NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

ROCKY FLATS WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

MONDAY,

JULY 20, 2009

+ + + + +

The work group meeting convened 

via teleconference at 10:00 a.m., Mark 

Griffon, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

MARK GRIFFON, Chairman

MICHAEL H. GIBSON, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

ROBERT W. PRESLEY, Member
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor

TERRIE BARRIE, ANWAG

CAROLYN BOLLER, Office of Senator Mark Udall

SHANNON BRADFORD, NIOSH OCAS

LARRY ELLIOTT, NIOSH OCAS

JASON BROEHM, HHS

EMILY HOWELL, ESQ., HHS

BONNIE KLEA, Participant

ROY LLOYD, HHS

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

ROBERT McGOLERICK, HHS

DAN McKEEL, Dow, Petitioner

JIM NETON, NIOSH OCAS

JUDY PADILLA, Participant

MUTTY SHARFI, ORAU

BRANT ULSH, NIOSH OCAS
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

I. Roll Call 4

II. Comments by Dr. Brant Ulsh 12

III. Discussion 17
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

1 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S

2 (10:04 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Okay. I think -- why 

4 don't we just go ahead, do roll call, and I 

5 guess Wanda will join us when she can.

6 Okay. This is the Rocky Flats 

7 Working Group of the Advisory Board on 

8 Radiation and Worker Health. My name is Ted 

9 Katz, and I am the Acting Designated Federal 

10 Official for the Advisory Board. And we are 

11 meeting this morning to discuss the Ruttenber

12 data and other data used in relation to Rocky 

13 Flats, and particularly in relation to neutron 

14 exposures.

15 So we will begin with roll call, 

16 and beginning with the Board members. And, 

17 please, for everybody in roll call, other than 

18 the public, but all the government employees 

19 please state your conflict of interest 

20 situation when you say your name, starting 

21 with Mark.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Mark Griffon. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 I'm the Rocky Flats Work Group Chair.

2 MR. KATZ: No conflicts?

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No conflict.

4 MEMBER PRESLEY: This is Robert 

5 Presley, no conflict.

6 MEMBER GIBSON: Mike Gibson, no 

7 conflict.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn, no 

9 conflict.

10 MR. KATZ: Was that Wanda?

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

12 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Wanda.

13 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you.

14 MR. KATZ: Okay. That is the 

15 Board members. And now for the NIOSH and the 

16 ORAU team, please?

17 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, 

18 Director of OCAS, no conflict.

19 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH, no 

20 conflict.

21 MS. BRADFORD: Shannon Bradford, 

22 NIOSH, no conflict.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 DR. ULSH: This is Brant Ulsh, 

2 NIOSH OCAS, no conflict.

3 MR. SHARFI: Mutty Sharfi, ORAU 

4 team, no conflict.

5 MR. KATZ: Okay. That does it for 

6 NIOSH/ORAU team. How about SC&A?

7 DR. MAURO: John Mauro here, no 

8 conflict.

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: John Mauro Arjun 

10 -- John Mauro.

11 (Laughter.)

12 Arjun Makhijani. It's early here.

13 (Laughter.)

14 I woke up too early. No conflict.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. That's it for 

16 SC&A. Then, how about other federal 

17 employees, NIOSH or otherwise? HHS, DOL, DOE?

18 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS, no 

19 conflict.

20 MR. BROEHM: Jason Broehm, CDC, no 

21 conflict.

22 MR. LLOYD: Roy Lloyd, HHS, no 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 conflict.

2 MR. McGOLERICK: Robert 

3 McGolerick, HHS, no conflict.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then any 

5 representatives of congressional offices, 

6 staff of congressional offices?

7 MS. BOLLER: Carolyn Boller,

8 Senator Mark Udall.

9 MR. KATZ: Okay. And then members 

10 of the public, if you would like to identify 

11 yourselves, you are welcome to at this point, 

12 if you want to be in the transcript.

13 MS. PADILLA: My name is Judy 

14 Padilla. I am a former Rocky Flats nuclear 

15 worker, and I have a conflict.

16 MR. KATZ: There are no conflicts 

17 for the members of the public, actually. But, 

18 Judy, can you just spell your last name, 

19 please?

20 MS. PADILLA: P-A-D-I-L-L-A.

21 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

22 MS. ADAMS: Ted, Nancy Adams, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 NIOSH contractor. Also, I went looking on the 

2 website for the Ruttenber report, and I -- it 

3 is not easy to find. I have not been able to 

4 find it, just in case somebody had a URL for 

5 it.

6 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, we can 

7 maybe get to that in a second, but let's 

8 continue with members of the public.

9 MS. BARRIE: This is Terrie Barrie 

10 with ANWAG.

11 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Terrie.

12 MS. BARRIE: Good morning.

13 MS. KLEA: This is Bonnie Klea 

14 from the Santa Susanna Field Laboratory in 

15 California.

16 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Bonnie.

17 MS. KLEA: Thank you.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. Any other 

19 members of the public?

20 (No response.)

21 All right, then. Then, let me 

22 just remind everyone that's on the phone, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 members of the public, et al., please mute 

2 your phone except when you are part of the 

3 discussion. And if you don't have a mute 

4 button on your phone, you can use *6. That 

5 will mute it. And then, if you need to come 

6 back on to speak, you just press *6 again, and 

7 that will unmute your phone. So please do 

8 that, and please do not put the phone on hold 

9 at any time. Just hang up and call back in if 

10 you need to go away for a brief bit.

11 Much thanks, and, Mark, it is all 

12 yours.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thanks, Ted.

14 Yes, this is Mark Griffon, and I 

15 just wanted to start off the meeting with a 

16 couple of statements, and then we will get 

17 into the report that was submitted by NIOSH.

18 I think one thing I wanted to say 

19 up front was that this is -- it is our Rocky 

20 Flats Work Group. We are not looking at the 

21 SEC evaluation anymore. We have made our 

22 determination, we have sent our letters in on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 the -- establishing the SEC.

2 The narrow focus here -- and I 

3 think this is important for our discussions 

4 for the next little while -- was to evaluate 

5 the Ruttenber database for impact on the Rocky 

6 Flats SEC eligibility, and that was -- that 

7 was really what we were totally focused on 

8 here, not expanding or having the discussions 

9 again about the SEC. So I just wanted to 

10 clarify that up front for all that are on the 

11 line.

12 One little administrative thing I 

13 wanted to say. I have -- I don't think the 

14 website says this, but I have to be off the 

15 call by noon, so -- but I think that gives us 

16 plenty of time to get an overview on this and 

17 have some discussion.

18 So my intent for this call was to 

19 have NIOSH give an overview of the report, to 

20 have, then, an opportunity for some questions. 

21 I will say that Terrie Barrie emailed me a 

22 question that she would like read into the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 record, so I will do that for Terrie, but then 

2 other questions from other work group members

3 would be fine there, and then, if there's 

4 questions from the public. And then, I think 

5 we might want to talk about next steps at the 

6 end of the call.

7 I assume Brant would be giving the 

8 overview on the report -- if I can ask you to 

9 sort of give a -- I guess what I am looking 

10 for is like a reduced, condensed version of 

11 the entire report, you know, just the 

12 objective of your comparison, the methods you 

13 used, and sort of the bottom line, what -- you 

14 know, how does this impact the potential 

15 eligibility for the class?

16 I don't think we need the whole 

17 history and the timeline, if people want to 

18 get into that, or if we want to -- you know, 

19 going forward people may want to look at that 

20 and have some questions on that. But I am not 

21 sure -- just at least as a first step if you 

22 can keep it narrowly focused on the objective, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 the methods you used to determine it, and then 

2 what your conclusions were, that would be I 

3 think helpful, especially in a short time 

4 phone call. 

5 Is that all right, Brant?

6 DR. ULSH: Sure, Mark. No 

7 problem.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

9 With that, I will turn it over to you, unless 

10 other people have questions on the agenda 

11 before we --

12 MS. BOLLER: Was Margaret 

13 Ruttenber going to be on this call?

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I don't know. 

15 I didn't hear her acknowledge herself, so I'm 

16 assuming she -- well, I'm not sure. I haven't 

17 heard anything from her.

18 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry 

19 Elliott. I sent her a copy of the report and 

20 notified her of the conference call this 

21 morning. But I don't know if she is intending 

22 to participate or not.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 MS. BOLLER: Okay. All right. 

2 Thanks, Larry.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I guess 

4 I will turn it over to you. Thanks.

5 DR. ULSH: Okay. Well, this is 

6 Brant Ulsh. The reason -- as Mark mentioned, 

7 the reason that we are meeting this morning is 

8 to discuss to what extent the epidemiological 

9 studies conducted by Jim and Margaret 

10 Ruttenber, whether they are similar to the 

11 neutron dose reconstruction project, which I 

12 will refer to as the NDRP, or to what extent 

13 they might be different, and how that might 

14 impact eligibility for the Rocky Flats SEC 

15 cohort.

16 One idea that was circulated and 

17 there was a lot of concern about, is that 

18 these studies, the Ruttenber studies and the 

19 NDRP, rely on different records, and they are 

20 totally distinct datasets. And that is a 

21 misconception.

