

Mr. Staudt added that Task VI covers program management costs and noted 

it would likely be consistent again this year. Dr. Wade will also be 

asking for a reasonable and prudent proposal for project management.

A motion was made and seconded that Dr. Wade charge SC&A to 

prepare cost proposals as described.

With no discussion, the motion carried unanimously.

* * *

Workgroup Scheduling

As all members of the procedures review workgroup were still present, 

Ms. Wanda Munn, chairman of that group, discussed a date for a 

workgroup conference call to take a look at outstanding procedures in 

hand, which has been provided by SC&A, and go through the entire list 

between now and the July 17 meeting.

After discussion it was agreed the call would take place on the morning 

of Tuesday, June 26, at 10:00 a.m. EST.

* * * * *
Executive Minutes June 11-12, 2007

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

26

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

adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

End of Summary Minutes

⊄ ⊄ ⊄ ⊄ ⊄

I hereby confirm these Summary Minutes are

accurate, to the best of my knowledge.

_______________________________________

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D., Chair

_______________________________________

Date