Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

preceding year.

be available.

electronically,

She was uncertain as to the format in which it would

Dr. Ziemer suggested they be made available

if possible, or by hard copy if necessary.

Mr. Robert Presley indicated he was speaking with personnel at the

Nevada Test Site relative to a tour while the Board is in Las Vegas in

December. The tour will take an entire day and is being scheduled for

the day following the meeting. Names and Social Security numbers will

be needed for those wishing to participate. Ms. Bomer offered to

assist in that effort.

Items of particular interest for the December agenda were solicited.

Mr. Elliott indicated NIOSH would put a travel task before the Board's

contractor to facilitate a face to face meeting in Las Vegas. Mr.

Griffon inquired into the possibility of a presentation on the IMBA

program, which Mr. Elliott agreed to look into. It was suggested that

any items that come to mind prior to November 15 when Federal Register

notice has to go out, be provided to Dr. Ziemer or Mr. Blliott.

Future meeting times and sites were discussed. The Board agreed to

meet in Augusta, Georgia on February 5th and 6th to coincide with the

Health Physics Society meeting the next week and because of its

proximity to the Savannah River Site. The timing allowed for review

and possible approval of early deliverables in the support contract.

Washington, D.C. was agreed to as a back-up location.

The week of April 19th was decided on for the following meeting, to be

held in Richland, Washington for its proximity to the Hanford site.

No specific dates were decided on.

*****

SITE PROFILE UPDATES

Dr. James Neton

NIOSH

Dr. James Neton provided the Board with an update on progress on TBD

and site profile development. He reiterated the purpose of the

documents, supporting dose reconstructors by providing site-specific

information, helps minimize interpretation of data. With

approximately 130 health physicists slated on dose reconstructions,

the document helps provide consistency and is used much like a

handbook. They are dynamic documents, under review whenever new

information becomes available.

25
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

All completed TBDs may be viewed at the web site. Comments are

encouraged and can be made to the NIOSH Docket Office. The Docket

Office address is located at the introduction to the individual site

profile.

Briefings are being arranged with union representatives to solicit

input as each document is completed. A meeting is scheduled at the

Savannah River Site on November 11. Arrangements are currently being

made to visit Hanford. The six TBDs making up the site profile for

Hanford have just been completed.

Team members on individual site profiles are now listed on the ORAU

web site, along with their associated conflict of interest statements.

Fifteen DOE facility TBDs are under development in parallel, with

targeted completion by end of the calendar year. Completion of those

15 documents will provide the ability to address approximately 77

percent of the claims currently pending at NIOSH.

Mr. Michael Gib80D interrupted to ask how many health physicists and

parties involved in development of site profiles were Q-cleared and

how classified relevant data was being included in the TBDs. Dr.

MetOD replied NIOSH had three and ORAU had 15 to 20 Q-cleared

individuals. Q-cleared individuals have reviewed data to determine

applicability to the site profiles. Thus far no classified

information has been discovered that needed to be included in dose

reconstruction.

Dr. MetoD noted an additional issue with UCNI data, which is not

classified but similar to Privacy Act information. Mr. pre.ley

clarified UCNI as the acronym for Unclassified Controlled Nuclear

Information. Mr. Blliott added NIOSH had successfully worked with

classification officers to provide data or information couched in a

way that it could be used but not jeopardize national security.

Returning to the Mallinckrodt document, Dr. MetoD noted the scope of

the document was limited to aid in reconstruction of radiation doses

to workers at the St. Louis downtown site only, specifically plants 1,

2, 4, 6, 6E, 7, and 7E. The time period addressed is from April 1942

through July 1958. CUrrently reserved, residual contamination in the

1959-1995 time period will also be covered in the document.

The introduction covers the Manhattan Engineering District asking

Mal 1 inckrodt Chemical Works to begin research on uranium refining and

processing operations. That was April of 1942. Three months later,

they were in production. Between 1942 and 1957 more than 50,000 tons

of natural uranium products were processed.

26
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

All completed TBDs may be viewed at the web site. Comments are

encouraged and can be made to the NIOSH Docket Office. The Docket

Office address is located at the introduction to the individual site

profile.

