Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health

Pacific Proving Grounds Work Group

Friday, August 10, 2018

The Work Group convened via teleconference at 2:30 

p.m. Eastern Time, James E. Lockey, Chair,

presiding.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
2 

Members Present: 

James E. Lockey, Chair

Henry A. Anderson, Member

R. William Field, Member

Loretta R. Valerio, Member 

Also Present: 

Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official

Nancy Adams, NIOSH Contractor

Bob Barton, SC&A

Kathy Behling, SC&A

Jenny Lin Naylor, HHS

Jim Neton, DCAS

Gene Rollins, DCAS

Mark Rolfes, DCAS

John Stiver, SC&A
3 

Contents

Centers for Disease Control National Institute for 

Occupational Safety and Health Advisory Board on 

Radiation and Worker Health Pacific Proving 

Grounds Work Group Friday, August 10, 2018 1

Roll Call/Welcome 4

Updated Site Profile for PPG - Addressing 

ABRWH Co-Worker Dose Reconstruction Issue 

(See July 2018 NIOSH Revised Site Profile 

Document) 5

Adjourn 13
4

Proceedings

(2:29 p.m.)

Roll Call/Welcome

Mr. Katz: Let's get started. This is the Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health. It's the 

Pacific Proving Grounds Work Group and we're 

finishing up on -- the Work Group has done most of 

the Site Profile review for the Pacific Proving 

Grounds. There's an issue that came up in a Board 

meeting last December which needed some followup, and that's what we're hearing about today. 

And the material for that is a revised Site Profile 

document that will require a lot of explanation for 

people to understand what's been changed, but that 

will come in the meeting. And that's really all there 

is on the agenda, which is -- both the document and 

the agenda are posted on the NIOSH web site. 

They're under this program's scheduled meeting, 

today's date, so if you want to find the principle 

document that's being discussed today, it's there as 

well as -- again the agenda is very simple. 

And I would just ask everyone on the line when 

you're not addressing the group to please keep your 

phones muted so that it's easier for everyone to 

understand everyone. And you press *6 to mute 

your phone and *6 to take your phone off of mute. 

So try to keep your phones on mute except for when 

you're talking.

We're talking about a specific site, so let's address 

conflict of interest while we're at it. For the Work 

Group members, Work Group members don't have 

conflicts for Work Groups that they sit on and they 

don't for this group. But we have Jim Lockey as the 

Chair and then we have Henry Anderson, Bill Field 

and Loretta Valerio as members, a couple of doctors 

in that.

So let's go onto roll call for the NIOSH ORAU Team.
5

(Roll call.)

Mr. Katz: Okay, then. I think that takes care of all 

the administrative matters.

And, Jim Lockey, it's your meeting.

Chair Lockey: Well, welcome, everybody. I don't 

think this meeting should last too long. Just to bring 

everybody up to date, Pacific Proving Grounds has 

been granted an SEC, so really we're looking at the 

Site Profile in relationship to non-SEC cancers. In the 

past one of the issues was 24-hour exposure. So the 

250-working-day limit as opposed to the 24-hour 

issue. It's been cut back to 83 24-hour period of 

time. So that was resolved.

This last issue was defined by Jim Neton really in his 

email, and that is in relationship to an issue that was 

raised by Dr. Melius at one of our past Board 

meetings in regard to how we reconstruct coworker 

exposure. And I think the Site Profile was updated 

after the review of the 57,000 individual badges to 

come up with a better coworker empirical 95 percent 

confidence interval.

So I think that's the gist of the matter here, and Stu 

is going to review the most recent changes to the Site 

Profile. 

Dr. Neton: Yes, this is Jim. I can go over that, if 

you'd like. 

Chair Lockey: Okay. Thanks.

Updated Site Profile for PPG - Addressing ABRWH 

Co-Worker Dose Reconstruction Issue

Dr. Neton: I've got a couple of experts on the phone 

that can correct me if I'm wrong or have any difficult 

questions.

What happened here was that the original Site 

Profile; that would have been Rev 1, or the earlier 

Site Profile, Revision 1, did not have a true coworker 

model in the sense that it didn't have individual 
6 

badge readings, but it relied on sort of categorical bin 

data where we had four or five bins of exposures 

listed, like 0 to 100 millirem, 100 to 500 millirem, 

that sort of thing. 

So we really didn't have individual badge results. 

And because of that SC&A had some findings related 

to that and they pointed to the fact that this did not 

really include missed dose. There were other issues 

related to cohort badging and those sort of things. 

And that was reflected in Findings 3, 4, 8 and 9, 

which were originally closed by the Work Group. 

But as Dr. Lockey pointed out, Dr. Melius noticed that 

this one statement in the resolution of the findings 

said that given the intractable nature of said 

limitations we believe that the use of the 95th 

percentile is okay. And in his comment, which was 

correct, was what was intractable and what do you 

mean you can do it?

