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 April 3, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

April 3, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO 

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 10 

MR. MARK GRIFFON 

SEC CLASS FOR ROCKY FLATS 13 

CONGRESSMAN MARK UDALL 17 

SEC CLASS FOR ROCKY FLATS (cont’d) 20 

NIOSH UPDATE 44 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 74 
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 interruption. 
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

ARAMANGST, PAT, CONGRESSMAN JOHN SALAZAR 

BOLLER, CAROLYN, CONGRESSMAN UDALL 

ELLIOTT, LARRY, NIOSH 

EVAH, BEATRICE, SENATOR KEN SALAZAR 

FITZGERALD, JOE, SC&A 

GNIRK, GALE, CONGRESSMAN JOHN SALAZAR 

HOLAN, BILL, CONGESSMAN ED PERLMUTTER 

HOMOKI-TITUS, LIZ, HHS 

HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

KESSLER, ZANE, SENATOR KEN SALAZAR 

KOTSCH, JEFF, DOL 

MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

SHARFI, MUTTY, ORAU 

UDALL, MARK, CONGRESSMAN 

ULSH, BRANT, 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: I am Dr. Christine Branche, 

4 the Designated Federal Official for the 

5 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

6 And this is now a meeting of the Rocky Flats 

7 working group. And so I would like to ask all 

8 of the Board members to please identify 

9 themselves. Everyone who’s participating from 

10 the Board please acknowledge if you have a 

11 conflict with Rocky Flats. All Board members 

12 please announce yourselves. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: This is Mark Griffon chairing 

14 the working group, no conflict. 

15 MS. MUNN: Wanda Munn, working group, no 

16 conflict. 

17 MR. GIBSON: Mike Gibson, working group, no 

18 conflict. 

19 DR. BRANCHE: Mr. Presley? 

20 (no response) 

21 DR. BRANCHE: I’ll come back to him. 

22 Are there other Board members on the 
7

1 line? 

2 (no response) 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Are there other Board members 

4 on the line? 

5 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. Were you 

6 calling the roll? 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Yes, I was. 

8 MR. PRESLEY: Instead of hitting the mute 

9 button, I turned my phone off, so I’m sorry. 

10 I’m here. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: And do you have a conflict 

12 with Rocky Flats? 

13 MR. PRESLEY: No, ma’am. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any other Board 

15 members? 

16 (no response) 

17 DR. BRANCHE: We do not have a quorum so we 

18 can proceed. Will the NIOSH staff please 

19 identify yourselves and please say if you have 

20 a conflict with Rocky Flats. 

21 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott, the 

22 Director of OCAS, and I do not have a conflict 

23 with Rocky Flats. 

24 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton with OCAS, no 

25 conflict. 
8

1 DR. ULSH: Brant Ulsh with OCAS, no 

2 conflict. 

3 DR. BRANCHE: Will the ORAU staff if you’re 

4 on the line please indicate your names and 

5 please say if you have a conflict with Rocky 

6 Flats. 

7 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi with the ORAU 

8 team, no conflicts. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: SC&A staff would you please 

10 indicate your names and please say if you have 

11 a conflict with Rocky Flats. 

12 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, no conflict. 

13 MR. FITZGERALD: Joe Fitzgerald, SC&A, no 

14 conflict. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you, gentlemen. 

16 Are there other federal agency staff, 

17 would you please identify yourselves? 

18 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS, no conflict. 

19 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus, HHS, no 

20 conflict. 

21 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch, Department of 

22 Labor. 

23 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any petitioners or 

24 their representatives who are on the line who 

25 would like to announce their names? 
9

1 (no response) 

2 DR. BRANCHE: Are there any workers or their 

3 representatives who would like to indicate 

4 their names? 

5 (no response) 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Any members of Congress or 

7 their representatives please, would you state 

8 your names? 

9 MS. BOLLER: Carolyn Boller, Congressman 

10 Udall’s office. 

11 MS. ARAMANGST*: Pat Aramangst, John 

12 Salazar’s office. 

13 MS. EVAH*: Beatrice Evah, Senator Salazar’s 

14 office. 

15 MR. HOLAN*: Bill Holan, Congressman Ed 

16 Perlmutter’s office. 

17 MR. KESSLER: Zane Kessler, Senator Ken 

18 Salazar’s office. 

19 MS. GNIRK: Gail Gnirk, Congressman John 

20 Salazar’s office. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, we’re just about to turn 

22 this over to Mr. Griffon. I know that she 

23 wanted to mute herself, but Ms. Laura Franks 

24 from the Rocky Mountain News is also on the 

25 line. 
10

1 We would ask that everyone observe 

2 telephone etiquette, and we need to make 

3 certain that our, we can hear each other as 

4 well as making certain that our court reporter 

5 can hear everyone who’s speaking. I would ask 

6 then that everyone mute their lines unless 

7 they are speaking. 

8 If you do not have a mute button, then 

9 please dial star six in order to mute your 

10 line. And if you’d like to speak, you can 

11 then use that same star six to unmute and then 

12 speak. It’s very important given the number 

13 of callers that we have and given the fact 

14 that this is always an exciting topic that we 

15 observe phone etiquette and that we do mute 

16 our lines. 

17 Mr. Griffon, I’m handing this over to 

18 you as the Chair. 

19 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR

20 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Christine. 

21 This is Mark Griffon. I think we 

22 should make sure with so many people, again, I 

23 think you said this Christine, that we all 

24 identify ourselves when we talk today. 

25 This work group call is really an 
11

1 update on where we are at in assessing this 

2 question around mainly the terminology. And I 

3 think my question that I put before the work 

4 group was do we need to in any way clarify our 

5 language. We had written in our 

6 recommendation defining the class as monitored 

7 or should have been monitored for neutrons. 

8 And since then several news stories 

9 have come out, and to get to the main point -- 

10 we discussed this in the last work group call, 

11 so I don’t need to go through everything -- 

12 but to get to the main point, there’s a 

13 question of whether individuals in other 

14 buildings, not in the quote-unquote neutron 

15 buildings as identified in the NDRP database 

16 had the potential to be exposed to neutrons 

17 and could have been assigned to one building, 

18 say 334, the Maintenance Building, and 

19 actually then occasionally or quite often, who 

20 knows, sent into one of the neutron buildings 

21 to do work where they could have been exposed 

22 to neutrons. 

23 And then the question is would they 

24 have been always captured in the NDRP system 

25 or would they have gone unmonitored 
12

1 potentially. I guess that’s sort of the 

2 question that we raised in the last call. A 

3 couple tasks we had assigned from the last 

4 call. One was I was going to try to find past 

5 transcripts of or excerpts from past 

6 deliberations where we discussed the issues of 

7 the completeness of monitoring, and I 

8 assembled some of that. 

9 The other question was, were there 

10 individuals that we could identify that may 

11 exemplify this case. In other words 

12 individuals that were assigned to other 

13 buildings and did work in the neutron areas 

14 where they were not monitored for neutron 

15 exposures. 

16 And I think NIOSH was going to look 

17 into that. I think SC&A was also going to 

18 look into that. I think that that might be a 

19 work in progress because I’m not sure other 

20 than a few cases that were identified, one of 

21 which was in one of the news reports, I’m not 

22 sure we’ve made much headway on that. But 

23 that’s sort of background on where we are 

24 coming into this call, and I guess that’s 

25 where we should start it off. 
13

1 DR. BRANCHE: I believe we have a member of 

2 Congress who wants to make a statement. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, that would be great. 

4 MS. BOLLER: Mark, I don’t know that Mark is 

5 on the line yet. He was still chairing a 

6 committee and was maybe a little bit late. So 

7 why don’t you just proceed. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, we can proceed. 

9 Whenever he comes in just let me know, and 

10 we’ll give him the floor. 

11 SEC CLASS FOR ROCKY FLATS

12 So I put together a document, a Word 

13 document, which was distributed to the work 

14 group. I know it was pretty last minute so 

15 the Privacy review couldn’t have been 

16 completed in time, but in that I tried to -- 

17 hold on one second. In that I tried to look 

18 for some excerpts where we had discussed the 

19 issue of the completeness of monitoring in the 

20 past work groups and technical phone calls. 

21 And I think a couple things come out of that. 

22 I think one thing that is clear -- and 

23 I should also say Brant, just this morning, 

24 Brant Ulsh sent another document which we had 

25 seen in the past. It’s the NDRP Protocol 
14

1 which might help us to shed some light on this 

2 as well. It was 134 pages so I think I found 

3 the area that Brant’s focused on, but in the 

4 last 20 minutes I’m not sure I know exactly 

5 what he wanted us to focus on. 

