Summary Minutes July 17, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Review
 

THE SUBCOMMITTEE FOR DOSE RECONSTRUCTION REVIEW


 OF 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 Fifth Meeting 


July 17, 2007


 _______________________________________________________ 


The Fifth Meeting of the Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Review 


(the subcommittee) of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


(ABRWH or the Board) was held at the Red Lion Richland Hanford House in 


Richland, Washington on July 17, 2007. The meeting was called to order 


by Mr. Mark Griffon, the Chairman of the Subcommittee, for the Centers 


for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) National Institute for 


Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH), the agency charted 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: 


Subcommittee Members: 


Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair; Mr. Michael Gibson; Dr. John Poston; Mr. 


Robert Presley (Alternate); Ms. Wanda Munn. 


Designated Federal Official: Ms. Chia-Chia Chang (for Dr. Lewis Wade, 


Executive Secretary). 


Federal Agency Attendees: 


Department of Health and Human Services: 


Mr. Larry Elliott, Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld (NIOSH). 


Contractors: 


Ms. Kathy Behling (telephonically); Dr. John Mauro, Sanford Cohen & 


Associates. 


Other Participants: 


Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chairman of ABRWH. 

Summary Minutes July 17, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Review


* * * * *


 Opening Remarks
 

Mr. Griffon called the meeting to order, announcing the members present 


and noting Ms. Chia-Chia Chang, from the Office of NIOSH Director Dr. 


John Howard, was serving as DFO in that Dr. Lewis Wade would not be 


arriving until later in the day. 


Mr. Griffon indicated the two main items on the agenda he wanted to 


address were the blind reviews and the question of advanced versus 


basic review. There will also be an update of the cases that have been 


under individual case reviews, as well as a look at future work. 


* * * * *


 Blind Reviews
 

Mr. Griffon recapped the previous discussions of how the cases for 


blind review might be selected, how the reviews might be handled, and 


noted that it might be useful for the subcommittee to decide on an 


approach and put it into practice, even if it turns out to be a 


preliminary matter. 


He reminded the subcommittee they had previously discussed two approach 


options. One is for SC&A to be given all the raw data a NIOSH dose 


reconstructor would receive and to reconstruct the dose using the NIOSH 


procedures or tools. The other option would be to give the raw data to 


SC&A, but ask them to do the dose reconstruction using their own best 


health physics in-house approach without utilizing NIOSH spreadsheets, 


tools, statistical models, et cetera. 


Mr. Griffon suggested it might be useful to do a couple of blind 


reviews and ask SC&A to do them both ways, each being blind to the 


other, and then report back to the Board to see if that answers some of 


the questions the Board is looking at, such as scientific validity, et 


cetera. Mr. Griffon proposed going forward with one individual blind 


case and assign SC&A to do options one and two and report back. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#Would a single SC&A individual employ both dose reconstruction 

methods, or would each method have its own reconstructor; 

#Cost should also be considered; 

#An issue of concern is use of techniques applied in that standard DR 

2
 
Summary Minutes July 17, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Review


routines used for the purposes of this program may be different 


from what might be considered best practices in other venues; 


#It would be interesting to see if there were differences in the end 

result using two different methods of approach, but the question 

would arise whether two individuals would accomplish the same 

thing; 

#Whether NIOSH does blind reviews as a part of their internal quality 

control system; 

#It would have to be clear with SC&A that the best health physics 

approaches would be consistent with EEOICPA and the regulations 

under which they're operating; 

#It only makes sense to do a blind review with a best estimate case; 

#While the NIOSH dose reconstruction procedure makes allowance for them 

to do blind reviews, none have been done to this point; 

#All dose reconstructions are reviewed by someone with more senior 

qualifications than the basic dose reconstructor qualifications, 

but that may be different than actually reworking the entire DR 

from scratch; 

#Steps taken are verified; 

#The NIOSH understanding of a blind review would be to have two dose 

reconstructors do the same case without any communication between 


each other, and see if they arrive at the same bottom line number, 


within some region of uncertainty; 


#The SC&A proposal for the next fiscal year relative to the scope of 

work for dose reconstruction reviews includes blind DRs and 

describes in some detail how they would go about doing those, 

including the cost, and is exactly the way being discussed; 

#The two approaches would not be used by the same dose reconstructors. 

* * * 


Mr. Griffon summarized a motion to be brought back to the full Board 


might be that the Board task SC&A to conduct two blind reviews, each 


being done using two different approaches. In one the dose 


reconstructor would use available NIOSH tools and in the other a dose 


reconstruction would be done using a "common sense" approach, without 


use of NIOSH tools but in accordance with the letter and intent of the 


statutory regulations. 


Discussion Points: 


#Clarification that the two would be an initial step to see how 

productive this exercise will be; 

#Whether this will be done in the current or upcoming fiscal year's 

3
 
Summary Minutes July 17, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Review


work; 

#Funds are available for the current fiscal year and the work does not 

have to be completed before its end, but cannot be commenced until 


the beginning of the new fiscal year if designated in that manner. 


A motion was duly made and seconded to task SC&A with the 


completion of two blind reviews, each using the two defined 


approaches, with work to be commenced within the current 


fiscal year.
 

