Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

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 Thirty-Eighth Meeting 


June 14-16, 2006 


__________________________________________________________ 


The Thirty-Eighth Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health (ABRWH or the Board) was held at the Marriott Metro Center, 775 


12th Street Northwest, Washington, D.C., June 14-16, 2006. The meeting 


was called to order by Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chairman of the Board, and by 


Dr. Lewis Wade, the Designated Federal Official, Centers for Disease 


Control and Prevention=s (CDC) National Institute for Occupational 

Safety and Health (NIOSH). 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; Mr. Bradley Clawson; Dr. Roy DeHart; Mr. 


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


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


Roessler. 


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


Federal Agency Attendees: 


Department of Health and Human Services: 


Mr. Jason Broehm, Ms. C.C. Chang, Mr. Larry Elliott, Ms. Mindi Haughly, 


Mr. Frank Hearl, Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, Dr. John Howard, Ms. Emily 


Howell, Ms. Laurie Ishak, Ms. Relada Miller, Dr. James Neton, Mr. 


Michael Rafky, Mr. LaVon Rutherford, Dr. Brant Ulsh. 


Department of Labor: 


Mr. James Grande, Mr. Larry Hoss, Ms. Shirley Jarmi*, Mr. Jeff Kotsch, 


Ms. Roberta Mosier, Mr. Jeff Nesvet, Mr. Hang Tung, Mr. Peter Turcic. 


Congressional Appearances: 


New York Senator Hillary Clinton, Indiana Congressman John Hostettler, 


New Mexico Congressman Tom Udall. 

Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Congressional Staff Personnel: 


Mr. Mike Casshaft*, Representing Washington Congressman Doc Hastings; 


Ms. Michelle Chavez, State Director, New Mexico Congressman Tom Udall; 


Ms. Livia Lam, representing Washington Senator Maria Cantwell; Ms. 


Sandra Schubert, representing Nevada Senator Harry Reid; Ms. Jenny 


Wing, representing Iowa Senator Tom Harkin. 


Contractors: 


Mr. Timothy Joseph, Ms. Kate Kimpan, Oak Ridge Associated Universities; 


Dr. Hans Behling, Ms. Kathy Behling, Dr. Robert Bistline, Mr. Sanford 


Cohen, Mr. Joseph Fitzgerald, Dr. Joyce Lipsztein, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, 


Dr. John Mauro, Mr. Alec Zeitoun, Sanford Cohen & Associates; Mr. 


Judson Kenoyer, Dade Moeller & Associates. 


Public Attendees: See Registration 


*****
 

Dr. Ziemer called the meeting to order at 1:05 p.m., welcoming 


attendees, encouraging them to register attendance and to sign up to 


speak during public comment if desired, as well as to avail themselves 


of materials from the back table. Dr. Ziemer deferred action on three 


sets of minutes until Friday, June 16th . 


*****
 

PROGRAM STATUS REPORT - NIOSH
 

Mr. Larry Elliott, NIOSH 


Director, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
 

Mr. Elliott opened his status report on the dose reconstruction program 


with acknowledgment of the considerable progress NIOSH has made. He 


detailed the overall claim distribution within NIOSH and the Department 


of Labor (DOL), highlighting the fact of 324 covered facilities within 


the program and the complications of reconstructing doses for 


facilities lacking site profiles. In summarizing the completed dose 


reconstructions (DRs) sent to DOL for final adjudication, he included a 


breakdown of the number of cases with possibility of causation (POC) 


over 50 percent and those with POC under 50 percent, and the awarding 


of $472 million to claimants for dose-reconstructed cases. NIOSH is 


making a concerted effort to complete the oldest cases and eliminate 


backlog. 


2
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


To augment the technical support on dose reconstruction, NIOSH has 


added a contractor, awarding a one-year task order to Battelle to 


perform DRs on a specific type of claim. These are claims typically 


from Atomic Weapons Employers (AWE) where uranium was processed, and 


some DOE sites. 


In order to explain the processes associated with an increased 


workload, Mr. Elliott covered the varied courses of action required to 


handle different types of cases, such as administratively-closed cases 


and re-works. Re-works are necessitated largely by the receipt of 


additional information. Of the claims completed by NIOSH and sent to 


DOL, 11 percent have been returned for reworks; only two percent of 


that 11 percent figure was returned for technical modification. 


Speaking to the support from Department of Energy (DOE) to NIOSH dose 


information requests, Mr. Elliott emphasized that NIOSH seeks original 


data from actual badges, bioassays, urinalysis readouts and whole body 


count data rather than cumulative dose data. Of 412 currently 


outstanding requests, only 87 are beyond the 60-day mark. Mr. Elliott 


went on to describe the follow-up process to stay abreast of the status 


of outstanding requests. This includes a series of communications to 


both DOE headquarters and site points of contact at 30-day intervals, 


and requires that DOE provide a description of their efforts to locate 


and provide the requested information. 


The presentation provided listings for six classes of workers added 


since full implementation of the Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) 


petitioning process; three petitions evaluated and delivered for Board 


review; six petition evaluation reports under development; 11 requests 


to add a class which have been submitted to NIOSH and are in the 


qualification process; and 28 submittals which have been 


administratively closed. 


SEC petitions may be administratively closed for three categorical 


reasons: failure to meet the criteria specified in 42 CFR Section 83.9; 


the facility in the submission is already a member of an SEC class, or 


the petitioner voluntarily withdraws the petition. The listing also 


included 928 cases impacted by additions of SEC classes. 


NIOSH recognized that people are having trouble understanding what 


criteria is needed in order to submit a petition. Mr. Elliott 


announced Ms. Laurie Ishak of the NIOSH staff in her new post will be 


assisting potential petitioners in the understanding and development of 


their petitions. 


***
 

Discussion Points: 


3
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#What special capabilities led to the awarding of a contract to 

Battelle. 

#How NIOSH is assisting petitioners in understanding the closeout 

process. 

#The number of actual claimants in relation to projections at the start 

of the SEC process. 

#Whether an SEC petition, administratively closed due to lack of 

additional information within 30 days, could be reopened. 


Dr. Wade explained the omission of the Nevada Test Site (NTS) and 


Pacific Proving Grounds (PPG) from the NIOSH presentation is because 


those two SEC petitions are working their way through the system. He 


asked Mr. Elliott to provide the Board with a sense of what would be 


needed within the next year or so in order to realize its goal of 


auditing two and a half percent of the cases. 


Mr. Elliott described the NIOSH goal of a steady state as one where the 


backlog has been reduced, and dose reconstructions are being produced 


at a rate higher than what is being referred from DOL so no backlog is 


building. The second part has already happened, and it is hoped by 


September, 2007 they will be producing 4,000 DRs a year with only 3,600 


coming in. Mr. Elliott expressed appreciation for the quality of 


technical support provided by the Oak Ridge Associated Universities 


(ORAU) team, noting the ORAU contract concludes in September, 2007. He 


added NIOSH anticipates a further need for some technical assistance in 


certain areas beyond that time, and will compete those task-related 


areas. 


So the Board can begin to understand its audit responsibilities 


relative to that steady state, Dr. Wade confirmed at that point there 


will be a population of approximately 25,000 claims. He inquired 


whether the site profile generation process is slowing. 


Mr. Elliott explained they are working through development of the final 


site profiles NIOSH feels are needed, noting the Battelle effort and 


the ORAU team are dedicated to that end. It is NIOSH=s goal that very 

few if any site profiles will need development by the time ORAU=s 

contract concludes. At that point NIOSH will be enhancing or providing 

additional quality in the existing site profiles. 

An increased flow of SEC petitions is expected to become a significant 


part of the program. Dr. Wade observed that once steady state is 

attained, the Board=s goal of auditing two and a half percent of cases 

will result in the need to review about 625 individual dose 

reconstructions. 

4
 
 

Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


 *****
 

PROGRAM STATUS REPORT - DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
 

Mr. Peter Turcic, 


Department of Labor
 

Mr. Turcic presented a status update on the DOL's activities under the 


Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 


(EEOICPA). He began with an enumeration and description of cases under 


Part B and the new Part E, detailing operational goals for 


administering the program under the Government Performance and Results 


Act (GPRA). Mr. Turcic explained the goals are based on timely initial 


decisions: 120 days for cases from a DOE facility or a Radiation 


Exposure Compensation Act (RECA) case and 180 days for cases from an 


AWE or a subcontractor, which need a longer period for employment 


verification. 


Various scenarios were presented concerning timely decisions for final 


decisions based on these types: waiver of objections, review of the 


written record, or the instance of a case going to a hearing. DOL has 


set percentage goals for both their timely initial decisions and their 


final decisions, and those percentages have been continually raised as 


efficiency increases. Part B timeliness goals for FY '06 are 80%. The 


desire to put more emphasis on a backlog of Part D cases from DOE, 


however, caused DOL to lower their timeliness goal to 50 percent for 


2006 for Part E. He reiterated that goals are continually set higher 


as performance increases. 


As of the week prior to this meeting, over $2 billion has been paid in 


total EEOICPA program compensation. Payments made under Part B alone 


totaled $1.52 billion, and breakdowns of the following were presented: 


the payments made under Part E, RECA and Medical; decisions on cancer 


cases, including denials and the reasons behind them; NIOSH referral 


status including reworks, returns and withdrawals; the status of dose 


reconstructed cases including final decision, approvals and denials; 


cases from the newly-added SECs encompassing those withdrawn for 


review, those with final decisions including approvals and denials, 


those without final decisions, and those pending. 


Compensation in cases for which a referral was made to NIOSH totaled 


$472 million. The presentation broke down numbers of payees and cases, 


compensation and payee numbers for dose-reconstructed cases and for 


added SEC cases. Mr. Turcic provided statistics relating to the SEC 


sites presently scheduled for discussion including Ames, Rocky Flats, 


and Y-12. He gave similar information for other sites including 


5

Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Savannah River, Hanford, NTS, and Bethlehem Steel. 


