Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Summary Minutes 

Twenty-second Meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

March 11, 2004 

Conference Call Meeting Held at the National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health 

Atlanta, Georgia 
 

Executive Summary/Minutes March 11, 2004 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Executive Summary 

The Twenty-second meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the 

Board) was held by telephone conference on March 11, 2004, at 1:00 p.m. All members were in attendance 

with the exception of Dr. Roy DeHart. Others in attendance included staff of various Federal agencies, as 

well as members of the public. 

* * * * *
 

Thursday, March 11, 2004
 

Consideration of Site Profile Review Procedures
 

The single agenda item was the consideration of the draft site profile review procedures submitted by 

Sanford Cohen & Associates. Dr. Paul Ziemer led the Board through a discussion of the document, 

following which a motion was made and seconded to approve the procedures, with minor modifications. 

The motion passed unanimously. 

* * * * *
 

Public Comment Period
 

Public comment was solicited. Public input included the following: 

#Availability of IMBA software to the public. 

#Matters just discussed by the Board were not minor. 

* * * * * 

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

End of Executive Summary 

Ë Ë Ë

- 2 -
Executive Summary/Minutes March 11, 2004 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Summary Minutes of the Twenty-second Meeting 

March 11, 2004 

The Twenty-first Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or the Board) 

was held at the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (conference call) on March 11, 2004. 

The meeting was called by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC's) National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the agency charged with administering the ABRWH. These 

summary minutes, as well as a verbatim transcript certified by a court reporter, are available on the internet 

on the NIOSH/Office of Compensation Analysis and Support (OCAS) web site located at 

www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. Those present included the following: 

ABRWH Members: Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair; Dr. Henry Anderson; Dr. Antonio Andrade; Mr. Richard 

Espinosa; Mr. Michael Gibson; Mr. Mark Griffon; Dr. James Melius; Ms. Wanda Munn; Mr. Leon Owens; 

Mr. Robert Presley; and Dr. Genevieve Roessler. 

Designated Federal Official: Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary 

Federal Agency Attendees: 

Department of Health and Human Services: 

Ms. Martha DiMuzio, Mr. Russ Henshaw, Ms. Cori Homer, Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus, Mr. Ted Katz; 

Mr. David Naimon; and Dr. Jim Neton. 

Department of Labor: 

Ms. Sylvia Dominguez and Mr. Jeffrey Kotsch. 

Contractors and Public Attendees: Mr. Hans Behling; Ms. Terry Berry; Dr. Joe Fitzgerald; Mr. Howard 

Lawson; Dr. John Mauro; Mr. Richard Miller; Ms. Johnnie Rosa; Dr. Dick Toohey; 

- 3 -
 

Executive Summary/Minutes March 11, 2004 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

OPENING REMARKS 

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chairman of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, (ABRWH, or the 

Board) called the meeting to order, welcoming the attendees. 

Dr. Ziemer requested an official roll call of the Board to verify presence on the conference call. All 

members were in attendance with the exception of Dr. Roy DeHart. Dr. Ziemer asked that the attending 

representatives of various Federal agencies identify themselves, as well as employees of any contractors, 

and members of the public. 

* * * * *
 

BOARD DISCUSSION AND WORKING SESSION
 

CONSIDERATION OF SITE PROFILE REVIEW PROCEDURES
 

The sole agenda item was to discuss and consider the site profile review procedures submitted by Sanford 

Cohen & Associates (SC&A). This first deliverable had been provided at the Board's request so that the 

Board could establish an agreed-upon approach for conducting the reviews of the site profiles by their 

contractor. 

Dr. Ziemer indicated it was his belief that the Board's primary task in this regard was to provide feedback to 

SC&A as to the acceptability of the procedures. He noted there could be a variety of outcomes as a result of 

the Board's deliberations. One would be acceptance of the draft document as provided, with instructions to 

the contractor to proceed. Another would be acceptance, with minor modifications, and instructions to the 

contractor to proceed. Or in the event of a need for major modifications, the Board could instruct the 

contractor to make revisions and return to the Board with an amended procedure. 

