This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Procedures Subcommittee, has been reviewed for concerns 

under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, 

however, has not been reviewed and certified by the Chair of the Procedures Subcommittee for accuracy at this time. The reader 

should be cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change. 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH) 

Subcommittee for Procedures Review

September 29, 2022 

Thursday, September 29, 2022

Summary Proceedings

The Subcommittee for Procedures Review meeting convened via teleconference at 11:06 a.m. Eastern 

Daylight Time (EFT), Dr. Rashaun Roberts, Designated Federal Official, presiding.

Attendees

Members

Josie Beach, Member

Loretta Valerio, Member

Paul Ziemer, Member

Non-Members

Roberts, Rashaun, Designated Federal Official

Adams, Nancy, NIOSH contractor

Barton, Bob, SC&A

Behling, Kathy, SC&A

Buchanan, Ron, SC&A

Calhoun, Grady, DCAS

Cardarelli, John, DCAS

Crawford, Chris, DOL

Farver, Doug, SC&A

Gogliotti, Rose, SC&A

Harrison, David, ORAUT-OTIB

Habighurst, Ashton, HHS

Marion-Moss, Lori, DCAS

Nelson, Chuck, DCAS

Rolfes, Mark, DCAS

Rutherford, LaVon, DCAS

Sharfi, Mutty, ORAUT-OTIB

Taulbee, Tim, DCAS
2

Roll Call/Welcome - Dr. Rashaun Roberts, DFO

Dr. Rashaun Roberts called to order the Subcommittee for Procedures Review at 11:06 a.m. EDT on 

September 29, 2022, via teleconference. A roll call of all Subcommittee members confirmed that a quorum 

was present. The quorum was maintained throughout the meeting. Subcommittee members, federal staff, 

and contractors announced conflicts-of interest during roll call. Dr. Roberts turned the meeting over to Ms. 

Beach, Subcommittee chair.

Carry Over Items from May 25, 2022, SCPR Meeting

DCAS PER-093, “Texas City Chemicals TBD Rev. 01”

Rose Gogliotti, SC&A, presented the history of the Texas City Chemicals facility, technical documents 

and reviews associated with it, and findings from SC&A’s review of PER-093. SC&A did not have any 

findings about how the PER was performed. They recommended to the Subcommittee that they should 

be tasked to review one of the cases that DCAS had re-evaluated as part of the PER. The Subcommittee 

agreed and assigned SC&A that task, and DCAS agreed that it would select a case for SC&A review.

DCAS PER-092, “Weldon Spring Plant”

Ron Buchanan, SC&A, presented the history of the Weldon Spring Plant and the various revisions that 

DCAS has prepared for the environmental dose chapter of the Weldon Spring TBD. PER-092 was 

prepared to address the changes made in Rev. 4. SC&A did not have any findings about how the PER 

was performed, although they did identify two typographical errors. They identified three exposure 

scenarios that should be included in the cases that will be selected for their review. They did not 

recommend a number of cases, because it might be possible to evaluate all three scenarios in a single 

case. On the other hand, it might be necessary to select two or three cases for review in order to include 

all three scenarios. The Subcommittee agreed and assigned SC&A that task, and DCAS agreed that it 

would select a case or cases that include all three scenarios for SC&A to review.

Battelle TBD-5000, “Default Assumptions and Methods for Atomic Weapons 

Employer Dose Reconstructions”

Dr. John Cardarelli, DCAS, summarized DCAS’s response to SC&A’s review of Battelle TBD-5000. This 

document was prepared in 2007, but the Subcommittee only fairly recently tasked SC&A to review it. 

SC&As review, which was completed in January 2022 included 13 observations. Dr. Cardarelli reported 

that, in all but one case, SC&A’s observations pertain to guidance that is no longer utilized in EEOICPA 

dose reconstructions, having been superseded by guidance in newer technical documents. The one 

instruction that has not been superseded is to apply a Geometry Standard Deviation of 3.0 to doses that 

are reconstructed using ICRP metabolic models. Dr. Cardarelli said DCAS is preparing a separate 

technical document on this subject which will supersede the guidance in TBD-5000. Once that document 

is complete and DCAS assures that there is no guidance in TBD-5000 that isn’t superseded or contained 

elsewhere, it expects to cancel TBD-5000. 