***
 

Discussion Points: 


#Are medical payment totals low due to large numbers of survivors or; 

#difficulties in obtaining medical information from claimants. 

#Identification of the major types of cancers among the non-specified 

cancers. 

#Are Part E claims for cancer drawn largely from transferred Part B 

claims. 

#How do mixed chemical and radiation exposures factor into claims under 

Part E. 

*****
 

CONFLICT OF INTEREST (COI) DISCUSSION
 

Dr. Lewis Wade, NIOSH 


Designated Federal Official 


Dr. Wade highlighted changes in the updated COI policy to stimulate 


discussion. The NIOSH intent is to take all comments, from this 


session and beyond, and continue to evolve the policy with the hope of 


presenting a final policy in six weeks. The changes shown below are 


based on comments received. 


1: The first major change was made to page 3 in Section 3.11 on issues 


relating to financial or supervisory types of conflicts. Two footnotes 


were added. One provided a familial definition, a significant addition 


to the COI policy. The other, footnote 9, dealt with the definition of 


Afinancial,@ in terms of exclusions. 

2: An entirely new section was added at 4.0, ACorporate Disclosure and 

Exclusion.@

3: A second paragraph was added on page 8 increasing specificity about 


what a site expert could not do. 


4: The section on verification has an addition which clarifies the 


section on penalties. 


5: Based on comments, a section 7.5 ACompliance Information Contacts@

has been added. 

6
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Additionally, other less significant modifications were made to the COI 


policy based on comments received. Dr. Wade encouraged the Board to 


conduct a full airing and discussion of this document. He welcomed 


comment on NIOSH=s strategy of having one document serve as the 

fountainhead for all policies that would flow from it. He offered that 

arguments could be made that the Board and the Board=s contractor should 

be held to a different standard, and promised that the drafters of this 

document would take all present and future comments seriously. 

***
 

Discussion Points: 


#Whether the wording of the new 3.11 is too broad. 


#The matter of time period covered by the policy, especially as it 


relates to SECs. 

#How conflicts will carry over a time frame and from site to site. 

#How to make the policy operational. 

#The new 4.0 seems to be all disclosure and no exclusion. 

#The onus of responsibility is on document owners, and their work is 

not reviewed. 

#How to deal with conflicts found in past work. 

#Perhaps rules specific for each group in the program should be 

provided. 

#Need for establishing a method, formally expressed within the 

structure of the document, for assistance in challenging an issue. 

#Steps for finalizing the COI policy. 

#The paucity of hourly workers who serve as site experts. 

#Impact of the current and evolving policy on workload. 

#Efforts made by the ORAU team to adhere to the letter and spirit of 

the policy. 

#Potential outcomes if a site profile author is found to be conflicted. 

#Need for a stronger review program, perhaps internal peer review, for 

early detection of issues with potential impact on dose 

reconstruction. 

#The difficulty of reviewing constantly-changing documents. 

***
 

The Board agreed to reach a consensus position on the COI policy as 


early as possible. A working group was formed to review the policy and 


develop a statement for discussion during the August Board conference 


call. Dr. James Melius will chair, with Mr. Brad Clawson and Mr. Mike 


Gibson as the remaining members of the workgroup. 


7
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


 ***
 

Dr. Ziemer offered any members of the public who wished to comment on 


the Conflict of Interest policy the opportunity to do so. Mr. Richard 


Miller of the Government Accountability Project accepted, and his 


statement in its entirety may be found on the NIOSH/OCAS web site at 


www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


*****
 

PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION
 

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


following is the only member of the public who spoke on this date. A 


full transcript of his public comment is available on the NIOSH/OCAS 


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


Mr. Jeff Walburn, SPFPA, Local 66. 


With no further public comment offered, the Board officially 


recessed until 8:30 a.m.


 *****
 

Thursday, June 15, 2006
 

Dr. Ziemer opened the day with reminders to register attendance, sign 

up if desired for the day=s public comment session and take copies of 

the agenda and other pertinent documents. Dr. Wade noted that when the 

petition for Ames Laboratory comes before the Board it will be the 

first in which SC&A has been aggressively involved in looking into 

issues. The Board has made every effort to make all the processes, 

including debate, full and open. 

*****
 

AMES LABORATORY SEC PETITION 


NIOSH EVALUATION REPORT
 

Dr. James Neton, 


NIOSH
 

Dr. Neton presented NIOSH=s evaluation of petition SEC-00038 on behalf 

of Ames Laboratory. He began with a sketch of petition-related 

activities and dates. The original proposed class included a broad 

scope of seven work categories. That definition, complete with 

8

Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


numerous job titles and site buildings, was provided. He detailed 

NIOSH=s search for data within the NIOSH OCAS Claims Tracking System 

(NOCTS), noting the almost complete lack of monitoring data available 

therein. He described the Ames Laboratory in terms of its structure 

and its radiological activities, notably thorium operations. The 

physical plant was never intended to house a production scale operation 

and its ventilation was inadequate. 

Dr. Neton detailed the information NIOSH obtained from each of its 


sources, including several databases, interviews with Ames staff 


members, the Ames Laboratory web site, and documentation provided by 


petitioners. He provided a breakdown of the dosimetry data into 


external and internal. As a whole, the dosimetry data is sparse. 


Monitoring and source term information is spotty. Under the first 


prong of the two-prong test established by EEOICPA, NIOSH came to the 


determination that the available monitoring records and process 


descriptions are insufficient to complete dose reconstructions with 


sufficient accuracy. 


Regarding the second prong of that test, health endangerment, NIOSH=s 

study of the evidence indicates that workers may have received episodic 

internal/external exposures from working with thorium, plutonium and 

thoron; however, those exposures do not meet the litmus test of an 

exposure equivalent to one that would result from a criticality 

accident, so the default 250-day requirement is used. Based on NIOSH=s 

analysis, the revised proposed class definition added the 250 day 

requirement and eliminated job titles per se, substituting more 

encompassing wording. Dr. Neton explained why the proposed definition 

end date was one year earlier than that of the petitioner=s proposed 

definition. That decision was based on cessation of operations in 1954 

for both uranium and thorium activities and NIOSH=s ability to establish 

plausible upper bounds for exposures in 1955. In summary, he 

delineated what NIOSH can and cannot do regarding dose reconstructions 

for internal, external, neutron and medical exposures. 

***
 

Discussion Points: 


#Why the 250-day limit was used in the instance of episodic exposures. 

#The potential for Ames workers still employed in 1955 to constitute a 

different class. 

#The Board need to devise a way to handle situations in facilities with 

essentially no monitoring programs during relevant time periods. 


***
 

9
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


AMES LABORATORY PETITIONERS RESPONSE
 

Dr. Laurence Fuortes represented the petitioners to address errors they 


contend have been made in the past. He alleged lack of attention to 


worker health and safety from the very top levels of administration. 


The petitioners have three main issues. They concern the semantics of 


discrete event equivalent to a criticality and whether the intention of 


the legislation is being realized; NIOSH=s recommendation of 250 days; 

and the date at which the petition=s class is defined. 

His statement in its entirety may be found on the NIOSH/OCAS web site 


at www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


***
 

AMES LABORATORY SEC PETITION 


WORKING GROUP REPORT
 

and SC&A REVIEW
 

Dr. James Melius, 


Working Group Chair 


Dr. Hans Behling, 


Sanford Cohen & Associates 


Dr. Melius reported that at the conference call in April the work group 


had identified issues and determined it would be helpful to have SC&A 


perform a limited review of the information, the NIOSH evaluation 


report and the petition. The issues concerned residual contamination 


and episodic exposure. SC&A=s recent report has not yet been reviewed 

by NIOSH. 

***
 

Dr. Behling highlighted only the outstanding issues in SC&A=s report, 

along with those which might require Board resolution. Essential 

components of the review process included reviews of the petition and 

of available relevant documents, an assessment of NIOSH=s petition 

evaluation report, and issues potentially requiring Board resolution. 

SC&A concluded, as did NIOSH, that dose reconstructions would be 


difficult in light of information deficiencies and gaps. However, the 


question arose as to what constituted the Ames project, whether 


production or potential exposures went beyond the production period to 


be included as part of the SEC petition. This open question needed 


careful consideration, as did the possibility that the 1954 end date 


10
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


might have been arbitrary. Dr. Behling reviewed results of a 1952 


Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) survey conducted at the Ames Laboratory 


facility. The report identified serious deficiencies, along with 36 


recommendations aimed primarily at reducing air concentration. 


SC&A then identified three issues, the first one questioning whether 


the 1954-1955 time frame should be considered as the prime period for 


the SEC; the second concerning the class of workers and whether guards 


were included; and the most important issue, episodic doses that could 


have contributed to an exposure that might have workers eligible for 


the exposure period that was not necessarily defined by the 250-day 


work aggregate. 


The second criterion involving a potential look at the 250-day period 


was the definition under paragraph 83.13 mentioning other events 


involving similar high level exposure resulting from the failure of 


radiation protection controls. The 1952 survey clearly pointed to a 


failure of those controls. 


Thorium 232 calculations due to routine exposures were displayed; they 


were taken from the 1952 survey of exposures. Additional discussion 


between SC&A and NIOSH was needed to resolve the meaning of the 


numbers. The calculations illustrated the potential of one routine 


exposure in one day to constitute a significant health risk. 


***
 

Discussion subsequent to the presentation was lengthy and technical, 


and included offerings from the Board, NIOSH, SC&A and the petitioners. 


Topics included the following. 


Discussion Points: 


#Whether the basis for SC&A's implication that the SEC class should be 

continued was residual contamination itself or the ability to do 

dose reconstruction. 

