Summary Minutes February 7-9, 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 Forty-fourth Meeting 


February 7-9, 2007 
 _______________________________________________________ 


The Forty-fourth Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 


Health (ABRWH or the Board) was held February 7 through 9, 2007 at the 


Cincinnati Marriott Northeast in Mason, Ohio. The meeting was called 


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


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


chartered 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 (telephonically); 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: 


Mr. Larry Elliott, Ms. Chris Ellison, Mr. Stuart Hinnefeld, Dr. James 


Neton, Mr. Mark Rolfes, Mr. LaVon Rutherford, Dr. Brant Ulsh (NIOSH); 


Ms. Emily Howell, Ms. Liz Homoki-Titus (Office of General Counsel); Ms. 


Chia-Chia Chang (Office of the Director of NIOSH); Mr. Jason Broehm 


(CDC Washington). 


Department of Labor: Mr. Jeff Kotsch. 


Department of Energy: Mr. Glenn Podonsky, Ms. Libby White. 


Contractors: 


Ms. Kate Kimpan, Oak Ridge Associated Universities. 


Dr. Hans Behling, Ms. Kathy Behling (telephonically); Dr. Arjun 


Makhijani and Dr. John Mauro, Sanford Cohen & Associates. 

Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Congressional Staff Members: 


Ms. Bethany Bassett (Senator Edward Kennedy) via phone; Ms. Deb Detmers 


(Congressman John Shimkus); Ms. Erin Minks (Senator Ken Salazar) via 


phone; Mr. Robert Stephan (Senator Barack Obama) via phone; and Ms. 


Portia Wu (Senator Edward Kennedy) via phone. 


Other Participants:
 

See Registration 


* * * * *
 

Wednesday, February 7, 2007
 

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


opening remarks included a welcome to new Board members. Ms. Josie 


Beach was introduced as a nuclear chemical operator and lead hazardous 


waste trainer with more than 20 years experience at the Hanford 


facility. Mr. Phillip Schofield joined the Board from Los Alamos 


National Laboratory, where his 21 years experience included handling of 


plutonium and americium. 


Dr. Lewis Wade, Designated Federal Official, joined in welcoming the 


new members, and thanked the entire Board for their service. 


* * * * *
 

NIOSH PROGRAM UPDATE
 

Mr. Larry Elliott, 


NIOSH/OCAS
 

Mr. Elliott first announced the addition of two new positions on the 


NIOSH team. Ms. Laurie Ishak-Breyer will move into the new position of 


SEC counselor. Her duties will involve assisting individuals who would 


like to submit an SEC petition, working to ensure their understanding 


of the petition process, and the development and submission of their 


petition. 


Working with Ms. Ishak-Breyer is new member Ms. Denise Brock, who will 


serve as ombudsman for Subtitle B dose reconstruction and SEC petition 


processing. Ms. Brock's duties will include providing advice to SEC 


petitioners in compiling materials and documentation required for 


filing their petition, assisting with their presentations to the Board, 


2
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


and assisting Subtitle B claimants with the dose reconstruction 


process. 


While no dates have yet been set, meetings are being planned to inform 


the public about the SEC petition process. Mr. Elliott urged anyone 


desiring a meeting in a given area to contact Ms. Brock or Ms. Ishak-


Breyer for assistance in the organization of such. 


In his update Mr. Elliott announced the Department of Labor has 


referred 23,085 cases to NIOSH for dose reconstruction. In summary, 81 


percent of those cases (18,659) have been returned to DOL; 16,664 with 


a DR report, 1,343 pulled by DOL for SEC evaluation, and 652 pulled by 


DOL for other reasons. Remaining at NIOSH for dose reconstruction are 


4,213 cases, 18 percent of the total. The final one percent (213) of 


the cases have been administratively closed. 


Mr. Elliott explained that the 16,664 cases returned to DOL for a final 


adjudication reflected 4,594 (28 percent) with a POC of greater than 50 


percent and 12,070 (72 percent) with a POC of less than 50 percent. 


Mr. Elliott discussed the dose estimate types under which the cases 


have been completed, providing numbers of each of the various types 


(overestimates, underestimates and full reconstructions). 


The 4,213 cases remaining at NIOSH for dose reconstruction were broken 


down as follows: 1,023 cases have been assigned to a health physicist 


for dose reconstruction; 878 draft DR reports are in the hands of 


claimants and NIOSH is awaiting the return of their executed OCAS-1 


forms; 2,312 cases are in the development stage or awaiting assignment. 


Mr. Elliott added that 1,896 cases are more than one year old. 


Reporting on NIOSH's efforts to complete the first 5,000 claims, Mr. 


Elliott indicated 4,315 have been sent to DOL for adjudication, and 


only 81 remain awaiting dose reconstruction. The other 604 cases 


include administratively closed, SEC evaluations, cases pending return 


of OCAS-1 forms, et cetera. 


Mr. Elliott used various graphs to illustrate cases completed by NIOSH 


tracking number, submittals versus production, total administratively 


closed records, receipt and completion of cases returned by DOL for 


reworks. Mr. Elliott reiterated that most reworks are the result of 


changes reported by claimants rather than technical errors. 


There are currently 322 outstanding requests to DOE for exposure 


records, only 70 of which are more than 60 days old. NIOSH has also 


requested large site-specific data sets from DOE to be used in 


developing coworker models to fill information gaps across sites. Six 


sites were listed. 


3
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


There are currently 1,342 claims at DOL for class member status 


determination and claim adjudication as a result of recent additions of 


SEC classes. 


Reporting on technical document development activities, Mr. Elliott
 

announced there are currently 150 Technical Basis Documents and 60 


Technical Information Bulletins in use. ORAU is in various stages of 


development of 12 additional TBDs. 


Battelle's technical support and dose reconstruction activities have 


resulted in two approved TBDs. Of the 1,400 claims assigned for their 


dose reconstruction, 221 have been submitted for technical review and 


312 DR reports have been provided to claimants. Mr. Elliott explained 


the SEC rule provides that when it has been deemed a dose 


reconstruction from a particular site cannot be done, it is identified 


as a potential Section 83.14 candidate. Battelle has tentatively 


identified 12 such sites. 


Mr. Elliott noted that in recent meetings he had updated the Board on 


construction worker dose reconstructions. NIOSH has dealt with 4,604 


claims with construction trades job titles in their work histories. 


DOL had been forwarded 3,881 claims with completed DRs, 26 percent of 


which were compensable. NIOSH is working on the dose reconstructions 


of the remaining 723 cases. Unless instructed to the contrary, Mr. 


Elliott indicated he planned to drop this from his future briefings. 


The 80 cases the Board has audited to date included seven with 


construction trades job titles. The 40 cases currently under Board 


review includes 16 for construction trades workers. 


Mr. Elliott explained that when NIOSH makes a change in a technical 


approach to dose reconstruction or in risk models for IREP, they 


prepare Program Evaluation Reports, or PERs. Seven such reports have 


been prepared to date on various specific issues. Occasionally it is 


necessary to develop a Program Evaluation Plan, or PEP, in order to 


describe the affected claimant population and technical approach to 


evaluation of their cases prior to completion of a Program Evaluation 


Report. To date, two PEPs have been completed. Mr. Elliott noted all 


PERs will not require a PEP, but additional PERs/PEPs will be developed 


in the future as needed. 


NIOSH communication initiatives included the revised initial 


communication between the claimant and NIOSH, the "Claim for Dose 


Reconstruction Acknowledgement Packet", which began distribution in 


January, 2007. Several Board comments have been received on the "Draft 


Dose Reconstruction Report" language and are being worked into the 


4
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


current draft. The dose reconstruction information video has been 


completed and will be distributed at public meetings, DOL resource 


centers, and upon request. 


