STEVEN RAY GREEN AND ASSOCIATES 

NATIONALLY CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS 

404/733-6070 

THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

convenes the 

WORKING GROUP MEETING 

ADVISORY BOARD ON 

 

RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

LINDE SITE PROFILE

 

The verbatim transcript of the Working 

Group Meeting of the Advisory Board on Radiation and 

Worker Health held in St. Louis, Missouri, on June 

23, 2008. 
2

C O N T E N T S

June 23, 2008 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS 6 

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO 

INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR 10 

REVISION REPORT SUMMARY 13 

COURT REPORTER’S CERTIFICATE 56 
3

TRANSCRIPT LEGEND

The following transcript contains quoted material. Such 

material is reproduced as read or spoken. 

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

an unintentional or purposeful interruption of a 

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

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

word(s) when reading written material. 

-- (sic) denotes an incorrect usage or pronunciation 

of a word which is transcribed in its original form as 

reported. 

-- (phonetically) indicates a phonetic spelling of 

the word if no confirmation of the correct spelling is 

available. 

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

"uh-uh" represents a negative response. 

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

without reference available. 

-- (inaudible)/ (unintelligible) signifies speaker 

failure, usually failure to use a microphone. 
4

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

(By Group, in Alphabetical Order) 

EXECUTIVE SECRETARY

BRANCHE, Christine, Ph.D. 

Principal Associate Director 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health 

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention 

Washington, DC 

 

 

MEMBERSHIP

BEACH, Josie 

Nuclear Chemical Operator 

Hanford Reservation 

Richland, Washington 

1 LOCKEY, James, M.D. 

2 Professor, Department of Environmental Health 

3 College of Medicine, University of Cincinnati 

ROESSLER, Genevieve S., Ph.D. 

Professor Emeritus 

University of Florida 

Elysian, Minnesota 
5

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS

 ADAMS, NANCY, NIOSH 

 ANIGSTEIN, BOB, SC&A 

 CHANG, CHIA-CHIA, NIOSH 

 CRAWFORD, CHRIS, NIOSH 

 GIVENS, DANA, SEN. CLINTON 

 GUIDO, JOE, ORAU 

 HINNEFELD, STU, NIOSH 

 HOFF, JENNIFER, ORAU 

 HOWELL, EMILY, HHS 

 MAURO, JOHN, SC&A 

 MCGOLERICK, ROBERT, HHS 

 NETON, JIM, NIOSH 

 OSTROW, STEVE, SC&A 
6

P R O C E E D I N G S

1 (4:30 p.m.) 

2 

WELCOME AND OPENING COMMENTS

DR. CHRISTINE BRANCHE, DFO

3 DR. BRANCHE: Good afternoon. Dr. Lockey, can 

4 you still hear me? 

5 DR. LOCKEY: Yes, I do. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: Great. Ray, are you ready? 

7 THE COURT REPORTER: Yes. 

8 DR. BRANCHE: Welcome to the Linde workgroup 

9 meeting. I'm Dr. Christine Branche and I have 

10 the distinct honor of being the Designated 

11 Federal Official for the Advisory Board on 

12 Radiation and Worker Health. 

13 Dr. Roessler, are you ready? 

14 DR. ROESSLER: I'm ready. 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, then let's start the 

16 formalities. 

17 Would the Board members who are in the room 

18 please state your names. 

19 DR. ROESSLER: Gen Roessler, I'm chair of the 

20 Linde workgroup. 

21 MS. BEACH: Josie Beach. 
7

1 DR. BRANCHE: Would the workgroup members who 

2 are participating by phone please state your 

3 names? 

4 DR. LOCKEY: James Lockey. 

5 MR. CRAWFORD: Chris Crawford. 

6 DR. BRANCHE: We're just doing the -- we're 

7 doing by categories, Mr. Crawford, if you could 

8 please hold. I might ask you to say your name 

9 at the next inter-- intro-- 

10 MR. CRAWFORD: Oh, sorry. I missed that. 

11 Thanks. 

12 DR. BRANCHE: Okay. Thank you very much. Are 

13 there any other Board members? 

14 (No responses) 

15 We do not have a quorum of the Board so we may 

16 proceed. 

17 Would the NIOSH staff in the room please state 

18 your names and say if you have a conflict for 

19 the Linde site. 

20 MR. HINNEFELD: Stu Hinnefeld from Cincinnati. 

21 I don't have a conflict. 

22 MS. CHANG: Chia-Chia Chang, no conflict. 

23 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, no conflict. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: NIOSH staff participating by 

25 phone, would you please state your names and 
8

1 tell us if you have a conflict with the Linde 

2 site. 

3 MR. CRAWFORD: Chris Crawford, no conflict. 

4 DR. BRANCHE: ORAU staff in the room, please 

5 state your name -- sorry, ORAU staff 

6 participating by phone, please state your names 

7 and say if you have a conflict. 

8 MR. GUIDO: This is Joe Guido, I do not have a 

9 conflict. 

10 MS. HOFF: Jennifer Hoff, no conflict. 

11 DR. BRANCHE: SC&A staff in the room, please 

12 state your names and tell us if you have a 

13 conflict, please. 

14 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, no conflict. 

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Robert Anigstein, no conflict. 

16 DR. BRANCHE: SC&A staff by phone, would you 

17 please state your names and tell us if you have 

18 a conflict? 

19 DR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow, no conflict. 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Other federal agency staff in the 

21 room, please state your names and tell us if 

22 you have a conflict. 

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

24 MR. MCGOLERICK: Robert McGolerick, HHS, no 

25 conflict. 
9

1 DR. BRANCHE: Federal agency staff -- excuse 

2 me, other federal agency staff participating by 

3 phone, would you please state your names and 

4 tell us if you have a conflict. 

5 (No responses) 

6 Petitioners or their representatives, would you 

7 please state your names and tell us if you -- 

8 I'm sorry, would you please state your names? 

9 (No responses) 

10 Workers or their representatives, would you 

11 please state your names? 

