Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health
 

THE ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 


NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 


CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION


 _______________________________________________________ 


Summary Minutes of the Fiftieth Meeting 


October 3-5, 2007 
 _______________________________________________________ 


The Fiftieth Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health (ABRWH or the Board) was held October 3 through 5, 2007, at the 


Holiday Inn Select in Naperville, Illinois. The meeting was called by 


the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National 


Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the agency 


charged with administering the ABRWH. These summary minutes, as well 


as a verbatim transcript certified by a court reporter, 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 included the following: 


Board Members: 


Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chair; Ms. Josie Beach; Mr. Bradley Clawson; Mr. 


Michael Gibson; Mr. Mark Griffon; Dr. James Lockey; Dr. James Melius; 


Ms. Wanda Munn; Dr. John Poston; Mr. Robert Presley; Dr. Genevieve 


Roessler; and Mr. Phillip Schofield. 


Designated Federal Official: Dr. Lewis Wade, Executive Secretary. 


Federal Agency Attendees: 


Department of Health and Human Services: 


Ms. Laurie Breyer, Ms. Denise Brock, Mr. Larry Elliott, Dr. Sam Glover, 


Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, Dr. James Neton, Mr. LaVon Rutherford (NIOSH); 


Mr. Mark Lewis, ATL/NIOSH outreach; Ms. Emily Howell, Ms. Liz Homoki-


Titus (Office of General Counsel); Dr. Christine Branche, Ms. Chia-Chia 


Chang (Office of the Director of NIOSH); Mr. Richard Weston, (CDC 


Washington). 


Department of Labor: Mr. Jeff Kotsch. 


Department of Energy: Ms. Regina Cano, Dr. Patricia Worthington. 


Contractors: 


Mr. Scott R. Siebert, MJW Corp. (ORAU team). 

Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. Robert Anigstein, Mr. Joe Fitzgerald, Dr. Arjun Makhijani and Dr. 


John Mauro; Sanford Cohen & Associates. 


Congressional Staff Members: 


Ms. Deb Detmers 

(Congresswoman Judy 

Obama). 

(Congressman 

Biggert); Mr. 

John 

Rob

Shimkus); 

ert Stephan 

Mr. 

(Sen

John 

ator 

Noak 

Barack 

Other Participants: 

See Registration. 

* * * * *
 

Wednesday, October 3, 2007
 

Dr. Paul Ziemer, Board Chairman, called the meeting to order. He 


invited the audience to help themselves to the agenda and related 


documents available for their convenience. He asked they register 


their attendance in the book provided for that purpose. Dr. Ziemer
 

extended an invitation to signify their interest in making a public 


comment by signing the book provided for that as well. 


Dr. Ziemer noted all Board members were present with the exception of 


Drs. Lockey and Melius, who will be joining the meeting tomorrow. 


Nonetheless, a quorum is present. 


Dr. Ziemer observed that this fiftieth meeting represented a milestone, 


and he would like to reminisce a moment about the history of the Board, 


reminding them of their first meeting in January of '02 and the members 


at that time. He remarked that six current members were a part of that 


inaugural group and have been active throughout the subsequent years. 


Past Board members were remembered, their reasons for leaving, with 


reminders of when new Board members joined the group. 


Dr. Ziemer acknowledged that the Board's work could not be carried out 


without the support of staff members from the federal agencies to which 


the Board is attempting to provide sound advice. 


Dr. Lewis Wade, Designated Federal Official, welcomed the audience and 


the Board members, thanking them for their participation. He commented 


that in his career he had had the privilege of serving a number of 


advisory boards and committees, but never had he seen one more 


dedicated, productive and professional than this. Dr. Wade
 

acknowledged everyone's sacrifice and contribution, observing that they 


all understood the importance of serving the atomic war heroes of the 


2
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


country and that he couldn't be more proud to be associated with this 


Board. 


Dr. Wade again introduced Dr. Christine Branche, who will become the 


Board's DFO when he moves on to other things at a future date. 


* * * * *
 

NUMEC (Apollo Site) SEC PETITION
 

Prior to commencement of the presentation, Dr. Wade commented that this 


is the point at which he would announce any Board members' conflicts of 


interest relative to the subject site. He noted Dr. James Melius had 


made him aware of a potential conflict relative to the NUMEC site, 


which is being investigated but no determination has yet been made. If 


Dr. Melius were present, he would be asked to recuse himself from the 


NUMEC discussions until the question is resolved. Dr. Wade simply 


raised the issue in the interest of complete disclosure. 


* * *
 

NIOSH Evaluation Report
 

Mr. LaVon Rutherford, 


SEC Health Physics Team Leader 


Mr. Rutherford reported on the NUMEC site located in Apollo, 


Pennsylvania. He described petition-related activities including 


receipt date (December 2005) of the petition (SEC-00047) and the date 


of the proposed finding explaining that the petition had failed to 


qualify for evaluation (May 2006). There followed a petitioner request 


for administrative review (May 2006), with an additional petition (SEC00080) submitted (December 2006). The administrative review 


recommendation (December 2006) was that NIOSH qualify Petition SEC00047 (January 2007) for evaluation. Petition SEC-00080 qualified for 


evaluation in March of 2007, and the two petitions were subsequently 


merged into one, with the Evaluation Report being approved in September 


2007. 


Mr. Rutherford further explained the two original petitions had 


proposed different class definitions, one being for administrative and 


clerical personnel at NUMEC (Apollo and Parks) from 1957 to 1983 (SEC00047), the other for all employees at NUMEC (Apollo and Parks) from 


1957 to 1983 (SEC-00080). Because the NIOSH process requires their 


evaluations be limited to a single facility, NIOSH recommended a class 


definition for "All AWE employees who were monitored, or should have 


been monitored, for exposure to ionizing radiation while working at the 


3
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


NUMEC Plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania for a number of work days 


aggregating at least 250 work days from January 1, 1957 through 


December 31, 1983, or in combination with the work days within the 


parameters established for one or more other classes of employees in 


the SEC." The DOE facility database identifies Apollo and Parks as 


separate facilities. 


Providing background on the subject site, Mr. Rutherford described 


where the Apollo Plant is located, when it was first licensed by the 


AEC, the AEC radiological operations and other radiological operations 


conducted during the time specified in the class definition. This 


included laundry operations for Apollo, Parks and other nuclear 


facilities, burning extremely contaminated clothing, and washing 


control rod drive mechanisms. 


The sources of available information for NIOSH's evaluation process 


were discussed. These included the Technical Information Bulletins, 


interviews with former NUMEC employees, case files in the NIOSH 


database, the NIOSH Site Research Database, as well as documentation 


and/or affidavits provided by petitioners. 


Discussing occupational exposures, Mr. Rutherford explained those 


exposures to employees within the class occurred from the previously-


identified radiological operations. Additionally, on-site personnel 


were exposed to uncontrolled stack releases from the Apollo Plant. 


Principal external exposures occurred from beta exposure from uranium 


production; gamma exposure from thorium, uranium and laundry 


operations; and neutron exposure from neutron source production, 


plutonium operations, and work with high-enriched uranium. 


Primary internal exposures occurred from uranium from uranium 


production operations, thorium from thorium operations; plutonium from 


neutron source production, laundry operations, storage operations and 


analytical procedures; and polonium from neutron source production. 


Mr. Rutherford discussed the availability of dosimetry data and 


explained it indicates external monitoring was mainly used for area 


monitoring, and personnel external monitoring was only available to a 


small number of employees thought to have high exposure potential. 


That data exists from '61 through '83, though it is not clear what 


activities were monitored. 


As to internal monitoring data, Mr. Rutherford indicated urine bioassay 


data was available for uranium from 1960 to '76, fecal bioassay data 


for uranium from 1966 to '76, whole body counts for uranium from 1968 


through 1985. There are no bioassay data for thorium or other 


4
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


radionuclides, with all plutonium bioassay appearing to be only for 


Parks employees and none identified for Apollo employees. 


Available air sampling data includes breathing zone air samples for 


uranium from 1961 through 1982, 87 general air samples and 11 breathing 


zone samples for thorium, with no air sampling data found for other 


radionuclides at Apollo. 


Mr. Rutherford reiterated the evaluation process set forth in the 


appropriate portions of 42 CFR 83, including the two-pronged test to 


establish feasibility of conducting sufficiently accurate dose 


reconstructions for members of the class and the likelihood of health 


endangerment. Reporting on the NIOSH conclusions as a result of the 


evaluation process, Mr. Rutherford observed the available monitoring 


records, process descriptions and source term data are insufficient to 


complete dose reconstructions for the proposed class of employees. 


Further, NIOSH lacks access to sufficient monitoring, source term data 


and process information to estimate the complete internal and external 


dose to members of the class. 


Mr. Rutherford elaborated on seven issues affecting dose reconstruction 


feasibility, and NIOSH efforts to deal with those issues. They 


included an absence of monitoring data to support dose reconstruction 


for the 1957 to 1959 time frame; bioassay monitoring data analyzed by 


"Controls for Environmental Pollution," or CEP, could not be used for 


dose reconstruction because of the potential falsification of data as 


advised by both DOE and NRC in 1994; and a lack of stack monitoring 


data to calculate potential exposures on-site for all operational years 


at NUMEC (Apollo). 


The NIOSH conclusion regarding health endangerment was that evidence 


indicated workers in the class received chronic internal and external 


exposure from production, remediation, research and development, and 


support activities at the NUMEC (Apollo) plant, and the health of the 


employees covered may have been endangered. NIOSH recommended a class 


definition as previously stated. 


Mr. Rutherford summarized that NIOSH found dose reconstruction to be 


feasible for internal uranium exposures and external exposures from 


occupational medical X-rays. Dose reconstruction is not feasible for 


internal exposures from other radionuclides or external beta-gamma and 


neutron exposures. 


During the evaluation of the Apollo petition, Mr. Rutherford explained 


NIOSH recognized some of the issues affecting the feasibility 


determination on that site also affected the Parks facility. As a 


5
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


result NIOSH has initiated an 83.14 petition for that facility, with a 


petitioner having been identified, and that process is moving forward. 


Discussion Points: 


#Was Babcock and Wilcox the contractor during the period '57 through 

'61; 

#They were, and were approached for records, but had none for the '57 

through '59 period; 

#NUMEC had an AEC license beginning in '57 so they probably did 

external personnel monitoring; was it by a commercial firm like 

Landauer; 

#Landauer did some badges, and is in the process of being approached 

for archival information for this facility and for Spencer 

Chemical, but it is unlikely any data will be available since the 

Landauer services were actually after 1959; 

#The issue is not that monitoring wasn't done, there's just no access 

to it and NIOSH doesn't have it; 

#Clarification that Babcock and Wilcox being the contractor was a misstatement; 

#The contact with Babcock and Wilcox seems to be willing and interested 

in helping NIOSH, and NIOSH believes that information is simply 

not available, that Babcock and Wilcox simply do not have the 1957 

base data; 

#Discussion on whether the class definition language of "monitored or 

should have been monitored" might be somewhat limiting as it 

relates to the uncontrolled stack releases and potential exposure 

of all personnel on site; 

#Clarification that the criteria for "monitored or should have been 

monitored" is anyone who had the potential to receive a 100 

millirem exposure; 

#NIOSH can't predict what DOL will find when they start reviewing 

individual cases, and they all know there were effluents that 

permeated the entire site; 

#Clarification that if the external monitoring data is available for 

'57 through '59 it would not change the class definition for 

internal exposure, and if that data is uncovered it will be used 

for partial dose reconstructions for non-SEC cancers; 

#The on-site monitoring approach appears to be that people thought to 

get highest exposures were badged; 

#On partial dose reconstructions only data found for the individual 

whose dose is being reconstructed would be used. 