Briefings are being arranged with union representatives to solicit

input as each document is completed. A meeting is scheduled at the

Savannah River Site on November 11. Arrangements are currently being

made to visit Hanford. The six TBDs making up the site profile for

Hanford have just been completed.

Team members on individual site profiles are now listed on the ORAU

web site, along with their associated conflict of interest statements.

Fifteen DOE facility TBDs are under development in parallel, with

targeted completion by end of the calendar year. Completion of those

15 documents will provide the ability to address approximately 77

percent of the claims currently pending at NIOSH.

Mr. Michael Gib8oD interrupted to ask how many health physicists and

parties involved in development of site profiles were Q-cleared and

how classified relevant data was being included in the TBDs. Dr.

NetoD replied NIOSH had three and ORAU had 15 to 20 Q-cleared

individuals. Q-cleared individuals have reviewed data to determine

applicability to the site profiles. Thus far no classified

information has been discovered that needed to be included in dose

reconstruction.

Dr. _eton noted an additional issue with UCNI data, which is not

classified but similar to Privacy Act information. Mr. pre.ley

clarified UCNI as the acronym for Unclassified Controlled Nuclear

Information. Mr. Blliott added NIOSH had successfully worked with

classification officers to provide data or information couched in a

way that it could be used but not jeopardize national security.

Returning to the Mallinckrodt document, Dr. .etan noted the scope of

the document was limited to aid in reconstruction of radiation doses

to workers at the St. Louis downtown site only, specifically plants 1,

2, 4, 6, 6E, 7, and 7E. The time period addressed is from April 1942

through July 1958. CUrrently reserved, residual contamination in the

1959-1995 time period will also be covered in the document.

The introduction covers the Manhattan Engineering District asking

Mallinckrodt Chemical Works to begin research on uranium refining and

processing operations. That was April of 1942. Three months later,

they were in production. Between 1942 and 1957 more than 50,000 tons

of natural uranium products were processed.

26
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

A full-scale health program was not started until 1948. Film badging

began in late 1945, with urinalysis some time later. Both

Mallinckrodt and the AEC performed periodic air sampling, including

radon breath analysis. External dose records are missing from 1942-

1945. Internal dose records are missing for the 1942-1947 period.

This section also establishes the context for interpretation of

existing records, along with the basis upon which to determine missing

doses for periods in which records are non-existent.

Dr. MetoD explained the history of site use provided a summary

chronology, with descriptions of the work performed in major plants

and the safety problems and solutions noted. The section covers

decontamination and surveys performed. It moves through the recycling

performed commencing in 1957 and waste residues taken to the St. Louis

Airport Storage Site.

The section describing the uranium refining process explains the basic

process, and defines three specific periods of time of significance.

They are the wartime period (April '42 to April '45), the early

postwar period (May '45 to December '49), and the later postwar period

(1950 to 1958). The section discusses other processes, the ores and

other feed forms used, as well as residues and effluents.

The next section covered radiological characteristics, conditions,

considerations, and available date. It described units, limits and

recommendations. Radioactivity content and handling of the ore,

uranium produces, and residues was discussed.

Internal dose considerations included particle size, solubility,

composition and sampling methods. Also reviewed were airborne dust

levels, respirator use, radon and surface contamination. Information

and available data included urinalysis, breath radon analyses, wac and

lung counts.

External dose considerations included film badges, extremity

dosimeters and occupational X-rays. Other areas of interest were

number of workers, number of hours worked per week, job types and work

areas.

Determination of radioactivity intakes and internal doses included

assumptions, estimating intake using surrogate worker data and timeweighted daily average exposure data, as well as calculation of

internal doses for missing periods or for comparison.

Determination of external doses was covered by general considerations

unmonitored workers. Application of dose data from available film

badge dose monitoring, external exposure geometries and photon energy

27
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH CDC Adviso Board on Radiation and Worker Health

ranges was discussed

Discussion Points

.

..

f

.

t

.

