STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes the 

WORKING GROUP MEETING 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

ROCKY FLATS

 

The verbatim transcript of the Working 

Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held telephonically on March 17, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

March 17, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO 

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 9 

MR. MARK GRIFFON, ABRWH 

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEC CLASS FOR ROCKY FLATS: 11 

TECHNICAL CALL 11 

DOL BULLETIN 15 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 76 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

In the following transcript: a dash (--) indicates 

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

sentence. An ellipsis (. . .) indicates halting speech 

or an unfinished sentence in dialogue or omission(s) of 

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

-- "uh-huh" represents an affirmative response, and 

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

 -- "*" denotes a spelling based on phonetics, 

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 

-- “^” denotes telephonic failure. 
4

 P A R T I C I P A N T S 

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

DESIGNATED FEDERAL OFFICIAL

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D. 

Principal Associate Director 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

GIBSON, Michael H. 

President 

Paper, Allied-Industrial, Chemical, and Energy Union 

Local 5-4200 

Miamisburg, Ohio 

GRIFFON, Mark A. 

President 

Creative Pollution Solutions, Inc. 

Salem, New Hampshire 

MUNN, Wanda I. 

Senior Nuclear Engineer (Retired) 

Richland, Washington 

PRESLEY, Robert W. 

Special Projects Engineer 

BWXT Y12 National Security Complex 

Clinton, Tennessee 

 
5

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS

BARRIE, TERRIE, ANWAG 

BOLLER, CAROLYN, CONGRESSMAN UDALL 

BROEHM, JASON, CDC WASHINGTON 

BURGOS, ZAIDA, NIOSH 

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

MAKHIJANI, ARJUN, SC&A 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

SHARFI, MUTTY, ORAU 

ULSH, BRANT, NIOSH 

WADE, LEW, NIOSH 
6

P R O C E E D I N G S

1 (11:00 a.m.) 

2 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

3 DR. BRANCHE: For the record could we please 

4 have the Board members identify themselves for 

5 the record? 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, Board. 

7 MR. PRESLEY: Robert Presley with the Board. 

8 MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson with the Board. 

9 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, Board. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any other Board 

11 members? 

12 (no response) 

13 DR. BRANCHE: We do not have a quorum of the 

14 Board so we’re fine to get started. 

15 Can I please have -- I’m Christine 

16 Branche. I am with the Office of the Director 

17 and the Principal Associate Director of NIOSH. 

18 And I am the Designated Federal Official for 

19 the Advisory Board. 

20 If I could please have the other NIOSH 

21 staff please identify themselves and also 

22 please tell us if you have a conflict with 
7

1 Rocky Flats. 

2 DR. WADE: This is Lew Wade. I work for the 

3 NIOSH Director, and I have no conflict. 

4 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott, the 

5 Director of OCAS, and I have no conflict on 

6 Rocky Flats. 

7 DR. NETON: Jim Neton at OCAS, no conflict. 

8 DR. ULSH: Brant Ulsh with NIOSH OCAS, no 

9 conflict. 

10 DR. BRANCHE: Please have the staff of Oak 

11 Ridge identify themselves and please say if 

12 you have a conflict. 

13 (no response) 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any Oak Ridge staff 

15 on the line? 

16 (no response) 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: Any ORAU staff on the line? 

18 (no response) 

19 DR. BRANCHE: SC&A staff who are on the 

20 call, and please identify yourselves and 

21 please say if you have a conflict with Rocky 

22 Flats. 

23 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro, SC&A, no 

24 conflict. 

25 MR. FITZGERALD: This is Joe Fitzgerald, no 
8

1 conflict. 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: This is Arjun Makhijani, no 

3 conflict. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: Are there other federal agency 

5 staff who would like, would you please 

6 identify yourselves? 

7 MS. BOLLER: Carolyn Boller with Congressman 

8 Udall’s office. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, thank you. 

10 MR. BROEHM: Jason Broehm, CDC Washington 

11 office. 

12 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus, HHS. 

13 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

14 MS. BURGOS: Zaida Burgos. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any other federal 

16 government staff? Would you please identify 

17 yourselves? 

18 (no response) 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any petitioners or 

20 other representatives on the line? 

21 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie Barrie with 

22 ANWAG. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any workers or their 

24 representatives who are on the line, please? 

25 (no response) 
9

1 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any other members of 

2 Congress or their representatives who would 

3 like to identify themselves? 

4 (no response) 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Are there others who would 

6 like to mention their names for the record? 

7 (no response) 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you. Before we get 

9 started I would ask that if you are, since we 

10 are all participating by phone, I ask that you 

11 please mute your phones unless you’re 

12 speaking. If you do not have a mute button, 

13 then please dial star six to mute your line. 

14 And then you would use the same star six to 

15 unmute your line when you’re ready to speak. 

16 It’s important that all of us on, use the mute 

17 button because the transcriber needs to be 

18 able to hear clearly, and we all need to be 

19 able to hear each other. So I thank you for 

20 your cooperation. 

21 Mr. Griffon. 

22 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR

23 MR. GRIFFON: I think everyone in the work 

24 group at least received the, I sent around 

25 some materials, two items, mainly the minutes 
10

1 from a previous technical call that we had had 

2 and a DOL bulletin which speaks to the 

3 question of the implementation of the SEC 

4 class for Rocky Flats. And I think -- did 

5 everyone receive those items? 

6 MS. MUNN: Yes, we did. I’d like for you to 

7 identify more clearly the first, the numbering 

8 of the first one of those bulletin items, 

9 Mark. I wasn’t sure Bulletin 08-OX was the 

December 8th 10 not complete. I wasn’t sure -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right. I think the 08-14 is 

12 further back in that document. So it looks 

13 like there’s two memos in that document I sent 

14 actually. 

15 MS. MUNN: And the first one didn’t have 

16 numbers -- 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and it’s the same way 

18 with my copy. 

19 MS. MUNN: So I don’t know what it is. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right, I’m not sure what 

21 version that is either. But anyway, the 08-14 

22 I think is at a later date than that. 

23 MS. MUNN: That’s clear enough. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: So if we need clarification on 

25 that we can ask DOL or NIOSH is probably 
11

1 familiar with this, too. 

2 IMPLEMENTATION OF THE SEC CLASS FOR ROCKY FLATS

3 I guess the main intent here as far as 

4 an agenda, I didn’t really send an agenda out, 

5 but it’s just discussing these two items. And 

6 I’m really, my feeling is what the importance 

7 of these two items is on the implementation of 

8 the class and of our recommendation rather 

9 than we’re not really, I mean, my intent here 

10 is not to in any way try to re-open the 

11 petition, but rather just to clarify how it’s 

12 being implemented. And so with that in mind I 

13 can first give a report. 

14 TECHNICAL CALL

15 We had a technical call, and I believe 

16 it was back in December. And on the call was 

17 myself, Larry Elliott from NIOSH and Brant 

18 Ulsh from NIOSH and Margaret Ruttenber. And 

19 we asked at that time to have a discussion 

20 with Margaret -- just to remind everyone, to 

21 refresh everyone’s memories on this issue. 

22 Because this information from 

23 University of Colorado database was used in a 

24 newspaper article, and was questioning the 

25 issues of other neutron buildings. And I 
12

1 think the main point that came out of our 

2 discussion with Margaret Ruttenber, and I 

3 think that’s highlighted in the minutes, was 

4 that her analysis of this data showed more 

5 that the question of whether someone who was 

6 assigned to another building had neutron dose 

7 in their records. 

8 So their work history would show a 

9 building that may or may not, and it may not 

10 have any neutron exposures at all in that 

11 building, but they could have been sent out to 

12 work in other areas where there was plutonium 

13 or where there was a potential for neutron 

14 exposures. And by looking at their work 

15 history you wouldn’t necessarily show those 

16 buildings in their work history. 

17 And that was what she was trying to 

18 point out with that analysis that the fact 

19 that you had several. And I think looking at 

20 the list of buildings someone would say, well, 

21 pretty clearly some of them are not, or it’s 

22 very unlikely that they had neutron exposures. 

23 But that wasn’t the point. 

24 It was that someone that was assigned 

25 to those buildings ended up with neutron doses 
13

1 in their records, and then the question before 

2 us, I guess, is, well, what if someone was 

3 assigned to, say, the maintenance building but 

4 sent out on a job that was not, you know, 

5 these are the people that actually got badged 

6 when they went to another area to do work and 

7 where they could have encountered neutron 

8 exposures. But could it have happened that 

9 they were sent out to these other jobs and not 

10 monitored, and then we wouldn’t have a record 

11 of them working in these other buildings, but 

12 they could have received neutron exposures? 