6 But anyway, in my document there’s 

7 sort of two issues. If people read the top 

8 paragraph the one question is, and the one 

9 thing we discussed in the work group 

10 deliberations in the past was were the highest 

11 exposed individuals monitored for neutrons. 

12 And then the question, and we 

13 determined as a work group, although I don’t 

14 know exactly if NIOSH ever really agreed with 

15 us on this, but we determined that the highest 

16 exposed were not monitored at least in some of 

17 those years that we looked at. And, in fact, 

18 but they were assigned a notional dose which 

19 means that they were assigned a dose. 

20 Now here’s where Brant may help 

21 clarify from the NDRP Protocol. But I was of 

22 the understanding that they assigned a dose 

23 based on either their gamma result multiplied 

24 by a neuron-to-gamma ratio or by a nearby 

25 data. 
15

1 And I may have that wrong in my 

2 introduction to this question. But that’s 

3 sort of how they had to, they had gaps in 

4 their records. It wasn’t all neutron film 

5 data. It was sometimes gamma data that they 

6 had that was multiplied by a building ratio of 

7 neutron-to-gamma or otherwise substituted with 

8 nearby data. 

9 Is that right or close, Brant? 

10 DR. ULSH: Well, Mark, that is a topic that 

11 I wanted to talk about, but I can do that 

12 later. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, okay. 

14 DR. ULSH: The nearby method is something I 

15 want to go into a little bit, but -- 

16 MR. GRIFFON: It was a little different, 

17 yeah. I think I picked up on that in the 

18 document you sent that I may have 

19 mischaracterized that a little bit. 

20 Anyway, the other part of it is -- and 

21 I think this is in one of the transcripts, 

22 actually, one of the technical calls on, I 

23 believe it’s on 4/12, and this really gets to 

24 the heart of the question. 

25 I think that Roger Falk in his memory 
16

1 basically seemed to remember that in the early 

2 years, and he wasn’t sure exactly when this 

3 changed. But in the early years most of these 

4 buildings that I’m defining loosely as the 

5 neutron buildings, the ones listed in the 

6 NDRP, basically had an in-house crew. 

7 In other words all their maintenance, 

8 laborers, even janitors, everyone was sort of 

9 self contained and assigned to the one 

10 building. And then he said that later, and he 

11 wasn’t sure when in the ‘60s this might have 

12 occurred, but later that maintenance could 

13 have come out of Building 334, the more 

14 general maintenance building. 

15 So then we go back to the primary 

16 question. I’m not sure that any of the 

17 transcripts that I included, I just wanted to 

18 give some background on it. I’m not sure they 

19 get us to any definitive answer, but at least 

20 it provides a little background. So that’s 

21 sort of where I’m at with my review of this. 

22 And then I would ask Brant if you had 

23 any progress in terms of identifying some of 

24 these cases, the action that was raised from 

25 the last work group. 
17

1 CONGRESSMAN MARK UDALL

2 CONGRESSMAN UDALL: Mark, this is 

3 Congressman Udall. How are you today, sir? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: I’m great. I’m great. 

5 CONGRESSMAN UDALL: Could I weigh in for 

6 just a couple of minutes? 

7 MR. GRIFFON: Absolutely, we were notified 

8 you might be joining us, so the floor is 

9 yours. 

10 CONGRESSMAN UDALL: Thank you, and I won’t 

11 take too much time here, but I did just want 

12 to weigh in on what you all are considering 

13 today and also give a brief historical 

14 perspective, just take me a couple minutes. 

15 I remember in 1999 or 2000 Secretary 

16 Richardson at that time made an announcement 

17 that the federal government was no longer 

18 going to hide behind sovereign immunity. In 

19 other words the concept that the king can do 

20 no wrong. It stems to the common law era of 

21 the British Isles. And there was elation 

22 among many of us, most notably and most 

23 appropriately among the workers at the Flats. 

24 And out of that, of course, began some 

25 progress, but then some twists and turns, and 
18

1 we’ve traveled down a number of cul-de-sacs. 

2 In the meantime the families and the workers 

3 haven’t received their just due. These 

4 workers fought in the cold war. They were no 

5 less heroes than those who fought in the hot 

6 wars of the last century, World War II most 

7 notably. 

8 And I’ve got to tell you, and you all 

9 know the delegation has been weighing in, I’m 

10 just, I’m appalled that we continue to somehow 

11 seem to find ways to stonewall and put up 

12 roadblocks to these deserving workers. And 

13 I’m asking the DOL to reverse its decision and 

14 provide compensation to these veterans. 

15 It just seems to me that the DOL which 

16 we in the Congress felt could better provide a 

17 just outcome, and we moved a lot of this 

18 responsibility from the Department of Energy 

19 over to the DOL, it just seems that they’re 

20 attempting to deprive compensation to these 

21 workers and their families. And it just seems 

22 like every time you clear a hurdle, you move a 

23 roadblock out of the way, there’s another one 

24 put in place. 

25 These workers clearly meet the 
19

1 requirements for eligibility. The 

2 Administration has to hold up their end of the 

3 bargain and grant them the benefits that they 

4 deserve. And I’m asking the DOL to reverse 

5 its decision, reverse it quickly, and I’m 

6 waiting for an answer. 

7 Let me make one other comment 

8 specifically. This 250-day standard I think 

9 you all were discussing as I got on, and that 

10 seemed to make sense, been reaffirmed by 

11 Secretary Leavitt and others, and then now 

12 we’re talking about 250 days in a specific 

13 building at the Flats. And in the end I so 

14 strongly believe -- it makes me angry to not 

15 think we’re going to move in this. 

16 We’ve got to err on the side of the 

17 workers not the side of the federal 

18 government. And this will speak volumes of 

19 what kind of a society we have and how we 

20 value the people who literally put their lives 

21 on the line. I live just a few miles from 

22 this site. We worked very hard to clean it up 

23 to ensure the safety and the future of the 

24 people living around Rocky Flats. My gosh, we 

25 have to do the same for the workers who were 
20

1 out there. 

2 I appreciate you letting me weigh in 

3 on. I’ll listen a little bit more and learn a 

4 little bit more as well, but I appreciate the 

5 chance to be heard, and I certainly have a 

6 role to play here. And I’m going to do 

7 everything I can to push, cajole, urge the 

8 Department of Labor to change its point of 

9 view on this. Thanks again for letting me 

10 weigh in. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you very much, 

12 Congressman Udall. 

13 SEC CLASS FOR ROCKY FLATS (cont’d)

14 So I guess at this point I’ve given 

15 the background from my perspective. I think 

16 what I really want to come away from this 

17 meeting with is at least my only plan for the 

18 upcoming Advisory Board is to sort of give an 

19 update on where we’re at in discussing this 

20 issue. And not because I think we still need 

21 to look at this question of can we find other 

22 cases and have more discussion around that, 

23 but at least just to give an update because I 

24 know we’re getting a lot of questions about 

25 this. 
21

1 But I’m not sure we’re going to be in 

2 a position to make any sort of motion at this 

3 upcoming meeting. But having said that I 

4 think my, you know, I’ve looked at these 

5 transcripts, and I also see, you know, I think 

6 that we just need to examine this issue a 

7 little closer. And I’d be interested in 

8 hearing from NIOSH at this point. 

9 Brant, if you’re ready to discuss the 

10 NDRP Protocol a little bit and if you had any 

11 luck in finding individual cases to review. 

12 MS. MUNN: Mark, this is Wanda Munn. And I 

13 don’t want to interrupt your flow of 

14 information here, but as long as the 

15 congressman may still be on the line, and his 

16 staff is still on the line, it seems really 

17 important for us to try to make sure that all 

18 of the folks who are so deeply interested in 

19 what we’re doing here have a clear 

20 understanding of some of the details of what 

21 we’re doing. And I think I heard the 

22 congressman say it’s his understanding that we 

23 are now expecting people to show that they 

24 have worked for 250 days in one building. And 

25 I think it would be wise for us to try to 
22

1 clear that up. Because the law indicates that 

2 the individual must have worked for 250 days. 

3 I don’t believe there has been any effort at 

4 all to indicate that they must be 250 days 

5 always in an exposed area or always in a given 

6 building. 

7 MS. BOLLER: Wanda, this is Carolyn from 

8 Congressman Udall’s office. As we’re reading 

9 this the law said 250 days on the site or at 

10 the plant site. 

11 MS. MUNN: That’s correct. 

12 MS. BOLLER: There is a memo, 8-14, issued 

by the Department of Labor on January 23rd 13 that 

14 says you’ve got to work 250 days in a building 

15 in order to be eligible for the SEC issue. 