#

#

i

4/:

Mr. Mark Griffon queried whether there is any feeling for an

inability to reconstruct dose for any subpopulation of worker at

the Mallinckrodt site. Mr. Neton answered there was not.

Dr. James Meliu8 asked what happened if a worker had been

employed at the other facilities, too. Dr. Neton replied that if

a dose reconstruction based on Mallinckrodt alone took the

claimant into the compensable range, it was completed. If it did

not, the claim would have to wait for the TBD on the other

facility to make a determination.

Dr. Roy DeHart asked if any incidences of adverse events had been

discovered through the document review. Dr. Neton answered that

a few incidents were addressed in the document. Where

documentation was available, they were characterized.

Dr. Genevieve Roessler inquired how long the development process

had taken. Dr. Meton reckoned some six to eight months.

Dr. Roessler asked what part of total dose was assumed for the

chest X-ray. Dr. Richard Toohey responded that since they were

done at a hospital, it was presumed that both AP and lateral

views were shot, and that they were given the typical exposures

for the time.

Mr. Leon Owens wondered what the mechanism was for incorporating

an undocumented significant event in the '45-'49 time period that

was mentioned in several claimant interviews and necessary for a

claim to be compensable. Dr. Neton replied that corroboration

and plausibility would factor into the event being considered and

put into the claimant's dose.

Mr. Mark Griffon asked how use of surrogate worker data was being

validated. Mr. Meton indicated they would match as closely as

possible. If you can't match, pick the next highest value to be

found in the table.

Mr. Griffon wondered if any past experts had been interviewed in

the process. Dr. Meton indicated they had not.

Mr. Griffon asked if the references would be posted on the web

site. Dr. Meton replied that, to the extent that the Privacy Act

would not be violated, that could be looked into.

Dr. James Melius commented that in the future it would helpful to

have reports to be discussed in a meeting available beforehand.

He added he found it disconcerting that in a process taking eight

to ten months, no attempt was made to consult experts. He asked

what plans were to do that in the future. Mr. Blliott answered

28
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH CDC Adviso Board on Radiation and Worker Health

*

it

.

*

.

f

t

t

.

.

that consultation was sought where needed, as in the Bethlehem

Steel document. The wealth of information available at

Mallinckrodt allowed them to proceed without that need. The

first goal is to get the documents out. Comment is welcome.

Dr. Meliu8 said he still had a question about whether NIOSH

planned to hold meetings. Mr. Blliott reiterated that it was the

plan to do so.

Dr. Melius commented he was presuming NIOSH was rejecting

involvement by labor or other interested parties prior to

publication. Mr. Blliott replied it was not being rejected; it

will be sought where it is felt necessary and appropriate to put

out a quality document.

Mr. Melius inquired where that was being done on the 15 documents

in development. Mr. Blliott responded that he could not comment

with specificity on each individual document and where they were

in their development.

Dr. Melius offered that he found Mr. Blliott's answer

unsatisfactory since nothing was scheduled and there was no

commitment. Noting that the conflict of interest issue had been

raised in public comment, he opined that the development of a

policy in that regard was imperative.

Dr. Paul Ziemer observed that the document was probably never

going to be complete and every resource will never be tapped.

But it has to be put out sometime, and there appeared to be a

wealth of information to support the Mallinckrodt document.

Other information will be added as it becomes available. While

further refinement may be helpful and useful, this document has

already helped to process claims.

Mr. Blliott agreed, noting that NIOSH was concerned at the time

involved if a participatory process were adopted. This was

considered more expeditious.

Mr. Griffon asked if claimant interviews had been used in

development of the TBD. Dr. Neton responded that they were

checked to make sure there was nothing inconsistent with what

the TBD is saying.

Dr. Melius opined that responding to a web site is not an open

public process, noting that the documents were going to be used

to reject claims. Mr. Blliott clarified for Dr. Melius that the

TBDs or site profiles were not used to reject claims. They are

to support dose reconstruction. The dose is either compensable

or not.

Mr. Blliott offered that individual comments had been heard and

reacted to, but if there was Board consensus, he needed to hear

that.