13 So I guess that’s sort of what’s 

14 raised here is that question. And, Larry or 

15 Brant, I mean, do you have any other, I know 

16 at this point, Larry, I think I saw some 

17 correspondence between you and Margaret that 

18 the University of Colorado has agreed to share 

19 their data with NIOSH as well. Is that true? 

20 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. Yes, 

21 that is correct, Mark. Let me just give a 

22 little background for everybody that’s on this 

23 call. In the ‘90s NIOSH took on the 

24 responsibility of conducting epidemiologic 

25 studies at the various weapons, nuclear 
14

1 weapons plant sites around the country. And 

2 Rocky Flats was, of course, one of the sites 

3 that NIOSH wanted to study very badly. 

4 And they entered into what is called a 

5 cooperative agreement with Colorado Department 

6 of Health and the University of Colorado with 

7 James Ruttenber and Associates being the 

8 principal investigators on that cooperative 

9 agreement to study the Rocky Flats’ workers 

10 cancer experience. And they were specifically 

11 looking at not only plutonium exposures, but 

12 also other radioactive material exposures and 

13 chemical exposures. 

14 And so we, because of that history, 

15 we’re familiar with the study design and the 

16 protocol that was put together and the conduct 

17 of that study, the results that we reported 

18 from that study. And during the SEC 

19 evaluation period, Brant Ulsh went out to 

20 Colorado and visited there and examined the 

21 contents of the study’s data files and talked 

22 about their utility in dose reconstruction 

23 with Dr. Ruttenber. And I believe Brant’s 

24 determination upon return that we had 

25 everything that Dr. Ruttenber had, perhaps we 
15

1 had more in some ways, some instances. 

2 And so, yes, I think, Mark, the 

3 question you raise, were there people that 

4 were operating out of one building and 

5 assigned to go work in another building, were 

6 they badged or were they not badged? I think 

7 our position is that the documentation -- and 

8 Brant can fill in here for me where I may 

9 leave a gap would be an opening that I can’t 

10 fill -- but it’s our opinion and understanding 

11 that these are radiological-controlled areas 

12 and if a mechanic or some other worker or a 

13 control process clerk that had to go into one 

14 of these areas would have had to go in under 

15 the administrative requirements of a 

16 radiological-controlled area and would have 

17 been badged. 

18 DOL BULLETIN

19 We also think that the NDRP covers all 

20 of these people and that is actually the first 

21 criterion in DOL’s technical bulletin. If 

22 they’re in the NDRP list, then they’re in the 

23 SEC class. But buildings don’t really come to 

24 bear here until you have to go to the third 

25 level of criteria used by DOL to discern 
16

1 whether or not an individual should be in the 

2 class. 

3 So we also teased apart the 19 or so 

4 buildings that are reported in the press as 

5 being neutron-related or plutonium-related. 

6 And we don’t find that to be the case. The 

7 one document that has been prepared for the 

8 working group by Brant lists those buildings 

9 and their descriptions and where the source of 

10 that building description is. 

11 And so we would say that the class is 

12 fairly well defined by the existence of the 

13 NDRP data and people that were enrolled in 

14 that neutron dose re-read project. And that 

15 these buildings that are reported in the 

16 popular press out there have no bearing per se 

17 on class eligibility for this class. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: And being on the phone call I 

19 think, Larry, and I’m glad that University of 

20 Colorado seems to be willing to share their 

21 database, but I think even from what I heard 

22 it seemed like Margaret was saying that we’re 

23 working with the same original data that they 

24 may have modified it or rearranged it in 

25 certain ways so they could better use it for 
17

1 their study purposes, but that the data was, 

2 the underlying data was the same data that we 

3 were working from. 

4 I suppose you can confirm that when 

5 you get your hands on it. But I tend to agree 

6 that that’s probably not the primary issue 

7 here. The issue that I would have is if we 

8 agree, and if we had assurance that these 

9 workers in these other buildings any time they 

10 were dispatched to work in neutron areas as, 

11 as you said, that they were rad-controlled 

12 areas and they were badged when they went in, 

13 and therefore would be in the NDRP then I 

14 think there wouldn’t be much to discuss here. 

15 I think the problem that arises is 

16 that in our recommendations one of the bases 

17 we have for this whole SEC period is that we 

18 show based on the evidence we reviewed, at 

19 least the Board’s opinion was that not all 

20 workers were monitored. In fact, not even the 

21 highest exposed neutron workers were monitored 

22 during this time period. 

23 So if we have concerns about evidence 

24 that all workers were monitored, then that 

25 would raise that question I guess is where 
18

1 I’m, the way I’m looking at this right now. 

2 So I tend to agree with you what the building 

3 was. It’s not so much a building issue. It’s 

4 this question of people working in certain 

5 buildings that were reassigned to other areas 

6 where they would have received neutron 

7 exposures. So that’s the discussion on the 

8 table. 

9 MS. BOLLER: This is Carolyn Boller with 

10 Congressman Udall’s office. I just want to 

11 make sure, I mean, we can do a lot of talking 

12 here, but wasn’t the SEC approved because 

13 NIOSH’s recommendation was that they could not 

14 prove that everybody was monitored, and they 

15 didn’t have enough records to complete that 

16 work? 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: No, no, this is Larry Elliott. 

18 That’s not the case. NIOSH’s position was 

19 that we could reconstruct dose with sufficient 

20 accuracy to bound all doses for this class. 

21 The Board in its deliberations determined that 

22 they didn’t agree with that, and as Mark says 

23 -- 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right, that was the Board’s 

25 recommendation, not NIOSH’s. 
19

1 MS. BOLLER: Okay, sorry. I apologize. So 

2 the Board then made a decision that you should 

3 have been or you were or you should have been 

4 monitored, and you can’t determine if some of 

5 these people were or were not. So what’s the 

6 issue? 

7 MR. GRIFFON: The question is that we put -- 

8 and part of the reason I’m following up on 

9 this with the work group process is that we 

10 added that language in the recommendation, and 

11 I’m pretty sure I said on the record at the 

12 time that we would rather be more specific 

13 with this, but given our knowledge of the site 

14 and the monitoring program, we had to be a 

15 little broader with our language because we 

16 didn’t want to exclude anybody that should be, 

17 that met the criteria. So we used language 

18 which we have used in the past which was all 

19 workers who were monitored or should have been 

20 monitored for neutron exposures during the 

21 time period in question, et cetera. 

22 Now I guess the follow up that we’ve 

23 seen here is just questioning who does that 

24 exactly encompass, and that’s the discussion 

25 on the table is if, again, this is my read on 
20

1 this, and I think it’s in line with the 

2 Board’s previous recommendation is that we 

3 believed, based on our review of all the data 

4 at the time when we made this decision, and 

5 it’s in our SEC recommendation, we believe 

6 that the records didn’t adequately demonstrate 

7 or prove that all workers were monitored for 

8 neutron exposures. 

9 So if you follow up on that and say, 

10 well, here we’ve got some people in other 

11 buildings that have neutron exposures 

12 recorded, how do we know that all the people 

13 that were sent to other buildings are actually 

14 monitored. 

15 DR. ULSH: Okay, Mark, this is Brant Ulsh. 

16 My reading of the Board’s deliberations and 

17 recommendations on this issue are a little bit 

18 different. It’s my understanding that the 

19 Board recommended an SEC because they were not 

20 confident in the methodology that the NDRP 

21 used to assign notional dose or unmonitored 

22 dose. But the Board in my recollection never 

23 weighed in explicitly on whether or not 

24 everybody who should have been monitored was 

25 captured in the NDRP. That’s a totally 
21

1 separate issue, and I think it’s worth 

2 repeating here. 

3 Let’s keep in mind that the evidence 

4 that has been presented in support of the 

5 position that there are people missing 

6 doesn’t, in fact, support that position 

7 because the only way to look at the source 

8 data, that is the data that is the source of 

9 both the NDRP and Dr. Ruttenber’s studies is 

10 the same source. The only way to conclude 

11 that is to identify people who have neutron 

12 monitoring who were not officially assigned to 

13 a plutonium building. 

14 By definition those people are already 

15 in the class so the evidence that has been 

16 provided does not support that position. Now 

17 just because that evidence doesn’t support the 

18 position doesn’t mean that it didn’t, in fact, 

19 happen. All I’m saying is no evidence has 

20 been presented -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, that’s a self-fulfilling 

22 argument. I mean, if they’re in the NDRP, we 

23 know it’s going to support your argument. 

24 DR. ULSH: Well, exactly, Mark, but that’s 

25 exactly the point. No evidence has been 
22

1 presented that there are people who are not in 

2 the class who should be. In fact, the 

3 evidence that’s available indicates that 

4 people who were assigned to these other 19 

5 buildings, in fact, were issued neutron 

6 dosimetry and are in the class. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I’m not sure we’ve 

8 examined that question, but the question, I 

9 mean, my memory on the Board’s deliberations I 

10 think is you’re right in one sense, Brant, 

11 that we were, our main point was that because 

12 we were looking at whether the dose could be 

13 bounded, we were focusing on the highest 

14 exposed and the notional dose. 

