sR
eO ey
WZ
“trea

MEAL
oot Alt,

s

CHAIRMAN:
Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.
Lafayette, Indiana

MEMBERS:

Bradley P. Clawson
Rexburg, Idaho

Roy L. DeHart, M.D., M.P.H.
Nashville, Tennessee

Michael H. Gibson
Franklin, Ohio

Mark A. Griffon
Salem, New Hampshire

James E. Lockey, M.D.
Cincinnati, Ohio

James M. Melius, M.D., Ph.D.
Albany, New York

Wanda |. Munn
Richland, Washington

Robert W. Presley
Clinton, Tennessee

Genevieve S. Roessler, Ph.D.
Elysian, Minnesota

STAFF:
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY:

Lewis V. Wade, Ph.D
Washington, DC

COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT :

LaShawn D. Shields
Atlanta, Georgia

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH
4676 Columbia Parkway, MS: C-46

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
(513) 533-6825

May 24, 2006

The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt
Secretary of Health and Human Services
Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, DC 20201

Dear Mr. Secretary:

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has
evaluated SEC Petition -00055 concerning workers at the Nevada Test Site
(NTS) under the statutory requirements established by EEOICPA and
incorporated into 42 CFR Sec. 83.14. The Board respectfully recommends a
Special Exposure Cohort be accorded to all Department of Energy (DOE)
employees or its contractor or subcontractor employees who worked at the
Nevada Test Site from January 27, 1951 through December 3, 1962 who were
monitored or should have been monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation as
a result of nuclear weapons testing at the NTS and who were employed for a
number of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, occurring under this
employment or in combination with work days of employment occurring
within the parameters (excluding aggregate work day requirements)
established for other classes of employees included in the SEC. This
recommendation is based on the following factors:

e These workers were employed during the above ground testing of
atomic weapons.

e There are significant limitations to the available monitoring data
collected at the Nevada Test Site during this time period, particularly
data needed for the accurate reconstruction of internal doses associated
with the inhalation of radionuclides at the site. NIOSH concluded that
the available monitoring and source term information is not sufficient to
document or estimate the potential maximum internal exposures to
workers at the Nevada Test Site under plausible circumstances during
the time period from January 27, 1951 to December 3, 1962. The Board
concurs with this conclusion.

e The Board has reviewed information which confirms that radiation
exposures at the Nevada Test Site during the time period in question
could have endangered the health of members of this class.


The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt May 24, 2006

The Board notes that some of the people who were employed at the Nevada Test Site during the time
period in question lived on site during their work periods. This should be considered during the
evaluation of their work duration.

The Board is still evaluating issues related to people who may have been exposed to radiation during
discrete incidents that could have involved exceptionally high exposures to radiation while working
at the Nevada Test Site (e.g., those who were present during the actual atomic bomb testing) and
who may not meet the 250 work day requirement described above. The Board will continue to
review this matter and may make additional future recommendations regarding this group.

I would like to point out that the NIOSH evaluation of the SEC petition from the Nevada Test Site
recommended that Special Exposure Cohort status be accorded to all Department of Energy (DOE)
employees or its contractor or subcontractor employees “who worked at the Nevada Test Site from
January 27, 1951 through December 31, 1962 who were monitored or should have been monitored
for exposure to ionizing radiation as a result of nuclear weapons testing at the NTS...” You will
note that the December 31, 1962 date differs from the December 3, 1962 date specified in the
Advisory Board action. As Chairman of the Advisory Board, I must emphasize that | believe that
this difference is inadvertent. There was no discussion by the Board relating to changing the date,
and I believe that the transcripts of the meeting show clearly that the Board supported the
recommendation of NIOSH. It appears that in transcribing the Board’s motion to written form
during the meeting, the December 31 date was incorrectly recorded as December 3. Since our
official vote was on a motion containing the December 3 date, I am reporting it to you that way in
order to accurately report the Board’s action. However, I have no doubt that the intent was to
support the recommendation covering the January 27, 1951 through December 31, 1962 dates.

Enclosed is supporting documentation from the recent Advisory Board Meeting held in Denver,
Colorado where this special exposure cohort petition was discussed. This documentation includes
transcripts of public comments on the petition, copies of the petition and the NIOSH review thereof,
and related documents distributed by NIOSH and the petitioners. If any of these items are
unavailable at this time, they will follow shortly.

Sincerely,

$EEA ES

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D.
Chairman

Encl.