#Whether SC&A acted appropriately in going beyond the scope of what 

they had been asked to review. 

#The matter is not whether there was persistent contamination in some 

buildings, but whether NIOSH can put plausible upper bounds on the 

exposures in those buildings. 

#NIOSH's internal dose calculation estimates are much lower than those 

presented by SC&A. 

#Further discussion on this matter, and other issues, is needed. 

#A request for NIOSH to share their calculations on the upper bound. 

#A request for explanation of why the 50-year committed organ dose is 

11
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


listed as a rate. 

#A request for dates for which data is available. 

#Clarification that guards, firemen and secretaries will be included in 

the NIOSH proposed SEC class definition. 

#Consideration of the Ames storage facilities for thorium and uranium. 

***
 

As working group Chair, Dr. Melius read into the record their 


recommendation to the Board, which is received as a motion requiring no 


second: 


The Board recommends that the following letter be transmitted to the 


Secretary of Health and Human Services within 21 days. Should the 


Chair become aware of any issue that in his judgment would 


preclude the transmittal of this letter within that time period, 


the Board requests that he promptly informs the Board of the delay 


and the reasons for this delay, and that he immediately works with 


NIOSH to schedule an emergency meeting of the Board to discuss 


this issue. 


The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board) has 

evaluated the SEC petition 00038 concerning workers at the Ames 

Laboratory under the statutory requirements established by EEOICPA 

and incorporated into 42 CFR Section 83.13. The Board 

respectfully recommends a Special Exposure Cohort be accorded to 

all Department of Energy employees or its contractor or 

subcontractor employees who were monitored or should have been 

monitored while working at Ames Laboratory in one or more of the 

following facilities/locations: Chemistry Annex 1 (also known as 

the Aold women=s gymnasium@ and Alittle Ankeny@), Chemistry Annex 2, 

Chemistry Building (also known as AGilman Hall@), Research Building 

or the Metallurgical Building (also known as AHarley Wilhelm Hall@) 

for a number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days 


during the period from January 1st, 1942 through December 31st , 


1954, or in combination with the work days within the parameters 


established for one or more other classes of employees in the SEC. 


These workers were employed during the early years of the nuclear 


weapons production. There are very little monitoring data 


available for the Ames Laboratory during the years in question. 


NIOSH concluded that the available monitoring and source term 


information is not sufficient to document or estimate the 


potential maximum radiation exposures for workers at the Ames 


Laboratory under plausible circumstances during the time period in 


question. The Board concurs with this conclusion. 


12
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


NIOSH has reviewed information which confirms that radiation exposures 


at the Ames Laboratory during the time period in question could 


have endangered the health of members of this class. The Board 


concurs with this conclusion. 


The Board is still evaluating issues related to people who may have 


been exposed to radiation during discrete incidents that could 


have involved exceptionally high exposures to radiation while 


working at the Ames Laboratory. For example, those who were 


present during the explosions or fires (and fires in some of the 


buildings) and who may not meet the 250-workday requirement 


described above. The Board will continue to review this matter 


and may make additional future recommendations regarding this 


group. 


Enclosed is supporting documentation from the recent Advisory Board 


meeting held June 15th in Washington, D.C. where the Special 


Exposure Cohort petition was discussed. This documentation 


includes transcripts of public comments on the petition, copies of 


the petition, the NIOSH review thereof, and related documents 


distributed by NIOSH and the petitioners. If any of these items 


are unavailable, they will follow shortly. 


The motion was open for discussion. 


#Whether 21 days is the correct reference in the first sentence. 

#The motion includes the possibility of ongoing discussions on the 

issue of the episodic exposures, while also allowing for closure 

for most petitioners. 

#Continuation of the time frame did not need to be part of the current 

motion; further discussion could take place. 

#The Board had approved incorrect dates in its formal motion on a 

previous petition, which error had been rectified. 

#Whether the basis of the 250-workday requirement might vary from site 

to site. 

#The definition of episodic exposures as it relates to the 250-day 

requirement and why, in and of themselves, they did not qualify. 

#The resulting exposure must be an exceptionally high level of 

radiation to be defined as equivalent to a criticality. 


#What criterion will apply for Ames if 250 days is not used. 

#The Board's need to develop criteria for moving forward operationally 

to address whether episodic exposures could qualify when the 

worker had less than 250 days of employment. 

***
 

13
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Discussion was interrupted by the arrival of Senator Hillary Clinton of 


New York, who spoke on behalf of the Bethlehem Steel workers 


specifically and the law governing the SEC process generally. Her 


statement in its entirety may be found on the NIOSH/OCAS web site at 


www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


***
 

Discussion of the motion on the Ames Laboratory SEC petition continued 


with Dr. Wade's suggestion that the motion as proposed could move 


forward while allowing for future discussion of the 250-day issue, 


given its numerous conflicts and open technical questions. He
 

confirmed that 21 days is the correct time frame to use in the 


recommendation. 


The motion carried unanimously.


 *****
 

PARTIAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS FOR NON-PRESUMPTIVE CANCERS
 

Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, 


NIOSH
 

Mr. Hinnefeld presented NIOSH=s approach to partial DRs for claims where 

the claimant is included in the SEC class but is not compensated via 

the SEC, due to the fact that not all forms of cancer are designated to 

receive financial compensation. He explained that addition of an SEC 

class provides compensation without a DR for claimants with one of the 

22 listed cancers, provided other conditions are met. Claimants who 

have a non-listed cancer or who do not meet the other criteria are 

eligible for compensation if NIOSH can perform a DR with those 

components of the dose which are feasible to reconstruct, and obtains a 

POC above 50 percent. 

SEC classes added through the Secretary=s designation letter include 

Mallinckrodt, St. Louis, 1942 to 1948 and 1949 to 1957; Iowa Ordnance 

Plant 1949 to 1974; Y-12 Facility, 1943 to 1947; and Linde Ceramics, 

1943 to 1947. 

The presentation summarized key elements that led to a determination of 


infeasibility of reconstructing dose at each of the above sites, 


including a listing of impacts of infeasibility. Mr. Hinnefeld 


verbally detailed these elements and impacts for each site, explaining 


each decision in terms of data availability, monitoring, internal, 


external, and occupational medical exposures. When some component of 


14
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


the dose is found not feasible to reconstruct, NIOSH adds language to 


the DR report and summary reports to point out lack of components they 


would normally include. For each site he also detailed the doses that 


are feasible to reconstruct. 


In summary, Mr. Hinnefeld stated NIOSH follows this process because the 


addition of an SEC class does not provide a remedy for all claims in 


that class. Historically, about 40 percent of the claims NIOSH has 


received for dose reconstruction do not have one of the SEC listed 


cancers, but a portion of these remaining class claims could receive 


compensation through partial DRs. 


***
 

Discussion Points: 


#Basal cell carcinoma is the non-presumptive cancer most likely to be 

compensated. 

#Infeasible exposures tend to be internal. 

#NIOSH's basis for a determination of infeasibility comes from the site 

profile or the petition evaluation report. 

#When doses determined infeasible to reconstruct lead to inclusion as a 

class in the SEC, they will receive no further consideration in 

any dose reconstruction. 

***
 

Discussion was interrupted by the arrival of Congressman Tom Udall from 


New Mexico, who spoke to the SEC petition for Los Alamos National 


Laboratory (LANL) currently being evaluated. His statement in its 


entirety may be found on the NIOSH/OCAS web site at 


www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


***
 

Discussion Points (Continued): 


#A gap has been left in coverage relating to prostate cancer, which 

will probably require legislative action to resolve. 

#Process anomalies, such as completion of DRs at sites for which dose 

reconstructions are later declared infeasible, or situations 

wherein an individual's data is sufficient but overall data is 

declared not sufficient for the class, are confusing to claimants. 

#The best remedy may be legislative. 

#Clarifying language early in the process might keep claimant 

expectations realistic. 

15
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#Words used in Board recommendations to the Secretary are crucial due 

to results flowing from language. 

#Consideration for making Board discussions with DOL a regular part of 

their deliberations. 


*** 


Board attention then focused on how to improve communication in 


letters, deliberations and within the workgroups, where members had 


tended to focus on what was infeasible. Written reasons for both 


feasibility and infeasibility of dose reconstruction would help 


petitioners better comprehend the situation of partial dose 


reconstructions. A sharing and transmittal of information on the 


handling of circumstances at a particular site could provide continuity 


with other sites, although the information was unlikely to be 


applicable in all situations. Claimants had particular difficulty 


distinguishing between full and partial dose reconstructions. The 


Board suggested ways to make communications with petitioners more user-


friendly and it was noted that a communication initiative will be 


presented during the next day=s meeting. 

*****
 

NEVADA TEST SITE AND PACIFIC PROVING GROUND SEC PETITIONS 


UPDATE ON ISSUES RELATED TO 250-DAY REQUIREMENT
 

Conflicted for Nevada Test Site (NTS), Mr. Griffon joined the audience 


for the following presentation and ensuing discussion. 


Dr. James Neton, 


NIOSH
 

Dr. Neton provided an update as to the characteristics of the covered 


classes with exposures less than 250 days. The Board had left open the 


option of investigating the possibility of inclusion of these workers. 


NIOSH examined the case data for people with less than 250 days who 


had presumptive cancers. At PPG, due to on-site residence, this 


condition applied to workers with 83 days or less of exposure. NIOSH 


looked at job categories and descriptions of these cases and monitoring 


status for these workers. 


At NTS, NIOSH found that 444 cases had exposures within the SEC time 


frame and, of those workers with less than 250 days of exposure, 61 had 


at least one presumptive cancer and 17 additional cases had non-


presumptive cancers. Dr. Neton provided intricate details of NIOSH=s 

examinations of the internal and external monitoring data for these 

cases. 