* * *
 

6
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


 Petitioner Response
 

Ms. Patty Ameno introduced Mr. Tom Haley, the petitioners' technical 


witness. Mr. Haley explained that he worked at NUMEC for over 11 years 


and wanted to give some information about what happened there as he 


lived it. 


In explaining his background, Mr. Haley noted his education was in 


chemistry, working in nuclear processing, and gave his work history as 


five years at Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant, NUMEC for over 11 


years, and then Westinghouse for 23 years. He indicated he had six 


comments directly attributable to Mr. Rutherford's report, which he 


addressed individually and in detail. Those issues included the 


summary list of operations conducted involving radioactive materials 


during the history of the plant's operations, processes for scrap 


recovery, urine and fecal bioassay with family members contributing to 


the samples brought from home and friends switching samples with 


samples taken at the plant in order to keep the readings low. 


Mr. Haley commented on the evaluation report in a section that 


indicated NIOSH had not identified any evidence to establish the class 


was exposed to radiation during a discrete incident producing levels of 


exposures similarly high as those occurring during nuclear criticality 


incidents. Mr. Haley asserted the reason NIOSH was unaware of any 


report is because there were none written. He then provided some 


first-hand information on two incidents in which he was directly 


involved and which had exposed workers to extremely high radiation and 


should be documented. One was a fire in the nuclear materials unit, 


and a second incident involving an 11-liter plastic bottle full of 


highly enriched uranyl nitrate that was dumped into a tank. 


He also discussed that during his time at NUMEC enriched uranium 


appeared to be handled in basement labs in the Warren Avenue office 


building. He remarked he never saw any dosimeters issued or worn by 


personnel in the building, yet during preparation for demolition there 


were very high radiation levels in sewer pipes, behind floor moldings 


and wooden floors. 


Mr. Haley indicated that while he concurred with the NIOSH 


recommendation, he had some additional recommendations for 


consideration. One is that lack of exposure data from operations and 


accidents should not be cause for precluding employees who have cancers 


or who have died from cancers not listed in the Act. The second was 


that office employees in the Warren Avenue building should continue to 


be included in the class under consideration. 


Discussion Points: 


7

Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#Clarification that the Warren Avenue building is within the site 

boundary; 

#The list of cancers has been specified by Congress; 

#Mr. Haley's comment had been meant to urge consideration of accidents, 

and intense exposures during them, be given to dose 

reconstructions for those uncovered cancers; 

#Was the laundry done on-site or off-site; 

#Clarification of the difference between the Apollo and Parks sites, 

both physically and operationally; 

#This petition addresses only the Apollo site because they are listed 

as two separate facilities and the rule requires that only one 

facility be addressed in each SEC petition, which is the reason 

for the 83.14 petition on the Parks site; 

#A number of the issues identified for Apollo also affect Parks; 

#Workers moved back and forth somewhat between the sites. 

* * *
 

Ms. Ameno began her presentation with a dedication to all the NUMEC 


workers who have battled, are battling and will battle cancer and other 


diseases. She indicated she is retired from the United States Navy and 


is a former Department of Defense criminal investigator, and an 


environmental activist involved with the NUMEC sites in Apollo and 


Parks Township, Pennsylvania for 18 years. 


Her presentation included a number of photographs showing the location 


of the NUMEC site in Apollo and its proximity to the house where she 


grew up. She also included documents such as field activity reports, 


letters, Babcock and Wilcox reports, and confidential company 


memoranda. Ms. Ameno addressed each in turn, explaining their 


importance in deciding in favor of the NUMEC Apollo SEC petition. 


Ms. Ameno discussed violations of worker safety; the defiant attitude 


of NUMEC demonstrated by its violation of laws, regulations and 


directives, professional standards, and worker health and safety 


standards, calling NUMEC the "poster child of sloppy housekeeping," 


"derelicts of health and safety," and a "disgrace to the Code of 


Professional Standards." Ms. Ameno, calling herself the honored voice 


for the workers of the NUMEC sites in Apollo and Parks Township, 


contended that those workers were abandoned by companies that paid 


meager wages and left them "void of insurance coverage and abandoned by 


the government they proudly served during the Cold War." 


In conclusion, Ms. Ameno urged the Board to let these veterans know 


that reinforcements are on their way. 


8
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Discussion Points: 


#Clarification that the administrative, clerical and security guard 

workers mentioned in Ms. Ameno's presentation are covered in the 

class definition; 

#There was one laundry facility for both Apollo and Parks, and laundry 

was also brought in from other nuclear facilities; 

#Bioassay was done by a number of different contractors, but from '76 

to '93 it was done by CEP; 

#Three or four other contractors did bioassay analysis in the earlier 

years; 

#The NUMEC operations that supported the AEC were completed in 1983, 

but uranium production continued in '84 and other operations 

continued until the facility was closed and completely D&D'd the 

end of '93; 

#Query as to any information on the possible introduction of other 

nuclides from other facilities, but not part of the Apollo 

inventory, relative to the laundry operation. 

* * *
 

Mr. Richard Parler, co-petitioner, commented that the facility was a 


very small site and not spread out. He noted that the uranium labs 


were not in the administration building, but rather the office workers 


were in the uranium lab building. 


Discussion Points: 


#Were any of the other facilities whose laundry was done on this site 

covered under an AWE designation, causing plutonium mixed isotopes 

to be a result of the residual contamination from sites that may 

otherwise be covered; 

#The significant portion of the plutonium was known to be from the 

Parks facility; 

#Clarification that CEP data from 1976 to 1983 will not be used, but 

all other bioassay data will be used for dose reconstruction. 

* * *
 

A general motion was made and seconded that all AWE employees 


who were monitored, or should have been monitored, for 


exposure to ionizing radiation while working at the NUMEC 


Plant in Apollo, Pennsylvania for a number of work days 


aggregating at least 250 days from January 1st, 1957 through 


December 31st, 1983, or in combination with work days within 


9
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


the parameters established for one or more other classes of 


employees in the SEC, be recommended as a class to be added 


to the Special Exposure Cohort.
 

Dr. Ziemer explained that, should the motion carry, the Chair will 


entertain a separate motion which would recommend the 250-day issue 


raised by the petitioners be referred to the Melius workgroup 


addressing those issues for all petitions. 


The motion was open for discussion. 


#Clarification that the present wording of "monitored or should have 

been monitored" includes all individuals on the Apollo site, and 

that the Department of Labor agrees with the Board's understanding 

of that interpretation. 

Put to a vote, the motion carried by a count of ten to zero. 


Dr. Ziemer announced he and Dr. Wade will obtain Dr. Lockey's and Dr. 


Melius's vote for the record. 


* * * 


Dr. Ziemer indicated he would entertain a motion that the 250-day issue 


raised by the petitioners be referred to the workgroup formally called 


"SEC Issues Group (Including 250-day Issue and Preliminary Review of 


83.14 SEC Petitions)," chaired by Dr. Melius. 


A motion was made and seconded following the Chairman's 


recommendation. With no discussion, the motion carried by a 


vote of ten to zero.
 

This is not a recommendation to be sent to the Secretary. Therefore 


absent members will not be polled for their votes. 


* * * * *
 

NIOSH PROGRAM UPDATE
 

Mr. Larry Elliott, Director 


Office of Compensation Analysis and Support 


NIOSH 


Mr. Elliott presented an update on the status of the compensation 


program from the NIOSH perspective. He provided statistics on overall 


initial claim information, including that as of September 27 there had 


been 25,325 cases referred by DOL for dose reconstruction; 76 percent 


10
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


of those cases have been returned to the Department of Labor; 23 


percent remain at NIOSH for dose reconstruction, and currently one 


percent has been administratively closed. 


Mr. Elliott reminded the assembly that this means NIOSH has completed 


its work, with the dose reconstruction draft report provided to the 


claimant. However, the claimant has chosen not to return the OCAS-1 


form indicating there is no further information to provide. Should 


they choose to have NIOSH reopen the claim, all they have to do is let 


them know or provide the OCAS-1 and the claim will be reactivated. 


Mr. Elliott summarized that of the 17,153 dose reconstructions returned 


to DOL for final adjudication, 5,242 cases or 31 percent had a 


probability of causation greater than 50 percent, with 11,911 cases or 


69 percent with a POC less than 50 percent. A bar graph was also 


provided showing the number of cases in each ten-percentage point 


increment of probability of causation. For example, zero to 10 


percent, 11 to 20, et cetera, up to greater than 50 percent. 


Of the 5,797 cases remaining at NIOSH for dose reconstruction, Mr. 


Elliott explained 1,838 had been assigned to a health physicist, 956 


initial DR reports are in the hands of claimants, and 3,003 cases have 


not been assigned for dose reconstruction. 3,056 cases or 53 percent 


are more than one year old. 


Reporting on the efforts to complete the first 5,000 cases, Mr. Elliott 


announced that final DR reports on 3,996 cases have been sent to DOL, 


58 cases have been administratively closed, 246 have been pulled for 


miscellaneous reasons, 183 have been pulled for SEC determination, 


eight DR reports are with claimants. There have been 445 cases 


returned by DOL for various reasons, and 64 claims are awaiting dose 


reconstruction. Mr. Elliott explained that the 445 returned cases had 


been completed, but something about the claims had changed and NIOSH 


has been asked to rework them. He added that of the 64 claims awaiting 


dose reconstruction, 20 are NUMEC claims, which means the number would 


drop to 44 if all the NUMEC claims found their way into the SEC class. 


Mr. Elliott next presented an illustration of submittals versus 


production activity from first quarter 2002 to third quarter 2007, 


explaining the trend demonstrated by changes in numbers cases received 


from DOL, draft DR reports to claimants and final DR reports to DOL. 


The receipt and return of reworks was addressed, with Mr. Elliott
 

noting that the spike in the third and fourth quarters of 2007 were a 


result of the Program Evaluation Reviews currently under way relative 


to super S or highly insoluble plutonium material. 


11
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Reporting on DOE response to requests for exposure records, Mr. Elliott
 

observed that of the 815 outstanding requests only 148 were in excess 


of 60 days old. 


In his discussion of technical support and dose reconstruction 


activities on AWE sites Mr. Elliott provided information as of 


September 18th. He explained that some 1,400 claims had been received 


from DOL which represented approximately 200 AWE sites. NIOSH had 


asked their support contractor Battelle to work up a set of documents 


on how to handle those particular AWE sites. They in turn developed 


what has been called Technical Basis Document 6000, which serves as the 


site profile for AWEs that worked uranium and thorium metals. Fifteen 


site-specific appendices have been completed, with ten in review and 14 


in development. TBD 6001 will serve as the site profile for AWEs which 


refined uranium and thorium. Three site-specific appendices have been 


completed. At the moment there are none in review, although an 


additional four are in development. 