And so I took the task to go back and look at what 

we had, and at the end of the day I made the decision 

with Tim Taulbee's input that we actually go back and 

collect all of the badge data that was in DOE's 

possession at -- in Nevada, at the Nevada Test Site, 

code them and develop a coworker model based on 

the sum of all the badge results which would include 

missed dose, and it takes away the cohort badging 

issue, and it was just a much cleaner solution.

As Dr. Lockey pointed out, that involved coding about 

57,000 badges results. We've done that. We now 

have a coworker model for each individual test shot 

or operation as they might call it that covers the time 

frame from 1946 to '62. And we believe that this has 

addressed the issues that were raised by Dr. Melius 

at that Board meeting. That's pretty much it in a 

nutshell. We can answer any questions that anyone 

might have.

Chair Lockey: Jim, this is Dr. Lockey. Going through 

57,000 film badges is -- I don't know if you have any 

other databases that are as exacting as this database 

may be for non-SEC cancers. That's pretty amazing.
7

Dr. Neton: Yes. Well, it turns out every time we 

would request badge results from the claimants, then 

they would send us a summary sheet that was able -

- it would point where they were in the summary 

sheet. And we decided, well, instead of going to 

them, going to the well every time, just bring the well 

to us. And that's what we've done.

Chair Lockey: Well, that was the main issue and it's 

my understanding when I read through the Site 

Profile and the changes that have been signed off on 

-- I think that this issue has been adequately 

addressed. I'd like to hear what other Board 

Members think.

Henry?

Member Anderson: Sorry. That's fine.

Chair Lockey: I didn't hear what you said, Henry.

Member Anderson: Oh, I don't have any specific 

issues on this.

Chair Lockey: Okay. Loretta?

Member Valerio: Can you hear me okay?

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Member Valerio: I didn't have any questions. No, I 

don't have any questions.

Chair Lockey: Okay. And, Bill, you still there?

Member Field: Yes, I think it sounds good. My first 

question was just a representative of the database, 

but my goodness, it looks like quite the database. I 

think it's a good strategy to deal with the issue.

Chair Lockey: Good. Okay. So what I hear is from 

the Board members that we can accept the revised 

Site Profile as signed off on, and I think everybody 

concurs with that.

Mr. Katz: Yes. So, Jim and I previewed this issue 
8 

with Dr. Lockey, but not with the rest of you Board 

members. You haven't been involved with the Work 

Group meetings this week, all of you. But we had an 

INL Work Group meeting earlier this week. That INL 

Work Group meeting is going to result in discussion 

at the Board meeting, but not actioning it. Give us 

more time so we have some time we can peel away 

from that session to create just a very brief session. 

I think that's all we'll need, but we'll give you half an 

hour just in case there's a lot of Board questions 

about this. But -- and this can get presented at the 

upcoming Board meeting. 

It's not on the agenda right now, but I'll put it on a 

new agenda, public agenda and send a proposed one 

so that the public will be aware that this would be on 

there. I think that's okay with Dr. Lockey and 

presumably with the rest of you on the Work Group. 

And we can get this behind us. So sounds good.

Chair Lockey: I'm good with that, Ted. We can sign 

off on this and close this out then.

Mr. Katz: So I think, I mean, if you want to just --

sort of similar to this, but maybe with a little more 

words just because this Work Group's more familiar 

with it than the whole Board. If you could just 

introduce Jim, I think Jim can very informally update 

the rest of the Board and -- for the session and you 

don't need actually a PowerPoint presentation unless 

Jim actually wants to do that, but -- and that --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Chair Lockey: I'm fine with that.

Jim, are you okay with making a brief presentation?

Dr. Neton: Sure. Yes, absolutely.

Chair Lockey: I appreciate that. The Board does, 

too.

Dr. Neton: I might not do a PowerPoint because it's 

a pretty simple issue 
9

and --

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Dr. Neton: -- I think I can convey the message to 

the Board without any fancy slides.

Chair Lockey: Perfect.

Member Anderson: What you might do is just put up 

a quick timeline, so one-page PowerPoint as to how -

-

Dr. Neton: Yes, I could maybe -- a brief summary of 

where we -- what occurred and --

Member Anderson: I just remember going through 

the INL stuff yesterday. A lot of the -- while it's a 

simple issue, it is helpful just to remind people where 

we are in this process, and it doesn't need to be 

much.

Dr. Neton: Okay. I can do that.

Mr. Barton: If I may, could I -- I don't know if I'm 

out of line here. This is Bob Barton. Could I ask you 

a question about the revision, if it's all right?

Chair Lockey: Sure.

Mr. Barton: One thing I did notice, Jim, that with the 

new coworker model one of the modifications since 

we had that coworker model now was the ability to 

prorate the assigned coworker doses, or the 95th 

percentile as it were, based on time spent during the 

actual operation in that. You didn't have to actually 

apply the entire operation if the person was not 

actually there for the entire operation, which makes 

perfect sense.

I guess my question was how that process would 

actually work in being able to identify when a person 

was only there for a partial operation versus a full 

operation, because I know we've come across in the 

past -- especially at PPG it can be especially difficult 

to even establish employment periods. So I would 
10

be remiss if I didn't mention it. 