22 There was a lot of overlap. Both 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 programs grew out of the former medical 

2 monitoring program conducted at Rocky Flats. 

3 And, in fact, Jim Ruttenber even served on the 

4 Advisory Board of the NDRP. So, as you might 

5 imagine, there is a lot of overlap.

6 But they both started -- both the 

7 Ruttenber studies and the NDRP started from 

8 the dosimetry records that were provided by 

9 the radiation protection staff at Rocky Flats. 

10 The difference here is that the Ruttenbers

11 only had access to total penetrating dose. So 

12 if you think of a pie chart, and the pie 

13 represents total penetrating dose, it is how 

14 you slice that pie into gamma and neutron 

15 components that is the question at issue.

16 And the Ruttenbers clearly 

17 expressed their preference to use the NDRP 

18 results. However, the NDRP was not finished 

19 in time for them to use them in their epi 

20 studies. And these are -- I mean, it is 

21 stated clearly in the Ruttenber reports that 

22 they would prefer to use the NDRP.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 But in the absence of that, they 

2 had to devise some methods for splitting the 

3 dose into gamma and neutron components. And 

4 to do that, they rely -- they consulted with 

5 the staff of the NDRP and devised some rules 

6 of thumb to determine how to split up that 

7 total penetrating dose. They did this based 

8 on job types, and they did it based on what 

9 buildings workers worked in.

10 Now, another thing to note here --

11 and it might be different from what you've 

12 heard -- is that there is no disagreement 

13 between the Ruttenber studies and the NDRP 

14 regarding which buildings presented neutron 

15 exposure potential.

16 So what the Ruttenber team, the 

17 Colorado Department of Public Health and 

18 Environment team, did was they assigned 

19 neutron doses to all members of a job type, if

20 any member of that job type could have been 

21 exposed to neutrons.

22 So, for instance, if there was a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 tool engineer who worked in Building 771 and 

2 could have been exposed, well, then, all tool 

3 engineers were assigned a neutron dose. 

4 Now, the difference here is that 

5 the NDRP relied on primary dosimetry records, 

6 so they went back and they pulled the 

7 worksheets that were performed -- that were 

8 prepared when the films were read, and they 

9 also reread the neutron films. So these are 

10 primary dosimetry records, and they relied on 

11 that -- the reread films -- to determine 

12 neutron exposure potential for the individuals 

13 that work at Rocky Flats.

14 So that difference in the way that 

15 neutron doses were assigned led the Ruttenber

16 studies to assign about 4,000 -- neutron dose 

17 to about 4,000 more people than the NDRP did. 

18 So given that, what we did is we looked at 

19 the impact. 

20 We kind of asked the question: 

21 what would happen if the Ruttenber database 

22 were used to determine eligibility for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 Rocky Flats SEC cohort in addition to the NDRP 

2 that we already use? And we also already use 

3 the dosimetry files prepared and provided to 

4 us by the Department of Energy.

5 So to conduct that analysis, since 

6 we have the dosimetry -- complete dosimetry 

7 records for all NIOSH claimants, we identified 

8 the current claimants that are not members of 

9 the SEC class, but they -- they are not part 

10 of the NDRP, but the Ruttenbers did assign a 

11 positive neutron dose during an SEC year.

12 And we looked through those 

13 records, and we found no evidence that would 

14 suggest neutron exposure. And, furthermore, 

15 we applied the criteria that are used to 

16 determine SEC eligibility, so things like, do 

17 you have an SEC cancer for instance, or did 

18 you work more than 250 days, you know, all the 

19 criteria that are applied to an SEC.

20 And what we found was that there 

21 would only be one person out of the current 

22 NIOSH claimants that would be added to the SEC 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 if the Ruttenber data were used in addition to 

2 the NDRP. So the idea that there would be 

3 thousands of people added to the SEC is simply 

4 -- well, quite frankly, it is just not 

5 accurate.

6 So those were kind of the main 

7 points of our report, and I would be happy to 

8 expand on any, Mark, if you have questions.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. I think 

10 one of the first questions was -- and this 

11 actually was expressed by Terrie Barrie -- did 

12 Margaret Ruttenber have a chance to comment on 

13 this report?

14 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry 

15 Elliott. I will answer that. No. She saw 

16 the report perhaps this morning. We didn't 

17 offer her an opportunity to comment and 

18 review.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. That was 

20 one question.

21 I would ask about these -- the 

22 4,000 -- this number of 4,000, Brant. How 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 many people are in the NDRP? How many 

2 individuals are identified in the NDRP that 

3 have an exposure to neutron?

4 DR. ULSH: You know, Mark, I don't 

5 have that number at my fingertips. Mutty, do 

6 you have an idea?

7 MR. SHARFI: I mean, I could look 

8 it up real quick, but I don't have it off the 

9 top of my head.

10 DR. ULSH: Okay. Mark, how about 

11 if we answer your next question, and Mutty 

12 will look while --

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: From the 4,000 

14 standpoint, this -- I think 4,163 was the 

15 number in the report with some assigned 

16 neutron dose. I guess, you know, I think one 

17 follow-up question might be we are eventually 

18 probably going to want to see some of the data 

19 files that you used to put together the 

20 report.

21 But these were -- and I agree in 

22 the characterization -- I mean, the Ruttenbers
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 did use job information and a building, you 

2 know, whereas the NDRP was just with a 

3 building -- I do remember that discussion, 

4 even when we were out there in Colorado, I was 

5 out there with you.

6 But I -- I thought it was a little 

7 more complex than if one -- if one -- I forget 

8 what you said, tool mechanic or whatever, was 

9 in 771, and they just assigned it to all -- I 

10 mean, I thought there was a little more -- a 

11 little more complicated of a model than that. 

12 Am I wrong about that, Brant?

13 DR. ULSH: I think so, Mark. 

14 Well, I don't want to say that you are wrong, 

15 but it is just a little more complicated than 

16 that. In other words, they used ratios to 

17 split up the total penetrating dose, and those 

18 ratios were building-dependent, just as the 

19 NDRP was. And those ratios were provided by 

20 the staff working on the NDRP. They provided 

21 those ratios to the Ruttenbers.

22 So it is true, Mark, that they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 looked in a little more detail about, you 

2 know, if you were in, for instance, Building 

3 771 they used one ratio, but if you were in a 

4 different building they used a different 

5 ratio. But in terms of actually who was 

6 applied neutron dose, I believe that that's 

7 the way they did it, that they simply applied 

8 -- you know, they based it on job category.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Just on job 

10 category regardless of the potential for 

11 neutron exposure. They just said, this job --

12 we found one case of this job that had a 

13 potential, and, therefore, we are going to say 

14 anybody with that job title had the potential?

15 DR. ULSH: I believe that is the 

16 case.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay, I wasn't 

18 clear on that. And then, let me just follow19 up with one, and then I will open it up to 

20 either SC&A or other work group members, if 

21 they have other questions. 

22 But the 100 people that you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 reviewed, can you explain a little bit more on 

2 -- just a little more on -- so these were 100 

3 -- of your existing claims, these were -- of 

4 the -- if you had the whole list of claimants 

5 that you have in your system, you identified 

6 100 that were not in the Ruttenber -- or were 

7 not in NDRP but were in the Ruttenber

8 database? Am I characterizing that correctly 

9 or no?

10 DR. ULSH: Yes, pretty close. Of 

11 those 4,000-plus people who the Ruttenbers

12 assigned neutron dose to, but the NDRP did 

13 not, we identified which ones were claimants. 

14 And the reason that we focused on claimants 

15 is because we had access to their complete 

16 dosimetry file.

17 So out of that 4,000 people, 100 

18 of them are current claimants. So that is the 

19 -- that is the population that we examined in 

20 detail, because we had access to all of their 

21 records.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And did you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 examine all of the 100, or did you triage it 

2 first? I am a little confused, because you 

3 seemed to drop off the cases that were -- that 

4 were non-listed cancers, which, you know, is 

5 pretty irrelevant for establishing exposure.

6 DR. ULSH: Well, okay, the goal of 

7 our analysis, Mark, was to determine what 

8 impact on the SEC that adding the Ruttenber as 

9 a source data would have had. So you are 

10 correct that we did do the triage first. 

11 So, for instance, if a person had 

12 prostate cancer, which is a non-SEC cancer, we 

13 triaged that. Or if they didn't meet the 

14 other criteria for the SEC, that was triaged. 

15 Or, for instance, if they are already a 

16 member of the SEC class -- and I think there 

17 were about 50 of the 100 that were already in 

18 the SEC -- so those were triaged out, because 

19 the addition of the Ruttenber data would not 

20 have any impact on whether or not they are 

21 included in the SEC.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: However, they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 already -- can you explain that, too, Brant, 

2 how were those people in -- or in the SEC 

3 without being in the NDRP? What was the other 

4 criteria that tripped them into the SEC?