Statistics as of September 18 were also provided on Program Evaluation 


Reports. Mr. Elliott noted that 19 such documents, or PERs, have been 


issued and are on the web site. There are also a couple of Program 


Evaluation Plans included in that set. He commented that the number of 


affected claims to be reviewed is 13,008, but cautioned that this 


particular figure does not necessarily represent individual claims in 


that a claim could be counted more than once because it is affected by 


different types of PERs. Thirteen additional PERs are being prepared, 


with nine anticipated to be completed by October 31 and the remaining 


four to be completed by December 31. To date 157 claims have 


experienced an increased POC to greater than 50 percent. There are 


9,061 claims with no change, and 3,790 awaiting evaluation. 


Addressing the contract award process Mr. Elliott noted that a request 


for proposal was published on May 4th with proposals due by June 16. 


Proposals meeting that submission date are being processed in 


Procurement Review. He indicated that in order to avoid interruption 


of service the ORAU contract has been extended until October 5, and if 


necessary will be extended until the award of a new contract. 


Mr. Elliott summarized the addition of Special Exposure Cohort classes 


by noting that 22 classes have been added since May of 2005, 13 through 


the 83.13 process and nine through the 83.14 process. This represents 


classes of workers from 17 individual sites and 1,470 cases. 


Mr. Elliott observed that in the past six-and-a-half fiscal years of 


funding, the total monies expended to administer NIOSH responsibilities 


is $280 million, $220 million of which has gone to all contractors, $14 


million to operation of the Board, with the remaining $46 million being 


12
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


for the operation and conduct of federal staff in the NIOSH/OCAS 


office. More importantly, $869 million has been paid out in 


compensation by DOL based on NIOSH work, which includes $150 million 


paid in added SEC cases. 


Discussion Points: 


#Did ORAU get additional funds to continue until October, or are they 

operating on previously-granted funds; 

#The continuing resolution requirements that have to be followed say 

that operations must be on a similar budget level as the previous 

year when there was an appropriate set of funds; 

#In the early days of the program the Espanola, New Mexico Resource 

Center encouraged workers to file a claim in order to get their 

medical records, their exposure records, even though they didn't 

have health problems. Now some are developing cancers and other 

health problems and they wonder how difficult it will be to get 

their cases reopened. 

#Are the appendices to TBD 6000 mentioned in the report on the Program 

Evaluation Reports a full set of what is anticipated to complete 

that TBD at this time; 

#Does the $14 million to the Board include SC&A's contract; 

#That figure is included, but not included are costs associated with 

NIOSH or ORAU staff when a Board working group takes up an issue. 

Those costs are included in the cost to the contractor or for the 

OCAS office; 

#The number of claims under review could go up when more Program 

Evaluation Reports are completed. 

* * * * *
 

SEC PETITION UPDATE
 

Mr. LaVon Rutherford, 


SEC Health Physics Team Leader 


Mr. Rutherford reported on the status of upcoming SEC petitions. The 


purpose is to provide updated numbers on qualified petitions under 


evaluation and sites being evaluated through the 83.14 process, as well 


as information to support the Board's preparations for working group 


sessions and Board meetings. 


As of September 17, 97 petitions have been received, nine are in the 


qualification process, with 42 petitions having been qualified for 


evaluation. There are currently five evaluations in progress, with 37 


having been completed; 41 petitions failed to qualify for evaluation. 


13
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Mr. Rutherford discussed petitions currently with the Board for 


recommendation, and provided an overview and chronology of events on 


those petitions, which included Chapman Valve, Blockson Chemical, Feed 


Materials Production Center, Bethlehem Steel and Sandia National Lab 


Livermore. Petitions on which NIOSH is presenting their evaluation 


reports during this meeting included Y-12 statisticians and Hanford, 


part two. Mr. Rutherford announced that the NTS report would be 


presented at the January 2008 meeting. NUMEC Apollo was discussed 


earlier in this meeting and action was taken on that petition. 


Reporting on petitions currently in the evaluation process, Mr. 


Rutherford noted the Lawrence Livermore National Lab petition, which 


was initiated by a NIOSH finding that dose reconstruction could not be 


completed with sufficient accuracy under 42 CFR 83.14, is expected to 


be completed in October 2007. Texas City Chemicals has an expected 


completion date of October 2007, and Mound Plant is expected to be 


completed by November 2007. 


Mr. Rutherford also observed that the resource constraints which had 


slowed the 83.14 process of potential SEC sites under consideration had 


been resolved. The number of those evaluations will therefore increase 


considerably over the next six months. 


Discussion Points: 


#Query as to whether the NUMEC Parks Township facility would be an 


83.14 petition; 

#At the time Mr. Rutherford's presentation was developed the Parks 

petitioner had not been in place so it could not be included, but 


that is also on the horizon. 


* * * * *
 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY PROGRAM UPDATE
 

Dr. Patricia Worthington, Director 


Office of Health and Safety 


Department of Energy 


Dr. Worthington presented an update on the DOE support to the 


compensation program. She explained the role of the Department of 


Energy is that of a facilitator, supporting and assisting other 


organizations to make sure they can research, retrieve and provide 


appropriate documentation for these activities. One area of 


responsibility is individual claims, and Dr. Worthington reported that 


DOE has been very aggressive in that area, having done over 8,000 


employment verifications this year for Department of Labor, in excess 


14
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


of 4,000 dose documentations for NIOSH, and over 8,000 document 


acquisition requests for employee work history and exposures for 


Department of Labor. 


Ms. Worthington described some of the large-scale activities, noting 


that DOE tries to provide support to DOL, NIOSH and the Board for 


various activities. These include making sure sites are aware of 


planned visits and that they are able to retrieve documents for site 


exposure matrix projects, support for Board research and Special 


Exposure Cohort petitions. DOE also has responsibility to research and 


maintain the covered facilities database. 


Speaking to the records research support activities, Dr. Worthington 


observed that DOE supports approximately 15 sites in providing 


documentation. Additionally there are occasional research efforts at 


the National Archives and Federal Records Centers to make sure that 


they're looking in all possible places to find records; many times 


records are no longer at the site or are incomplete. 


Dr. Worthington reported that DOE had maintained a good track record 


overall in responding to requests from NIOSH. Their goal had been 95 


percent, and they had reached approximately 93 percent response within 


the required time frame through August of 2007. Efforts being made to 


improve these numbers over the next months were discussed, as well as 


the significant reduction of requests more than 60 days old. 


Efforts included naming a Point of Contact within the office to 


coordinate records requests from not only NIOSH and DOL, but also the 


Advisory Board and SC&A. There have been weekly conference calls with 


NIOSH, their contractor and SC&A to ensure the groups are getting the 


information and support they need. DOE headquarters has made an 


arrangement with the Office of Legacy Management to provide research 


and support of facility questions and issues. 


A list of current research being done on DOE facilities included 


Chapman Valve, which has just been completed and is now available. Dow 


Chemical, General Steel Industries, Texas City Chemicals, and Metals 


and Controls Corp. also are in the current research phase. 


In closing Dr. Worthington provided a bit more information on the DOE 


Office of Legacy Management, describing their responsibilities and 


support to the DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security, their staff 


and how they will go about those activities. 


Discussion Points: 


15
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#Was there an attempt to recover the Mound records and where that might 

stand. 

* * * * *
 

DEPARTMENT OF LABOR PROGRAM UPDATE
 

Mr. Jeff Kotsch, 


Department of Labor 


Mr. Kotsch presented a report on the compensation program results from 


the perspective of the Department of Labor, providing statistics on 


both Part B and Part E. Part B was effective July 2001; Part E was 


enacted in October 2004 and became effective June 2005. Mr. Kotsch
 

reported a total of $2.9 billion compensation paid to date. Part B 


claimants have received $2.1 billion total, with $1.6 billion having 


been paid for cancer claims. 


Mr. Kotsch presented graphs demonstrating total numbers of EEOICPA 


payees; a breakdown as to Part B, Part E and RECA payees; numbers of 


cancer claim payees, numbers of payees as a result of NIOSH work, as 


well as the percentages of the whole those numbers represent. 


More specific statistics were provided on the Part B cancer cases, 


including numbers of cases, numbers of claims, numbers of final 


decisions, recommended decisions, cases with NIOSH and cases pending a 


DOL initial decision. Representative percentages of the whole for 


those numbers were also provided. 


A graph on cancer case final decisions described the total number of 


final decisions for approval. Also included was the total of final 


decisions for denial, further broken down by category such as POC less 


than 50 percent, non-covered employment, et cetera. Additional graphs 


presented by Mr. Kotsch provided both numbers and percentages of the 


whole relative to the status of NIOSH referral cases, dose 


reconstruction cases and SEC-related cases. 


Further statistical information was provided on NIOSH case-related 


compensation. This described the total $869 million paid in 


compensation and the number of payees and cases that figure 


represented. A further breakdown provided the same information on dose 


reconstructed cases and added SEC cases. 


More specific information relative to SEC cases was charted in Mr. 


Kotsch's presentation of similar statistics by sites scheduled for SEC 


petition discussions on this meeting's agenda. The charts demonstrated 


16
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


cases and claims, dose reconstructions, final decisions and total 


compensation paid under Parts B and E for 11 sites. 


* * *
 

With no questions from the Board, Dr. Ziemer commented on the usual 


slight difference between NIOSH and DOL numbers relative to the dose 


reconstructions, and that everyone understands the reasons underlying 


the discrepancies. He made an observation that it is always 


interesting to get a feel for total compensation under various Parts, 


and the scope of that compensation, because so often comments are made 


that no one is getting compensated. Obviously quite a few people are. 


* * * * *
 

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
 

Public comment was solicited on the first two days of the meeting. The 


members of the public who spoke on this day are listed below. A full 


transcript of their remarks is available on the NIOSH/OCAS web site at 


www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


Dr. Dan McKeel, SINEW; Mr. John Ramspott for workers and families from 


General Steel Industries; Ms. Gertrude Martin, spouse of a Blockson 


claimant; Mr. Edgar Martin, Blockson claimant. 


* * * * *
 

With no further public comment offered, the Board officially 


recessed until 9:30 a.m.
 

* * * * *
 

Thursday, October 4, 2007
 

Dr. Ziemer called the second day of the meeting to order, reminding 


participants to register their attendance and avail themselves of 


agenda copies and other materials provided for their use. He indicated 


all Board members are in attendance, therefore there is a quorum. 


Dr. Wade remarked to members of the audience that all papers he had 


distributed to Board members this morning were also available for the 


public. 


* * *
 

HANFORD SEC PETITION (Part II)
 

17
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


NIOSH Evaluation Report 


Dr. Wade announced two Board members are conflicted on this site, Ms. 


Josie Beach and Ms. Wanda Munn. They then joined the audience. 


