eg ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH
- 4676 Columbia Parkway, MS: C-46
Fi (Ga Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
% (513) 533-6825

%

by,
“a

July 5, 2006

CHAIRMAN: The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt

Paul L. Ziemer, Ph.D. Secretary of Health and Human Services
Lafayette, Indiana Department of Health and Human Services
200 Independence Avenue, S.W.

MEMBERS: Washington, DC 20201

Bradley P. Clawson | os ,
Rexburg, Idaho Dear Mr. Secretary:

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

The Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health (The Board) has

evaluated SEC Petition -00038 concerning workers at the Ames Laboratory
Michael H. Gibson

Franklin, Ohio under the statutory requirements established by EEOICPA and incorporated
; into 42 CFR Sec. 83.13. The Board respectfully recommends a Special

EE eee aeatine Exposure Cohort be accorded to all Department of Energy (DOE) employees
or its contractor or subcontractor employees who were monitored or should

ecanatl Oni M.D. have been monitored while working at the Ames Laboratory in one or more of
the following facilities/locations: Chemistry Annex | (also known as “the old

MAG NOWYeR a women’s gymnasium” and “Little Ankeny”), Chemistry Annex 2, Chemistry
Building (also known as “Gilman Hall”) , Research Building , or the

Taina Weshington Metallurgical Building (also known as Harley Wilhelm Hall) for a number of
work days aggregating at least 250 work days during the period from January

Callao station, Nose 1, 1942 through December 31, 1954, or in combination with the work days
within the parameters established for one or more other classes of employees

pps in the SEC. This recommendation is based on the following factors:

Genevieve S. Roessler, Ph.D. 7 a
Elysian, Minnesota e These workers were employed during the early years of nuclear

weapon production.

STAFF: e There are very little monitoring data available for the Ames
EXECUTIVE SECRETARY: Laboratory during the years in question. NIOSH concluded that the
: available monitoring and source term information is not sufficient to
Lewis V. Wade, Ph.D : ; ‘ Ba
Washington, DC document or estimate the potential maximum radiation exposures for
workers at the Ames Laboratory under plausible circumstances during
COMMITTEE MANAGEMENT : the time period in question. The Board concurs with this conclusion.

LaShawn D. Shields 5 . a . . ~ —
Atlanta, Georgia e NIOSH has reviewed information which confirms that radiation

exposures at the Ames Laboratory during the time period in question
could have endangered the health of members of this class. The Board
concurs with this conclusion.


The Honorable Michael O. Leavitt July 5. 2006

The Board is still evaluating issues related to people who may have been exposed to radiation during
discrete incidents that could have involved exceptionally high exposures to radiation while working
at the Ames Laboratory (¢.g.. those who were present during the explosions and fires in some of the
buildings) and who may not meet the 250 work day requirement described above. The Board will
continue to review this matter and may make additional future recommendations regarding this

group.

Enclosed is supporting documentation from the recent Advisory Board Meeting held on June 15,
2006 in Washington. DC where this special exposure cohort petition was discussed. This
documentation includes transcripts of public comments on the petition, copies of the petition and the
NIOSH review thereof. a report on the review of the NIOSH evaluation report prepared by the
Board’s contractor (SC&A, Inc.).and related documents distributed by NIOSH and the petitioners.
If any of these items are unavailable at this time, they will follow shortly.

Sincerely,

Paul L. Ziemer. Ph.D.
Chairman

Encl.