Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
 

THE ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION


 _______________________________________________________ 


Summary Minutes of the Forty-ninth Meeting 


September 4, 2007 
 _______________________________________________________ 


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


Health (ABRWH or the Board) was held telephonically on September 4, 


2007. The meeting was called by the Centers for Disease Control and 


Prevention's (CDC) National Institute for Occupational Safety and 


Health (NIOSH), the agency charted with administering the ABRWH. These 


summary minutes, as well as a verbatim transcript certified by a court 


reporter, are available on 

Compensation Analysis and 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 

the internet 

Support (OCAS) 

on 

web 

the NIOSH/Office 

site located 

of 

at 

Those present included the following: 

Board Members: 

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


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


Ms. Wanda Munn; Mr. Robert Presley; Dr. Genevieve Roessler; and Mr. 


Phillip Schofield. 


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


Federal Agency Attendees: 


Department of Health and Human Services: 


Dr. Christine Branche, Ms. Chia-Chia Chang, Office of the Director of 


NIOSH; Dr. James Neton, Mr. David Sundin, OCAS; Mr. David Staudt, 


Contracting Office; Ms. Emily Howell, Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus, Office of 


General Counsel. 


Department of Labor: Mr. Jeff Kotsch. 


Contractors: 


Dr. Bob Anigstein, Mr. Joe Fitzgerald, Dr. Arjun Makhijani, Dr. John 


Mauro, and Dr. Steve Ostrow, Sanford Cohen & Associates. 


Other Participants:
 

Representing workers and/or petitioners: Dr. Dan McKeel, Mr. John 


Ramspott, Ms. Mary Ann Reale. 

Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


* * * * *
 

WELCOME AND INTRODUCTIONS
 

The forty-ninth meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health began with Dr. Lewis Wade, Designated Federal Official, taking a 


call of the roll of the Board members. Members present were Ms. Josie 


Beach, Mr. Michael Gibson, Mr. Mark Griffon, Dr. James Lockey, Dr. 


James Melius, Ms. Wanda Munn, Mr. Robert Presley, Dr. Genevieve 


Roessler, and Dr. Paul Ziemer, with Mr. Bradley Clawson and Mr. Phillip 


Schofield joining soon after. Absent was Dr. John Poston. 


Participants representing federal agencies identified themselves as 


noted above. No one from the Department of Energy indicated presence, 


nor did any member of Congress or their representatives. Workers 


and/or petitioners were represented as indicated above. 


With a quorum of members present, Board chairman Dr. Paul Ziemer
 

officially called the meeting to order and asked that everyone verify 


that they had available a copy of the agenda which had been e-mailed 


from Dr. Wade with suggested time for each item. 


* * * * *
 

REPORT OF MEMBER VOTES RECORDED 


SINCE LAST BOARD MEETING
 

The meeting began with an informational report from Dr. Wade concerning 


votes recorded since the last Board meeting. Board policy on votes 


related to issues which will result in a recommendation to the 


Secretary of HHS is that votes will be counted at the meeting, and any 


Board members absent at the time of the vote will be contacted by Drs.
 

Wade and Ziemer following the meeting and their vote will be solicited. 


There were a few issues on which that type of vote had been taken 


earlier. The first was that in the July meeting the Board voted to 


deny a Special Exposure Cohort petition on Chapman Valve, Petition No. 


43. The recorded vote was six to five. Drs. Wade and Ziemer met with 


the absent Board member, Mr. Bradley Clawson, who voted against the 


majority, making the final vote six to six. That results in placing 


the Board in a deadlock situation relative to the Chapman Valve SEC 


petition. How to proceed with this issue will have to be decided by 


the Board when next they meet in October. The result of the vote is 


the motion to send the Secretary a recommendation denying the petition 


failed, therefore there is no recommendation to go forward. 


2
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


The next such vote was on Petition Number 75 dealing with the Ames, 


Iowa facility for the covered period of January 1, 1955 to December 31, 


1970. The original vote was 11 to zero to approve the petition. Mr. 


Clawson, absent at the time of the vote, supported the Board's decision 


when contacted so that the final vote is a unanimous 12 to zero. 


