NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

US Department of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 

Work Group on Carborundum Company

Tuesday, December 4, 2018

The Work Group convened via teleconference, at 

10:00 a.m. Eastern Standard Time, Genevieve 

Roessler, Chair, presiding.
2 

Present:

Genevieve S. Roessler, Chair

Bradley P. Clawson, Member

R. William Field, Member

Also Present: 

Ted Katz, Designated Federal Official

Nancy Adams, NIOSH Contractor

Robert Anigstein, SC&A

Robert Barton, SC&A

Joseph Guido, MJW Technical Services

Jenny Lin-Naylor, HHS OGC

James Neton, NIOSH

Mutty Sharfi, ORAU Team

Matthew Smith, ORAU Team

Thomas Tomes, NIOSH

Richard Traub, ORAU Team
3 

Contents

US Department of Health and Human Services 

Centers for Disease Control 1

National Institute for Occupational Safety and 

Health 1

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health 1

Work Group on Carborundum Company 1

Tuesday, December 4, 2018 1

Welcome and Roll Call/Introductions 4

Status Summary - Tom Tomes 5

DCAS "Resolution of Site Profile..." paper and 

SC&A review 7

DCAS "MCNP..." paper on plutonium/uranium 

fuel pellet work and SC&A review 22

ABRWH December meeting plans/other followup 48

Adjourn 57
4 

Proceedings

(10:00 a.m.) 

Welcome and Roll Call/Introductions

Mr. Katz: So welcome, everyone. This is the Advisory 

Board on Radiation and Worker Health.

This is the Carborundum Work Group, and today we 

are dealing with trying to largely, at least, if we don't 

completely wrap up the Site Profile reviews by SC&A 

and the Work Group, and the materials for today's 

meeting are posted on the NIOSH website under this 

program's portion of the website schedule the 

meeting with today's date, so anyone on the line can 

go there.

All the background documents related to today's 

discussion are posted there, I checked already, as 

well as one of the SC&A reviews, a presentation on 

that by Bob Anigstein, and that's also posted, and I 

want to thank the folks that work for DCAS for getting 

that up so quickly with really basically no time to do 

it, so that's great.

Okay, so we're talking about a specific site so we 

should address conflict of interest for my Board 

Members, Board Members, you know, by definition 

don't have a conflict interest if they are on a Work 

Group for that Work Group.

And as far as attendance, the Chair in this Work 

Group is Dr. Gen Roessler and she is present as well 

as members Brad Clawson and Dr. Field, Bill Field, 

they are all present.

So let's go on to roll call for the NIOSH ORAU team.

(Roll call.)

Mr. Katz: Just remember everyone mute your 

phones, *6, mute your phones, *6 to come off of 

mute to get in the group, and, Gen, it's your meeting.
5 

Chair Roessler: Thank you. Well our last Work Group 

meeting was March 13, 2017, and so I have asked 

Tom Tomes if he would give us a brief summary of 

the status of everything so we’ll all be up to date, and 

Tom agreed.

Status Summary - Tom Tomes

Mr. Tomes: Okay. Good morning, everyone. I just 

had to briefly refresh my memory on Carborundum. 

It's an AWE. Carborundum is in Niagara Falls, New 

York.

They have two operational periods. The first -- 

excuse me for a second. The first operational period 

was a 3-month period in 1943, and during that period 

they did some experimental grinding on uranium 

slugs with a centerless grinder.

That was completed at the end of September, and 

those slugs were shipped offsite, and that was 

followed by a residual period.

The second operational period for Carborundum is 

from 1959 through 1967. During that period 

Carborundum did experimental work with fuel 

pellets, mixed carbide, plutonium, uranium. They 

developed a method to synthesize the compounds, 

and they produced a number of pellets for use in the 

radiation experiments at other sites.

NIOSH received an SEC petition, Petition Number 

223, for the period of 1943 through 1946. NIOSH 

prepared an Evaluation Report, and it was presented 

to the Board in July of 2015.

NIOSH determined that dose reconstructions are 

feasible and therefore recommended that its petition 

for an SEC Class be denied. At that time the Board

referred the petition to the Carborundum Work Group 

and tasked SC&A with reviewing the petition and the 

NIOSH Evaluation Report.

That was followed by a report from NIOSH in January 

of 2016. That report listed seven SEC findings. 
6

Subsequently NIOSH responded to those findings, 

and the Work Group held two meetings to discuss 

those findings and ultimately referred back to the 

Board to recommend -- agree with NIOSH and 

recommend that that the SEC be denied.

All of the seven issues identified by SC&A were either 

closed out by the Work Group or considered Site 

Profile issues for further evaluation. Subsequently to 

that meeting SC&A provided more in-depth reviews 

of the example dose reconstructions that NIOSH 

provided, and that was issued to the Work Group in 

June 2017, and those findings are the subject of a 

White Paper that NIOSH issued in October -- August 

16th.

And that basically is just a brief summary of what got 

us to the current meeting. There were a number of 

Site Profile issues that we have discussed and posed, 

and what I have done in the August 16th paper is I 

provided a comprehensive list of all the issues in 

Appendix 1, and I am showing the status of each of 

those issues, and most of those issues have been 

closed out, but they do require -- most of those 

issues do require some kind of modification to the 

Site Profile, which will be completed after we resolve 

all of the findings.

And also in that paper are nine open issues which I 

have listed in Table 1, and I believe that is one of the 

items on the agenda that Dr. Roessler presented. 

And, Dr. Roessler, if you want we can go through 

these issues one-by-one or whatever you prefer to 

do.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Thank you, Tom, that was a 

nice background summary. On the agenda we listed 

the discussion of the fuel pellet work first and then 

the Site Profile issues.

Would it make more sense to start with the Site 

Profile issues, which certainly includes the pellet 

work?
7

Mr. Tomes: To me it would simply because from 

reading Dr. Anigstein's response to our resolution 

paper, I believe there -- other than the pellet work I 

believe the only issue that we have disagreement on 

currently is a relatively minor issue that I believe we 

can resolve.

Chair Roessler: Okay. I think probably that's what we 

should do is go through briefly the two papers on the 

Site Profile work, and I am wondering how do you 

want to do that.

In the past, Tom, what you have done is left it up to 

SC&A to summarize them, or what is your preference 

on it?

Mr. Tomes: That is fine with me. That sounds very 

good. I can contribute as needed, or if you'd rather 

me go through them I can do that as well.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Is SC&A prepared to do that, 

or how do you want to handle this?

Dr. Anigstein: Whatever is your preference.

DCAS "Resolution of Site Profile..." paper and SC&A 

review

Chair Roessler: Okay, Bob, I think it would work best 

if you go through your summary of the nine 

unresolved Site Profile issues, and if you do that then 

people can refer to that paper.

It's on the website, and it's the one that -- I'm looking 

which one that you prepared. It was prepared on 

November 28th.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. Okay, so I'm just reading this -

- reading from my memorandum of November 28th. 

And we first went through, what I did first was went 

through the issues listed by NIOSH.

Actually give me one second. This is not the order I 

was prepared for so just one second to get my papers 

out.
8

Okay. Well the -- sorry. Ah, here we go. Okay, what 

caught my eye first of Tom Tomes's paper dated 

August (telephonic interference) Attachment A listed 

all of the issues.

There were 17 (telephonic interference) for each 

issue. This is on Page 9 of the August 16th NIOSH 

paper, listed the issue, the report it was referenced 

to, and the status.

And the status in each case was that it was -- so the 

17 issues were closed as SEC issues, removed them 

or closed altogether, others were left open as Site 

Profile issues.

That was -- that appendix actually (telephonic 

interference) entry point. And then skip over to Table 

1 in the main body of the report which lists --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry to interrupt, this is the 

court reporter. Mr. Anigstein, hold on one moment 

please. Is anybody else's sound dropping out from 

time to time?

Mr. Katz: Not here. Not here, it's been consistent to 

me.

COURT REPORTER: Okay.

Mr. Katz: This is Ted.

COURT REPORTER: All right. I guess I would 

recommend just continuing. I am not sure if 

something is happening on my phone connection or 

--

Mr. Katz: Well do you need to cut off and re-join or -

-

COURT REPORTER: Yes, I can certainly try that.

Mr. Katz: Why don't you try that before, because --

COURT REPORTER: I'll just re-join in one moment.
9 

Mr. Katz: Yes, thanks. Sorry, Bob. Let's just -- 

Dr. Anigstein: Sure.

Mr. Katz: We need to be recorded.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 10:12 a.m. and resumed at 10:13 a.m.)

Mr. Katz: Okay, go ahead, Bob.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. So the first of the Site Profile 

issues as opposed to SEC issues was the dose from 

x-ray diffraction and the x-ray diffraction apparatus 

and SC&A, myself, actually, interviewed one of the 

workers who had done x-ray diffraction.

His name was actually furnished by one of the other 

workers that NIOSH, that ORAU had interviewed, and 

we followed up with -- I guess this person was 

interviewed three times.

I called him first back in I think 2016, 2015, probably, 

and then the ORAU team called him to verify or get 

expanded information, and then I had one more talk 

with him last year.

And the issue was how much time, to get a time in 

motion sense, of how much time did he really spend 

at the apparatus, and the latest information was that 

he spent about five minutes per exposure, and there 

were I forget how many exposures a day, maybe half 

a dozen exposures a day, and then -- because 

sometimes he would, basically he wouldn't leave 

immediately, he would hang around, but he realized 

it was a radiation hazard so if it wasn't necessary he 

stayed away.

At any rate, SC&A recommended a longer exposure 

duration during the year than NIOSH originally had 

used, and NIOSH concurred with that in light of the 

interview information.

And then they also agreed, NIOSH also agreed to 

apply a factor, a correction factor, this was a -- Joel 
10

Lubenau, I think his first name was Joel, had 

published a paper in Health Physics in 1969.