16 MS. (UNIDENTIFIED): Again, this is Erin 

17 from Congressman Salazar’s office, and as we 

18 understand that, that has actually confined 

19 one of our constituents from Grand Junction, 

20 Colorado from actually receiving compensation 

21 because of that additional red tape which is 

22 the source of our protest letters that the 

23 delegation sent. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Well, as you know, that’s the 

25 crux of the issue, Wanda, that there’s this, 
23

1 DOL is now, I mean, maybe DOL can speak to 

2 this, too. Jeff Kotsch, I think Jeff’s on the 

3 line. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: This is Christine Branche, 

5 just a clarification, and I think that it 

6 would be important for Ms. Munn to have an 

7 opportunity to share her thoughts for everyone 

8 concerned. This is the Advisory Board to 

9 NIOSH, not the one to the Department of Labor. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, there is none to the 

11 Department of Labor. We know that, Christine, 

12 but -- 

13 DR. BRANCHE: Well, I want to make sure that 

14 the members of Congress understand that. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Right, right, they do. But I 

16 think Jeff might want to -- and we’ve had DOL 

17 clarify things for us before. I think it’s 

18 important to at least maybe have him speak to 

19 that and clarify. 

20 MR. KOTSCH: Mark, this is Jeff. The way we 

21 read or the way the bulletin was written, 08-

22 14, it was intended, at least the way the 

23 current thinking is, is it was intended to be 

24 a measurement of who was monitored or should 

25 have been monitored for neutrons. And that 
24

1 put those people as having been in those 

2 buildings or there’s other criteria in there, 

3 but it links off issues of being in those 

4 buildings. 

5 MS. (UNIDENTIFIED): This is Erin from 

6 Congressman Salazar’s office again. We 

7 understand that at this point in time one of 

8 our constituents has been a recommended denial 

9 after signing a waiver which should have been 

10 an open and shut case for the SEC 

11 recommendations as we understood them last 

12 September. So again, the Department of Labor 

13 has again inserted rules that have created a 

14 recommended denial on a case that after all of 

15 our hard work should be a presumptive 

16 approval. 

17 MS. BOLLER: I have also -- this is Carolyn 

18 in Congressman Udall’s office. And, Jeff, I 

19 have the same thing. A gentleman in Thornton 

20 was given a letter in November confirming the 

21 SEC and that they would be receiving the 

22 compensation. In March they’re told sorry, 

23 you’re not going to get it because you can’t, 

24 you can’t prove that you worked in the 

25 building for 250 days. So you don’t change 
25

1 the damn rules in the middle of the game. 

2 MR. GRIFFON: This is Mark Griffon again. I 

3 think that’s one reason that -- and we’re not 

4 in a position, as Christine pointed out, to 

5 advise DOL, but I think one thing that I, one 

6 reason that I thought the work group needed to 

7 reconvene on these issues is that if we feel 

8 that our recommendation needs clarification, 

9 then we might need to write another letter to 

10 the Secretary or at least clarify it. 

11 I think where I’m having trouble is 

12 for me monitored or should have been monitored 

13 and if even interpreted this way in several 

14 meetings that we’ve been at we said based on 

15 current standards which would mean they could 

16 achieve 100 millirem external dose, you know, 

17 have the potential to be exposed to 100 

18 millirem external dose. 

19 That doesn’t necessarily necessitate 

20 being in a building for 250 days. So I think 

21 that’s where we’re mixing two criteria here. 

22 And I’m a little concerned about that. I 

23 think we may want some clarification. I think 

24 Wanda’s interpretation is correct. That’s I 

25 think where we’re at here. 
26

1 MR. PRESLEY: Mark, this is Bob Presley. I 

2 have the same interpretation as Wanda on this 

3 thing. I have a problem with some of this 

4 stuff. 

5 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, point of order. You’ve 

6 asked Mr. Kotsch to reply. Please give him an 

7 opportunity to do so. This is Christine. Ms. 

8 Munn did not have an opportunity to actually 

9 finish her thought. So I think for Robert’s 

10 Rule of Order, let the people who’ve opened 

11 the channels for communication, have an 

12 opportunity to reply. 

13 MR. GRIFFON: Yes, Christine. This is Mark 

14 Griffon. I apologize if I didn’t. I thought 

15 Jeff was finished. 

16 But Jeff, if you had any -- 

17 MR. KOTSCH: Oh, no, I was finished. 

18 Unfortunately, I was finished with that 

19 statement as far as the way the Department of 

20 Labor has interpreted the use of buildings for 

21 the 250 days. 

22 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda again, and my 

23 concern is simply wanting to clarify for all 

24 of the people who are on the line that our 

25 efforts in this work group are very focused. 
27

1 They’re focused specifically on the law as it 

2 applies to us, and we deal specifically with 

3 radiation and radiation doses. 

4 And so that being the case, when the 

5 primary issues seem to be issues that are 

6 bringing concerns that are outside our ability 

7 or our charter to address, we can’t do that in 

8 our group. I guess that’s what I was trying 

9 to say when I was referring to the statements 

10 that had been made earlier. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: This is Mark Griffon again. I 

12 guess I made my point. I mean, I am willing 

13 to, my point is just that if we need to 

14 clarify our recommendation, and I don’t think 

15 that’s outside of our charter -- 

16 MS. MUNN: No. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: -- and I agree that some 

18 things if they’re DOL issues, that is outside 

19 of our charter. But if, we knew this when we 

20 first developed this recommendation, or some 

21 of us had concerns anyway that, you know, we 

22 left the language broad because we didn’t have 

23 more information at our fingertips. We didn’t 

24 want to limit it. We wanted to let those that 

25 have the additional information make that, 
28

1 implement it correctly. 

2 But if we feel that there’s, you know, 

3 if our recommendation is being misinterpreted, 

4 then I think that would be a point. Now I’m 

5 not saying -- I personally feel there might be 

6 a problem there. Others in the work group may 

7 feel differently, but I guess that’s the 

8 extent or that’s the nature in which I think 

9 we would have an opportunity to weigh in. 

10 Beyond that, I agree, Wanda. It would be out 

11 of our sort of charter. 

12 MS. BOLLER: It’s Carolyn again. Maybe I’m 

13 confused, and somebody could help me here. It 

14 seems to me that the Board made a decision 

15 based on the evidence that was presented to 

16 them to say that people who worked during this 

17 period of time either should have been or 

18 could have, or were monitored. 

19 The Board made that decision. And it 

20 seems to me that the Board made the decision 

21 based on the facts, and we believe that this 

22 was the right decision that they made for this 

23 particular group of people. And that now 

24 there’s being a different interpretation or an 

25 interpretation on what the Board did being 
29

1 made by Department of Labor. 

2 And I think, Wanda, this is where it 

3 would be really helpful -- because we agree 

4 with you. It’s 250 days on the site, not at a 

5 building. And I think this is where the Board 

6 needs to say, hey, folks, this is what we did. 

7 We made this decision based on this 

8 information, and you’re misinterpreting it. 

9 DR. BRANCHE: This is Christine Branche. 

10 Actually, the Board doesn’t have but so many 

11 options available to it. It makes its 

12 recommendations to the Department of Health 

13 and Human Services Secretary who is the person 

14 who renders the decision, not the Board. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Correct. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: And it is the Board that makes 

17 only a recommendation to the HHS Secretary. 

18 And the HHS Secretary, using that and other 

19 information, then renders the decision for the 

20 Department, which is then forwarded to the 

21 Department of Labor. 

22 At this juncture this work group has 

23 only a few options available to it because the 

24 recommendation for the Board has already been 

25 made. They can use this as a learning 
30

1 opportunity to help the Board in future 

2 decisions, but the idea of reopening this or 

3 stressing something specific to the Department 

4 of Labor is really not an option -- 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Nobody’s -- 

6 DR. BRANCHE: -- I’m trying to make a 

7 clarification so that everybody understands 

8 what the limits of this Board really are. 

9 MS. BOLLER: I think that we do, but we’ve ^ 

10 the Board that we need to at least -- this is 

11 the first step for us. And most of us on this 

12 call from the congressional offices have 

13 already sent a letter to both Secretary 

14 Leavitt and Secretary Chao regarding this 

15 subject. 

16 The issue is then -- and maybe that’s 

17 the appropriate piece because the Secretary of 

18 Health and Human Services did, in fact, 

19 support the issue of 250 days on the site 

20 which was the recommendation. It’s included 

21 in the orders from the Board or the direction 

22 from the Board to the Secretary. So the 

23 Secretary’s already approved it. So maybe 

24 that’s where we need to really be, and that’s 

25 where we’re at with the letter from the 
31

1 respective members of Congress. 

2 DR. BRANCHE: I think that your issue really 

3 is with the Department of Labor. And if 

4 you’ve written your letter to Secretary Chao 

5 as well as a letter to Secretary Leavitt, then 

6 you’ve taken your issue to the right people. 