Next was Petition Number 57 on Hanford, covering the period of '43 to 


'46. The vote at the meeting was eight to zero to approve, with two 


members abstaining based on conflict of interest. Board members Mr. 


Clawson and Dr. Lockey both voted in favor of the petition when their 


votes were subsequently secured, making the final tally ten to zero. 


The last situation involved the three Rocky Flats petitions, the first 


one in May and the other two at the June meeting. The first related to 


a Board motion to approve a class of workers exposed to neutron dose 


from April 1, 1952 to December 31, 1958. The Board voted to approve 


the petition by a vote of seven to three. Dr. Poston was not present 


and his vote, when secured, was an affirmative vote, resulting in a 


final tally of eight to three for approval. 


The second Board motion, taken up in June, was to approve a class of 


workers exposed to thorium dose from January 1, 1959 to December 31, 


1966. The Board vote was eight to one, with one abstention. When 


contacted subsequently, Dr. Poston voted against the motion, making the 


final vote eight to two. 


The third vote, also in June, was a vote to deny adding a class for the 


entire covered period not mentioned by the other two petitions. The 


Board vote at the meeting was six to four. When contacted, Dr. Poston
 

voted with the majority, making the final vote to deny seven to four. 


In none of the cases noted above did the subsequent votes of absent 


members change the outcome of the vote, but this information is 


provided to make the vote tally complete. 


* * * * *
 

UPDATE ON SC&A REVIEW OF TBD-6000 and 


GENERAL STEEL INDUSTRIES APPENDIX
 

Ms. Wanda Munn set the stage by noting that the procedures workgroup 


she chairs had discussed this document during their recent meeting. At 


that time they were provided with some specifics about the fact that 


SC&A has essentially completed their review. Outstanding issues were 


appendices that had not had a thorough vetting following the 


significant amount of data provided by petitioners subsequent to the 


release of the document and subsequent to the SC&A review. 


3
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


There is some concern about the amount of work necessarily to 


thoroughly vet the addenda, and concern among Board members relative to 


the SC&A budget and its adequacy to cover such a review. Ms. Munn 


indicated it is the understanding of the workgroup that SC&A believes 


they will be able to review those significant items relative to the 


documents within the scope of their current budget. 


It is the desire of the workgroup that a request be made for SC&A to go 


forward, and the workgroup had agreed to bring that issue before the 


Board during this call. Their recommendation is that the contractor 


continue with the review in light of the fact that there will be no 


budgetary impact. 


Dr. John Mauro agreed with the accuracy of Ms. Munn's summary, and 


confirmed the review of TBD-6000 is virtually complete. SC&A hopes to 


have it in the hands of the Board within a week or so. He noted there 


are findings the working group and the Board will need to discuss. 


As to Appendix BB, Dr. Mauro reported SC&A is in the process of 


reviewing a great deal of information, getting to the point where they 


now have a fuller appreciation of the level of analysis needed. They 


anticipate they will be able to complete all the work within the 


existing budget. A bit more time will probably be needed relative to 


Appendix BB. 


Dr. Bob Anigstein, who is taking the lead on that review, is in the 


process of digesting all the information and getting the runs in order. 


He indicated his best estimate for having a draft report ready for the 


Board would be sometime in October, elaborating on some of the issues 


that were somewhat time-consuming. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#Is all the information from Mr. Ramspott and Dr. McKeel available to 

Dr. Anigstein; 

#An update or progress report on the review will be needed in the 

October Board meeting; 


#Whatever is done should also reflect the working conditions at General 

Steel Industries, both in terms of shielding, locations, beam-


flattening devices, et cetera; 

#Complexities attendant to the review relative to some 500 pages of 

testimony from worker outreach meetings; 


4
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#The bottom-line request from the workers is that the Board look at the 

workgroup's recommendation, which is to proceed as outlined, 


authorizing SC&A to continue the work discussed. 


* * *
 

The recommendation from the workgroup to the Board that the work 


proceed as described has the force of a motion not requiring a second. 


Dr. Ziemer declared the motion directing the contractor to proceed on 


the review of Appendix BB to TBD-6000 open for discussion. 


