Bxecutive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

.

that there was only one contractor, which would perform all tasks

placed before them.

Mr. Griffon indicated that a question had come up in the working

group as to what point in the process individual cases would be

available for review. Mr. Blliott responded that cases would be

available upon final decision from DOL, so long as the case is

not on appeal.

Dr. Zi.mer advised the Board that the recommendation for approval of

the Procedure for Processing Individual Dose Reconstruction Reviews

came from the working group as a motion requiring no second. If

approved, it would become the Board's working document and could be

changed at any time upon action by the Board. With no further

discussion requested by the Board, Dr. Ziemer called for a vote.

The motion to approve the Procedure for Processing

Individual Dose Reconstruction Reviews was passed

unanimously.

.

.

.

.

Me. MuDD indicated she was still concerned about the large number

of site profiles being required. Dr. Ziemer asked if tasks

couldn't be changed if needs changed. Mr. BIIiott responded that

tasks could be added to, but once a scope of work was placed

before a contractor, it could not be reduced.

Dr. Genevieve Roe..ler stated she didn't feel it was a large

number. The phrasing of the task afforded some flexibility, and

the contractor should have a variety of different types of sites

to evaluate.

Dr. Andrade suggested perhaps starting with five and increasing

the scope, given Mr. BIIiott's information and M8. Nunn's

comments.

Mr. Leon Owen. commended the working group for its job and called

for the question.

Dr. Ziemer acknowledged calling for the question as a formal motion to

end debate, which required a two-thirds majority vote to pass.

The motion to end debate was seconded and passed

by a vote of eight to two.

Dr. Ziemer called for a vote on the motion to approve the Site Profile

Review task.

The motion to approve the Site Profile Review task

17
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH CDC Adviso Board on Radiation and Worker Health

was passed, with one abstention.

The motion to approve the Dose Reconstruction Review Tracking task

required no second. With no further discussion requested by the

Board, Dr. Ziemer called for a vote.

The motion to approve the Dose Reconstruction

Review Tracking task was passed unanimously.

*****

BOARD DISCUSSION, CLAIMS REVIEW PROCESS

Mr. Larry Blliott announced that the contract for technical support to

the ABRWH had been awarded to Sanford Cohen & Associates. The

announcement will be placed on the web site following determination of

the portions appropriate for public dissemination by the Procurement

Office.

Mr. Blliott suggested taking some time to discuss the subcommittee

recommendation and the differences between that entity and a working

group.

Ms. Cor! Bamer of the Atlanta NIOSH office presented the Board with a

description of the differences between the two. Applicable

requirements for establishment under FACA rules, as well as authority

of a subcommittee, were discussed.

Since the subcommittee recommendation was made to effectuate

efficiency, Mr. Elliott offered to walk the Board through the task

order process. This was an effort to help the Board come to an

understanding of specified time periods for each required step.

Following Mr. Blliott's description of the process and extensive

discussion, Dr. Ziemer pointed out to the Board that an agreement at

this meeting was not necessary. The issue was tabled until the

following day in order to stay with the agenda and proceed to public

comment.

*****

PUBLIC CO~ PERIOD

Mr. Richard Miller

Government Accountability proj ect

18
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Mr. Miller inquired into the schedule for the Special Exposure Cohort

(SEC) rule being available. Mr. Blliott responded that the rule has

been revised and is under review. It will be published when released

by the Department, and available for petitions to be generated

against.

Mr. Miller raised the issue of conflict of interest statements for

those working on the site profiles. Mr. Blliott noted they are now on

the web site.

Mr. Miller queried policy that applies to dose reconstructors not

applying to those doing site profiles. Mr. Blliott responded that

they didn't want to see anyone working on their products serving on

the opposite side of litigation. Dr. MetoD commented on the issues

Mr. Miller has raised about people who have worked at a site and are

now doing site profiles, noting that the expertise to do the site

profiles lies with those who have experience at a site.

Mr. Miller contended it was an incongruity to have different

professional standards of conduct applied to those doing dose

reconstruction than for those who do site profiles and wondered if

that were "spelled out" anywhere. Mr. Elliott was concerned that Mr.

Miller's example had been accurately portrayed for the record. The

situation is one individual from a particular company working on one

site profile, with another individual from that company testifying

against a Subtitle D claim in Alaska. Mr. Blliott clarified that Mr.

Miller was inquiring into whether that was a perceived conflict, even

with affiliations disclosed, and how it was handled. Mr. Miller

confirmed that it was.

Dr. Dan McKeel

Washington University

Dr. McKeel commented on the TBD for the Mallinckrodt site. Specific

areas of concern from his perspective as a pathologist were cited.

noted that the document's recent release had not allowed for an indepth review. He cited two additional studies by Dr. Nancy DupreEllis which were not included in the profile and wondered why.