Dr. Samuel Glover, 


NIOSH/OCAS
 

Dr. Glover reminded everyone that Part I was presented in July, and 


covered the period 1943 to September 1946. This second part will 


continue from September 1, 1946 through 1990. Dr. Glover then 


presented a brief overview, explained the three Hanford petitions 


having qualified for evaluation, dates of receipt, their SEC 


identification numbers, noting they were merged into one, and then 


split into two reports as explained previously. 


Dr. Glover explained the basis upon which each petition was qualified, 


indicating the class evaluated under Part II is: All employees in all 


facilities and areas of the Hanford Nuclear Reservation from September 


1, 1946 through December 31, 1990. He went on to describe the sources 


of available information for conducting the evaluation. Availability 


of dosimetry data was described, including the NIOSH/OCAS Claims 


Tracking System information as of August 9, 2007 with the numbers of 


cases meeting the class definition, numbers of completed DRs, numbers 


of cases containing internal dosimetry and those containing external 


dosimetry. Also were CATI reports which were reviewed for information 


on work location, work hours, hazards or incidents encountered. 


Major operations at Hanford with potential for internal exposures, 


including fuel fabrication reactor operations, chemical separations, 


plutonium finishing, et cetera, were described by Dr. Glover, as well 


as internal monitoring methods which he noted varied over time. They 


included urinalysis, thyroid scans, whole body counting, et cetera, 


noting the dates when methods changed or were added. Air sampling was 


included in many of the Hanford facilities. 


Specific radionuclides were enumerated, including plutonium, americium, 


curium and heavy actinides, tritium, uranium, fission and activation 


products, promethium and polonium, with a discussion of in vivo 


monitoring. A table was provided from the Hanford site profile which 


indicated the beta-gamma exposure areas, the operation start/end dates, 


radiation types and energy percentages, and addressed the neutron areas 


and operations. 


Turning to external monitoring information, Dr. Glover noted that 


dosimeters were assigned to all workers who entered restricted 100, 200 


18
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


and 300 areas. The types of devices included Pencil Ionization 


Chambers (PICs), film dosimeters, thermoluminescent dosimeters and 


extremity monitoring. Other routes of exposure included occupational 


medical X-ray, environmental dose and unmonitored workers. 


Dr. Glover explained then the NIOSH evaluation of specific petition 


concerns by addressing each of them in turn, how they were reviewed, 


and the findings. The three issues specifically discussed in detail 


were that Hanford workers were inadequately or inconsistently 


monitored; that Hanford construction workers were not monitored for 


internal dose; and that neutron doses were under-recorded. 


The evaluation report addressed the feasibility of internal dose 


reconstructions, with Dr. Glover noting that, based on the absence of 


bioassay data for the period prior to 1960 for thorium and 1968 for 


americium, NIOSH has concluded that internal dose reconstruction is not 


feasible for those radionuclides in selected facilities. Addressing 


the health endangerment determination which is required under those 


circumstances, NIOSH finds that the workers' health may have been 


endangered due to exposure to thorium and americium. Addressing 


external dose reconstruction, Dr. Glover noted that recorded external 


dosimetry photon data are extensive and sufficient for dose 


reconstruction. 


In summary, NIOSH found that dose reconstruction was feasible for 


internal exposures to uranium, plutonium, fission products, tritium, 


polonium, iodine and ambient environment, but not feasible for thorium 


in the period 1946 through 1959 or americium for the period 1949 


through 1968. External dose reconstructions are feasible for gamma-


beta, neutron, ambient environment and occupational medical X-ray. 


The NIOSH recommended class definition was described as: All employees 


of the Department of Energy, its predecessor agencies and DOE 


contractors or subcontractors who were monitored, or should have been 


monitored, for (1) internal thorium radiological exposures from 


September 1, 1946 through December 31, 1959 in the following 300 area 


facilities: the metal fabrication building (No. 313), the reactor fuel 


manufacturing pilot plant (No. 306), the 300 area maintenance shops 


(3722) and the radiochemistry laboratory (3706); or (2) internal 


americium radiological exposures from January 1, 1949 through December 


31, 1968 in the following areas: the isolation building (231-Z), the 


waste treatment facility (242-Z) and the plutonium finishing plant 


(234-5Z) while working at the Hanford Nuclear Reservation for a number 


of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, or in combination with 


work days within the parameters established for one or more other 


classes of employees in the SEC, excluding aggregate work day 


requirements. 


19
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. Glover concluded by advising the Board that additional 


documentation and sample dose reconstruction scenarios are available 


for their review. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#Will there be available soon information regarding the neutron/photon 

ratio issue in order to schedule the work of the workgroup and 


contractor's review; 


#It appeared there was a low level of bioassay analysis for uranium per 

year from the period 1971 to 1984; 

#Is that from a low work level or from an absence of records. 

* * *


 Petitioner Response
 

Ms. Rosemary Hoyt spoke on behalf of the petitioners, discussing the 


proposed class definition. She commented it was not clear that all 


employees are included in the class, and that is essential, 


particularly to the Department of Labor. 


Ms. Hoyt contended the thorium contamination should cover all of the 


300 area, not just specific buildings. The americium should be across 


the site and not limited to specific buildings. She disputed the NIOSH 


claim that external dose reconstruction is feasible. 


A question was raised by Ms. Hoyt as to whether interviews were 


conducted in accordance with "SC&A guidelines," commenting that at 


worker outreach meetings former employees commented that not everybody 


wore monitoring devices. She cited an SC&A review of NIOSH/ORAU 


procedures for dose reconstruction from January 2005 in which SC&A 


stated both internal and external are deficient, and identifies 


technical inaccuracies and errors. 


Ms. Hoyt also questioned which facility experts were referred to in the 


NIOSH report, in that nowhere does it address the affidavits provided 


relating to falsification of records. She contended the evaluation 


report is confusing, unorganized, and does not address lost or 


destroyed records or affidavits supporting SEC Petition 57 in all of 


its forms. 


* * * 


20
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Hanford Working Group
 

Dr. James Melius, Chair 


A status report and path forward was discussed for this petition, with 


Dr. Melius acknowledging the size of the task. He explained the plan 


was for SC&A to first do an initial scoping effort on the evaluation 


report to identify key issues, then hold a meeting of the workgroup by 


conference call to determine a schedule for that review. Rather than 


trying to do a complete review of the evaluation report, it would be 


delivered incrementally by issues, in a way that would expedite the 


review process, make it easier to handle and easier for the workgroup 


to resolve comments and reach conclusions. Dr. Melius indicated he 


believed the process could start within the next month with a 


conference call meeting of the workgroup. He observed the scoping 


process would give NIOSH an opportunity to provide feedback on where 


they were with any parts of the evaluation report or site profile they 


were updating. 


Dr. Melius cautioned that it must be recognized that this will not be a 


quick process, and called for any feedback or comments. 


* * *
 

Dr. Ziemer added that the petitioners would be kept fully informed of 


all issues and invited to participate with the workgroup on those 


issues. 


Discussion Points: 


#Although the report is dated September 14, the Board just received the 

review this past week and many members have not had a chance to 


read and digest the material; 


#The plan for the path forward seems to be good, but there should be a 

better job done with Privacy Act clearance so that the petitioners 


can get transcripts as quickly as possible. 


* * * * *


 WORKGROUP APPOINTMENTS
 

Dr. Ziemer announced that, on advice of counsel, he was going to 


appoint a workgroup to be known as the workgroup on selection of cases 


for blind dose reconstruction review. The workgroup will have the 


express task of receiving suggestions from individual members of the 


Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction from the distributed list of 


proposed cases. He named Mr. Mark Griffon as Chair, with Ms. Wanda 


21
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Munn the only other member. He asked that they solicit recommendations 


from their fellow subcommittee members and report to the Board tomorrow 


with a final recommendation, at which time the working group will be 


dissolved. 


Dr. Ziemer explained this method would meet legal requirements for 


confidentiality, et cetera, and will allow the selection to move 


forward. He emphasized the recommendations would be provided 


individually by subcommittee members, without collaboration with each 


other. 


Noting that the newest Board members felt their time and abilities were 


not being fully utilized and had volunteered to participate in 


additional workgroup activities. To that end, he added Mr. Phillip 


Schofield to the Nevada Test Site and Savannah River Site workgroups. 


Ms. Josie Beach was added to the SEC issues workgroup. 


* * *
 

Ms. Kate Kimpan from Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) responded 


to an earlier question regarding the Hanford site profile annotation 


and attribution efforts. She commented that there are multiple 


sections to the document and all sections except medical, which is the 


smallest section, has been fully annotated and attributed. The medical 


section is still in the comment resolution process and has not been 


signed by OCAS. 


A brief discussion ensued between Ms. Kimpan and Dr. Melius on how best 


to make it clear who was a part of the site profile work, yet may no 


longer be involved; whether their conflict of interest information 


should still be available, et cetera. 


* * * * * 


SANDIA NATIONAL LABORATORY - LIVERMORE SEC PETITION
 

NIOSH Evaluation Report
 

Dr. Samuel Glover, 


NIOSH/OCAS
 

Dr. Glover explained that this is an update to a presentation 


originally made in May 2007 on SEC Petition No. 59 dealing with X-ray 


diffraction units at the Sandia National Lab Livermore facility. He 


noted there will be some repetitive information in his presentation. 


22
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Beginning with some background on site history and petition overview, 


Dr. Glover observed that the evaluation report was issued in late March 


of 2007 and shortly afterward new information from the petitioner was 


received by NIOSH. Both were discussed at the May Advisory Board 


meeting, at which time NIOSH was asked to provide an update to address 


that new information. In September the addendum to the ER was 


approved. 


The petitioner's proposed class definition was modified by removing 


Building 941, room 128, because X-ray diffraction activities in 


Building 141 began after 1992 and is outside the covered time period. 


NIOSH evaluated the following class: All x-ray technologists and 


materials scientists who worked at Sandia National Laboratory Livermore 


in the X-ray diffraction and fluorescence laboratory, Building 913, 


room 113; and Building 913, room 128 from December 1, 1967 through 


December 31, 1990. 


Dr. Glover then discussed the sources of available information for 


evaluating the petition. This proposed class consists of approximately 


three people. Only one case has been submitted to NIOSH for dose 


reconstruction. One case met the class definition, with no dose 


reconstructions completed. Once case contained internal dosimetry, one 


case contained external dosimetry. CATI report was available to 


provide work location, work hours and hazards and/or incidents 


encountered. 


The petitioner provided a letter in late April which was read at the 


May Board meeting. In early June there was a follow-up call with the 


petitioner. In mid-July the petitioner provided a letter and 


affidavit, and in mid-September a letter was received from the 


petitioner with an affidavit from a health physicist and industrial 


hygienist at Sandia. This information was received after the issuance 


of the addendum, but was reviewed as preparation for this presentation. 


Dr. Glover discussed additional information evaluated, providing 


information on effects of acute incidents of X-ray exposures to the 


skin. The petition basis included a citation of two incidents during 


the operation of Sandia Lab Livermore which the petitioner contended 


demonstrated unmonitored, unrecorded or inadequately monitored exposure 


incidents; and that the facility did not provide permanently-mounted 


instrumentation for continuous recording of the ionizing radiation 


being emitted. 