He was with the Pennsylvania Department of 

Radiation Protection, or some similar name, and he 

had measured 2 mR per hour at the edge of the table 

of the x-ray apparatus.

And then there was a -- the following year there was 

a conference sponsored by the U.S. Department of 

what was then called Health Education and Welfare, 

Public Health Service, Bureau of Rad Health, that was 

the predecessor of EPA, and first of all it was 

generally agreed that there was a hazard potential 

from the x-ray diffraction apparatus.

That was the whole purpose of the conference, x-ray 

diffraction apparatus, x-ray spectroscopy, and there 

was a -- one of the speakers was named Els, E-L-S, 

and he described that in measuring these low energy 

x-rays coming out of that apparatus, the scattered 

beams, the conventional apparatus, the ionization 

chambers would under-report the dose, and 

consequently he recommended a correction factor of 

either 2.42 I think or 2.48 depending on the 

particular instrument used.

And so we proposed that this, the measurement 

made by Lubenau, be subjected to this correction 

factor, so instead of 2 mR per hour it was more like 

5 mR per hour, and NIOSH agreed with that.

And so the final calculation, I won't go into all the 

numbers, basically we were in agreement with the 

dose. NIOSH was initially using a higher dose, a lower 

dose rate but a higher dose conversion factor in the 

traditional 30 to 250 keV, recommended that this 

should be really under 30 keV because it's low 

energy, and NIOSH came back and said, well, let's go 

all the way down to 10 keV because that is the lowest 

listed in the ICRP Publication 74 which gives the 

organ dose conversion factors and since the radiation 

is really between 8 and 8.9 keV the 10 keV dose 

conversion factor will be the appropriate one, and we 
11

are in complete agreement with that.

So this issue is closed. I mean we --let me restate 

that. SC&A recommends that this methodology be 

incorporated in the site, covered on the Site Profile, 

and once it is incorporated the issue should be closed. 

So it's up to the Work Group, the Board, to decide 

whether it actually is closed.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Thank you, Bob. Does the 

Work Group or anybody have any questions on this 

item?

Member Clawson: Gen, this is Brad. No, I don't. That 

sounds good to me.

Chair Roessler: And, Bill, how about you?

Member Field: Oh, that sounds good, yes.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Bob, then I would recommend 

-- we'll go through these one at a time, but you have 

a lot on your plate today to discuss, and we don't 

want to wear you out.

I am going to recommend that you summarize it, 

don't give all the details perhaps. If somebody has 

questions -- hit the major items, and then if people 

have questions they can come back and ask.

And they also have the papers, so with that let's go 

on then to Item Number 2.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay, yes. No, my voice is okay, I just 

have a little phlegm in my throat occasionally as you 

can hear in my voice.

The Item 2 is the use of the -- okay. Oh, yes, that's 

the description of the uranium source term where 

actually initially we thought that the source term 

adopted by NIOSH was too conservative because it 

was on a large piece of metal which was larger than 

the amount of uranium that was actually on site at 

any one time.
12

So we recommended that they use a flat plate, which 

is one of the uranium shapes that was analyzed, I 

believe it's Table 6.1 in TBD-6000, the dose rates 

from different shapes, and this was the one that was 

the right mass and it was a flat -- so per unit mass it 

maximized the dose and NIOSH agrees with that.

So that issue SC&A -- oh, and there was a second 

issue. There was agreement on the photon dose. 

There was a second issue on the beta and skin dose, 

and SC&A did some MCNP calculations using the data 

for the -- from that shape metal to see what the dose 

would be at contact and at a distance of one foot, and 

we came up with 77.6 millirem per hour at contact 

and 4.05 millirem per hour at a one-foot distance.

We shared our MCNP calculations with NIOSH. They 

examined the calculations. They accepted them, and, 

again, we recommend that this be closed given that 

we have agreement.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Any questions on this item, 

Item Number 2? And I think we'll go through all of 

them and then we'll go back and see if we can come 

up with a motion.

Mr. Katz: No, Gen, you don't need to. I mean if there 

is no questions in agreeing why don't you just close 

them one by one. You've already closed number one.

Chair Roessler: So we've closed number one, and if 

there is agreement then we'll close number two.

Member Field: Sounds good.

Chair Roessler: We'll do it unless there is an 

objection. That will move --

Member Clawson: Yes, I agree with that. That's fine.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Thanks, Ted. Okay, Bob, then 

on to Number 3.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. On Number 3 there was simply 

-- or probably an error in the spreadsheet because 
13

there were different work hours for different 

scenarios.

In some cases it said 2400 hours, another case it said 

2500 hours for a year. And then later years TBD6000 indicates that in the early years 48 hour work 

weeks were common, people worked six days a 

week.

And then somewhere around 1951, if my memory 

serves me, the convention was to have 44 hours, five 

weekdays and a half day on Saturday, and then after 

1956 it was down to a 40-hour work week.

And those hours had not been followed in the NIOSH 

calculations, however, so this was our finding and 

NIOSH agreed. They said they updated all Site 

Profiles to agree with the work hours in Battelle TBD6000.

So this is -- we are in agreement with that resolution, 

and we recommend that the issue be closed.

Chair Roessler: Okay. And if there are no objections 

with that then we can move on to Number 4.

Member Clawson: I'm good with it, Gen. This is Brad.

Chair Roessler: Okay. And I don't hear anything from 

Bill so, Bob, you are ready for Number 4.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. Number 4 was the type of 

probability distribution used for external dose within 

an example DR for 1959 and 1960, and NIOSH 

attributed this to an error in the Site Profile 

spreadsheet, and SC&A recommends that once this 

error is corrected the issue should be closed.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Any objections?

Okay, then Number 5.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. Number 5 is the unresolved 

issue. This is the source term and glovebox model to 

model the dose from plutonium in the glovebox, and 
14

this remains open because we found problems with 

their analysis, and this would be a second, you know, 

a separate agenda item.

Chair Roessler: Yes, okay, so I think what we will do 

with that is we will just hold that for discussion after 

we get through the rest of these nine issues if that's 

okay with everybody.

Dr. Anigstein: Yes. Okay. Then Item Number 6 there 

was a disagreement and also perhaps a 

misunderstanding of how there -- we have data both 

on plutonium and on uranium air samples taken in 

the 1959-1961 time span, and this was done -- we 

have the original air sampling data in the SRDB 

recorded by the Health and Safety Laboratory, 

commonly referred to as HASL, of the United States 

Atomic Energy Commission.

This is sort of, if I can, an ad hominem argument. 

What happens is that the person doing this work --

whose name appears, I'm not sure if I'm supposed to 

mention -- I won't mention his name for privacy.

But a person whose name appears on this sample 

sheet is well known to, at least, to a couple of SC&A 

people, who has gone on, this is from 1959-1961, he 

has gone on to have a career in radiation protection 

and health physics and was undoubtedly in our 

opinion a competent worker for his task.

And so the conclusion is if he thought that the 

uranium and plutonium were co-existing in the same 

place then he most likely would have at his discretion 

made the measurements for both radioisotopes at 

the same time.

The fact that he didn't and that he on the same day 

sampled uranium and plutonium, a short time period 

apart, maybe 20 minutes apart, in different locations 

indicates that the uranium and plutonium are most 

likely not commingled.

We first thought, well they could be commingled 
15

because the fuel pellets in this uranium facility were 

actually 80 -- for the actinide elements it was 80 

percent uranium and 20 percent plutonium, but 

that's by mass.

And if you consider the difference in the specific 

activity, the activity, the dpm of the plutonium would 

totally overwhelm the uranium, so the uranium would 

be a very minor contributor.

So I think it's pretty safe to say that if you assigned 

the dose from plutonium that becomes a limiting 

pathway. There really didn't seem to be any need to 

assign, assign -- using the dose from uranium.

They could do as NIOSH -- and especially since there 

was -- in Tom Tomes paper, something I hadn't seen 

before, was that NIOSH planned not only to use the 

plutonium and uranium readings but to actually 

assign the dpm and then call it plutonium or uranium 

depending on which gave the highest dose, and so 

that is definitely claimant-favorable.

Then SC&A has no objection and concurs with the 

NIOSH solution to give the highest reading, the 

highest dose from -- based on the sampling data and 

call it uranium or plutonium, whichever is the 

highest.

So we concur with their, the originally, perhaps it was 

not fully explained what they planned to do, but we 

concur with that, and we recommend that it be 

closed.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Thanks, Bob, that sounds 

pretty convincing to me. So if there are no objections 

then we will move on to Number 7.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. Number 7 was at the intake 

category, oh, it was going back in the example DR. 

The intake category, which means the type of 

uranium, or three possible classes of uranium which 

is slow, medium, and fast, depending on how fast it's 

cleared from the lungs, and they had assigned a fast 
16

class in one case which is just not something that 

happens in the workplace.

So actually it resulted in a higher dose, but we 

thought it was -- called this an error, and NIOSH 

agreed there was an error, and we recommend the 

issue be closed.

Chair Roessler: And I assume that NIOSH agrees that 

they will fix the error?

Mr. Tomes: This is Tom. The error I believe was 

actually in the intake category of the worker, and this 

was definitely in our draft example DR. It has -- our 

example did not agree with our methodology, so it 

was just the draft example DR, and so there is 

nothing left for us to correct on that.

Chair Roessler: Okay.

Mr. Tomes: Just acknowledge that SC&A is correct.

Chair Roessler: Okay. If there are no objections, then 

let's move on to Number 8.

Dr. Anigstein: Yes. Number 8 was the external dose, 

the external dose in the residual period from the 

contamination on the floor. Oh, yeah, this becomes 

more of a philosophical issue.