Ms. Wanda Munn reminded the Board of Dr. Till's recent appearance~

29
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH/COC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

41:

before the Board in which he spoke of the need for establishing a

policy of when the science one has is what one will use, and

recognize what is the reality in terms of imponderables that

cannot be defined clearly. Failure to do so creates more

confusion.

Mr. Gibson observed the science of health physics was not being

questioned, but rather the adequacy of records of people for whom

a Federal agency has already gone on record to say they were

improperly monitored.

A motion was made by Dr. Meliu8 and seconded by Mr. Griffon that the

Board recommend NIOSH develop a process for public and site expert

participation and involvement in the development of site profiles,

that this participation include both prior to publication on the web

site and comment after initial publication. Dr. Ziemer opened the

motion for discussion.

Board Discussion

Mr. Owens agreed with Mr. Gibson's comment, adding that measurements

don't mean anything to a lot of people, they just feel lied to. The

site profile development process needs to be as transparent as

possible.

Dr. Tony Andrade agreed with transparency, but noted measurements have

everything to do with the process. Assuming are all records are false

and untrue and that folks who ran a radiation protection organization

would falsify such things is unconscionable. He pointed out one must

start somewhere dispassionate, which has everything to do with the

records. The starting point is what is on paper. Agreeing that a

larger outreach effort to let people know they can comment is needed,

Dr. Andrade asserted his belief that the process currently in place is

appropriate.

Dr. Roessler queried Dr. Meliu8 about specifically what he would have

done differently and how he would have gone about it.

Dr. Melius responded that his motion was to develop a process, and he

felt the process should be flexible and would have to be different for

different sites. Speaking from a greater familiarity with the

Savannah River Site, Dr. Melius noted there were several opportunities

to seek information from other resources which were not taken in the

development of that TBD. He stated he was trying to defer to NIOSH as

much as possible to let them develop a program that doesn't hamper

their progress, but at the same time gives people a chance for input.

Dr. Ziemer opined that NIOSH, its staff, the Board and all its

30
Bxecutive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

BIOSH CDC Adviso Board on Radiation and Worker Health

representative facets were after the same thing: A good quality

product. What needed to be recognized is that what appears to be

issues of being lied to reflects ignorance. The changing dose limits

themselves reflect changes in knowledge of the biological effects of

radiation. Mistakes were made by even some of the best professionals

simply as a result of ignorance or lack of information. Dr. Ziemer

went on to say that while there may have been instances of

falsification, he believed they were few and far between. If

specifics were known, they should be taken into consideration. The

issue of getting input from the worker side should be respected and he

felt NIOSH wants to accomplish that. If it needs to be formalized,

that may be useful. Dr. DeHart offered his support of the motion, but

wanted to make clear his belief that NIOSH has made a good faith

effort to do the best they could with what they have. His support is

because the issue is divisive. The need for worker and expert

participation has been expressed and this is an opportunity to

continue that participation. Dr. DeHart cautioned that it is a

mistake to assume this will resolve or remove any issues. It will,

however, provide NIOSH with one more step of protection as it moves

forward.

Mr. Gibson commented he was not questioning the credibility of any

particular rad professional, but knew of some in the complex who put

production over safety. He likened it to having to represent union

employees caught sleeping on the job; there are some out there.

Dr. Roessler observed that from her evaluation of the Mallinckrodt

document, it was very well done. She felt the motion would give the

Board direction in prioritizing when its support contractor began

their work.

Ms. Munn indicated that while all sources of valuable information

should be incorporated into the final document, she has observed that

what happens with public hearings and wide open input prior to having

something to work from is cumbersome and time-consuming for everyone.

It has been her experience that it is most effective to have a

document based on the best evidence that can be supported by record

and have input to that if there are shortcomings or errors to it.

Ms. Munn offered her opinion that the motion was incorrect

procedurally.

Dr. Ziemer pointed out that the motion does not mandate how the

process is to be carried out other than to ask that there be input

The process could in fact be exactly what has occurred.

Dr. Ziemer further noted that the Board must recognize it is not a

management board for NIOSH. If the motion passes, it simply reflects

31