5 DR. ULSH: Well, we would have to 

6 look at each case in detail. However, I 

7 suspect -- now let's keep in mind how these 

8 cohorts were constructed. First of all, if 

9 you were a member of the NDRP, if you were 

10 considered in the NDRP, you were considered 

11 was or should have been monitored for 

12 neutrons, and you would be eligible, assuming 

13 you met all of the other criteria.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

15 DR. ULSH: But recall that it was 

16 decided that work in Building 881 would 

17 qualify for addition into the SEC. Now that 

18 would not qualify you for entry into the NDRP. 

19 So basically what we have done is 

20 we have taken all of the people who were 

21 actually working in a plutonium building or a 

22 neutron building and they're in, and then, of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 the remainder of the people, essentially work 

2 in the largest remaining building, building 

3 881, has also been added.

4 So I think I would -- it is my 

5 very strong suspicion that that is how many of

6 those 50 people were already included in the 

7 SEC because they had worked in Building 881.

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: But wouldn't it 

9 have been more informative to look at the 100 

10 out of the 4,163, to look at, them, totally, 

11 because, I mean, I understand -- I understand 

12 the claims process. But we are looking at 

13 special exposure cohort here, and the 

14 eligibility to be in the class, you know, that 

15 is -- I mean, you know, we don't know going 

16 forward who is going to get what type of 

17 cancer. 

18 So, you know, if we want to know 

19 how -- you know, if this database serves us in 

20 any way in determining eligibility for future 

21 claims, I would be interested to know -- even 

22 though these 50 were already included, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 know, if you examined them and you found --

2 you know, it would be of interest to me anyway 

3 to see why those names were in the Ruttenber

4 database and not in the -- you know, look at 

5 the original neutron records and see what you 

6 find.

7 DR. ULSH: Well, Mark, given the 

8 level of interest in determining eligibility 

9 for the SEC class, that being the primary 

10 interest, we focused very closely to the 

11 impact that this would have on SEC 

12 eligibility. So, yes, sure we could go back 

13 and look at all 100 people. But the report 

14 wouldn't have been presented to you now. It 

15 would have taken a few more months to -- I 

16 mean, to look at that.

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I guess that is 

18 what I am focused on, too, is eligibility, not 

19 -- I think we are -- I mean, I might be not 

20 making my point very well, but, you know, the 

21 idea -- I mean, if we are just looking at this 

22 as a sample rather than as -- strictly as 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 specific claims files, let's say this is a 

2 sampling of 100 people that we just have --

3 happen to have access to their raw records, so 

4 we are going to use that to make judgments 

5 about the -- you know, the entirety of the 

6 database. 

7 Then I would say you need to 

8 examine the entire sample, not just those that 

9 you have already, you know, either disposed of 

10 in a separate manner through the SEC process 

11 or you have excluded for -- because they 

12 didn't have the correct type of cancer. Do 

13 you understand what I mean?

14 DR. ULSH: I do understand what 

15 you are saying. But, you know, I am going to 

16 defer to Larry on that in terms of dedicating 

17 resources. However, but I would say to you 

18 that we focused on the important question, and 

19 that is, for whom would this make a difference 

20 in terms of being in the SEC or not? And that 

21 was only one person.

22 DR. NETON: Mark, this is Jim. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 I've got a sense that maybe we are going off 

2 the track here, though. It is not would more 

3 people be in the SEC if we used the Ruttenber

4 data, but which dataset really appeared to be 

5 a more representative set of people who are 

6 neutron exposed. I mean, I don't -- you know, 

7 I understand that --

8 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, we've --

9 I mean, you may disagree with this, Jim, but I 

10 think the Board has already determined that, 

11 you know, we have got concerns about the NDRP 

12 data and the use for -- you know, that's why 

13 the recommendation went out to the Secretary.

14 DR. NETON: But not necessarily 

15 NDRP data reconstruction itself, but 

16 identification of those who were neutron 

17 exposed, the way the process was --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. Right, 

19 right. Okay.

20 DR. NETON: -- performed.

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. 

22 Well, I --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 DR. NETON: I think that is a 

2 different issue, and, you know, Brant outlined 

3 in the report, I think in some detail, why the 

4 NDRP, which went back and pulled 90,000 

5 people's records and reanalyzed them in 

6 detail, and the Ruttenber study actually 

7 states that that would be a more 

8 representative set. And why go back, then, 

9 and reconstruct history based on a more what I 

10 would consider obsolete dataset is sort of 

11 questionable, but --

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, yes, and 

13 I don't want to reconstruct the dataset. I'm 

14 more interested, like you, Jim, in answering 

15 that question of --

16 DR. NETON: But, I mean, the 

17 central question is --

18 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Which one is 

19 more complete in identifying people, you know, 

20 who could have been exposed to neutrons? And 

21 I will go back to my one example that I have 

22 used throughout this debate is, you know, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 maintenance person in the non-neutron building 

2 who got sent into other buildings to do work, 

3 you know, that hypothetical example or maybe 

4 it is a more real example. But for this 

5 purpose, for me it is a hypothetical example. 

6 You know, this is where, you know, the use of 

7 job title might have been important if it was 

8 done -- you know, and, again, that's why we 

9 set out this task.

10 DR. ULSH: Okay. There's a couple 

11 points to make on that issue, Mark. We are 

12 talking about roving workers here, and this 

13 has been asked --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

15 DR. ULSH: -- several times 

16 before. So just for people who are on the 

17 call who may not be as familiar with what we 

18 are talking about here, rovers are people that 

19 were stationed, officially stationed at least, 

20 in a non-neutron building, but occasionally 

21 their work took them into neutron buildings.

22 And so the concern here is, were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 those people captured in the NDRP? So if I 

2 could, here is what the NDRP says about it. 

3 "A small portion of the total number of 

4 neutron worksheets represent the issuance of 

5 neutron dosimeters to a few personnel whose 

6 home building assignments were the non7 plutonium production building, such as 

8 Buildings 21, 22, 23, 34, 44, 81, and 86. 

9 "These individuals primarily 

10 worked in non-neutron buildings but were 

11 routinely issued neutron dosimeters because 

12 they occasionally performed work activities in 

13 plutonium production buildings. Some examples 

14 of these job descriptions are guards, 

15 radiation monitors, technical researchers, and 

16 uranium process operators."

17 So what I can present to you, 

18 again, is that the NDRP captured these people. 

19 Now can I prove the negative, that there is 

20 not somebody onsite who fits into this 

21 category that the NDRP did not capture? Well, 

22 it is not possible to prove a negative, but we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 have evidence that they made an effort to 

2 capture these people, and we have seen no 

3 evidence that people are missing, people that 

4 fit this category were not captured. So that 

5 is all I can do now, and that is really all I 

6 am ever going to be able to do.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: The only 

8 evidence we have is the 4,163 additional 

9 people in the Ruttenber database. And if you 

10 are calculating it accurately, that number is 

11 vastly too high. I mean, if it was simply 

12 done on job title, I mean, in talking with 

13 Margaret, I got the sense that it was a little 

14 -- it scrutinized a little further than just 

15 simply job -- it wasn't just any maintenance 

16 mechanic, but they tried to determine if it 

17 was maintenance mechanics that would have gone 

18 into other buildings or things like that, but 

19 maybe I am wrong on that. But, you know --

20 DR. ULSH: Well, I can tell you 

21 that they did use rules of thumb. That was 

22 confirmed to me both in some of the meeting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 minutes that Margaret provided. It was also 

2 confirmed to me by Roger Falk, who gave them 

3 the rules of thumb. And that is what they 

4 used.

5 Now, with regard to -- I think Jim 

6 is right here that we are kind of focusing on 

7 an important question, but maybe not the main 

8 question, and that is, which would be the most 

9 reliable for determining who would then be --

10 who was neutron exposed. 

11 So if you consider the fact that 

12 the Ruttenbers -- and keep in mind I am not 

13 criticizing what the Ruttenbers did. I think 

14 they did an admirable job with the data that 

15 they had at the time. It's just that they 

16 didn't have access to all of the data that the 

17 NDRP did.

18 And it mystifies me why anyone 

19 would try to make the case that the NDRP is 

20 not acceptable when they reread the films and 

21 went back to primary dosimetry results. And 

22 the Ruttenber data didn't have access to that, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 and they had to simply apply rules of thumb.

2 So I can't see that -- I can only 

3 --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, I -- I 

5 think Arjun has a follow-up question.

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. Is everybody 

7 in the NDRP have a badge and their badges were 

8 reread, it was my impression, at least in the 

9 early years, most of the people who had 

10 potential for neutron exposure were not 

11 badged. And so like the Ruttenber database, 

12 their total dose was split by N/P ratio. It 

13 didn't seem to me like the -- you know, there 

14 were 700 buildings where people did not have 

15 badges because people didn't realize it was a 

16 high neutron area.

17 DR. ULSH: No, that's not quite 

18 accurate. Parts of that are accurate, but 

19 parts are not. It is true that in the early 

20 --

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- have a neutron 

22 badge in neutron buildings that we recognize 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 now?

2 DR. ULSH: Okay. It is true that 

3 in the early years they limited badging to 

4 those that were considered the most highly 

5 exposed.