The routine procedure for DCAS has been to assume 

from uranium that all the radiation is in the 30 to 250 

keV energy range because that usually results in the 

highest doses to any given organ. However, and they 

were assigning that for the residual radiation from 

the floor. However, there is explained in the TBD6000 that only -- let's see. I am at a slight 

disadvantage because I wasn't prepared to go in this 

sequence so I'm having to read -- reread what I did.

That most of the radiation comes in the 10 to 30 keV 

range, and there is a breakdown given. I think it was 

78 percent -- and there was a table which lists, yes, 

Table 3.10, that lists the radiation levels, the 

exposure rate, from the floor in terms of, you know, 
17

per dpm, per square centimeter, but it has the 

observation below how much of it is in each energy 

range, and the vast majority of it is in the low energy 

range.

So if you apply the dose conversion factors for that 

energy by energy range you come out in this example 

that was I believe the organ, the example DR, the 

hypothetical cancer was cancer of the kidney, and the 

dose to the kidney would only be one-third of what 

was assigned by NIOSH in the example DR if you 

break down the three energy ranges, the 10 to 30, 

30 to 250, and then above 250 keV.

And the response was, well, NIOSH does this to 

simplify the calculation and -- besides it doesn't make 

much difference because the total contribution of this 

pathway, the residual period, in this particular 

example DR was only a small fraction of the total 

dose, and we agree with that, but since this is an 

example DR, this should be used for other cases 

where maybe the major contribution is during the 

residual period. Now, again, the residual period at 

Carborundum does not result in a very high dose.

I am counting only 36 millirem during the whole 

period so that hardly makes a difference in the final 

analysis, but it sets a precedent, and we have 

observed this for other Site Profiles, by the way, that 

if there is a statement in the TBD-6000 about the 

breakdown of energies, then this is what should be 

used in the dose reconstruction, and if it is not to be 

used then either they should, I mean either it should 

be used or if it's not to be used then NIOSH should 

issue some kind of a procedure or a TIB, T-I-B, or 

something saying never mind what it says there, we 

always should do the 30 to 250, because otherwise 

you could have inconsistency.

One dose reconstructor for one site could interpret 

this according to TBD-6000, another one could 

interpret it, well, this is normal and NIOSH policy. So 

we just feel that consistency is important even 

though it makes a small difference in this instance.
18

Chair Roessler: Okay. So what you are proposing is 

that either approach would work, and would NIOSH 

care to comment on that, what approach they would 

plan to use?

Mr. Tomes: This is Tom. We have briefly looked at 

this and discussed this some. I believe the best 

solution to this is to revise our draft methodology to 

agree with the comment by Dr. Anigstein.

He is correct in what the TBD-6000 photon ratios are 

specified to be and there are some other issues, such 

as the radiation effectiveness factors that tend to 

offset some of the differences. However, I believe the 

best solution is simply just to agree to the photon 

split from TBD-6000.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Then if we want to close this 

issue, Bob, do you have any comments on that, 

would that be -- 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Dr. Anigstein: That would be fine.

Chair Roessler: Yes.

Dr. Anigstein: That would be completely agreeable.

Chair Roessler: So speaking for SC&A would you with 

that information then agree to recommend to close 

this issue?

Dr. Anigstein: Yes.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Are there any questions from 

the Work Group or anybody else?

Okay, then let's move on to Number 9.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. Number 9 was that there was a 

slight roundoff error I will call it in applying the TIB, 

the OCAS-TIB-009 in how to calculate -- TIB-009 has 

a detailed prescription of how to convert the air 

concentration to ingestion rate, and then the method 

was basically a roundoff to use a simpler factor, and 
19

there was a difference, if I remember correctly it ends 

up to a difference of about -- an underestimate of, 

what, 4 percent, if my memory serves me, and the 

response, NIOSH's response was they updated the 

spreadsheet and resolved that comment. So if that is 

the case then we recommend closure.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Any comments on that one?

Member Clawson: Well I didn't quite understand that 

one. Bob, just now what did it take to rectify this one?

Dr. Anigstein: I don't have the numbers right in front 

of me because it's a summary. The issue was how to 

-- I think they used a multiplier of the air 

concentration to get the ingestion rate, and there was 

a more detailed procedure in TIB-009, and there was 

sort of a shortcut taken.

Tom or Jim, perhaps you could have a clear memory 

of this because I didn't write this out in detail. I just 

made a quick calculation on this.

Mr. Tomes: Yes, this is Tom. I didn't look at my 

equation specifically to prepare for this meeting, but 

what it amounted to, there are -- the ingestion dose 

is a very insignificant portion of the total dose and an 

insignificant portion of the internal dose.

And there are ways to account for work hours and et 

cetera and do these ingestion calculations, and an 

abbreviated calculation was done, that when we 

looked at it did indicate that there was a very, very 

slight underestimate of the ingestion so I have 

modified the spreadsheet to correct for that.

Member Clawson: Okay. I'm sorry, I just didn't quite 

understand that one, the number changes. That's 

fine with me. I have no problem with that. Sorry, 

Gen.

Chair Roessler: That's okay, Brad. That's what we are 

doing here. So, Bill, any questions on that one?

Member Field: No. Thank you.
20

Chair Roessler: Okay. So thank you, Bob, for going 

through all of those. At the bottom of your paper 

under conclusions you say that NIOSH has 

successfully addressed and resolved all but two 

issues, but I think what we are now is down to just 

the one issue.

Dr. Anigstein: Correct.

Chair Roessler: And that is the one, the doses from 

the external exposure to photons and neutrons from 

the fuel pellets. So let's make sure then that we have 

closed all eight issues, and then we can go on to the 

last remaining one. Everybody in agreement to that?

Member Field: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Yes, you've closed them all.

Member Clawson: Yes.

Chair Roessler: Okay. So then we have the two 

companion papers dealing with the fuel pellets, and 

I'll get mine out here. I am wondering, Tom, is the 

plan -- or is it okay with you if Bob goes ahead and 

makes his PowerPoint presentation and --

Mr. Tomes: That works for me.

Chair Roessler: Okay. And then we'll go through that, 

and then we'll address questions as they come up or 

when he finishes.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. I'll have to pause for a moment 

because I had my screen ready and the CDC laptop 

logs you out if you haven't been active, so I just need 

to --

Chair Roessler: That's okay, we have time.

Dr. Anigstein: I need to put it back on the screen so 

it will take about a minute.

Chair Roessler: Okay. While he is doing that then I'll 

point out that we have these two companion papers 

to go along with that, the one from NIOSH dated 
21

August 3rd and the one from Bob dated November -

- make sure I'm on the right one -- 27th, and we 

have Joe Guido standing by to help us on the NIOSH 

approach if necessary.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. Can everybody see my screen? 

Hello?

Chair Roessler: Yes. Hi, Bob. I am following from your 

presentation. I am not watching that. I -- 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Dr. Anigstein: No, no, this is the -- I'm putting up my 

-- 

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: Yes, Bob -- 

Dr. Anigstein: -- slideshow in Skype.

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: Yes, Bob. Bob, yes. Yes, Bob, it does show 

on Skype. I don't know who is using it, but, yes, it 

shows.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. Let me give a brief history of 

this issue. When NIOSH put out and Tom put out the 

first report on the SEC -- response to the SEC 

petition, this is back in 2015, there was a report given 

to the -- at a full Board meeting that summer, and it 

was accompanied by a report on the MCNP analysis 

of the plutonium fuel pellets being handled in a 

glovebox.

This is one of the two external exposure sources 

during the second operational period. The first one 

was that uranium bar that was discussed a few 

minutes ago.

And we examined the NIOSH MCNP analysis. We 

performed our own analysis using a -- we changed 

the source term, our -- yeah, we changed the source 

term, we changed the geometry, the distances of the 
22

worker from the fuel pellet, and we came up with 

somewhat higher doses.

So then -- and we -- you know, there was an 

exchange of discussion about it, and the -- ORAU 

subsequently performed a new analysis which we 

received the paper from Guido, and, sorry, I forget 

your first name --

Chair Roessler: Joe.

DCAS "MCNP..." paper on plutonium/uranium fuel 

pellet work and SC&A review

Dr. Anigstein: Mr. Guido. In August. Then we got the 

MCNP files and supporting information in October, 

then it was a little while before we got around to 

doing this, and the first thing we observed was that 

the doses were now not only higher than before but 

considerably higher than our analysis.

So I am going to just focus on the photon dose 

because as you can see from the slide it's well in 

excess of the neutron dose, so that's the major -- not 

that the neutron can be neglected, but also much of 

the comments that apply to photons were also apply 

to the neutron analysis, so I won't single it out.

So you can see here that the photon dose at a 

distance of one foot from the fuel pellet, the way both 

NIOSH and SC&A did this there was a limitation. One, 

there was a rule in effect for criticality reasons, that 

not more than 100 grams of plutonium can be 

handled in any single process.

So we assumed that they would have enough 

plutonium pellets -- 20 percent plutonium, 80 

percent uranium in terms of the metal and then 95 -

- .95 carbide to make a uranium-plutonium carbide 

compound.

So both NIOSH and SC&A assumed we'll just 

calculate the dose from a single pellet, so rather than 

worry about the geometry, and then multiply it with 

a conservative assumption, multiply it by the number 
23

of pellets that it took to make up 100 grams of 

plutonium.

So seeing this large difference we started, naturally, 

scratching our heads, I'm scratching my head, and 

wondering what could be the reason now. So the first 

thing we did was examine the input files, and this 

time around NIOSH chose to separately calculate the 

external exposure for 15 different radionuclides.

So plutonium and the other plutonium isotope -- all 

the plutonium isotopes that are likely to be in the 

plutonium fuel, and also the uranium isotopes and 

also the decay products, that would be equilibrium or 

would result from the decay of these isotopes, and 

the most important decay product in terms of 

external dose is americium-241 because when you 

make plutonium you are interested in plutonium-239, 

which is, you know, that is a fissionable isotope, but 

you are also making other isotopes, including 

plutonium-241 which has a -- it's a beta emitter, it 

has a 14-year half-life, and it decays to americium241 which among all of these nuclides is the one with

the most gamma radiation.