Radiological operations were described by Dr. Glover, summarizing 


issues discussed with the petitioner including unavailability of 


personal monitoring records, directional nature of the X-ray radiation 


23
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


emitted and use of makeshift shielding, ability to bound exposures, et 


cetera. Also discussed was operation of X-ray diffraction units, 


difference in workload among potential class members, use of sealed 


sources, and statements made by two doctors which indicated exposures 


resulted in cancers for the petitioner. 


Monitoring information for the class relative to bioassay data was 


available for all potential members of the class for uranium 1975 to 


1984, and all results were below detectable levels. As to external 


data, data for the class described are available. Incident information 


included observation that shallow dose to the extremities was not 


recorded in the dose of record. Extremity badging was not required 


until 1990, and shallow dose for the extremities was calculated in the 


report for the incident. 


As part of the supplement Dr. Glover discussed the issue of bounding, 


noting that there is an extremely large dose rate and that essentially 


deterministic effects bound the dose. Deterministic effects occur as a 


function of time, and those effects range from reddening of the skin 


through blistering. Those effects were not observed and therefore 


deterministic effects would bound the dose. 


Dr. Glover also discussed the incident dose update and the calculation 


for direct beam exposure to organs. A description and explanation of a 


sample dose reconstruction was provided for internal exposure to 


uranium, as well as external deep dose and shallow dose exposure from 


recorded dose. 


Once again Dr. Glover described the two-pronged test followed in the 


evaluation process under 42 CFR 83, including feasibility to estimate 


level of radiation doses of individual members of the class with 


sufficient accuracy; and if not, whether there was a reasonable 


likelihood that such radiation dose may have endangered the health of 


members of the class. 


In addressing feasibility NIOSH found the available monitoring records, 


process description and source term data are adequate to complete dose 


reconstruction with sufficient accuracy for the proposed class of 


employees. Therefore the health endangerment determination was not 


required. 


Dr. Glover summarized feasibility findings for the petition, noting 


that dose reconstruction is feasible for internal exposure to uranium, 


and external exposure to beta-gamma and X-ray, as well as occupational 


medical X-ray. Neutron exposures were not applicable. 


24
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. Glover indicated that additional documentation and sample dose 


reconstruction scenarios are available for Board review. 


* * *


 Petitioner Response
 

Mr. Gerald M. Giovaccini inquired whether the dose reconstruction is 


accurate, precise and exact in every detail, noting that is what the 


SEC laws stipulate. He indicated he had three documents he wanted the 


Board to be aware of, two of which support the contention that a dose 


reconstruction cannot be done with any degree of accuracy because of 


missing crucial exposure data. There is an additional document from 


his oncologist which supports a probability of causation that his 


cancer stems from exposure to ionizing radiation. 


Mr. Giovaccini discussed the 22 cancers specified under SEC guidelines 


and the cancers he has contracted and for which he has received 


radiation, chemotherapy or a combination thereof several times over. 


He discussed the effect on his ability to support his family. He 


discussed affidavits contending that dose reconstruction to any degree 


of accuracy is not feasible. 


Mr. Giovaccini expressed his understanding that the petitioners have a 


legal right under the Act to make an appeal to the NIOSH decision that 


they have accurately reconstructed the dose, and an appeal to the 


Advisory Board and SC&A to audit the NIOSH report. He indicated he was 


providing a letter which represented the written appeal of the class, 


including 18 exhibits which formed the basis for that appeal. He then 


addressed and discussed each of those exhibits in detail, after which 


he again requested an appeal to the NIOSH decision that they have 


accurately reconstructed the dose, and again requested an audit of 


NIOSH methodology. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#Was the urinalysis work done in house or by an outside laboratory, the 

question relating to the CEP lab; 

#Has the Board received the information the petitioner cited in his 

phone call; 

#The rules provide that, once a petition has been submitted, new 

information may be provided in a new petition; 

#If the Board wanted to see exhibits referred to by the petitioner, 

that would require delaying action on this issue. 


25
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


* * *
 

Dr. Ziemer observed there were potentially three actions possible at 


the moment. One would be to defer action until the specific material 


mentioned by the petitioner is received and reviewed. Another would be 


to accept the NIOSH recommendation and a third would be to reject it. 


A motion was made and seconded that the Board postpone a 


decision until the documentation has been received from the 


petitioner.
 

Motion Discussion Points: 


#Does the Board want to ask SC&A to review the information; 

#The Board should be cognizant of the use of resources in that this is 

a one-person petition; 

#A significant amount of information has been provided by the 

petitioner and NIOSH, and it doesn't seem reasonable to involve 

the contractor further in investigating what has already been seen 

and what will be well covered through the postponement; 

#The fact that it's a one-person petition does not make it unimportant, 

but the resources are not necessarily money but also involve time 

constraints, and neither time nor money is unlimited; 

#Potentially there are three individuals in the class, but not who were 

part of the incidents involved as stated; 

#This petitioner had time outside of the class definition, and the 

urinalysis applies to other employment and exposure experience 

that he had; 

#Some of these issues are difficult to address in a public forum 

because of the Privacy Act; 

#A discussion on the peril of one-party petitions where the class is so 

narrow it represents an individual perhaps not happy with the 

outcome of a dose reconstruction and the risk of the Board being 

approached as an appeals board. 

The motion carried by a vote of 11 to 0, with one abstention.
 

* * *
 

Further discussion was put on a tentative agenda for the December Board 


phone call. 


* * * * *
 

Y-12 SEC PETITION
 

26
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. John Poston and Mr. Robert Presley are conflicted on Y-12 and 

joined the audience. 

NIOSH Evaluation Report 

Mr. LaVon B. Rutherford, 


SEC Health Physics Team Leader 


Mr. Rutherford provided background on the petition-related activities. 


The petition was initially received in late July of 2005. The NIOSH 


proposed finding was that it did not qualify for evaluation. The 


petitioner requested an administrative review, and the AR Panel 


recommended NIOSH qualify the petition for evaluation. In late June of 


2007 the evaluation report was approved. 


The petitioner had proposed a class definition of: All statisticians 


who performed statistical analysis of biological experiments related to 


radiation who worked in all locations of the Y-12 plant for the period 


from January 31, 1951 through June 30, 1959. NIOSH recommended the 


following class definition: All statisticians who performed 


statistical analysis of biological experiments (within the Oak Ridge 


National Laboratory Biological Sciences Division) in all locations at 


the Y-12 plant in Oak Ridge, Tennessee who were employed by DOE or its 


contractors between January 1, 1958 and June 30, 1958. 


Mr. Rutherford explained there were a number of reasons for that 


modification. One was that a previous SEC petition evaluation had been 


completed on a similar class up through the end of 1957. The petition 


basis was an acute incident occurring in the first quarter of 1958. 


Therefore the class definition was modified for the period January 1, 


1958 through June 30th, 1958. 


Mr. Rutherford discussed the Y-12 National Security Complex, its 


location in eastern Tennessee and that it was part of the Manhattan 


Project, with a function to process uranium for the first atomic bomb. 


He discussed construction, enriched uranium production and that the 


first site mission was separation of uranium-235 from natural uranium 


by the electromagnetic separation process. Since World War II Y-12 


missions have included uranium enrichment, lithium enrichment, isotope 


separation and component fabrication. Radiological operations 


associated with this class include the Oak Ridge National Laboratory 


Biological Science Division which conducted animal research concerning 


carcinogens using Y-12 facilities. The Biological Science Division 


used sealed radioactive sources -- cesium-127, cobalt-60 and 


californium-252 -- in their experiments. 


27
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Sources of available information for conducting the evaluation report 


were enumerated and discussed. Occupational exposures were described 


and enumerated. Availability of dosimetry data was discussed, with Mr. 


Rutherford noting that as of November 20, 1951 all ORNL employees, 


regardless of work area, were required to wear a combination security 


badge and film dosimeter, and that NIOSH has external monitoring data 


for members of the class. He explained the NIOSH evaluation focused on 


external monitoring data because of the exposure scenario identified. 


Internal monitoring data exists for some members of the class, and Y-12 


coworker model is used for unmonitored workers who should have been 


monitored. 


Specific issues identified by the petitioner and the NIOSH evaluation 


findings were discussed individually. They included the issue of 


medical evidence of a depressed white blood count for a member of the 


class and exposure record modified in 1958. 


Mr. Rutherford reiterated the two-pronged test established in 42 CFR 83 


which was used in the evaluation, addressing feasibility to estimate 


the level of radiation doses of individual members of the class with 


sufficient accuracy; and if not, whether there is a reasonable 


likelihood that such radiation dose may have endangered the health of 


members of the class. 


NIOSH found that the available monitoring records, process descriptions 


and source term data are sufficient to complete dose reconstructions 


for the proposed class of employees. Therefore a health endangerment 


determination is not necessary. 


In summary, dose reconstruction is feasible for internal exposures to 


uranium. Dose reconstruction for external beta-gamma exposure, neutron 


and occupational medical X-ray exposure are also feasible. The NIOSH 


recommendation is that for the period January 1, 1958 through June 30, 


1958 radiation dose estimates can be reconstructed for compensation 


purposes. 


Discussion Points: 


#Discussion of the cesium, cobalt and californium sources and the time 

periods for each; 

#Was there a fixed source or portable; 

#The location of the later criticality incident. 

* * *


 Petitioner Response
 

28
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Ms. Laurie Breyer reported that she had e-mailed the petitioner on the 


14th of September, and called on the 19th with the information on the 


Board meeting and when the petition discussion would likely take place 


in case she was interested in listening and/or participating. Ms. 


Breyer was unable to get an answer to her call today and the petitioner 


has not identified herself as being on the line. 


* * *
 

A motion was made and seconded to accept the NIOSH evaluation 


of this petition, as described.
 

Additional Discussion: 


#How to reconstruct dose for statisticians. 

The motion carried by a vote of 10 to 0, two Board members 


having been recused.
 

* * * * *
 

PLANS TO PROCURE BOARD CONTRACTOR 


FOR FY09 AND BEYOND
 

Dr. Wade introduced Ms. Florence Black, a contracting officer who is 


taking on part of the portfolio of Mr. David Staudt, who has been 


detailed to Atlanta for a few months. Dr. Wade observed that this is 


an important contract and they want to start very early in the process. 


The current SC&A contract runs through September of 2008. 


Dr. Wade explained the Board has been provided with the Statement of 


Work and tasks used the last time, with one modification. A new task 


for SEC work was added to the original contract. Also included was an 


evaluation plan used previously, with some slight modifications. He 


commented Ms. Black had posted the information on the public web site 


and they wanted to have all discussions regarding pursuit of a new 


contractor done transparently. 


Dr. Wade suggested there could be discussion now related to the 


documents described, and individual members can make comments to him or 


to Ms. Black between now and the December teleconference. At that time 


they can have another discussion, following which he hoped they would 


be in a position to move forward with an announcement of intent to 


solicit, which would come out in January, with full solicitation out by 


the end of March. 


29
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. Wade commented that the selection and evaluation process will 


include the formation of a Technical Advisory Panel of two or three 


Board members. Dr. Ziemer and Mr. Griffon were on the previous panel. 


