NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 

US Department of Health and Human Services

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

129th Meeting

Tuesday June 25, 2019

The meeting convened telephonically at 11:00 a.m., 

Eastern Time, Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official, 

presiding.
2 

Present: 

Josie Beach, Member

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

R. William Field, Member

David Kotelchuck, Member

James E. Lockey, Member

Genevieve S. Roessler, Member

Phillip Schofield, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member

Paul L. Ziemer, Member

Also Present: 

Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official

Adams, Nancy, NIOSH Contractor

Barrie, Terrie

Barton, Bob, SC&A

Buchanan, Ron, SC&A

Calhoun, Grady, DCAS

Crawford, Chris, DOL

Fitzgerald, Joe, SC&A

Lewis, Greg, DOE

Rafky, Michael, HHS

Rutherford, Lavon, DCAS

Stiver, John, SC&A

Taulbee, Tim, DCAS
3 

Contents

US Department of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health 129th Meeting 

Tuesday June 25, 2019 1

Opening Statement 4

Roll Call 4

Welcome 4

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Status 

Update 4

Updates from Work Groups and 

Subcommittees 6

Plans for the August 2019 Board Meeting 15

Adjourn 19
4

Proceedings

(11:01 a.m.)

Opening Statement

Mr. Katz: So, welcome everyone. This is the Advisory 

Board of Radiation and Worker Health.

The purpose of the teleconference is to plan the 

future Board meetings and this is our planning for the 

August Board meeting, August 21. 

The agenda for the meeting is posted on the website.

But it's so simple that no one needs to go there to 

look at it. I think you can follow what we have today

and there are no documents posted there, so there's 

nothing to read along with. So, there's no need for 

that.

Let me begin by doing roll call for the participants to 

this meeting. And there's no conflict of interest, so I 

don't need to address that for those matters that are 

up for today.

Roll Call

Mr. Katz: Okay then, very good. So let me just 

remind everyone to mute your phone until you're 

speaking to the group. It will help everybody out.

Press *6 if you don't have a mute button, to mute 

your phone. And *6 to come off of mute.

And let's go from here. So, let's just go right to them, 

we have the first item on the agenda. It is LaVon 

Rutherford for the SEC Petition status update.

Welcome

Mr. Rutherford: All right, thanks Ted. NIOSH will be 

presenting two new Special Exposure Cohort Petition 

Evaluations at the August Board Meeting.

Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) Petition Status 
5

Update

We will present a new Y-12 Petition Evaluation that 

evaluates the period January 1977 through 

December 1994. This Petition actually covers the 

period after the class recently added for Y-12 that 

went up to 1977.

The Petition qualifies on the same basis as that 

Petition as well. We will also be presenting an 83 --

Mr. Katz: Excuse me, Bomber.

Mr. Rutherford: Yes?

Mr. Katz: Before you go on, can you address, this is 

only for a couple of years, I believe. Is that correct?

Mr. Rutherford: Actually the committee is 

researching and it will -- it's been addressed. The 

Petition was for January 1977 through December 

1994.

We are in final review of the -- of -- actually, we're in 

initial review of the evaluation itself.

So I don't want to say, you know, whether we're 

going to recommend anything at this time. But, it is 

an 83.13.

It's going to cover that entire period. So, --

Mr. Katz: Okay. I didn't realize that. I thought it was 

only addressing a couple of years at this point.

But okay. Fine, thanks.

Mr. Rutherford: Yes. Okay. And we'll also be 

presenting an 83.14 evaluation from the West Valley 

Demonstration Project that recommended the class 

from January 1966 through December 1973.

So those two reports are it. The Y-12 report, 83.13 

that was qualified for 1977 through December 1994.

And then the West Valley Demonstration Project, 
6

83.14 where we will recommend a class from January 

1966 through December 1973.

And that's all I have. Questions?

Mr. Katz: Okay. Thank you LaVon. And sorry for the 

interruption.

Mr. Rutherford: No problem.

Mr. Katz: So, Board Members? Any questions for 

LaVon?

(No response.)

Mr. Katz: All right then. Let's move on to, this isn't 

required, but any updates from Work Groups and 

Subcommittees?

Member Kotelchuck: Hey, this is Dave for LaVon. I 

started speaking before I went off of mute.

Mr. Katz: Oh, okay. Go ahead Dave. Go ahead.

Member Kotelchuck: LaVon, you sent us an email 

about your work looking at the Rocky Flats files and 

the Los Alamos and you said that there were one or 

two that were still being reviewed for, I guess, 

classified, you know, that there were classified 

documents that were being checked out for our use, 

or for your use I should say. Is there any update on 

that? You said it might be done in May or June.