It has a 59.5, I believe, keV gamma that is given off 

36 percent of the time. So it is the predominant 

contributor to external dose, and both the --

examining the NIOSH spreadsheets that 

accompanied the MCNP files and also looking at our 

own input to the -- our own MCNP runs and just 

calculating the total energy of each contributor, in 

each case we concluded that americium-241 

contributes just over 80 percent of the external dose.

So we focused the review figuring anything that 

applied to americium will apply to the others. And 

then we just -- normally this is redundant, but I just 

want to quickly go into the mechanics because we've 

always been talking about MCNP and everyone has 

agreed that this is a useful program, but we have 

never had need to go into the actual guts of how the 

program works, but in this case we do.
24

So here is just a little tutorial on the MCNP, this will 

remind us it stands for Monte Carlo N-Particle. It's a 

radiation transport code developed by Los Alamos 

National Laboratory and is being -- it periodically gets 

updated, every few years a new version comes out.

And what the Monte Carlo method does is here on the 

right -- is a generic photon source, a volume 

distribution, and we assume that it's uniformly 

distributed, but what the program does is it randomly 

selects in each iteration, and we run as many as two 

billion iterations, called histories, randomly selects a 

point in the source term, in the source volume, 

randomly selects a photon energy from the spectrum 

that is put in by the user, all of this is user-supplied 

information that goes into the code, and randomly 

selects the initial direction.

And then here it just shows the trajectories of the 

photons, three photons going through an absorber. 

In this case we just think of it as a glass plate on the 

front of the glovebox, and then there will be a 

receptor on the other side.

So all the code does in the way it is constructed it 

calculates the flux, the photon flux, it can be different 

particles, I mean, we're talking about photons. So if 

the photons per square centimeter of a given -- of 

each energy, with continual distribution of energy, 

and so MCNP doesn't know anything about dose, you 

have to teach it to do a dose.

So you collect the photons at a given point, and then 

through the user-supplied data it calculates -- it then 

can convert the photon flux to a dose.

And the conversion coefficient that NIOSH uses is, I 

mentioned this once before, ICRP Publication 74, 

which came out in 1996, I think. There are some 

changes going -- in store, but right now this is what 

NIOSH uses.

And according to the comments entered into the 

americium-241 input file, and it should be the same 
25

for all the others, what NIOSH did is it took Table A.1 

from this publication, and it took the converted 

coefficient, I am reading from the table for air kerma, 

kerma stands for kinetic energy released per unit 

mass, so it's a measure of the ionization of the air in 

free air, and it takes the radionuclides in this column, 

I combined the two columns, and I abbreviated, and 

I took out some of the extraneous, some of the 

columns are not relevant at this present time, and 

then for the given energy multiplies it by the ratio of 

the H*(10), that's one of the measures of radiation 

dose, ambient dose equivalent, to come up with a 

product.

However, this was unnecessary because in this case 

the same table a couple of columns over, I guess 

there is one column in between I deleted, gives you 

the H*(10) and is different than the numbers that 

NIOSH came up with because there is a later, and I 

don't know why ICRP chose to give that Table A.1 

because there was an updated air kerma per unit 

fluence conversion in this column, the second column 

from the right.

And the footnote says in one case it was 1982 data 

and the other case it was 1995 data, which is the 

most current since the publication came out in 1996.

And this K-alpha is higher. So if you use that one, as 

ICRP did, you come up with a slightly higher 

conversion coefficient for the H*(10), and we 

calculated it both ways, ran, took the input file, the 

americium-241, NIOSH input file, everything I am 

talking about now is using the NIOSH input file with 

modification.

We simply changed -- switched to the conversion 

coefficient here in this last column, and uniformly, 

regardless of which type of dose calculation we are 

doing, it came out 2 percent higher.

So we considered that this -- we made that into a 

finding because this is not claimant-favorable. It's 

not using current science, and it's not claimant-
26

favorable. So that's -- I don't know if I should stop 

now and wait for a response?

Chair Roessler: I think we should probably stop now. 

This stuff gets, to my mind, pretty heavy. I wish, Bob, 

I had taken a course in Monte Carlo from you because 

you are a good teacher, but I think we probably have 

some questions at this point and comments. Do I 

hear anything from NIOSH?

Mr. Smith: This is Matt Smith with ORAU team. The 

comment I will make on Table A.1 is it is called out 

in the text of ICRP 74. I don't have the section 

number in front of me right now.

I believe it's Section 4.3.2, and Rick Traub might 

have the actual paragraph number to share. In that 

paragraph within the report text it calls out Table A.1 

for use in conjunction with the following tables, which 

are A.2 through A.20, and those do happen to be the 

tables that are used on this project to generate our 

what are called external dose conversion factors that 

are in NIOSH Publication IG-001.

Certainly, Bob has identified the more recent data 

that are in Table A.21, but as far as a why was A.1 

there at all and why was it used, that's my historical 

perspective on it, it's because of its call out in the text 

and its relationship to the DCF that the project does 

use.

Dr. Anigstein: Well the -- 

Mr. Smith: And I'll leave it to the Work Group and the 

discussion to follow as to the final path forward on 

this one.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. My response to that would be 

the organ doses that are listed in IG-001 are not in 

question.

Mr. Smith: True. 

Dr. Anigstein: This is simply how to get -- 
27

Mr. Smith: True. I was just giving a historical 

perspective on why, you know, the question originally 

was why is A.1 even there, and the reason is is it was 

called out by the authors of ICRP 74 for use with the 

subsequent tables.

And then the second question might be well why was 

it used in this instance, well, again, because of that 

pedigree of being called out within the text of the 

report for use.

COURT REPORTER: This is the court reporter, I 

apologize. Can anybody hear me?

Mr. Smith: All right.

COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. I think I got 

disconnected just for a moment. Can we go back to 

Dr. Anigstein's response about the organ doses? It 

was just about one minute ago.

Dr. Anigstein: I said we're not discussing -- I just 

mentioned that the organ doses are not in question. 

I mean I'm not saying we should scrap IG-001.

Mr. Smith: And I -- I realize that. I am just giving a 

historical perspective again on -- 

Dr. Anigstein: Okay.

Mr. Smith: -- you know, why A.1 is there. If one steps 

back and wonders why did the authors of ICRP 74 

include this table --

Dr. Anigstein: But at the same time --

Mr. Smith: -- that's the reason why, and then, 

number two, why was it used as part of the 

calculations here, again, Bob, probably because of 

historical pedigree. But certainly going forward, you 

know, if it's the Working Group's desire to use the 

more current data certainly that is something we can 

do.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay.
28

Chair Roessler: Okay. I am switching phones because 

I think mine is dead, if you can hold on just a minute 

here. Okay, somebody say something else and see if 

I can hear.

Mr. Katz: Can you hear us?

Chair Roessler: That sounds better, okay.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

Chair Roessler: Okay. So now I have to go back on 

my sheets. I think for those of us on the Work Group, 

I don't know if Bill and Brad are more familiar with all 

of this than I am, but I think we need a little more 

explanation, and I am wondering on the paper, Bob, 

you presented your slides, but on the paper what 

number are you on? Are you not --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Dr. Anigstein: I am on Slide Number 4.

Chair Roessler: Pardon?

Dr. Anigstein: Are you talking about my slides or my 

paper?

Chair Roessler: Your paper.

Dr. Anigstein: Oh, I'm sorry. I am not -- I would have 

to -- one second. My paper it would be Finding 1, so 

it starts -- Section 4.1 it starts at the bottom of Page 

2.

Chair Roessler: That's what I thought, okay. So you 

discussed 2.1 and you talked about the americium in 

Section 3.2, so now you are on the 4.1 --

Dr. Anigstein: Correct.

Chair Roessler: Okay. That's great because this gets 

pretty complicated.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay.
29

Chair Roessler: So --

Mr. Traub: This is Rick Traub. May I jump in here a 

little bit?

Chair Roessler: Sure.

Mr. Traub: Okay. Now Matt was saying that maybe I 

could elaborate a little bit on the ICRP. I am sitting 

here with ICRP 74 in front of me, and you want to at 

some point look at Page 36, Paragraphs 158 and 159, 

158 talks about the different operational quantities 

and protection quantities, and then 159 goes on and 

it talks about units. In the last sentence of Paragraph 

159 it says --

Dr. Anigstein: I got you, yes.

Mr. Traub: Okay. In addition so that the conversion 

coefficients for photons may be presented in a 

manner consistent with those for neutrons and 

electrons, i.e., in terms of particle fluence, and to 

provide as complete a database as possible for a 

variety of calculational purposes, the data can be 

transformed into conversion coefficients per unit 

fluence using the information of Table A.1 of Annex 

2.

So it seems to be pointing, at least when I was setting 

up my tables I was looking at this as saying that use 

Table A.1 whenever you can, and that's what I did.

Dr. Anigstein: I see. I hear you, and I understand 

that, but nevertheless we feel that there is an 

alternative, and here are two alternative sets of data, 

and by statute, by the -- not by statute, by the Code 

of Federal Regulations, whenever there is a choice 

NIOSH is required to use the more claimantfavorable approach as long as it is scientifically valid.

In this case I mean two things, more claimantfavorable and also to use the most current data, and 

since the 1995 Hubbell and Seltzer paper is more 

current than the Hubbell 1982 paper, then that 

should be used in the present instance because there 
30

is a choice and the choice should be the one that 

gives you the higher doses.

Mr. Katz: Bob, let me just intercede here for a 

moment. I am not disagreeing with sort of the sense 

of what you are saying, but actually there is no 

regulatory requirement, one, to use the most current 

science.