12 (No responses) 

13 Any members of Congress or their 

14 representatives, would you please state your 

15 names? 

16 MS. GIVENS: Dana Givens, Senator Clinton's 

17 office. 

18 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you, Ms. Givens. Are there 

19 any others who would like to state their names 

20 for the record? 

21 (No responses) 

22 Any other people who've joined the room? 

23 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH, no conflict. 

24 DR. BRANCHE: Thank you, Dr. Neton. We 

25 appreciate the participation by phone, but we 
10

1 do ask that all phone participants mute their 

2 lines. If you do not have a mute button, then 

3 please use star-6. It is critical that 

4 everyone participating by phone mute their 

5 lines so that all phone participants can hear. 

6 You might be very surprised at just how much 

7 the phone line picks up. 

8 Also, if you do need to leave the line 

9 momentarily, please do not put us on hold. We 

10 would then have the interference of whatever 

11 music or sound your hold button or hold system 

12 uses. 

13 When you're ready to speak please unmute your 

14 phones or use the star-6 so that you can 

15 participate. And thank you so much for your 

16 participation by phone and your adhering to the 

17 telephone etiquette. 

18 Dr. Roessler? 

19 INTRODUCTION BY CHAIR

20 DR. ROESSLER: We have, I think, all critical 

21 members here except for Mike Gibson, who's a 

22 member of the workgroup. Mike is I think -- I 

23 hope on the way from the airport and I asked 

24 him to join by cell phone if he could, so -- 

25 DR. NETON: I came in from the airport with 
11

1 Mike, so... 

2 DR. ROESSLER: You did, so Mike is in the 

3 hotel. 

4 DR. NETON: He's in the hotel. 

5 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. Then we should -- we 

6 expect him here shortly, I hope. 

7 We last met by teleconference on June 6. At 

8 that time we discussed one remaining issue that 

9 has to do with the site profile. And by the 

10 way, just as a reminder, this is a site profile 

11 review. That issue we have called the burlap 

12 bag issue. At that meeting on June 6th SC&A 

13 reported that they realized they needed to make 

14 some adjustments in their evaluation -- 

15 DR. BRANCHE: Excuse me, Dr. Roessler. 

16 DR. ROESSLER: Sure. 

17 DR. BRANCHE: There's a person participating by 

18 phone, we do need you to mute your line, star-6 

19 if you do not have a mute button. Thank you so 

20 much. I'm sorry, Dr. Roessler. 

21 DR. ROESSLER: One of the adjustments that SC&A 

22 said they needed to make was with regard to the 

23 concentration of U-308 in the African ore. 

24 They also presented some rationale for doing 

25 some beta calculations. This was all included 
12

1 in the June 10th revision to their report, 

2 Linde -- the title is "Linde Radiation Exposure 

3 to Ore-containing Burlap Bags." I have not 

4 passed that report out. Members of the 

5 workgroup have it, SC&A has it and NIOSH has 

6 it, and it has not been Privacy released yet so 

7 -- 

8 DR. BRANCHE: It hasn't been cleared. 

9 DR. ROESSLER: Cleared, right -- so I don't 

10 have copies here, but I think everybody has 

11 that. 

12 That report went to NIOSH and NIOSH has had a 

13 chance to respond. Again there we have a 

14 short, one-page summary of their review of the 

15 SC&A response. That came out on June 19th and 

16 I have a copy here. Others on the workgroup 

17 and other pertinent people should have it, but 

18 that one I assumed also, Christine, that I 

19 couldn't pass out so I didn't make -- 

20 DR. BRANCHE: Okay, thank you. 

21 DR. ROESSLER: -- copies of it. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: You're right. 

23 DR. ROESSLER: So what I thought we'd do today 

24 -- 

25 DR. BRANCHE: If I could say to -- something 
13

1 for the record so the people participating by 

2 phone could understand, we got the documents 

3 very close to our departure for this meeting, 

4 and so it isn't that we're holding off on them, 

5 it's just that they have to be Privacy Act 

6 cleared. And once that happens, we can post 

7 them on -- in the appropriate places, so I'm 

8 sorry, Dr. Roessler. 

9 DR. ROESSLER: I thought the procedure we'd 

10 take today is to have Steve Ostrow, who's on 

11 the phone, briefly go over his revision to the 

12 -- in the June 10th report -- very briefly, 

13 Steve. Then we'll ask NIOSH to respond. We do 

14 have Chris Crawford and Joe Guido on the phone 

15 and we have Jim Neton and Stu Hinnefeld here. 

16 Then I'm hoping that on this one -- less than 

17 one full issue, we can come to a resolution 

18 today so that we can complete the site profile 

19 review and get on to the next step. So that's 

20 -- that's my goal. 

21 REVISION REPORT SUMMARY

22 So the first thing then, I'd like to ask -- 

23 Steve, would you do a very brief summary of 

24 your revision report? 

25 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I was pointing at -- Steve, is 
14

1 -- if it's okay by you -- this is Bob, I -- I 

2 took the lead on this at this point so perhaps 

3 I -- I might be in a better position to do 

4 that. 

5 DR. ROESSLER: If that's okay with Steve, it's 

6 okay with me. 