Other NIOSH accomplishments in 2006 included progress on completion of 


the first 5,000 claims; completion of a record 5,784 initial draft DRs 


to claimants; 82 percent of DRs completed within 60 days of assignment 


to a reconstructor; 75 percent of reworks completed and returned to DOL 


within 60 days of their receipt; eight new classes from eight sites 


added to the Special Exposure Cohort. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#Future case load projections; 


#How that may be affected by DOL Town Hall meetings; 


#Availability of a listing for PERs in development; 


#Bases for DOL returning cases to NIOSH for rework; 


#How returned cases are handled; 


#Presentations on projections for SEC petitions and site profiles might 


assist the Board in envisioning its future work. 


* * * * *
 

DOL PROGRAM UPDATE
 

Mr. Jeffrey Kotsch, 


Department of Labor
 

Mr. Kotsch reiterated the two parts of the program under DOL 


administration, Part B including cancer, beryllium disease, silicosis, 


and the Department of Justice RECA program; Part E primarily addresses 


exposure to toxic materials and was originally under the Department of 


Energy. Mr. Kotsch provided statistics on cases and claims under both 


Parts B and E. 


Mr. Kotsch reported that as of January 24, 2007 DOL has disbursed a 


total of $2.4 billion in compensation under the two parts. Under Part 


B $1.3 billion has been paid for cancer claims and $216 million for 


RECA. Part E payments total $556 million. Medical payments under both 


parts totals $128 million. Individual payees under Part B totals 


22,417, and 4,596 under Part E. 


Explaining there is always some variance between NIOSH and DOL numbers, 


Mr. Kotsch presented graphics illustrating final decisions, recommended 


5
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


decisions, cases awaiting dose reconstruction and those pending DOL 


initial action. Mr. Kotsch also demonstrated the reasons for claim 


denials and the numbers comprising each category. Other slides 


described NIOSH referral case status, dose reconstruction case status 


and results of dose reconstruction cases. 


Addressing SEC-related cases, Mr. Kotsch provided statistics on cases 


withdrawn for SEC review, final decision approvals and denials, 

recommendations and pending cases. 

Mr. Kotsch reported NIOSH case-related compensation totaled $667 

million, which included $572 million on DR cases and $95 million on 


added SEC cases. 


Discussing the reasons for returning cases to NIOSH, Mr. Kotsch
 

explained a number of reasons may be involved. He listed medical and 


employment factors as major reasons, and broke out the individual 


factors most prevalent in each of the two categories. He noted that 


when additional survivors are located NIOSH is only asked to interview 


them if the POC is less than 50 percent. 


With Fernald, Rocky Flats and Mound on the agenda for discussion during 


this meeting, Mr. Kotsch provided numbers on claims, DRs, decisions and 


compensation payments for each of those sites. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#The difference between the number of denials shown by NIOSH versus 

those shown by DOL is significant, but may reflect a number of 


cases that do not have a final decision. 


#The number of technical reworks and reasons for the requests. 

* * * * *
 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY REMARKS
 

Mr. Glenn Podonsky, Chief 


Health, Safety and Security 


Department of Energy
 

Mr. Podonsky described the DOE reorganization which had created his 


office some five months earlier, explaining some of his 


responsibilities. He emphasized DOE's desire to provide NIOSH, the 


Board and others with records and data that have been requested. 


6
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Mr. Podonsky remarked that in the past months his office has 


coordinated within DOE and with DOL to improve access to records 


previously unavailable. He cited specifically the Los Alamos Medical 


Center. He also addressed the Mound records, asserting that not only 


the Board but the public needs to know what is in them, though the 


price of accessing and processing them may be steep. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#Oversight committee to ensure records are made available as soon as 

possible; 

#Department of Labor involvement; 

#Are union representatives included with Labor and Energy in the 

process; 

#Retrieval of Mound records from Area G; 

#Risk assessment as part of the cost evaluation; 

#DOE moratorium on burying records; 

#Records may have become contaminated after shipment; 

#Representation of Mr. Podonsky's office at future meetings; 

#Destruction versus preservation of records; 

#Records retention and records destruction schedule; 

#Possible destruction of buildings and their respective logbooks; 

#Quality of aging records, as well as quality of reproduced records; 

#Likelihood of records retained on obsolete technology being 

unreadable. 

* * * * *


 SUBCOMMITTEE ACTIONS
 

Mr. Mark Griffon, 


Subcommittee Chair
 

Mr. Griffon reported that the subcommittee had earlier asked NIOSH to 


provide additional information on approximately 60 cases selected as 


potential review candidates. After that further screening the 


subcommittee was recommending 28 cases to the Board as their seventh 


set of review subjects. 


Dr. Ziemer clarified that the cases proposed by the subcommittee is 


their recommendation, but Board action will be deferred until later in 


the meeting so that members may have an opportunity to review the cases 


in more detail. 


7
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Mr. Griffon reported the subcommittee is underway on the fourth set 


matrix, explaining the process involves the subcommittee, SC&A and 


NIOSH. Resolution is near, and it is anticipated deliberations on this 


set can be concluded at a subcommittee meeting in April. 


Further updates revealed the fifth set matrix is almost ready to go to 


NIOSH. SC&A has completed review of the sixth set and is ready to meet 


with individual Board teams to discuss their findings. 


Addressing the issue of blind reviews, Mr. Griffon reminded the Board 


he had volunteered to draft a set of protocols for that task. He 


indicated he anticipates such can be accomplished with the eighth set 


of reviews. Advanced reviews were discussed briefly as a future 


undertaking. Mr. Griffon assured a report will be forthcoming as the 


project develops, adding that Board input would be welcome. 


New Board members Ms. Beach and Mr. Schofield were assigned to existing 


review teams by 

interest. 

Dr. Ziemer, being mindful of their conflicts of 

* * * * * 

SELECTION OF REMAINING PROCEDURES 

TO BE REVIEWED BY SC&A UNDER TASK III
 

Ms. Wanda Munn, 


Procedures Review Workgroup Chair
 

Ms. Munn declared she had been let down by her computer as her 


presentation was coming up on the screen as all Y's. She had hoped 


copies currently being made would be available soon as they were tables 


SC&A had submitted on procedures previously reviewed under Task III, 


procedures reviewed as part of other tasks, and those not yet reviewed. 


Dr. Ziemer offered to help Ms. Munn “stall” by observing that there are 


actually several charts that might prove helpful to the Board in their 


decision-making process. Therefore the Board may prefer to follow the 


same route taken by the subcommittee earlier, simply identifying the 


procedures recommended by the workgroup. That would allow the Board 


members to retrieve their electronic versions of various files and 


review them prior to making a decision. 


Ms. Munn read a list of eight procedures contained on Table 2 which 


represented procedures reviewed under other tasks. It had been 


suggested those procedures be incorporated into the category of 


"Reviewed". She noted the working group had agreed with the 


8
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


suggestion and was recommending they be included as Task III reviews 


completed by SC&A during FY 2007. 


Six additional procedures had been suggested by SC&A for review. Ms. 


Munn reported the working group had chosen only two of those, their 


rationale being that a group of revisions or new OTIBs are in process 


at NIOSH which promise to be of considerable interest to the Board. 


The six procedures chosen by the working group for recommendation were 


identified for the Board. 


It was agreed action would be deferred until Board members and the 


public could be provided with the written information. 


* * * * *
 

PUBLIC COMMENT SESSION
 

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


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. Dorothy Clayton, NTS survivor; Mr. John Funk, NTS claimant; Mr. 


Vincent Kutemperer; Mr. John Ramspott, former General Steel Industries 


employee; Dr. Dan McKeel, SINuW; Mr. Larry Burgan, Dow/Spectrulite 


claimant; Mr. Randall Cox. 