He

An additional concern expressed by Dr. McKeel is disclosure of the

number of workers for whom there is incomplete radiation exposure

data.

19
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH CDC Adviso Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Ms. Nancy Adams

United Nuclear Weapons Workers

MS. Adams spoke on behalf of her father, a long-time Mallinckrodt

employee. Ms. Adams described difficulties she had encountered

relative to missing records for his employment period, noting that her

father had been a part of the Dupre-Ellis study referred to by Dr.

McKeel.

Mr. James Mitulski

United Nuclear Weapons Workers

Mr. Mitulski spoke on behalf of his father, a former Mallinckrodt

worker. Mr. Mitulski was also familiar with the issue of missing

records, noting some people had only been able to prove their

employment through Social Security records. Some of those people are

now claimants.

Hr. Mitulski described incidents his father had been involved in

during his employment at Mallinckrodt. He expressed an opinion that

granting of SEC status is dependent upon effectiveness of a state's

legislators.

Ms. Barbara Smiddy

G. B. Windler Florist

Ms. Barbara Smiddy spoke to the Board about her father's employment at

the Small Arms Factory at Weldon Spring during World War II. She

believed his health problems were related to his employment. She

described what she perceived as being bounced from one agency to

another.

Ms. Denise Brock attempted to respond to some of Ms. Smiddy's

questions with information she had gathered through her efforts.

Mr. Richard Miller

Government Accountability Project

Mr. Miller asked to be allowed to raise a follow-up question on the

availability of the IMBA model so that dose reconstructions can be

independently evaluated. Dr. Neton responded that they had inquired

of the contractor who provided the program and was advised that a webbased version was not available. It is a proprietary-type calculation

engine customized for NIOSH application.

20
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Dr. NetoD added that, while not convenient, it is available for use in

the NIOSH public reading room.

Mr. Miller asked if money was necessary to make it accessible to the

public, and how the Board was going to do its work if it were not

available to them. Dr. NetoD answered that their licensing agreement

allowed use by the Board and the contractor.

Mr. Miller asked if there were anywhere on the earth other than

Cincinnati where it could be made available, or if there were some

practical solution, like $10,000, to make the problem go away. Mr.

Blliott replied that the only practical solution for those who cannot

make use of the availability NIOSH can provide is to purchase the

software and get a license themselves. It is a licensure issue only.

Mr. Miller contended it was a real problem to use proprietary software

not available to the public to make decisions about a public

compensation program. Mr. Miller opined that he had been patient, but

NIOSH needed to Rgrapple" a bit more on the licensure issue as it was

beginning to pose a question. Dr. MetOD reminded Mr. Killer that it

was the software that is proprietary. The methodology is generally

available to the public.

Mr. Mark Griffon suggested the DOL resource centers might be a place

it could be made available. Dr. Ziemer noted the point had been made

and the staff could explore whatever was out there. Mr. ~tu18ki

suggested the public library or some government building. Dr. Ziemer

observed that probably no one present was fully aware of the licensing

issues. The point had been made and may be worth following up.

Dr. Melius asked if any progress had been made on providing public

access or opportunity for input and comments on the site profiles.

Mr. Blliott deferred elaborating due to Dr. Neton's scheduled

presentation on the subject the following day. He did explain that

the site profiles have been placed on the web site. Hard copies are

available for those with no internet access, if requested. They ask

for written comments to be provided the Docket Office, which tracks

written comments on a variety of publications. Comments would then go

on the web site or be available upon request.

NIOSH will go to sites where the TBD or site profile has been approved

and share it in a meeting with labor representatives from the site,

explaining it to them. They will provide examples of dose

reconstructions built from the document so they understand how the

reconstructions work and where the profiles are critical in the

process. They will ask for their comments.

21
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

HIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Dr. Meliu8 inquired if a meeting is scheduled in St. Louis for the

Mallinckrodt profile. Dr. MetoD answered that he would be discussing

the Mallinckrodt document the following day, but they did not have a

general meeting to discuss Mallinckrodt. Since the facility is no

longer in operation, it's difficult to identify organized labor

representatives to present it to.

Dr. Meliu8 expressed his disbelief, given the comments heard from the

public. He opined it wouldn't be difficult to pull together a group

of people with knowledge of the facility and representational

interest.

Mr. Michael Gib8on asked if it wouldn't be more efficient to add

workers to the site profile teams before the documents are finalized

rather than getting comment afterwards. Dr. N.~on asked if he might

defer responding until after his presentation tomorrow. Mr. Gibson

agreed.