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: That's right.

7 DR. ULSH: Now --

8 DR. MAKHIJANI: But my actual 

9 question -- you made a statement that the NDRP 

10 -- it consists of people whose badges were 

11 reread. And what I am -- what my 

12 understanding is, that the NDRP also includes 

13 people who did not have badges and whose doses 

14 are estimated only by N/P ratio, at least in 

15 certain years.

16 DR. ULSH: That is --

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: Is that correct?

18 DR. ULSH: No, it is not just like 

19 the Ruttenber database. They had --

20 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, the N/P --

21 DR. ULSH: -- they had a -- well, 

22 let me answer your question. Let me answer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 your question. The answer is -- how did you 

2 get into the NDRP? And the answer is if you 

3 were issued neutron dosimetry or even if you 

4 did not have neutron dosimetry, if you had 

5 beta-gamma monitoring in a neutron building. 

6 So, yes, it is true that there are 

7 numerous people -- I don't know how many, I 

8 would have to look -- who did not have neutron 

9 badges, but they are in the NDRP anyway. And 

10 by that, they are already in the SEC class.

11 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, you had to 

12 do the same thing in the NDRP for people who 

13 did not have neutron doses, but beta-gamma 

14 dosimetry. They had the full pie, but you 

15 couldn't break it up. And so they had to use 

16 N/P ratios for those people, which is --

17 DR. ULSH: That is correct.

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: -- which is the 

19 method -- so I think the initial part of the 

20 record indicated that NDRP consists of people 

21 with reread badges, and the neutron doses in 

22 the Ruttenber database are N/P ratios is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 inaccurate. The NDRP actually consists of --

2 MR. SHARFI: Let me clarify. This 

3 is Mutty Sharfi. Actually, Ruttenber split 

4 the penetrating dose, where the NDRP actually 

5 took the gamma dose and calculated neutron 

6 dose. Those are two different things.

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I need to 

8 know how this splitting was done. I am just 

9 -- I just want to make a point -- 

10 MR. SHARFI: The NDRP did no 

11 splitting --

12 DR. NETON: Time out. This is 

13 Jim. I think, Arjun, that the issue here is 

14 not the reliability of the dose calculation 

15 for neutron. The issue is --

16 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, a lot of 

17 that has been inferred in the report.

18 DR. NETON: No, no, no.

19 DR. MAKHIJANI: And your report is 

20 about which methods were more accurate for 

21 dose reconstruction, whether it was N/P ratios 

22 or rereading the badges and --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 DR. NETON: I think that is a 

2 misconception of the report. The report 

3 was --

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, then why go 

5 into whether the Ruttenber study used --

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. Let 

7 Jim Neton speak, please.

8 DR. NETON: Yes. I would just 

9 like to say that the report is really more 

10 about who was potentially neutron exposed, not 

11 how accurate the neutron dose reconstruction 

12 is, because anybody with neutron exposures is 

13 in the -- is in the class already. The 

14 question is did the NDRP identify properly all 

15 workers who were potentially exposed to 

16 neutrons? 

17 And as Brant indicated, in those 

18 years when neutrons weren't monitored, they 

19 assigned a neutron dose to workers who had 

20 beta-gamma badges in neutron buildings. So 

21 they were identified as potentially neutron 

22 workers based on having worn a beta-gamma 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 badge in a neutron building.

2 (Simultaneous speakers.)

3 DR. MAKHIJANI: Are there people 

4 in the SEC class now who are not in the NDRP?

5 DR. ULSH: Yes. Yes, there are. 

6 There are a number of them.

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Then it is true 

8 that the NDRP is incomplete in that regard.

9 DR. ULSH: That is absolutely not 

10 true. The reason those additional people are

11 in the SEC class was because they worked in 

12 Building 881. 

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, that is has 

14 got to be NDRP.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That was a 

16 Board decision, Arjun.

17 DR. MAKHIJANI: No. It was a DOL 

18 determination.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes. 

20 DR. ULSH: There are a number of 

21 people who are in the SEC class by virtue of 

22 the fact that they worked in Building 881. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 However, we looked at those people, and there 

2 is no independent indication in their file 

3 that they were exposed to neutrons.

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: So you are saying 

5 they are wrongly in the SEC class?

6 DR. ULSH: They are consistent 

7 with the criteria that have been established 

8 by DOL for entry into the class, and that is 

9 Building 881. That is a settled issue.

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, it's a 

11 technical question relating to who is eligible 

12 to be in the SEC class and what the 

13 uncertainties are, which is what I am trying 

14 to understand, because in this conversation 

15 the NDRP is being represented as complete for 

16 those who were exposed to neutrons. But it is 

17 a fact that there are a significant number of 

18 people, including 50 out of the 100 that you 

19 looked at were not in the NDRP, who are in the 

20 SEC class even though they are not in the 

21 NDRP.

22 DR. ULSH: That is correct.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 DR. MAKHIJANI: The NDRP cannot be

2 defined currently, as the SEC stands, as 

3 representing completely those who are eligible 

4 to be in the class, in my opinion.

5 DR. ULSH: I never represented it 

6 as such. I clearly explained that DOL decided 

7 to add work in Building 881 as entry -- as a 

8 criterion for entry into the class. Those 

9 people are not necessarily into -- they are 

10 not in the NDRP unless they worked in a 

11 neutron building, as defined by both NDRP and 

12 the Ruttenber study.

13 DR. MAKHIJANI: So DOL did wrong 

14 by adding them? That's what I'm trying to 

15 understand.

16 DR. ULSH: I'm not going to answer 

17 that question because it is not in my 

18 authority to answer that question. DOL has 

19 the responsibility and the authority to 

20 determine how they will administer the class. 

21 They decided that work in Building 881 

22 qualified, and so those people are in.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 DR. MAURO: Brant, this is John 

2 Mauro. I have a question, and it's really for 

3 my -- I'm listening to the conversation. Am I 

4 correct in understanding that right now the 

5 real issue that is before us is that there are 

6 4,000 or so people who are not currently 

7 within the circle that is under consideration 

8 for SEC treatment, within that group, is that 

9 correct?

10 DR. ULSH: Not quite. There are 

11 4,000 or so people who are assigned neutron 

12 dose in the Ruttenber database, but who are 

13 not assigned neutron dose in the NDRP.

14 DR. MAURO: Okay. Now --

15 DR. ULSH: Now, a number of those 

16 people would most likely qualify just like the 

17 representative sample that we looked at.

18 DR. MAURO: I don't want to go 

19 there yet. I understand that, but I am taking 

20 baby steps right now. Okay. So what we have 

21 is 4,000 people, whether or not -- now, what 

22 I'm asking is, do you agree that those 4,000 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 people are people that have the potential for 

2 neutron exposures but are currently not under 

3 consideration to be included within the 

4 cohort?

5 DR. ULSH: No, I don't.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay. Because that's 

7 what I hear is the essence of this 

8 conversation.

9 DR. ULSH: Sure. There are 4,000 

10 people that the Ruttenbers assigned neutron 

11 dose to. We have not done a detailed analysis 

12 of all 4,000. That would take several years. 

13 But I would have to look at their dosimetry 

14 files and see whether there was evidence of 

15 neutron exposure or if there was evidence of 

16 work in Building 881, which is also a 

17 criteria.

18 DR. MAURO: Good. So we've got 

19 4,000 people that are sort of in limbo right 

20 now. What I mean by that is that we have a 

21 group of 90,000 -- I heard a number like that 

22 -- which is currently under consideration, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 know, for possible assignment of compensation 

2 claims under the SEC. And there are these 

3 4,000 people that do not appear to be within 

4 that circle, whether or not one or any of them 

5 would actually be compensated, but is there 

6 agreement that they did have the potential for 

7 neutron exposures but are currently not part 

8 of consideration within the cohort?

9 DR. ULSH: No. There is not 

10 agreement on that point.

11 DR. MAURO: Okay.

12 DR. ULSH: I would say to you that 

13 they would -- they simply were imputed neutron 

14 doses by the Ruttenbers based on the criteria 

15 that they used. We would have -- since they 

16 did that based on job classes without really 

17 evidence of work in a neutron building, I 

18 would say to you that for each of those 4,000, 

19 should they ever file claims, we would have to 

20 bounce that against the SEC criteria and 

21 determine whether they are in or not. 

22 I can't tell you that every one of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 those 4,000 had neutron exposure potential. I 

2 would do the same thing I did with these 100 

3 cases that we looked at in detail.

4 DR. MAURO: So that is the essence 

5 of the disagreement, namely 4,000 people have 

6 been named, but there is no -- the level of --

7 the threshold of evidence that, yes, these 

8 people should be within the cohort 

9 automatically is not there. That would have 

10 to be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

11 DR. ULSH: I would say so, yes.

12 DR. NETON: John, this is Jim. I 

13 would also like to point out something which I 

14 think is fairly important. The definition of 

15 the class, I believe, is those who were 

16 monitored or should have been monitored for 

17 exposures to neutrons. By definition, these 

18 4,000 people or whatever there were, were not 

19 monitored for neutron exposures. And their 

20 doses were assumed and imputed by the 

21 Ruttenber study based on some job title 

22 information.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 I think Brant could back this up. 