It's the program is committed to doing that and to 

advancing as it can, but that's not in real time, and 

it's not a regulatory requirement and --

Dr. Anigstein: Excuse me. I could quote, I mean I'm 

not going to do it at this moment, but --

(Simultaneous speaking.)

Mr. Katz: Bob, please. Bob, please, you don't need to 

quote because I wrote regulations and I am very 

familiar with what's there, but it is not a regulatory 

requirement.

It is an aim to advance the science as it can, but as 

it can may take years in some instances. And the 

other aspect of what you are saying to be claimantfavorable, again, it does not come to this level of 

detail about science matters where you have a choice 

between science matters if you are dealing with 

matters of uncertainty.

So I just want to be clear about that because those 

have sort of legal implications, and so I'm all good 

with whatever -- wherever this goes in terms of using 

the best science and so on, but these are not 

regulatory driven, what you are saying, and I just 

want to make that clear for the record. Thanks. You 

can go ahead now.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. So any further discussion on this 

point, what was our Finding 1?

Chair Roessler: Well I wonder if we ought not come 

to a resolution on this. Is NIOSH saying that they 

want to stand with their approach and -- I guess we 
31

need to hear more from NIOSH.

Mr. Tomes: Gen, this is Tom Tomes. I just wanted to 

ask Matt Smith a question because I had seen some 

discussion on this and what the actual difference is. I 

think Bob's paper had about a 2 percent difference. I 

just want -- have you verified what the difference is 

on the values?

Dr. Anigstein: Well the result there, if you look at the 

table here you have the K over phi here, and if you 

can see my mouse moving, the second column, and 

the K over phi here in the second from the right 

column, and at the lower energies the second one is 

higher, and the energies in these were the 

americium.

So for the americium I ran the MCNP using the 

identical input file changing only the conversion 

coefficients, and for each of the tallies it came out 2 

percent higher for americium. I am not saying it will 

be the same for all radionuclides.

Dr. Neton: This is Jim. I think that this is a pretty 

minor difference that we are pointing out here, and I 

think there is a couple subsequent findings that --

Dr. Anigstein: Oh, yes.

Dr. Neton: -- much larger differences, and I think 

we're going to eventually end up agreeing that 

something needs to be done in those other two 

findings I think, so I wouldn't want to hold this up 

based on this one 2 percent difference.

We can certainly run it ourselves and try to reconcile 

which one we want to use, but I think we should hold 

this off, resolution of this until we discuss the other 

two because I am not ready to commit that we will 

use this or not at this point. I don't know what 

implications it has project-wide at this point.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay.

Dr. Neton: I mean I don't know that I want to commit 
32

the -- a 2 percent change that's going to affect 

everything we've ever done, I don't think so, but -- 

Dr. Anigstein: No. I said the only reason, I mean in 

the process when I saw these large differences as 

shown on my first slide here I started looking, well, 

the methodology seems to be the same, I mean I'm 

just repeating the thought process, looking at Joe 

Guido's paper the methodology seems to be pretty 

similar.

I don't seem to have a conflict with the methodology, 

so let's look at the MCNP file rather than going 

through all the spreadsheets, did they convert, do I 

agree with the densities, do I agree with the 

intensity, let me just go, you know, cut to the chase 

and look at the spreadsheet, look at the MCNP input 

file, and this was the first thing I happened to notice 

is that we were using -- we did ours with using this 

last column.

So I saw that the numbers were different which was 

why. So, yes, however, I will go on now.

Chair Roessler: Yes.

Dr. Neton: Yes, I have no problem, I just wanted to 

make sure. We're going to address the other two 

issues and probably address all three of these things 

at one time.

Dr. Anigstein: Good, okay. Okay, so the next -- 

Chair Roessler: Okay. So, Bob, before you go on, you 

have your slide presentation, I'm trying to follow 

along also in your paper. Are you now going to 

address Section 6.0?

Dr. Anigstein: Yes.

Chair Roessler: Okay, good. Okay, well then proceed.

Dr. Anigstein: Okay, thank you. Okay, so the next 

thing we look at is the methodology used by NIOSH 

for doing the dose calculation.
33

So the one I am most familiar with is that you have 

to have, as I explained before, NIOSH, the program 

collects photons and how did it evaluate the photon 

flux.

Well there are several ways, several choices you 

have. The one I am most familiar with is called a point 

detector tally where here, this diagram, by the way, 

I created this diagram directly from the NIOSH input 

file, the americium input file.

So the method I used, it was taught in a course that 

I took on MCNP, was it's called a point detector tally, 

and it's simply all you need to do is specify the X, Y, 

Z coordinates at the part of dose points that you wish 

where you calculate the dose, and MCNP will tell you 

what the photon flux is and then, using the 

appropriate conversion coefficient, what the dose 

rate is at that point.

Here Dr. Traub used a different method, which is also 

a conventionally accepted method, and it's called a 

Type 4 tally in the MCNP parlance, where you create 

a simulated dosimeter.

So here they created this blue box, is a volume that 

is two-by-two inches, two inches high, two inches 

wide in the direction into the paper, and two 

millimeters thick, and then you calculate all the 

photons traversing this volume and you achieve, 

from that you can get a photon flux per square 

centimeter.

The two methods, and I have spoken to a couple of 

experts, as a matter of fact one of our consultants 

was brought in to this project, his name is 

[identifying information redacted]. 

He is one of the authors of the -- He worked at Los 

Alamos and he was one of the developers of all the 

MCNP codes through 6.1 and he retired from his job 

and he works now as a consultant.

And the two should be the same, maybe not to the 
34

third decimal point, but they should be basically the 

same tally. But first of all we got a very different, 

taking the NIOSH result and -- the NIOSH input file, 

excuse me, and simply adding another tally, the Type 

4, the point detector tally at the same location, so 

NIOSH, so MCNP would calculate the tally in the 

simulated dosimeter.

It would also calculate at the same point in the center 

of this the point detector. We get vastly different 

results. So right away that gave us an indication 

something is wrong.

And pursuing that, I will go back now with an 

explanation here of what went wrong. In the normal, 

what I call the usual operation, the most elementary 

operation of the code, you have this source, which is 

isotropic, which means that it gives out radiation in 

all directions.

So every time there is an iteration of the code, as I 

said, I run it for two billion iterations simply because 

I have a 32-bit operating system and that's all it 

allows me to do.

And most of the cases, well most of the histories are 

wasted from the standpoint of getting a dose because 

it goes in this direction, it goes in this direction, it 

goes in that direction, it goes nowhere near your dose 

point.

So consequently in that sense the program is 

inefficient. So there is a technique called biasing, 

where you test, where you put in instructions into the 

code, and the code then says, okay, we're interested 

in this direction so I want it to have most of my 

photons going in this direction.

I am going to kind of focus them in this direction and 

I am going to have maybe, I'm just thinking of 

numbers, ten times as many going in this direction 

as going in that direction.

Now so you come up with a higher score, more hits 
35

on your target region. But, of course, at the same 

time you are exaggerating a dose so the MCNP 

program has to keep track of how to compensate for 

this.

Well, unfortunately it turned out that there was an 

error in the code. It had existed in the MCNP code, it 

was existent in Version MCNP X, which is the one we 

had been using here, and it also existed in the MCNP 

6.1.

And here is an excerpt, this is a report put out by Los 

Alamos. It was dated April 2013, just prior to the 

release of Version 6.1, which was May 2013, and this 

document was included with the code on the same 

disk with the code.

It says it was intended for -- And within this 

document is a section called "Selection of LowPriority Bugs in MCNP 6." Item 14 in that table says 

"incorrect source biasing with the minus 31 function," 

and that is the code name for this particular biasing 

function, which is a very aggressive one.

It's supposed to be the one to give you the most 

efficiency, and there is a reference number, 

RF23313. And then going further we go, we take 

release 6.2, which is the most current version, came 

out last year, and here it continues, the same 

tracking number and the description is, again, 

incorrect source biasing if using the minus 31 special 

function on the HV code, and this has been fixed.

So this is a bug. The bug had been fixed at 6.2, but 

not in 6.1, which is the version of the code that Dr. 

Traub was using and once -- So we verified, actually 

the documentation became later, about going 

through the program, the input files said well what 

would happen, I personally put the induction meter 

with the bias and said what would happen if we just 

removed it.

Removing it, the program ran a little less efficiently, 

but when we recalculated we took the results, the 
36

identical file now, and the only difference, we had 

already corrected the conversion coefficients that we 

just discussed, and then by removing that source 

bias and recalculating the dose rate, we simply took 

what is the dose rate per disintegration of the 

americium-241, comparing it to what NIOSH had in 

the original version, the one with only the conversion 

coefficients corrected, and then with the bias 

removed, and then we got a ratio, multiplied it by the 

total dose, millirem per hour, reported by NIOSH, 

which was nine-something at one foot, and now it 

comes down to 3.458.

So now, having removed the bias, which would make 

no difference except -- If everything was working 

correctly, removing the bias should not change the 

dose except maybe this slightly less efficient 

counting.

We are now -- And this is the original SC&A 

calculation back in 2016. So now the NIOSH 

recalculated value is 45, instead of being higher it's 

45 percent lower at one foot and not quite as big a 

difference at one meter.

So we said, okay, we're getting warm, but we're not 

quite there yet. So we then went back, took another 

look at the geometry, and here is an issue with the -

- Oh, and the other thing was, again, we also got 

differences, even with the bias removed between the 

point detector and that volume, that simulated 

dosimeter.

So we took another look and we see here, drawing a 

line of sight, here is the fuel pellet exactly as it is in 

the geometry as dictated by the NIOSH input file, and 

here is the simulated detector and we see that their 

line of sight intersects the simulated dosimeter just 

above the midpoint, excuse me, just below the 

midpoint.