* * * * *
 

With no further public comment offered, the Board officially 


recessed until 8:45 a.m. 


* * * * *
 

Thursday, February 8, 2007
 

Dr. Ziemer called the meeting to order with a reminder for everyone to 


register their attendance, and announced NIOSH personnel's availability 


for claimant assistance. 


Dr. Wade thanked everyone for their attendance. Before addressing 


specific site issues, he reiterated an explanation of conflict of 


interest and the Board's manner of dealing with it. 


* * * * *
 

FERNALD SEC PETITION 


9
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


NIOSH Evaluation Report 


Mr. Mark Rolfes 


NIOSH/OCAS 


Mr. Rolfes began with a brief history of the Feed Materials Production 


Center, also known as Fernald. He covered the beginning of 


construction in 1951, with all plants operational by 1954, through its 


production shutdown in July of 1989. He described its purpose as a 


supplier of high purity uranium metal fuel cores to plutonium 


production reactors at Savannah River and Hanford, as well as 


production of thorium for the Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion program and 


for light water breeder reactors. In 1972 Fernald was designated as 


the DOE repository for thorium and was a raffinate storage site for K65 silos. 


The petition time line was described by Mr. Rolfes, from first 


submission in December, 2005 through addendum submissions, 


qualification for evaluation in April, 2006 and issuance of the 


evaluation report in November, 2006. 


The proposed class definition is for "All employees of DOE, DOE 


contractors or subcontractors who worked at all locations at the Feed 


Materials Production Centers (FMPC) in Fernald, Ohio, also known as the 


Fernald Environmental Management Project (FEMP), from January 1, 1951 


through December 31, 1989." 


Mr. Rolfes described the variety of information sources available, 


which included ORAU Technical Information Bulletins and the Fernald 


site profile, employee interviews, case files in the NIOSH claims 


database, documentation and/or affidavits provided by the petitioner; 


miscellaneous databases providing historical records, health 


information; chest counts covering 24 years, and a study titled "Radon 


and Cigarette Smoking Exposure Assessment of Fernald Workers." 


Addressing the availability of dosimetry data, Mr. Rolfes explained the 


NIOSH/OCAS Claims Tracking System (NOCTS) indicates there are 690 


claims meeting the class definition; 619 of these have completed dose 


reconstructions. There were 631 cases where records of internal 


dosimetry were available, with 641 cases having external dosimetry. 


Dose reconstructions have been completed for 90 percent of the Fernald 


cases. 


Mr. Rolfes presented the seven petition bases of concern, and then 


addressed each individually and in detail. Two sample dose 


reconstructions were presented to illustrate NIOSH's ability to perform 


10
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


the task with those concerns in mind. One hypothetical case scenario 


made use of a dose maximizing approach with assigned intakes based on 


air sampling, and the other utilized individual bioassay data and dose 


correction factors. Three different target organs were illustrated in 


each sample, showing a range of POCs from 28 to 98 percent in the first 


and 24 to 99 percent in the second, depending on the target organ. 


Using guidelines in 42 CFR 83.13, NIOSH evaluated the petition and 


submitted a summary of their findings in the Petition Evaluation Report 


sent to the Board and the petitioners on November 3, 2006. Mr. Rolfes
 

explained the evaluation process use of the two-pronged test: Is it 


feasible to estimate with sufficient accuracy the radiation dose of 


individual members of the class; and if not, is there a reasonable 


likelihood that such exposures endangered the health of members of the 


class. 


Mr. Rolfes reported NIOSH has determined monitoring records and source 


term data are adequate for dose reconstruction. Therefore NIOSH is not 


required to make a health endangerment determination. Mr. Rolfes 


explained this is a summary of the feasibility findings, with 


additional documentation and sample dose reconstructions available online under the NIOSH share drive folder, "Document Review\AB 


DocumentReview\Fernald". 


* * * 


 Petitioner Response
 

Ms. Sandra Baldridge, 


Petitioner
 

Ms. Baldridge explained her father worked in Plant 6 from January, 1952 


until November, 1963. She went on to describe deficiencies she had 


discovered in the Fernald site profile. She also discussed documents 


she has researched which led her to conclude the company had ignored 


DOE policy, resulting in many injuries to employees. Citing exposure 


levels inferred by documents, coupled with management indifference, she 


asserted it was impossible to adequately assess exposures incurred. 


In discussing quality of data, Ms. Baldridge conceded there are 


differences of opinion. She discussed her notes on 12 specific 


documents. She emphasized Fernald had a cost-plus-award fee contract 


and was self-regulated, and could have suffered financially by 


reporting radioactive releases. 


Ms. Baldridge addressed a variety of specific issues in painstaking 


detail, such as misapplication of OTIB-2 in dose reconstructions, class 


11
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


of employees, substituting data from another site, coworker data, value 


of uranium urinalysis data, in vivo lung counting, maximum allowable 


concentrations for uranium dust, data falsification, questionable 


levels of exposure, need for neutron monitoring, and lack of good work 


records rendering environment exposures suspect. Some eight reasons 


were cited for her doubting NIOSH's ability to establish upper bounding 


limits for doses received. 


The emphasis of Ms. Baldridge's presentation, and her conclusion, is 


that there is not sufficient information to do accurate dose 


reconstructions. 


* * * 


Mr. Ray Beatty, 


Petitioner
 

Mr. Beatty began by calling into question the credibility of the Health 


Physics Information System, or HIS-20 database, noting it was nonfunctional more often than it was functioning, and its data was far 


from reliable. He noted workers' major concerns were residual 


contamination and the condition of the areas where they worked, which 


he felt cast further doubt on reliability of the data. 


The name of a member of the team producing the site profile also 


appeared on the SEC evaluation report, and Mr. Beatty felt this raised 


an issue of objectivity. 


Mr. Beatty asserted that plant goals -- production, then cost and 


schedule during shut-down -- were emphasized over health and safety. 


He discussed improper disposal of waste, and implementation of 


compromises which affected health and safety. 


A NIOSH report from January 2001 was cited by Mr. Beatty. The report 


asked questions regarding identification of remediation workers; 


whether adequate worker, work history and medical data are available 


for that population; whether individual workers can be linked to their 


exposure and medical data; and whether, with current knowledge and 


understanding described in the report, epidemiologic exposure 


assessment of hazard surveillance studies of remediation workers and 


technologies they employed could be conducted now or in the future. 


Mr. Beatty indicated the answer to all the questions was the same, no. 


Mr. Beatty concluded by adding that NIOSH is doing dose reconstructions 


based on data supplied by the contractor and DOE from 2000 to the 


present. He contended this data has no relevance to conditions from 


1950 to 1989. 


12
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


* * * 


Discussion Points: 


#Are petitioners asserting there was neutron exposure; 

#Did Fernald use a commercial TLD vendor; 

#Outreach meetings and discussions with petitioners; 

#SC&A review of Fernald site profile; 

#Models in development and their relationship to SEC evaluation; 

#Coworker model development and data distribution; 

#Time period for radon breath sampling; 

#Falsification of records; 

#Value of documents prior to review and assessment, and assuming 

anecdotal information is limited to a single occurrence; 

#Data used to compute a maximized intake for dose reconstruction; 

#Possibility of flawed bioassay data; 

#Techniques of applying bioassay data for individual dose 

reconstruction; 


#Presence of thorium, and gaps relative to its presence as contained in 

the site profile; 

#Accuracy of external/internal radiation exposure based on dosimetry 

badge readings; 


#Interpreting the sense of Congress; 

#Contradiction arising from NLO urinalysis data and NIOSH approach to 

assessing individual dose to claimants; 


#The use of data for purposes other than that for which it was 

collected; 

#Contradiction between the regulation and the NIOSH approach to using 

data, and how to get SC&A involved in SEC issues; 

#The SC&A task to construct a matrix of site profile issues that 

pertain to the SEC petition. 