2 I think it is true, though, that the vast 

3 majority of those workers would have received 

4 far less than 100 millirem imputed neutron 

5 dose, which was the criteria -- the threshold 

6 criteria established by the Department of 

7 Labor for most classes, or all classes where 

8 the definition of "should have been monitored" 

9 came into play.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I was hoping we 

11 wouldn't get to the 100 millirem --

12 (Simultaneous speakers.)

13 DR. NETON: I'm just saying that 

14 these people were not monitored at all for 

15 neutron exposure. Should they have been 

16 monitored is the question. And I think 

17 Brant's report clearly outlines that, based on 

18 the NDRP study, they should not have been 

19 monitored.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. If you're 

21 referring to -- this gets tangled around a 

22 little bit, but if you are -- if you're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 referring to DOL, Jim, then 881, they should 

2 have been monitored for neutrons. So --

3 DR. NETON: We did not make that 

4 determination. Department of Labor did. And, 

5 frankly, this is -- this report provides, as 

6 best we can -- portrays the evidence of what 

7 was available for NDRP versus the Ruttenber. 

8 And, frankly, you know, the report stands on 

9 its own merit, and people can use it to make 

10 determinations as they see fit. But we do not 

11 make that determination of who was in the 

12 class.

13 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I think 

14 -- well, I don't want to drag on too long with 

15 this because I think -- Jim, it would be nice 

16 if we could see the -- like I'm sure you use 

17 spreadsheets to put these names and numbers 

18 together and stuff, because I'm still a little 

19 unclear, especially on the 100, how many case 

20 files you actually went into and -- I don't 

21 want to, you know, try to get into it over the 

22 phone without looking -- you know, it might 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 just be easier to look at, but that might be 

2 one follow-up item that I would ask for anyway 

3 is the analysis files.

4 Go ahead. Who was trying to 

5 speak?

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: Mark, it seems to 

7 me from the report -- and Brant might confirm 

8 if this is right or wrong -- he said that they 

9 looked at 100 cases in detail. But as I read 

10 the report, only two of them were examined for 

11 neutron exposure. 

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: No, that's not 

13 accurate. 

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: From this triage, 

15 the 50 were not examined because they were in 

16 the SEC, 22 because they had non-SEC cancers. 

17 Some were less than 250 days. Four at PoC 

18 greater than 50 were compensated already, and 

19 so on.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let Brant 

21 respond to that.

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: I don't know how 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 many -- how many neutron exposure potential 

2 investigations were done out of these 100 

3 cases.

4 DR. ULSH: I don't know. I would 

5 have to go back and look at our spreadsheets 

6 to see that. But it is true that --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, that is 

8 what we would like to look at, too, Brant, if 

9 we could.

10 DR. ULSH: Sure. That's no 

11 problem.

12 DR. MAURO: Before we move on --

13 this is John Mauro --

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go ahead. 

15 Brant was trying to finish. I'm sorry.

16 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry.

17 COURT REPORTER: Excuse me. 

18 Hello. This is the Court Reporter. Could 

19 people please remember to identify themselves 

20 before they speak? I had trouble keeping 

21 track of the last bit of conversation.

22 MR. KATZ: And as long as he is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 piping in on that point, I would just ask 

2 everybody to please -- I know everybody has 

3 something to say, but please try to let each 

4 person finish what they are saying before you 

5 -- before you come with your comment. 

6 Thanks.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And this 

8 is Mark Griffon, and I just cut Brant off. 

9 Sorry, Brant, I will let you finish your --

10 DR. ULSH: No, that's no problem, 

11 Mark. I consider part of the detailed 

12 analysis, we started at 100, and those are the 

13 people for whom at least in theory the 

14 Ruttenber data could make a difference. And 

15 we tried to determine, based on applying all 

16 of the criteria, which people it might have 

17 made a difference for. So that is where I 

18 consider the line for a more detailed 

19 analysis.

20 Now, it is true that we did do the 

21 triage, as I described before. If it couldn't 

22 possibly make a difference, we simply focused 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 on the people where it could make a 

2 difference. So, yes, I mean, I can -- it is 

3 easy enough to provide you the spreadsheets 

4 that back this up, and you all have access to 

5 NOCTS. And if you'd like to do whatever looks 

6 you want to, then that's fine, but --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, that would 

8 be helpful, Brant.

9 DR. MAKHIJANI: I'm trying to 

10 understand the meaning of the term "could make 

11 a difference." For me, there are two 

12 completely different meanings.

13 DR. ULSH: Okay.

14 DR. MAKHIJANI: One is they 

15 already had a cancer and could be eligible for 

16 compensation if they were in the SEC class. 

17 The other is, did they have potential for 

18 neutron exposure, whether they have a cancer 

19 or not, whether they are a claimant or not, 

20 which is, in my understanding, the definition 

21 of who is eligible to be in the class.

22 And so from that point of view, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 all of these 100 claims potentially could --

2 100 people could be in the SEC class. And I 

3 agree with what Mark said earlier, in that if 

4 you look at these 100 claims as a sample of 

5 the 4,163, perhaps not random, but, as I said, 

6 at least as a sample, then you could get an 

7 idea of how many of these 4,163 have potential 

8 for neutron exposure.

9 Obviously, 50 of them are already 

10 in the SEC class, so by that definition I 

11 would say on the face of the analysis that is 

12 already done, 50 of these 100 people who are 

13 not in the NDRP are eligible to be in the SEC 

14 class because they are already in it.

15 DR. ULSH: Okay. That was Arjun 

16 Makhijani, by the way. This is Brant Ulsh. 

17 Arjun, you asked a specific question about 

18 what I mean when I say "for whom it could make 

19 a difference," and let me give you a 

20 definition.

21 If someone is already in the SEC 

22 class -- in other words, out of that group of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 100, 50 of them are already in the SEC class, 

2 if we add the Ruttenber data as another 

3 criterion, it is not going to make one whit of 

4 difference for them because they are already 

5 in. You can't get in twice. They could have 

6 one rem, 10 rem, 1,000 rem of neutron 

7 exposure, and it will not make a single bit of 

8 difference for them because they are already 

9 in the SEC class. 

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: No, no. I --

11 DR. ULSH: Similarly, if -- no, 

12 let me finish, please. Similarly, if they 

13 have already been exposed, if they have 

14 already been compensated due to dose 

15 reconstruction, it will not make a single bit 

16 of difference. So -- and it is true that DOL 

17 expanded the criteria for entry into the SEC 

18 class to add work in Building 881.

19 Now there is no reason for us to 

20 think -- there is no evidence to suggest that 

21 the patterns that we observed in the 100 that 

22 we looked at in detail, that that would be any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 different if we looked at all 4,100. So that 

2 is why -- that is what I mean when I say "for 

3 whom it would make a difference." It is, 

4 "will it make a difference in the compensation 

5 decision for those people?"

6 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes, that is what 

7 I am struggling with for the question of 

8 eligibility for the SEC class. If you ignore 

9 the fact that they are claimants, and the 

10 outcome of their cases, and just look at this 

11 as a sample of the 4,163 as a technical and 

12 statistical question, then you would find that 

13 50 of the people who are not in the NDRP but 

14 are in the Ruttenber database are part of the 

15 SEC class already, as it has been determined.

16 So my -- and then, one may be by 

17 your additional investigation. So at this 

18 stage, I think, based on the investigations, 

19 one would say that if one took a sample of the 

20 4,163, one would find, by current criteria, 

21 that 51 percent of them would be in the SEC 

22 class. Is that wrong?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 DR. ULSH: Yes, because of the 

2 expanded criteria that DOL uses for entry into 

3 the class. 

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Okay. So then --

5 DR. ULSH: Fifty of the 100 are 

6 already in the SEC.

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Yes. So, but they 

8 are not in the NDRP.

9 DR. ULSH: That is correct.

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: So out of the 

11 4,163, we might find more than 2,000 people 

12 who are eligible for the SEC, as the analysis 

13 stands now. That is my understanding of it.

14 DR. ULSH: Well, okay, if we make 

15 the assumption that the 100 is represented --

16 a representative sample, then by definition if 

17 you scale up, half of them -- even if we did 

18 not -- even if DOL decides not to use the 

19 Ruttenber data as the criteria, about half of 

20 those people, should they file a claim, will 

21 be in the SEC class anyway.

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: But they may not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 be. I mean, this is -- this is something we 

2 are inferring, where the question is, is how 

3 complete is the NDRP for people to determine 

4 their neutron dose potential? That is the 

5 focus of a lot of your report. By the 

6 criteria -- by the findings in the report, it 

7 would appear that many of the 4,163 people who 

8 are not in the NDRP did have neutron exposure 

9 potential by the current SEC criteria. That 

10 is the thing I am trying to --

11 DR. NETON: I think that is a 

12 false assumption, Arjun. This is Jim Neton.