Dr. Wade and Mr. David Staudt confirmed that there were no budgetary or 


statutory issues of concern at this point. 


The motion carried by a vote of 10 to zero.
 

* * * * *
 

REPORT ON SC&A'S CONTRACT TASKS FOR THE NEXT FISCAL YEAR
 

The discussion was led by Dr. Wade and Mr. Staudt, the contracting 


officer. They reported they have been working to get the contractor 


tasks for the next fiscal year developed. Mr. Staudt remarked that 


modifications to the five task orders are in place, as approved by the 


Board at the last meeting, in terms of both the work product and the 


budgetary values. 


Dr. Mauro raised a question to both Mr. Staudt and the Board in that 


during the last working group meeting OTIB-54, which deals with fission 


products, was mentioned. The workgroup was interested in having that 


reviewed, and there was a question whether that should be done in the 


current budget or wait until next fiscal year. Mr. Staudt indicated 


SC&A can proceed right now with that review, subject to Board approval. 


Relative to where that review stood on the priority list, Ms. Munn
 

reported the procedures workgroup had discussed it briefly and it was 


the general feeling SC&A should move forward, but not to set aside any 


other priority items in its favor. It is a high priority, but there is 


no urgency. She added she had also understood from that meeting that 


OTIB-54 could be incorporated into material SC&A is looking at, without 


any major disruption of priorities already established. 


* * * * *
 

DISCUSSION OF FIRST STEPS TOWARD 


A BOARD CONTRACTOR FOR FY'09 AND BEYOND
 

5
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. Wade announced another issue under the contract is that it will 


reach the end of its five-year term at the end of fiscal year '08, and 


there is a requirement for a request to bid for the next period of 


time. This means SC&A will have until September to work on the Board's 


business and for the government to secure a contractor to carry into 


fiscal year '09 and beyond. He wanted Mr. Staudt to speak to the issue 


and alert the Board to it, and in October would like to have a detailed 


discussion where the Board would make its wishes known as to how it 


would like to proceed. 


Mr. Staudt agreed October would be a time to discuss two primary 


things: the statement of work and the evaluation criteria. A number 


of things have changed over the years and the statement of work will 


need to be modified somewhat, citing the SEC review as an example. By 


the January meeting Mr. Staudt would look forward to the Board 


approving the statement of work and the evaluation criteria so that his 


group in the contract office can publish the information, noting the 


process takes about six months from that point to award. That has to 


be done in order for the next contractor to keep the ball rolling the 


following October. 


Mr. Staudt remarked that in January he would like the Board to give his 


office the green light to proceed with the solicitation process. 


Dr. Wade asked for a sense of the Board as to how they would like to be 


involved in the evaluation process, and all of that needs to be talked 


through. He noted that Board members could be on the evaluation panel, 


or they could act as advisors to the panel. Mr. Staudt commented the 


panel shouldn't be too big -- about six or eight, depending on 


complexity -- but he agreed there is time to work on that. It's 


something to be thinking about in October. 


Board options suggested by Dr. Wade were that the Board could come 


together in October with a blank piece of paper and discuss statement 


of work or evaluation criteria; or if they prefer, he and Mr. Staudt
 

could work together to assemble a first draft. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#If the original statement of work were modified by Dr. Wade and Mr. 

Staudt and presented to the Board in October, that would be a 


starting point; 


#A suggestion that the contracting officer make an effort to note areas 

where his office sees a need for change, particularly with 


direction of focus in the coming years; 


6
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#An effort should be made to have that document to the Board at least a 

week before the October meeting; 

#A discussion of the bidding process and sample tasks; 

#Once the bids are in and the technical proposals sent to an evaluation 

panel, a competitive range would be developed to reduce proposals 

to two or three, which are then reviewed for their cost and 

potentially discussions with those bidders; 

#The evaluation panel will look at the type of labor mix proposed and 

the costs involved, number of hours, et cetera; 

#A certain percentage of the panel would be required to have the 

federal procurement training; 

#Availability of training for an interested Board member who might need 

it to qualify for the panel; 

#The evaluation panel will not be exclusively a Board panel; 

#As much of the process will be done publicly as possible, but 

confidentiality will apply to discussion of labor rates. 