7 MS. EVAH: This is Beatrice from Senator 

8 Salazar’s office. I have just a quick 

9 clarifying question. Perhaps you can then -- 

10 I understand the limitations of the Board, but 

11 perhaps you can try to explain what additional 

12 information DOL may have received, if not from 

13 you then from anybody, to make this sort of 

14 new bulletin, to issue this new bulletin. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: I think Mr. Kotsch should 

16 answer that question. 

17 MS. EVAH: You know, you had to have relied 

18 on some new information then, and it would be 

19 interesting to hear where that would have come 

20 from. 

21 MR. KOTSCH: This is Jeff Kotsch. 

22 Basically, we worked off of the NDPR report. 

23 You know, the report in the protocol and 

24 listings of the buildings in there. 

25 MR. GRIFFON: N-D-R-P, right? 
32

1 MR. KOTSCH: I’m sorry. Yeah, I always 

2 invert the lettering. 

3 MS. EVAH: NDRP? 

4 MR. GRIFFON: This is Mark Griffon again. 

5 Anything more? Jeff, are you done? I’m 

6 sorry. 

7 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah. 

8 MR. GRIFFON: So was this DOL internally 

9 reviewing that and making their determination? 

10 MR. KOTSCH: Well, I mean, we received that 

11 from NIOSH and discussed it with them as far 

12 as, because there was no, you know, that 

13 definition was somewhat open-ended or not very 

14 explicit as to how to determine who should, 

15 you know, who was monitored or should have 

16 been monitored for neutrons. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: Right, and I agree with that. 

18 And my point, Christine, is only that 

19 the only way -- I have no reason, and I don’t 

20 think we, anybody, wants to reopen or do we 

21 have the power to reopen the SEC. But I think 

22 we do have an option of at least clarifying 

23 how, when we drafted that language, monitored 

24 or should have been monitored, I don’t think 

25 any of us intended that it include 250 days in 
33

1 a single building, for instance. 

2 So to the extent we need to clarify 

3 our language in our recommendation, and it’s 

4 still up to the Secretary whether they change 

5 anything or not. But I think we do have an 

6 opportunity, and I would say even a 

7 responsibility to do that. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: You have an option to bring an 

9 issue to your fellow Board members for the 

10 Board uniformly to make a decision about what 

11 information, if there’s new information that 

12 comes to light, that clarification can 

13 potentially be sent forward to, as information 

14 from the Board. You cannot, you actually 

15 mentioned it, but, no, you cannot reopen the 

16 SEC. A new petition would have to be put 

17 forward. 

18 MR. GRIFFON: I agree with that, so that’s 

19 all that I’m saying. And certainly, my notion 

20 is to bring at least at this point, at the 

21 Board meeting next week, I was just going to 

22 present a little timeline of what we’ve done 

23 on discussions in this in an update to the 

24 Board. I’m not even prepared, I don’t think 

25 we have any kind of recommendation to make at 
34

1 this point. 

2 But I think we at least need to bring 

3 our fellow Board members up to speed on what’s 

4 being discussed. And maybe the Board will say 

5 this is out of our, you know, there’s no need 

6 to take any further action. I would certainly 

7 be willing to discuss that with the full 

8 Board. I think we need to at this point. 

9 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. If I 

10 could I feel compelled to seek a point of 

11 clarification on something you just said, 

12 Mark, and I’ve heard others say. In a 

13 directive to Jeff Kotsch the phraseology 

14 having spent 250 days in one building, I 

15 think, is inaccurate. 

16 Is that correct, Jeff? It’s not in 

17 one building. It’s in any of the buildings 

18 where neutron exposure would exist or would 

19 present itself to these workers. 

20 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, this is Jeff. Yeah, 

21 that’s correct, Larry. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: So any of the neutron 

23 buildings. Yeah, you’re right, Larry. That’s 

24 correct. 

25 MR. ELLIOTT: So I don’t want folks on the 
35

1 line to think that it’s just, you’ve got to 

2 get 250 days in one building. That’s not the 

3 case. 

4 Also, I’d offer that the Board’s class 

5 definitions are structured in their language 

6 to say all of these types of workers who were 

7 monitored or should have been monitored for 

8 neutron exposures, that’s what the Board felt 

9 we had an inability to reconstruct. 

10 And so when DOL takes -- and DOL, this 

11 definition and its structure and language was 

12 vetted with DOL with Pete Turcic at the 

13 meeting where the Board crafted this. And he 

14 said, yes, we can administer that. And we 

15 talked about the NDRP being a useful tool in 

16 administering that for those workers who were 

17 monitored or should have been monitored. That 

18 was the starting point. 

19 So I felt I needed to say that because 

20 I think there’s a lot of misinterpretation 

21 about this class definition. 

22 MR. GRIFFON: But, Larry, this is Mark 

23 Griffon again. And that’s correct, but also 

24 we clearly indicated that the reason we didn’t 

25 want to list a list of buildings in our 
36

1 recommendation was that we weren’t prepared to 

2 say it was only the buildings in the NDRP. 

3 So that was sort of one of the 

4 outstanding issues, and that’s one of the 

5 reasons we left it open was we didn’t know all 

6 those ins and outs. We didn’t know about this 

7 potential for, you know, maintenance workers 

8 from 334 also working in that building and 

9 whether they would be in the NDRP. And I’m 

10 still not clear on that. 

11 So I agree with you that the 250 I’ve 

12 been saying in a building, and it’s in any of 

13 those buildings in the NDRP. But still I 

14 would also say from a technical standpoint, I 

15 don’t think that that agrees with our notion 

16 of monitored or should have been monitored. 

17 Should have been monitored says basically you 

18 have the potential to receive 100 millirem of 

19 exposure in any one year. And I don’t think 

20 you need 250 days accumulated to receive 100 

21 millirem necessarily. So that’s where I’m 

22 stuck. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: I understand, and I don’t know 

24 if Brant has his reaction to that or not. 

25 DR. ULSH: No, I don’t want to get into the 
37

1 250 day issue. 

2 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda again. Mark, we 

3 all remember how carefully we attempted to 

4 craft that language so that it would be as 

5 broad as possible and without being limitless. 

6 We worked hard on it, and it may be that those 

7 few simple words which seemed reasonable at 

8 the time can use some improvement. 

9 But if that’s the focus of our call 

10 today, then it would be helpful for me if we 

11 started down that road very clearly with the 

12 understanding that that’s the focus of our 

13 topic today. Because I’m sorry to say I’m 

14 traveling, and I’m time limited today. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: I apologize, Wanda. We got a 

16 little sidetracked, but there’s several people 

17 on the call with several different 

18 perspectives. I mean, yeah, my focus is on 

19 that question of should have been monitored. 

20 How we phrased it versus how it’s being 

21 implemented and whether we, as a Board, need 

22 to clarify. 

23 And I think to that end I tried to 

24 pull past transcripts. I know Brant has 

25 pulled up the NDRP Protocol. I think we 
38

1 should look further at that and also this 

2 question of cases where it, reviewing cases 

3 where this may or may not have happened. 

4 In other words the example I always 

5 use is someone from Building 334, because that 

6 seems like a logical one, the Maintenance 

7 Building, was assigned to that building. 

8 Their work history has that building listed, 

9 but they have either put in their CATI 

10 interview that they worked in these other 

11 buildings, and they’re not in the NDRP, or 

12 they had coworkers give affidavits that they 

13 worked in those other buildings, and they’re 

14 not in the NDRP. 

15 That’s the kind of example that if it 

16 were true, that would raise concerns about the 

17 scope of how it’s being implemented. So I 

18 guess maybe at this point it’s a good time for 

19 Brant to give us an update on what NIOSH has 

20 looked into. 

21 MS. BOLLER: Mark, can I ask one question 

22 first? It’s Carolyn. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: It’s Carolyn? Sure. 

24 MS. BOLLER: I have a letter in front of me 

25 from the Department of Labor addressed to a 
39

1 particular family. And in the letter dated in 

2 November it basically says you’re going to get 

3 benefits. And we’re going to send you a 

4 check. And these happened to be survivors of 

5 a deceased worker who did not work in one of 

6 the listed buildings, the so-called neutron 

7 buildings, but was granted benefits and told 

8 that they would be receiving the dollars under 

9 Part B. 

10 After the January memo, the Department 

11 of Labor came back and said we don’t show that 

12 you worked in any of these neutron buildings. 

13 Now, my question is in November, if, in fact, 

14 the Board’s decision and the discussion with 

15 DOL was that it should have only been in those 

16 buildings to begin with, then why was that 

17 approved in November, but then you rewrite a 

18 memo and send it out and then change the rules 

19 after that? 