Mr. Rutherford: Yeah. Actually I'll kind of give a little 

more detail than that.

There were five or six boxes, actually five boxes that 

the Petitioner for Rocky Flats had identified. And 

since she's on the phone, Terrie Barrie, that she felt 

that we should go back and take a look at. These are 

classified documents at Rocky Flats. I mean, that Los 

Alamos had of Rocky Flats documents.

We were going out to Los Alamos to do some 

additional data capture effort for that project. And we 

were able to work in the review of those five boxes 
7

as well during that time period. Those five boxes had 

ultimately been broken down into 14 small boxes. 

And just over time they had been updated and kind 

of changed the packaging on the boxes.

But anyway, I specifically was the one that reviewed 

all of the Rocky boxes. And of those -- most of the 

documents, approximately 60 percent of the 

documents were not Rocky. I mean, they were 

documents that Rocky Flats had, classified 

documents. But they pertained to other sites. They 

did not pertain to Rocky Flats. About another, you 

know, a large portion of the documents were work 

plans for D&D efforts that, you know, that were 

submitted to DOE ahead of time.

I identified two documents that I felt that should be 

retained. One of those was a Rocky document, and 

it's in classification review. And the other one is an 

ORNL document that's in classification review. Both 

of those documents still have not been released at 

this point. But I do expect them to be released soon.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Very good. I really 

appreciate your following through on those. When we 

had the discussion on the Board there were issues 

about, it seems to me about those boxes. And I'm 

very glad that you're following through, DCAS is 

following through on those. So thank you.

Mr. Katz: Yeah. Thank you LaVon. Okay, so David got 

us started with updates from Work Groups. That was 

the Rocky Flats Work Group update. But do I have a 

any other Work Groups, Subcommittees who want to 

update the Board?

Member Beach: Ted, this is Josie. I'll just give a quick 

on LANL. We do have a Work Group call set for July 

25. It's going to be a brief call for status updates. The 

path forward basically for that Work Group.

Mr. Katz: Thanks Josie. 

Member Clawson: Ted, this is Brad.
8

Mr. Katz: Okay. Go ahead.

Member Clawson: Again, just to talk about Savannah 

River. We finally got the coworker models that we're 

working at with now. And I believe SC&A has got that 

at this time. And I just got a message from Mark 

Rolfes on 0091, and it was for Savannah River, 

too.So, we're making a path forward there.

Mr. Katz: Thanks, Brad. And let me -- I'll just take 

this moment, I was going to address this later, but I 

can address it now.

SRS, there's a lot of material that's out from DCAS 

related to the modeling and the data underlying the 

modeling, which is related, and is gladly received. 

SC&A is reviewing those materials. And given the 

status, this timing, I'm hoping for a joint meeting of 

SRS Work Group and the SEC Issues Work Group, 

which is the one that's charged with dealing with the 

modeling. The SRS models serve as examples of the 

modeling to test whether the modelling guidelines 

are appropriate for DCAS. And we're expecting those 

two Work Groups to meet jointly in September. And 

I haven't scheduled that yet.

But I will be scheduling that once SC&A has a good 

grip on its timing with getting materials out and 

responses. So, I'll probably schedule that in early 

August. But that will be for a September meeting. 

And that, I think I've heard from staff enough to 

know that they would like it to be an in person 

meeting. So that would be in Cincinnati for those who 

can make it from the two Work Groups. So, more 

about that later. But, I just wanted to give this 

account.

Member Kotelchuck: Very good. Two issues on 

DRRSC, those were -- Dose Reconstruction Review.

First, we had a tentative date for our next meeting 

on September 12. I -- you were, Ted, according to 

my notes, were going to check with people to make 

sure -- a couple of people who weren't at the meeting 
9

to check whether that date was okay. Are we 

confirmed on that date at this point?

Mr. Katz: Hold on a second. Let me tell you in a 

second. Yeah, I have it for September 12. I didn't 

necessarily get confirmation from who was missing. 

But I didn't get a response either, I think. So, we can 

count on that.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Good. Good. The other 

aspect of this is, of course, the Secretary's Report for 

2019.

The other Board Members should know that I sent a 

first draft to Ted. And Jenny reviewed it for legal 

things. There were a number of changes that needed 

to be made. I have made all of the changes. I've got 

the -- updated some of the data. I've got material 

from Grady yesterday on that blind case number 

three. And so I'm ready except for -- I'm sorry, for 

blind case number 28. For blind case number three, 

that was the Allied Chemical and Dye. And it had to 

go to the Surrogate Working Group. So, I'm waiting 

on that. Although I have had some second thoughts 

on it.