13 You know, if you go strictly by 

14 the technical merit of both reports, you can't 

15 come to that conclusion. You have to reach 

16 out and add in the class that the Department 

17 of Labor has expanded to mean, you know, that 

18 are in the SEC. That is not a valid 

19 comparison when you are comparing two 

20 databases.

21 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, I guess the 

22 undercurrent of the NIOSH position is that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 people who are on the SEC class who are not on 

2 the NDRP are wrongly in the SEC class. That 

3 is --

4 DR. NETON: We are evaluating two 

5 databases, and the technical merit valuation 

6 of those two databases stands on its own 

7 merit. You can't start adding in Building 881 

8 people and say that the NDRP is wrong.

9 DR. ULSH: Because you also have 

10 to consider that the Ruttenber database, the 

11 Ruttenber studies, also did not consider 

12 Building 881 a neutron building. Regardless 

13 of that, the class, as DOL has defined it, 

14 does include Building 881. 

15 Quite frankly, my opinion of 

16 whether that is a good or bad decision is 

17 completely irrelevant. DOL has determined 

18 that that is a criteria for entry into the 

19 class, and so it is.

20 DR. MAURO: Brant, this is John 

21 Mauro. I have a question about --

22 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, these 50 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 were in 881, then.

2 DR. ULSH: I'm sorry, I didn't 

3 catch that. What?

4 DR. MAKHIJANI: Ruttenber didn't 

5 have 881 in his criteria, their criteria. So 

6 these 50 cases, then, are in the SEC class 

7 from the Ruttenber database, but they would 

8 then probably not be in Building 881.

9 DR. ULSH: No, that's not true. 

10 Ruttenber used a different way of assigning 

11 neutron doses. They assigned them based on 

12 job class. Now, when they listed neutron 

13 buildings, they listed the exact same list 

14 that the NDRP did.

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: Right.

16 DR. MAURO: Brant, what would be 

17 the problem --

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: I see the point.

19 DR. MAURO: -- with adding the 

20 Ruttenber data as part of the definition of 

21 the class? In other words, right now I am 

22 hearing that the definition of a class is done 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 in a way which identifies buildings. And by 

2 doing so, there is a high level of assurance 

3 that you have captured everyone that had the 

4 potential for neutron exposures over the time 

5 period of interest, and perhaps more.

6 And what I am hearing, though, 

7 well, there is -- you can actually expand the 

8 definition a little bit, and maybe catch a few 

9 more people, if you were to include all of the 

10 people that are in the Ruttenber database, 

11 which is another way of trying to identify 

12 people with neutron exposures. It is sort of 

13 like a Venn diagram, I think is what it's 

14 called.

15 But I'm hearing some resistance to 

16 that, and I -- the reason I'm hearing it is 

17 that you don't believe that the -- the way in 

18 which the Ruttenber data defined people with a 

19 potential for neutron exposure was robust 

20 enough to make it into the definition of the 

21 class.

22 DR. ULSH: You are on the right 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 track there, John, in terms of characterizing 

2 my thinking, although I am approaching this 

3 from a different goal. I am not trying to 

4 exclude anyone from the class, and I am not 

5 trying to maximize the number of people. 

6 All I am saying is -- and this is 

7 a purely scientific question -- what is the 

8 most scientifically robust way of the two --

9 the Ruttenber or NDRP -- to decide who was 

10 assigned -- who was exposed to neutrons? And 

11 my point is that if I am given the choice 

12 between two studies, one of which relies on 

13 primary dosimetry data, goes back and rereads 

14 the film, the actual films themselves, the 

15 other study relies on -- it's an epi study, so 

16 it's designed to do epidemiological purposes, 

17 and, quite frankly, a lot of epi studies do 

18 not give the level of attention to the 

19 dosimetry. They focus on other aspects that 

20 are more important for an epi study.

21 Furthermore, the report of the 

22 Ruttenber study itself clearly indicates that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 the NDRP methodology is superior. It simply 

2 was not available to them at the time. Given 

3 the choice between the two, my conclusion is 

4 that the NDRP provides a more scientifically 

5 robust and reliable method for determining who 

6 was actually neutron exposed.

7 Now if DOL decides to add the 

8 Ruttenber database as a criteria for entry 

9 into the class, fine, that is their decision. 

10 I have no problem.

11 DR. MAURO: Isn't that the essence 

12 of what we are talking about right now, 

13 whether or not that decision is appropriate or 

14 not?

15 DR. ULSH: I can't speak to the 

16 appropriateness of it. All I can tell you 

17 is --

18 DR. MAURO: Isn't that where this 

19 is all taking us? I mean, in the end, we are 

20 really saying, well, should we expand the 

21 definition to include the Ruttenber data? 

22 Because maybe that is a different way of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 evaluating who should be in the class. 

2 But if -- I guess from a 

3 scientific point of view, if it was reasonable 

4 that, yes, that is another way to figure out 

5 who might have gotten some neutron exposure, 

6 well, then one would say, yes, maybe you 

7 should be including that group in the class.

8 If it turns out that the way in 

9 which it was done was such that it isn't as 

10 robust as the method that you folks have used, 

11 and, therefore, should not be one of the 

12 criteria or ways in which we include people 

13 within the SEC, so, I mean, it comes down to a 

14 very -- that simple question.

15 See, you posed it as an "or." You 

16 know, am I going to use Ruttenber, or am I 

17 going to use NDRP? And I'm saying -- I say, 

18 well, how come we are not using both? And 

19 there has got to be an answer to -- if you 

20 decide that both are not going to be used, you 

21 are going to have to pick one, I would 

22 understand why you would say, yes, maybe there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 is good reason -- if you are going to have to 

2 pick one, we are going to go with the one you 

3 picked.

4 But I don't think that's -- I 

5 think the question is broader than that. 

6 Perhaps you don't have to pick one; you could 

7 pick both.

8 DR. ULSH: Sure. DOL could very 

9 well say, we are going to use the NDRP, and in 

10 addition we are going to use the Ruttenber

11 data. If they decide that, I mean, that is 

12 entirely within their prerogative to do so.

13 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry to jump in 

14 like this, but they are going to look to you 

15 and ask the question, well, you know, was the 

16 Ruttenber approach for identifying people with 

17 the potential for neutron exposure also a 

18 fairly good way to do things? And, if so, 

19 then I think that, you know, they are going to 

20 need your help in making that decision.

21 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry 

22 Elliott, John. And our report stops short of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 making a recommendation on -- in that regard. 

2 We simply -- Brant and the team that has done 

3 this evaluation's efforts have been 

4 straightforward to try to identify, by 

5 comparison, which is the most scientifically 

6 robust dataset. And this report speaks to 

7 that on its own merits.

8 And Department of Labor has the 

9 report now. They will look into this report. 

10 They may choose to examine some more of the 

11 4,136 in some way. If they ask us for further 

12 comment or opinion or scientific evaluation, 

13 we will have to take that up if they approach 

14 us with that.

15 DR. MAURO: Larry, and you know 

16 what I heard is that you folks did a little 

17 homework to check to see, well, what the 

18 impacts might be if they did that. And your 

19 indication is it is modest. And I would say, 

20 well, that is really not the question at hand, 

21 you know, if you were to include it, what 

22 would really happen? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 The real question is, should it be 

2 included? And I think should it be included 

3 is a judgment call on whether or not there is 

4 a group of people that probably should be 

5 included within the class because they did 

6 have a potential for neutron exposure. If 

7 that judgment is to be made by Labor, then 

8 that is where the judgment will lie.

9 DR. NETON: Yes, I agree, John. 

10 This is Jim Neton. I mean, the report clearly 

11 defines, describes, how both studies were 

12 done. And Brant has described that here in 

13 some detail, and it is all in there, and 

14 you're right. The question is, should you 

15 use one, the other, or both?

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That is the 

17 question. This is Mark Griffon. I think we 

18 are going to end up going around in circles a 

19 little bit, so I am going to try to truncate 

20 it here. I wanted to hear from other work 

21 group members, if other work group members had 

22 the opportunity to review this or have any --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 any initial thoughts anyway. I know we 

2 haven't had a lot of time with the report.

3 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I am 

4 certainly glad to make a brief comment, 

5 although I don't think what I have to say will 

6 add anything. It is quite clear to me that an 

7 enormous amount of work has been done both at 

8 the group level and individually with respect 

9 to this database. And I say "this database" 

10 rather than "these databases" because it is 

11 also fairly clear that there is good evidence 

12 to support the work that has been done and 

13 redone to identify the proper individuals for 

14 this SEC.

15 Whether we move forward with it 

16 any further seems to be a moot point. It is 

17 very difficult to see how any additional work 

18 could be done than has been done already. The 

19 report that we have been given just last week, 

20 with respect to the work that has been done by 

21 NIOSH, is clear. It, I believe, covers all of 

22 the issues. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 Dr. Ulsh today has made a very 

2 good summation of the findings that we have, 

3 and it is difficult to see where this working 

4 group and NIOSH could take this further.