20 Does that make sense? It’s kind of a 

21 roundabout way, but if, in fact, the original 

22 theory was to only limit this to those 

23 buildings in which NIOSH had determined there 

24 were neutrons, then it should have been done 

25 from the very beginning, and it was not. It’s 
40

1 true in the case I have from our folks in our 

2 district, and it’s true in the Grand Junction 

3 case that Erin spoke about. 

4 So I’m not sure that that argument 

5 holds water, but I think that I clearly 

6 understand where the Board can and can’t go. 

7 I guess what I would want is the Board to 

8 write a letter supporting this 250 days on the 

9 plant site and not in the specific building 

10 if, in fact, they feel comfortable to make 

11 that determination. 

12 We’re going back to the Secretary of 

13 HHS, and we’re going back to DOL. And we will 

14 go further if we have to, but that’s kind of 

15 where we’re at as we change the rules here. 

16 MS. (UNIDENTIFIED): Again, Erin with 

17 Congressman Salazar’s office. I understand 

18 we’re at a point of time constraints and also 

19 the scope of the Board has been emphasized 

20 numerous times today. But from our office we 

21 ask that if there’s an opportunity for you to 

22 take some leadership on this issue that you do 

23 so. Because as you all know, we’re all quite 

24 familiar with each other. We’ve all been on 

25 conference calls now for three years, and I 
41

1 think we can all share that. So you can 

2 recognize that those of us on staff as well as 

3 all of you who’ve worked this issue, we know 

4 each other. We worked for this SEC. We did 

5 not get, the congressional delegation, what we 

6 thought the workers deserved, but what we did 

7 get, we’re going to fight to keep. And if you 

8 have an opportunity to assist in what’s the 

9 best interest of the workers, we would greatly 

10 appreciate that. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Appreciate the comments. I 

12 think I’m not sure we’re prepared to recommend 

13 any writing of a letter at this point. I 

14 understand the issue. I think we need to 

15 discuss through it more amongst our work 

16 group, but also I think at this point what I 

17 hope to at least complete today is maybe to 

18 get an update from NIOSH on what you’ve looked 

19 into so far, maybe clarify some of the 

20 excerpts in the transcripts. I think Brant 

21 did highlight some sections of the NDRP 

22 Protocol which I think he wants to focus on as 

23 far as who was monitored, that sort of thing. 

24 And then what I’d like to do at the 

25 upcoming Board meeting, because we only have, 
42

1 you know, we’re going to be traveling this 

2 weekend, I want to just give an update of what 

3 we’ve done. If you remember back, we had a 

4 technical phone call with Margaret Ruttenber 

5 from the University of Colorado which in some 

6 ways, some of her data was used for a news 

7 story that sort of started some of this 

8 discussion. 

9 So I want to track through what we’ve 

10 talked about and sort of where we’re at and 

11 bring it to the Board and say here’s where we 

12 are. Some issues may be completely DOL issues 

13 which are out of our charter to cover, but 

14 other issues -- I’d just open it up for 

15 discussion to our full Board rather than, 

16 because I don’t think we can make a work group 

17 recommendation at this point. 

18 But Wanda, Bob or Mike, I don’t know 

19 if you have any thoughts on that. 

20 (no response) 

21 MR. GRIFFON: Assuming I didn’t lose the 

22 line, I don’t think I heard anybody reply. So 

23 maybe at this point, I mean, all this stuff 

24 came out recently, too. I have the excerpts 

25 that I sent around to the work group. I’m not 
43

1 sure everyone had a lot of time to look 

2 through those and consider them. I only sent 

3 them out a few days ago. Everybody’s been 

4 very busy on several different work groups. 

5 Also, Brant sent the NDRP Protocol 

6 just this morning. Maybe, Brant, at this 

7 point if you can just give us an update on 

8 what you’ve done since the last work group 

9 call. There’s only been a few weeks, but what 

10 you’ve done on looking at cases and explain 

11 what, maybe help us clarify what the NDRP 

12 Protocol, you know, the who was monitored 

13 question. 

14 MR. PRESLEY: This is Bob Presley. I’m with 

15 you. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

17 Brant, are you on the line? Can you -

18 - 

19 DR. ULSH: I’m still here, Mark. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Can you give us maybe an 

21 update and then we can, because I think I 

22 agree we’re probably not going to get much 

23 further today. Just to get an update, and 

24 then we can probably end the call there and 

25 give an update to the full Board of where 
44

1 we’re at and maybe get some direction back 

2 from the full Board whether they want the work 

3 group to pursue anything else, anything 

4 further. I want to bring this back to the 

5 full Board and get direction from the full 

6 Board. 

7 NIOSH UPDATE

8 DR. ULSH: At the last working group call, 

9 as you correctly remember, there were a couple 

10 of action items. You were going to do the 

11 transcripts. And on that call Arjun Makhijani 

12 of SC&A thought that he might have an example 

13 that would be pertinent to our discussion 

14 about someone who may have been monitored or 

15 may not have been monitored for neutrons and 

16 were they not in the NDRP class. 

17 Arjun did send me the information on 

18 that case, and I checked and verified with 

19 Mutty Sharfi’s help that that individual was, 

20 in fact, included in the NDRP. So that was my 

21 action item, that one particular example. We 

22 have not as of yet -- 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Brant, I’m sorry. This is 

24 Mark. Not to interrupt but we did bring up 

25 the other, I mentioned the other case that was 
45

1 identified by name in the newspaper and asked 

2 that you check that out, too, and I don’t know 

3 if you had a, did do that or not. 

4 DR. ULSH: I can, but I don’t know how I 

5 should proceed here in terms of Privacy Act. 

6 I can, I know whether or not that person was 

7 included in the NDRP. Is that something that 

8 I can, I can say that? 

9 DR. BRANCHE: As long as you don’t mention 

10 the name or the ^ you’re fine. 

11 DR. ULSH: Okay, that person was not in the 

12 NDRP. We did not find any indication that 

13 they spent a considerable amount of time in 

14 any of the neutron buildings with the 

15 exception of there was a mention in the CATI -

16 - and I’m trying to recall this. 

17 That’s the telephone interview with 

18 the survivor where, and this was a spouse, she 

19 said that he had gone into those buildings, 

20 but there was no specification about where in 

21 the buildings he went or how long he spent 

22 there to my recollection. I also looked 

23 through the associated records that we have, 

24 the dosimetry records, bioassay-type records, 

25 shop history, and there was nothing that 
46

1 indicated that that individual worked in the 

2 neutron buildings. 

3 MR. GRIFFON: This is Mark Griffon again. I 

4 may have this wrong but -- we have a lot of 

5 static on the line, too -- I may have this 

6 wrong but my recollection of the newspaper 

7 account of this case anyway is that they had 

8 signed affidavits from their supervisor saying 

9 that this individual was in those buildings. 

10 DR. ULSH: Mark, I think that was -- 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Is that the same case? I may 

12 be confusing things. 

13 DR. ULSH: Well, again, I’m trying to recall 

14 what the newspaper article said, but I do know 

15 that the basis of the statement in the CATI in 

16 the telephone interview was that the spouse 

17 had talked to some of the other workers, some 

18 of the claimant’s coworkers. And they 

19 indicated that, yes, they had gone into those 

20 buildings, ^ indicate how often or how much 

21 time they spent there or anything like, they 

22 didn’t give any further details. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: Okay. 

24 MR. ELLIOTT: If the affidavits were -- this 

25 is Larry Elliott. If the affidavits were 
47

1 generated based upon a DOL recommended 

2 decision or that part of the process for 

3 determining their eligibility for the class, 

4 we may not have seen those affidavits. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Understood. Thank you, Larry. 

6 Yeah, that may be true. 

7 DR. BRANCHE: Excuse me. If those of you 

8 who are not speaking could please mute your 

9 lines, it would be very helpful for us. We 

10 have a lot of background noise including a 

11 heavy breather. Thank you. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Christine. 

13 Go ahead, Brant. I’m sorry to 

14 interrupt you. 

15 DR. ULSH: No problem. So I think that goes 

16 to your question about looking into specific 

17 examples. And that’s really all I have to 

18 offer about that. If you’d like, Mark, I can 

19 talk to another issue which is related to your 

20 messages, your e-mail messages of yesterday 

21 and the attached transcripts and the NDRP 

22 Protocol that I sent out again this morning. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: That would be great. A little 

24 refresher for people, yeah. 

25 DR. ULSH: First of all, this discussion is 
48

1 going to focus on who was or should have been 

2 monitored. It has absolutely nothing to do 

3 with the 250-day question. I’m afraid I don’t 

4 have any input to offer there. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: That’s fine. 

6 DR. ULSH: I think that the root of the 

7 problem here is that there might be some 

8 confusion between neutron monitoring and gamma 

9 monitoring. And I’m looking at the excerpt 

10 that you sent out, Mark. And I’m looking at 

11 the introductory paragraph there that you 

12 wrote, five or six lines down where it says, 

13 “also the notional dose is not only based on 

14 gamma dose multiplied by an NP factor, but” -- 

15 and here’s the part I want to focus in on, “in 

16 cases where there was no gamma data, a nearby 

17 estimate approach was used.” 