Dr. Bob Anigstein, SC&A, provided SC&A’s response to DCAS’s presentation. He noted that much of the 

guidance in TBD-5000 has been superseded by newer documents. Because of that, SC&A recommends 

that it review the newer documents before the observations from their review of TBD-5000 are closed. In 

addition, for some observations where DCAS reports newer guidance is available, it is not clear exactly 

what the newer guidance is. Consequently, SC&A recommends closing only observations 1, 3, 9, 10, and 

11. The Subcommittee concurred and closed those observations. Dr. Anigstein will provide a written 
3

summary of today’s verbal presentation, DCAS will provide additional information for observations where 

it has been requested, and the Subcommittee will task SC&A with reviewing documents containing newer 

guidance.

DCAS PER-073, “Birdsboro Steel and Foundry Company”

Mark Rolfes, DCAS, presented the history of Birdsboro and DCAS’s response to Finding 1 from SC&A’s 

review of this PER. Birdsboro Steel is a covered Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) for the years 1951 

and 1952. It received relatively small amounts of uranium for Atomic Energy Commission work during that 

time. SC&A’s review finding was that DCAS didn’t address exposures from radiography activities which 

used radium and cobalt sources and a Betatron X-ray machine. DCAS’s research leads it to conclude that

the radiography involved steel, not uranium, that the Betatron was located in a different building than the 

uranium work, and that the other radiography occurred after the covered period. SC&A only received 

DCAS’s report shortly before this meeting and will respond at a future Subcommittee meeting.

Dose Reconstruction Methodology for the Peek Street Facility

Dr. Tim Taulbee, DCAS, presented information about Dose Reconstruction Templates, which provide 

guidance for some dose reconstructions at sites that do not have Site Profiles. Dr. Taulbee emphasized 

that Templates generally have limited application, unlike Technical Basis Documents (TBDs). Dose 

reconstructors frequently have to generate individualized dose reconstructions for claims from sites that 

rely on Templates. He presented a list of sites where Templates are used, along with the number of 

claims from each site, based on 2019 data. More recent data is not available because of the 

Cybersecurity Modernization Initiative. Because of the number of claims, DCAS is preparing TBDs for the 

four sites with the most claims. After completing those, they will word down the list until they have TBDs

for all sites with more than 100 claims. At that point DCAS will consider if it’s desirable to develop TBDs 

for sites with fewer than 100 claims. After some discussion, the Subcommittee decided that, rather than 

review Templates by themselves, it would be more fruitful to select dose reconstructions that relied on 

Templates, and review how the Templates were used in those cases.

After that discussion, Dr. Taulbee provided DCAS’s response to the findings and observations from 

SC&A’s review of the Peek Street Methodology Template. SC&A developed eight findings and three

observations in their review. Generally, the findings were of the nature that certain information should be 

added to the Template or methodology document, or that information in them should be updated. Doug 

Farver, SCA, presented SC&A’s reaction to DCAS’s Peek Street responses. 

There was extensive discussion about whether placing the information in these documents or in the 

individual dose reconstructions was preferable. DCAS did agree to update the Template and 

methodology document to incorporate some of the findings and observations. After the discussion, the 

Subcommittee decided to keep Findings 1, 3, and 4, and Observation 2 “in progress.”

Due to time constraints, the remaining items on the agenda, other than plans for the December full Board 

meeting and the next Subcommittee meeting were held over to the next Subcommittee meeting.

Preparation for December 2022 Full Board Meeting; Review of 

Technical Guidance Documents Ready for Full Board Approval

The Subcommittee decided to present their completed reviews for seven documents at the next full Board 

meeting if the presentation does not get too long. SC&A will prepare the presentation and may delete a 

document or two depending on the duration of the presentation. The documents that the Subcommittee 

plans to present are ORAUT-0014, rev. 0; PROC-002, rev. 0; PROC-077 rev. 0; PER-047, rev. 0; PER003, rev. 0; PER-005, rev. 0; and PER-025, rev. 0.
4

Next Subcommittee Meeting Plans

The Subcommittee tentatively scheduled their next meeting for February 16, 2023, from 11:00 to 4:30

Eastern time.

Meeting Adjourned

The meeting was adjourned at 1:37 p.m. EDT.