16
 
 

 

Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 


NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Based on the available monitoring data for 28 of the 61 people with 


presumptive cancers who worked less than 250 days, these workers did 


not receive any external exposures. The collective dose for all 28 


workers with monitoring data was 21 rem. The highest annual recorded 


dose in this time period was for a miner who received 4.7 rem recorded 


external exposure. None of these exposures was in the realm of 


exposure related to a criticality incident. The highest recorded 


exposure for a year from internal plus external sources was about 7 


rem. 


Concerning PPG, 69 cases met the criteria in the SEC class definition, 


38 of those had exposures less than 250 days and 19 cases had less than 


the 83-day calculation. Job titles of workers with exposures less than 


83 days seemed to be more heavily weighted towards the 


technical/professional category. Some types of external dose 


measurements were available for all 19 cases but none exceeded what 


NIOSH would consider the regulatory limits in effect at the time of 


exposure; they were much less than the exposures resulting from a 


criticality incident. 


***
 

Discussion Points: 


#Guards would likely have been included in the NTS SEC if they were 

monitored or should have been monitored. 

#Of the 19 cases for PPG workers with less than 83 days= exposure, NIOSH 

agreed to find out if any of them overlapped with NTS. 


*****


 PUBLIC COMMENT 


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


is a list of the members of the public who spoke during this session. 


Their statements may be found in their entirety on the NIOSH/OCAS web 


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


Ms. Sandra Schubert, representing Nevada Senator Harry Reid, read his 


statement into the record; Ms. Laurie Hunton, daughter of former NTS 


worker Earl Triplett, spoke on behalf of her father and read into the 


record statements from the following: Ms. Diane Milko, daughter of an 


NTS worker; seven surviving children of Mr. Archie Gilger; Ms. Shirley 


Breeden, daughter of an NTS mechanic foreman; Mr. Otis Tyrone Thompson, 


whose father served as head custodian from 1960 to 1969; and Mr. Irvin 


Forman, an NTS worker from 1957 to 1971. And finally, Dr. Lynn 


17
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Anspaugh, a research professor of radiobiology at the University of 


Utah who spent 33 years working at Lawrence Livermore National 


Laboratory in California as well as work time at NTS and Amchitka. 


*****
 

Following Dr. Anspaugh=s telephonic statement and offer of assistance in 

the area of resuspension, it was announced that a working group had 

been formed and needed only to be activated, with the goal of bringing 

closure to that issue at the September meeting. Dr. Wade reminded the 

workgroup to check with him before meeting to be sure that SC&A=s 

involvement with NTS had been cleared, given that SC&A=s work for the 

Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) could limit the contractor=s 

ability to be available to the Board relative to that site. 


*****
 

ROCKY FLATS SEC PETITION 


WORKING GROUP UPDATE
 

Mr. Mark Griffon, 


Workgroup Chair
 

Mr. Griffon gave a brief history of the process. A site profile 


review had evolved into an SEC petition review and the matrix now 


primarily tracked issues of relevance to the SEC petition. The 


workgroup had not modified its matrix since the Board met in Denver in 


April, but work had been ongoing, including direct communications 


between NIOSH and SC&A. 


The first item concerned high-fired plutonium oxide. NIOSH had 


designed an approach to be used for dose reconstructions for insoluble 


plutonium at Rocky Flats. The workgroup had asked Dr. Joyce Lipsztein 


and Dr. Robert Bistline to further review the design cases used to 


support a technical information bulletin (TIB) describing the 


methodology. SC&A=s review involved these considerations: 

1.SC&A reviewed and produced all the lung adjustment factors that NIOSH 


had produced and found them acceptable. This included adjustment 


factors used to handle the effects of smoking, the extra-thoracic 


region, the gastrointestinal tract, and for using AMAD. 


2.SC&A independently reviewed autopsy and bioassay data for eight Rocky 


Flats workers with confirmed uranium intakes and measurable lung 


activity. They found that the NIOSH approach overestimates lung 


activities. 


18
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


3.SC&A found problems with the empirical model derived from some design 


cases, in that NIOSH did not explain fully how the design cases 


were selected to derive the adjustment factors. Back-calculations 


from urine and lung data did not match up to give the same intake, 


so an explanation from NIOSH is needed. 


4.This concern represents an issue. NIOSH=s approach to insoluble 

plutonium is more conservative than that used at the ex-Soviet 

Union=s Mayak plant when applied to bioassay urine results and when 

used to calculate lung doses from lung counts, but the Mayak model 

is more conservative when applied to calculate dose to systemic 

organs from lung count. 

5.When calculating systemic organ doses derived from lung count, NIOSH 


states that no correction is necessary, but without providing a 


clear basis for this approach. Such doses are usually calculated 


from urine bioassay, so SC&A wants to see NIOSH provide explicit 


guidance to the dose reconstructor to use urine bioassay data, and 


explain its use in the cases not fitting a type S. 


In conclusion, SC&A is in agreement with the NIOSH approach for 


estimating annual doses from intake of plutonium 239 that are retained 


in the lung longer than predicted by the normal absorption type S 


model; however, NIOSH still needs to demonstrate that the approach 


bounds the uncertainties associated with all the case-based measured 


values and analysis. NIOSH=s case selections are conservative. 

***
 

Discussion Points: 


#The Mayak paper and its attendant ICRP 66-A information was published 

in Health Physics. 

#Cases in which doses to systemic organs would be underestimated. 

#Variable behaviors of plutonium oxides. 

#NIOSH will always start with the urine measurement for estimation of 

systemic burden. 

#Overall SC&A is in agreement with NIOSH=s methodology but seeks 

validation of the samples used to arrive at the adjustment 

factors. 

#The cases represent the spectrum and are cases for which data is 

sufficient to develop models. 

#The workgroup wants NIOSH to provide identifiers so they can assess 

the soundness of the selection process and the model. 

19
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#NIOSH has provided a supplement after development of TIB-49 to address 

the TIB=s inconsistencies with respect to its application to 

systemic organs. 

#The workgroup=s next step will be finalization, which is close at hand. 

Mr. Griffon covered other issues under workgroup consideration, 


including the following items: 


#NIOSH=s approach for dose reconstruction for radionuclides such as 

americium, neptunium; uranium 233, 235, 234, 238; curium and 

thorium need follow-up because gross alpha data is seemingly not 

available for all areas where these isotopes might have been 

present for all time periods. NIOSH is still checking on whether 

the gross alpha technique was available in the plutonium areas, 

particularly for the americium separation process. 

#NIOSH=s methods for reconstructing neutron exposures raise questions 

concerning data validity and the different methods used for 

different time periods. The workgroup wants to make sure the 

approaches are scientifically sound. For some periods direct 

measurement data is used; in earlier time periods neutron/photon 

correction factors are used. SC&A has completed a review of this 

issue which will be ready for the next workgroup session. SC&A 

considers the questions of data validity on neutron exposures and 

the 1969/1970 anomaly of missing records as loose ends. 

#For decontamination and decommissioning (D&D) workers the issue is 

that during the later time period NIOSH=s approach to internal dose 

measurements was changed from primarily bioassay to an increased 

reliance on breathing zone air sampling (BZA). It is unclear to 

the workgroup whether this program applies to everyone, including 

subcontractors. A different approach is possibly needed from 

NIOSH. 

Dr. Brant Ulsh clarified the issues and offered that site experts 


confirmed subcontractors were included in the bioassay program. 


Further fine points of disagreement were exchanged, with questions 


raised on whether large groups of subcontractors, including second and 


third tier subcontractors, might have been missed. There were also 


questions surrounding changes to the routine bioassay sampling program 


on site once D&D work started. Mr. Griffon and Dr. Ulsh agreed on the 


need for further discussion at the next workgroup meeting. 


The next three items fell under the heading of data reliability. 


#Although NIOSH does not expect reliance on coworker models, the 

workgroup wants a check on original sources, including urine log 

books, to assure the database is suitable for use in the DR 

20
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


program, noting that many of the hard copy records in claimants=

files are actually printouts from the database itself. NIOSH will 

compare samplings of those log books with the electronic data. 

#NIOSH will provide the databases with identifiers so that resolution 

on workgroup issues can be expedited. 

#Termed investigation and follow-up on data validity questions raised 

by the petitioners, these questions also arose as a result of 

SC&A=s interviews with petitioners. The workgroup wants to look 

into allegations that people working in high exposure areas for a 

couple of quarters have records for those quarters saying no data 

available. The workgroup intends to pursue the larger question on 

whether there was any kind of systemic problem. 

Mr. Griffon remarked on a draft internal report on the status of these 


tasks completed by Ms. Kathy DeMers just two days prior. The report 


included all the investigations of various subgroups involving data 


reliability. NIOSH and SC&A have been working together to bring those 


issues to conclusion and plan a report to the workgroup. 


#The first item dealt with approximately ten safety concern reports, a 

type of report any employee was authorized to issue. NIOSH 

determined that, despite their misleading titles, those reports 

cited in the original list were not pertinent to data integrity 

issues. SC&A questioned one report they felt might nonetheless be 

pertinent. NIOSH agreed to check to see if a full listing of 

safety concern reports might exist and to identify which reports 

might be of interest, using only their titles as a basis. 

#Under external dose procedures, NIOSH is in the process of reviewing 

the records of specific individuals who made allegations of no 

data available in their record or that their TLD 

(thermoluminescence dosimeter) or badge had been mishandled or 

that it misrepresented their workplace exposure. 

#Scanned versions of radiation contamination log books and other log 

books from Rocky Flats are to be posted on the O drive so that 

dosimetry-related information can be checked. This could confirm 

if zeroes appeared in workers= records when in fact there were very 

high exposures. 

#Concerning records which were allegedly hidden in a trailer during 

inspection and later destroyed, NIOSH is investigating. No status 

is available at this point. 