The midpoint would be level with the floor, it's just a 

hair below. So almost half of this dosimeter is 

shielded from the fuel pellet by this, if you want to 
37

penetrate, if you want to draw a line to the bottom of 

this, you are having to go through the floor of the, 

the metal floor of the glovebox at a very sharp angle, 

an acute angle, and consequently it is mostly 

shielded.

Very little radiation hits the bottom part of the 

simulated dosimeter. So consequently in this 

particular geometry that simulated dosimeter of that 

size is just not a good way of measuring the dose 

rate.

And then we go and we looked at the photograph, 

this is from a report presented by, a paper presented 

by the Carborundum staff at a symposium, a 

conference on hot labs, I think it was called a hot lab 

conference, and here are, this is the actual plutonium 

research facility, and we see the gloveboxes.

They are described in the paper as being three feet 

high, the glovebox itself, and we are looking at the 

port. This is the arm-holds where the worker stands 

and puts his arms in.

So first of all, so this is designed to be a comfortable 

working height for the worker. His body is here. The 

center of his body would be about level with these 

arm-holds.

Just think if you are standing up and your elbow bent 

at 90 degrees, your arms swing forward, and you are 

at the level of the abdomen. And by scaling the

photograph we calculated that from here to here, the 

bottom of the sort of center of the port is about 24 

centimeters.

So we changed the geometry. I don't have a diagram 

for this, but we simply moved everything up 24 

centimeters, take the fuel pellet, which is an eighth 

of an inch above the floor of the glovebox, and we 

put the center of it 24 centimeters high.

And we also took the simulated dosimeter and moved 

that up by 24 centimeters and also put the point 
38

detector in that same location and once we had done 

that and again recalculated the, again, took the ratio 

of the per disintegration of americium-241 and 

ratioed it by the reported hourly dose rate by NIOSH, 

we came out, which actually I had to say it surprised 

me, amazingly close.

This is the original SC&A model back in 2016, this is 

the NIOSH input file recalculated by eliminating, 

changing the dose conversion factor, eliminating the 

bias, and raising everything 24 centimeters, and we 

came up with perfect agreement at one foot and not 

quite perfect, but close, pretty close, at one meter.

So again, our third finding is that the shielding by the 

floor of the glovebox just does not represent the 

geometry. It's not claimant-favorable.

It's not scientifically correct because the dosimeter is 

partly shielded. A dosimeter can be used when it's in 

a uniform radiation field when it's relatively, you 

know, the center of it, the two edges are pretty close.

And here, and we also got, and I'm not showing this, 

with this geometry, with this 24-centimeter 

elevation, we also got quite good agreement between 

the NIOSH Type 4 tally, which is volume detector, 

and our point detector came out within 1.5 percent.

So we believe that this is an appropriate geometry, 

and if NIOSH adopts this, we would have very good 

consensus. So this is the end of the presentation.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Did you say that was the end 

of your presentation?

Well, I guess I would have a question, because you 

just presented Finding 3, and yet in your written 

paper you have a section called "Conclusions."

Dr. Anigstein: Okay. I just went into more detail here 

in the paper. I was trying to keep the presentation a 

little simpler. I went into just a little more detail.

I have this Equation 1 in the paper, where I simply 
39

showed how I, when I say NIOSH recalc'ed that's how 

it was recalculated, by simply taking the ratio -- It's 

very simple.

I just sort of simply put an equation in words.

Chair Roessler: At the bottom of your conclusions 

paragraph you say, "This gives us reason to believe 

that NIOSH is correctly translating MCNP results into 

hourly doses."

Dr. Anigstein: Oh, yes. Well -- 

(Simultaneous speaking)

Chair Roessler: Do you mean that overall or do all 

three of your findings still stand?

Dr. Anigstein: No, what I meant by that was, and 

maybe we can go back. I am going to now. We 

received from NIOSH about 40 data files.

It was a bit -- and also besides being, you know, a 

rather massive amount that included 30 MCNP 15 

radionuclides for each one, there were two files, an 

input and an output, and then there was another ten 

files approximately, and rather than following in 

detail how here is the dose per disintegration, which 

is directly taken from the MCNP output, here is now 

the disintegrations per unit fluence, per pellet for 

each radionuclide.

Here is how many pellets or here is the mass of each 

pellet. So instead of going, instead of trying to follow 

that, which we incidentally couldn't follow because 

there was a, we got two different, we got data from 

NIOSH from two different time periods.

There was an earlier set of files, which were 

interconnected Excel spreadsheets, but they were 

not the ones that were reflected in the report from 

Joe Guido and then the report -- and those were in a 

separate spreadsheet, which was not related to the 

others, so you could not reference that.
40

It just had numbers without, rather input than links, 

so we actually could not take each MCNP result and 

relate it to the final dose, but the fact that we could 

take one MCNP result, the americium, which is the 

most influential one, and by making these corrections 

we run it and then taking this ratio as is in my 

Equation 1 taking the, this is the dose rate per 

disintegration from the original NIOSH MCNP and 

divided by the -- Which way? No, take the one, the 

revised dose rate from americium, divide it by the 

original dose rate, and take that ratio and multiply it 

by the reported final hourly dose rate from all 

radionuclides on all the plutonium pellets.

Since we got almost exactly the same as the SC&A 

calculation, we thought for efficiency sake we really 

don't need to probe further into the NIOSH 

methodology.

It was, however they did it, it gave results that were 

quite close. So rather than critiquing each individual 

step, which, again, there were some missing steps 

because of the revision, that we had one file that was 

revised, the revised calculation, which was, it didn't 

have all the supporting files.

So first of all we couldn't do it and second I suppose, 

we talked about it earlier, I could have requested, I 

did request it from Tom but apparently it was a lastminute thing so he wasn't able to come through, I'm 

not surprised. I didn't give him very much notice.

So we're satisfied that if the MCNP runs are 

corrected, then the rest of the methodology looks 

pretty good.

Chair Roessler: Okay. I think you've explained that. 

My naive reaction when I read that statement is that, 

in spite of all of your findings, that NIOSH had done 

it in an acceptable way, but I don't think that's what 

you are saying.

What you are saying is that if NIOSH makes 

corrections, then you feel that the results are 
41

acceptable?

Dr. Anigstein: My statement is that NIOSH correctly, 

is correctly translating the MCNP result into hourly 

dose, not that the MCNP results are correct, but the 

translation of the, going from the MCNP result to the 

hourly dose is correct, the second step in the process. 

Perhaps I should have worded it differently.

Chair Roessler: Okay. So I think at this point, 

speaking from my point of view, and I'd like to hear 

what the other Work Group members think, I think 

we need to hear from NIOSH as to all of the findings 

and what they propose.

Member Field: This is Bill. I agree. I think I'm 

following most of the detail that is presented, and 

from my interpretation it seems like the geometry 

issue is the major issue that is causing differences. Is 

that correct from your perspective?

Chair Roessler: Was that Bill speaking?

Member Field: Yes.

Chair Roessler: Okay. So who, I don't know who's 

going to answer that question.

Member Field: I think it would be good if someone 

from NIOSH could address their perspectives on the 

issue that was brought up regarding the geometry.

Mr. Tomes: This is Tom. Joe Guido, are you prepared 

to address that?

Mr. Guido: Yes. Well the MCNP part we'll have Rick 

go into, but I believe, you know, there is two pieces 

there, the re-running of MCNP 6.2 takes care of one, 

but then there is geometry, so I'll let Rick do that 

since he is the MCNP expert here from our side.

Mr. Traub: Yes, okay, this is Rick Traub. I have 

already done some runs with MCNP 6.2.

It turns out that's what we have accepted as our 
42

version of the code that we use, and as pointed out 

the biasing function does seem to work properly, or 

at least we get differences of about a factor of 2.5 to 

3.0 between 6.1 and 6.2.

So it looks like the 6.2 is running correctly, so we will 

just have to run that with, just using a different 

version of MCNP. When it comes to the location of the 

dosimeter, you know, I think what was said is correct 

on how it would affect it, and Gen, I'll just kind of 

defer to the subject matter expert as to where that 

dosimeter should be.

Mr. Tomes: This is Tom. Maybe I can just give the 

point of my opinion here based on what I have seen 

of the facility information.

I agree with Dr. Anigstein on what he interprets from 

the sketch on the height of the work surface in the 

gloveboxes and also of the ports and I have seen 

another picture, a close-up, of actually a worker 

using the ports, and he is standing there and the 

ports are positioned so they are a comfortable 

position to use the ports for his, where his arms are 

basically parallel with the ground.

So I would assume that the dimensions mentioned 

by Dr. Anigstein to estimate that distance are at least 

nominally correct.

And the picture I am seeing shows an apparatus in 

there, whether it be a furnace or whatever pipe they 

have in this particular sketch, I don't know, but he is 

working at a height in that picture I am seeing.

So my interpretation of the information that I am 

seeing from the facility is that some of the work 

would have been done at that height.

Now, obviously, there would be more than one 

operation being done in those gloveboxes with the 

pellets and some of that likely would have been down 

to a lower surface.

But I at least would have to say that Dr. Anigstein's 
43

opinion is a plausible exposure scenario.

Mr. Guido: This is Joe Guido. I have one question, 

because the MCNP part of this, as far as selection of 

the point tally and the simulated dosimeter, it seems 

like you are trying to calculate the same thing, but 

the simulated dosimeter ends up having a vertical 

dimension that you have to create, and it seems like 

that vertical dimension is what's causing us our 

disconnect.

Is that right? I mean, if your point dosimeter allows 

kind of like a parallel line, you know, a horizontal line 

from the fuel pellet to the dose point and then if you 

use a simulated dosimeter then to give it any volume 

you kind of are forcing part of the volume below into 

a shielded region where at the 0.1 you're not, is that 

what's happening?

Dr. Anigstein: I am sorry, who is this question 

directed to?