Just seeing that there I was wondering how that 

would work. Would it be based solely on the DOLcovered employment or would that be -- would the 

dose reconstructor do additional research to 

determine that credible evidence exists that they 

were only there for a partial operation? Because that 

is something that popped out at least for me as being 

different in the TBD revision. 

Dr. Neton: Yes, I'd probably have to rely on Gene 

Rollins to maybe help address that issue, but I don't 

know that we would do anything other than rely on 

the DOL's employment at the Pacific Proving 

Grounds.

Mr. Rollins: This is Gene Rollins. The records are 

fairly concise about when people came and left the 

proving ground. That part has not been difficult to 

determine. And most of the time it does match up 

pretty well with the DOL records. 

Mr. Barton: Okay. I just -- I know in the past SC&A 

has actually -- and, Ted, you may even remember 

this. It was way back in 2015. We had taken a look 

at where we had noticed that for some covered 

employment periods it would be based -- it would 

only be a day or two employment based on the issue 

date of a single badge or something like that, and we 

had expressed concern. Now of course, I mean, this 

is no knock on anybody. Just trying to establish 

employment out there is a very, very difficult task. 

So I don't know if NIOSH has seen that memo, but I 

would caution -- and maybe this has changed in the 

interim three or four years and it's not an issue 

anymore to be able to identify the actual dates while 

they were out there, but I know at least as far back 

as 2015 we had example cases where the Energy 

employees were only being credited with a single day 

of employment, which is unlikely considering where 

the PPG is and how far away it is and the logistics to 

get people out there and such.
11

Mr. Stiver: Yes, Bob, if I could jump in for a second. 

We saw this a lot when I was working on the NTPR 

program for SAIC, especially in the early operations 

where they just had -- didn't have complete badges. 

They were just mission badges. And so unless you 

had the ship deck logs from the ships that were 

bringing the people in -- you'd really nail it down to 

an exact time frame. But, and if you just rely on the 

issue date of the badge and it didn't necessarily have 

-- a single-day badge didn't have a turn-in date. 

Then we wound up with that situation you're 

describing that we put into the memo.

So a question I had, too, is whether that has been 

addressed and just how that's being done. I guess 

that may be more of a question for Labor than for 

you guys. 

Chair Lockey: Yes, it would I think it would be a 

Department of Labor issue. I don't know if we can 

resolve that.

Dr. Neton: Yes, covered employment is really not 

our bailiwick here. 

Mr. Stiver: Yes, I'd just never seen that that had 

been addressed and I was kind of curious as to how 

it was dispositioned.

Mr. Katz: Well, so this is Ted. I just wonder if it 

wouldn't be appropriate to get in sort of concert with 

putting this Site Profile to work if sending Labor a 

note about this specifically since it has the potential 

to have some impact on people's dose 

reconstructions. They may have been notified about 

this previously; I kind of doubt it though, through the 

deliberations. I kind of doubt it. 

So, Jim, does that seem like a reasonable thing to do, 

but to -- at least you could -- we could forward the 

previous SC&A memo and Labor would be aware that 

this isn't an issue for some cases?

Chair Lockey: I think that's very appropriate --
12

Dr. Neton: Yes, I don't know.

Chair Lockey: -- just having dealt with the 83-day 

versus 250-day also.

Mr. Katz: Yes, Jim Neton, I guess what do you think? 

Is that --

Dr. Neton: Yes, I don't know. I'm not as familiar 

with PPG as -- and I probably should be. I don't recall 

this exact issue and I don't recall a memo. So I'd 

have to do some research to find out what transpired 

in that, but I really still don't think it's -- it's probably 

good to notify them that we had a concern in the 

past, or still have, but, yes, again, I don't know that 

it's our -- under our control to establish covered 

employment at PPG.

Mr. Katz: I'm not suggesting that. I'm just 

suggesting that, like I said, that we'd notify them and 

share the memo with them so they're aware that 

there was a concern about this from our contractor 

to the Board.

Dr. Neton: Yes. No, that could be done.

Mr. Katz: Yes, I just think that it would be the 

responsible thing to do and then it's -- again, it is up 

to Labor to deal with these kind of matters.

Mr. Stiver: Okay. Well, we still have that memo. I 

can go ahead and just email --

Mr. Katz: Yes, if you'll -- John, if you'll send it to me. 

I mean, let's --

Mr. Stiver: Yes.

Mr. Katz: I'll wait until after the Board meeting, but 

-- and I'm happy to send that to Labor with a note 

either way, or NIOSH, either way.

Mr. Stiver: Okay. Sounds good.

Mr. Katz: And thank you for raising that.
13

Adjourn

Chair Lockey: Any other issues anybody has?

(No audible response.)

Chair Lockey: Ted, then I think we're done.

Mr. Katz: That was very efficient. Thank you, 

everyone. Have a good day and a good weekend, 

everybody.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 2:48 p.m.)