* * * 


A motion was made and seconded that the Board request SC&A do 


a full review of the Fernald SEC petition.


 Dr. Ziemer elaborated that such a motion, if passed, would defer 


action on the NIOSH recommendation to deny the Fernald SEC 


petition, and would initiate the SC&A, NIOSH and workgroup review 


and recommendation process. 


With no further discussion, the motion carried.
 

13
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


* * * * *
 

ROCKY FLATS SEC PETITION UPDATE
 

Dr. Wade announced that Board members Ms. Josie Beach and Mr. Brad 


Clawson are conflicted on Rocky Flats. In accordance with Board 


policy, they are barred from discussion or making a motion concerning 


the update presentation. 


Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair 


Rocky Flats Workgroup
 

Following a discussion of past and future meetings, Mr. Griffon
 

announced SC&A has reviewed 52 individual cases and provided a report 


to NIOSH on the issue of complete data. The workgroup is now awaiting 


a response from NIOSH. Mr. Griffon observed that gaps in the data may 


be explained by changes in rules or procedures at the facility. 


Mr. Griffon updated the status on some outstanding issues as follows: 


#Questions on the 1969 fire. SC&A has issued a report noting gaps for 

employees, including non-plutonium workers, as well as individuals 

involved in the fire. 

#Zeroes in the electronic database if field is blank on hard copy. The 

blank means the individual was not monitored. NIOSH is to get 

back to the workgroup. 

#Use of coworker models for internal and external exposures. Use of 

the models may be more extensive than originally thought. The 

workgroup did not make this a priority, but since it now appears 

that NIOSH may rely more heavily on the models, there is concern 

about discrepancies among various databases. SC&A has been asked 

to look more closely at these data. 

#Other radionuclides. Plutonium and uranium were the primary concerns. 

The workgroup has agreement between NIOSH and SC&A on everything 


except thorium. With scant monitoring data, a source term model 


is used. The workgroup and NIOSH are close to agreement on source 


terms and the workgroup is awaiting a NIOSH response. 


#Records. Records at issue are safety concerns, data integrity and 

logbook analysis. Logbooks and radiation records have been 

compared by the workgroup to get a feel for whether there are 

14
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


systemic discrepancies. SC&A analysis noted no indication of 


such. 


Initially logbook samples from 1970 through the '90s were not 


available. Subsequently some were located in a voluminous records 


cache; however, they did not contain quantitative information 


comparable to the earlier logbooks and were not really useful. 


#Super S plutonium. Based on six cases, NIOSH developed TIB-49 to 

reconstruct dose for super S plutonium exposure. However, there 

were 25 other individuals involved in the fire and the workgroup 

question is whether TIB-49 will bound those cases at the highest 

intake levels. 

#Neutron dosimetry. While there are several technical follow-up 

issues, as well as questions on the coworker model, it appears 

none rise to the SEC level of concern. 

#Proof of principle. The Board, NIOSH, SC&A and members of the 

workgroup may want to look carefully at sample dose 

reconstructions to ensure that the right questions were asked and 

answered and that, with some of the changes within the models, the 

approaches are still valid. 

Discussion Points: 


#Study from NIOSH's Health-related Energy and Research Branch (HERB) 

published in 2000; 

#New Board members are listed on the web site; 

#Encouragement that all logbooks be made available to SC&A for review. 

* * * * *
 

DOW CHEMICAL SEC PETITION UPDATE
 

Mr. LaVon Rutherford, 


NIOSH/OCAS
 

Mr. Rutherford presented a chronology of plans for a report on the 


evaluation of the Dow SEC petition and efforts to obtain documents and 


data pertinent to such evaluation. He reminded everyone NIOSH had 


originally planned to report at the Naperville meeting last December. 


However, some technical issues remained unresolved and the 83.14 Form A 


petition submission had 37 affidavits which required study to ensure 


all issues were included in the evaluation and thus was delayed. 


15
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


As the evaluation was nearing completion for presentation at the 


February meeting, four new documents were received which directly 


affected feasibility determination. Mr. Rutherford indicated it was 


also necessary to obtain additional documents from the Dow home office 


in Midland, Michigan, which 

Consequently, NIOSH anticipates 

evaluation report at the May Board

still have 

presentation 

meeting. 

not 

of 

been 

the SEC 

received. 

petition 

Discussion Points: 

#Are the materials on the O drive; 


#How do the unresolved issues affect the schedule; 


#Dow/Olin will be requested to make the information available in a 


timely manner; however, if necessary, records will be subpoenaed. 


* * * 


 Petitioner Comment
 

Dr. Dan McKeel, 


Petitioner representative
 

Dr. McKeel acknowledged the importance of obtaining records from Dow, 


detailed efforts that had been made to that end by petitioners, as well 


as Dow's response. He questioned the accuracy of their response. 


A detailed slide presentation pointed out the location of rumored 


quantities of buried magnesium/thorium sludge. Maps showed various 


buildings where contaminated material was reported to have been. 


Dr. McKeel provided an elaborate history of contract work done by Dow 


Madison, and the use of uranium, thorium and beryllium on the site. He 


detailed the history of film badge uses, lack of monitoring data, and 


workers' concern that the badges were never read. 


Dr. McKeel discussed Dow's DoD contracts, the Rocky Flats contract for 


thorium work, and a contract with Lockheed to produce a 


beryllium/aluminum alloy for use in a spy plane in 1962. He discussed 


thorium plates stored by McDonald Douglas at Washington University that 


were shipped to Spectrulite in 1993 as a result of non-compliance, 


questioning why they would have been accepted if thorium production had 


stopped in 1982. 


The thorium issue was discussed from various angles -- history of 


thorium licenses, company-sponsored cleanups, major federal cleanup, 


through the Army Corps of Engineers cleanup in 2000. The petitioners 


16
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


do not believe the assertion arising from that cleanup, that the 


thorium present was related to activities other than those for the AEC. 


Additional slides related to surveys by the Pangea Group in 2003 and 


2005 indicating high levels throughout the plant buildings. He cited 


66 affidavits confirming the plant was heavily thorium-contaminated. 


Dr. McKeel asserted ample evidence to conclude workers were seriously 


harmed. And while he expressed the petitioners' appreciation for the 


83.14 SEC designation, he declared they felt the class definition of 


1957 to 1960 was too limited and should be expanded up to the present 


time. 


Dr. McKeel presented the Board with seven specific requests, including 


expansion of the class, review tasks to be assigned SC&A, encouragement 


for NIOSH to subpoena records from Dow, encouragement for NIOSH to set 


a definite delivery date for the SEC evaluation, that NIOSH publish 


unredacted Dow affidavits; that NIOSH accelerate dose reconstructions 


for the site; encouragement for expeditious completion of site profile 


section 7.2 on thorium and site-specific appendices for Batelle TBD6000. 


