Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Summary Minutes 

 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s 

Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and 

Site Profile Reviews 

August 23, 2004 

Meeting held at the Shilo Inn Suites 

Idaho Falls, Idaho 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 2 -

Summary Minutes of the First Subcommittee Meeting 

August 23, 2004 

The First Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews 

(the Subcommittee) for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or 

the Board) was held at the Shilo Inn Suites on Monday, August 23, 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 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 include the following: 

ABRWH’s Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews Members:

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair; Dr. Henry Anderson; Dr. Antonio Andrade; Mr. Michael Gibson, 

and Mr. Mark Griffon.

Designated Federal Official: Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary. 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 3 -

Federal Agency Attendees:

Department of Health and Human Services: 

Mr. Todd Braswell, Ms. Chia Chia Chang, Ms. Heidi Deep, Ms. Chris Ellison, Mr. Russ 

Henshaw, Ms. Cori Homer, Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus, Mr. Ted Katz, and Dr. Jim Neton. 

Department of Labor: 

Mr. Pete Turcic 

Contractors: Dr. John Mauro 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: Dr. Thomas Tenforde and 

Ms. Melanie Heister 

Public Attendees: Louis Z. Bodnar, H. Dale Egbert, and Gaylon Hanson 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 4 -

Executive Summary 

The First Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews 

(the Subcommittee) for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or 

the Board) was held at the Shilo Inn Suites on Monday, August 23, 2004. All appointed 

ABRWH Subcommittee members attended. Other individuals in attendance included staff 

from various Federal agencies, as well as members of the public. 

***** 

Monday, August 23, 2004

Subcommittee Working Session 

Two documents relative to case selection procedures were provided to the Subcommittee for 

review and development of recommendations to the Board. 

A sampling scheme and two sets of case selections, as developed at a prior working group 

session, were presented to the Subcommittee for review, comment, and discussion toward 

finalizing recommendations to the Board. 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 5 -

The Subcommittee made modifications to the case selection documents and 

recommendations were established to move forward to the Board. 

A discussion ensued regarding the best procedures for assigning board members to work with 

Sanford Cohen & Associates (SC&A), case review processes, and panels serving for case 

review while addressing conflict of interest and Privacy Act information controls. 

SC&A proposed a plan for the case review process involving the Subcommittee, the Board, 

and NIOSH. 

Discussion was initiated on the nature and character of the final product for the Board’s 

recommendations to the Secretary of HHS and to the Director of NIOSH. 

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

End of Executive Summary 

♦♦♦
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 6 -

The Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Summary Minutes of the First Meeting 

August 23, 2004 

The First Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews 

(the Subcommittee) for the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (ABRWH or 

the Board) was held at the Shilo Inn Suites on Monday, August 23, 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 ABRWH. 

These summary minutes, are available on the NIOSH/Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support (OCAS) web site located at www.cdcgov/niosh/ocas. Those present include the 

following: 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 7 -

ABRWH Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Review Members:

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair; Dr. Henry Anderson; Dr. Antonio Andrade; Mr. Michael Gibson, 

and Mr. Mark Griffon. 

Designated Federal Official: Mr. Larry Elliott, Executive Secretary. 

Federal Agency Attendees:

Department of Health and Human Services: 

Mr. Todd Braswell, Ms. Chia Chia Chang, Ms. Heidi Deep, Ms. Chris Ellison, Mr. Russ 

Henshaw, Ms. Cori Homer, Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus, Mr. Ted Katz, and Dr. Jim Neton. 

Department of Labor: 

Mr. Pete Turcic 

Contractors: Dr. John Mauro 

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements: Dr. Thomas Tenforde and 

Ms. Melanie Heister 

Public Attendees: Louis Z. Bodnar, H. Dale Egbert, and Gaylon Hanson 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 8 -

Dr. Paul Ziemer called the meeting to order at 9:00 am, welcoming the attendees. He 

remarked that the Subcommittee has specific functions, which are found in the charter, and 

the Subcommittee will be pursuing those duties and responsibilities. He asked everyone to 

register his or her attendance. He announced that the Subcommittee session does not have a 

public comment period, as it is an opportunity for the public to observe the Subcommittee at 

work. Dr. Ziemer noted that staff members are in attendance to serve as resources for the 

Subcommittee. 