* * * * *
 

UPDATE ON ROCKY FLATS FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS
 

Dr. James Neton from NIOSH reminded the Board that at the June meeting 


in Colorado NIOSH was asked how long it would take to evaluate the 


Rocky Flats claims against the new approaches proposed during the 


working group's deliberations. Those proposals were relative to super 


S plutonium, the 95th percentile for unmonitored internal dose for 


workers, and a proposed new neutron dose model. 


Dr. Neton declared NIOSH had been working as quickly as possible and 


they have completed the internal/external site profile document 


revision. They were reviewed and approved mid-August and are on the 


web site, meaning there is no impediment to proceeding to complete 


those dose reconstructions. Any new cases coming forward are currently 


being processed against those revisions. 


At the July meeting in Richland, Dr. Neton reminded the Board, he had 


provided an update and at that time there were 672 Rocky Flats cases 


that had PCs less than 50 percent. Since that time they've been 


working through the backlog and find most of those cases would have to 


be evaluated against the super S plutonium change. The number of those 


RF cases under 50 percent is now down to 610. 


Evaluating against the revisions has been more difficult than 


originally anticipated because one issue has to do with identification 


of which cases are actually in the SEC class added at Rocky Flats. 


That is not yet closed, though Dr. Neton indicated he thought the SEC 


7
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


designation is scheduled to be effective sometime during the week, 


probably September 6. Until then, there is some problem determining 


which cases to rework. 


Equally important is the issue of how to factor in all the technical 


changes made in the program not directly related to Rocky Flats. NIOSH 


doesn't want to do the reworks in a vacuum and evaluate against just 


the three RF changes, but want to incorporate all the other changes to 


site procedures and technical documents. 


As a result NIOSH has had discussions with DOL and DOL has agreed they 


will send back all Rocky Flats cases that have been denied to date. 


That will add to the 610 cases but they will be done using not just the 


RF changes but all changes that might impact from other evaluations 


done. 


Letters will be sent to those claimants as NIOSH receives them, 


notifying the claimant of what is happening. The cases will be 


reworked completely, including the closeout interview. DOL sends the 


claimants a letter saying it's being returned for a rework, and will 


make it clear that not all will be successful as far as raising their 


POCs. Dr. Neton remarked that part of their discussions with DOL had 


been that it was important not to raise false hopes. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#A question on designating the neutron buildings and whether anyone had 

worked with DOL on it; 

#The definition of "monitored or should have been monitored for 

neutrons" had been purposefully left vague because there were 

several buildings where the Board wanted to be sure more research 

was done and the designation was appropriate; 

#There will be time on the October meeting agenda for a general Rocky 

Flats update; 

#Whether, in the group classified as neutron workers, consideration was 

being given to workers who were roving maintenance workers; 

#The test normally applied by DOL in the past for workers to be 

considered for addition to a class was whether there was potential 

for a worker to receive a 100 millirem exposure; 

#Perhaps someone from DOL can be present in October to answer those 

types of questions. 

* * * * *
 

8
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


REPORT ON PRIVACY ACT CLEARANCE PROCEDURES
 

Discussion centered around procedures currently being followed, and 


have been approved internally. There is no requirement for the Board 


to approve the SC&A procedures, but Dr. Wade indicated they're open to 


suggestions and comments as to how to improve them. At the October 


meeting the Board will be provided with matrices to show the status of 


all such items and identify backlogs to track performance relative to 


the procedure. 


Some of the documents to be discussed had been issued and then 


retracted, and some Board members had not received subsequent 


information that they were being redistributed without change. As a 


result, it was decided that these could be discussed again in October 


with updates provided. 