5 I personally am satisfied with the 

6 work that has been done. If there are 

7 additional administrative decisions to be 

8 made, it clearly is outside the purview of 

9 this group and is in the hands of other 

10 organizations.

11 MEMBER PRESLEY: This is Bob 

12 Presley. I agree with that 100 percent. I 

13 don't think we are going to settle anything, 

14 and everything looks in good shape to me.

15 MEMBER GIBSON: Mark, this is 

16 Mike. I feel -- it just sounds like to me 

17 that SC&A still has some legitimate concerns. 

18 And, you know, I think NIOSH has responded to 

19 the concerns, but I don't think that 

20 necessarily satisfies the concerns that they 

21 have.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 Mike, this is Mark Griffon. I would agree 

2 with that for sure. I think at the very 

3 minimum I want to see, you know, the -- just 

4 to be able to go through the spreadsheets that 

5 Brant referenced and he will -- he said he 

6 would share them on the O: drive with us, so 

7 that is not a problem.

8 But also, I think -- so that would 

9 be one action item I would ask for out of this 

10 meeting is to share the analysis files with us 

11 and SC&A. The second would be if we can -- I 

12 know, Larry, you said that you sent the report 

13 to Margaret. 

14 I think we need to -- because of 

15 her relationship with the community there, I 

16 think it is really important that we let --

17 that we, you know, solicit comments from her 

18 on this, and whether it -- you know, she is in 

19 agreement with this or has, you know, some 

20 technical comments, but, you know, whatever. 

21 I think we need to try to get comments from 

22 her on the report. So at least those two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 actions.

2 I don't know if you -- Larry, do 

3 you agree with that? Or Brant?

4 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. 

5 Before Larry or Brant answers that, did I 

6 misread the report? I was of the impression 

7 that an attempt had been made to obtain any 

8 comment prior to the issuance of the report, 

9 and there had been no response. Was I 

10 incorrect?

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I think 

12 there was some attempt to communicate with 

13 Margaret on some technical questions, and 

14 then, I am not sure why, but, yes, it -- I 

15 read that, too, Wanda, that I think it was in 

16 middle May or late May where you were trying 

17 to get hold of Margaret for some technical 

18 questions on the database and weren't getting 

19 phone calls returned. But we know she is 

20 around. 

21 I mean, I don't think -- Larry 

22 said that she hasn't seen the report until 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 this morning I think was what you said, Larry. 

2 And I think we should let her see the final 

3 product anyway, regardless of why she wasn't, 

4 you know, getting back to them during the 

5 process.

6 MR. ELLIOTT: This is Larry 

7 Elliott. And yes, Wanda, I think Mark is 

8 correct. You are somewhat mistaken. The 

9 report does not say that Margaret Ruttenber

10 was asked for comment on the report and didn't 

11 provide that. The report says that we tried 

12 to gain clarification and additional insight 

13 from her on a few technical points, and 

14 unfortunately she was non-responsive. Mark, I 

15 don't have a problem with you guys -- if that 

16 is what the working group wants to do, to 

17 approach Margaret Ruttenber and seek her 

18 comment on this report, that's fine.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: I think that --

20 I mean, that's my position right now, Larry. 

21 And I think, you know, if -- I mean, we need 

22 to certainly get her to weigh in because I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 know that she has worked with a lot of the 

2 workers out there before, and, you know, they 

3 have asked if she -- Terrie very specifically 

4 put this question on the table. I think it is 

5 important that we get, you know, her opinion 

6 on the report.

7 And then, I would personally like 

8 to see the analysis of it, just to understand 

9 a little better, you know, of those 100 cases 

10 and how the triage process -- I listened to 

11 it, and I think I understand it pretty well, 

12 but I always like to -- it might be useful for 

13 us to look through the spreadsheet.

14 At this point, I mean, you know, 

15 other than reviewing these materials that are 

16 posted on the O: drive, I am not ready to say 

17 -- you know, to task SC&A with any, you know, 

18 extensive further review. But, you know, I 

19 think, you know, just at least to -- John, I 

20 think you can, under your current task, review 

21 data that is posted in support of this report 

22 sort of. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 But I don't want any more 

2 expansive, you know, review at this point. I 

3 think that -- if we decide to do that, that 

4 has to probably -- that should go back to the 

5 full Board anyway, so --

6 DR. MAURO: No, we were not 

7 planning any action other than this phone 

8 call.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

10 DR. MAKHIJANI: Well, if -- Mark, 

11 let me get some clarity on what you have just 

12 said. You said that some -- some more -- a 

13 brief looking into the background and analysis 

14 of the report would be in order, but not sort 

15 of an extensive review.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That is my --

17 yes.

18 DR. MAKHIJANI: Is that what -- so 

19 you are saying that we should do a little bit 

20 more in terms of just understanding the report 

21 and what went into it.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Understanding 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 of the numbers and stuff, yes. And then, only 

2 to the extent that it is reviewing the 

3 analysis files that are put up. But, I mean, 

4 if you -- you know, for instance --

5 DR. MAKHIJANI: If we could have 

6 the analysis files for these 100, that would 

7 be the most sort of brief thing we could do 

8 before the Board meeting.

9 DR. MAURO: Mark, I have to ask a 

10 question, because it is troubling me, and that 

11 is that if the question really is not so much 

12 -- well, listen, if we were to include all 

13 these folks, these 4,000, it really wouldn't 

14 have very much of an impact, and that is what 

15 the 100 sampling did. 

16 But that's not the question in 

17 front of us. The question is, notwithstanding 

18 the result of that, the question really is, 

19 should these 4,000 people be part of the 

20 definition of the -- because the Ruttenber

21 data is fundamentally sound. And if they 

22 claim that these people had a potential for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 neutron exposure, they have to be included and 

2 under consideration. That really is the heart 

3 of the question, not what the impacts would be 

4 if you included them.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. I think 

6 you're right. But I want to -- I mean, I 

7 think we need to look at the way NIOSH did 

8 their analysis first. But I think you're 

9 right. And that's a decision -- perhaps as 

10 Larry or Brant -- I forget who stated it, but 

11 the idea of, how DOL wants to use this. You 

12 know, that's sort of up to the -- up to Labor, 

13 but it doesn't, you know, preclude us from 

14 weighing in about it.

15 So, you know, I think I just -- I 

16 am not at a -- at a point where I want to, you 

17 know, make any motion for whether this -- you 

18 know, that approach is appropriate or not, 

19 John. I think I just don't know enough about 

20 those 4,000 versus the 100 sampling, et 

21 cetera.

22 You know, if you look at it like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 Arjun did, you can -- you can say, well, it's 

2 51 percent. But that's including that 

3 Building 881, so I think I want to have a 

4 chance -- an opportunity to sort that out a 

5 little more in my mind, and maybe, you know, 

6 bring the case before the full Board at some 

7 point.

8 MR. ELLIOTT: Mark, this is Larry 

9 Elliott. I might suggest that a little bit of 

10 forbearance here might benefit everybody, in 

11 that if we allowed DOL time to digest this 

12 report, and determine how they are going to 

13 react to it, and how they are going to utilize 

14 or not utilize the Ruttenber database, this 

15 all may go away.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Sure. That is 

17 true. And DOL I assume has -- well, it is 

18 publicly available, so -- but I'm sure you 

19 have given them copies of the report.

20 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, yes. 

21 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: They are the primary 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 target audience for this report. They are the 

2 ones that need to have it to adjudicate under 

3 it.

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And that 

5 is the other question. I mean, we always go 

6 -- we always ask our questions of DOL of, you 

7 know, implementation of the class. And this 

8 is the implementation of the class question, 

9 right? So I think in that respect we could 

10 ask them at a Board meeting. They may not be 

11 prepared at this one because they have just 

12 gotten the report. But we could ask them that 

13 sort of question at a Board meeting. Is that 

14 your understanding, Larry? I mean --

15 MR. ELLIOTT: Yes, that is -- you 

16 know, I would hope that they have had -- it's 

17 19 pages. I hope they had time to read it 

18 over the weekend, and by next week they will 

19 have some sense of which direction they are 

20 going to go perhaps. I will alert them that 

21 they can anticipate a question of that sort.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, definitely 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 alert them that they can anticipate that.

2 All right. I think that's a good 

3 place to leave it. The one thing I wanted to 

4 ask is -- we have a lot of people on the phone 

5 call, and I think members of the public might 

6 have -- Terrie, I tried to get your one 

7 question out there, but if you or others have 

8 other questions at this point.

9 MS. BOLLER: Mark, I have one 

10 question. I think there was a question --

11 this is Carolyn at Senator Udall's office. I 

12 think there was a question about how many 

13 people are on the NDRP list.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Oh, yes. 

15 Mutty, did you ever find that question? The 

16 answer?

17 MR. SHARFI: Yes. Is the question 

18 for during the SEC period or just in the NDRP 

19 total?

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, as long 

21 as we are comparing apples and apples, I think 

22 the 4,163 was during the SEC period, right? 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 So I think I want to know --

2 MS. BOLLER: Well, what I would 

3 like to --

4 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: -- the SEC 

5 period.