* * * 


Ms. Debbie Detmers from the office of Congressman Shimkus reiterated 


belief that the class definition should be expanded and that dose 


reconstruction should be expedited. She offered assistance from her 


office to aid in this effort in any way possible. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#Was thorium processing in 1955 for commercial purposes; 

#Documentation does not support AEC work after the 1957-1960 time 

frame; 

#Thorium alloy-related work for Department of Defense is acknowledged; 

#NIOSH responsibility and authority relating to SEC class definition 

and dose reconstruction matters; 

#How were dates for AEC versus commercial work determined, and what are 

the bases for such determination; 

#There appears to be a DOE connection which exceeds the SEC time frame 

limits; 

#Dose reconstructions for residual periods involving uranium and 

thorium; 

#Affidavits which attest to the shipment of thorium to Rocky Flats; 

17
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


#Incomplete records and documentation concerning other radionuclides; 


#Tasking SC&A to review technical issues of SEC petitions; 


#Absence of a contract as proof that there was no relationship between 


Dow and Rocky Flats beyond 1960; 

#Are delays in evaluation for the purpose of inclusion or exclusion; 

#If residual contamination can't be reconstructed with sufficient 

accuracy, do individuals qualify for an SEC class; 

#The Board could proceed with a partial approval of the evaluation at 

the next meeting; 

#The Board could consider establishing separate SEC classes based on 

partial approval of the evaluation report; 

#Resolution of residual contamination and thorium issues in dose 

reconstruction. 

* * *


 Petitioner Comments
 

Mr. Bill Hoppe, 


Petitioner
 

Mr. Hoppe described his 18 years in the rolling mill and 22 years in 


maintenance at Dow, noting four trucks loaded with 36,000 to 40,000 


pounds of thorium each were usually shipped per month. There was dust 


everywhere in the rolling mill. In maintenance he worked frequently in 


the pot room checking instruments. 


Mr. Hoppe discussed badges being tossed in a bucket and thrown away. 


He recollected warning stickers on metal shipped to Rocky Flats. 


Employees did a variety of jobs and it was rare for an individual to do 


the same job for an extended period. 


* * *
 

Mr. Homer Simmons, 


Petitioner
 

Mr. Simmons spoke of his 45 years at Dow Chemical, reiterating that 


people worked all over the plant. He remarked that even when they 


cleaned the plant, it failed inspection. He described his brother's 


death from cancer at the age of 46, and explained he'd also worked at 


Dow. 


Verifying that a large part of the plant's work was done for government 


contracts, Mr. Simmons commented that government contracts had priority 


over other orders. 


18
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


* * *
 

A motion was made and seconded that the Board ask SC&A to 


begin a limited SEC evaluation review related to Dow 


Chemical.
 

Dr. Ziemer clarified that the mover did not wish to expand the motion 


to include new documentation that might become available. 


The mover explained the motion requires SC&A to become familiar with 


available documentation to ensure a more rapid review when the SEC 


evaluation is presented. 


With no further discussion, the motion passed unanimously.
 

* * * * *


 WORKGROUP UPDATES
 

Mr. Robert Presley, Chair 


Workgroup on Nevada Test Site site profile
 

Mr. Presley reported the workgroup has not met since shortly before the 


December meeting of the Board. They have received SC&A's matrix of 


comments and will prepare their responses. 


* * *
 

Mr. Mike Gibson, Chair
 

Workgroup on Savannah River Site site profile
 

Mr. Gibson reported the workgroup has experienced difficulty getting 


necessary records from DOE. He indicated Q-cleared members of the 


workgroup, NIOSH and SC&A will go to Savannah River Site the end of 


February to look at classified data. Though not scheduled, a 


conference call is planned to confirm visit goals. The workgroup 


anticipates having a report for the Board at the May meeting. 


* * *
 

Dr. John Poston, Chair 


Workgroup on Chapman Valve SEC petition
 

While the workgroup has not formally met, Dr. Poston provided a 


chronology of the Chapman Valve SEC petition. He noted that less than 


a month after the Board meeting in September there was a complete 


19
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


rewrite of the evaluation report, causing delay in SC&A's evaluation. 


Dr. Poston added he and Drs. Makhijani and Mauro from SC&A had 


participated in a meeting with former Chapman Valve employees where 


they conducted interviews with some of those workers. 


SC&A provided their evaluation in December, and it covers both the 


original and the rewrite of the NIOSH evaluation report. Dr. Poston
 

observed there were no major issues, but a couple of concerns. One 


relates to the June fire which involved five people. If the date of 


intake is changed by only a few days, it changes the dose significantly 


so that issue must be addressed. Another involves the incinerator and 


exposure of workers who turned the chips to ensure they were completely 


oxidized. Dr. Poston added he would like to schedule a workgroup 


meeting as soon as possible. 


* * *
 

Dr. James Melius, Chair 


SEC Issues Workgroup
 

Dr. Melius reported the workgroup met in Cincinnati in January, with 


all members present along with NIOSH and SC&A participation. Two 


separate issues were addressed, one being the high exposure shorter 


time period issue regarding Special Exposure Cohorts. A short report 


was prepared for the workgroup by SC&A, and Dr. Melius indicated he 


believed it had been cleared for some Privacy Act concerns and then 


distributed to the rest of the Board. 


In discussing distribution, Privacy Act concerns came up and Ms. 


Homoki-Titus from the Office of General Counsel clarified that Board 


members could exchange all information with each other, but not all 


information could be made public. The issue of Congressional access 


was raised. Ultimately Dr. Wade summarized that documents need to be 


cleared for distribution to Congressional representatives; they need to 


be made available for posting; and they should be made available to 


Board members. Mr. Elliott added that certain SEC petition-related 


documents should also be made available to petitioners. After 


continued discussion, Dr. Mauro volunteered that when a document has 


been properly cleared and is sent out from SC&A, it will contain a 


statement that it has been checked and may be distributed. Otherwise 


it will be noted that the document contains potentially Privacy Act 


material and should be handled accordingly. They will distribute 


information only to NIOSH and/or Board members. 


In response to concerns about e-mail security, Ms. Homoki-Titus 


indicated the government is aware of the issue and each agency is 


working on a policy in that regard. When the CDC finishes establishing 


20
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


their policy, that change will come to the Board. SC&A and other 


contractors will have to follow that policy regarding the use of 


laptops, wireless internets and unsecured networks to send Privacy Act 


information. Until then, everyone must use his own common sense. 


Continuing with his report, Dr. Melius indicated the workgroup had 


discussed Ames Laboratory, following which it was decided that SC&A 


would clarify some of the issues regarding potential exposures from 


fires and explosions at the facility. From the Nevada Test Site the 


workgroup would identify a number of exposure incidents regarding 


above-ground testing, and then evaluate those in the context of 


potential exposures people may have received in a period of less than 


250 days. These would form the basis for a subsequent workgroup 


report. 


Dr. Melius said the plan was to get SC&A together with NIOSH and/or 


ORAU to work out some of the technical details about how those examples 


would be developed. Another workgroup meeting is planned for a time 


prior to the April Board meeting. 


The second part of the report deals with the SEC 83.14 issue. The 


workgroup was charged with determining the types of information and 


most useful ways to present it in the evaluation of those petitions. 


The workgroup had no 83.14 cases to discuss, so they worked from 


experience with Monsanto and General Atomics. The NIOSH definition of 


class with respect to work areas was discussed. The workgroup agreed 


it would be helpful to have backup information available to the Board 


for those reports. NIOSH is already in the process of implementing 

this recommendation. 

* * * 

Dr. James Lockey, Chair
 

Workgroup on Non-qualifying SEC Petitions
 

Dr. Lockey reported there are four such petitions under review by the 


NIOSH Director's review panel. Summary reports are to be made 


available to the workgroup within the next week. The workgroup plans 


to finalize a report during the last two weeks of March. 


* * *
 

Dr. James Melius, Chair 


Workgroup on Hanford Site Profile and SEC petition
 

Dr. Melius reported the workgroup had a conference call with NIOSH and 


SC&A where the main issue was neutron dose at the facility. The 


21
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


workgroup will schedule a meeting to develop a report on that issue. A 


problem has been the availability of Mr. Jack Fix for the meeting. 