It was noted there were some federal changes as to how redactions are 


done, being a little tighter than in past years. Since this will have 


to be discussed again in October, Dr. Wade suggested the Board consider 


this an informational item. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#Concern expressed because the Privacy Act issue was poorly organized 

and not well communicated, with a major concern being how the 

public gets information about Board deliberations; 

#Concern about the availability of both Board and workgroup meeting 

transcripts being placed on the web site for public view; 

#FACA does not require workgroup meetings be public or that transcripts 

or minutes be taken of those meetings or that any work products be 

made public; 

#The Board could decide not to hold workgroups unless all the documents 

to be discussed were cleared, which might delay workgroup meetings 

as they're working through various reviews; 

#A belief that Board business should be conducted in a manner 

consistent with the desire to be transparent in anything that is 

done; 

#A query whether the Board would like there to be no discussion of 

documents until all were publicly available, which is not the 

current procedure; 

#This is an issue to be discussed, but doesn't have to be decided 

today; 

#Clarification of an earlier concern to mean it is not necessary that 

all documents become public because they're discussed, but before 

9
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


the Board makes a decision on major documents -- such as an SC&A 


report or NIOSH response -- those should be publicly available to 


interested parties in a timely manner; 


#A suggestion that there be some information available about exactly 

what documents are discussed at various meetings, even though they 

may not be available and may never be publicly available, as a way 

for the public to be aware that there is a report or a product 

being discussed; 

#This might mean a reorganization of the web site, and the web site is 

already scheduled for discussion on the October agenda; 

#An observation that it is bothersome that information goes out in a 

relatively broad distribution prior to the time all clearance has 

been done, yet without it the information is not available in a 

timely manner; 

#An observation that the job today is to stimulate some thinking about 

the issue, which will develop into detailed discussion about both 

the web site and related issues of tracking; 

#A reminder that the purpose in workgroups is different than the 

purpose in public meetings, being more technically oriented to 

resolve issues raised in the public forum; 

#Requiring workgroups to report to the public could obscure the 

opportunity for technical work and ultimately lengthen the process 

unduly; 

#A workgroup product which ends up being a major determinant in how a 

decision is rendered at the full Board level, the work product 

upon which that decision is made should be made publicly available 

before the Board vote is taken. 

* * * * *
 

UPDATE ON CONTACT MADE TO DOE AND DOL 


REGARDING CHAPMAN VALVE
 

Materials were provided to the Board. Dr. Wade wrote to both agencies 


and those drafts were made available to the Board before being mailed 


on August 8th. One response was received from DOL on August 22nd and 


has been forwarded to Board members. No response has yet been received 


from DOE, although he has been told one is forthcoming. 


Invitations to the October meeting have been extended to both agencies, 


and nothing is considered late at this point. Dr. Wade solicited any 


guidance the Board wished to offer leading up to that meeting. 


The Department of Labor committed to being in attendance. There was a 


query as to whether there will be someone to directly address Dr. 


10
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Wade's letter. It was agreed that if there was no word from Department 


of Energy, they would be recontacted prior to the meeting. 


* * * 


 Petitioner Comment
 

Ms. Mary Ann Reale, representing Chapman Valve SEC petitioners, thanked 


the Board and the individual members for considering the petition. An 


e-mail regarding petitioner concerns has been circulated to Board 


members. 


* * *
 

Dr. Wade confirmed Chapman Valve will be on the agenda for the October 


Board meeting. 


* * * * *


 WORKGROUP UPDATES
 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction 


Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair
 

Mr. Griffon indicated there will be a meeting on September 12 in 


Cincinnati, with the main focus being the fourth, fifth and sixth sets 


of cases. Matrices on all three are in various stages of comment 


resolution. The sixth set is awaiting NIOSH response, expected soon, 


and will be distributed to the subcommittee members. It is hoped one, 


if not two, matrices will be closed out by the October Board meeting. 


DR tasks for various Board teams for set seven has been scheduled. 


Members should look at the schedule and confirm with Ms. Kathy Behling
 

their availability for those phone calls. 


* * *
 

Blockson Chemical SEC Petition Workgroup 


Ms. Wanda Munn, Chair
 

Ms. Munn reported the workgroup had met in Cincinnati on the 28th of 


August and their productive discussion resulted in a few action items. 


Several crucial questions haven't been resolved. One of most concern 


is that process at Blockson hasn't been as thoroughly identified as 


they would like. There will be an attempt to meet with Blockson 


workers on September 12 to clarify some of the memories with respect to 


chemical process and their reactions from it. 