15 But I also remember that we did have 

16 discussions with Roger Falk, and he said that 

17 it wasn’t ‘til a later timeframe when all 

18 workers were monitored for neutron exposures. 

19 And he was pretty sure that kicked in around 

20 ’67. It looked -- and this is based on my 

21 memory of this -- but I do remember those 

22 discussions occurring that Roger felt pretty 

23 strongly that by ’67 or so all workers were 

24 monitored. 

25 So we were focused on the highest 
23

1 exposed and whether we could bound those 

2 doses. That is true. But I think we also did 

3 discuss the fact that it was pretty apparent, 

4 at least to me looking at those records, that 

5 not all workers were included. 

6 Then we never really examined whether 

7 people assigned to other buildings, would they 

8 have been, you know, I don’t know even if we 

9 have data to examine that because the work 

10 histories don’t show them going to other 

11 buildings. 

12 DR. ULSH: Yeah, but Roger indicated that 

13 those people -- you’re right, Mark. There 

14 were people who did not receive neutron 

15 dosimetry, but Roger was talking about the 

16 pool of people that are in the NDRP. There 

17 are certainly people who have breaks or gaps 

18 in neutron dosimetry that are already included 

19 in the NDRP and assigned notional dose. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

21 DR. ULSH: That’s what he was talking about. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, perhaps that is, but, so 

23 if there are workers in those buildings that 

24 were working but not assigned neutron 

25 dosimetry, but we’re sure that anyone else who 
24

1 was in an external area, anytime they got sent 

2 there was assigned neutron dosimetry? I mean, 

3 that seems like a little, it doesn’t seem 

4 logical to me that that would be the case. 

5 DR. ULSH: You’re adopting a criterion here 

6 that may not be appropriate. It’s not that if 

7 you just set foot in Building 771, you’ll 

8 automatically have neutron exposure potential. 

9 I mean, there were certainly administrative 

10 areas in that building where if I just 

11 delivered a letter to that building that 

12 doesn’t mean I had neutron exposure potential. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: I agree. 

14 DR. ULSH: Places where you would get 

15 significant neutron exposure potential are 

16 spending a significant amount of time in front 

17 of one of the glovebox lines or around the 

18 fluoronator, but not just access those areas 

19 of the building without being monitored. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: But those workers with gaps in 

21 their data that were assigned to those 

22 buildings you’re just saying that the reason 

23 for those gaps is -- 

24 DR. ULSH: You’re correct that over time the 

25 monitoring policies did change, and that’s why 
25

1 NDRP didn’t just simply reevaluate assigned 

2 neutron doses, but rather they went back and 

3 assigned gap doses. And it’s worth mentioning 

4 the NDRP took a very liberal, very -- I don’t 

5 know. I hate to use the word claimant 

6 favorable any more, but very generous view of 

7 assigning notional doses. 

8 In other words, if you had 

9 intermittent exposure to neutrons, they went 

10 ahead and filled in the gaps even though it 

11 wasn’t demonstrated that you had spent actual 

12 time in those controlled areas. But they were 

13 trying to take the most generous dose 

14 assignment policies. 

15 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. Correct me if I’m 

16 wrong. Isn’t the mere fact that they appear 

17 in the NDRP adequate for the SEC? Haven’t we 

18 established that again and again? 

19 DR. ULSH: Well, Wanda, if they are in the 

20 NDRP, that’s one of the criteria that DOL uses 

21 to place people in the class. 

22 MS. MUNN: Then they’re there, and so 

23 whether they have gaps or not is -- 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, then the 250-day thing 

25 comes to bear, Wanda, where the DOL has to 
26

1 total up 250 days of exposure in those 

2 buildings. 

3 MS. MUNN: And so that’s basically the 

4 argument that Mark is making here? 

5 Is that right, Mark? Your argument -- 

6 MR. GRIFFON: No, I don’t care about it. 

7 MS. MUNN: -- 250-day issue here? 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Not so much. I mean, that’s 

9 another issue, but my issue is that I’m still 

10 not convinced that just because they’re not in 

11 the NDRP database doesn’t mean they couldn’t 

12 have been -- here’s the example and the data 

13 from the newspaper article. 

14 You have an individual that’s in the 

15 maintenance building, I forget the number. 

16 They’re sent to one of the plutonium 

17 buildings, and if Brant’s correct, then all 

18 the rad-controls kick into place. They can’t 

19 enter the area without being badged. I would 

20 certainly agree that that happened after a 

21 certain time period, but I question whether it 

22 was as effective in the earlier years. 

23 DR. ULSH: The argument that I’m making, 

24 Mark, is if that newspaper article concluded 

25 that there was a maintenance person who got 
27

1 neutron exposures, the only way that they 

2 could make that conclusion using the data that 

3 they used -- 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Right, is if they got it from 

5 the NDRP, right. But then what about the 

6 other maintenance worker in the same building 

7 that wasn’t in the NDRP? 

8 DR. ULSH: Well, do you have evidence that -

9 - 

10 MR. GRIFFON: No, no, but I’m saying the 

11 logic of this is that you have all these 

12 production workers that had all these gaps in 

13 their data, and your argument is that, well, 

14 that’s because they were working in the 

15 production that one day they were being 

16 conservative by adding a notional dose. I’m 

17 not sure I buy that. 

18 But then you have these maintenance 

19 workers, and we’re supposed to expect that a 

20 hundred percent of the time that when they 

21 entered those areas, they were given a badge 

22 even though the production workers have large 

23 gaps in their data in the ’52 through ’66 time 

24 period. That’s the problem. That to me seems 

25 a little illogical. 
28

1 MR. SHARFI: This is Mutty Sharfi. You 

2 didn’t have to be badged for neutron back in 

3 the ‘60s to be in the NDRP study. All you had 

4 to do is be badged by gamma badge. NDRP then 

5 took your gamma, and then it calculated a 

6 neutron dose. But the fact that everybody 

7 wasn’t badged, neutron isn’t the issue. 

8 Whether they’re badged for gamma and entered a 

9 neutron facility is whether they were put into 

10 the study. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: All right, and then how did 

12 they determine whether they entered the 

13 neutron facilities? Their work history, 

14 right? 

15 MR. SHARFI: Correct. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Right, so then you’re back to 

17 these guys who are assigned to the maintenance 

18 building but went in those buildings. How do 

19 you handle those? I mean, that maintenance 

20 building I’m assuming had no neutron 

21 exposures. I looked through the work history 

22 cards I say, oh, they’re in that building. 

23 I’m not going to assign them any notional dose 

24 to neutrons. Why would I? 

25 DR. ULSH: Right, but when they went into 
29

1 the current buildings, and we’re talking about 

2 the ones that are listed in the NDRP, if they 

3 didn’t already have gamma dosimetry, beta4 gamma dosimetry, and they were going to spend 

5 an appreciable amount of time there -- like, 

6 for instance, someone who worked in Building 

7 44 and went to work an overtime shift in 

8 Building 771. If they didn’t already have a 

9 dosimetry, they were assigned dosimetry, beta10 gamma dosimetry. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

12 DR. ULSH: That was the trigger for 

13 including them in the NDRP. Now not everyone 

14 who’s in the NDRP had neutron dosimetry 

15 assigned to them. That is certainly true. 

16 Those are the people who were assigned 

17 notional doses, but they’re already in the 

18 NDRP. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: I guess my feeling again is, 

20 you know, we need to maybe look back at the 

21 arguments we laid out for this, but if you 

22 have production workers in those buildings 

23 that had quite significant gaps, and my memory 

24 is that that was part of our argument anyway, 

25 not totally because we were worried about 
30

1 bounding doses really. But part of the 

2 argument was that it wasn’t clear that all 

3 people in those buildings were monitored for 

4 neutrons all the time. 

5 But if they had gaps in their data, 

6 then why should I believe that any people 

7 assigned to other buildings, you know, they 

8 always captured them. I guess that’s the 

9 question is, sure, you got a few because 

10 they’re showing up in the NDRP. But did we 

11 get everyone that worked over there? And, no, 

12 I don’t have any specific evidence right here 

13 on this phone call about a case where it 

14 didn’t happen. 

15 But I guess the question we have to 

16 deal with also is this benefit of the doubt to 

17 the petitioning class. We need to, I mean, we 

18 also have survivors that are, that have 

19 claims, and if their work history shows, I’ll 

20 go back to that maintenance building example 

21 because it’s the easiest one to explain. 