This raises the issue of document ownership and also presents a problem 


in that Mr. Fix is conflicted on Hanford, yet has the technical 


expertise which would be useful to the workgroup. Dr. Melius observed 


it presented an awkward situation. 


Discussion Points: 


#There is a workgroup on conflict of interest; 


#That workgroup plans to meet sometime in the last two weeks of March. 


* * *
 

Ms. Wanda Munn, Chair 


Workgroup on Blockson Chemical SEC petition
 

Ms. Munn announced the group has not met because the original site 


profile and the SEC petition required additional work, currently 


underway. The group will not meet until those documents are available. 


Ms. Munn added there had been a productive worker outreach meeting 


sponsored by DOL, and it is anticipated the workgroup will meet in late 


March if the documents are available. 


Discussion Points: 


#The outreach meeting was quite helpful and provided valuable 

information; 

#It would be helpful to have a Board member present at all outreach 

meetings. 


* * * * *
 

PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD
 

Dr. Ziemer began with a reminder that the purpose of the Board is 


advisory. The members are independent, from various backgrounds. The 


Board members do not do dose reconstructions, adjudicate cases or 


handle individual problems. But they are interested in hearing what 


difficulties are being faced by claimants in an effort to inform their 


advice to the Secretary. Dr. Ziemer then introduced individual Board 


members and gave some information on their backgrounds. 


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


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


22
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


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


www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas. 


Ms. Kay Barker, ANWAG; Mr. John Funk, Nevada Test Site claimant; Ms. 


Terrie Barrie, ANWAG; Ms. C. Chang from NIOSH read a letter from 


Washington Senator Maria Cantwell; Mr. John Ramspott, SINuW; Dr. Dan 


McKeel; Ms. Deb Jerison, Mound survivor; Ms. Sandra Baldridge, Fernald 


petitioner; Mr. Andrew Evaskovich, Los Alamos; Mr. Don Kummler, Fernald 


claimant; Ms. Catherine Tidwell, Mound survivor; Ms. Lisa Crawford, 


Fernald Residents for Environmental Safety and Health. 


* * * * *
 

With no further public comment offered, the Board officially 


recessed until 8:30 a.m.
 

* * * * *
 

Friday, February 9, 2007
 

Dr. Ziemer called the meeting to order, noting a quorum was present. 


He called attention to a scheduled agenda item which was no longer 


necessary, commenting that this may prove helpful to people needing to 


schedule their departures. 


* * * * *
 

REPORT ON UPCOMING SEC PETITIONS
 

Mr. LaVon Rutherford, 


NIOSH/OCAS
 

Mr. Rutherford offered statistics on the SEC petition process overall. 


Including one received the previous day, NIOSH has received 84 SEC 


petition submissions. Nine of those are in the qualification process; 


34 have qualified, and 11 are in the evaluation process; NIOSH has 


completed evaluations of 23. The remaining 34 petitions did not 


qualify. 


Four SEC petitions have completed evaluations and are with the Board, 


awaiting recommendation. The status of the four was reported as 


follows: Rocky Flats and Chapman Valve are under review by Board 


workgroups; Feed Materials Production Center (Fernald) evaluation 


report was presented at this meeting and a workgroup will begin its 


review; Los Alamos National Laboratory petition evaluation report was 


sent to petitioners and Board members on February 7, 2007. The 


evaluation report will be presented at the Board meeting in May. 


23
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


The nine qualified petitions currently under evaluation are Bethlehem 


Steel, Hanford, Blockson Chemical, Dow Chemical, Y-12, NUMEC, Ames Lab 


and W. R. Grace. Mr. Rutherford addressed each in turn, reporting on 


the specific issues involved and, where possible, providing estimated 


time to completion. 


There were 11 sites described by Mr. Rutherford as having been 


identified as potentially 83.14 petition candidates. They are 


Combustion Engineering, Kellex/Pierpont, Lovelace Respiratory Research 


Institute, SAM Laboratories at Columbia University, Lake Ontario 


Ordnance Works, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Naval Research 


Laboratory, Norton Company, University of Rochester Atomic Energy 


Project, Watertown Arsenal (Building 421), and University of 


California. 


Mr. Rutherford reported ORAU is making efforts to verify that all 


appropriate searches have been accomplished for data to support dose 


reconstruction. A time line has been established, and the searches are 


projected to have been completed by March. Following that, the 


contractor will provide professional judgment and class proposals which 


will be reviewed, and then the 83.14 process will move forward. 


Acknowledging some lessons learned from previous Board meetings and 


reviews of evaluation reports, Mr. Rutherford included the need to: 


create tables which clearly lay out all the issues considered in the 


feasibility findings; provide a folder with analyses which support 


NIOSH conclusions; develop a matrix which helps eliminate 


inconsistencies in interpretation of feasibility; and clearly define 


all sources of information. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#Legal implications of failing to meet the 180-day requirement for 

completion of an evaluation report; 

#Outreach to claimants, especially from older, more complex sites; 

#Establishing workgroups to deal with upcoming SEC petition 

evaluations. 


* * * 


As representative for Congressman Tom Udall of New Mexico, Ms. Michele 


Jacquez-Ortiz extended her appreciation to NIOSH for their efforts in 


assisting and advising the petitioners in preparation of the Los Alamos 


24
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


National Laboratory documentation, specifically with regard to the 


medical records. 


* * * * *
 

NIOSH CONFLICT OR BIAS MANAGEMENT POLICY 


Implementation Status Update 


Mr. Larry Elliott, 


NIOSH/OCAS
 

Mr. Elliott observed that the NIOSH policy statement on conflict or 


bias bears a slightly different title than in the past as a result of 


refinements by Dr. John Howard, NIOSH Director. The purpose stated is 


to prevent individuals with either apparent or perceived conflicts from 


being the primary document owner on any key program function document, 


and to promote and provide transparency in the dose reconstruction 


process and in the creation of key program documents. 


Summarizing some of the policies over the six years of the program, Mr. 


Elliott emphasized a major change in the current policy is the 


establishment of an Office of Conflict or Bias Officer, a person not 


involved in the dose reconstruction program. That position is 


currently held by Mr. Frank Hearl, chief of staff to Dr. Howard. 


Mr. Elliott noted that his presentation only related to NIOSH actions 


to implement the policy. This implementation process, now underway, 


requires disclosure of every individual at NIOSH from Dr. Howard and 


Mr. Hearl to health physicists, public health advisors, the IT computer 


specialist, secretaries, communications specialist and the legal team, 


virtually anyone associated with this program. 


The web site, www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/defaulthtml, will soon contain 


disclosure forms. A conflicted individual at a site during any period 


cannot perform any program function for that site, as defined in the 


policy. On the web site you will see multiple sites listed where 


conflict exists. There will be a one-page summary to front an 


individual's set of disclosures to provide the reader a straightforward 


understanding without having to go through each set of disclosure forms 


for a site. 


Explaining NIOSH is not allowed to place contractor disclosure forms on 


their web site, Mr. Elliott indicated a link will take the reader to 


the contractor's web site where their disclosures may be found. 


On sites where a NIOSH individual has no conflict but for which 


additional explanation is required, that will be listed separately on 


25
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


the multiple site disclosure forms. As an example, Mr. Elliott cited 


his personal situation wherein he found himself not conflicted on any 


site; however, he does supervise individuals who are conflicted and is 


supervised by an individual who could be. Therefore, he provides that 


explanation. 


* * *
 

Ms. Kate Kimpan, 


Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU)
 

Ms. Kimpan announced she would present an update on some things she'd 


discussed before, as well as some new items. 


As NIOSH has worked to finalize its Conflict or Bias Policy, the ORAU 


team has been managing the project so that no dose reconstructions or 


other key program functions are performed or developed by individuals 


with inappropriate conflicts of interest as defined by that policy. 