7 DR. OSTROW: That's okay with me, Bob, sure. 

8 DR. ROESSLER: Okay. 

9 DR. OSTROW: Go right ahead. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. Basically, we changed 

11 the -- we -- we redid the MCNP calculations 

12 using a lower -- what we used was actually the 

13 base -- not the TBD, but the report -- the 

14 December 1981 report prepared -- I referred to 

15 it as Wallow* because he was the author. It's 

16 the Aerospace -- at that time he was working 

17 for the Aerospace Corporation. And what 

18 appeared to be a reasonable amount to use was -

19 - there was a table in that report which refers 

20 to the assumed concentration of African ore 

21 that they used in their analysis, and they said 

22 that for 1944, the first nine months of 1944, 

23 African L-30 ore was between eight and 12, but 

24 they assumed for the purposes of their 

25 assessment 10.8 percent. So that seemed like a 
15

1 reasonable upper bound of the concentration to 

2 use for a chronic exposure. I mean it may have 

3 -- obviously some -- some of the ores were -- 

4 were more, some of them were less, but this is 

5 the highest for a continuous period. And then 

6 we had to redo the analysis because then we 

7 also used -- got the actual concentrations of 

8 various other elements in the ore, so you need 

9 -- you need that. In other words, the ore was 

10 -- before we just assumed it was U-308 and 70 

11 percent, and the balance was silicon dioxide, 

12 and now we had a more realistic. So I would 

13 say -- these are like techni-- min-- minor 

14 tweaks to make the analysis more realistic. 

15 That was the primary change. And then we 

16 simply, in the report, took note of these 

17 changes of these amendments. 

18 The results are reasonably consistent with the 

19 Skinner analysis -- not quite, but we feel -- 

20 we saw -- there is the NIOSH response. We 

21 still feel that it would make more sense to use 

22 the calculated results, because the calculated 

23 results use an average concentration over a 

24 period of almost a year, whereas the 

25 measurement was just one measurement, based on 
16

1 one particular batch of ore. 

2 DR. MAURO: Do we know the difference between 

3 the two annual doses that are equivalent -- in 

4 other words, in the end, the difference between 

5 the measured dose rate and the -- 

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's -- it's not very large. 

7 It's on the order of -- I forget now, 25 -- on 

8 the order of -- it's within about 20, 30, 40 

9 percent; I don't have the number -- 

10 DR. ROESSLER: Do you have the actual -- 

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- at my fingertips. 

12 DR. ROESSLER: -- dose number? What sort of 

13 dose level are we talking about? 

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We're talking about dose rates. 

15 Okay, what we come up with, based on this now, 

16 is a -- would be an annual exposure -- if 

17 someone was standing at one foot from the ore -

18 - or shall we say -- can't really say exposure 

19 to -- because exposure's to the air, not to a 

20 person, so at a point one foot from the ore for 

21 one hour a day, 250 days a year, by coincidence 

22 we get 1.85 R per year. 

23 DR. OSTROW: Excuse me, Bob, this is Steve. 

24 I'm just looking at the numbers now. As you 

25 said, our calculation is 1.85 R per year. The 
17

1 Skinner measurements are 1.50 R per year, so 

2 they're very close at one foot. 

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Okay, thank you. 

4 DR. OSTROW: It's 1.85 versus 1.5. 

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But again, the -- you know, 

6 obviously this is not what -- you know, a point 

7 -- a point of contention. 

8 DR. OSTROW: Yes. 

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The main point we have is also 

10 -- we still maintain that if, as one worker 

11 reported, someone was actually sitting on those 

12 bags during their lunch hour -- say the empty 

13 bags, because even there we did both the full 

14 bags and the -- the empty, quote/unquote, so 

15 these -- the empty bags had been shaken and 

16 when the -- by shaking them, they left only 

17 half a pound of ore in each bag, according to 

18 this Olevitch report, and then they were 

19 washed. We don't know how much came out in the 

20 washing. The goal was to get 70 percent out. 

21 They said it was -- up to 70 percent was 

22 feasible. That was in the report that was 

23 written about the feasibility of the washing, 

24 so we just made the assumption that it's 50 

25 percent. You know, that seemed reasonable. If 
18

1 it was less than 50 percent -- much less than 

2 50 percent, why bother washing them, but it -- 

3 it's just an educated guess. 

4 And so with that, we end up at one foot -- 

5 sitting on the bags now, we get a rate that is 

6 about one and a half times, almost twice as 

7 much, as at one foot -- as at one foot from the 

8 -- from the full bags. And we think that this 

9 would be a reasonable thing to use. 

10 In addition, because if someone is sitting on 

11 the bags the lower organs are very close to the 

12 bags, and at one foot is not longer a claimant13 favorable assumption because, as everyone I'm 

14 sure realizes, the purpose of calculating an 

15 exposure rate at a point in air is there is 

16 then the -- what is it, OCAS OG-1 -- the dose 

17 conversion factors, which use the exposure rate 

18 to give the dose to each different organ. But 

19 it -- you know, since here the -- the exposure 

20 rate would change with distance, you've got to 

21 use it where the organ is. So -- and of course 

22 if it's the full bag -- if they really were 

23 sitting on full bags, then it's much higher. 

24 Then we have a rate -- in other words, we have 

25 the hourly rate is 12.9 MR per hour contact 
19

1 with the empty bags and 40.9 -- 

2 DR. ROESSLER: MR or -- 

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- contact with the full bags. 

4 DR. ROESSLER: Earlier you said -- 

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon? 

6 DR. ROESSLER: Earlier you said 1.85 R per 

7 hour, now you just said -- 

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Per year. 

9 DR. ROESSLER: -- MR -- per year. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Per year. 

11 DR. ROESSLER: Okay, now we're at R. Okay. 

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. In the report we did 

13 not put in per year, we just -- we did not make 

14 -- we didn't want to go further and make the 

15 assumption about how many -- you know, we le-- 

16 we leave that to NIOSH, but it was just as an 

17 illustration we said that if we assume 250 

18 hours a year, it happens to come out to the -- 

19 DR. ROESSLER: I see. 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- 1.85 R per year. 

21 DR. NETON: Bob, that R per hour is beta/gamma 

22 combined? 

23 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, the R per hour is purely -- 

24 that's a -- by definition, R can -- is only a 

25 measure of photons. 
20

1 UNIDENTIFIED: No, it's not. 

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Roentgen -- only photons 

3 contribute to Roentgen. 

4 UNIDENTIFIED: Since when? 

5 DR. MAURO: Roentgens, by definition -- 

6 DR. NETON: They're called rad -- 

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: By definition. 