Mr. Guido: Oh, to Dr. Anigstein.

Dr. Anigstein: Oh, yes, yes.

Mr. Guido: I am just trying to understand, because it 

seems like what we are talking about here is a subtle 

-- 

(Simultaneous speaking)

Dr. Anigstein: Yes. No, they should be according to, 

I mean I work, again, as soon as I found there was, 

learned this problem, I brought in one SC&A 

associate, Michael Mallett, who is a staff member as 

a health physics group leader at Los Alamos and uses 

MCNP regularly, and he said in all his experience the 

two types, one is called the Type 4 tally dosimeter, 

and the other one is called a Type 5 and they give, 

you know, comparable, very similar results.

And then we still couldn't solve the problem because 

we didn't hit upon the biasing as being the issue so 

we brought in, he had formerly been a SC&A 
44

associate and we re-inducted him on a contract, John 

Hendricks, and he had 6.2 running, but we had no 

proof of that yet, and he said to me there was no 

difference between the, it was a very simple case, 

and there was no difference between the point 

detector and the simulated dosimeter looking just at 

the flux.

He said let's not bother with the dose, that's another 

complication, and so at that point we started, he 

suggested to me I should look at the release 

documentation, and then we found the evidence or 

the documentation on this.

So, yes, I do notice that the simulated dosimeter 

seems to give you a little better scoring, so it has a -

- because what MCNP generates at the end is an 

evaluation of the tallies and does this meet the ten 

criteria, and one of them is is the error within the 

desired limits, is something called the variance of the 

variance, like a second order already, does that meet 

the requirements and other, you know, it's a 

technical issue, a technical thing.

And the simulated dosimeter seems to come closer 

to meeting all the statistical criteria because it has a 

little better statistics so I can see an advantage in 

using it.

I personally am comfortable with the point detector 

because I don't have to worry about what is the 

proper volume, what is the proper area, and running 

it long enough, it gives you, I'll try to find the rule.

I have a rather fast computer that was specifically 

ordered for doing MCNP runs, and I can do two billion 

simulations, anything between two and five hours for 

photons.

Mr. Guido: So it sounds like, so if you were to raise 

the fuel pellet to 24 centimeters, what that does is it 

prevents the bottom on the simulated dosimeter from 

being shielded, so being higher and --
45

Dr. Anigstein: Correct.

Mr. Guido: So that's just an artificial, that's not 

saying that the work is done with the pellet at that 

height, that's just an artifact of having to do the 

calculation, is that correct?

I mean I kind of struggle with what to recommend 

because, you know, we really don't want to say that 

the work was always done with these fuel pellets, you 

know, at 24 centimeters, but --

(Simultaneous speaking)

Dr. Anigstein: As long as they are above, as long as 

they are at a point where there is no longer 

interference with the floor, so probably ten -- We 

didn't do, you know, a parametric study, let's do it 

one centimeter at a time, so maybe ten centimeters 

would be adequate.

I am just -- This is just off the top of my head, but 

definitely resting on the floor, even with the point 

detector there was some, because the point detector 

is really not a point.

It takes in the radiation from the surrounding, from 

the surrounding volume, so even with the point 

detector you get a reduction in the dose rate from it 

sitting on the floor because the floor absorbs some of 

the radiation.

So having it somewhat elevated, and also according 

to the NIOSH calculation spreadsheet they estimated 

374 pellets that comprise the batch, single batch, 

that it's equal to 100 grams of plutonium, and they 

are not all going to be sitting on the floor.

They'll be in some kind of a pile, there will be some 

on top of each other, they are going to be handled, 

so I would say that having them at some significant 

elevation off the floor would be probably more 

realistic and definitely, I think, more claimantfavorable.
46

Mr. Guido: And but again, some of this is because of 

the choice of tally, which really causes the trouble, 

right?

Dr. Anigstein: Well, the two types of tallies should be 

the same or otherwise there is something wrong with 

the analysis. So there are two types, and I think there 

is a surface-like tally -- 

Mr. Guido: Okay.

Dr. Anigstein: -- and some other choices. So it's a 

matter of the analyst's choice of which one to use, 

but it should not affect the outcome.

Mr. Guido: Okay.

Dr. Anigstein: But also with the volumetric tally, 

volume tally, the choice of dimensions, I think, affect 

the tally, so with a point detector you don't have that.

Mr. Guido: Yes, I think that was my point, is by using 

that, that comes into play. Okay. I just wanted to 

understand some more because what we need to do, 

you know, with the, we can kind of think of what is 

the best geometry to specify for this and then take 

the tally that doesn't get affected.

You know, the geometry isn't causing us trouble like 

-- I was trying to look at your drawing, and your 

drawing really does show, you know, the bottom of 

this simulated dosimeter being shielded, but that 

could be made smaller, it seems.

Dr. Anigstein: But then if you start making smaller 

you lose, I think you reduce the scoring efficiency.

Mr. Guido: Oh, okay. All right, I don't have any other 

comments.

(Simultaneous speaking)

Chair Roessler: -- maybe you should make your other 

comments at this point.

Mr. Katz: That's for NIOSH, I think, right, Jim?
47

Dr. Neton: Yes, this is Jim. I don't think we -- Do we 

have any more comments on our side? I think we just 

got this document less than a week ago, and it's a 

pretty complex analysis.

I think we are going to need a little time to digest 

exactly, you know, what we are going to do moving 

forward. I don't know that we can agree to put this 

in abeyance or whatever today.

Chair Roessler: Okay. So Ted, should we approach 

this that we have looked at nine issues, eight are 

closed, we have this one issue that is still open, that 

we need to let NIOSH have some time to address the 

findings and then present that -- Are we going to 

need another Work Group meeting then?

Mr. Katz: Well, here's -- Thanks, Gen. Here is what I 

would suggest. I mean since frankly this finding is 

impossibly technical for -- 

Chair Roessler: For the Board.

Mr. Katz: I mean for at least most members of the 

Board with a few exceptions and for everyone else 

other than the technical people that can deal with 

this, so I guess, yes, I would suggest, I think the 

Work Group can present on this, present and provide 

-- You have enough detail on all the other findings I 

think you could do that, Gen, based on -- It was very 

nicely done how, at the outset of this meeting, the 

first half of this meeting, you could run through all 

those issues, you could key up this one issue that is 

remaining to be sorted out technically between 

NIOSH and SC&A, but honestly I don't think, I think, 

I would assume the Board would be comfortable with 

NIOSH and SC&A coming to agreement on that 

terrifically technical matter of how to exactly model 

this.

It's not really an item for which the Board will ever 

need to discuss it and come to a judgement or, 

however you want to put that.
48

So I think the Board can really close out, for the 

purposes of presenting the Site Profile to the Board, 

I think the Work Group can present and suggest to 

the Board that really the Board is basically done with 

this, but that the technical staff need to work out 

exactly how this modeling gets done with MCNP to be 

appropriately claimant-favorable and correct, and 

leave it at that. That is my suggestion.

Chair Roessler: Okay. I think there is a -- From the 

Board's point of view though I think there is a motion 

that has been tabled.

Mr. Katz: Right. There is a motion even for the, to 

close out the Site Profile.

Chair Roessler: Right.

Mr. Katz: Right. And I guess what I am 

recommending to you is I think the Board doesn't

need to take this up yet again when this issue is done 

but you could close it out at the Board level and still, 

the final work would get done between NIOSH and 

SC&A and of course, they would run that by the Work 

Group, but I don't think it requires further Board 

action. That is my suggestion.

Chair Roessler: Okay. So are you actually saying that 

that motion would come up before the Board at the 

meeting next week?

Mr. Katz: Yes, but I would -- I mean, that's what I 

would recommend.

Chair Roessler: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Again, I don't think the Board needs to 

spend another session at another Board meeting to 

finish its work related to this.

ABRWH December meeting plans/other follow-up

Chair Roessler: Okay. Basically say that if NIOSH and 

SC&A can resolve the issues, that it's really a Site 

Profile situation.
49

Mr. Katz: Well, it's not -- I mean, you are, you are 

closing out a Site Profile matter anyway, a Site Profile 

review anyway, so it's all Site Profile.

But again, I'm just saying I think the Board can say 

we are done with this, we have reviewed it, you 

know, we're satisfied with historic profiles so long as, 

you know, NIOSH and SC&A work out this last 

technical matter, they will run it by the Work Group, 

but the Board can act and say we are done with the 

Site Profile review as a Board at this meeting if you 

want to.

If you are uncomfortable with that, that's fine, but I 

don't think it's worth another meeting.

Chair Roessler: Well, I was comfortable with it before 

the last meeting, but then so many questions came 

up, and it was recommended that we continue 

discussion.

Mr. Katz: Yes. 

Chair Roessler: I would be comfortable with 

presenting it in this manner at this time but I would 

like to hear from the other Work Group members.

Mr. Katz: Right, me too.

Member Field: Right. This is Bill. I think these issues, 

while complicated, are resolvable just by getting 

together and coming to some agreement that would 

be claimant-favorable.

I mean, some of it is just an error in the bias, and 

then the geometry issues can be worked out, and I 

don't know about which table to use, I'm not sure 

why that second table was generated, and the 

appropriateness of using the updated table versus 

the initial one, you know, it's strange.

I think that may be the biggest contention for 20 

years, but I think these other issues can be worked 

out between NIOSH and SC&A.
50

Mr. Katz: So Bill, are you comfortable with the route 

that I proposed, that the Board sort of close this out 

at this meeting?

Member Field: I think that makes, it makes a lot of 

sense. In fact I think the Work Group maybe being 

involved may muddy the waters versus if we just let 

them handle it themselves.

Dr. Neton: Ted, this is Jim. I want to make sure what 

you are saying though, because I think there may be 

some confusion.