And maybe this is the time for that. The -- on case 

number three, the Allied Chemical, this is the first 

time that we had to send -- there were sharp 

disagreements in approach in the review of that blind

by NIOSH and SC&A.

So, it has never been reviewed by a Working Group. 

And it was to be sent back to the Working Group. And 

Ted, you sent out material on that to Paul and the 

other members of the Surrogate Working Group.

Thinking about it though further, this is the first case 

where we've had to send back a blinds case for 

instruction from the Work Group as to what is the 

proper approach. If the Working Group has to decide 

between two approaches, then how can we say later 

that this is a blinds case? That is to say, have we 

abrogated the independence of the blind reviews by 
10

having to send it back to the surrogate group?

Mr. Katz: I can answer that David.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Please do.

Mr. Katz: It does not take anything away from the 

blindness. The blindness in review is they're reviewed 

by SC&A. So that's what was required to be blind. 

And the issue that the Surrogate Data Work Group is 

addressing is not a case review. It's simply 

addressing the question of whether there is a 

surrogate data matter that needs to be evaluated as 

to whether it passed surrogate data criteria. Whether 

-- that was not necessarily even in play for this case. 

But that was why it was being referred. And I will be 

scheduling that. 

I'm glad you brought it up, because that was another 

note I was going to make. I will be scheduling that 

Work Group. NIOSH was -- the DCAS group was 

ready to address this several years ago, and things 

occurred with respect to the Board and its Chair and 

timing and so on, that got in the way. And now we're 

--

Member Kotelchuck: Absolutely.

Mr. Katz: But it will be scheduled. And I will -- I'm 

hoping to get that also done, so that's, I think can be 

done by teleconference, but sometime in September.

Member Kotelchuck: But the two groups, NIOSH and 

SC&A have already done their reviews. Which led to 

different approach, a different approach.I'm not quite 

clear, Ted, if they decide to do the -- if they decide 

that SC&A has to use a different approach.

Mr. Katz: Well, SC&A, I mean, SC&A is not the actor 

in this case. It's only DCAS, right. These are DCAS 

dose reconstructions. SC&A was the first line 

reviewer. So, what the Work Group will decide is 

whether the surrogate data requirements are met in 

this case. And it's not what might have been required

to be done here.
11

But, you know the SC&A approach is really not the 

subject matter. The subject matter is the NIOSH 

surrogate data use.

And referring the case -- the blindness is already 

taken care of. SC&A already did this review blindly 

and came up with its suggestions.

Member Kotelchuck: That's right. And so did SC&A.

Mr. Katz: I'm saying SC&A did its blind review, yes. 

And then came up with its findings. But it will be up 

to the Board to decide what would be a correct, what 

they believe the correct approach is in terms of the 

surrogate data matter that it's addressing.

Member Kotelchuck: And that's -- it's appropriate if 

you will, that this was an issue that came up before 

us, before us say in a, one of the, in one of the cases, 

one of the review cases. But that would be perfectly 

fine. But, this is only to determine if the approach 

that NIOSH used is correct, right?

Mr. Katz: Right.

Member Kotelchuck: If the Work Group -- and if it --

but there's nothing further that either group, well, --

oh, then NIOSH --

Mr. Katz: Well, we just have to wait and see what the 

Work Group says about the surrogate data approach.

And if the Work Group has recommendations related 

to that, those will be considered by NIOSH and 

addressed, you know, independently of all this. And 

at that point, you will know what to say in your dose 

reconstruction review report.

Member Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Your Secretary's draft report with respect 

to, you know, how the Board found on this blind case.

Member Kotelchuck: Oh, I see. Okay.

Mr. Katz: Yes.
12

Member Kotelchuck: Good.

Mr. Katz: I think we're good. I think we're good. All 

of the blindness remains, because that's SC&A's 

work.

Member Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Member Kotelchuck: All right. Well, those are my 

questions about that. So, and you're going to have a 

surrogate -- the surrogates will be meeting at some 

point.

Mr. Katz: Right. I'm just waiting for the NIOSH folks 

to be ready again, because personnel have changed 

since then. Jim Neton, who was leading this response 

is gone, is retired and so on. Although he's actually 

available by contract. So whether he's brought back 

in or not, we'll have that Work Group meeting just as 

soon as the DCAS folks are ready to do so.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay. Good enough. We will --

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Member Kotelchuck: We may or may not have it done 

by the time of our August meeting.

Mr. Katz: Right. Right. Well, our meeting isn't until 

early September our Subcommittee meeting, so 

probably not by the time of the August Board 

meeting.

Member Kotelchuck: Yes.