22 If their work history shows that 

23 maintenance building, then who’s to say 

24 whether they worked in one of the plutonium 

25 buildings or not if the person is deceased? 
31

1 So there wouldn’t be anything on their 

2 interview records, nothing like that, and 

3 unless they got captured in the NDRP, you 

4 know, I guess your argument, Brant, is that 

5 that system at that time was a hundred percent 

6 effective. 

7 DR. ULSH: No, I wouldn’t make that argument 

8 about any human ^. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: You know, I mean, it was an 

10 effective system. 

11 DR. ULSH: Exactly, within the limits of 

12 human error, but, yes, the NDRP was designed 

13 to capture not only the people with 

14 significant neutron exposures, but to be 

15 generous and capture, in an effort to not miss 

16 anybody, the larger pool even if they didn’t 

17 have significant neutron exposure. And what 

18 we’re arguing about here, what we’re 

19 discussing here is whether or not we should 

20 include an even bigger pool without any 

21 evidence that there’s any people who have been 

22 missed. That’s my point. 

23 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don’t know whether this 

24 might help confuse things more, but this is 

25 Arjun. I just wanted to call attention to 
32

page 60 of our April 5th 1 , 2007 report in which 

2 document that somebody was assigned to 

3 Building 444 but this could be germane to the 

4 kind of situation that you are discussing, 

5 Brant. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Can you describe that, Arjun, 

7 since most people probably don’t have that. 

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: Had spent time in plutonium 

9 areas, now this person was based in Building 

10 444 and had recorded deep dose by ’67, ^ based 

11 on ^. It’s my impression that people recorded 

12 deep dose in Building 444 were not in the 

13 NDRP, but I do not know whether this person 

14 particularly was in the NDRP because I haven’t 

15 looked. 

16 But he was involved in the fire clean 

17 up and so he may have been in the NDRP as far 

18 as that, but I do not know that. I have not 

19 looked. But this may be a potential case that 

20 you might want to examine to see if he was in 

21 the NDRP, and there might be a few others, and 

22 make an empirical test of this argument. 

23 DR. ULSH: I agree, Arjun, that there are 

24 certainly people -- I don’t have your report 

25 in front of me so I don’t know about this 
33

1 particular individual. I mean, we’ll agree 

2 that there are people who were based in other 

3 buildings, for instance, 44, who on occasion 

4 did go work on a temporary basis in the 

5 plutonium buildings. 

6 And I guess probably that’s most 

7 likely the source of these other 19 buildings 

8 that Margaret has talked about. The case that 

9 you described could very well be a case that’s 

10 someone who was based in Building 44 did some 

11 work in a plutonium building and should 

12 already be in the NDRP. Should be. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: And if they’re not, you would 

14 assume the CATI was wrong? 

15 DR. ULSH: I would have to look at the 

16 details. I mean, if we have evidence that 

17 they did work and had neutron exposure 

18 potential in those buildings, then they should 

19 be in the NDRP. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Well, that’s the problem with 

21 survivor claims and things like that, you’re 

22 going to go on the work history or the NDRP. 

23 That’s it, you know? 

24 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark, I just want to provide 

25 some, a little bit of clarification here. 
34

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, sure. 

2 DR. MAKHIJANI: The NDRP considerably pre3 dated any CATI issue. When the NDRP was 

4 constructed in the 1990s there would not have 

5 been any interviews with workers. They may 

6 have contacted workers to interview them as 

7 part of the NDRP, but that would have nothing 

8 to do with ^. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right. 

10 DR. ULSH: And, Mark, it should also be 

11 pointed out as well this contributes. It 

12 probably doesn’t entirely answer the question. 

13 I mean, it’s always possible for a DOL to take 

14 by affidavit in a statement that, hey, I was 

15 in the building. But, of course, I know where 

16 you’re headed. If it’s a survivor claim, then 

17 it’s probably not too likely. 

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: Just as a further point of 

19 clarification ^ individual record in some 

20 detail and put it in the report because as 

21 part of our completeness investigation of 

22 1969, he was taken off the list of people 

23 whose badges were to be read. And this wasn’t 

24 one of those cases where were put through the 

25 raw records, you know, indicating that the 
35

1 badge was, and there were indications that the 

2 badge had not been read. And so, but that was 

3 in the period that happened after the SEC cut4 off. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, ’69, ’70, yeah. 

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: The earlier years he did 

7 have gamma dose above the ten percent. 

8 DR. ULSH: If you’d like, I mean, if 

9 somebody can send me over the name of that 

10 particular individual, obviously, we don’t 

11 want to say it here. 

12 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don’t have the name handy, 

13 but I can try to get it. 

14 DR. ULSH: Yeah, if you want to send it 

15 over, I can let you know whether or not it’s 

16 in the NDRP. 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. I will try to get it. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: So that’s really, that’s the 

19 crux of this call and the, I’m not sure what 

20 action we as a work group or the Board need to 

21 take. I mean, I think -- 

22 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Hey, Mark, I’m sorry. 

23 This is Liz Homoki-Titus. This may be a good 

24 point for me to step in because that’s one of 

25 the concerns that we’ve had since there’s no 
36

1 SEC pending before NIOSH or the Board. I 

2 think the most that the Board could do is send 

3 a recommendation to the Secretary that there 

4 are concerns along this line. And I know in 

5 the past that you’ve sent recommendations to 

6 the Secretary recommending that the Secretary 

7 get in touch with DOL regarding how they’re 

8 implementing their class. But maybe possibly 

9 you want a presentation from DOL to the Board 

10 on how they’re implementing their class. But 

11 the Board does not advise DOL -- 

12 MR. GRIFFON: No, correct. 

13 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- so you’re really kind 

14 of stepping outside of your bounds by 

15 investigating how they’re implementing a class 

16 versus kind of making a recommendation to the 

17 Secretary that there is a concern here. And 

18 then it would be up to HHS, you know, if it’s 

19 appropriate, there could be an 8314 or maybe 

20 another SEC petition comes in. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that’s fine. We 

22 wouldn’t be -- I agree, Liz. We’re not 

23 recommending anything to DOL. I mean, that’s 

24 out of our purview, but I think we could, but 

25 I wouldn’t want to recommend anything to HHS 
37

1 until we had a little more -- 

2 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Well, you want to be sure 

3 about what you’re recommending. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Exactly. A little more 

5 clarification. So we may need to investigate 

6 a little further ourselves before we recommend 

7 anything. I mean, part of what I would be 

8 looking for is, is there, further looking at 

9 this question of do we have any concrete 

10 examples as Brant just talked about. 

11 Are there, is where people were 

12 assigned to this building but I went to those 

13 other areas. I don’t know if we’re ever going 

14 to conclude anything on that either because 

15 then people could also argue that, well, yeah, 

16 they went to another area, but they weren’t in 

17 a neutron area. And we could just spin our 

18 wheels on that one as well. 

19 But anyway, I think we need a little 

20 more clarification amongst ourselves as a work 

21 group and then the Board before we’d be in any 

22 position to write a letter. And even if we do 

23 recommend anything, it’s to the Secretary to 

24 perhaps, not to DOL at all, of course. 

25 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. And I’ll have to 
38

1 be perfectly frank. I don’t believe I’ve 

2 heard anything this morning that we haven’t 

3 discussed before. I don’t believe we will 

4 ever reach a point where there will not be 

5 someone who is willing to and able to question 

6 any findings that any of us have made. The 

7 Board, in my opinion, was generous in its 

8 attention to detail with this group of 

9 claimants and with this SEC petition. 

10 We looked at it, as you know, you led 

11 us through extremely great detail and through 

12 a number of individual cases. I do believe 

13 everyone involved recognizes that there is 

14 never going to be perfect information on 

15 anything that transpired 50 years ago. We all 

16 recognize that. But the thorough job that has 

17 been done is a very thorough job. We haven’t 

18 slacked off here. The group hasn’t slacked 

19 off in any way, and certainly, the Board 

20 hasn’t slacked off. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: I’m not saying we slacked off. 

22 I’m just trying to get it right. And when we 

23 use this language, we said in the meeting that 

24 we’d rather have much more specific, but at 

25 this time there’s no way we could. And this 
39

1 monitored or should have been monitored 

2 question is what’s at hand here, Wanda. 

3 And I, I mean, the indication here, if 

4 I look at the bulletin, you know, when DOL is, 

5 and the other issue here is the 100 millirem 

6 monitors should have been monitored based on 

7 the standards of today, which is 100 millirem 

8 kind of criteria. But DOL is looking back at 

9 the dose reconstruction to see if 100 

10 millirems was assigned by NIOSH. So they’re 

11 in no way looking at where an individual 

12 worked in that sense. I know there’s three 

13 different levels of criteria, but looking at 

14 the NDRP is one thing. 

15 I don’t think anybody slacked off, but 

16 I’m just saying that we, is there, and we’re 

17 probably never going to get it perfect, but 

18 I’ve heard from DOL again and again, you know, 

19 with this kind of language in our 

20 recommendation, they will err on the side of 

21 claimant favorability. If they can’t place a 

22 person outside of a neutron exposure area, 

23 then they would just assume, you know. 