You are not saying that the Work Group closes this 

issue, you are saying the Work Group presents it to 

the Board, that the Board should not review this any 

further, the Full Board, the Work Group would still be 

in the loop and be responsible or involved in closing 

out this final issue?

Member Field: Right.

Mr. Katz: Yes. I'm saying that if you run it by the 

Work Group in case there is anything that gets knotty 

at the end, but, yes, that's what I am saying, Jim, 

and that's what I think Bill is agreeing to.

Member Field: I think that's the way to go. It makes 

a lot of sense.

Chair Roessler: Was that Brad who just commented?

Mr. Katz: No, that was Bill.

Member Clawson: Oh, I've listened to everything, the 

talk. I understand what you are trying to get to, Ted, 

and you are right, you know, this is ultimately what 

we are saying is that we think that this is a Site Profile 

issue, SC&A and NIOSH should come to a resolution 

with it and we'll play a part in it, we'll be in the loop 

of it and everything else like that, but I don't see that 

we have to meet again to be able to take care of this.

I think that we'll just stay in the loop with NIOSH and 

SC&A with the correction of this last one, but I am 
51

good with proceeding forward as you said, Ted.

Mr. Katz: Okay, thank you.

(Simultaneous speaking)

Member Field: I think the bigger issue is that table, 

and switching to a different use of the table from 

what has been done historically and that affecting 

previous calculations that have been done, I think to 

me that's the bigger issue.

I think these other issues, as far as the geometry and 

using the correct bias calculation, I think those are 

fairly easily resolved, and what I am hearing is that, 

and correct me if I am wrong, it sounds like NIOSH 

is on board with looking at those and coming to make 

a good resolution to those.

Mr. Katz: Jim?

Dr. Neton: Yes, this is Jim, I agree. I think we are on 

board with the two changes, looking at the geometry 

factor, and I think we agree that the bias factor issue 

between revisions needs to be addressed.

The table issue, I am not sure where we are. I don't 

know historically how this would affect anything, if 

anything at all, but we need to look at it in the larger 

context.

And you're right, Bill Field, this may be a harder issue 

to resolve than those other two.

Member Field: Right, right, even though the 

differences are smaller, yes.

Mr. Katz: So, Gen, so if you -- Gen, if you are in 

agreement, too, then you would have a motion from 

the Work Group to present, so you don't need a 

motion at the Board level.

Chair Roessler: Okay. So we have a motion from the 

Work Group, but I think we still, I think the Board still 

has a motion on the table.
52

Mr. Katz: Okay. So whatever, you would be 

recommending that you take the motion off the table 

and act on it, yes.

Chair Roessler: Yes. And that the Work Group 

recommends taking the motion off the table and that 

we will resolve this within the Work Group.

Mr. Katz: Correct.

Chair Roessler: Okay. And I agree with you, Ted. I 

think we don't want to get into all the scientific and 

technical details on this with the Board or we will 

never finish the meeting.

Mr. Katz: You'll kill the Board. You'll kill the Board 

with that.

Chair Roessler: I know. It almost killed the Work 

Group, I think. But, okay, now I am going to have 

limited time between now and next week and I could 

-- What I think we are proposing is to go through the 

nine issues, show that the eight are closed fairly 

quickly, we can do that with a slide presentation I 

think.

And on the eighth one though I think I'll need a little 

bit of help from somebody, maybe somebody from 

NIOSH can, Jim or Tom and Joe can help me put 

something together for that one.

Mr. Katz: So when you say the eighth one you mean 

the external dose from the residual floor 

contamination?

Chair Roessler: Would you say that again, I didn't 

quite hear you?

Mr. Katz: Which do you mean by the eighth one, do 

you mean --

Chair Roessler: Okay. When --

(Simultaneous speaking)

Dr. Neton: Well, the MCNP.
53

Mr. Katz: Oh, okay. Okay, not the --

(Simultaneous speaking)

Chair Roessler: This whole fuel pellet thing is -- 

Mr. Katz: Yes, yes, okay, I got you.

Chair Roessler: Yes, I was -- 

(Simultaneous speaking)

Dr. Anigstein: The Finding Number 6.

Mr. Katz: Yes, right, understood.

Chair Roessler: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Okay.

(Simultaneous speaking)

Chair Roessler: -- and then the one that is not closed 

addresses these three findings on this last fuel pellet 

issue.

Mr. Katz: Yes. So we can get someone from NIOSH 

maybe to give Gen sort of a simple slide, couple 

slides, whatever, to address this last matter in a very 

sort of 10,000-foot level?

Dr. Neton: Yes. This is Jim. I think we can do that, 

like a path forward sort of slide for this Finding 6.

Mr. Katz: Yes. Yes, and just -- 

Chair Roessler: If you could put it in something that 

I could put on PowerPoint, then I can put the other, 

I can summarize the other issues.

Now I will not be at the meeting personally, I will be 

on the telephone, but I think we can handle that 

okay.

Mr. Katz: Yes, we can.

Dr. Neton: We'll more than likely put it in a 
54

PowerPoint format, because that's the easiest for us.

Chair Roessler: Yes, it's easiest for me, too.

Dr. Neton: What about the other issues though, who 

is going to summarize those?

Mr. Katz: Gen is.

Chair Roessler: I can do that, or if Tom wants to help 

me, that would be okay, too.

Mr. Tomes: I can do that, yes.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Why don't we -- 

Dr. Neton: We may as well just list them, yes.

Chair Roessler: Just list them briefly and we can 

present that. Yes, Tom, if you can do that, and Jim, 

you can give me the one on the fuel pellet -- 

Dr. Neton: Well, I think I'll let Tom do that, too, since 

he --

(Simultaneous speaking)

Mr. Katz: I mean this will help logistically -- 

Chair Roessler: Well, Tom and I have worked on this 

before, so I am sure we can work it out.

Dr. Neton: Yes. No, I think we can do that.

Chair Roessler: And we can talk, you know, offline we 

can talk about timing and so on.

Dr. Neton: Yes. I'm going to be out of the office 

between now and the Monday before the Board 

meeting, so I will make sure someone else is 

available to, you know, review it and get it out the 

door.

Mr. Katz: Yes. So Tom, if you would just copy me 

when you send things to Gen, send the draft to Gen. 

And Gen and Tom, just let me know me when it's 

final, because I'll need to get that out.
55

It will probably be pretty late for getting it out to the 

Board members and get it to Glenda Leary to post. 

Someone will have to -- Someone from -- Glenda will 

have to put it in proper form to get it posted in time, 

because that will be very late.

So if you, again, would keep me in the loop and make 

sure I get the final, then whenever that comes in, I 

will get that distributed and posted.

Chair Roessler: Well we don't really have much time 

because --

Mr. Katz: We don't.

Chair Roessler: -- for you to do that, we need to 

probably finalize something before the weekend.

Mr. Katz: Yes, definitely.

Dr. Neton: Yes. And tomorrow is right now a 

government holiday by the way.

Chair Roessler: Okay.

Mr. Katz: Yes, yes, for President Bush, yes.

Mr. Tomes: Gen, this is Tom. I have one question just 

to help me get started on this. For the nine issues we 

want basically a bulleted, or a list of all the issues and 

just in a very brief summary of how they were 

resolved --

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Mr. Tomes: -- and then for this MCNP issue you just 

want maybe a couple slides to give a little bit more 

details on that?

Chair Roessler: That sounds good, yes.

Mr. Katz: Yes.

Chair Roessler: On the eight issues that are closed I 

think the main thing is to say that they are closed.
56

Mr. Tomes: Okay. 

Mr. Katz: Oh, yes, you need to summarize them just 

a little bit, Tom, so that it makes sense what was the 

issue and how it was resolved.

Mr. Tomes: Okay. It will be very brief on those, yes.

Mr. Katz: Yes, because Gen will need to give that 

much detail for the Board at least.

Chair Roessler: Yes.

Mr. Katz: Yes. 

Chair Roessler: So if I could get something I would 

say by Friday, I've got Friday open where I can go 

over this, and then we try and turn around and get 

something to Ted.

Mr. Tomes: I can do that, yes.

Chair Roessler: Okay. Okay.

Mr. Katz: That's the plan. Right, great.

Chair Roessler: So have we reached the end of our 

meeting today, or is there any other discussion and 

questions or advice?

Mr. Katz: No. I think we're finished, and you have a 

plan and you will present from on the phone, which 

will work fine.

Chair Roessler: Okay.

Mr. Katz: We should be good. We have plenty of time 

for this presentation at the Board meeting, so it will 

be good.

Mr. Traub: Yes, this is Rick Traub. I've got a question 

for Dr. Anigstein on the point detectors.

Dr. Anigstein: Yes?

Mr. Traub: What was the exclusion zone that you 

used?
57

Dr. Anigstein: Zero.

Mr. Traub: Okay. Thank you.

Dr. Anigstein: That was recommended by Dr. 

Hendricks.

Mr. Katz: Okay. So thank you, everybody. Gen, if you 

are ready, I think -- 

Chair Roessler: I am ready. You can close -- 

(Simultaneous speaking)

Member Field: Can I just say thanks for that 

wonderful presentation today. I know it was very 

detailed, but I think it was very helpful, so I really 

thank you for that presentation.

Chair Roessler: Yes, Bob, you are a good instructor.

Dr. Anigstein: Thank you.

Mr. Katz: Yes, you are good -- 

(Simultaneous speaking)

Member Clawson: I don't understand what you said, 

but it was still good instruction and it was meaningful, 

but it's all good, and I appreciate it, too, Bob.

I appreciate NIOSH's and everybody's input to help 

all of us understand it better too.

Dr. Anigstein: Yes.

Adjourn

Mr. Katz: Okay. So with that I think thanks, 

everybody, and we are adjourned and I will see some 

of you next week and I will hear the rest of you on 

the phone.

Chair Roessler: Thank you.

(Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off the 

record at 11:54 a.m.)
58