Mr. Larry Elliott introduced Ms. Heidi Deep, the writer/editor for the day’s Subcommittee 

meeting. He announced that Ms. Deep is an ASPH Fellow recently assigned to OCAS and 

that will be serving as a Health Communications Specialist on Ms. Chris Ellison’s team. 

***** 

SUBCOMMITTEE WORKING SESSION 

Dr. Ziemer remarked that the purpose of the Subcommittee meeting is to develop a set of 

recommendations to bring to the Board regarding the selection of cases to be audited, the 

process of review, and the audit criteria documents. Subcommittee members received the 

following documents prior to the day’s Subcommittee meeting: (1) A Draft Procedure for 

Selecting and Tracking Dose Reconstruction Cases; (2) Table 1 Flow Diagram of Case 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 9 -

Selection Procedure (also referred to as the Flow Diagram), both developed by a prior 

working group; and (3) two sets of case selections, as requested by the working group and 

developed by a team at NIOSH-OCAS. (Documents in (1) and (2) are attached for the 

reader’s information. Documents in (3) are not attached, as they were working documents of 

the Subcommittee.) Previous discussion regarding methods of case selection included pure 

random sampling versus stratified random sampling with conditions to satisfy the matrix. 

Dr. Ziemer called upon Mr. Mark Griffon to explain the proposed Draft Procedure for 

Selecting and Tracking Dose Reconstruction Cases and the Flow Diagram of Case Selection 

Procedure. 

Mr. Griffon explained the Flow Diagram of Case Selection Procedure as a case selection 

method geared to fill a matrix with parameters that will represent the cross-section of cases 

that have gone through the dose reconstruction and compensation process. Initiating the 

Flow Diagram of Case Selection Procedure is a random selection process or a random 

number generator used to select cases out of the list of available or completed dose 

reconstructions. Once the cases are randomly selected, the probability of causation (POC) 

for each case is distributed into one of three groups: (1) 0 - 44.9%, (2) 45 - 49.9%, or (3) 

greater than 50%. Mr. Griffon indicated that more emphasis would be placed on the 

borderline cases, in terms of POC, and then defined the proposed percentages for each group. 

Mr. Griffon pointed out the descending parameters in the Flow Diagram of Case Selection 

Procedure is considered of most interest in terms of a good cross-section of cases. The 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 10 -

remaining parameters were described and include (1) decade first employed, (2) duration of 

employment, and (3) cancer risk model. Other parameters of interest to the Subcommittee 

that will be recommended to the Board for tracking and monitoring are noted in a box at the 

bottom of the document (see Flow Diagram of Case Selection Procedure) and include: cases 

using co-worker data, monitored or unmonitored workers, job categories, work area or 

building, and primarily internal dose or external dose contributing to overall dose. Mr. 

Griffon added the other factor to deliver to the Subcommittee is the final matrix. The 

Board’s interest in examining various parameters used in dose reconstruction will be met, as 

the cells of the matrix will fill as the cases are randomly sampled in batches. 

Dr. Ziemer suggested looking at the Flow Diagram’s parameters in detail to clarify any 

potential issues and illustrated a few ways to randomly sample. 

Discussion continued on methods and issues regarding the random sampling process. 

Mr. Elliott recommended that Mr. Todd Braswell explain the random sample runs he 

performed. Dr. Ziemer called upon Mr. Braswell. 

Mr. Braswell addressed the Subcommittee by explaining case selection documents, which 

were previously submitted to the Subcommittee members via email. The documents include 

information on two sets of case selections. Each set contained two random samples of 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 11 -

twenty-five cases and one random sample of fifty cases. In the first case selection, the 

samples were randomly selected out of the total completed cases; in the second case 

selection, samples were generated based upon selection criterion percentages. Mr. Braswell

pointed out the frequency distributions for each set and described how he randomly selected 

cases according to the probability of causation parameters. Dr. Ziemer asked if the second 

case selection set was sorted first and then randomly selected. In response, Mr. Braswell

clarified by stating that the cases were stratified by probability of causation percentage, then 

reiterated the steps he took to generate the samples. First, completed cases with final 

decisions are identified; then, the cases that had the desired probability of causation 

parameter are selected, according the specific subset percentage. After the Subcommittee 

had further discussion on the case selection process, Dr. Ziemer noted a few observations 

regarding the distribution of the output and concluded he thought it worked to meet the 

interests of the Board. 