When a technical panel of board members is put together, it's 


necessary that at least half the panel has gone through the required 


training. So depending on the size of the panel and the Board members 


selected, one or more might have to take the training, which is a 5-day 


class and can be taken on line. It is a tested class. Dr. Ziemer is 


trained and tested, while Mr. Griffon is not. 


Ms. Black advised she had already received one inquiry of a very 


general nature, asking if this is a re-compete. She went on to review 


the format for the statement of work. Various tasks within the 


contract were discussed. 


Discussion Points: 


#Some issues should be considered, although changes may not necessarily 

be made; 

#Dose reconstruction review is an example, whether there is 

satisfaction with the current mix and types of reviews; 

#A suggestion that the subcommittee give input on that issue at the 

December meeting; 

#Discussion of whether the earlier talk about a step-wise process to 

SEC evaluation reviews for large sites would constitute a change 

that would need to be reflected in the contract and whether it's 

something everybody agrees with; 

#Perhaps the procedures workgroup should think about the way tasks are 

described, such as site profile reviews and reviews of revised 

site profiles as separate tasks; 

#A suggestion that of value to the bidders or potential contractors 

would be to have some idea of what the resolution process would 

look like since that has become a substantial part of what the 

Board does; 

#Also to be considered is the target of review of two-and-a-half 

percent of the completed dose reconstructions; 

#Discussion of the evaluation criteria; 

#Discussion of NIOSH/OCAS participation on the evaluation committee and 

the perception of bias that might produce; 

#At the time Dr. Wade provides Ms. Black with a formal request, 

probably after the December meeting, he will include a list of 

selections for the panel, identifying who will need training. 

* * * * *
 

30
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


SEC PETITION STATUS UPDATES 


 Blockson Chemical
 

Ms. Wanda Munn, Chair, reported that the review from SC&A has been 


under consideration for the last couple of meetings of her workgroup, 


with most of their issues having been resolved. The largest 


outstanding issue is that of the path of thorium through the chemical 


process. A conference is scheduled for November 2nd, with a goal of 


reaching resolution of outstanding items in order to reach a 


recommendation for the Board's January meeting. 


* * *


 Fernald
 

Mr. Bradley Clawson, Chair, reported that the group had met for the 


first time in August, with a lot of new information that neither the 


workgroup nor SC&A have been able to review. They wanted to have time 


to get it on the O drive and review it, and NIOSH appears to have most 


of that information now available. The workgroup is scheduled to meet 


on October 24 and they will continue from there. 


A question from the petitioner about a revision to the site profile was 


clarified to indicate that there are no revisions planned, but one has 


just been completed and is under review, not yet released. As soon as 


approved and released it will be available to the petitioners and the 


public on the NIOSH web site. That should be a few weeks in the 


future. 


Petitioners are notified of workgroup meetings and issues that would be 


relevant to SEC petitions are discussed in these workgroup meetings. 


Therefore any petitioner who chooses to participate will have access to 


that information as it occurs. 


* * *


 Chapman Valve
 

Prior to the report from the workgroup chair, Ms. Sharon Block from 


Senator Ted Kennedy's staff commented on behalf of the Senator, 


expressing his concern about the ongoing delay in making a decision on 


this petition. 


Dr. Ziemer reminded the Board members that Dr. Wade had distributed 


some correspondence between Dr. Wade, Dr. Pat Worthington from the 


Department of Energy, and Mr. Pete Turcic from the Department of Labor 


31
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


relative to a potential change in the definition of the covered period, 


et cetera. Dr. Worthington indicated that DOE wanted to be thorough 


and complete and follow all leads, which takes a bit of time. She 


discussed the issues NIOSH requested they research regarding 


contaminated manifolds transferred from Y-12 back to Chapman Valve at 


the Dean Street location, and noted that their investigation had 


revealed no evidence of AEC work having taken place at that location. 


She commented that without being given an additional source of 


information, the DOE investigation was concluded. 


Mr. Jeff Kotsch from Department of Labor confirmed that was the only 


open issue on Chapman Valve. 


Dr. John Poston, workgroup Chair, confirmed that the workgroup has not 


met further because there was no additional information to be reviewed. 


Discussion Points: 


#Did the reviewed documents include those made which related to the 

site back to 1945; 

#Did DOE look at the information from affidavits or interviews to 

target their searches; 

#Did the DOE investigation show they received parts from Y-12; 

#A search was made for a Y-12 connection or an Oak Ridge National 

Laboratory connection to anything going to Chapman, but no 

documentation was found to substantiate such a contention. 

Dr. Poston commented he had participated in interviews and there was 


clearly testimony to that having happened. Ms. Regina Cano from DOE 


indicated if that information could be documented they would have to 


change the covered time period. However, the question to DOE from 


NIOSH was to substantiate whether contaminated manifolds from Y-12 came 


back to Chapman Valve, which was what was investigated. 


Discussion Points (Continued): 


#Were shipping documents at Y-12 researched in an effort to discover 

whether manifolds and valves were returned to Chapman; 

#Did the investigation including going to the field and asking 

questions, or was it a paper exercise. 

In order to clarify the issue, there followed then a discussion between 


Dr. Poston, Dr. Ziemer, Ms. Cano, Mr. Mark Griffon and Mr. Larry 


Elliott, which summarized how the issue arose, the different facets of 


work actually done at Chapman Valve facility, whether the Dean Street 


location was part of the original facility designated as an AWE, how 


32
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


contamination may have been present, other contracts, whether the time 


period should be extended, et cetera. Also discussed was the 


responsibility of DOE designations and covered period designations as 


it relates to Department of Energy or Department of Labor and how 


decisions would be made to extend time periods. 


Mr. Elliott, on behalf of NIOSH, explained that they have provided DOE 


and DOL all information assembled from the efforts of both NIOSH and 


SC&A in an unredacted form. The question of whether the Dean Street 


facility should be designated as an AWE goes to DOE to decide; the 


extension of time for the current AWE at Chapman Valve goes to DOL. If 


the Senator's office can provide the information to DOL, they can look 


at that and determine whether the covered period for the current AWE is 


appropriate and accurate or should be adjusted. 


Discussion Points (Continued): 


#Did DOE or NIOSH find anything during the cleanup process that related 

to waste shipped, or that type information, to support the 


question of whether uranium-235 was present. 


Dr. Ziemer observed that the Board is not in a position to assign a 


task to either DOE or DOL, but wanted to ask both Departments if they 


would be willing to report at the next meeting on what may have been 


found in terms of either time period or the Dean Street location. Dean 


Street is not specified as a covered facility, regardless of whether 


the workers consider it part of the Chapman Valve facility as a whole. 


That is how NIOSH, DOE and DOL understand it. The issue is if there 


were things going on at the Dean Street location that caused 


radioactive materials to be shipped through the covered facility, it's 


important to know. 


* * *
 

Dow Chemical at Madison
 

Dr. Wade reminded the assembly that the Board wrote the Secretary of 


HHS asking him to interact with other agencies relative to questions 


raised on this facility. Secretary Leavitt in turn asked Dr. Julie 


Gerberding, Director of CDC, to reply to the Board's letter. That 


response was in the Board's material. DOE was present to make some 


additional comments. 


Dr. Ziemer commented that the issue had to do with extension of the 


covered period. Petitioners raised issues that suggest perhaps it 


should be considered. DOL has basically indicated they are not in a 


33
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


position to change anything unless DOE so designates. DOE is looking 


into some of the documents, and that is still in process. 


Dr. Pat Worthington from DOE confirmed that is still ongoing, and that 


they have engaged other organizations to assist. FBI was asked to look 


at some illegible documents, and they have not responded. NNSA, within 


DOE, has been engaged to explain their process to be sure what was 


going on at various sites was understood properly. Other avenues of 


investigation were discussed, and indicated as soon as information was 


gathered she would report back to everybody. The time table is 


uncertain, primarily because FBI didn't provide a schedule for their 


work. 


Dr. Ziemer summarized that there is no outstanding Board action to be 


taken, unless the time period is extended. This then is a pending 


issue until the Department of Energy reports again on the 


investigation. 


Ms. Deb Detmers from the office of Congressman John Shimkus and Mr. 


Robert Stephan from the office of Senator Barack Obama spoke in support 


of expanding the time period to include their constituents whose 


employment dates fall outside the period covered by the class 


designation. 


On behalf of the petitioners, Dr. Dan McKeel also spoke in support of 


expanding the covered period. 


A discussion ensued amongst Mr. Stephan, Dr. Ziemer, Dr. Lockey, Dr. 


McKeel and Dr. Wade regarding the boundaries of the law. 


* * *


 Bethlehem Steel
 

Mr. Richard Weston from the CDC Washington office read into the record 


a letter from Senator Charles Schumer. The Senator urged the Board add 


a class to the SEC for the Bethlehem Steel nuclear workers. He was 


supportive of the working group's decision to make a recommendation on 


appropriate limitations on use of surrogate data in site profiles, and 


indicated his optimism that their efforts will bring clarity to that 


process. He suggested the Board should void the Bethlehem Steel site 


profile and release the CDC from attempts at dose reconstruction, and 


declare employees of the Lackawanna Bethlehem Steel facility a new 


class of the Special Exposure Cohort. He cautioned that many of the 


men and women awaiting compensation are aging and ill, and urged the 


Board move with all due haste to establish compensation. 


34
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. James Melius, Chair of the workgroup addressing the surrogate data 


issue, reported that his group had asked SC&A to do an inventory on the 


use of surrogate data among the site profiles, SEC evaluations, et 


cetera, which was provided about three weeks earlier. The workgroup 


hopes to have a meeting later in the day to establish a plan for going 


forward. 


* * * * *
 

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
 

Public comment was solicited on the first two days of the meeting. The 


members of the public who spoke on this day are listed below. A full 


transcript of their remarks is available on the NIOSH/OCAS web site at 


www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


Ms. Marilyn Schneider, Mallinckrodt claimant; Ms. Susan Frew, Y-12 


survivor; Dr. Dan McKeel, SINEW; Mr. Danial Churovich, GSI claimant 


(statement read into the record); Ms. Bev Marcoski, Blockson claimant; 


Mr. Cyril Gura, Blockson claimant; Ms. Terrie Barrie, ANWAG; Ms. Sandra 


Baldridge, Fernald petitioner/survivor; Mr. John G. Dutko, GSI Betatron 


operator. 


* * * * *
 

With no further public comment offered, the Board recessed 


until 8:30 a.m.
 

* * * * *
 

Friday, October 5, 2007
 

Dr. Ziemer called the third day of the meeting to order and requested 


all participants register their attendance. 


SCIENCE ISSUES UPDATE
 

Dr. James W. Neton, 


Associate Director for Science 


NIOSH/OCAS
 

Dr. Neton explained updates are done periodically and it has been some 


time since there's been an opportunity to discuss some of the issues 


arising from both SC&A and Board reviews, as well as the NIOSH internal 


issues discovered during case processing. He observed the issues are 


encompassed under two main categories. The first consists currently of 


seven issues on a list evaluated by the Board working group on IREP and 


35
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


scientific issues in February of 2005, all of which are related to risk 


model calculations. The over-arching technical issues list consists of 


ten items, all of which relate to dose reconstruction across sites, and 


were identified during the review process. Dr. Neton provided a list 


of seven risk model issues, noting that resolution is either completed 


or very close to completion on three of the seven. 