#Concerning missing records, NIOSH is tracking at least two individuals 

who claim their records were missing after the fire, a matter 

related to the 1969-1970 time frame. 

***
 

21
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


 PETITIONER COMMENTS
 

Dr. Ziemer interrupted the discussion to allow Ms. Kay Barker, 


representing the petitioners and former Rocky Flats workers, to make a 


statement via telephone. She posed a number of questions regarding 


conflict of interest and the petition evaluation report. Her comments 


in their entirety are available on the NIOSH/OCAS web site at 


www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


***
 

Concern was expressed over possible misattribution of the source of 

extreme allegations appearing in SC&A=s May 9, 2006 draft attachment to 

task 10008. To the casual reader, worker concerns appeared to be 

presented as a matter of fact. It was suggested that SC&A revise the 

document to be clear as to the unconfirmed nature of the allegations 

and as to who made them. Reiterative comment was made on the lack of 

hands-on workers designated as site experts qualified to help write 

site profiles and similar documents. Dr. Ziemer summarized those 

comments, making the point that anything used to characterize a site 

needed factual confirmation. 

Dr. Ziemer sought Board consensus before tasking SC&A with any revision 

of their draft attachment. ORAU=s annotation approach was seen as the 

best solution because it identified the individual source along with 

his or her COI information. Dr. Mauro concurred with these concerns 

and agreed to take appropriate actions on this supplement and future 

documents. 

*****
 

Y-12 SEC PETITION 


NIOSH EVALUATION UPDATE
 

Conflicted for Y-12, Dr. Ziemer, Dr. DeHart and Mr. Presley joined the 


audience, and Dr. Wade assumed the duties of Acting Chair through the 


following presentation and ensuing discussion. 


Mr. Jason Broehm, Congressional liaison for CDC's Washington office, 


read into the record a letter from Senators Bill Frist and Lamar 


Anderson of Tennessee expressing their support for the SEC petition on 


behalf of Y-12 workers. That statement in its entirety may be found on 


the NIOSH/OCAS web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


Dr. James Neton, 


NIOSH
 

22

Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. Neton began his update on the SEC evaluation report for the Y-12 

SEC class with background on NIOSH=s agreement to expand their 

evaluation to include a review of all workers at the site between 1948 

and 1957. As a result, NIOSH recommended a proposed class which would 

include employees who worked at least 250 days in Building 9202, 9204­

1, 9204-3, 9206 and 9212. 

At subsequent working group meetings, two particular issues were 


identified which needed further research by NIOSH: 


#The first question concerned whether or not NIOSH had identified all 

buildings involved in thorium production. 

Information on this matter is classified. After obtaining appropriate 


clearances to review the material mass balance ledgers, NIOSH located a 


mass balance ledger for every year of the SEC period. A review of 


those ledgers led to discovery of an additional building, 9201-3, where 


a large quantity of thorium was handled, and NIOSH is proposing to add 


this to the proposed class definition for thorium exposures. NIOSH 


also came to a determination that internal exposures for workers in 


three buildings previously named can in fact be reconstructed. 


#The second issue concerned whether or not the incident reports for 

Cyclotron operations portrayed in NIOSH=s evaluation report could 

adequately bound the internal exposures for workers during that 

period. 

ORAU=s search through the database of 800 incident reports yielded 

nothing of use for reconstructing internal exposures during the SEC 

period. NIOSH cannot find 1960's incident reports, which they believed 

documented some fairly large internal exposures, and do not anticipate 

being able to find them in a timely manner. As a result they will 

revise their class definition to include workers in the Cyclotron 

building, 9201-2. 

***
 

Discussion Points: 


#Explanation was sought and received on how to make operational for DOL 

the definition of monitored or should have been monitored for 


thorium exposures. 


#The Board=s concern is to be certain the definition will be clear and 

usable by DOL. 

#How will DOL make a determination on which workers were in the 

23
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


proposed buildings in light of the assertion by some site experts 


that several departments were not linked specifically to one 


building. 


#Explanation was sought on how, from an implementation standpoint, DOL 

could retrospectively determine who should have been monitored for 

internal exposures. 

#Addressing the end point for operations, particularly the Cyclotron, 

NIOSH=s investigation into the post-1957 Cyclotron operations will 

continue. 

***
 

Petitioners were invited to comment. Mr. James Duvall, participating 


by telephone, declined the opportunity to express any concerns. 


***
 

Y-12 SEC PETITION
 

WORKING GROUP UPDATE
 

Mr. Mark Griffon, 


Working Group Chair
 

Mr. Griffon observed that although the review process is slow at times, 


it works. Delays are due in part to the classified nature of the 

ledgers. The workgroup is pleased with NIOSH=s effort to obtain 

information on where additional thorium operations took place. The 

workgroup has not yet looked at the outline of a model NIOSH provided, 

but it is clear there had been small laboratory quantities present. 

Methods for bounding the exposures for workers in those laboratories 

are thought to be available. This item is resolved. 

Other items included the following: 


#Regarding Cyclotron work, the principal item concerns exotic 

radionuclides. Discussion between NIOSH and the workgroup 

resulted in agreement that an unknown and significant dose 

component is important to justifying the addition of this group of 

workers to an SEC. 

#Based on NIOSH=s DR model for plutonium exposures from the Calutron 

runs and from laboratory support work conducted in building 9205, 

SC&A and the workgroup are in agreement that NIOSH can determine 

upper estimates. 

#Independent validation for Y-12 data is vital to the workgroup for 

several reasons. Close to 80 percent of the claimants are in some 

way reliant on a coworker model, which will use the electronic 

24
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


database for development of a distribution and assignment of their 


external exposures. Furthermore, the Y-12 database is owned by 


the contractor on this project, ORAU. 


Validation of the external and internal data was accomplished to the 


satisfaction of SC&A, despite some difficulties. Health physics 


reports provided the basis for the validation process. NIOSH has 


recently provided a database with all the identifiers, allowing 


its work to be checked. This is important at Y-12, and possibly 


in the future, because the health physics reports upon which NIOSH 


is basing its summary reports are still classified. 


#Follow-up on the coworker models on the gamma and beta exposure models 

is in part a data validation question and in part a question on 

the method by which NIOSH is back-extrapolating exposures. It 

became clear that a plausible upper-bound dose can be calculated, 

so the workgroup is comfortable that it is not an SEC issue, 

although questions might remain in terms of the site profile 

review. The coworker model for internal uranium exposures used in 

the back-extrapolation does have applicable later data, and that 

item is closed out as well. 

#Regarding the neutron dose reconstruction, NIOSH provided the 

requested follow-up references. SC&A reviewed those and is 

satisfied to close out that item. 

#The question of the approach to be used for recycled uranium exposures 

is closed out from an SEC standpoint due to conviction that a 

plausible upper bound for doses can be established. 

***
 

Discussion Points: 


#Concern for the difficulty in giving extended thoughts to last-minute 

matters resulting from real time work. 

#This workgroup process provides a clear example of the value of SC&A=s 

involvement and demonstrates NIOSH=s ability to listen, adjust and 

modify based on discussion. 

The workgroup was concerned about how to craft a recommendation that 


DOL can implement effectively. Dr. Melius updated the Board on the 


draft he and Mr. Griffon have worked on, explaining that they still 


have significant questions on how to describe the cohort and, for the 


non-SEC cancers, how to communicate in terms of what can reasonably be 


dose-reconstructed as well as what cannot be done. 


25
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


 *****
 

REVIEW OF INDIVIDUAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTIONS 


SC&A INITIAL PRESENTATION ON 4TH ROUND OF CASES
 

Ms. Kathy Behling, 


Sanford Cohen & Associates
 

Ms. Behling began her summary of the fourth set of case reviews with a 


brief explanation of the process to date. Two-member Advisory Board 


teams met with Dr. Behling and Ms. Behling to discuss their cases and 


the associated findings. SC&A=s draft report was originally published 

on April 7th and as of this presentation it is still considered a draft. 

Ms. Behling had generated a matrix on that day and forwarded it to the 


Board and NIOSH, but the issues resolution process has not begun, so 


the findings presented at this session are preliminary findings. 


Ms. Behling reviewed the four items in SC&A=s initial charter: 

reasonableness of dose estimates; review of assumptions used; review 

sufficiency and completeness of data NIOSH receives from its sources; 

ensure DRs are conducted in compliance with written procedures and in a 

manner consistent between cases. 

The basis for SC&A's audit process was described as consisting of the 


three primary areas of a review of the data collection to ensure 


completeness and sufficiency for calculating a reasonable dose 


estimate; review of interview information, the CATI report and 


documentation provided by the claimant to ensure appropriateness of 


data use; a study of the internal and external dose estimates to 


determine if all assumptions were appropriate and gave the claimant the 


benefit of the doubt. 


The fourth set of 20 cases was detailed in terms of the facilities 


represented, types of cancer, compensability, maximized external and 


internal doses, and the relation of these factors to each other. SC&A 


interpreted NIOSH's guidance document for the six AWE facilities to be 


a maximizing procedure and therefore they were questioning the 


appropriateness of using that procedure for the first three cases, each 


of which was compensated. Many of SC&A's findings associated with 


those first three cases had to do with whether the appropriate 


procedure had been used. 


Ms. Behling noted SC&A was surprised at the level of detail, 


complexity, painstaking and time-consuming effort that went into 


estimating doses for NIOSH's best estimate cases. Most of SC&A's 


findings associated with these case reviews had to do with the 


assumptions used by NIOSH in making some of their determinations. 


26

Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


The presentation included a breakdown of the relevant percentage of the 


100 total findings as categorized by data collection, external dose, 


internal dose, and CATI information. Data collection does not appear 


problematic for NIOSH. Most of the findings fell under the external 


and the internal dose. 