Dr. Ziemer prefaced a discussion of the document by reviewing the format. It was divided into four 

sections, beginning with an introduction, then proceeding into objectives, the procedural approach, and then 

the roles, responsibilities, and deliverables. Dr. Ziemer opined that the key question for the Board would 

appear to be: Are there major issues or considerations the contractor has failed to include in the review 

procedures outlined in this document? 

Discussion Points: 

#Dr. James Neton noted that in the introduction of the document, "incidents and accidents" were 

mentioned as being included in the site profiles, and pointed out that they are not targeted for 

inclusion. Dr. Ziemer suggested that Dr. John Mauro of SC&A make note of that and modify the 

- 4 -
Executive Summary/Minutes March 11, 2004 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

document accordingly. 

#Dr. Neton was also concerned that in the second paragraph of the same section it indicted the contractor 

was to "evaluate the approach taken by the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

(NIOSH) to gauge the adequacy, completeness, and validity of the information used to determine 

individual eligibility for compensation." Dr. Neton felt it important to point out that NIOSH does 

not perform that role; they perform the dose reconstructions which the Department of Labor uses to 

determine eligibility for compensation. Dr. Ziemer asked that Dr. Mauro make that modification 

to the document, as well. 

#Ms. Wanda Munn observed that one of the objectives in the second section was the concept of 

consistency of the site profiles, and wondered if that were completely accurate. Dr. Ziemer opined 

that the intent had been a consistency from site to site where there were commonalities, and called 

upon Dr. Mauro to clarify. 

#Dr. Mauro acknowledged that there will be differences in various sites, but there will be areas where there 

should be equivalencies and that was the intention. Dr. Ziemer added that it appeared to him that 

consistency had to do with the type and level and depth of information gathered by one team versus 

another team which does the dose reconstructions. 

#Dr. Genevieve Roessler raised a question on the procedural approach section relating to interviews with 

NIOSH and Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), and another reference to interviewing site 

profile authors. She wondered how extensive that plan might be. Dr. Ziemer indicated that the 

process would require his receipt of a request from the contractor to do such an interview. He would 

then pass the request along to NIOSH or ORAU. 

#Dr. Mauro added that there was no intention to interview every person who worked on a site profile, but it 

would be as deemed appropriate. He stressed that they intended to let the site profile review process 

unfold, and if something developed, it would be probed as they deemed appropriate, in collaboration 

with the Board. 

#Mr. Mark Griffon observed that in that same section there is a reference to a review of worst-case dose 

estimates, noting that the actual phraseology had been to review the outline guidance for general 

dose estimates, because in some cases the contractor was building a template for doing individual 

reconstructions. Dr. Mauro indicated that was very easily remedied. 

In the next section of the document, Dr. Ziemer observed that the role and responsibility of the Board as 

outlined was the contractor's reiteration of what the Board had committed to do; therefore there appeared to 

be no disagreement with that segment. SC&A is explaining what it will do, which is spelled out in the task 

order in any event, therefore he noted no problem with that segment. 

- 5 -
Executive Summary/Minutes March 11, 2004 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

The role of NIOSH, Dr. Ziemer opined, was a matter of the contractor describing what it believes NIOSH 

is supposed to do, but is not mandating what they do. Dr. Mauro agreed with that assessment, and Dr. 

Ziemer then asked Mr. Larry Elliott and Dr. Neton if they had any disagreement with what had been 

outlined as NIOSH's role. Both were in agreement that there were no conflicts in that segment. 

Moving into the procedures portion, Dr. Ziemer cautioned that he did not want the Board to get into a 

wordsmithing situation, but was looking for red flags, items of concern, or items that Board members may 

feel were missing from the document. 

#Mr. Griffon noted a section on missed dose, and indicated that perhaps if the section were headed as 

"missed dose or unmonitored dose," that would take care of the matter. But he felt that those were 

two different things and that it was important to make sure there was a distinction between them. 

Dr. Ziemer asked if Dr. Mauro could make note of that. Dr. Mauro indicated they had a copy of 

the procedures before them and were marking it up as the Board commented. 

#Dr. Ziemer raised a question in that same section on distinguishing between what the "site" did and what 

the "site profilers" did. Dr. Mauro indicated that he understood exactly what Dr. Ziemer was 

referring to, noting there was in fact a need for editing some of the questions so they are placed in 

the proper context. 