6 MS. BOLLER: Sorry, Mark. What I 

7 would like to know is how many people during 

8 the SEC period are on the list for NDRP? And 

9 how many of those names on that list match --

10 this is not going to come out right, but match 

11 the Ruttenber list?

12 So, like, is Joe Blow on both of 

13 them? Or is he only on one? So are we really 

14 talking about 4,000-plus? Or some of that 

15 4,000 already included? It's that 50 percent. 

16 Does that make sense?

17 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes.

18 MS. BOLLER: Am I rambling?

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Mutty, did you 

20 get that question? I mean, I think you 

21 presented the -- I had that question, too. Is 

22 the 4,163 workers that we have been talking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 about, is that additionally or above the ones 

2 identified in the NDRP?

3 DR. ULSH: This is Brant. The 

4 4,163 is the people who were in -- who had 

5 positive neutron dose in the Ruttenber, but 

6 not in the NDRP.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right. 

8 DR. ULSH: Does that answer your 

9 question?

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, how many 

11 were in the NDRP during that same time period 

12 where you got the 4,163 number?

13 DR. ULSH: I don't know. Mutty, 

14 do you know?

15 MR. SHARFI: Mark, I can give you 

16 some indication by the fact that there are 

17 5,000 and odd people in the SEC currently, if 

18 I remember the number correctly. So, for the 

19 SEC period it would probably be something on 

20 that same order. In the NDRP, it would be 

21 something less, obviously. So --

22 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 MR. SHARFI: -- we are talking on 

2 the order of 5,000.

3 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. 

4 Remember, the report indicates that there are 

5 also 486 individuals on the NDRP list that are 

6 not on the Ruttenber database.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Right.

8 MEMBER MUNN: So you can't simply 

9 say one excludes 4,163 and not include the 

10 fact that it does, nevertheless, include 486 

11 that do not appear in that 4,163.

12 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, yes, which 

13 adds a little more uncertainty.

14 MS. BOLLER: Yes.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: That's true. 

16 Anyway, I'm not sure we have an answer from 

17 Mutty on that number, but we can get that down 

18 the line. I mean, I don't see that as 

19 critical right now.

20 MR. SHARFI: There is about 3,700 

21 people that have pre-1967 dose in the NDRP. I 

22 believe -- and Brant can correct me -- I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 the 4,163 are people that don't have a 

2 matching year. Is that correct, Brant? Or is 

3 that any match?

4 DR. ULSH: How about if we get 

5 back to him on this? I don't want to give the 

6 --

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes, this is 

8 why we want the analysis files, okay? 

9 DR. ULSH: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Let's leave it 

11 there. 

12 Any other questions from the 

13 public?

14 MS. BARRIE: Yes. This is Terrie, 

15 and thank you, Mark, for asking that question.

16 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Terrie Barrie?

17 MS. BARRIE: Yes, Terrie Barrie 

18 with ANWAG.

19 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes.

20 MS. BARRIE: And what I would like 

21 to -- since you are going to be going to the 

22 Department of Labor eventually to have them 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 finalize who should be included in the class, 

2 I honestly think that they should get a report 

3 from SC&A to balance out -- and not just give 

4 DOL the NIOSH report. I think it needs to be 

5 balanced out to be fair, if you understand 

6 what I am trying to get at.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Yes. And I am 

8 stopping short right now of tasking SC&A with, 

9 you know, developing a report. But it gives 

10 us a couple of weeks until the Board meeting, 

11 and we will have an update at the Board 

12 meeting on this.

13 MS. BARRIE: Okay.

14 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And in the 

15 meantime, I am hoping that the data will be 

16 posted, and we will have a few -- at least a 

17 few days to look at that data. And we may 

18 come to the same conclusion that we need --

19 you know, but I am stopping short right today, 

20 if that's okay, Terrie. But we will -- we 

21 will bring it up at the Cincinnati meeting 

22 next week during my work group update.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 MS. BARRIE: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And if I 

3 forget, you will remind me.

4 MS. BARRIE: I will.

5 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay.

6 MS. BARRIE: Thanks.

7 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right.

8 MR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel.

9 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Hi, Dan.

10 MR. McKEEL: Hi. I have a comment 

11 I guess. My comment is, it seems to me there 

12 have been questions asked about how many 

13 people total are in the NDRP, how many of them 

14 were present during the SEC period, and same 

15 sort of thing for the Ruttenber dataset. 

16 And it was my understanding that 

17 the basic analysis that was going to be done 

18 is a detailed comparison and characterization 

19 of those two datasets. So it seems to me that 

20 the NIOSH report should have all of that data 

21 clearly specified in a table. It could be a 

22 very short table, you know, four cells, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 that that information should be in the NIOSH 

2 report. And if it's not, then that should be 

3 added as an addendum.

4 And the other comment I have that 

5 is related to that is Terrie Barrie obtained, 

6 via the FOIA mechanism, some email 

7 communications leading up to this report. And 

8 one that I remember -- I don't remember the 

9 exact details, but Brant Ulsh commented in 

10 particular on a discrepancy between the two 

11 datasets where there were cases in the 

12 Ruttenber dataset that did not appear in the 

13 NDRP dataset.

14 And I think that is very important 

15 because, as I remember the previous 

16 discussions, the folks at NIOSH, including 

17 Brant and Larry Elliott and several others, 

18 had made the comment that the reason that the 

19 Ruttenber dataset was not examined for the 

20 last two years was that there was no 

21 significant difference between the two. 

22 And today -- and in the report it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 is quite clear that there are many differences 

2 between the two datasets, even though they may 

3 have originated from the same original source. 

4 But the two datasets are different. 

5 And when I tried to read through 

6 those 19 pages that I got just recently, on 

7 Friday I think, I couldn't clearly discern, 

8 you know, an A versus B comparison. So I 

9 would just like to make the comment from one 

10 observer that that report is not clear about 

11 what the basic mission of the NIOSH analysis 

12 was supposed to be as I understood it.

13 And for that reason, I would like 

14 to endorse the idea that I would like SC&A --

15 I understand that this may be premature and 

16 that the Board needs to do that tasking, but I 

17 certainly would like to endorse the concept 

18 that eventually SC&A needs to do their own 

19 independent characterization and comparison of 

20 those two datasets.

21 Thank you.

22 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Thank you, Dan. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 And I tend to agree that a couple of tables 

2 in this report might have been helpful. But 

3 we are going to get that backup support data 

4 and look through it certainly, and I think 

5 that might help us to, with the written 

6 report, understand this a little better.

7 But thanks -- thanks for your 

8 comment. And we will -- again, I will bring 

9 that up at the full Board meeting, and whether 

10 we go forward with tasking we will try to 

11 determine there.

12 Any other comments at this point?

13 (No response.)

14 I think that is where I am 

15 prepared to leave it. So there is just two 

16 actions on the table. One is to get the 

17 supporting analytical data on the O: drive, 

18 and the other would be to -- if NIOSH could --

19 I know you have made attempts already this 

20 morning, but to solicit comments from Margaret 

21 Ruttenber on the report.

22 MR. ELLIOTT: No, Mark, I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 that's a work group effort. NIOSH has stated 

2 its position in this report. You know, this 

3 has been cleared, and it's an institute 

4 report. If you guys want to approach Margaret 

5 to seek her comment, that's your prerogative.

6 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Okay. Then, I 

7 will take that action on myself. All right. 

8 Any other comments?

9 MS. PADILLA: My name is Judy

10 Padilla. I have one question.

11 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Go ahead, Judy.

12 MS. PADILLA: I recently received 

13 a letter from Rachel Leiton. In that letter 

14 she said that NIOSH has exclusive 

15 responsibility to conduct the dose 

16 reconstruction. Okay. That being true, NIOSH 

17 is the final say in the 50 percent.

18 And my question is, I would like 

19 to know if there is verification and 

20 validation of the software of the matrices 

21 from NIOSH? And why can't the people who are 

22 denied see these things?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: Well, I think 

2 that is a little broader question, but, Jim 

3 Neton, do you want to --

4 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim 

5 Neton. It's coincidental I guess, but just as 

6 of Friday we put on our website a verification 

7 of the NIOSH IREP software that was done by 

8 our contractor. It is under the IREP tool 

9 page on our website, and there is a 500-page 

10 report out there that goes through in some 

11 detail a review of all of the calculations 

12 that were done. I will be reporting on this 

13 at the Advisory Board meeting next week in 

14 Cincinnati.

15 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: And maybe 

16 listen in on the Cincinnati Board meeting, if 

17 you can, Judy. Dial in for that. You might, 

18 you know, get further on your answer there.

19 MS. PADILLA: I'll do that.

20 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: More 

21 information.

22 Okay. Anything else?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 MEMBER PRESLEY: This is Bob. I'm 

2 in good shape.

3 CHAIRMAN GRIFFON: All right. I 

4 think we are ready to break at this point, if 

5 there are no other comments.

6 (No response.)

7 Thank you all, and we will be 

8 looking for that data. And we will discuss it 

9 more at the full Board meeting.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

11 matter went off the record at 11:23 a.m.)

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20