24 So I think that’s what I’m trying to 

25 clarify is what about this example I just 
40

1 gave? These maintenance workers that are in 

2 this building. And if we look further at this 

3 and say, yeah, it did happen, but in every 

4 case -- I have a hard time. If we look back 

5 at the transcripts for this, I think for me 

6 it’s going to be hard to follow the logic of 

7 the fact that all these production workers 

8 were not monitored all the time, and yet any 

9 visiting maintenance workers were always 

10 monitored. 

11 That seems to not hold logic for me. 

12 So I would say, well -- and the work history 

13 shows they were in a quote/unquote non-neutron 

14 building. So they’re going to be left out of 

15 this. That’s my concern, I guess. 

16 MR. PRESLEY: Mark, Bob Presley, can y’all 

17 hear? 

18 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, Bob, yeah. 

19 MR. PRESLEY: In a case where a worker could 

20 be in one building, work in another building, 

21 they have operators that would go from 

22 building to building or operation to 

23 operation, and they wouldn’t be doing the same 

24 thing every day, day in and day out. 

25 There wasn’t that much work on some of 
41

1 that stuff. But I can see where a monitored 

2 worker would have been monitored maybe for a 

3 week’s run or two week’s run and then they 

4 were assigned another operation for two or 

5 three weeks before they started back on it. 

6 As a worker I can see that. I’ve been there. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: That could be true. I mean, 

8 part of what I’m basing this on is what Roger 

9 said, which I thought was, and maybe I have to 

10 review what we went through myself, but I 

11 thought he said that not all the workers, 

12 until ’67 or so, not, you know, beyond that 

13 then you look at the records, and you see that 

14 everyone had direct neutron measurements in 

15 their files or a much higher percentage. And 

16 before that you had a lot of gaps where they 

17 included notional doses. 

18 So that was the question. If you had 

19 all those gaps -- I know what you’re saying. 

20 They could have shifted to other areas, and 

21 that could be the reason for the gaps. But I 

22 just, I didn’t get that sense from what Roger 

23 was saying, but maybe, you know, I would 

24 certainly agree to review those transcripts 

25 and the facts as we know them before going any 
42

1 further. But I just at least wanted to bring 

2 everyone up to speed on this issue, and maybe 

3 we need to bring it before the full Board in 

4 April. 

5 MS. MUNN: And say what? 

6 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I don’t know that we 

7 have a conclusion right now, but at least -- 

8 DR. BRANCHE: This is Christine. You’ll 

9 have an opportunity in the work group updates 

10 to do that very thing. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

12 MS. MUNN: However -- 

13 DR. BRANCHE: If you think it’s important. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

15 MS. MUNN: -- is there still the question of 

16 what? 

17 MR. GRIFFON: The question of whether people 

18 that weren’t assigned to neutron buildings 

19 actually went in there and could have got, and 

20 could have received a 100 millirem exposure. 

21 MS. MUNN: The point I’m trying to make, 

22 Mark, is that either way it’s speculation. 

23 Whether you speculate that this occurred as 

24 has been alleged or whether you take the 

25 position that all of the people that we 
43

1 possibly could identify have been identified 

2 and have been given notional doses even if 

3 they did not receive any doses, we’re not 

4 going to turn up any more evidentiary 

5 material. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: So, okay, that’s a good point, 

7 Wanda. So then what we heard from DOL is that 

8 in the absence of evidence they would err on 

9 the side of the claimant. 

10 MS. MUNN: Yes. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: So there you go. So your 

12 evidence is that some maintenance workers 

13 according to Ruttenber’s analysis were sent 

14 from their maintenance building even though 

15 that’s their building in their work history. 

16 They did work in the other area. They got a 

17 neutron dose. The real question is, are we 

18 sure that all those people, that they did that 

19 for all those people. If we can’t prove 

20 either way, then shouldn’t we say unless you 

21 can prove that they did not, you have to 

22 include them? That’s the question for me. 

23 DR. ULSH: I understand, Mark, and I think 

24 it might be reasonable to ask that question. 

25 But you can’t use Ruttenber’s data to support 
44

1 that because Ruttenber’s data doesn’t say one 

2 way or the other. What Ruttenber’s data 

3 showed is that there are some people who were 

4 assigned in other places. They got neutron 

5 dosimetry when they went to those buildings. 

6 That’s what -- 

7 MR. GRIFFON: But it at least shows that 

8 practice that people were assigned to other 

9 buildings and did neutron work. That’s all 

10 I’m -- 

11 DR. ULSH: It’s not informative about a 

12 speculative question about are there other 

13 people who -- 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Agree, agree. I mean, we 

15 don’t know, I guess that’s the unknown for me. 

16 And my only basis is, like I said, that I 

17 thought that what I heard Roger describe was 

18 that not everyone was monitored for, you know, 

19 not even the people within the NDRP. Out of 

20 that group not even everyone was monitored for 

21 neutron exposures all the time until maybe 

22 beyond ’67 or so. 

23 DR. ULSH: For neutron exposures. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

25 DR. ULSH: The trigger as Mutty mentioned, 
45

1 the trigger to get into the NDRP was that you 

2 had beta-gamma monitoring. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: And you had an assignment in a 

4 certain building, right? 

5 DR. ULSH: Right, that is true. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: So if you’re in a maintenance 

7 building and you have beta-gamma, you could 

8 have gotten missed. That’s the question, I 

9 guess, for me. Is that wrong? 

10 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. If 

11 you’re a maintenance worker, and you’re 

12 assigned to a maintenance building without 

13 beta-gamma monitoring, does that not show that 

14 that guy went out and went in a building when 

15 he was not monitored for this? 

16 MR. GRIFFON: I don’t think unless they had 

17 a particular building assignment that was on 

18 the NDRP list of buildings. Now if they had a 

19 building assignment, then that would be true, 

20 right, Brant? But if they didn’t, I don’t 

21 think it would necessarily be true. 

22 DR. ULSH: All I can say is that we do have 

23 evidence that -- and this is exactly the 

24 evidence that’s been presented, but I believe 

25 misrepresented in the press, that there are 
46

1 people who had dosimetry, who were assigned to 

2 other buildings. And when they went in to an 

3 NDRP building, a neutron building, they were 

4 assigned dosimetry. 

5 Now, Mark, like I said, that is, 

6 that’s the only evidence that we have that at 

7 least in the cases that we know about, they 

8 were assigned dosimetry. Now whether or not 

9 there could be this pool of other people who 

10 went in, well -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Slipped through the cracks or 

12 whatever, yeah. 

13 DR. ULSH: It’s not absolutely impossible, 

14 but there’s no evidence for it that we know 

15 of. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: And like I said, the only 

17 evidence in my mind is that I was pretty sure 

18 we discussed and we concluded that not 

19 everyone was monitored for neutron in that 

20 time period. So if not everyone was 

21 monitored, it would stand to reason that some 

22 of these other people from other buildings 

23 weren’t monitored when they should have been. 

24 That’s my, and I agree, it’s not concrete 

25 evidence. 
47

1 DR. ULSH: For neutrons. That was exactly 

2 the reason that the NDRP assigned notional 

3 doses because it’s recognized that they didn’t 

4 assign neutron doses, assign neutron dosimetry 

5 in the early years. And that’s what Roger was 

6 talking about. That’s why they assigned the 

7 notional dose, and the criteria was you had to 

8 have beta-gamma badging in those buildings. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: I think we’re going in 

10 circles. I think we’ve got the issue on the 

11 table, yeah. 

12 MS. BOLLER: I’d like to ask a question. 

13 This is Carolyn. Who makes the decision as to 

14 what the interpretation of the Board was and 

15 how far that extends? Is that not the Board 

16 who needs to decide what they were in terms of 

17 what they meant by that decision? 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Carol, this is Christine 

19 Branche from NIOSH. The Secretary is the one 

20 who takes the information from the Board’s 

21 recommendation and essentially renders 

22 whatever HHS’ interpretation of the Board’s 

23 decision is and then submits that information 

24 to the Department of Labor. 

25 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: And then Dr. Branche, if 
48

1 I could just follow up. The implementation of 

2 the class is actually done by the Department 

3 of Labor. It’s not done by HHS, and it’s not 

4 done by the Board. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Right. 

6 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: So that would be a 

7 question that would have to go to DOL. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I know that we don’t 

9 weigh in with DOL. I agree with that. The 

10 problem is this bulletin even describes that 

11 DOL has turned back and asked NIOSH about how 

12 to implement this, and they’ve made their 

13 three-tiered approach or whatever. 