#Dr. Antonio Andrade wanted to go to an earlier portion of that section, specifically referring to 

assignment of site profile reviewers, which called for operational experts led by a designated team 

member. He questioned who the operational experts were and whether the team leader was one of 

the health physicists. 

#Mr. Joe Fitzgerald of SC&A indicated the team leader would be one of two or three health physicists on 

a team. He noted that the reference to experts was in the event there may be some specialist issues 

particular to a site profile where the contractor would need to draw upon somebody from the SC&A 

team who may have expertise. This would not necessarily be a member of the site profile team. The 

involvement would be very intermittent, but would be valuable to ensure the proper evaluation of the 

issue. 

#Dr. Andrade inquired if those people would be among the ones specified in the contract, and Mr. 

Fitzgerald assured him they would. 

Since the procedures consisted of a variety of questions the contractor would be asking in its review of the 

site profiles, discussion was held regarding exactly what would happen to the answers to those questions 

once they were determined. 

- 6 -
 

 

 

Executive Summary/Minutes March 11, 2004 

 NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Dr. Ziemer observed that the Board understood the questions didn't stand by themselves and that it wasn't a 

matter of having a list of answers to a list of questions, but that the contractor is going to take the 

information and develop it into an evaluation. However, in some cases the document states more 

specifically what will be done with the information. 

Adding that the Board neither expected nor asked to have everything detailed at this point, Dr. Ziemer 

commented that for SC&A's purposes they may want to clarify those issues, pointing out that there is some 

fuzziness in the language. 

A motion was made and seconded to accept the site profile review 

procedure as submitted, with the understanding that the minor items 

discussed would be taken into consideration by the contractor as they 

proceed with the process. 

Dr. Ziemer called for discussion on the motion, noting that he wanted to raise one other issue before the 

vote, which was probably his only red flag item. In the procedures section under the subheading of 

Dosimetric Technical Basis and the sub-subheading of occupational environmental dose, there was a section 

on chemical data. He pointed out that the contractor is proposing as a part of this review to examine 

chemical exposure issues, which is not being done. Dr. Ziemer queried whether that section is not beyond 

the scope of the task, and called for input from the Board and NIOSH. 

Mr. Elliott indicated that indeed that section was beyond the scope of both the task and the contract which 

had been awarded. 

After some discussion, it was agreed by the mover and the seconder of the motion that, as a friendly 

amendment, the motion include removal of the paragraph on chemical data as being beyond the scope of the 

review process. Dr. Ziemer asked for a roll call vote. 

The motion to accept the site profile review procedure, with all discussed 

modifications, was passed unanimously. 

Dr. Ziemer announced the Board was pleased to instruct SC&A to proceed. 

Attention was called to the fact that the Board members had received in their packets documentation related 

to Task Two, which was a deliverable under the contract. This material was provided simply as an 

indication that it had in fact been received, and required no action. 

* * * * * 

- 7 -
Executive Summary/Minutes March 11,2004

NIOSH/CDC Advisorv Board on Radiation and Worker Health

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD

Ms. Johnnie Rosa

Ms. Rosa raised again the issue of making IMBA software available to the general public.

She particularly wanted the Board to know that the issues discussed today were not minor items, that denial

of claims was a major item.

Dr. Ziemer thanked Ms. Rosa for her comments, and noted that the issue of the IMBA software is being

researched, and that NIOSH did not control its availability. Mr. Elliott added that NIOSH was looking

into making IMBA available through a help desk or look-up tables. He also pointed out to Ms. Rosa that

models which appear in the IMBA software are international consensus models which have been

published, are accessible and are of public domain.

Ms. Rosa indicated she was going to address the issue all the way to the President. Dr. Ziemer expressed

his agreement with that approach, noting it was the route which probably would be most effective for her at

this point.

*****

With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was adjourned at 2:20 p.m.

End of Summary Minutes

~

I hereby confirm that these Summary Minutes

are accurate to the best of my knowledge.

~~~ ~~~::~

Date '-'1'..& ~ "'" ~

8