Mr. Katz: It will get, it should get done before we 

have our September Subcommittee meeting. And 

even if it doesn't, you know, the Secretary's Report, 

we have all the way to December before we're 

presenting that to the Board.

Member Kotelchuck: Right. Okay. That's right. We'll 

do -- we will do that. We will present it to the Board. 

We need to present that to the Board in December.
13

Mr. Katz: Right. Right, so I'm pretty hopeful that this 

will be a settled matter by that point at least.

Member Kotelchuck: Very good. Very good. And I 

have -- I have made the changes that were 

recommended by yourself and Jenny. And that I on 

the whole agreed with and accepted. So, we're just 

waiting on this piece. But that's the important piece.

Mr. Katz: Yes. For sure.

Member Kotelchuck: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Okay. Thank you David. Are there other 

chair's reports?

Member Roessler: This is Gen. Am I off mute?

Mr. Katz: You are. You are.

Member Roessler: Okay. I couldn't remember which 

way I'd gone. Okay. I'd like to report on 

Carborundum.

Mr. Katz: Yes. Go ahead.

Member Roessler: Okay. There's a little noise in the 

background.

Okay. The Carborundum Work Group, we held a 

conference call on June 13 to discuss three open site 

profile findings. These all were associated with the 

NIOSH dose estimates using a computer code MCNP. 

As you probably recall, MCNP is used to calculate 

dose rates from fuel pellets fabricated at 

Carborundum.

On the three findings, number one took the most 

time. This concerned the use of dose conversation 

coefficients from ICRP 74. This report provides two 

sets of coefficients for calculations. NIOSH used 

coefficients from Table A.1. SC&A performed an 

independent analysis using coefficients from Table 

A.21. It turns out, the SC&A dose estimates are 

approximately 2 percent higher.
14

NIOSH has used Table A.1 values and other site 

profiles. And because of that plans to retain the use 

of these values until updated coefficients are 

published by ICRP. ICRP is expected to publish 

updated coefficients in the coming months. 

The Work Group had a lot of discussion about this.

And since we could reach no conclusion, we agreed 

at this point, and you know, any definite conclusion 

we unanimously agreed to table this finding until the 

ICRP issues with new guidance. At that time, if it's 

necessary, NIOSH can update the site profile dose 

estimates. That's finding one.

So finding two dealt with an overestimated dose that 

resulted from a computational glitch SC&A found with 

the NIOSH calculations using MCNP Version 6.1.

NIOSH resolved this issue by switching to MCNP 

Version 6.2. Our Work Group agreed with this 

resolution. So this one was closed.

Finding three was an issue SC&A identified in the 

MCNP glove box model that NIOSH used to simulate 

worker exposure. And this was related to source 

dosimeter locations. NIOSH corrected the geometry. 

And our Work Group agreed with the resolution to 

finding three.

So, except for finding one, which we still have to 

discuss, and we've got to await new guidance from 

ICRP, all site profile issues are resolved.

Mr. Katz: And thank you Gen. That was a nice recap. 

Do we have any questions from Board Members for 

Gen?

(No response.)

Mr. Katz: Okay. Not hearing any. And I'll just remind 

everyone else, the Board has already closed its 

involvement with this review. And so that last item 

we had -- these last items we said that the Work 

Group would continue following them until they were 

resolved. And if there was anything difficult that 
15

arose, it would bring it back to the Board. But, so far 

that hasn't been necessary.

Okay. Thank you Gen. And any other chairs?

(No response.)

Mr. Katz: Okay. Not hearing any. And the next and 

last item on the agenda is to talk about August. 

Which I'll do.

Plans for the August 2019 Board Meeting

So, we have -- I have it now, and I'll talk about how 

I got here, I have it down to a day. I think I've

already addressed a lot of questions. 

So one day. One fairly full day. In the morning we 

start before the meeting, the public sessions, with 

your annual ethics training. We normally do these in 

February. But we passed this up on February this past 

year. So, we're doing this in August. HHS will take 

care of that. And we will have the usual update 

sessions.

And then we have a special session which is the 

Board's review of 42 CFR Part 81, which is, as you 

know, the Probability of Causation Guidelines, HHS 

Probability of Causation Guidelines under EEOICPA.

And this amendment strictly relates to making the 

conversion from ICD-9 to ICD-10 codes. So that will 

be coming out in an interim final rule, which means 

that it's immediately effective and able to be used.

That will be coming out, I'm thinking some time in 

July. And I'll be sending that to all the Board Members 

with a note, because we'll want you to review those 

carefully in advance and individually. I'm going to ask 

that you comment, you know, any comments you 

may have on those materials. Because during the 

Board meeting, we have 45 minutes for this. If we 

have all of your comments and we know what issues 

there might be, I think we can get through this 

session pretty easily.
16

But so that will be coming to all of you at some point 

in July to have a look at. Because the Board is 

required to comment on the regulations. And so 

that's a special session.