14 But if the Board believes that their 

15 recommendation isn’t being implemented as we 

16 thought it should be or appropriately, then 

17 that’s where I think we could weigh in back to 

18 the Secretary anyway. But I’m not saying 

19 that’s our conclusion at this point, but I 

20 think we have the, you know, that would be our 

21 purview would be to weigh in to the Secretary 

22 and say we have concerns about the 

23 interpretation of our last recommendation. 

24 MS. BOLLER: Well, I guess that was my point 

25 was you all made the recommendation. You said 
49

1 this is what we think based on whatever 

2 evidence you had at the time, but you did it. 

3 And now it’s being interpreted which ^ 

4 comfortable that it’s being done properly. 

5 That was my only question. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: This is Christine Branche 

7 again. Early on in the call I think it was 

8 Liz Homoki-Titus who reminded all of us that 

9 we do have the option to invite the Department 

10 of Labor as the Board has done in the past to 

11 make a presentation. And the question could 

12 certainly be how the Department of Labor is, 

13 in fact, carrying out the recommendations that 

14 the HHS Secretary laid out in this particular 

15 issue. 

16 That way there’s no contention about 

17 what he said or she said but what DOL is 

18 telling the Board in how they’re implementing 

19 the class. And that might be something that 

20 you want to consider as this work group ^ 

21 information that you lay before it today. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Christine. I was 

23 actually going to say as actions from this 

24 discussion today I think one thing might be to 

25 ask if we can have DOL at our April meeting, 
50

1 even if it’s part of their regular, I’m sure 

2 they’re on the agenda, if they can include a 

3 part of the presentation to be a presentation 

4 on this bulletin 08-14, I think it is, about 

5 how they’re implementing the Rocky Flats SEC 

6 class. 

7 But I was going to ask if that could 

8 be one of our actions coming out of this 

9 meeting. And the other is I would certainly 

10 prior to the April meeting, I’m going to go 

11 back and revisit our transcripts and our 

12 deliberations for our SEC determination 

13 because I want to clarify some of the, some of 

14 our bases for the SEC petition just to make 

15 sure. And I’ll be prepared in April to, you 

16 know, we could even have another work group 

17 meeting if we need to on one of the nights if 

18 we have time. 

19 But I would be willing to present some 

20 of that in more detail there so we can refresh 

21 our memories on exactly what, because I can 

22 sit here and say my recollection of what Roger 

23 Falk said was, but I’d rather go back to the 

24 transcript and find some of those 

25 deliberations. We spent a lot of time on 
51

1 that. No sense going through them all again, 

2 but I’ll agree to summarize some of those 

3 deliberations. 

4 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. I certainly agree 

5 we’ve spent more than adequate time on these 

6 issues, time and time again. If we’re going 

7 to do this, if we’re going to bring this issue 

8 before the Board again, then I would certainly 

9 request that you do, in fact, review the 

10 transcripts and that you provide to the 

11 working group excerpts from those transcripts 

12 as you find applicable for your concerns. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I will and prior to the 

14 meeting. 

15 MS. MUNN: Well prior to the meeting in 

16 order that this work group could again have a 

17 discussion about this. It would be very 

18 unfortunate if we had a repeat performance of 

19 some of us expecting one kind of report in 

20 front of the Board and then hearing a 

21 different kind of report when we actually got 

22 to the Board meeting. That would really be 

23 most disappointing. 

24 But it would be very helpful if all of 

25 us were absolutely on the same page before we 
52

1 either make commentary to the Board in 

2 addition to what we’ve already said or before 

3 we specifically request a presentation to us, 

4 especially from Labor, if we do not have a 

5 pinpoint accurate question that we’d like to 

6 have before all parties involved. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: This is Christine. 

8 Mark, I’m sorry, go ahead. 

9 MR. GRIFFON: I was just going to say that’s 

10 just fine, Wanda. I will get, I have to find 

11 the transcript sections, and I will forward 

12 those to the work group prior to our meeting 

13 in April. 

14 But I wanted to clarify. Do you think 

15 then we don’t need at this point to ask DOL 

16 just to present? Because it’s not only, I 

17 mean, it answers a number of questions. This 

18 has been raised as a concern in the public 

19 through newspaper articles. So it’s not only 

20 the work group asking the question of how is 

21 this SEC being implemented appropriately. I 

22 think that’s a forum for DOL to clarify, if 

23 nothing else, how they’re doing this. 

24 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. Do you 

25 want to just give some type of a clarification 
53

1 for the working group maybe before you bring 

2 this to the full Board, a consensus of the 

3 working group? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Well, we have this bulletin, 

5 and I’ve invited DOL to the other conference 

6 call, and they turned me down, so I don’t know 

7 if they’d be willing to come on. But we have 

8 this bulletin that I sent around which is 

9 fairly clear on how they’re doing this. 

10 MS. MUNN: That seems to me to be clear. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I just thought they 

12 could -- a presentation of this could present 

13 what the policy put forward in this bulletin 

14 in that public forum, and then if others had 

15 questions, they could field those questions at 

16 that time. 

17 MS. MUNN: But yet you see what I’m trying 

18 to say is if we’re going to ask DOL questions 

19 about the bulletin and how it’s being 

20 implemented, it would behoove us to be very 

21 precise about what our question is rather than 

22 just how are you doing this. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 

24 MS. MUNN: If our question is focused on 

25 what the press’s interpretation is, then we 
54

1 need to say that, and we need to specifically 

2 ask the question that we want answered rather 

3 than asking for a broad-brush interpretation 

4 of their interpretation of what the 

5 appropriate approach is for this SEC. 

6 Apparently, there are lots of rocks involved 

7 in our suppositions here, and unless we are 

8 crystal clear about the questions we want 

9 answered, then we’re not likely to get a 

10 crystal clear answer. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: That is true. They would just 

12 give us an overview of their policy, a 

13 current. I mean, I have one question. I 

14 think I was pretty clear with that. I would 

15 agree that we don’t have the facts to say that 

16 the issue I raised did happen, but, you know, 

17 but the question is, were people assigned to 

18 other buildings, are we sure that they were 

19 always monitored for neutrons and would they 

20 be included in the NDRP system. So I don’t 

21 know, I also don’t know if we can forward 

22 questions to DOL. I don’t know how that -- 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: That’s not a question DOL’s 

24 going to be able to answer, Mark. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: Right. 
55

1 MR. ELLIOTT: The question you just asked 

2 seems to me to be a question either the 

3 working group needs to answer itself or NIOSH 

4 needs to answer for you. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: That’s what I think. I think 

6 the work group needs to answer that, and I 

7 will agree to look back at the transcripts, 

8 bring up those arguments that were made before 

9 about who was monitored, our arguments about 

10 whether -- 

11 MR. ELLIOTT: But I see that question going 

12 not so much to how the class is being 

13 administered by DOL as to the test that’s 

14 required in the regulation on adding a class. 

15 Can dose be reconstructed with sufficient 

16 accuracy, i.e., can it be bounded or a more 

17 precise estimate be given? And so I think you 

18 might get hung up in this if you reopen all of 

19 this. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: I didn’t follow your last 

21 point though, Larry. How does that get into 

22 the bounding, can dose be bounded? 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: The question that you asked is 

24 are people, unmonitored workers who were 

25 assigned to work in these buildings, are they 
56

1 actually getting, were they actually monitored 

2 during this timeframe. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Right. Were they not 

4 monitored when they should have been? 

5 MR. ELLIOTT: Right. And I think that’s a 

6 question that goes toward not necessarily the 

7 administration of the class. I guess it does 

8 in the end as to who’s eligible to be in the 

9 class, but it harkens all the way back to 

10 whatever determination the Board used to add 

11 the class based on insufficient, inability to 

12 reconstruct dose with sufficient accuracy. I 

13 think you got it. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: I guess that’s my point is 

15 that we already came to, I mean, NIOSH doesn’t 

16 agree with that, but the Board did conclude 

17 that we couldn’t bound dose for that time 

18 period for those exposures, right? So now 

19 this is a question of just, this is a question 

20 in my mind anyway of the implementation of 

21 that monitored or should have been monitored 

22 phrase. That’s what I’m understanding this as 

23 anyway. 

24 MS. BARRIE: Mark, this is Terrie Barrie. 

25 May I make a comment? 
57

1 MR. GRIFFON: Sure. 

2 MS. BARRIE: I just want to remind everyone 

3 on the call that the Department of Labor voted 

4 to add Building 881 previously to the class, 

5 and it was because neutron dose was assigned 

6 or DOL determined that NIOSH assigned neutron 

7 dose to those workers. And what we’re looking 

8 for is just a very consistent implementation 

9 of the class definition. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, in that case, Larry or 

11 Brant, it was determined that that individual 

12 was assigned neutron dose from NIOSH’s work, 

13 correct? 

