National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

15th Meeting of the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

May 1, 2003 

Meeting Minutes 

This meeting was convened by teleconference. A transcript of the meeting is available 

from NIOSH by request or from the Web page: www.cdc.gov\niosh\ocas

 
1

Attendance 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

All Board members were in attendance. 

Ziemer, Paul L., Ph.D. (Chair) 

Elliott, Larry J., M.S., CIH (Executive Secretary) 

Members: 

Anderson, Henry A., M.D. 

Andrade, Antonio, Ph.D. 

DeHart, Roy Lynch, M.D., M.P.H. 

Espinosa, Richard Lee 

Gibson, Michael H. 

Griffon, Mark A. 

Melius, James Malcom, M.D., Ph.D. 

Munn, Wanda I. 

Owens, Charles L. (via telephone) 

Presley, Robert W. 

Roessler, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Federal Attendees

Department of Health and Human Services: 

Gaye, Annette 

Homer, Corrine 

Homoki-Titus, Liz

Katz, Theodore 

Naimon, David 

Neton, James 

Ross, Renee 

Sundin, David 

Department of Labor: 

Kotsch, Jeff 

Public Attendance

Approximately 10 members of the public attended the teleconference. 
2

Public Comment 

Public comments were provided by the following members of the public: 

Epifania Jacquez 

Carmen Gonzales 

Richard Miller 

Betty Jean Shinas 

 

Comments addressed the following matters: 

• A desire to have Los Alamos added to the Special Exposure Cohort; 

• A desire to see quicker claims adjudication for employees of Los Alamos; 

• Opposition to a provision of the proposed rule allowing cancer-specific 

designations of classes of employees; 

• The use of worst-case assumptions as an efficiency measure in dose 

reconstructions; 

• Methods of using worst-case assumptions in dose reconstructions; 

• Dose reconstruction methods for claimants who are members of the Special 

Exposure Cohort; and 

• Renewal of the Board’s charter. 

Discussion on Special Exposure Cohort Proposed Rule 

(42 CFR Part 83) 

Cancer-specific Class Designations

The Board discussed concerns regarding the provisions of the proposed rule addressing 

cancer-specific class designations (see sections 83.12(b)(1)(iv), 83.12(b)(2)(iii), and 

83.12(c)(4)). These provisions would provide NIOSH the option to define a proposed 

class for addition to the Special Exposure Cohort that would be limited to employees who 

incur a cancer from a set of one or more types of cancers that would be specified by 

NIOSH. Board members discussed their individual views on public satisfaction, fairness, 

congressional intent, and scientific and practical considerations pertaining to these 

provisions. Also, prior to the meeting, Dr. Ziemer and Dr. Melius each had distributed 

alternative draft comments relating to these provisions for the Board’s consideration. 

 

The Board decided to recommend that the rule not provide for cancer-specific class 

designations, such that the membership of classes that HHS may add to the Special 

Exposure Cohort would not be defined with respect to cancer types. Eleven members 

voted in favor of the motion and 1 member abstained. The approved text of the 

recommendation was the following: 

“Page 11309, Column 1, Section 83.13(b)(1)(iv): This paragraph refers to 

cases where NIOSH finds that, while it is not feasible to estimate radiation 

doses, it may be possible to determine that doses are limited to certain 

specific sites, thus excluding certain other tissue-specific cancer sites from 
3

being considered as part of an SEC class. While the Advisory Board 

understands that it may be scientifically and theoretically possible for such 

a situation to exist, the Board is also concerned about meeting the 

legislative intent of Congress on this matter and in providing some level of 

equity between the definition of new SEC classes and those already 

defined in the legislation. Accordingly, the Board recommends that HHS 

remove sections 83.12 (b)(1)(iv), 83.12 (b)(2)(iii), and 83.12 (c)(4).” 

Sufficient Accuracy

The Board discussed provisions of the proposed rule using the term “sufficient accuracy”

(see sections 83.13(b)(1), 83.13 (b)(1)(iv) and Section 83.13 (b)(3). Board members 

discussed their individual views on the need for NIOSH to clarify the concept of 

sufficient accuracy and to develop guidelines to implement related determinations under 

the proposed rule. Also, prior to the meeting, Dr. Ziemer and Dr. Melius each had 

distributed alternative draft comments relating to this provision for the Board’s 

consideration. Dr. Ziemer had also distributed questions and responses related to this 

provision exchanged by e-mail between a member of the public (Mr. Richard Miller) and 

a member of the NIOSH staff (Mr. Ted Katz). 

The Board decided to recommend that NIOSH develop guidelines after a final rule is 

promulgated. All 12 members of the Board voted in favor of the motion. The approved 

text of the recommendation was the following: 

“Page 11309, Column 1, Section 83.13 (b)(1)(iv) and Section 83.13 (b)(3): 

Both of these sections include the concept of “not feasible to estimate 

doses with sufficient accuracy.” The idea of “sufficient accuracy” is not 

completely clear or obvious. It would be helpful if NIOSH could provide 

additional clarification of this concept. Accordingly, the Board 

recommends that NIOSH develop guidelines addressing feasibility and 

sufficient accuracy. These guidelines should be developed within a 

reasonable time period after the promulgation of the regulation and should 

be submitted to the Board for review. Appropriate changes should be 

made in the regulation to indicate the planned development of these 

guidelines and the process for their development. Appropriate changes in 

the dose reconstruction regulations should be made to address any 

potential conflict between the two sets of regulations that could leave 

some claimants ineligible for either individual dose reconstruction or 

special exposure cohort status.” 

Conclusion 

The Board members agreed that the Board had completed its review of the proposed rule. 

Adjournment 
The meeting adjourned widlout further discussion of substantive matters.~

I hereby confirDl that these minutes are accurate to the best of my knowledge.

- IP/,c ~ .3

~~~~~~~~~~ Date

4