8 DR. NETON: Oh, yeah, but I mean -- 

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Ionization in air. 

10 DR. NETON: -- a lot of times you combine 

11 beta/gamma into one unit. 

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, but then it would -- 

13 DR. NETON: So this is purely gamma. 

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- then it would be -- okay, 

15 that's a -- that's a thing -- no, no, we -- 

16 remember, we did an MCNP calculation. We 

17 didn't have a meter there to worry about the 

18 shielding. The -- the betas are separate. 

19 The betas actually are less than the -- than 

20 the -- in this instance, now that we've used 

21 the less-rich -- less-rich ore, the -- there 

22 was enough self-absorption of the betas by the 

23 non-radioactive elements that the betas come 

24 out to less. 

25 DR. ROESSLER: Less -- 
21

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The betas look -- 

2 DR. ROESSLER: Less than -- less than what? 

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Less than the gammas. Now as 

4 the beta -- again, you're comparing apples and 

5 oranges. The -- the numerical value of the 

6 beta dose rate in millirads per hour to the 

7 skin is less than the numerical value of the 

8 exposure rate in MR per hour -- milliroentgens 

9 per hour. So again, the -- they're two 

10 different units. Of course the conversion is 

11 on the order or 70, 80 -- about 80 percent, so 

12 it's not a huge difference in the conversion. 

13 The other point that we have in response to the 

14 -- response to the NIOSH response is -- the 

15 NIOSH response was that it's already accounted 

16 for because, by coincidence, the 1.85 R per 

17 year has been assigned in -- for that period of 

18 time, based on film badge data, to workers 

19 doing removal of contaminated equipment. And 

20 so 1 -- 1.85 R per year was assigned as the 

21 median, and then there was a GSD that would 

22 result in a 95th percentile that was ten times 

23 that. 

24 And our response to that is that that 

25 assignment was done independently of this 
22

1 burlap bag issue. In other words, NIOSH was 

2 not -- not -- NIOSH and SC&A were not aware of 

3 the burlap bag issue at that time, so it does 

4 not seem to us to be reasonable to say it's 

5 already accounted for when in fact this is a 

6 new exposure pathway. And if it was, you know, 

7 ten percent of the other one, we would say, you 

8 know, it's a minor perturbation. It can't 

9 really matter. But since it's numerically 

10 equal to that, so now -- during the lunch hour 

11 people are getting a dose -- exposure rate that 

12 is now equal to the exposure rate that was 

13 assigned them by NIOSH for the entire work day, 

14 it would seem that if this exposure pathway of 

15 this scenario is believable, is credible, then 

16 the two should be added together. 

17 DR. OSTROW: Bob, plus -- this -- this is 

18 Steve. Also the fact that you mentioned 

19 before, that the one-foot dose, if someone is 

20 actually sitting on the bag, if that's 

21 credible, then you have to take that into 

22 account also. That's higher. 

23 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. This is for standing next 

24 to the bag. Also for someone sitting on the 

25 bag and the upper organs, the organs in the 
23

1 chest and higher that would be like one foot or 

2 more from the -- you know, from the bags. 

3 DR. ROESSLER: So this -- adding the two 

4 together then only applies to the organs that 

5 are close to the -- 

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, the adding the -- 

7 DR. ROESSLER: -- you know, like prosta-- 

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- two together would be -- the 

9 1.85 R per year would be at one foot, so that 

10 would basically encompass the entire body of 

11 the person -- 

12 DR. ROESSLER: But then the -- 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- unless you wanted to do an 

14 organ-by-organ and say well, the -- you know, 

15 the thyroid is higher, the leg bones are lower. 

16 But I mean -- 

17 DR. ROESSLER: Yeah, but the beta dose, explain 

18 now the beta dose. 

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Now we're talking about the -- 

20 now I'm just talking about the gamma dose. The 

21 beta dose is about a -- seems to be about a 

22 third of the gamma exposure rate. 

23 MR. GUIDO: This is Joe Guido, I just wanted to 

24 make a comment, something you just said. For 

25 the -- the organs in the upper chest area, if 
24

1 you're sitting on these bags, wouldn't the 

2 person's buttocks shield them from the 

3 radiation more than the air? In other words, 

4 would it -- is it really -- are we really 

5 talking about the dose to let's say the lungs 

6 being the same as -- you know, through the seat 

7 of the pants being the same as one foot through 

8 air? 

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, in answer -- 

10 MR. GUIDO: Or had you considered that? I mean 

11 it's in... 

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The -- the response to that 

13 would be that if NIOSH is using the dose 

14 conver-- exposure rate in dose conversion 

15 factors, that's a simplified math -- method. 

16 If you were actually to do an organ dose, or if 

17 I was assigned to do that, I would run MCNP and 

18 use that actual configuration and use the 

19 anthropomorphic phantom and calculate the 

20 actual dose to the organ. But that's not how 

21 NIOSH typically does dose reconstruction 

22 because that would be a very tedious way of 

23 doing it for each and every individual. 