Because of its interest to the Board and stakeholders, Dr. Neton
 

explained that from time to time NIOSH reports on compensation rates by 


cancer models. Before presenting the figures, however, he emphasized 


there were caveats, including that the results are through September 19 


of 2007, are based on a specific number of claims on which NIOSH has 


received notice from DOL of a compensation decision; and unless 


otherwise noted, the rates reflect claims with only one reported 


primary cancer, and may not be predictive of future results. He 


cautioned further that some rates are based on a small number of cases. 


A listing was presented of 16 of the 32 IREP cancer risk models used in 


the program and the percentage of claims which had been compensated 


using those models. For this presentation he included only those which 


exceeded 10 percent compensation rates. They ranged from a high of 


70.1 percent for lung to 14.3 percent for other endocrine gland. He 


also noted compensation rates for claims with single primary cancers, 


multiple primary cancers, and a total for all claims. Also included 


were two categories for which no claims have been compensated, female 


genitalia and ovary. Dr. Neton added that in the back of his 


presentation was a supplement, an Excel spreadsheet, with all 32 IREP 


risk models listed, along with some more detailed information. 


Senate Report Number 109-303 requested NIOSH evaluate the radiogenicity 


of cancers not on the presumptive cancer list. Dr. Neton explained 


they requested that if there were cancers NIOSH felt should be on the 


list, a recommendation be made for the types that should be added. 


They asked that any recommendations be identified by the number of 


current SEC cases, by facility, that would be compensated if the cancer 


type were added to the list. 


NIOSH reviewed eleven non-presumptive cancers, and Dr. Neton explained 


their review was focused, using comprehensive reviews of the 


literature. They looked at literature reviews primarily conducted from 


mid to late '90s through early 2000. He went on to describe how NIOSH 


made their determination and then obtained the review of five subject 


matter experts on their draft report. After those questions were 


addressed, the report was consolidated and a final report was issued to 


the Senate Appropriations Committee this past June. During this time 


UNSCEAR had a draft report, which remained in draft form throughout the 


period of the NIOSH report preparation. NIOSH didn't want to base 


36
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


their recommendations on a draft document subject to change. 


Alternatively, their report committed to sending an update for the 


Senate Appropriations Committee once the UNSCEAR report was finalized. 


NIOSH concluded there was consistent evidence to support the 


radiogenicity of basal cell carcinoma. To some extent malignant 


melanoma was considered, but there was conflicting evidence which 


wasn't as strong. The recommendation was only for basal cell 


carcinoma. 


As requested, NIOSH also looked at cases with basal cell carcinoma in 


an SEC class and found 1,985 claims as of June met the specification. 


However, Dr. Neton observed approximately 60 percent of those cases are 


in the Congressionally-created SEC at gaseous diffusion plants. And 


although 40 percent is still a large number, Dr. Neton cautioned that 


57.8 percent of the basal cell carcinoma cancers that came through the 


dose reconstruction process have been compensated anyway, as indicated 


on his previous listing of compensation rates. 


Dr. Neton presented a listing of the ten over-arching dose 


reconstruction issues, noting the four that are completed or nearing 


completion. Those are oro-nasal breathing, workplace ingestion, 


internal dose from super S plutonium, and thoriated welding rods. He 


explained a Technical Information Bulletin has been issued on the 


internal dose from super S plutonium, and there is a Program Evaluation 


Report to rework all those cases. Therefore that issue is considered 


complete. 


NIOSH feels there has been enough review and analysis of the oro-nasal 


breathing and thoriated welding rod issues to consider complete, and 


they will issue Technical Information Bulletins very soon. The 


information is assembled but not yet published. Dr. Neton added that 


he hoped by the next Board meeting to be able to discuss the workplace 


ingestion issue as having been completed. 


Dr. Neton gave background on the oro-nasal breathing issue, how it has 


been examined and the investigation into its applicability to Atomic 


Weapons Employers. He discussed their examination of work practices 


and ventilation rates, evaluation of breathing and appropriateness of 


the default ventilation rates, noting an early concern for heavy 


workers in a steel mill environment. 


To illustrate the issue of how material enters the body, Dr. Neton
 

presented a general biokinetic model explaining the processes of entry 


through wound, inhalation or ingestion. Further explanation was 


provided through a diagram of the human respiratory tract, and a table 


of the ventilation pattern and dose relative to level of exertion, 


37
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


fraction of intake through the nose for a nasal augmenter or a mouth 


breather. 


A detailed description was provided on how both air sample data and 


bioassay is used in dose reconstruction. NIOSH has concluded the 


default ICRP-66 lung model is acceptable to use in dose calculations. 


Addressing the issue of thoriated welding rods, Dr. Neton noted that 


they've always known that welding rods contain thorium, but it had not 


been included in dose reconstruction. The question logically arose as 


to why not. The NRC had recognized the issue early on and did some 


analysis, and NIOSH took advantage of their effort. Dr. Neton remarked 


their analysis is based on the work done in NUREG 1717 in which they 


evaluated dose from inhalation during direct current welding in four 


different studies. Also evaluated was dose from grinding tips, and 


ultimately NRC exempted thoriated rods from licensing. They also found 


that doses to non-welders were much less than a third of those to 


welders. 


Dr. Neton explained how NIOSH went about their analysis and their 


conclusion that this exposure pathway is not a significant one that 


needs to be considered in dose reconstructions for workers in the 


program. 


Discussion Points: 


#When looking at bone cancers, was it looked at as primary, metastatic 

or a combination; 

#Discussion of where kidney, prostate and bladder cancers are separated 

in the ICD-9 codes; 

#The issue of how to define radiogenicity and the fact that there are 

cancers often considered not radiogenic being compensated in this 

program at a fairly high rate; 

#Query as to the status of the model for chronic lymphocytic leukemia; 

#Has a draft model been developed or is NIOSH asking experts whether a 

model can be developed; 

#Discussion of DDREF; 

#The concern of control approaches using a 50-year committed dose and 

NIOSH doing annual doses. 


* * * * *
 

NIOSH WEB SITE UPDATE
 

Ms. Chris Ellison, 


NIOSH 


38
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Ms. Ellison commented the web site is growing and wanted to spend a few 


minutes discussing navigation tools so that everybody could find what 


they were looking for there, particularly new Board members. She 


explained there are 126 individual web pages, just over 2,000 PDF 


documents, 419 of which deal with Board activities including 


transcripts, SC&A documents, et cetera. 


Ms. Ellison discussed a new notification system instituted so that each 


time the web site is updated an e-mail notification is sent out to let 


people know which pages had been updated or changed. 


She commented on the layout, topics covered on various pages, issues of 


interest to the claimants, and the overall directory. Some pages of 


interest were discussed, and navigation through the web site was 


demonstrated. Ms. Ellison specifically discussed Dow Chemical, Rocky 


Flats and described how to locate the meetings for the current and past 


years, SC&A recommendations, Board recommendations on SEC petitions, et 


cetera. 


Questions and suggestions from the Board were interspersed throughout 


Ms. Ellison's presentation as she demonstrated navigation through the 


web site. For clarification she noted that the meetings listed on the 


Advisory Board page are only those of the Board, while in the OCAS 


Directory section there is a link to public meetings, which also 


included meetings with workers. 


Discussion Points: 


#The matrix for tracking transcripts and minutes; 


#Privacy Act concerns which surround the posting of those documents; 


#Public meetings and how that is affected by Privacy Act issues; 


#Privacy Act review has created a bottleneck in getting transcripts 


available; 

#Some remarks made during public comment have also raised security 

concerns; 

#Feasibility of enforcing rules regarding the mention of names; 

#A reasonable time period in which transcripts of Board meetings, 

workgroup meetings, et cetera, could reasonably be expected, 

either for privacy review or web site posting; 

#Workgroup chairs could perhaps standardize their responsibility for 

keeping issues straight rather than relying on transcripts; 

#A priority action list is the main thing needed going on to the next 

step, and the transcript can resolve confusion or disagreement. 

39
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Dr. Wade commented that, under FACA rules, workgroups are not intended 


to be formal meetings with transcripts, although the Board has made an 


appropriate decision to do that. It has created an expectation that 


there will be quick access, leading to the dynamic being discussed. 


Dr. Wade agreed to attempt to put into place a process that meets a 30­

day requirement for Board meetings, although he couldn't commit to 


anything today. At the December meeting he would present possibilities 


within the present resource structure. 


Ms. Ellison went on to update the Board on minutes and transcripts that 


had recently been posted or have been received from the Privacy Office 


with markups for redaction, which will soon be posted. She reiterated 


that the plan is to work from oldest to most recent. She asked that 


any priorities be indicated as soon as possible. 


Dr. Wade added that the tracking matrices will be updated and provided 


approximately a week before meetings so that all members will be aware 


of the status. 


* * * * *
 

ROCKY FLATS FOLLOW-UP ACTIONS STATUS
 

Dr. James Neton commented his discussion would be brief, and was just 


to update the Board on efforts to move through those Rocky Flats cases 


not a part of the SEC. Three primary issues arose from the 


deliberations of the workgroup relative to modification of the site 


profile. Those included super S plutonium, use of the 95th percentile 


for unmonitored workers, and the neutron dose model from '67 to '70. 


Dr. Neton explained the internal/external dosimetry site profile 


sections for Rocky Flats have been revised to include the new models 


and are on the web site. Out of the 947 cases processed cases, 590 


needed to be re-evaluated in light of the new approaches. Program 


Evaluation Report PER-21 now on the web site requests DOL return to 


NIOSH all cases with a POC of less than 50 percent. These will be 


completely reworked, applying both the site profile revisions and any 


other changes made as part of the general program review. 


A brief summary described that NIOSH had asked Department of Labor to 


return only those cases that are not part of the SEC class added for 


Rocky Flats workers. 


Discussion Points: 


#What is the timetable for getting this done; 

40
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#Clarification on how the issues are being interpreted by the 

Department of Labor; 

#DOL is working through three basic pieces of information: the NDRP 

list, the mention of plutonium or neutron exposure, and building 

numbers. This is in conjunction with their own list of cases that 

have been denied for Rocky Flats; 

#Reiteration of the workgroup concerns about building numbers and 

monitoring within those buildings, specifically for neutron 

exposures; 

#How classes are defined becomes a critical issue in order for DOL to 

have enough information to do their job in the way the Board 

expects it to be done. 

* * * * *
 

SEC PETITION WRITEUPS
 

Dr. Ziemer observed there were only two actions, both of which were 


very straightforward. The standard template for wording will be used 


on the NUMEC petition, along with a rejection letter on the Y-12 


petition. 


Dr. Wade added that he and Dr. Ziemer had secured Dr. Lockey's 


affirmative vote on NUMEC, which now stands at a count of 11 to zero. 