18 I think there’s some confusion here, 

19 and I’d like to try to clear that up. And 

20 that’s why I sent out the neutron dose 

21 reconstruction protocol again. And as Mark 

22 mentioned, I did highlight some pertinent, 

23 well, at least what I judge to be pertinent 

24 parts of that document. And I’ll just walk 

25 through that briefly if I could. 
49

1 And I’m looking at one of the sections 

2 that I’ve highlighted, and this is on page 

3 nine. Now, when I’m giving page numbers here, 

4 I’m talking about the page numbers that appear 

5 in the document. I’m not talking about PDF 

6 page nine just to make that easier. And I’m 

7 looking at Section 5.0 in there which is 

8 titled “Identification of Affected Workers”. 

9 And it says, the second paragraph 

10 says, “A small portion of the total number of 

11 neutron worksheets represent the issue of 

12 neutron dosimeters to a few personnel whose 

13 home building assignment was a non-plutonium 

14 production building.” And there’s a list of 

15 those, and included in that paragraph, they’re 

16 including it in that list, is Building 34 

17 which Mark explicitly mentioned earlier, and 

18 that was the Maintenance Shop. 

19 And it says that these individuals 

20 primarily worked in non-neutron buildings but 

21 were routinely issued neutron dosimeters 

22 because they occasionally performed work 

23 activities in plutonium production buildings. 

24 And then there’s some examples of the job 

25 descriptions: guards, radiation monitors, 
50

1 technical researchers and uranium process 

2 operators. 

3 So I’m not in any way arguing that 

4 there weren’t people from other buildings who 

5 occasionally visited the neutron buildings. 

6 That was clearly identified in the NDRP 

7 Protocol. That’s not an issue, and I’m not 

8 trying to deny that. What I’m saying is that 

9 this indicates that they were routinely issued 

10 neutron dosimeters. 

11 The next part that I’m looking at is 

12 the next page at the very top. And this goes 

13 to who was included in the NDRP. And starting 

14 with the second line it says, “The rosters on 

15 the beta-gamma worksheets for these buildings 

16 were used to identify workers who would be 

17 assigned a notional neutron dose if they were 

18 not monitored for neutrons.” And I’m going to 

19 be emphasizing that statement a couple of 

20 times about whether we’re talking about 

21 neutron or gamma monitoring because I think 

22 there’s some confusion there. 

23 MR. GRIFFON: And I think, Brant, you may 

24 want to read that one line before you 

25 highlight it, too, because the beta-gamma 
51

1 sheets seem to be only from Building 21, 22, 

2 23, not 34 in this instance. 

3 DR. ULSH: Okay, hold on just a second. 

4 MR. GRIFFON: Am I reading that correctly? 

5 DR. ULSH: Well, let me start with the 

6 paragraph that we’re talking about just to 

7 make sure everyone has the appropriate 

8 context. The second source of names, this is 

9 names of people to be included in the NDRP, 

10 the second source of names was the beta-gamma 

11 worksheets for plutonium-related buildings. 

12 Only the beta-gamma worksheets from the 

13 plutonium-production buildings -- and that is 

14 in parentheses any building with a number 

15 starting with seven -- and Building 91 and 86. 

16 That’s the neutron buildings that are in the 

17 NDRP. 

18 And the combined worksheets for 

19 Buildings 21, 22 and 23 were entered into the 

20 beta-gamma database. The rosters on the beta21 gamma worksheets for these buildings were used 

22 to identify workers who would be assigned a 

23 notional neutron dose if they were not 

24 monitored for neutrons. 

25 So, yes, Mark, you’re correct in that 
52

1 Building 34 is not explicitly mentioned here. 

2 But I would refer you to the previous 

3 paragraph where I highlighted it, and it says 

4 that when workers from buildings such as 21, 

5 22, 23, 34, 44, 81 and 86 visited the 

6 plutonium production buildings, they were 

7 routinely issued neutron dosimeters because 

8 they occasionally performed work activities at 

9 plutonium production buildings. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Again, I mean, you can 

11 interpret it that way. The question goes 

12 back, to the essential question goes back to I 

13 don’t doubt that these people that are on the 

14 neutron worksheets from these other buildings 

15 were monitored for neutrons. The question is 

16 were there some people that didn’t get onto 

17 that roster. Was it everyone or did they 

18 capture some but not all. That’s the 

19 question. 

20 And I mean one thing we talked about 

21 at the last phone call, which that’s the 

22 reason I focused on the second paragraph, was 

23 that some people on the call mentioned that, 

24 well, everyone, you know, I can’t imagine 

25 people that wouldn’t have been monitored for 
53

1 gamma. 

2 But the point is if they weren’t in 

3 those certain buildings that you listed in 

4 that second paragraph, they wouldn’t have even 

5 been considered to adjust gamma for neutron 

6 exposures. So unless they were on that 

7 neutron worksheets, they weren’t considered, 

8 if they were from Building 34, they wouldn’t 

9 have been considered. 

10 DR. ULSH: It is certainly possible, Mark, 

11 that someone from another building could have 

12 visited a plutonium building, and if they were 

13 not judged to be a significant risk of neutron 

14 exposure, it’s possible that they may not have 

15 been issued neutron dosimetry. I will grant 

16 you that. I have no objection to that. Beta17 gamma though is another story, and if I could 

18 read you some of the other highlights, I think 

19 I can make that a little clearer. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Right, I’m not arguing with 

21 the beta-gamma. But if they weren’t in the 

22 certain buildings, the beta-gamma is not even, 

23 those worksheets aren’t even considered in the 

24 NDRP, right? 

25 DR. ULSH: The beta-gamma worksheets only 
54

1 from the plutonium production buildings were 

2 the trigger for inclusion in the NDRP but not 

3 from other buildings. You are correct on 

4 that. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, go ahead. I’m sorry. 

6 DR. ULSH: No problem. The next part that I 

7 want to lead you to is on page 20, and I’ll 

8 give people a few seconds to find that. It’s 

9 Section 11.0, “Notional Neutron Doses”. 

10 I’m looking at, Mark, your summary 

11 paragraph on your excerpts here, and you’re 

12 talking about the nearby technique. And you 

13 mentioned that in cases where there was no 

14 gamma data, a nearby estimate approach was 

15 used. I don’t think that that is what is 

16 indicated here. Let me read this one to you, 

17 page 20, Section 11.0: 

18 “Notional neutron doses are neutron 

19 doses that are assigned to a worker who was 

20 potentially exposed to neutrons in a 

21 plutonium-related building for a period of 

22 time but was not credited with a neutron dose 

23 in his or her record for that period of time. 

24 The lack of a neutron dose of record for a 

25 period of time may have been the result of the 
55

1 following conditions:” And there’s three 

2 bullets, the first two of which are the 

3 important ones. 

4 “The worker was not monitored for 

5 neutrons but was potentially exposed.” The 

6 second bullet is, “The worker was monitored 

7 for neutrons, but the neutron dose could not 

8 be evaluated.” Now, if we look at the very 

9 next page it says that only for the first two 

10 conditions -- those two bullets I just read to 

11 you -- would a notional neutron dose be 

12 assigned. 

13 And here’s the important part. “The 

14 index to identify the first two conditions is 

15 the presence of a recorded penetrating gamma 

16 dose in a plutonium-related building but no 

17 recorded neutron dose for that period of 

18 time.” 

19 So, Mark, you’re talking about here 

20 how they assign notional neutron dose, and you 

21 said in cases where there was no gamma data 

22 the nearby estimate was used. That is, in 

23 fact, not the case. In order for a notional 

24 dose to be assigned they had to have gamma 

25 monitoring. 
56

1 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, I think I stand 

2 corrected on that, Brant. I think I was 

3 trying to do that from memory, not going back 

4 to the protocol. 

5 DR. ULSH: I understand. There’s a lot of 

6 documentation here. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: But part of what I think that 

8 maybe clarified me if I’m wrong on this, but I 

9 think they used a neutron-gamma, either a 

10 personal which would have been the nearby, 

11 their previous year neutron-gamma ratio or a 

12 building-wide neutron-gamma ratio and applied 

13 whichever was more conservative I think in 

14 some cases. 

15 DR. ULSH: Not quite. 

16 MR. GRIFFON: Not quite? Go ahead, I’ll let 

17 you continue then. 