24 DR. MAURO: May-- let me -- what I'm -- what I 

25 see here is that we really don't have any 
25

1 disagreement regarding exposure rates or dose 

2 rates as a function of distance and -- and/or 

3 given the scenario, if you would. The real -- 

4 the real question is do we -- does NIOSH feel 

5 that a lunchtime scenario should be something 

6 that should be factored into this particular 

7 dose reconstruction, do we believe it's -- that 

8 -- 'cause really, the -- the information we 

9 have is based on an interview. The interview 

10 says well, yeah, people might have been one 

11 foot away from either these full or empty bags, 

12 and this also -- and -- and the interview said 

13 it sounds like that some people may very well 

14 have sat on some empty bags. So what these 

15 become are new scenarios that were not 

16 explicitly embraced in the exposure matrix. If 

17 in fact it's determined that yes, it's 

18 plausible and maybe appropriate to include 

19 those scenarios, then it becomes a matter -- 

20 matter of well, how do we do that. Right now 

21 we do have, I gue-- sounds like some film badge 

22 data that give you a distribution and that is 

23 the basis for your exposure matrix, and tha-- 

24 and that was what was being embraced by NIOSH 

25 from the beginning. Now we're saying well, now 
26

1 here's another -- and whatever those exposures 

2 from the -- are from their work day, they -- 

3 they're doing their work day and you -- so I 

4 guess we not -- we're not disputing any of 

5 that. We're saying is it appropriate to add to 

6 that dose this additional dose, which is -- and 

7 what -- from what I'm hearing, about comparable 

8 to dose -- in other words, the dose -- if you 

9 were to add in this other scenario, this one 

10 hour per day up close and personal to the bags, 

11 is it appropriate to consider that to be added 

12 to the annual dose that's assoc-- that you 

13 derive from the film badge data, or does it -- 

14 the film badge data already, for all intents 

15 and purposes, take that into consideration and 

16 the way in which you use the film badge data 

17 already take that into consideration. 

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, it can't -- it can't take 

19 it into consideration when the film badge was 

20 based on an entirely different situation. On a 

21 1940 -- film badge goes to 1948 when they were 

22 dismantling -- 

23 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

24 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- moving some contaminated 

25 equipment and NIOSH has used that as a 
27

1 surrogate -- 

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- now for later years. 

4 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So those were -- 

6 DR. MAURO: Okay, so -- so you're saying that 

7 it -- that particular -- those numbers really 

8 don't apply to this other scenario. Okay, no, 

9 I can understand that. That helps. So I -- I 

10 -- what I'm hearing, and -- and thanks for that 

11 correction, Bob -- is do we want -- does -- 

12 does it -- is it reasonable to -- to add this 

13 in. And Steve, am I -- am I characterizing the 

14 -- the -- really the fundamental question? I 

15 don't think there's too much debate about what 

16 this dose rate is. I think -- you know, 

17 whether it's the beta, the gamma, one foot or 

18 contact, if you were to assume that this was 

19 the scenario, that would be the dose rate or 

20 exposure rate, and -- and as far as time 

21 period, whether you assume one hour per day or 

22 whatever, it's really a matter of wha-- what do 

23 we do with that information now. Do -- in 

24 terms of the exposure matrix, and what's the -- 

25 what's the reasonable thing to do. I think the 
28

1 -- correct me again, the reason we've -- we're 

2 been looking at this is because I believe one 

3 of the workers has some information that seemed 

4 to indicate that this might be a plausible 

5 scenario, and I guess right now we evaluated -- 

6 all right, if that's a plausible scenario -- 

7 what the doses would be. But now we're 

8 confronted with the question of well, do we 

9 consider this to be a plausible scenario and, 

10 if so, what do we do about it. 

11 DR. NETON: I should probably let Chris 

12 Crawford speak, or Joe Guido, but since I'm in 

13 the room -- it seems to me to be one of these 

14 weight of the evidence type things. We have 

15 one worker who asserts that he saw these bags. 

16 And then to take that to what seems to us to be 

17 an extreme to say that okay -- and there's no 

18 disagreement on the dose rates coming off the 

19 bags. I think you guys have done another good 

20 job verifying that we're in the right ball park 

21 -- after some mid-course corrections, but -- 

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

23 DR. NETON: -- but then to take that scenario, 

24 one person viewed these bags, and then to take 

25 that and assume that -- to double the dose you 
29

1 have to assume that every worker we're going to 

2 assign a dose to now sat on those bags one hour 

3 per day for 200 days per year on bags that may 

4 or may not have been contaminated in the first 

5 place. Remember, the worker never asserted 

6 that these bags were actually contaminated and 

7 had uranium in them. We have very credible 

8 evidence -- and Chris Crawford can elucidate on 

9 this, possibly -- that there was no uranium 

10 there. They did a plant survey, they cleared 

11 out the area. The uranium was all removed from 

12 the facility. So you know, you've got two 

13 extremes here. You have -- we're saying we're 

14 not sure this -- if it really happened, and 

15 then the SC&A approach is to say well, if it 

16 did happen -- and it seems like you believe it 

17 happened because that's your recommendation, to 

18 add this dose in -- I don't know. So that's 

19 where we're at. 

20 (Whereupon, Drs. Neton, Anigstein and Mauro all 

21 spoke simultaneously.) 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, it isn't. It actually 

23 isn't. 

24 DR. MAURO: It isn't. 

25 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We say that if you -- if you -- 
30

1 DR. NETON: Well, what's your recommendation 

2 then? 

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- no, my rec-- our 

4 recommendation is if the scenario is accepted, 

5 then the recommendation is to add the dose in. 

6 If the scenario is thought not to be credible, 

7 we don't have that position. Is that correct, 

8 John? We don't -- 

9 DR. MAURO: I think that's fair. I mean 'cause 

10 we're in the same situation you're in. This is 

11 a judgment call based on the weight of the 

12 evidence -- 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The -- 

14 DR. MAURO: -- and the weight of the evidence 

15 is -- is ambiguous right now. How much weight 

16 do we give? Now in the past -- we've been in 

17 this situation in the past. In fact, Arjun's 

18 been in this situation. We do have information 

19 from credible expert -- site experts. What do 

20 you do when you have a piece of informa-- which 

21 is not entirely compatible with some of the 

22 historical records we have. 

23 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, one -- one -- one thing 

24 in favor of this is, again, this O-- this 

25 Sergeant Olevitch, 1944, who did state that it 
31

1 was something like 15,000 emptied burlap bags 

2 in the back. Now by empty, quote/unquote, 

3 meaning uranium -- that had contained uranium, 

4 and they were being stored. They had been 

5 washed. They had been stored. Then later then 

6 instituted incineration to get the residue of 

7 those ore out. The question is, did the 

8 incinera-- was that just a procedure for new 

9 ore bags coming in, or did they go to the back, 

10 wherever that was, and incinerate all those 

11 bags also. And so I'm just saying -- again, 

12 I'm not arguing in that favor. I'm simply 

13 saying here is something that makes it 

14 plausible that the bags could have been left 

15 over. 