She reminded the Board that when these discussions were emerging, ORAU 


replaced any document owner who, under the NIOSH policy released at 


that point, would have been conflicted at the time the document was 


prepared or contributed to. 


It's an unusual way to proceed, Ms. Kimpan observed, in that many 


documents were written well before the conflict of interest policy with 


such specific requirements was even on the books. She added the ORAU 


team has endeavored to assure that no dose reconstruction, or peer 


review of a DR, has ever been performed by a conflicted individual on 


the team. Asserting her belief the team had achieved that goal, she 


explained they had a computerized system to assure that a dose 


reconstructor could not be assigned to a dose reconstruction where 


there was a conflict. 


Although the discussion today was primarily about documents, Ms. Kimpan
 

added that the ORAU team has performed tens of thousands of DRs. And 


there is a way, regardless of actual bias or conflict, for a claimant 


to say they don't want a particular person touching the work on their 


case. 


Ms. Kimpan explained that what ORAU began implementing a year or so ago 


was to apply the same COI policy to all the documents they develop. 


The team, in close work with NIOSH, has submitted hundreds of documents 


NIOSH has approved for use in the program. They are all rigorously 


reviewed. 


What ORAU will be doing now, as soon as the new policy is finalized, is 


to look back at work done years before through the lens of the new 


26
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


policy. That is because of the important nature of assuring that 


scientific findings, conclusions and contributions are appropriate, 


scientifically sound and free of the influence that a paper conflict or 


bias concern might raise. 


Ms. Kimpan remarked that all document owners who have had a conflict of 


interest under the proposed policy have been replaced with a non-


conflicted document owner. She noted that some conflicted individuals, 


the names of whom have been raised often though not always accurately, 


have remained involved in appropriate, non-key roles as subject expert 


or site expert. She explained the document owner is ultimately 


responsible for assuring every conclusion in the document rises to the 


proper scientifically defensible level required by this program's 


outstanding science. 


ORAU has developed and is finalizing procedures to implement the NIOSH 


conflict or bias policy once the revision has been signed into 


effectiveness. They don't want to take action yet lest there be 


another change, but the system is in place where employees will fill 


out their disclosure forms on-line through a password-protected system, 


and a PDF version of their disclosure form will be posted on the ORAU 


web site. Once the revision, in process, is signed into policy, ORAU 


will be able to have all team forms completed within one week of the 


effective date. 


Ms. Kimpan emphasized ORAU has done everything they believe they can do 


appropriately until the policy is in effect. Assuming there are no 


more changes to the basic queries and questions, ORAU is ready to go. 


Calling attention to the fact that the NIOSH policy is drifting toward 


being site-based, Ms. Kimpan remarked that has been done by ORAU all 


along. And while a site-based policy is more restrictive, it is 


cleaner for ORAU and easier to manage. Their computer system prevents 


assignment of someone with a conflict, and the new system will feed 


into that. It is coordinated to work with the dose reconstruction and 


other key function assignments. 


Ms. Kimpan discussed annotation and attribution. She announced it is 


now policy that proper footnotes, citations and references will be 


included and done to a scientific peer review level. All documents are 


rigorously reviewed by the ORAU team, by OCAS and many times by SC&A. 


Ms. Kimpan expressed her belief that ORAU documents are free of 


conflict of interest and are produced at the highest level of 


scientific quality. 


Retrospective annotation and attribution will be conducted on six 


sites, each being slightly different. The first two are where there 


27
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


actually was a conflicted document owner. Contrary to much said about 


a lot of people recently, Ms. Kimpan emphasized only the Idaho National 


Laboratory and Pantex Texas sites had a conflicted ORAU team document 


owner. New owners were immediately assigned, and the documents will, 


appropriately, receive the most thorough and complete level of 


annotation and attribution. Every scientific conclusion, finding, 


premise, table and exhibit will be identified, referenced and fully 


explained. 


The next category, sites which never had a conflicted document owner 


but received a great deal of attention for one reason or another, 


includes Rocky Flats and Hanford. Because of that attention, very 


thorough annotation and attribution is the right thing to do. Last 


year OCAS received the annotated and attributed TBD for Rocky Flats. 


It has been shown to the COB officer, attorneys and the government, and 


ORAU has gotten no feedback to suggest it was anything less than 


thorough. It will ultimately become public. 


Ms. Kimpan explained this category covered situations where the 


document owner was not conflicted, but a conflicted site expert wrote 


or substantially authored part of the document in a way now 


inconsistent with what will be NIOSH policy. It is complete for Rocky 


Flats and in process for Hanford. Every contribution by the conflicted 


individual is noted, identified, clearly sourced and explained. 


The third category Ms. Kimpan identified as one in which there is no 


conflicted owner or expert contributing in an inappropriate way, but 


things have been alleged and there has been discussion and discomfort 


from various people about whether or not certain individuals' 


contribution may not have been appropriate. The two sites in that 


category are Los Alamos and Paducah. Actual analysis indicated nothing 


inappropriate occurred in either site in terms of who contributed. But 


because of the critical attention, the rigorous level of annotation and 


attribution will again be applied. 


Ms. Kimpan explained how the examination of the documents is conducted, 


the reviews it undergoes and the scrutiny applied in each phase of its 


examination. She acknowledged the complexity of the program and the 


issues raised by members of the public. She expressed the importance 


ORAU placed on doing everything possible to assure credibility. 


Addressing the ORAU web site, Ms. Kimpan remarked it is an artifact of 


a policy no longer in effect and includes workers no longer on the 


team. She indicated that was another reason she looked forward to 


having the new policy signed so that the web site can be made current. 


28
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


She explained how ORAU will retain the old information, although it 


will no longer be available to the public. 


* * *
 

Discussion Points: 


#An inherent bias relates to the fact that documents are authored by 

scientists, health physicists and management types who may view 

things differently from folks doing the work; 

#Are those concerns not only made visible, but impact on the final 

product; 

#A lot of ORAU team members were workers in the rad protection program; 

#Not everybody who worked for a contractor was anti-worker; 

#The ORAU worker outreach program has expanded from its original more 

limited intent; 

#Oftentimes individual experiences, while important to that 

individual's DR, do not affect the quality of a site profile if 

not included in it; 

#The site profile, or TBD, is only one of many documents that are used; 

#In instances where an individual's input affected a TBD, is it 

annotated; 

#The worker outreach team has been working on a database of comments 

made at public meetings, with a category of what is done in 

response, and the Board will have access to it, but it does not 

appear in annotations; 


#NIOSH is not happy with how worker input has been garnered; 

#Changes are planned, though not yet in place; 

#Going forward, the Board will want the ability to audit the effect 

public comment may or may not have on site profile documents; 


#When will NIOSH sign the COB policy; 

#Lack of signature is not delaying work on various sites; 

#The Rocky Flats annotated document on the web site shows a large share 

is authored by a conflicted individual; 


#Absence of a key site expert and its effect on the Hanford workgroup; 

#Document owners as technical experts on the subject of the documents; 

#TBDs too generalized and frequently incomplete or skewed to adequately 

address conditions at various sites; 


#Additional worker input, especially for INEEL; 

#Change sources are identified when the document is posted on the web; 

#A given incident is almost always likely to affect more than one 

person; 


#Conflicted experts have information that can be extremely valuable for 

claimants and for the government. 

29
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


* * * * *
 

LOS ALAMOS RECORDS ISSUE 


Follow-up
 

Ms. Libby White, 


Department of Energy
 

Ms. White discussed the Los Alamos Medical Center records, providing a 


chronology of their ownership. While it is unknown what records DOE or 


Los Alamos currently has, it is known that the Medical Center wants to 


destroy what it has. The records are mixed with community member 


records and stored on county property. The likelihood exists that the 


records may also bear Hantavirus contaminated mouse droppings, so there 


is a plan to decontaminate and review. DOE will bear the cost of this 


effort and the records will be sent to the Denver Federal Records 


Center to be used for EEOICPA purposes. 