Also, as LaVon noted, we have the West Valley SEC 

Petition as well as he noted, the Y-12 SEC Petitioners. 

So we'll be addressing those.

And the third Petition that we should be ready to 

address, because the Board had some follow-up 

items for SC&A, which should be done well enough in 

time for that, is the Area IV Santa Susana.

So, that covers the items that I have on the draft 

agenda for the meeting. And let me just see, I --

before you have questions, let me just see if I have 

others on this note about -- that are not on the 

agenda.

Okay. So one that I've talked, spoken with you about 

possibly being on the agenda for August was Metals 

and Controls SEC Petition. It's just not, it's not going 

to -- things aren't going to be ready in time to have 

any confidence that that should be on the agenda.

We should have a Metals and Controls Work Group 

meeting, you know, somewhere around the time of 

the Board meeting. Or closely thereafter. But, we 

won't have that sort of back up research done in time 

to schedule this. 

Let's see if there's other items that I -- but, I've 

already talked about SRS, so you know where that 

stands.

De Soto is not going to be ready in time either. So 

that will not be on the agenda. And LANL you heard 

about. We'll have a Work Group, but we're not ready 

to have that on the agenda.

Nor Sandia, but the Work Group can move things 

forward. We hoped Superior Steel might have been 

ready. But it's not going to be quite ready for this 

meeting as well.
17

And then as I -- as Dave mentioned, the Dose 

Reconstruction Secretary's Report, we'll be 

addressing that. But that will come in for the 

December meeting, not this upcoming meeting.

If we have time, we may address procedures review 

there for X-10 that had been completed. But I'm just 

leaving that on hold for now. But depending on how 

the meeting goes, we may have time. Do I have any 

questions from my Board Members on the agenda?

Member Roessler: So Ted, is the meeting on the 

21st?

Mr. Katz: Yes, it is. It's only -- it will be solely on the 

21st, right.

Member Ziemer: And that's still in Oak Ridge, right?

Mr. Katz: And that still is. Yes, it will be in Oak Ridge. 

And I believe it will be at the same hotel as last time.

Any other questions?

Ms. Adams: Ted, this is Nancy. Just to let folks know 

that the Secretary signed the designation for INL.

Mr. Katz: Oh, yeah. Thank you Nancy. Thanks for 

reporting that.

Member Ziemer: Ted, I have a question on unfilled 

Board slots as well as the Chair issue.

I know that the -- I know that recently the White 

House has indicated that all of the agencies should 

cut back on the advisory boards. I don't think that 

applies to agency boards per se. But, will that impact 

on our ability to identify individuals for this Board? As 

well as will it have any impact on finally designating 

a permanent Chair?

Mr. Katz: Right. So, let me take those in separate 

parts. First of all, the executive order that the 

President signed, it applies to basically all FACA 

committees. So, it applies to this one. And all of 
18

them. In other words, they're all being reviewed for 

their continuance.

As it were, our Board is reviewed every two years 

anyway under another existing executive order that 

President Obama started. So, ours is currently under 

review anyway with respect to continuance. And that 

should be completed some time in August, I'm 

thinking, because otherwise the Board would expire 

in September, late in September.

But they've already, this administration renewed this 

Board two years ago. So I expect that it will -- it 

shouldn't be a problem, it will be renewed again.

Note -- right now they haven't sorted out 

implementation of the new executive order. So I'm 

not sure whether there will be yet another review of 

this Board over that. But it's basically being 

addressed already. 

And then about appointing, appointment of the 

permanent Chair or you said empty seats or missing 

seats for the Board. There are no missing seats.There 

is no requirement for --

Member Ziemer: No, I understand that. I understand 

that.

Mr. Katz: Nothing -- right. And there's no expectation 

to add numbers to this Board at this point.

And as far as designation of a Chair, a permanent 

Chair concerns, I raise this issue as a matter of form 

every two months, with every agenda that goes up.

Member Ziemer: Very good.

Mr. Katz: So, that still sits with the White House.

Member Ziemer: Okay. I appreciate that, the update.

Mr. Katz: You're welcome. Very welcome. Any other 

questions?

(No response.)
19 

Adjourn

Mr. Katz: All right then. Well, I'm going to end. Thank 

you everybody for your attendance. And I look 

forward to seeing as many of you as possible in 

August in Oak Ridge.

So be well and thank you again. You have a good 

day.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 11:36 a.m.)