A motion was made, seconded, and passed to select the first 25 cases at random. 

Dr. Ziemer instructed Mr. Braswell to select 25 cases at random, not weighted, according to 

the probability of causation parameters. 

Dr. Ziemer recommended a discussion with regard to apportioning the parameter of cancer 

risk models and called upon Mr. Griffon. Mr. Griffon commented that doing proportional 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 12 -

sampling on the 32 cancer models might be unfavorable. Mr. Russ Henshaw provided a 

document on the distribution of all cancers for all claims, which led to further discussion on 

sampling by apportioning cancer risk models. Dr. Ziemer stated that determination for the 

final numbers representing cancer risk models could be reserved for a later time. 

Mr. Griffon recommended discussing the parameter of facility. Dr. Ziemer noted that 

facilities could be sampled proportionally according to the claims as based on the previous 

discussion. Mr. Griffon noted that proportionally sampling Department of Energy (DOE) 

facilities is reasonable; however, Atomic Weapons Establishment (AWE) facilities need to be 

addressed and wondered if they should be grouped based on available information with 

assistance from NIOSH. Dr. Jim Neton added that many AWEs are primarily uranium 

operations and represent a distinct category. A basis was established to group together the 

AWE sites with smaller claims for sampling purposes. Mr. Griffon noted that he would 

update the document on the case review process based on the current numbers. Dr. Ziemer

ended the discussion by stating that sampling would be proportional to total claims for large 

DOE and AWE facilities and that smaller sites would need to be grouped together. 

Dr. Ziemer asked the Subcommittee if they were ready to settle on an overall 

recommendation. 

A motion was made to adopt the structure as shown in the “Flow Diagram of 

Case Selection Procedure.” The motion was seconded by Dr. Antonio Andrade. 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 13 -

Dr. Henry Anderson recommended a friendly amendment showing 0 to 45 (which by 

implication is really 44.99); 45 to 49.99; and greater than 50, sample based 

proportionally on total claims under the facilities category in the “Flow Diagram 

of Case Selection Procedure.” 

Dr. Ziemer noted the friendly amendment was a strategy of where to start. Dr. Anderson

asked if these were their goals. 

Dr. Ziemer asked if the Subcommittee agreed with the sample proportions for the duration 

of employment category, which are 0 to 1 year (15%); 1 to 5 years (25%); 5 to 10 years 

(25%); 10 to 20 years (25%); and greater than 20 years (10%). Dr. Ziemer made a 

clarification stating, “when we say 1 to 5 it means 1 to 4.9 years.” Mr. Griffon commented 

the “0 to 1 years” might be skewed based upon the potential for non-monitoring of radiation 

exposure. Dr. Ziemer replied that they could be adjusted. 

The Chair asked if there was agreement to adopt the modifications to the sample 

proportions for the duration of employment category in the “Flow Diagram of Case 

Selection Procedure.” Without objection, the Subcommittee agreed. 

Dr. Ziemer asked if anyone wanted to make a motion to determine how many cases will be 

examined initially. 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 14 -

A motion was made by Mr. Griffon to start with 25 cases and do a random selection, 

not a probability of causation-weighted selection. Motion died for lack of a 

second. 

Dr. Ziemer noted that a rationale is needed for random selection to fill the matrix. The 

Subcommittee continued discussion. Dr. Ziemer noted that within SC&A’s task, the intent 

is to review approximately 2.5% of the total number of cases and this is a working value. 

The 25 would be the starting point and used to learn how well the proposed process works; it 

is not the full sample because the cases are going to continue to rise. 