16 MR. GUIDO: Joe -- this is Joe Guido, though. 

17 I want to mention something here. The -- the 

18 scenario we're evaluating is specifically 

19 because of an affidavit turned in by a former 

20 Linde employee who specifically states that he 

21 saw filled bags of something. These aren't 

22 emp-- these aren't empty bags. These aren't, 

23 you know, empty bags -- 'cause I -- I mean I 

24 guess what you're kind of saying is maybe a 

25 pallet of these bags that should have been 
32

1 burned made their way to this warehouse 

2 sometime and showed up in 1951 when they were 

3 (unintelligible) burned in 1946, but it -- you 

4 know, we're talking about full bags. So 

5 really, I -- I think what we're all talking 

6 about is a pallet of uranium ore that was still 

7 there in 1951, not -- you know, it has nothing 

8 to do with the -- you know, the -- the 

9 laundering -- incineration of bags, in my mind. 

10 You know, I guess I wanted to throw that out 

11 because when we're talking about, you know, how 

12 credible this scenario is, I think we have to 

13 keep in mind the scenario we're talking about. 

14 And the scenario we're talking about is, you 

15 know, a pallet of uranium ore bags, filled. 

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I agree that was -- 

17 MR. GUIDO: Right? 

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- what the affidavit said, but 

19 Steve -- 

20 MR. GUIDO: Isn't that what we're going by, 

21 or... 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- Steve, during the interview 

23 of that worker did he mention -- whenever he 

24 said people were sitting on bags, was he 

25 referring to -- did he say empty bags? 
33

1 DR. OSTROW: I don't -- I don't -- I don't even 

2 know if he put the word "empty" in or not. I'd 

3 have to look at it again. 

4 DR. ROESSLER: So I guess what -- 

5 DR. MAURO: (Off microphone) (Unintelligible) 

6 where we are. 

7 DR. ROESSLER: -- what I'm hearing is that -- 

8 DR. NETON: Yeah, I see where we are. I mean 

9 that's the situation, it's a credible scenario. 

10 Right now our position is as we've stated it. 

11 Short of calling it incredible -- that's what 

12 we tried to say that it's -- it's -- we don't 

13 believe that the dose is -- the evidence is 

14 sufficient to double the doses to all the 

15 workers that are being reconstructed. I think 

16 that's a reasonable position on our part. 

17 MR. GUIDO: This is Joe Guido again. I just 

18 wanted to -- the other thing I'd mention is -- 

19 is there's nothing to say that during the dose 

20 reconstruction process for a specific claimant 

21 that something like this couldn't be added in 

22 if it was determined credible for a specific 

23 claimant. But what we're talking about here is 

24 the Technical Basis Document and an exposure 

25 matrix that would get assigned to all workers, 
34

1 and I think that's the sticking point we have 

2 here is, you know, we really don't see this as 

3 being a scenario to assign all workers this 

4 exposure. We're not saying that the -- you 

5 know, that you couldn't do this math and 

6 couldn't do these calculations if it was 

7 warranted for a specific instance. And I hope 

8 I -- I said that right, Chris, but that's -- 

9 DR. LOCKEY: This is Jim Lockey. What does the 

10 affidavit say? Does it say full bags or not? 

11 Does anybody know? 

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The affidavit says full bags. 

13 DR. LOCKEY: Full bags. So the affidavit 

14 states full bags. The likelihood of that being 

15 present in 1951, based on what I'm hearing, is 

16 relatively remote. Is that correct? 

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Now the affidavit -- to be 

18 perfectly factual, the affidavit states that he 

19 would stand near these bags. They looked like 

20 canvas sandbags, by the way, they were not 

21 burla-- and also -- however, there was ore 

22 delivered in canvas bags, also. And his 

23 foreman -- whom he named by name but who is 

24 possibly deceased by now -- told him no, these 

25 aren't sandbags, this is uranium ore. So he 
35

1 was -- he was basically -- even though he made 

2 an affidavit, he was quoting secondhand 

3 information. 

4 DR. LOCKEY: And does the affidavit say whether 

5 it's full or empty bags? 

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The affidavit says full. 

7 DR. LOCKEY: Full bags. 

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They -- yeah, they looked like 

9 sandbags. He doesn't -- 

10 DR. LOCKEY: Okay, so I'm -- I go back to the 

11 premise, what's the probability of having full 

12 uranium bags at this site in 1951. That 

13 doesn't sound like it's very probable. 

14 MR. CRAWFORD: Dr. Lockey, I agree with you -- 

15 this is Chris Crawford. We know that they went 

16 through quite a bit of trouble to account for 

17 their materials. And we also know that there 

18 was a survey done -- I guess Joe could fill in, 

19 but it's -- I think it was the end of 1950 or 

20 early '51 -- that didn't show any source of 

21 this type in Building 30. So where would 

22 suddenly full bags of ore have come from this 

23 late in the game, when the last ore that 

24 arrived was in '46 and all the equipment had 

25 been cleaned out prior to the 1951 time frame 
36

1 we're looking at here. 

2 DR. LOCKEY: It doesn't mean there weren't full 

3 bags there. The question is, is the 

4 probability of being full uranium bags from '46 

5 does not sound like it'd be a logical 

6 conclusion. Doesn't mean they weren't full 

7 bags of something, but it doesn't sound like -- 

8 with uranium being expensive and in short 

9 supply as it was during that time frame, it'd 

10 be difficult to figure out how they'd miss 

11 that. 

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And the -- and the SC&A report 

13 actually states that. 

14 DR. LOCKEY: It says that? 

15 DR. ROESSLER: So aren't we doing sort of a 

16 calculation based on a rather incredible 

17 situation? It doesn't -- I think what we have 

18 to decide is whether this is a credible 

19 situation for which to do a dose calculation. 