* * * * *
 

SUBCOMMITTEE AND WORKGROUP REPORTS
 

Subcommittee on Dose Reconstruction
 

Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair, reported that the group had met both Wednesday 


and in a separate meeting between the last Advisory Board meeting and 


this for the purpose of focusing on the fourth and fifth sets of review 


cases. Progress is being made toward the closeouts of those sets, 20 


cases in each. He hoped to have final closeout by the December phone 


call meeting. Final matrices on those sets will be circulated prior to 


the meeting so that members can be ready for discussion as a full 


Board. 


There has been a preliminary review of the sixth set. SC&A has likely 


set up meetings with most of the Board member teams on the seventh set. 


Discussion Points: 


41
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#Can the reports on four and five be combined as one when reporting to 

the Secretary; 

#That will also be a point at which a rollup of the first 100 reviewed 

cases could be presented, with a summary report of the findings 


developed to give the Secretary an overview of what those cases 


have shown. 


* * *
 

Workgroup on Assignment of Blind Review Cases
 

Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair, reported that he and Ms. Wanda Munn had taken 


suggestions from individual members of the Subcommittee from the list 


of recommended cases provided by NIOSH. Two cases were selected for 


blind review and Mr. Griffon indicated he would submit them to NIOSH 


and begin the process by which they will be forwarded to SC&A, without 


identifiers, and that closes out the workgroup. 


Mr. Stu Hinnefeld from NIOSH indicated that there will probably be a 


few e-mail exchanges about what part of the case files will be 


provided. Essentially it would represent what would be provided a dose 


reconstructor starting at the front end of the process. 


* * *
 

Nevada Test Site 


Mr. Robert Presley, Chair, reported that the group will meet later in 


the month in Cincinnati. Dr. Arjun Makhijani's evaluation of the TBD 


will be delivered before the meeting. A new matrix will be available 


in the next couple of weeks, and they hope to be able to make a 


decision for presentation at the January meeting. 


* * *
 

Savannah River Site Site Profile
 

Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair, reported the group has not met since the last 


Board meeting. They did receive an updated report from SC&A and will 


schedule a meeting shortly to keep the process moving. Mr. Griffon
 

remarked he believed the SC&A report was based on Rev. 3 and that there 


is now a Rev. 4E. He was concerned that if it's substantially 


different and they start the resolution process on Rev. 3, those 


resolutions may have been addressed in the subsequent revision. They 


don't want to duplicate their work. He will coordinate with Dr. Sam 


Glover, the NIOSH liaison for SRS, and determine whether SC&A needs to 


look at the new revision. 


42
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


* * *


 SEC Issues
 

Dr. James Melius, Chair, reported SC&A is actively working on a review 


of the issues related to the Nevada Test Site. A workgroup meeting is 


anticipated as soon as the report is delivered so they have something 


to work from. 


Dr. Makhijani commented the report could be sent by mid-month. Dr. 


Ziemer reminded the assembly that this workgroup had also been asked to 


include NUMEC issues, which SC&A may not have looked at. 


Dr. Melius indicated that if there is a report by mid-month, they hope 


to meet in November and would hope to have resolved something to 


present to the Board in January. 


* * *


 Procedures Review
 

Ms. Wanda Munn, Chair, reported the workgroup met in late August and 


they are working through a long list of outstanding individual findings 


on various procedures. The group met again just prior to this Board 


meeting for a full day and have moved a number of findings through 


resolution. 


She reported SC&A has been asked to take a look at reformatting the 


matrices, which have become very cumbersome and difficult to move from 


one to the other, with terminology becoming very confusing. A subgroup of the workgroup will meet by telephone in November to discuss 


whether anything has been developed to replace the current format. A 


telephone conference with the full workgroup is scheduled afterward, at 


which time some decision will be made with respect to the format. A 


face-to-face meeting in scheduled in December to undertake new items 


that have been added to what they hope will be a new format by that 


time. 


Discussion Points: 


#There is a recent report on the closeout interview process, but 

prioritization of that issue should be reconsidered; 

#The next step for Procedure 92, the issue being discussed, is for the 

agency to have an opportunity to review findings and respond to 


them; 


#Legality of Board re-interview of claimants; 

43
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#A legal opinion will be sought and a policy judgment will be presented 

in the December meeting. 

* * *
 

Use of Surrogate Data
 

Dr. James Melius, Chair, reported the workgroup had met quickly the 


previous day. There needs to be a bit of work done to clarify with 


SC&A exactly what will be done as their next step. They have 


inventoried procedures, evaluation of situations in which NIOSH is 


using surrogate data. There will be an effort to review that process 


in a generic way and move forward, deliberating as a workgroup. More 


discussion is needed with SC&A to develop the timing, et cetera. A 


meeting is anticipated before the January Board meeting. 


* * *


 Worker Outreach
 

Mr. Michael Gibson, Chair, reported the group has been working with Mr. 


Elliott's staff and, through ORAU, put together some training to bring 


workgroup members up to speed and give access to the WISPR database, 


which contains worker comments. The group has also been provided dates 


for various types of worker meetings. Workgroup members will try to 


attend an upcoming meeting to get a feel for the different types of 


meetings. They hope to then meet in late October or early November. 


* * *
 

Linde Ceramics Site Profile
 

Dr. Genevieve Roessler, Chair, reported their first meeting had been in 


March when they went over the SC&A matrix and made assignments to 


NIOSH. They had expected more urinalysis data pertinent to the site, 


and recently learned there is no more. Joe Guido at ORAU is working 


through the rest of the assignments and has a preliminary report, with 


a final to be available before November 15, when they will then be able 


to schedule another workgroup meeting. 


Dr. Roessler read into the record a letter from Mr. Chris Crawford
 

which cited some changes in designation of the site whereby part is a 


DOE site, with one building remaining an AWE site. She indicated she 


would coordinate with Mr. Griffon to schedule a workgroup meeting prior 


to the January subcommittee meeting. 


Discussion Points: 


44
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#Questions about why and how the decision was made about DOE versus AWE 

designations; 

#DOL Circular Number 07-07 published September 5th, available on the 

DOL web site, was cited as the reference to verify the text of the 


decision. 


Dr. Roessler commented the workgroup would try to report on that in the 


December conference call after some investigation into the issue. 


* * *
 

Los Alamos National Lab Site Profile and SEC Petition
 

Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair, reported that the workgroup has not met. They 


are waiting for an updated site profile from NIOSH. There is an 


outstanding SEC petition contingent on that modification. A meeting 


will be scheduled as soon as it makes sense to do so. 


* * * 


Workgroups relating to Rocky Flats, Hanford, Blockson Chemical, Fernald 


and Chapman Valve were not requested to report, their issues having 


already been discussed in earlier presentations. 


Dr. Wade commented that the workgroup on conflict of interest, chaired 


by Dr. James Lockey, is in an inactive status. Dr. Lockey had asked 


that Dr. Wade explain why, and place the responsibility where it 


exists. Dr. Wade reported the Secretary's position is that the Board 


has not been charged with looking at conflict of interest issues. An 


attempt to modify the charter has been rejected at this point because 


the enabling legislation did not call for conflict of interest. The 


issue continues to be raised. Dr. Wade suggested the workgroup be held 


inactive for a while longer in hopes that perhaps the logjam can soon 


be broken. He emphasized it is no reflection on the workgroup or the 


chair. 


* * * * *
 

Dr. Wade noted to the Board that SC&A has been funded now for the next 


fiscal year and they have to be given work. DRs will begin to flow and 


the procedures workgroup is beginning to think about procedures to be 


reviewed within the next year. He commented he would like to make that 


an agenda item for the December meeting. 


45
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


He suggested the Board also begin to think about additional site 


profiles, either new or reissued, for review. Dr. Wade remarked on an 


action he intended to take relative to the Hanford review. With the 


second part of the Hanford petition now under Board consideration, it 


would be viewed as a new SEC review for this year, so SC&A would work 


and bill that accordingly. 


Discussion Points: 


#A suggestion that TIB-6000 and TIB-6001 might have a separate 

workgroup and task assigned since they are such huge efforts, 

being basically mini-site profiles used for AWE sites; 

#Reviews were tasked under last year's funding, but the workgroup 

question remains; 

#Another issue worthy of discussion in December is the possibility of 

grouping AWEs under uranium and thorium. 

* * * * *
 

BOARD WORKING TIME 


Tracking of Board Actions
 

It was reported that prototype tracking matrices have been developed to 


keep track of site profiles and SEC petition, and that the transcripts, 


et cetera, would be tracked separately. The matrices will have two 


parts. One will cover status, then results of the Privacy Act portion. 


Effort is being made to capture all petitions on which the Board has 


taken action. Dr. Wade inquired whether this is useful and whether 


there are other elements the Board would like to see tracked. 


Discussion Points: 


#At what point will something appear on the list; 

#If petitions that have been qualified are included, the Board could 

anticipate work that will be coming to them; 

#Perhaps at each meeting the Board could be presented with the latest 

version of the matrix; 

#A column could be added to show the date the SC&A reports were posted; 

#It would be helpful to see the date of a report versus the date it's 

available on the web site; 

#It would be helpful to know the small technical documents that may be 

discussed in workgroup meetings, which are hard for petitioners to 

keep track of and understand what's happening if they miss a 

meeting; 

46
 
Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#Discussion has centered around the SEC sheet, but the site profile 

sheet begins to make the point about technical documents; 

#Perhaps an additional matrix could be utilized and, when a workgroup 

chair identifies a document, it can be added to the matrix for 


tracking; 


#The new matrix SC&A will propose to the procedures review workgroup 

may address some of these issues; 

#A suggestion that Dr. John Mauro of SC&A make workgroup chairs aware 

of the form that matrix will take. 


Dr. Ziemer summarized that what is being proposed is that they will try 


the tracking. As the Board gets experience, the matrix may be 


modified. If another matrix needs to be added for special documents, 


that can be done at some point. 


* * *
 

Dr. Ziemer observed that tracking of transcripts and tracking of Board 


actions has already been discussed. 


* * * * *
 

FUTURE PLANS AND MEETINGS
 

Dr. Wade reminded the Board they had been provided a listing of 


proposed Board meeting dates up to February 2009 and needed feedback on 


any modification requirements. He was proposing the meeting scheduled 


for September 2, 3 and 4 of 2008 be changed to September 9, 10 and 11. 


Taking the schedule in order, April 8, 9 and 10 of 2008 was discussed 


and ultimately changed to April 7, 8 and 9, possibly in Amarillo, 


Texas. 


September 2, 3 and 4, 2008 was changed to September 9, 10 and 11. 


Reviewing the balance of the 2007 schedule, the December 6 


teleconference was discussed and ultimately changed to November 27, 


with the understanding that Dr. Lockey would not be available. 


The dates of February 17, 18 and 19, 2009 were to be held open pending 


a report from Dr. Melius on his schedule. 


* * * * *
 

With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was 


adjourned at 12:35 p.m. 


47
 
 

_______________________________________ 

_______________________________________ 

Summary Minutes October 3-5, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


End of Summary Minutes 


Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë 

I hereby confirm these Summary Minutes are 


accurate, to the best of my knowledge. 


Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D., Chair 


Date 


48