18 DR. ULSH: Okay, to assign notional neutron 

19 dose that covers gaps in neutron monitoring, 

20 they used a combination of two methods. The 

21 first one is the nearby technique that you 

22 mentioned. And that is taking an average of 

23 the measured neutron dose rates for that 

24 individual for when they have neutron 

25 monitoring, and applying it to that gap in 
57

1 neutron monitoring. That doesn’t say anything 

2 about -- 

3 MR. GRIFFON: Not having gamma. 

4 DR. ULSH: -- right. In fact, to identify 

5 that as a gap, they had to have gamma. That’s 

6 a prerequisite. 

7 And the second method was the NP ratio 

8 method that you mentioned. They used a 

9 weighted combination of the two. 

10 MR. GRIFFON: So I had it right except for 

11 the fact that it did ^ necessitate lack of 

12 gamma data, right? 

13 DR. ULSH: That is correct, Mark. In order 

14 for a period to be identified as a gap, that 

15 is predicated on the presence of gamma 

16 monitoring. So there are not people who, for 

17 instance, came from Building -- I don’t know, 

18 let’s just say the Administrative Building -- 

19 who went into the neutron areas, the 

20 production areas of the neutron buildings. 

21 It’s possible that, you know, I can’t 

22 say that they were all issued neutron 

23 dosimetry, but in order for them to be issued 

24 to be classed with a gap here and assigned 

25 notional neutron dose, that is predicated on 
58

1 the presence of gamma dosimetry. So I think 

2 when we’re talking about gaps, we’re talking 

3 about gaps in neutron dosimetry. And that’s 

4 important because the trigger for entry into 

5 the NDRP is gamma dosimetry, not neutron 

6 dosimetry, but gamma dosimetry. 

7 So the point that I’m trying to make 

8 here is that I don’t think you can read from 

9 any of the things that you’ve excerpted here 

10 or certainly from the NDRP Protocol, that 

11 there were people from other buildings who 

12 came in and were not assigned gamma dosimetry. 

13 It’s possible that they were assigned neutron, 

14 but not gamma. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Well, yeah, but I mean thank 

16 you for the clarification on that one thing. 

17 I still wasn’t sure that all the gaps that 

18 people had where they had notional dose 

19 assigned, they also had to have gamma 

20 measuring. So that is a clarification for me. 

21 But it still, I don’t think it answers 

22 that one question. Your first paragraph 

23 alludes to the fact that, yes, there were some 

24 people came from other buildings such as 34 

25 and into the plutonium buildings and were on 
59

1 neutron worksheets. But the question remains 

2 whether that was 100 percent effective, I 

3 guess. Or they found some worksheets with 

4 other buildings on them, neutron worksheets. 

5 So, yes, that certainly was evident 

6 that people from other buildings were in those 

7 buildings working and had some exposure to 

8 neutrons. That doesn’t necessarily say that 

9 the policy was 100 percent effective over all 

10 the years that we’re looking at. So that 

11 question remains in my mind I guess. 

12 DR. ULSH: I understand, and I think that’s 

13 a valid question to ask. 

14 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you for that, and I will 

15 -- just to let people know, I will modify my 

16 document to reflect Brant’s comments because 

17 that was a misstatement on my part. I was 

18 going by memory, and there is a clarification 

19 I need to make in that front paragraph. So I 

20 will edit that and get that out to everybody. 

21 DR. ULSH: And, Mark, you raised an 

22 interesting question here, and it’s worth 

23 discussing I think. The excerpts that you’ve 

24 provided here from our discussions with Roger 

25 Falk and also to a more limited extent the 
60

1 NDRP, do bear out what you said there about 

2 the criteria, the monitoring criteria for the 

3 plutonium production buildings. And 

4 basically, it was anyone who was judged to be 

5 at an exposure potential that would be ten 

6 percent of the exposure limit was issued 

7 dosimetry. 

8 And it was, we recognize that 

9 dosimetry, the dosimetry dose limits have 

10 changed over the years, and that’s why when 

11 the Department of Labor asked for our advice 

12 about who was or should have been monitored, 

13 NIOSH recommended that first of all include 

14 everyone in the NDRP. I mean, that’s obvious, 

15 everyone who’s listed. But also anyone who 

16 was in a neutron building as listed in the 

17 NDRP, but was not part of the, not explicitly 

18 included in the NDRP. 

19 Because can I say with 100 percent 

20 certainty that someone who worked in an 

21 administrative area of the building -- let’s 

22 say 771 just for example -- never went into 

23 the production area? No, I can’t say that. 

24 Can I say that they didn’t have the potential 

25 to receive 100 millirem in a year? That’s why 
61

1 we recommended to take a more generous list to 

2 include in the class based on not just 

3 explicitly people who were explicitly included 

4 in the NDRP but anyone else who was in those 

5 buildings. That was the basis based on that 

6 concern. 

7 MR. GRIFFON: But when you say in those 

8 buildings, Brant, I guess that’s the other 

9 question. How does DOL get to that? If 

10 they’re not in the NDRP, how do they get to 

11 that? They have work history cards that will 

12 say where they were assigned, like 334, but it 

13 may not, there’s no more data available to DOL 

14 anyway where they could determine if they were 

15 sent over to those neutron buildings, is 

16 there? Or am I missing something? 

17 MR. ELLIOTT: I think Jeff would have to 

18 answer how DOL administers -- 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Okay, okay, I guess we don’t 

20 necessarily need to go down that path right 

21 now, but I mean, is there anything else just 

22 focusing on NIOSH’s records right now, is 

23 there anything else in the -- you have the job 

24 history cards, right, Brant? In the data 

25 we’ve looked at each person seems to have a 
62

1 work history card with some indication of what 

2 buildings they worked in. Is that correct? 

3 DR. ULSH: Yes, in general that’s... Mark, 

4 when I approach a case I’m trying to figure 

5 out where a person worked. You’re right. The 

6 first place I look is the job history card. 

7 And where we have that it’s very informative. 

8 There are job history cards present for 

9 employees of the main contractor, you know, 

10 the main operator of the site, and those are 

11 included as part of the NDRP. So that does 

12 provide a lot of useful information. 

13 Some other things that I look at are 

14 the dosimetry records, the urinalysis records, 

15 because on those cards it lists what building 

16 a person worked in that resulted in them 

17 getting that sample. So we look there. I 

18 also look at the telephone interviews which, 

19 as you very well know, are more informative 

20 when we’re talking to the actual claimant, 

21 less so when we’re talking to a survivor. So 

22 those are some different sources that we can 

23 look at to make that kind of a determination. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: So we’re not in disagreement 

25 there. It’s just a question of can we get to 
63

1 an answer on when other people were in those 

2 buildings. And I did highlight the ten 

3 percent rule because -- and you readily stated 

4 that the regulations have changed over the 

5 years so ten percent of that time certainly 

6 would be higher than the 100 millirem that 

7 we’re judging it on now. Anything else to 

8 add, Brant, to the discussion at this point? 

9 DR. ULSH: Well, Mark, the other highlights 

10 really just go to the point that I think I’ve 

11 already made, and that is about when we talk 

12 about gaps, we’re talking about neutron not 

13 gamma. But if I go through the rest of the 

14 highlights, it would just be repeating that. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: No, that’s fine. I agree with 

16 that. I was going, as I said, by memory so 

17 that is fine, but it still doesn’t answer that 

18 question of those other, I guess that’s where 

19 we are is the remaining question of whether 

20 people could have a work assignment but been 

21 sent to these neutron buildings and missed in 

22 the policy of the time or in the protocols of 

23 the time. 

24 DR. ULSH: I think we can safely say that 

25 there were people from other buildings who 
64

1 were sent to the neutron buildings. We know 

2 that at least, well, in every case that we 

3 know about, we’ve looked, and they’ve got 

4 monitoring. However, I could easily see a 

5 situation where someone was sent to one of the 

6 neutron buildings, went into non-production 

7 parts of the building and was not monitored. 

8 I could easily see that. I mean, I don’t have 

9 a specific example in mind, but it makes 

10 sense. 

11 MR. GRIFFON: Sure, sure. 

12 DR. ULSH: Even by today’s standards I don’t 

13 know that that person would be required to be 

14 monitored. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: I know. I know. I guess also 

16 we have to consider, at least the work group 

17 and the Board have to consider the level of 

18 where does the proof have to lie. I mean, is 

19 the onus on the claimant to prove -- and I’m 

20 going back to this one case that was in the 

21 news story, and Larry’s probably correct that 

22 these other affidavits probably came after the 

23 case was in DOL’s hands so they may not be in 

24 the NIOSH record. 

25 But this individual’s not in the NDRP, 
65

1 apparently has testimony from coworkers, from 

2 supervisors that they were in these buildings. 

3 And I guess going further than that they’re 

4 saying in the building more than 250 days. 

5 The original decision was to, at least my 

6 understanding is the original decision was not 

7 to have him in the SEC. 