20 DR. MAURO: I agree. 

21 DR. LOCKEY: And we sort -- we sort of have to 

22 go by the weight of the evidence in this 

23 particular case. Is it possible? Yes. Is it 

24 as likely as not, or probable? That's the 

25 question. 
37

1 DR. ROESSLER: So I propose we're talking about 

2 a non-issue at this point, but I think SC&A has 

3 to weigh in on this. 

4 DR. MAURO: I guess I'll just take the first 

5 shot at it, is we're often in this difficult 

6 position where the record that we have -- the 

7 written record regarding the history of 

8 operations and what took place -- would seem to 

9 indicate that no, the bags weren't there at 

10 that time -- the ore bags were not there at 

11 that time. On the other hand, as we have on 

12 other occasions, have test-- inf-- information 

13 from workers that make reference to certain 

14 exposures -- 

15 DR. ROESSLER: One worker. 

16 DR. MAURO: One worker, one worker -- and -- 

17 and I think in keeping with our intent -- we 

18 said okay, let's first -- step one, let's first 

19 explore what the possible dosimetric 

20 implications are if we were to accept that this 

21 is a real scenario. And I think that's where 

22 we are today. We're at a place now where -- 

23 where we have finally got to a point where we 

24 all agree that if in fact you were to accept 

25 one of these scenarios, whether standing next 
38

1 to the bag or sitting on these empty bags, or 

2 full bags, these would be the kinds of doses 

3 that would be experienced. And now we're -- 

4 and I think that's -- well, I like to look at 

5 things as the glass is half full. We're in 

6 agreement that if you -- you know, what those -

7 - those doses would be if you agree. 

8 Now I have to say, an SC&A opinion on this, I -

9 - I for one, I don't know -- you know, the 

10 weight of the evidence, I don't know what we'd 

11 do in a circumstance like this. 

12 DR. LOCKEY: Well, that's the question we asked 

13 you, your -- what's the weight of the evidence? 

14 Would you say this is possible, equal, or 

15 probable? 

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Could I -- could I read -- 

17 DR. MAURO: Sure, go ahead. 

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- from -- from our -- I will 

19 read the SC&A report on page A-1 of Appendix A. 

20 (Reading) Given the ravenous appetite of the 

21 Manhattan Project and its successor, the Atomic 

22 Energy Commission, for every bit of recoverable 

23 uranium, it would appear unlikely that uranium 

24 ore would have been left at Linde in 1951. 

25 Nevertheless, in the interest of a complete 
39

1 analysis, we calculated the exposure rates -- 

2 et cetera. 

3 DR. LOCKEY: I remember -- Jim Lockey. I 

4 remember reading that in your report and -- and 

5 -- and it -- it certainly is possible, but I -- 

6 I would say that the weight of the evidence 

7 here would say it's possible but not probable, 

8 that it just doesn't -- there's -- we don't 

9 have enough -- there's no circumstantial 

10 evidence that this went on at other sites, 

11 based on how valuable that ore was, and there's 

12 a five-year lag period and nothing was found 

13 when the survey was done in '51. And so is it 

14 possible? Yes, but does -- the weight of the 

15 evidence is not -- does not push it to a 

16 probable cause. 

17 DR. ROESSLER: I see John shaking his head yes. 

18 Is SC&A ready to go with this conclusion that 

19 it is very unlikely and that -- 

20 DR. MAURO: I think that we're making progress. 

21 It sounds to me that -- especially from the 

22 statement that was just read, that having full 

23 bags of valuable ore at that time seems to be 

24 kind of incredible. I guess now we're -- we've 

25 got one more step. What about empty bags? 
40

1 Does it seem to be credible that there might 

2 have been some empty bags? Is there any reason 

3 why that should be taken as a -- as a more 

4 likely scenario than the full bags and -- 

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: More -- more likely... 

6 DR. MAURO: -- it's more -- and so I -- I'm 

7 hearing Bob right next to me saying well, of 

8 the two, full versus empty, empty certainly 

9 seems to be more likely. But does it reach the 

10 point of credibility and that it's -- you know, 

11 we deal with that. I -- I -- 

12 DR. NETON: What do we base our -- our logic on 

13 that there were empty bags, though? I mean we 

14 have no -- no testimony to that effect. We 

15 have testimony there were full bags -- 

16 DR. MAURO: Full bags. 

17 DR. NETON: -- and now we're saying well -- 

18 DR. MAURO: Yeah. 

19 DR. NETON: -- we could still be claimant 

20 favorable and make them empty bags -- 

21 DR. MAURO: I'm not saying we should. 

22 DR. NETON: -- just because that's -- 

23 DR. MAURO: I'm just -- but that -- 

24 DR. NETON: -- nice to do. 

25 DR. MAURO: -- that's the last question, 
41

1 though, and I can go -- 

2 DR. NETON: I think a cou-- I think what Joe 

3 Guido stated a little while ago is probably 

4 what our position would be, is that we see this 

5 scenario as not really credible, but it could 

6 be included in the site profile as an analysis 

7 in case it did appear credible in some certain 

8 dose reconstructions. I mean, you know, we 

9 could acknowledge that fact, that this would be 

10 the dose. And we -- I think we're in 

11 agreement; we could tweak the numbers, but 

12 whatever they come out, we would agree to those 

13 numbers. But we would not certainly -- 

14 DR. MAURO: Automatically. 

15 DR. NETON: -- I mean adopting them 

16 automatically in every single dose 

17 reconstruction, I mean that's -- I think that's 

18 -- 

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I just want to say, the reason 

20 -- the -- the reason why the empty bag would be 

21 credible is in one case they would say -- one 

22 could say well, this is ridiculous; why would 

23 they not use the -- that ore. However, why 

24 would they not get around to incinerating the 

25 shaken and washed bags? That might just be a 
42

1 little bit of slight careless-- you know, they 

2 just -- you know, they had so much to do that 

3 that little amount of ore was just not worth 

4 recovering. 