By unanimous consent, the Subcommittee agreed to start the case selection process with 

 a random sample of 25 cases. 

Dr. Ziemer inquired if the “Draft Procedure for Selecting and Tracking Dose Reconstruction 

Cases” is an explanation of the “Flow Diagram of Case Selection Procedure.” Mr. Griffon

confirmed that it was but it will need to be edited. Dr. Ziemer requested that Mr. Griffon 

make the modifications to the ‘Draft Procedure for Selecting and Tracking Dose 

Reconstruction Cases’ document before it is presented to the Board and that Mr. Braswell

randomly select the 25 initial cases for review. 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 15 -

Dr. Ziemer stated the procedure for assigning board members to work with SC&A needs to 

be established. Dr. Andrade added that the procedure would need to be done at the full 

Board meeting due to conflict of interest considerations. Dr. Ziemer agreed. 

Mr. Elliott commented that at the working group level in Cincinnati, an agreement was 

made that NIOSH would produce CDs with the cases for panel members to review 

containing all Privacy Act information. Mr. Elliott stated the board members would be held 

accountable for protecting the confidential information of cases. Mr. Elliott inquired about 

the make up of the panels with regard to case assignments and conflicts of interest among 

Board members. Dr. Anderson responded that a team would consist of two board members 

and one contractor. Dr. Andrade stated that is just the minimum and they can adjust upward 

if necessary. Dr. Anderson noted the teams should stay together. Mr. Elliott commented it 

might be constraining due to conflict of interest. Mr. Griffon added that the review panels 

should be flexible due to conflict of interest issues. 

Dr. Ziemer asked Dr. John Mauro how many individuals would be involved in reviewing 

the 25 cases. Dr. Mauro stated he has five case managers, whom are senior health 

physicists, and a total staff of thirty people. Dr. Mauro addressed SC&A’s plan for 

reviewing the cases. SC&A is planning to receive twenty cases every two months over a sixmonth period. Five case managers, whom are experts in external and internal dosimetry, are 

designated as case managers for the case reviews. Each of the five case managers will read 

the initial 20 cases, and then they will meet to allocate four cases to each of the five case 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 16 -

managers. The allocation will be based on the technical background, primarily internal 

dosimetry. Once the case manager learns the details of the case, he or she will call upon the 

expertise needed. In each case, the manager will have a schedule and a budget for 

conducting reviews. Once a comment drafting stage is reached, each case manager will 

provide comments on a given case at a roundtable discussion. As mentioned in the proposal, 

SC&A will invite someone from NIOSH and the relevant Board members to sit in on the 

roundtable discussion. This is similar to what they are doing with the site profiles, and 

provides an opportunity for fact finding and offering of other perspectives or points of view. 

Dr. Mauro concluded they are open to recommendations on this proposed process. 

Dr. Ziemer noted each SC&A team member will have four cases and each case will have 

two board members. The two board members for each team will need to avoid conflict of 

interest issues when reviewing cases. Dr. Ziemer noted most of the board members are not 

dosimetry experts and the Board is relying on SC&A for this expertise. Dr. Ziemer added 

that any two board members cannot speak for the Board and noted their role is to bring 

comments back to the Board regarding each case reviewed in conjunction with their 

contractor panel member. Dr. Ziemer requested a legal point of view in terms of what the 

board members can do with respect to interacting with the contractor. Ms. Liz HomokiTitus stated they are a working group. Dr. Ziemer reiterated that the two board members 

could not act on behalf of the Board. Ms. Homoki-Titus confirmed that and stated they are 

bringing a work product back to the Board. 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 17 -