Another breakdown of the findings showed how they impacted dose, with 


"low" indicating only a marginal impact. The category titled "under 


review" was used for cases in which NIOSH did not receive all the data 


they requested. For these cases SC&A is making a recommendation that 


NIOSH contact DOE or try to determine if more information is available. 


Ms. Behling compressed the 100 findings into areas where SC&A found 


discrepancies. The largest, 38 percent, fell under incorrect 


procedure, method or assumption used. Most in that category were 


findings that NIOSH excessively overestimated the dose. 


Another category, 23 percent, is that DRs did not consider all 


potential sources, or NIOSH did not properly account for those sources. 


The category of misinterpretation or procedural non-compliance 


included procedures not clearly written and therefore routinely 


misinterpreted. NIOSH has corrected those. 


In relation to all 80 cases that have been reviewed, findings for the 


fourth set are comparable. Two small sets of findings are unique to 


the fourth set. These are for calculational errors and procedures not 


being referenced. The category of "reviewer could not reproduce dose", 


is used in instances where SC&A cannot reproduce all of the doses due 


to unclear guidance or, more often, due to use of a best estimate or 


workbook which utilized the Crystal Ball Monte Carlo technique. 


Concerning the impact of SC&A=s audit process and findings, SC&A has 

identified NIOSH procedures that are routinely misinterpreted, and that 

situation is being corrected. Ms. Behling noted, however, that 

complexity was expected to increase due to the complexity of the cases 

and the TIBs. She suggested, for the sake of NIOSH and the auditor, 

the situation would be eased by having certain dose reconstructors 

assigned solely to site-specific cases so they can become familiar with 

those complex guidance documents. SC&A is also recommending avoidance 

of excessive overestimation, which they regard as confusing to 

claimants and not scientifically sound. SC&A recommends that NIOSH 

provide identification of the doses on the IREP sheet for the benefit 

of NIOSH=s internal auditing process and for the claimants themselves. 

They also recommend clearer wording in the dose reconstruction report. 

In summarizing, Ms. Behling noted that NIOSH has completed 


27
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


approximately 12,000 cases that have been sent to DOL and SC&A has 


audited only 80 these cases. The value of this audit will be to 


improve future DRs by amending procedures when appropriate. The second 


point is to re-evaluate or revise completed DRs such as lymphoma 


cancers that have impacted adjudicated cases. Lastly, it is hoped 


these findings can assist NIOSH in improving their internal QA program. 


***
 

Discussion Points: 


#It would be helpful if SC&A could specifically identify the cases for 

which they had high significant findings. 

#The situation of irreproducible results seemed to be improving. 

#SC&A is working on a resolution matrix to be delivered shortly. 

#NIOSH has not had a chance to respond to SC&A=s audit. 

*****
 

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
 

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


transcript of the public comment is available on the NIOSH/OCAS web 


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


Ms. Harriet Ruiz, claimant; Dr. Dan McKeel, Southern Illinois Nuclear 


Workers, who also read a statement from Illinois Senator Barach Obama; 


Mr. Jason Broehm of CDC Washington read a statement from New York 


Senator Charles Schumer; Ms. Michelle Chavez, State Director, New 


Mexico Congressman Tom Udall=s office; Mr. John Ramspott, son-in-law of 

a claimant; Mr. Adrian Beard, survivor. 

*****
 

With no further comments, the Board officially recessed until the 


following morning. 


*****
 

Friday, June 16, 2006 


Dr. Ziemer welcomed everyone to day three of the meeting of ABRWH at 


8:30 a.m. with a preview of the day=s activities. 

Dr. Ziemer, Dr. DeHart, and Mr. Presley, conflicted with respect to Y12 and unable to participate in the upcoming SEC motion, joined the 


28
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


audience. Dr. Lewis Wade assumed the duties of Acting Chair. 


Y-12 SEC PETITION UPDATE and MOTION (Continued)
 

A motion, based upon the previous day=s discussion and draft motion, was 

made and seconded as follows: 

The Board recommends that the following letter be transmitted to the 


Secretary of Health and Human Services within 21 days. Should the 


Chair become aware of any issue that, in his judgment, would 


prelude the transmittal of this letter within that time period, 


the Board requests that he promptly informs the Board of the delay 


and the reasons for this delay, and that he immediately works with 


NIOSH to schedule an emergency meeting of the Board to discuss 


this issue. 


The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (the Board) has 


evaluated the SEC petition 00028 concerning workers at the Y-12 


plant under the statutory requirements established by EEOICPA and 


incorporated into 42 CFR Section 83.13 c(1) and 42 CFR c(3). The 


Board respectfully recommends a Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) be 


accorded to all employees of the DOE or the DOE contractors or 


subcontractors who were monitored, or should have been monitored 


for: 


(1) thorium exposures while working in Building 9201-3, 9202, 9204-1, 


9204-3, 9206 or 9212 at Y-12 for a number of work days aggregating 


at least 250 work days during the period from January 1948 through 


December 1957, or in combination with work days within the 


parameters established for one or more other classes of employees 


in the SEC; or 


(2) radionuclide exposures associated with Cyclotron operations in 


Building 9201-2 at Y-12 for a number of work days aggregating at 


least 250 work days during the period from January 1948 through 


December 1957, or in combination with work days within the 


parameters established for one or more other classes of employees 


in the SEC. 


This recommendation is based on the following factors: 


NIOSH found that there are insufficient bioassay or air sampling data 


in the available Y-12 databases to allow for the reconstruction of 


internal thorium exposures for employees who worked within several 


buildings where thorium operations took place during the time 


period from January 1948 through December 1957. These buildings 


have been identified by NIOSH as follows: 9201-3, 9202, 9204-1, 


9204-3, 9206 and 9212. The Board concurs with this finding. 


29
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Finding number two. NIOSH found that there are insufficient bioassay 


or air sampling data in the available Y-12 databases to allow for 


the reconstruction of internal exposures to Cyclotron workers 


(employees who worked in Building 9201-2). NIOSH presented 


information indicating that the Cyclotron workers may have 


accumulated substantial chronic exposures through episodic intakes 


of a variety of radionuclides that were produced during the 


operation period. The Board concurs with this finding. 


NIOSH determined that health was endangered for the workers at Y-12 


exposed to thorium in these operations and for workers exposed in 


the Cyclotron operation. The Board concurs with this 


determination. 


The NIOSH and Board review of the available data on operations and 


exposures at the Y-12 facility during the period January 1948 to 


December 1957 found that the data were sufficient to support 


accurate dose reconstructions for a number of important exposures. 


These include, but are not necessarily limited to: 


(1) NIOSH demonstrated that sufficient bioassay data are available for 


reconstruction of internal doses for workers for potential for 


exposure to uranium or recycled uranium contaminants (plutonium238 (plutonium-239 in lesser quantities), neptunium-237 and 


technetium-99 during the time from January 1948 to December 1957. 


(2) NIOSH demonstrated sufficient data are available for reconstruction 


of internal doses for workers involved in plutonium operations 


during the time period from January 1948 to December 1957 when 


plutonium was enriched with the Calutrons. 


(3) NIOSH demonstrated that sufficient monitoring records are available 


for individual dose reconstructions for external doses for workers 


at the Y-12 facility during the time period from January 1948 to 


December 1957. 


Enclosed is supporting documentation from the recent Advisory Board 


meetings held in Washington, D.C. and Denver, Colorado, as well as 


several Advisory Board workgroup meetings where this Special 


Exposure Cohort was discussed. This documentation includes a 


review report of the NIOSH evaluation report prepared by the 


Board=s contractor, SC&A; transcripts of public comments on the 

petition, copies of the petition and the NIOSH review thereof, and 

related documents distributed by NIOSH and the petitioners. If 

any of these items are unavailable at this time, they will follow 

shortly. 

30
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


The motion was open for discussion. 


Discussion Points: 


#The motion referenced Board discussions in terms of what could be 

done, but was not limiting as to what had or could be done in 


terms of other exposures. 


#The language is intended to keep open avenues of possibility. 


#Concern over the grammar and the desire for a concise statement as to 


which workers qualified. 

#The Chair's conflict will not preclude his ability to make appropriate 

grammatical changes. 


The motion passed unanimously.
 

Without objection, Dr. Ziemer was authorized to exercise some 


flexibility on grammar and on inserting dates of the two meetings 


referenced in the motion. 


*****
 

STATUS AND PLANNING FOR UPCOMING SEC PETITIONS
 

Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, 


NIOSH
 

Mr. Hinnefeld announced the purpose of his presentation was to provide 


information on the NIOSH SEC evaluation process which would allow the 


Board to prepare for upcoming work. He summarized the status of 


current SEC petitions, and information on sites likely to result in an 


83.14 finding which could lead to an SEC petition. 


Of the 28 petitions that did not qualify, the most common cause is that 


petition requirements are not met. Those requirements include the need 


for a valid petitioner, a petition for a single site, and establishment 


of technical bases. Failure to qualify on technical bases could result 


from exposures not monitored; data discarded, falsified or destroyed; 


insufficient data as determined by someone with knowledge of DR 


techniques; or a technical paper calling into question the available 


data. 


Board members were updated on the status of ten petitions that have 


been qualified. Status included anticipated completion dates for 


evaluation reports and identification of factors which might delay 


progress on the petitions. The ten qualified petitions are for Y-12, 


Rocky Flats, Oak Ridge Institute of Nuclear Studies (ORINS), Ames 


31
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Laboratory, Chapman Valve, Blockson Chemical, Feed Materials Production 


Center, Monsanto Chemical, Oak Ridge Thermal Diffusion Plant, and Los 


Alamos National Laboratory (LANL). Additional facilities being 


evaluated through the 83.14 process as of June 8, 2006, include Harshaw 


Chemical Company and General Atomics. 


***
 

Discussion Points: 


#A detailed description of what is called a "litmus case", a critical 

step in the development of an SEC petition to add a class under 

83.14. 