Mr. Tam Horgan of Senator Bond's office asked if there was not going

to be a discussion of the Mallinckrodt site profile the next day with

feedback from the Board. He pointed out that, because he worked with

the authorizing committee that has legislative oversight over NIOSH,

DHHS and DOL, that was his primary purpose for being present. Dr.

Ziemer indicated that was included in tomorrow's schedule.

Dr. Xeliu8 explained he had been referring to having workers from a

site involved in the development of the site profile. A second

portion had been to have a public session for NIOSH to present the

site profile and receive comment or answer questions.

Ms. Denise Brock observed that while Mallinckrodt had once been

independent, the union for the facility became the UAW. She noted

that the biggest wealth of information is the former workers, who have

amazing stories and memories. She asked if there would be time to let

those workers speak tomorrow if she could get them to the meeting.

Mr. Blliott commented that at the August Board meeting in Cincinnati,

individual comments were heard and considered. His reponse to Dr.

Melius had addressed how NIOSH will handle the roll-out of the TBDs or

site profiles. The documents will be taken into the field to solicit

comment and input. This Board meeting in St. Louis is the first step

to talk about the recently-developed TBD for Mallinckrodt. Tomorrow

will provide an introduction, with Board and public comment welcome.

As with all the TBDs, it will be brought back. It is not the final

step.

22
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH CDC Adviso Board on Radiation and Worker Health

The suggestion from Mr. Gibson to put workers on the site profile

teams was heard and was not a viable solution. NIOSH has opted to go

out and present the documents, present examples of dose

reconstructions, help people understand how the documents are used and

what a dose reconstruction looks like and take their comments. NIOSH

needs comments to the written record. Due consideration was given to

individual comments of the Board, and NIOSH is proceeding along the

course outlined.

Mr. Melius expressed his confusion because Dr. NetoD had said there

was no meeting and Mr. Blliott was saying there would be meetings.

Mr. Elliott noted that Dr. Melius had asked if a meeting had been

scheduled. It has not. This Board meeting is the first step.

Mr. Gibson offered that the legislators and the President who signed

the bill felt it necessary to balance the Board with doctors,

scientists and workers. Those workers should be involved in every

step possible in the process. And while workers may not fully

understand the science, they know when they were sent into a room and

an alarm went off; the professionals turned the alarm off and told

them to go back in, it was just radon when it was something else. Mr.

Gibson opined those may be the same people who wrote the site profile,

and it seemed blatantly unfair.

Mr. Blliott responded that he agreed with Mr. Gibson, and that there

are points in the process where that information is solicited. One

step is the interview. With the site profiles has been added the

opportunity for field visits, hearing comments and asking those people

to make written comment. Mr. Blliott expressed his hope that Mr.

Gibson understands effort has been made to bring worker perspective

into the process in more ways than just sitting on the Advisory Board.

With no further comments, the Board officially recessed

until the following morning.

*****

23
Executive Summary/Minutes October 28-29, 2003

NIOSH CDC Adviso Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Wednesday, October 29,2003

ADMINISTRATIVE/HOUSEKEEPING

Dr. Ziemer called the second day to order. The meeting commenced with

administrative and housekeeping matters. The first issue before the

Board was review and approval of the draft minutes of the seventeenth

meeting.

REVIEW AND APPROVAL OF DRAFT MINUTES

A motion to approve the Executive Summary and

Minutes of the seventeenth meeting was seconded

and unanimously passed.

Mr. Larry Blliott offered the assistance of NIOSH in response to any

correspondence and/or telephone calls Board members may be receiving

from claimants or interested parties. He noted NIOSH would like to

have a sense of the types of inquiries being received by Board

members. The staff would be happy to assist in members preparing

their own responses, or NIOSH could handle the response for them and

provide a copy for their files.

Drs. Paul Ziemer, Roy DeHart, and Genevieve Roessler all indicated

they had received such communications. Ms. Wanda Munn offered her

manner of responding to verbal inquiries and telephone calls, noting

that she had not received any written communications.

Mr. Elliott agreed Ms. Munn's response was appropriate.

NIOSH stood ready to help in any way the Board preferred.

He indicated

MS. Cori Bomer reminded the Board of the importance of providing her

with their e-mails of meeting time, prep time, and working group time

She also requested that Board members not make their own flight

arrangements, if at all possible, because reimbursement could not be

guaranteed.

Ms. Bamer announced that the annual report to GSA covering

accomplishments and activities of the Board would be available around

mid-December. She asked if anyone had interest in receiving a copy of

the report.

Dr. Ziemer inquired into the length and format of the report. MS.

Bamer responded it was approximately four to five pages, covering

general financial information and activities of the Board for the

24