Discussion Points: 


#Board participation/assistance in the project; 


#Are the records catalogued and how are they stored; 


#DOE is in the process of collecting information with respect to the 


Mound records; 

#Document authored by Cheryl Kirkwood, records manager at Mound; 

#Retrieval of Mound records may take longer than anticipated due to the 

nature of the storage area; 

#Los Alamos records are likely to have water and animal damage, with a 

possibility of low-level alpha contamination; 

#Alpha contamination in medical records may have resulted from mixing 

of patients in the medical facility; 

#Will the county present an issue in retrieving the records; 

#Plans for decontamination; 

#Mound records storage caused the contamination of those records; 

#While at Mound, any contaminated records were scanned to produce noncontaminated copies. 


* * * * *
 

SCIENCE AND OVERARCHING TECHNICAL ISSUES UPDATE
 

Dr. James Neton, 


NIOSH/OCAS 


30
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


As background, Dr. Neton explained two main topics are now being 


tracked. The first are issues determined by a 2005 Board workgroup on 


IREP and scientific issues. Working with NIOSH, the Board merged what 


each had determined relevant and arrived at seven specific issues, all 


related to risk model calculations. 


Subsequently, SC&A's dose reconstruction and site profile reviews have 


revealed a number of overarching technical issues relative to dose 


reconstruction. Those issues comprise a second list. 


Addressing each list separately, Dr. Neton listed the original IREP and 


scientific issues, emphasizing they are not new. They are: 


#Incorporation of nuclear worker studies in the epidemiological 

analysis; how relevant are Hiroshima and Nagasaki studies compared 

to those done at DOE sites with respect to internal exposures. 

#Smoking adjustment for lung cancer. 


#Grouping of rare and miscellaneous cancers. 


#Relevance of age at exposure; some studies suggest radiation exposure 


may compromise older workers more than younger. 

#Interaction with workplace exposures; are there synergistic 

interactions between radiation and chemicals or other agents that 

increase the likelihood of cancer. 

#Should chronic lymphocytic leukemia be added to the covered cancers. 

#Dose and dose rate effectiveness factor adjustments. 

Dr. Neton then discussed progress on each of the topics in turn, 


providing detail on their status. 


Ten overarching dose reconstruction issues have been identified. Dr. 


Neton's slide provided not only the issue, but the review or action 


prompting its addition to the list. They are: 


#Oro-nasal breathing; Bethlehem Steel Company review. 


#Workplace ingestion; Bethlehem Steel Company review. 


#Doses from hot particles; Nevada Test Site review. 


#Non-standard external exposures; Mallinckrodt Chemical Works review. 


#Assumptions for unmonitored workers; Ames review. 


#Cohort badging; Ames review. 


#Interpretation of unworn badges; Hanford review. 


#Tracking materials throughout the complex; Board recommendation. 


#Internal dose from super S plutonium; Rocky Flats Plant review. 


#Thoriated welding rods; Rocky Flats Plant review. 


31
 
Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Again discussing details of each issue in turn, Dr. Neton indicated 


three areas of greatest progress are in oro-nasal breathing and 


workplace ingestion, and super S plutonium. Resolution is anticipated 


on the two issues from Bethlehem Steel by the end of February, 2007. 


The super S plutonium issue resulted in OTIB-0049, approved for use in 


plutonium dose reconstruction on a complex-wide basis. 


Discussion Points: 


#Whether the ingestion model takes into account resuspension; 


#Transfer from hand to mouth; 


#Grouping of cancers is a long-time issue; 


#Whether BEIR VII has groupings to illuminate the issue; 


#Relationship between CLL and radiation; 


#Emphasis on occupational studies; 


#Will SC&A review OTIB-49; 


#Secondhand smoke and its effect on non-smokers; 


#Modeling for people whose jobs require lead aprons; 


#Factors affecting cancers in male genitalia may also apply to females; 


#Non-standard exposures; 


#Lumping of prostate and testicular cancer may be a misapplication in 


that one is prevalent among older men and the other largely 


affects younger. 


* * * * *
 

BOARD WORKING TIME
 

Dr. Ziemer called for comments, additions or deletions to the list of 


28 cases recommended by the subcommittee for Board review. 


With no modifications offered, Dr. Ziemer declared the recommendation 


from the subcommittee was a motion not requiring a second, and called 


for a vote. 


The motion carried unanimously, accepting the recommended 28 


cases for Board review.
 

* * *
 

Dr. Ziemer recognized as a formal motion the recommendation by Ms. 


Munn's workgroup of six additional procedures for SC&A review and 


called for a vote. 


32
 
 

Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


The motion carried unanimously, accepting the recommended six 


procedures for SC&A review.
 

* * *
 

The proposed future meeting schedule was discussed. The call meeting 


of December 3, 2007 was changed to December 6, 2007. Dr. Wade proposed 


a call in mid-February and a face-to-face meeting in late March, 2008. 


Tentative dates will be sent to Board members. The July meeting place 


will be announced in the April call meeting. 


* * *
 

New Workgroups and Workgroup Changes
 

Linde Ceramics: Dr. Genevieve Roessler, Chair; members Ms. Josie 


Beach, Dr. James Lockey. 


Los Alamos National Laboratory: Mr. Mark Griffon, Chair; members Ms. 


Josie Beach, Ms. Wanda Munn, Dr. John Poston and Mr. Robert Presley. 


Fernald: Mr. Phillip Schofield was added as a member. 


* * *
 

A motion was made and seconded that a workgroup be formed to 


address the activities of the outreach program, with tasks to 


include: 


1.Review all activities including NIOSH/ORAU organization of meetings; 


2.Monitor the conduct of the meetings; 


3.Monitor the impact of claimant/survivor input on the dose 


reconstruction program, site profiles and site-specific 


petitions. 


After some discussion, Dr. Ziemer called for a vote. 


The motion passed unanimously.
 

Outreach: Mr. Mike Gibson, Chair; members Ms. Josie Beach, Ms. Wanda 


Munn and Mr. Phillip Schofield. 


* * *
 

A motion was made and seconded to authorize SC&A to begin 


work on an initial focused review of the Hanford and Los 


33
 
 

_______________________________________ 

_______________________________________ 

Summary Minutes February 7-9, 2007 
 

NIOSH/CDC Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health


Alamos SEC petitions and associated information in the 


context of their ongoing reviews of those site profiles. 


The motion passed unanimously. 


* * *
 

Dr. Poston raised the issue of an invitation extended to SC&A to attend 


a briefing in Senator Ken Salazar's office. Dr. Ziemer explained it 


was Board policy for a Board member to attend only if a specific 


invitation is received. Dr. Wade offered to attempt to arrange an 


invitation if a Board member wishes to attend. Dr. Poston took 


exception to the Board policy, noting that if Board business is the 


topic of the briefing, the Board should be represented. Dr. Wade
 

agreed to put the issue on the agenda for the call meeting in April. 


* * *
 

Mr. Robert Presley raised the issue of limiting the time for individual 


speakers during public comment, noting some who would have spoken 


sometimes give up and leave due to the late hour. Those commenters 


with lengthy remarks are often people who have spoken many times 


before, and newcomers should be given an opportunity to express their 


views. Dr. Ziemer agreed to make that an agenda item for an upcoming 


meeting. 


* * * * *
 

With no further business to come before the Board, the meeting was 


adjourned at 10:00 a.m. 


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 


34