Dr. Ziemer asked Mr. Elliott and Dr. Neton if there is a need for NIOSH to attend the 

roundtable meetings Dr. Mauro described or if they would like to have an early draft of the 

findings. Mr. Elliott responded that an opportunity to provide response for clarity, technical 

accuracy, and any additional information that might lend itself to the audit would be 

welcomed. Mr. Elliott recommended the opportunity for that input occur before the report is 

presented in final form. Dr. Neton requested to have a factual review prior to the roundtable 

discussion and before the report is presented in final form, which is similar to the process 

used for site profile reviews. Dr. Mauro indicated he was in favor of sending the 

preliminary review comments to NIOSH to look over and to have a conference call to 

validate the understanding of the comments or report. This process would parallel the site 

profile reviews. Dr. Mauro added he is anticipating a two to three day meeting to go over 

the preliminary review his team will have developed. Dr. Anderson added he would like to 

hear NIOSH’s input at that meeting. Dr. Neton inquired if the meeting could be done by 

teleconference and if this would be the process regardless of whether the reviews are basic, 

advanced, or blind. Dr. Ziemer responded that the basic reviews would be done first. While 

the findings are still being formulated, Dr. Ziemer stated the review comments have to be 

solidified at a closed session at least one day prior to the Board meeting, so a 

recommendation can be brought to the Board. Mr. Griffon requested the board members 

interact with the case manager prior to the Board meeting via email or telephone in order to 

give their input. Dr. Ziemer confirmed questions could be raised early on in the review 

process. Mr. Elliott addressed the protection of privacy regarding the panel’s interaction on 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 18 -

individual cases and indicated a closed session discussion would be well suited to protect the 

privacy of the individuals. 

Dr. Ziemer indicated that if the Board approves the process then the cases could be assigned 

in open session revealing only the facility represented by a case. This would resolve conflict 

of interest issues and provide the necessary amount of transparency. 

Dr. Ziemer commented it would be good for both the Board and SC&A to see how the site 

profiles interplay with the cases. 

Dr. Andrade inquired how advanced review cases would be selected. The Subcommittee 

proceeded with discussion on the topic. Dr. Ziemer indicated they might want to start an 

advanced review on a case or two depending on the complexity of the case. Mr. Griffon

added that having a combination approach where cases could be selected up-front based on 

certain parameters would present an opportunity to select cases for advanced review. Dr. 

Ziemer noted modifications to the recommendation as having 25 randomly selected cases 

where assignments will be developed and take the first 20 cases that make sense to review. 

Mr. Elliott requested clarification on whether the first cases would be reviewed as basic or 

not. Dr. Ziemer indicated an option would be given to do one or two advanced reviews 

depending on the details of case selection and those represented in the first 25 cases. Dr. 

Ziemer summarized that the board members for each team would have an opportunity to 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 19 -

comment early in the review process and be available for SC&A’s roundtable discussion. A 

closed session would be needed the day prior to the next Board meeting. The draft summary 

report will be established from SC&A’s roundtable discussion then sent to NIOSH for input 

on clarity and accuracy. Mr. Elliott confirmed NIOSH would have two opportunities of 

contact to provide factual accuracy during the review process, once during the roundtable 

discussion and once after the draft summary report have been developed. Dr. Ziemer added 

a closed session would be needed for review of the final summary report. 

Mr. Elliott commented the appearance of the final product needs consideration. Mr. Elliott

added the Secretary of HHS and Director of NIOSH is looking for recommendations from 

the Board’s review. These recommendations and any summary findings will have to be 

decided prior to an open Board meeting in a closed session because it will be pre-decisional 

and deliberative. Dr. Ziemer noted that the summary report would be specific in looking for 

patterns and delineating the summary of findings, which would be addressed at a full Board 

closed session. Mr. Elliott reiterated a closed session is needed due to the implications of 

discussing individual cases particularly in the development of summary findings. 

Dr. Anderson repeated the process of the case reviews. Once the Board members approve 

the final draft, the Board would take the comments from the 20 cases reviewed and compile 

them into a single report, which then could become a report of the Subcommittee. Dr. 

Ziemer remarked it could identify issues or concerns without relating them to a specific case, 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 20 -

which could be generated in advance and taken to an open session. Dr. Ziemer added there 

is going to be a roll up of the findings at the end, envisioning that this would to be done as a 

group. Mr. Griffon commented that having a closed session would allow SC&A to present 

the individual case reports to each set of panel members and to draft a roll up summary report 

to present to the Board. The Board can review, vote, and then present that report to the 

public. Ms. Homoki-Titus noted if there is conflict of interest during the discussion of the 

individual case reviews, that person must step away from the table and cannot vote on that 

particular issue. 