The motion carried unanimously.
 

* * *
 

SC&A raised the question of whether they would accept the information 


provided by NIOSH or whether they would be expected to go back to DOE 


and perhaps delve more deeply into the information. 


NIOSH clarified that the information provided will go beyond the DOE 


data. It will include a case file with all the information assembled 


and developed, the CATI report and any communications with the 


claimant, et cetera. In the event SC&A at some point feels it has to 


approach DOE, that must be done through NIOSH. 


Mr. Griffon confirmed that his intention is that SC&A will get all the 


information the dose reconstructor assigned to a case at NIOSH would 


get, which would include interview materials and communications, as 


well as the DOE raw data. As to the issue of SC&A approaching DOE, Mr. 


Griffon explained that extends into the upcoming discussion of the 


advanced versus basic review. 


* * * * *
 

Basic versus Advanced Reviews
 

Mr. Griffon provided the subcommittee members with copies of the 


original parameters for basic and advanced reviews, developed some time 


earlier. He noted that the first two and a half pages of the document 


are the original scope. Mr. Griffon went on to explain that midway of 


the third page is a section he had added, entitled "Scope which needs 


to be covered in future Advanced Reviews," in which he had included 


some of his thoughts on scope items which have not been done in past 


reviews. Items B and C, which are repeated on page 4, simply 


highlighted what Mr. Griffon felt were important points in those 


sections, effectiveness of the phone interview and effort to research 


co-located workers and other historical records to characterize the 


4
 
Summary Minutes July 17, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Review


individual's work history. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#The highlighted item regarding effectiveness of the phone interview 

has been examined by a working group and the subcommittee may want 

to look back at that review to avoid duplication of efforts; 

#A number of things were changed as a result of that earlier working 

group review, but one outstanding item that was not resolved is in 

the next category; 

#There has not been much effort to research co-located workers and 

historical records to characterize the individual's work history; 

#SC&A had recommended that those efforts should be done to make sure 

there is a more even playing field between survivor claimants and 

living employee claimants, and that issue has not been addressed 

specifically in any dose reconstruction reviews; 

#That effort is made by NIOSH if it is felt by the dose reconstructor 

that it will add to a better understanding in reconstructing the 

dose; 

#In those few situations where that step has been taken, NIOSH has 

found it adds little or nothing to the dose estimate. 

* * *
 

It was agreed the members of the subcommittee will review the points 


made in Mr. Griffon's handout and submit proposed language for a formal 


motion to the Board, perhaps at the next Board meeting. 


* * * * *
 

Status of Case Review Sets Underway
 

As a status report Mr. Griffon announced the fourth set of cases was 


involved in the comment resolution process. Some issues had required 


that NIOSH provide some specific analyses back to SC&A, maybe a handful 


of cases, so there is ongoing reassessment there. 


The fifth set went through the resolution process. There were some 


issues that SC&A or NIOSH had to further investigate, though they're 


close to closing out the matrix for that set. The fourth set had more 


robust cases and might take a little longer to reassess. 


The sixth set has a completed SC&A matrix and is in the early stages of 


5
 
 

Summary Minutes July 17, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Review


the process. Mr. Griffon acknowledged he might be the delay in that 


case, but that matrix will go to NIOSH next and NIOSH will give their 


response to SC&A findings and bring back to the subcommittee process. 


On the seventh set SC&A is finishing their review and within perhaps 


three weeks expect to be doing the team phone call meetings, and should 


expect to hear from SC&A about setting up those conference calls. 


The Board just recently selected the cases on the eighth set and NIOSH 


has to get that information to SC&A, so their work has not started yet. 


The cases have been selected and the process is underway. 


Dr. Paul Ziemer, Chairman of the Advisory Board, joined the discussion 


to note that the Advisory Board has officially reported to the 


Secretary on the first three sets of individual case reviews, so in 


that sense they are closed. However, the Board is cognizant of some 


items which need to have continued tracking in the future. 


Dr. Ziemer suggested it would be important to try to close sets four 


and five, if possible, in this fiscal year and get those reports to the 


Secretary. 


Drawing attention to the fact that they are now working strictly on 


two-person teams and that the sets are larger, Dr. Ziemer observed 


individual teams now have a slightly larger workload. He announced he 


had made the team assignments for the eighth set and would have that 


information available during the full Board meeting. 


Mr. Griffon indicated that he was going to make every effort to have a 


working subcommittee meeting to go through the matrices prior to the 


October Board meeting in order to finalize some of the outstanding 


issues. 


Dr. Ziemer also suggested the subcommittee might consider that once the 


fifth set of cases is completed the Board will have reviewed 100 cases. 


It might be useful for the subcommittee to look at a rollup of those 


as an opportunity to develop an overall picture of what key findings 


are. 


* * * * *
 

With no further business to come before the subcommittee, an 


adjournment was taken at 10:55 a.m. 


Ë Ë Ë Ë Ë 

6
 
___________________________________________ 

Summary Minutes July 17, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 


Subcommittee for Dose Reconstruction Review


I hereby confirm that these Summary Minutes 


are accurate, to the best of my knowledge. 


Mr. Mark Griffon, Subcommittee Chairman 


7