#An exploration of ways to notify greater numbers of potential 

claimants. 

#How NIOSH can provide more personal and helpful interaction with 

petitioners, including personal phone calls and possible 


modification of DOL=s letter of denial. 

#A request for NIOSH=s feedback on implementation of the Board=s wording 

of the class definition for Y-12 so as to improve future 


definitions. 


#Likelihood the Board might want to audit some submissions that did not 

qualify for evaluation. 

This discussion resulted in a decision to form a working group for that 


purpose. Dr. Wade made a summary comment that in September the Board 


will likely see petitions from ORINS, Chapman Valve, Blockson Chemical 


and possibly Oak Ridge Thermal Diffusion Plant. Awareness of these 


impending petitions could help the Board consider how it might want to 


engage SC&A. 


*****
 

SITE PROFILE UPDATES
 

Dr. James Neton, 


NIOSH
 

Dr. Neton noted that non-SEC site profile reviews had been delayed due 


to resource constraints. He offered a brief status report on the site 


profiles under review, including a listing of the members of the 


working group assigned to each and the corresponding health physicist 


appointed as OCAS point of contact to help facilitate these reviews. 


SC&A=s finding resolution matrices are available for the Savannah River, 

Hanford and NTS site profiles. Issues are listed in priority order. 

32
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


The site profile review for Savannah River Site is closest to 


completion. The OCAS response to the Savannah River matrix was 


provided on June 5th and SC&A has that in their possession. For the 


next step, the work group will convene to discuss issues, come to 


agreement, and decide on the issues in need of further scientific 


discussion. 


For the Hanford site profile, SC&A has created the finding resolution 


matrix and OCAS and ORAU are preparing responses to it. That is close 


to completion. When finished it is to be forwarded to SC&A who will 


check into availability of time and staff resources to schedule a 


meeting for purposes of advancing the site profile. 


Status of the finding resolution matrix for Nevada Test Site is similar 


to that of Hanford. Issues related to the SEC are expected to drop 


away once the class is added and dose reconstructions are no longer 


required. After that, another look at the finding resolution matrix 


will be needed to see which issues remain. No meeting is currently 


scheduled for NTS. 


The six additional site profile reviews the Board has asked SC&A to 


conduct are for Fernald, Linde Ceramics, X-10, Mound, LANL and 

Pinellas. Dr. Neton reviewed the steps involved in SC&A=s usual 

procedures resulting in a list of questions to help clarify issues. Of 

these sites only X-10 and Pinellas have not received their list of 

questions. Conference calls with SC&A have taken place for Mound and 

Los Alamos. 

***
 

Discussion Points: 


#Updated activities of the Savannah River Site working group since its 

formation. 

#NIOSH=s draft response for Hanford is expected within weeks. 

#The model followed by the SRS workgroup was suggested. 

#Budget implications concerning SC&A=s review work for Hanford and NTS. 

#Whether SC&A should move forward in the process or first obtain 

authorization because it represents an extension of the scope of 

work. 

#How SC&A can provide timely draft site profile reviews in cases where 

the question/answer dialogue has not been held and deadlines are 

fast approaching. 

#Issuance of documents prior to discussion between NIOSH and SC&A. 

#Identification of the bottleneck in the process, with perhaps a 

complete report made on the August call, at which time the Board 

33
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


could decide how to proceed. 

#The Board's need to think in terms of its functions and its potential 

needs for review of SEC petition evaluation reports and the import 

of an available site profile review. 

#How the OCAS points of contact are chosen for the sites in light of 

actual and perceived COI concerns. 

***
 

Discussion was interrupted by the arrival of Indiana Congressman John 


Hostettler, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Immigration, Border 


Security and Claims. His subcommittee has jurisdiction over claims 


against the government, and thus oversight responsibility with regard 


to EEOICPA. He addressed the series of evaluations his subcommittee 


had asked GAO to conduct on implementation of Subtitle B, roles of 


NIOSH staff, ABRWH, SC&A, whether cost increases related to the audits 


were reasonable, as well as the ORAU contract and implementation of the 


NIOSH COI policy. His statement in its entirety may be found on the 


NIOSH/OCAS web site at www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


*****
 

FUTURE PLANS AND SCHEDULES
 

Dr. Lewis Wade, 


Designated Federal Official
 

Dr. Wade detailed the upcoming schedule of Board meetings for August 


through February, 2007. He announced a tour of the NTS site is on the 


Board's schedule during its mid-September meeting in Las Vegas. 


*****


 6TH ROUND OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEWS
 

FINALIZE SELECTION OF SUBCOMMITTEE'S PROPOSED CASES
 

Dr. Paul Ziemer, 


Subcommittee Chair
 

Speaking on behalf of the subcommittee, Dr. Ziemer referred the Board 


to the list of proposed cases. Cases for the sixth round were 


identified numerically as Dr. Wade read them into the record, a reading 


which constituted a motion from the subcommittee. 


The list includes 08, 18, 19, 22, 26, 31, 33, 48, 49, 65, 72, 93, 96, 


98, 106, 113, 125, 136, 144, 155, 163, 166, 171, and 181. In 


addition there are two carried over from the fifth round that will 


34
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


be added for consideration.
 

It was agreed that the two carry-overs from round five will be used as 


the first two and the next 18 on the list will follow as the cases to 


be reviewed in round six. 


A vote was taken and the motion passed unanimously.
 

Team assignments for this round of cases will not be needed before the 


next phone meeting. 


*****
 

SC&A REPORT ON SEC REVIEW PROCEDURES
 

Dr. Arjun Makhijani
 

Sanford Cohen & Associates
 

Dr. Makhijani gave a history of the actions and documents production 


leading up to the present, including phases of the process and 


underlying criteria for considerations of feasibility of dose 


reconstruction. 


A working group and SC&A had each independently looked at SEC petition 


review procedures and SC&A was asked to offer a blend. SC&A submitted 


two reports to the Board: a review of NIOSH procedures for evaluating 


an SEC petition and a review of draft Board procedures for reviewing 


the petition evaluation report. The Board then adopted its own 


criteria for reviewing the evaluation and SC&A was directed to revise 


the draft procedures for the Board. In conformity with those 


principles and also utilizing its experience in reviewing SEC 


petitions, SC&A submitted a revised report shortly before this meeting. 


Acting in accordance with their interpretation of the Board=s direction, 

SC&A will execute the work in two phases. Phase one is to be completed 

before NIOSH publishes its evaluation report and phase two will follow 

NIOSH=s report. The second phase could consist of a full, partial, or 

no review at all, depending on the Board=s decision. The touchstone of 

all this work is feasibility of dose reconstruction with sufficient 

accuracy under 42 CFR 83. 

Dr. Makhijani then gave very specific detail of the processes for each 


phase. Much of the issue-specific development revolved around two 


questions: were the data available and valid, and were they the types 


of data needed. These procedures called for at least a preliminary 


interview with a minimum of one petitioner. The main objective of the 


preliminary assessment will be a list of examples. He enumerated the 


35
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


different sets of steps to be taken in the cases of availability or 


non-availability of a site profile. 


After submission of the evaluation report, the Board has three options 


and historically it has exercised all three in some way: 


1.accept the evaluation report and vote on it; 


2.accept it partially and investigate further; 


3.conduct a full or partial review the evaluation report. 


Dr. Makhijani=s visual presentation listed all the steps within a full 

review of the evaluation report and he explained how a partial review 

would differ. He highlighted the criteria for data validation that is 

part of the working group=s recommendation, encompassing comparison of 

raw data, examination of data for patterns of data entry, comparison of 

incident data in worker files with incident reports, and interviews 

with site experts. In terms of the contractor deliverables being 

suggested, flexibility is suggested regarding phase one deliverables. 

For phase two, SC&A can provide a final report to the Board. 

***
 

Discussion Points: 


#The Board might want to officially adopt the procedure or endorse its 

direction for contractor review of the SEC petitions and/or 

petition evaluation reports. 

#Everyone will have a chance to review the procedure before coming to 

formal closure at the next Board meeting or conference call. 

#The report has attachments which will allow the Board to see its 

correspondence with the working group=s document. 

#The two-phase process worked very well to expedite provision of the 

post-evaluation report, and it fulfills the Board=s intentions to 

increase efficiency while preserving independence of the 

reviewers. 

#Ongoing work requires vigilance concerning the budget. 

Dr. Ziemer summarized the suggestion that the Board formalize an action 


by the August 8th Board call. 


Mr. Griffon provided a status update on the three matrices from the 


second and third sets of dose reconstruction reviews and the procedures 


review matrix, which were near closure. 


*****
 

36
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


SUMMARY OF SC&A REVIEW
 

SECOND SET OF NIOSH/ORAU PROCEDURES
 

Dr. John Mauro, 


Sanford Cohen & Associates
 

Dr. Mauro explained that under Task III SC&A was authorized to review a 


second set of 32 procedures. Although that review is not yet 


completed, SC&A electronically delivered a draft report on June 8th . 


Board members are to receive a hard copy of Supplement 1, which 


addresses 30 of the 32 procedures. Another supplement, to be delivered 


soon, reviews two procedures having to do with the CATI reports. This 


will largely complete SC&A=s deliverables for Task III. Imbedded in the 

review of these Task III procedures and in the review of cases under 

Task IV is a review of the workbooks. Dr. Mauro explained SC&A=s plan 

is to produce a deliverable dealing specifically with workbooks. 

The summary of the findings includes a checklist for every procedure 


reviewed. Those dealing with technical procedures regarding internal 


and external dosimetry have 27 criteria; quality assurance reviews have 


21. Each procedure is ranked with a score of one to five, with five 


indicating perfect and one representing significant deficiencies. Dr. 


Mauro noted the reviewed procedures were found to range from very good 


to excellent. 