11
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


The workgroup spent some time framing three specific questions from the 


various issues, and those will be in the hands of the petitioners in 


advance of the meeting so they'll have the opportunity to think about 


them. Discussion will not be limited to those items. They are asking 


that anyone with knowledge focus on them so they may be able to come 


away from the meeting with additional understanding helpful to resolve 


the final issues. 


There was a list of work items for NIOSH, including action items to 


check literature, available data, same type of operations. There will 


be a file sweep to make sure there's no outstanding information that 


hasn't been incorporated. NIOSH will contact the union reps before the 


September 12 meeting to get those questions in their hands. NIOSH will 


do a white paper on whether to address products as type M or type S. 


The workgroup hopes to have feedback from next week's meeting with the 


workers and to have a thorough report available for the October Board 


meeting. 


* * *
 

Chapman Valve SEC Petition Workgroup
 

Dr. Genevieve Roessler (for Dr. John Poston, Chair)
 

Dr. Roessler reported the workgroup had not met since the last Board 


meeting, and the update given earlier in this meeting is all that is 


available. 


* * *
 

Conflict of Interest Policy Workgroup 


Dr. James Lockey, Chair
 

The workgroup has heard nothing from the Legal Department and is 


therefore awaiting direction from them. Dr. Wade commented that is an 


issue that has been placed on hold, and he did not at the moment know 


if or when it would be taken off hold. He indicated the workgroup 


would be kept posted. 


* * *
 

Fernald Site Profile and SEC Petition Workgroup 


Mr. Bradley Clawson, Chair
 

The workgroup held the original first meeting on the SEC petition 


approximately a month ago and worked through the matrix. They found 


12
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


NIOSH had a good bit of new information the workgroup hadn't been able 


to go over. Since that time Mark Rolfes with NIOSH has gotten a lot of 


that material placed onto the O drive. The workgroup is currently 


waiting to be able to go through the information, give SC&A an 


opportunity to look at the information, and then set up another 


workgroup meeting shortly. 


* * *
 

Hanford Site Profile and SEC Petition Workgroup 


Dr. Jim Melius, Chair
 

The workgroup is awaiting NIOSH's evaluation report on the SEC 


petition, due out shortly. The workgroup will be meeting soon, but 


there've been a number of changes and some additional comments from 


SC&A. The workgroup should be able to engage fairly quickly, but it 


didn't make sense to do so until the new evaluation report is issued. 


* * *
 

Los Alamos Site Profile and SEC Petition Workgroup 


Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair 

The workgroup has not yet met. They hope to do so shortly after the 

Board meeting in October. 

* * * 

Linde Ceramics Site Profile Workgroup 


Dr. Genevieve Roessler, Chair
 

Some of the information was just released last Friday so likely not all 


workgroup members are aware of it. Their last meeting was on March 


26th when they looked at SC&A's review of the site profile documents. 


Urinalysis data was identified that needed to be reviewed before they 


could continue. They hoped to have the issue resolved by end of June 


and meet again, but were notified of a delay -- funding issues, site 


experts were changed. Last Friday they were informed Joe Guido would 


be working on the data. The urinalysis data was located at Oak Ridge 


and is being declassified. Once reviewed and analyzed, another 


workgroup meeting will be scheduled. 


* * *
 

Nevada Test Site Workgroup 


Ms. Wanda Munn (for Mr. Robert Presley, Chair)
 

13
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


With Mr. Presley not on the line at the time, Ms. Munn announced a 


workgroup meeting scheduled for October 25th in Cincinnati. Some of 


the material being generated for their use will not be available prior 


to that time. 


* * *
 

Rocky Flats Workgroup 


Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair
 

No update was available from this workgroup. 


* * *
 

Savannah River Site Workgroup 


Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair
 

This workgroup's status is the same as that for Los Alamos. Some 


progress has been made on action items generated looking at some 


classified databases, but the workgroup has not been reconvened to 


consider the information. Work has been going on by NIOSH in the 


background and after the October Board meeting this workgroup will 


probably reconvene. 