14 MR. ELLIOTT: The misunderstanding here, I 

15 think in the public and at that point in time 

16 from DOL’s perspective was that that claim or 

17 the claims that they looked at in Building 881 

18 were what we call overestimates. In other 

19 words we were given a claimant favorable, 

20 overestimate to show that in the end DOL would 

21 find the case non-compensable. 

22 If we were to do a best estimate or an 

23 actual estimate of dose, we probably would 

24 say, and which we have said to DOL, we don’t 

25 believe that there was that much neutron 
58

1 exposure in 881, if any. So there’s another 

2 generosity built into what the DOL’s done 

3 here. I think that’s been lost upon people. 

4 And we’re okay with that. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: So you’re saying, yeah, okay. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: ^ called us and talked to us 

7 about the claims and of course you can say 

8 this after the fact, and they understood that 

9 these were overestimates where we’ve just 

10 thrown everything at it that we could. And in 

11 our actual belief, we don’t find any plutonium 

12 exposure in Building 881, they would have 

13 probably handled that differently. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: And that’s why the revised 

15 bulletin says that if they got 100 millirem in 

16 any one year and they’re not assigned to those 

17 neutron buildings, then they’re supposed to 

18 follow up, right? They’re supposed to -- 

19 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: -- look further at the case 

21 because it could be an overestimate or 

22 whatever. So that’s a little revision in 

23 their bulletin anyway. 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, sir. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: That’s a little different, but 
59

1 my question still stands for these other 

2 buildings where they would have had worked in 

3 other buildings and assigned intermittently to 

4 the known plutonium buildings or neutron 

5 exposure areas. That’s the question I have. 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, to benefit the working 

7 group, I’m ready to ask Brant to look into how 

8 many maintenance workers do we see in the 

9 NDRP. What other job categories or titles can 

10 we point to that worked out of these other 

11 buildings that may have been assigned out of 

12 that building to go to one of the plutonium 

13 finishing buildings and report back to you all 

14 on that. And then I think it’s, the working 

15 group has to come to some decision here on how 

16 they want to proceed. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: And I’ll also agree to, like I 

18 said, look back at the transcripts, pull 

19 together those portions where we deliberated 

20 on this issue of who was and was not 

21 monitored, and provide those to the work group 

22 and maybe -- I don’t know the schedule for the 

23 next meeting, Christine, but if we have time 

24 for a work group meeting during that Board 

25 meeting maybe we can do that. 
60

1 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, actually, I’ll be sending 

2 out the agenda this week to the Board members. 

3 It’s a pretty tight agenda. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: I know. I figure -- 

5 DR. BRANCHE: And if, Mark, if you and your 

6 work group members decide that you want to do 

7 it, there is after the public comment period 

8 on the first day that ends at six p.m. That’s 

9 on that Monday, and that’s actually the only 

10 time in the evening, because you did mention 

11 evening. And we’re starting every single day 

12 at 8:30 in the morning. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: What I was thinking maybe we 

14 can do this when we get there, but it could be 

15 a half hour, 40-minute kind of update meeting. 

16 We could hear from Brant, and I’ll summarize 

17 what I found just in preparation for our 

18 report to the full Board. 

19 But it wouldn’t have to be a lengthy 

20 time period, but I think it would be 

21 worthwhile. I will report accurately what we 

22 say at the work group to the full Board. I’m 

23 not going to, I’ll report what we decide to 

24 report to the full Board. But I think it 

25 would be worthwhile just to have Wanda, Bob. 
61

1 Mike, do you agree with that? Is that 

2 -- 

3 MS. MUNN: My personal opinion is if we 

4 could do this either by a teleconference 

5 beforehand or perhaps Sunday night beforehand 

6 so we aren’t up against some other meetings. 

7 I can’t imagine anybody -- 

8 MR. GRIFFON: I won’t rule out that option, 

9 but I know -- 

10 MS. MUNN: -- Nobody’s going to fly in on 

11 Monday morning surely. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: I won’t rule out that option, 

13 but I know we’ve got a lot of, there’s a 

14 subcommittee and then the meeting next week. 

15 We have a lot of things coming up here. 

16 MS. MUNN: We sure do, and I know your plate 

17 runneth over. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: So that’s the only reason, I 

19 mean, the calendar’s closing in on us quick. 

20 But if we can do a work group before, I mean, 

21 we don’t have to put these in the Federal 

22 Register. Maybe we could do it the week 

23 before the Board meeting at the end of the 

24 week, you know, that Thursday, Friday. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Mark, this is Christine. 
62

1 Actually, a couple of people asked, Mound is 

2 the last face-to-face work group meeting that 

3 we have before the Board meeting in Tampa. 

4 And so, for example, Wanda’s having a fairly 

5 quick Procedures call on the second, so 

6 there’s time on the second. There’s time on 

7 the third. 

8 I’ve been reluctant to schedule things 

9 for the fourth although the morning would be 

10 available because people will be getting their 

11 last paperwork. I wanted to make sure that 

12 NIOSH staff have time to get everything 

13 together in time to go ahead and go onto their 

14 planes over the weekend. 

15 So I’ve been trying to not schedule 

16 anything for certainly the afternoon of the 

17 fourth. But if you wanted to have a 30-to-40 

18 minute face-to-face meeting, you could 

19 certainly have the same on a conference call 

20 the week before. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Let’s look at our schedules. 

22 Can we do that on like Thursday? 

23 DR. BRANCHE: The third? I can be available 

24 before three p.m. eastern daylight time. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: How about Thursday at 11 
63

1 eastern time? 

2 MS. MUNN: I will be in Florida at that 

3 time, so if you want to set it earlier, that’s 

4 fine. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Well, I’ve got something 

6 earlier actually. 

7 MS. MUNN: Oh, okay. So you’re suggesting 

8 ten? 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Eleven. 

DR. BRANCHE: This is on April 3rd 10 ? 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley, how does that 

13 work for you? 

14 MR. PRESLEY: Right now it works pretty 

15 good. I have -- wait just a minute and let me 

16 look if y’all can bear with me one second. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, while he’s looking, Mr. 

18 Gibson? 

19 MR. GIBSON: Yeah, that’s okay, Christine. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: And, Brant, will that give you 

21 enough time to look into some of this as Larry 

22 suggested? 

23 DR. ULSH: I don’t know, Mark. It’s going 

24 to be really tight. Could you perhaps clarify 

25 what you would like to see? What are you 
64

1 looking for in terms of a product from us? 

2 MR. GRIFFON: I guess, I’m not sure what 

3 you’re going to be able to produce, but what 

4 Larry just said was -- 

5 Well, Larry, maybe you can -- 

6 MR. ELLIOTT: We’d look at this one case 

7 that Arjun has identified in the report if 

8 he’ll give us the name if that’s an example of 

9 the type of worker that might have gotten 

10 shuffled around and missed here. Certainly, I 

11 think can’t we look in the NDRP and see by job 

12 category or if we have maintenance workers 

13 that we have people assigned working out of 

14 one of these other buildings ^ work 

15 sporadically or intermittently with ^. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: But if they’re in the NDRP, I 

17 think we have that same argument, right? 

18 DR. ULSH: That they’re self-selected. 

19 We’re only going to see them if they’re in the 

20 NDRP. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: The problem I have is there is 

22 no way to search work histories, is there? To 

23 look for maintenance, to look for that other -

24 - 

25 MR. ELLIOTT: In the claims system? 
65

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

2 MR. ELLIOTT: ^ claims system. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: I don’t know that we’re going 

4 to be able to find any of this other than if 

5 we have cases that we, that you guys have done 

6 that you recall or if the petitioners have 

7 examples that have been either brought forward 

8 already or -- and I don’t recall, but I don’t 

9 have that, Brant. Do you? 

10 DR. ULSH: I don’t recall any. I mean, 

11 certainly, what you said, Mark, is true that 

12 if we had specific individuals we could check 

13 and see whether they’re in the NDRP or not. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Right, if we had cases that 

15 were brought forward. I guess that would be 

16 the only thing we could follow up on really. 

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark, this is Arjun. We had 

18 in our completeness investigation the random 

19 cases. As I recall, NIOSH went back and 

20 checked but we had a number of workers who 

21 were in Building 44 and other buildings ^ I 

22 don’t think ^ normally would have been part of 

23 the NDRP, but where they might have been the 

24 type of workers we’re talking about. 

25 Now, I don’t know if any of them have 
66

1 extensive worker documentation in terms of the 

2 raw records. We have not, this, did not 

3 examine this particular aspect, and we ^ 

4 investigation, but we have some selection of 

5 workers from that investigation that although 

6 there’s no guarantee that it would be 

7 representative of the type of ^. Or 

8 alternatively, you could look at a category of 

9 maintenance workers who we know were roving 

10 workers from among that sample ^ look at that. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: I don’t know what in the 

12 records though, Arjun, what in the records is 

13 going to show that they were roving 

14 maintenance workers and they went to plutonium 

15 buildings. 