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

End of Summary Minutes 

♦♦♦♦♦
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 21 -

I hereby confirm these Summary Minutes are 

accurate, to the best of my knowledge. 

_______________________________________ 

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D., Chair 

_______________________________________ 

Date 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 22 -

SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION AND SITE PROFILE 

REVIEWS FIRST MEETING: ACTION ITEMS

IDAHO FALLS, IDAHO 

August 23, 2004
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 23 -

I

The following documents, developed by a working group, were presented, discussed, revised, 

and voted on during the First Subcommittee Meeting. A final version of the documents was 

recommended to the Board on Wednesday, August 26. 

Procedure for Selecting and Tracking Dose Reconstruction Cases 

Procedure Number: ABRWH-CaseSelection-001 

Effective Date: 8/24/04 

1. The Board will establish a Case Selection Matrix based on parameters outlined in 

Attachment 1 with approximate weights (number of cases) for each parameter of interest. 

The number of cases to be selected which meet each criterion will be considered as 

guidelines for the case selection. Actual numbers of cases reviewed for each field may vary. 

For example, the Boards initial matrix may suggest 30 cases be reviewed for the Hanford site 

however, the Board may decide to either review fewer Hanford cases or more cases 

depending on the nature of the case load. 

2. NIOSH will provide the Board, or the Dose Reconstruction Sub-Committee with updates 

on finalized cases available for review. This data will include the following information: 

case number (or de-identified number linked to case number), facility, cancer type, risk 

model, decade first employed, number of years employed, and final calculated POC (99th

percentile POC value). 

3. The Board or Dose Reconstruction Sub-Committee will request NIOSH to make a random 

selection of cases (Board will determine the number of cases for each batch of cases to be 

reviewed; Board will determine whether all cases will be re-sampled each time a batch of 

cases is selected) meeting the POC criteria (see attachment). 

4. The Board or Dose Reconstruction Sub-Committee will review each batch of cases to 

determine appropriateness of the batch based in part on the criteria identified within the flow 

diagram (see attachment). This procedure is intended to give the Board or Sub-Committee 

flexibility in selection since all cases projected to be available will not be available at the 

time of the initial sampling. This flexibility is also necessary since certain criteria (job type, 

radiation type, etc. – see note on flow diagram) can only be determined by looking at the 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 24 -

hard copy records within the case (the parameters are not searchable fields within the NIOSH 

database). 

5. A tracking matrix will be developed and maintained by the Boards subcontractor. The 

batch sampling discussed above will be used to fill in the cells within the matrix. For 

example, if it is determined that overall the Board wishes to review 30 cases from Hanford 

this parameter will be tracked until that number is completed. This data will be tracked for 

the Board, or designated Sub-Committee by the Boards subcontractor 

6. The Board will provide written updates on cases reviewed at each meeting and NIOSH 

will make this data available to the public. This information will only include the statistics of 

the cases reviewed. Review reports are discussed in the Procedure for Case processing. . 
NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health’s

Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction and Site Profile Reviews

August 23, 2004

- 25 -

Flow Diagram of Case Selection Procedures 

0-40% (sample 40% of cases), 40-

49.9% (sample 40%), >50% (sample 

20%) 

Sample based on total claims from all 

DOE facilities, Large AWE facilities, and 

groupings of smaller AWEs 

Fill Cells as follows: 40s(10%), 

50s(25%), 60s(25%), 70s (25%), 80s 

(10%), 90s (5%) 

Fill cells as follows: 0-1 year (25%),. 1-5 

years (25%), 5-10 years (25%), >10 

years (25%) 

Apportion by complexity or metabolic 

factors 

NOTE: We will also track other 

parameters associated with the 

cases but not in the database. These 

parameters include: Cases using coworker data, Monitored vs. Unmonitored, job category, work area 

or building, and primarily internal 

dose or external dose. 

Select Cases 

(Use Random Number 

POC 

Facility 

Decade 

1st Employed

Duration of Employment

Risk Model 

(~23 models)

*******