* * *
 

SEC Issues (including 250-day) Workgroup 


Dr. Jim Melius, Chair
 

Information being sought on Nevada Test Site has been received 


recently. Discussions were held with Dr. Arjun Makhijani from SC&A 


last week and it is hoped a workgroup meeting can be arranged later in 


September or around the time of the October meeting. Schedules have to 


be coordinated. 


* * *
 

Use of Surrogate Data Workgroup 


Dr. Jim Melius, Chair
 

Dr. Melius has been in discussions with Dr. Mauro, who is doing an 


inventory of procedures, site profiles, et cetera, where surrogate data 


has been used to get a general ability to identify types of surrogate 


data. That could be ready in the next couple of weeks, and the plan is 


to hold a workgroup conference call to plan what further work is needed 


by SC&A before the workgroup holds a meeting. It is hoped that call 


will take place before the October meeting. 


14
 
Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


* * *
 

Worker Outreach Workgroup 


Mike Gibson, Chair
 

The workgroup submitted to OCAS a request for information, and Mr. 


Larry Elliott, OCAS Director, has appointed Mr. J. J. Johnson to be 


their point of contact. The material is being gathered. Training is 


being scheduled on the WISPR database that tracks worker comments. 


That training will include Ms. Munn's Blockson workgroup and is 


scheduled to happen sometime in mid-September. 


Mr. Gibson commented he would attend a worker outreach meeting in 


Joliet, Illinois to get a better feel of how the meetings go. 


* * *
 

Procedures Review Workgroup 


Ms. Wanda Munn, Chair
 

The workgroup has had a heavy-duty paper load and more than one matrix 


to deal with and has gone through the current matrix only partially 


during the recent meeting at the end of August, although they did work 


through all of the outstanding items from the first matrix. While 


there are very few items outstanding, there are some. An action item 


list of 14 items has been devised, many of which are NIOSH items. Ms. 


Munn remarked her action item was to make, during this call, the 


request that OTIB-54 be reviewed by SC&A. That has been done. The 


action item list will be in the hands of the entire workgroup later in 


the week so that NIOSH and SC&A will have a clear picture of what is to 


be done. 


It is anticipated that the next meeting of the workgroup will be just 


prior to the October meeting to see how many of the action items can be 


cleared, and taking up the remainder of the matrix items yet to be 


addressed. 


* * * * *
 

STATUS OF AND PLANS FOR 


FUTURE BOARD ACTIVITIES
 

Dr. Ziemer noted part of the status issue is how to keep track of 


what's going on, where the Board is on various site profile reviews, 


SEC reviews, et cetera. He reported he and Dr. Wade have worked to 


develop a master matrix to further that tracking. Last week they 


reviewed an early version, currently an Excel spreadsheet, which has a 


15
 
 

Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


lot of columns. It continues to expand, and it is hoped it will soon 


be in a form that can be updated monthly. 


* * *
 

Dr. Wade announced everything had been scheduled for October and that 


everybody should have received notification of the hotel. The calendar 


is out through next June. He indicated in October he will try to 


extend it out through next October with some proposed dates. 


Workgroups and subcommittees happen quickly and those mechanisms should 


continue to be used to advance the Board's work. 


* * *
 

It was announced that Dr. Christine Branche is working with Dr. Wade to 


learn the business of the Designated Federal Official and other 


activities, and will gradually be moving into that position. Dr. Wade
 

indicated they will share those responsibilities for some time to come. 


Everyone will have an opportunity to meet Dr. Branche at the October 


meeting. 


* * *
 

Following a request for Board member comments on future activities, it 


was suggested a brief discussion on the January '08 meeting would be 


helpful, with it being finalized in October. It was determined Las 


Vegas is a likely site unless something comes up in October that would 


change that perception. 


* * * * *
 

BOARD WORKING TIME
 

Noting this time is generally set aside for particular issues, motions 


that had to be worded, et cetera, Dr. Ziemer observed there didn't 


appear to be any such matters to be resolved. 


* * * * *
 

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


adjourned at 1:09 p.m. 


End of Summary Minutes 


Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë 

16
 
_______________________________________ 

_______________________________________ 

Summary Minutes September 4, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


I hereby confirm these Summary Minutes are 


accurate, to the best of my knowledge. 


Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D., Chair 


Date 


17