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, Kathy DeMers, we’ve 

17 done extensive interviews in the course of our 

18 site profile review, and I was not involved in 

19 that process. I’ve been trying to reach 

20 Kathy, that’s why, Brant, I have not sent you 

21 the number because I don’t, I haven’t been 

22 able to reach her. 

23 But I think that normally in the 

24 course of our interviews we do get that kind 

25 of information from the workers. And I’m just 
67

1 speculating at this stage, but I don’t know 

2 that we have examples of this type. But if 

3 you’re looking for a way to get them, that 

4 might be one place to look. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: There is one other case that I 

6 would recommend following up on for obvious 

7 reasons, and that’s there’s one, a reference 

8 made to a case in the Rocky Mountain News

9 today actually. And I think there’s even 

10 names, I mean, I won’t say it on the call 

11 here, but there’s even names in the newspaper 

12 article. I think they’re sort of asking about 

13 this kind of scenario. I’m not sure. 

14 DR. ULSH: I’ll make sure to get it right 

15 after -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I just glanced at the 

17 article. 

18 DR. ULSH: If there are people in it that 

19 fit what we’re looking for, in other words, 

20 have evidence -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think it’s got to be 

22 these kind of case-by-case. I don’t know that 

23 we’re going to find a lot of these because we 

24 can’t search anything. But if we have it 

25 through interviews -- 
68

1 And, Arjun, can you, can SC&A forward 

2 any special cases where you’ve done interviews 

3 or whatever, one, two, five, whatever you find 

4 that could be cases of this? 

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: I will do that. I will talk 

6 to Kathy. 

7 Joe, do you know where Kathy is? 

8 MR. FITZGERALD: Yes, she’s in transit to 

9 Santa Susana. 

10 DR. ULSH: Just so we’re all on the same 

11 page I think what we’re looking for is 

12 specific individuals where there’s evidence 

13 that they were in a plutonium building. And 

14 we want to check and see whether or not 

15 they’re in the NDRP. Is that kind of what 

16 we’re thinking about here? 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, that they were assigned 

18 to, yeah, that they were assigned to buildings 

19 outside those listed in the NDRP, but they 

20 worked in a neutron area. 

21 DR. ULSH: Okay. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: And it might be just them 

23 saying that in the interview might be one part 

24 of it. You might check and -- here’s the 

25 problem. If they say it in their, if an 
69

1 individual’s claim is that, yeah, I worked in 

2 this maintenance building for 30 years, but I 

3 went, and I did work in these other plutonium 

4 areas all the time -- 

5 MS. MUNN: But did, I was not badged. 

6 MR. GRIFFON: -- what does that mean? 

7 MS. MUNN: As long as they were badged even 

8 for -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and they say but I 

10 wasn’t badged. That would be the thing, yeah. 

11 I’m not sure how many examples like that we’re 

12 going to have. Maybe, probably not many. 

13 MS. MUNN: Well, it’s difficult to imagine 

14 maintenance workers who are assigned to ^ at a 

15 site like Rocky Flats and not being monitored 

16 for beta-gamma. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, but -- well, anyway, 

18 we’ve been around this circle. I’d be 

19 surprised, too, but that doesn’t necessarily 

20 mean they’re going to be assigned neutron 

21 dose. That’s the problem. 

22 DR. ULSH: Well, Mark, in answer to your 

23 question, well, I don’t know if it was your 

24 question, Mark, or someone else’s. But in 

25 answer to your question, I think that by the 
70

1 April Board meeting if I have names, specific 

2 names of people, I can tell you whether or not 

3 they were in the NDRP. That is easily 

4 accomplishable. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: So we can at least go to that 

6 step, and we can at least present if you have 

7 several of these examples you can paraphrase 

8 the examples sort of in what you found. 

9 Whether you found anything in the NDRP or not, 

10 right? 

11 DR. ULSH: That’s right. Yeah, I think so. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: And we just have to agree if 

13 anybody has any of these examples, SC&A, 

14 you’ve got to get them to Brant in the next 

15 several days so he has enough time. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: Mark, this is Christine. So 

17 are you still going to go forward with your 

18 proposed 11 a.m.? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

20 Is that okay, Bob? You were checking 

21 your -- 

22 MR. PRESLEY: Is that on the third? 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Yes. 

24 MR. PRESLEY: Right now I don’t have a 

25 problem. That’s a Thursday. 
71

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, we’ll go ahead with that 

2 then. 

3 DR. ULSH: Do you all envision that being 

4 for the working group? Or would you desire to 

5 have participation with NIOSH in that? 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Say that again, please? 

7 DR. ULSH: What I’m wondering if it’s just 

8 going to be the four working group members or 

9 if you want any participation -- 

10 MR. GRIFFON: No, no, no, we want you to 

11 report back to us. 

12 DR. ULSH: In that meeting. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: You want a full-fledged work 

15 group meeting to address this particular 

16 issue. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: And I would propose also 

19 anything that you’re going to say before the 

20 Board -- 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

22 MS. MUNN: Absolutely. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Out of that meeting I think 

24 the work group wants, we want to come to 

25 agreement of our report back to the Board, 
72

1 what we’re going to report. 

2 MR. PRESLEY: I agree. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: And I will agree for that 

4 meeting to get, to look back at our previous 

5 deliberations and pull together segments of 

6 the transcripts or whatever that are 

7 applicable to this situation. 

8 MS. BOLLER: And, Mark, you will copy in the 

9 Congressionals and Terrie? 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I’ll have to work 

11 with Christine on the, you know, if we 

12 generate new documents, will certainly have to 

13 go through the Privacy Review, right, 

14 Christine? 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, if new documents are 

16 provided, yes. I suspect that given this very 

17 specific information that you asked of Brant, 

18 you are probably going to be able to only 

19 verbally discuss his findings as opposed to 

20 any report. 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Right, those where we’re 

22 talking about specific cases, we certainly 

23 will have to not -- 

24 DR. BRANCHE: We won’t be able to distribute 

25 those. 
73

1 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, but if I pull 

2 together sections of transcripts from previous 

3 transcripts that I’m planning on discussing, I 

4 can forward those or should I still run those 

5 through you? 

6 DR. BRANCHE: No, those that are on the 

7 website have already been Privacy, they 

8 couldn’t be posted until they went through the 

9 Privacy Act. So anything you prepare there 

10 from that transcript is fair game. You could 

11 send that. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: And I won’t include anything 

13 else in that kind of thing just so we don’t 

14 have to go through Privacy review again. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Right. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: But I would forward that to 

17 you certainly, Carolyn, yeah. Anything we 

18 can, the answer is anything we can, but we’ll 

19 certainly get around to people. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: And what we’ve done, just for 

21 consistency’s sake we’ve allowed, we’ve asked 

22 Jason Broehm to forward that information 

23 although Mr. Griffon certainly is, can do that 

24 for people interested in this work group. But 

25 just so that everyone is consistently 
74

1 notified, if we can, if, Mark, you can get 

2 that information to us early enough, we can 

3 use our, the channels we’ve established to get 

4 information to the petitioners, to get 

5 information to the members of Congress who’ve 

6 shown an interest in this. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: I’ll do that, yeah. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: We’ll send out an announcement 

9 about the next work group meeting for this 

work group that’ll be April 3rd 10 , at 11 a.m. 

11 eastern daylight time. 

12 MR. PRESLEY: Liz, this is Bob Presley. Is 

13 Liz still on? 

14 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yes, sir. 

15 MR. PRESLEY: Liz, call me at home. You got 

16 my home phone number? 

17 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I do believe I do. 

18 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you. 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, so I think that’s all I 

20 had to discuss for this call. I mean, at 

21 least we have a path forward, and that’s all I 

22 have for now. I would encourage people to 

23 read through that bulletin if you haven’t 

24 already, and also to look at the Rocky 

25 Mountain News, that example. We should 
75

1 definitely follow up on that example in the 

2 Rocky Mountain News article today. 

3 MS. MUNN: I’ll track down the Rocky 

4 Mountain News, but the bulletins themselves 

5 seem pretty straightforward and pretty clear 

6 to me. 

7 MR. PRESLEY: That’s what I was going to 

8 say. I read the bulletin and it looks -- 

9 MR. GRIFFON: Well, if it was that 

10 straightforward, they probably would have got 

11 it right the first time. But let’s review 

12 those and discuss it at the next work group 

13 call. 

14 MS. MUNN: We will. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Will do. Thank you very much. 

16 (Whereupon, the working group meeting 

17 concluded at 12:25 p.m.) 

18 

19 

20 

21 
76

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of March 17, 

2008; and it is a true and accurate transcript 

of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

18th day of November, 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102