A finding of "no" within the QA procedures refers to very minor issues 


such as improperly filling out a title page. The only important 


finding under QA is that the role of each particular procedure within 


the overall QA program is not always apparent from reading the 


individual procedure. 


Principal technical improvements include integration of procedures with 


site profiles; and procedures that are well-written, consistent, 


concise, well-organized, technically defensible, claimant-favorable, 


and functional. 


A few deficiencies were found which will form the basis for the 


resolution matrix for this review. These include: 


1.the need for a great deal of judgment on the part of the dose 


reconstructor; 


2.lack of full disclosure of the uncertainties associated with X-rays 


in procedures for reconstructing occupational medical exposures; 


3.the need for updating ingestion dose protocols; 


4.the need for better explanation in the procedure for non-penetrating 


radiation to account for a negative reading or no reading; 


37
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


5.the need for improvement of methods for deriving neutron doses from 


alpha/n reactions; and 


6.a dramatic increase in the complexity of dose reconstruction. 


Dr. Mauro suggested that a meta-document might help the dose 


reconstructor navigate the process. 


***
 

Discussion Points: 


#Examples of inconsistencies due to the exercise of judgment by 

individual dose reconstructors. 

#The suggestion that these inconsistencies might be reduced by 

development of a case book collection of precedent decisions on 

various issues. 

#The existence of working guidelines for dose reconstructors at some 

larger sites. 

#A second request for those working guidelines to be posted on the O 

drive. 

#How peer review of DRs could help ensure consistency. 

#The impossibility of measuring skin dose directly. 

#The low impact of inconsistencies on outcomes to date. 

#The goal of consistency for different types of DRs as a relative 

matter. 

*****
 

SC&A CONTRACT ACTIVITIES FOR NEW FISCAL YEAR
 

FUTURE PLANS AND SCHEDULES
 

Dr. Wade sought the Board=s approval to have SC&A prepare a cost 

proposal for next year. He detailed SC&A=s normal workload to serve as 

a starting point so the Board could consider costs associated with that 

level of effort. 

Discussion Points: 


#The number of DRs the Board wants to see reviewed and how increasing 

efficiency might allow for an increase in that number. 

#The number of SEC petition evaluation reviews that might be needed 

can't really be estimated. 

#Increases in the number of reviews could impact not only costs but 

also the contractor=s personnel or capability. 

38
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#Changes in the DR process might need examination. 

#The possibility conducting blind DR reviews, especially on best 

estimates, to uncover subjective professional judgments which may 

have gone into the DRs. 

#An increase in audits might necessitate modification of the audit 

approach. 

#The process could be simplified by not having to demonstrate each and 

every number by reproducing it. 

#The Board has never mandated checking every number. 

#SC&A estimated twice as many cases could be audited for the same price 

if the reviews were constrained; they offered to detail that 


option in their proposal. 


#The wisdom of cutting the effort in half and possibly compromising the 

product of DR reviews, noting there have not been many in-depth 

reviews. 

It was agreed that 80 dose reconstruction reviews and likely more than 


six SEC petition evaluation reviews would be requested in the proposal 


of work for SC&A for 2007. 


*****
 

STATEMENTS FROM MEMBERS OF CONGRESS
 

Mr. Jason Broehm read into the record a statement from New York 


Congressman Brian Higgins addressing the needs of former workers at the 


Bethlehem Steel site. 


Mr. Broehm then read into the record a statement from Washington 


Senator Maria Cantwell in which she addressed the pending Hanford SEC 


petition. 


Both statements in their entirety may be found on the NIOSH/OCAS web 


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


*****
 

NIOSH UPDATE ON PROGRAM ISSUES
 

Mr. Larry Elliott, 


NIOSH/OCAS
 

Mr. Elliott provided an update on several program-related issues NIOSH 


has been tracking. In order to come to some closure on the Bethlehem 


Steel site profile, the Board asked NIOSH to follow up on and report on 


six issues on a quarterly basis. NIOSH completed and resolved five of 


39
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


the six issues as shown below: 


1.The site profile has been modified to treat 1951 and 1952 separately, 


with adjustment factors specific to each year. 


2.Ingestion intakes have been modified. 


3.Concerning resuspension of dust, NIOSH has incorporated guidelines 


using the median values for 1949 and 1950, and separately for 1951 


and 1952. 


4.An issue not addressed in the first site profile regarding extended 


contact with uranium has been modified to assume a 1.5 millirem 


per hour exposure from clothing contamination, resulting in a 1.8 


rem per year dose. 


5.The effect of oronasal breathing has now been addressed and the Board 


agreed that the effect would have been small. NIOSH is continuing 


to develop generic guidance on this issue, which could also apply 


to other facilities. 


6.The remaining issue centers on concern that the 95th percentile of 


dose does not take into account the short-term, episodic exposures 


that would occur during the cutting of cobbles. NIOSH will 


continue to work with Mr. Ed Walker, a claimant from Bethlehem 


Steel. A meeting is scheduled on June 21st with Mr. Walker and 


other workers having knowledge of that exposure scenario in hopes 


of properly addressing the issue in the site profile. 


Mr. Elliott provided a great deal of detail about construction workers 


to counteract what he described as inaccurate information disseminated 


during the public comment period in Denver. His presentation included 


a breakdown of 4,000 cases in terms of numbers of cases with a POC of 


greater than 50 percent, those with POC less than 50 percent, and those 


cases that have been pended. The TBD guiding their process is in the 


final stages and will be implemented soon to attend to 705 of the 


claims. In summary, he does not believe the construction trades 


constitutes a disenfranchised group. 


Concerning 132 Technical Basis Documents (TBDs) approved and in use, 


Mr. Elliott listed the ones currently in various stages of development. 


Of the 43 approved Technical Information Bulletins, 21 are site-


specific and 22 are complex-wide. He pointed to the import of the 


latter in regard to dose reconstruction review and conflict of 


interest. He emphasized that site profiles and TBDs are reviewed 


periodically, and explained the review process. 


NIOSH=s communications initiatives include improvements in their web 

site, such as the addition of a listing of meetings for the current 

year on the Advisory Board web page, with a link to meeting minutes and 

transcripts; an individual site page on the navigation bar; a list of 

work sites; and four distinct areas of interest on the SEC web page. 

40
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


NIOSH=s acknowledgment letter to claimants has evolved into an 

information packet. Their dose reconstruction video will be available 

in DVD form for interested members of the public. The DR report will 

be reformatted to include a non-technical claimant-friendly section for 

lay persons, as well as a scientifically-developed technical section 

should a claimant seek an independent technical consultation. 

Regarding NIOSH=s quality assurance (QA) and quality control (QC) 

program, Mr. Elliott first defined the two terms and then detailed how 

NIOSH processes claims received from DOL to ensure accuracy of 

information. He explained each step of the QA/QC program that ORAU 

performs in developing the dose reconstruction. He concluded by 

describing NIOSH=s QA measure of reviewing all prior activities to be 

sure they had achieved the high quality product they intend. 

*** 


Discussion Points: 


#The NIOSH DR video is in DVD form. 

#Discussion about the number of digits following the decimal point for 

POC led to a decision that IREP (Interactive RadioEpidemiological 

Program) will be adjusted to truncate the figures, thus reducing 

confusion to claimants. 

#SC&A has in fact reviewed some of these procedures. 

#Concerning peer review it was clarified that the review is more 

concurrent than iterative. 

#The comment and resolution process will have taken place before the 

first signature is affixed. 

#Provision of comments from the peer review process to the O drive will 

help expedite or enlighten the workgroup=s resolution process. 

#Perhaps site profiles could similarly be made available. 

#NIOSH will take action to make the update section on the web site more 

responsive. 

#Announcements about updated web site offerings will be made after the 

fact rather than before. 

*****
 

BOARD WORKING SESSION
 

At the start of this session, Mr. Ed Walker offered comments relative 


to Bethlehem Steel. Mr. Walker raised a number of issues and concerns 


for which he asked the Board to find answers. His statement in its 


41
 
Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


entirety may be found on the NIOSH/OCAS web site at 


www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


***
 

APPROVAL OF MINUTES
 

A motion was made and seconded to approve minutes of the March 14, 


2006 telephone meeting. 


The motion passed unanimously. 


A motion was made and seconded to approve minutes of the 


subcommittee meeting of October 17, 2005. 


The motion passed unanimously. 


A motion was made and seconded to approve the subcommittee minutes 


of January 24th, 2006. 


The motion passed unanimously.
 

Dr. Ziemer suggested the Board designate four of its members, along 


with two alternates, to form a group to serve as the dose 


reconstruction subcommittee. He noted the current charter for the 


subcommittee will have to be modified. 


A motion was made and seconded to modify the structure of the 


subcommittee to, number one, restrict it to dose 


reconstruction review activities, and two, limit the 


membership to four members plus two alternates.
 

In the very brief discussion following the motion it was agreed 


membership would be considered after the vote. 


The motion passed unanimously.
 

The Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction Review Activities was 


constituted to include Mr. Gibson, Dr. Poston, Ms. Munn, with Mr. 


Griffon as Chair. The Mr. Presley and Mr. Clawson will serve as 


alternates. The charter revision is expected to become effective in 


August. 


The new workgroup discussed earlier in the Board meeting was set up to 


review requests for consideration as SEC petitions which failed to 


qualify for evaluation. Dr. Lockey volunteered to chair. Dr. 


Roessler, Dr. DeHart, and Dr. Melius were added. 


42
 
 

_______________________________________ 

_______________________________________ 

Summary Minutes June 14-16, 2006 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. Wade encouraged working group chairpersons to contact him quickly 


concerning their next meeting. 


*****
 

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


adjourned.
 

End of Summary Minutes 


Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë 

I hereby confirm these Summary Minutes are 


accurate, to the best of my knowledge. 


Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D., Chair 


Date 


43