8 This is one individual who happens to 

9 have a lot of, the survivor has found several 

10 coworkers that are willing to, you know, that 

11 have memory of this and are willing to put 

12 affidavits out there for him. But the burden 

13 seems to be on the claimant I guess is my 

14 point. 

15 And are all the other claimants going 

16 to have those kind of resources or know people 

17 that knew the person when they worked there 

18 and have a memory of it? So I guess that’s 

19 the question. 

20 DR. ULSH: Mark, I can’t speak to all of 

21 that, but a couple of points of clarification. 

22 I haven’t seen the affidavits. I wasn’t 

23 specifically looking for them when I looked 

24 through the records, but I haven’t seen them. 

25 I’m not saying they don’t exist. 
66

1 MR. GRIFFON: I think Larry’s probably 

2 correct. It might have gone to DOL as opposed 

3 to NIOSH. 

4 DR. ULSH: Well, and a point of 

5 clarification, too, that I’m only going from 

6 what I read in the paper just like you. I 

7 don’t recall the newspaper saying anything at 

8 all about the 250-day question. It was silent 

9 on that. It didn’t provide any detail about 

10 how often or how extensive their work in those 

11 buildings was. 

12 And now I’m thinking back to the CATI, 

13 the telephone interview, and again, just going 

14 from memory here, she said that she had talked 

15 to some of the coworkers, and that they, I 

16 believe, said that they had visited those 

17 buildings or had been in those buildings. But 

18 it didn’t provide any detail about how often 

19 or where in the buildings they went. 

20 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I was just trying to 

21 pull one of those stories up, but I can’t do 

22 this real-time. I think we need to look at 

23 this, at least look at that one a little 

24 closer if we can. But at this point what my 

25 feeling is from the work group’s standpoint to 
67

1 lay out only the sort of timeline of what 

2 we’ve been discussing without any of our 

3 personal feelings as to which way things 

4 should go. 

5 And I will draft something up on 

6 bullet points of what I would present as the 

7 work group. I’ll circulate that to my work 

8 group members before presenting it at the 

9 Board meeting. But then I want to just turn 

10 it back to the full Board and say what 

11 direction do we as a Board want to take or 

12 does the Board want the work group to do on 

13 this issue. I think that’s where I feel we 

14 should go with this. 

15 I don’t know if Wanda or Bob or Mike, 

16 you have any feelings on it. 

17 MS. MUNN: This is Wanda. Can you hear me 

18 okay? 

19 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah. 

20 MS. MUNN: I’m on a cell phone, and I’m 

21 never sure. My personal feeling is that we 

22 certainly should revisit the wording that is 

23 of concern here. I have knocked it around in 

24 my own mind several times and have not come to 

25 the conclusion that there are any better words 
68

1 that could provide the flexibility that we 

2 must have for observing what transpires in 

3 these claims and at the same time setting some 

4 limits. I certainly would recommend that 

5 everyone on the work group consider whether 

6 that wording is inappropriate or not. I’m not 

7 convinced that there are better words that 

8 will get us any further down the line towards 

9 specificity than what we already have. It’s 

10 worth thinking about and certainly worth 

11 talking about. 

12 MR. GRIFFON: And I’ll commit to, like I 

13 said, circulating within the next two days 

14 some bullet points, and mainly just a timeline 

15 of what calls we have had, what we have 

16 discussed, and any if you could all just send 

17 me comments back in track changes mode, I will 

18 take those from the work group because I want 

19 to just give an update from the work group. I 

20 don’t want to, in this update I’m not going to 

21 give my opinion. 

22 I just want to ask maybe the Board 

23 where we should go with this and what is 

24 within our charter sort of to delve into as 

25 opposed to, and maybe the Board says nothing, 
69

1 says that we shouldn’t weigh in on this. It’s 

2 a DOL issue completely. I just want to bring 

3 this back to the full Board I think at this 

4 point. 

5 MR. PRESLEY: Mark, I agree with you. This 

6 is Bob Presley. 

7 I have one question for Brant. Do we 

8 have any information on what type of a job 

9 that the gentleman in question had? 

10 DR. ULSH: When you say the gentleman in 

11 question, Bob, were you talking about the one 

12 in the newspaper? 

13 MR. PRESLEY: Yes. 

14 DR. ULSH: I don’t have that at my 

15 fingertips, but I think I can pull it out of 

16 the records if you’d like. 

17 MR. PRESLEY: Okay. I mean, that might 

18 help, what job or what assignment this person 

19 had. 

20 DR. ULSH: Yeah, I’ll take a look in his 

21 records again and let you know on that. 

22 MR. PRESLEY: Thank you, sir. 

23 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry Elliott. I 

24 hesitate to say this, but I think the Rocky 

25 Mountain News stories have been evolving or 
70

1 revolving around two different sets, two 

2 different claims perhaps, the earlier one and 

3 the most recent one. So are we looking at 

4 both of these? 

5 MR. GRIFFON: That could be what I’m 

6 confusing in my mind, too, Larry. That’s why 

7 I said I think I don’t want to try to do this 

8 in real-time trying to pull up the stories and 

9 review them while trying to have this 

10 discussion. So there were two mentioned, I 

11 agree. 

12 MR. ELLIOTT: I think in order to -- 

13 MR. GRIFFON: And we can’t have names on 

14 here. 

15 MR. ELLIOTT: If Brant’s taking on an action 

16 item here to look at the job title or the 

17 activity levels of the different worker that’s 

18 been reported in the news, we need to make 

19 sure we look at all of those that have been 

20 reported. 

21 DR. ULSH: Mark, can you call me offline, 

22 off this call and let me know which one? 

23 MR. GRIFFON: I will, Brant. I will. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Mark, before you close, this 

25 is Christine. I just want to clarify that, 
71

1 just so it won’t be a surprise to you when it 

2 comes up next week if indeed you go forward 

3 with this in your update before the Board, 

4 your options again are, the Board’s options 

5 are few. 

6 They can write a letter that clarifies 

7 information for the Secretary. You can talk 

8 about if there’s any new data that you think 

9 that NIOSH should consider. You can do that. 

10 And if you can talk about something that helps 

11 you in the guise of the Board learn something 

12 new for future decisions. But they’re very, 

13 very narrow parameters that you have available 

14 to you here. 

15 MR. GRIFFON: Yeah, and I think I’m leaning 

16 toward if we do anything it would be that 

17 letter to clarify. But maybe you’re right, a 

18 dialogue of just to learn for our future 

19 recommendations might be useful. But, yeah, I 

20 agree with those parameters, Christine. 

21 DR. BRANCHE: Whether you agree or not, they 

22 are the ones available to you. Thank you, 

23 Mark. 

24 MR. GRIFFON: Is there anything else that we 

25 need to discuss today? 
72

1 MS. BOLLER: This is Carolyn. Is Jeff still 

2 on the line? 

3 MR. KOTSCH: Yeah, I’m still here. 

4 MS. BOLLER: Jeff, is there a way that we 

5 can get from you a list of, not necessarily by 

6 name, but numbers of cases that we are talking 

7 about that would be -- I don’t know what the 

8 term would be, but like I’ve got this case 

9 that I don’t think you all have yet, which I 

10 would be glad to send over to Mark or to you 

11 if you don’t have one. But how many cases are 

12 we talking about that would be affected by 

13 this requirement that they will have worked in 

14 the building for some period of time? 

15 MR. KOTSCH: I’m just trying to think. I 

16 don’t know how -- I’m just trying to think how 

17 we would put a number on that because we would 

18 have to look at each case individually to 

19 determine that. You know what I’m saying? 

20 We’d have to count ^ anyway. The outside 

21 population is the population of all Rocky 

22 Flats claims that have been denied to date 

23 kind of thing. 

24 MS. BOLLER: Yeah, is there a way you and I 

25 can talk offline about this? Can you give me 
73

1 a phone number? 

2 MR. KOTSCH: It’s 2-0-2-6-9-3-0-1-8-8. I 

3 can at least pass the information on to people 

4 that can give us the answer. 

5 MR. GRIFFON: Thank you, Jeff. 

6 Thank you, Carolyn. 

7 I think we’re ready to close today 

8 unless anyone had anything more for today. 

9 (no response) 

10 MR. GRIFFON: Again, I will give bullet 

11 points, a brief presentation for the Board, 

12 and I’ll circulate those to work group members 

13 just for your edits. 

14 MS. MUNN: That will be very appreciated, 

15 Mark, thank you. 

16 MR. GIBSON: Mark, that’d be good. 

17 MR. GRIFFON: All right, thank you everyone. 

18 I think we’re going to adjourn today. 

19 (Whereupon, the working group meeting 

20 concluded at 12:30 p.m.) 

21 

22 
74

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 April 3, 

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 

28th day of November, 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102