5 DR. MAURO: But it is important to point out 

6 that's not what the interviewee said, that's 

7 not -- 

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly, and -- and -- 

9 DR. MAURO: -- what he said, so we're -- we're 

10 the creators of this scenario right now -- 

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

12 DR. MAURO: -- not the interviewee. And I have 

13 to say, since we're the creators of it, I am -- 

14 and I -- I'm sort of inclined to agree with Jim 

15 to say that okay, if in fact such a scenario 

16 seems to be plausible on a case-by-case basis -

17 - I don't know under what circumstances that 

18 might emerge -- you certainly are in a position 

19 to add it in. I do find it difficult, in light 

20 of the conversation here, to automatically say 

21 that listen, we have to go with full or empty 

22 bags. I -- I just don't feel that there's a 

23 compelling argument to be made to -- to revise 

24 the entire matrix in light of everything I've 

25 heard. So I'd like to make sure that Bob and 
43

1 Steve feel the same way, and Arjun's been 

2 listening in to these arguments, and right now 

3 I would propose that SC&A would -- would agree 

4 with Jim to go with that scenario, but I'd like 

5 to hear some minority opinions from my own, you 

6 know, folks 'cause we're doing it in real time 

7 right now. 

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No comment. 

9 DR. OSTROW: Well, John -- this is Steve -- I 

10 think I agree with your argument. You know, 

11 what we were trying to do is sort of neutral, 

12 what -- we actually calculated the dose given 

13 this scenario. How likely this scenario is -- 

14 this is my personal opinion -- doesn't seem 

15 terribly likely. So -- so my opinion is 

16 perhaps it is excessive to just require adding 

17 this dose to everyone who was on the site at 

18 that time. 

19 DR. ROESSLER: So would -- let's maybe have Jim 

20 state what the NIOSH position would be, for the 

21 record. And then I would like to hear 

22 confirmation from John representing SC&A. 

23 DR. NETON: Hopefully the guys on the other end 

24 of the phone won't shoot me, but I think our 

25 general approach here would be to stay with the 
44

1 site profile the way it's written for the 

2 general case of dose reconstruction, but add a 

3 component to the Technical Basis Document that 

4 describes the dose -- dosimetric implications 

5 of someone sitting on or standing near full and 

6 partially empty -- or empty bags of uranium, 

7 and allow for the possibility that could be 

8 added, given that there was credible evidence 

9 that that exposure scenario occurred. 

10 DR. MAURO: Let me just pose a question. Is 

11 this something that pos-- are -- are you all 

12 through all your interviews and doing all your 

13 doses -- in other words, as part of the CATI 

14 process is there a possibility that a question 

15 like this could be posed, or is that behind us 

16 now? 

17 DR. NETON: You know, I really don't know. 

18 We're almost never finished with -- 

19 MR. HINNEFELD: I think really the stat-- 

20 sorry, this is Stu Hinnefeld -- the status of 

21 CATI progress would be, you know, dependent 

22 upon receipt of the -- the claim. So if the 

23 claim was received some time ago, those CATIs 

24 would have been completed, but if -- we could 

25 conceivably still be receiving claims today 
45

1 from the site and so the CATIs would not be 

2 done for those site-- for those -- 

3 DR. MAURO: Would you think it unreasonable to 

4 -- to have that as part of the process for -- 

5 for -- and to see if it -- to start to build a 

6 record that says that this is part of the -- 

7 for CATIs that have not been performed and 

8 explore wha-- what others might feel about -- 

9 'cause right now we have this one worker. 

10 DR. NETON: Yeah, we have to be careful with 

11 that. I mean -- 

12 DR. MAURO: I -- I (unintelligible) -- 

13 DR. NETON: -- there are OMB issues with these 

14 interviews, as -- as we've gone through early 

15 on in the program, that require us to use 

16 standard -- 

17 DR. MAURO: I understand. 

18 DR. NETON: -- scripted interviews that are 

19 covered under the Paperwork Reduction Act, and 

20 there's all kinds of legal issues with having 

21 custom interviews for -- for people. That's 

22 why they're so generic. Or -- they're 

23 specific, but generic at the same time. 

24 DR. MAURO: I understand. 

25 DR. NETON: There is a section where people are 
46

1 encouraged to offer whatever other information 

2 they might have. Now how that word gets around 

3 -- but you also have to be careful you don't 

4 sort of lead people into a -- 

5 DR. MAURO: I got -- I know. 

6 DR. NETON: -- conclusion. I'm not accusing 

7 anybody of anything, but once -- once one knows 

8 that piece of information, and who knows what 

9 happens with it. So the answer's I guess I 

10 don't know if we could do that. 

11 DR. ROESSLER: So all we need now from you, 

12 John, is to say you're in agreement with -- 

13 DR. MAURO: I'm in agreement with Jim. 

14 DR. ROESSLER: Then it seems to me we have 

15 completed this one last issue and that we have 

16 addressed whether the site profile is adequate. 

17 If there's no comment on that, then I think it 

18 would be appropriate for the workgroup to -- I 

19 -- I don't know that we've reached this point 

20 before, but I think we're -- we should say that 

21 we have this information and we recommend that 

22 the site profile be accepted. 

23 DR. NETON: I'm not clear where we are with 

24 that. Are there modifica-- you know, I -- 

25 DR. MAURO: Well, let me ask you, do you -- do 
47

1 you think it's appropriate to add in this 

2 scenario and leave it up to the dose 

3 reconstructor, based on his process, to make 

4 the judgment on a case-by-case basis whether 

5 this should be added or not? 

6 DR. NETON: Let me ask Joe and Chris on the 

7 phone, does that sound reasonable? 

8 MR. CRAWFORD: Well, it seems to me we're -- 

9 this is Chris -- that we're concentrating on 

10 this one worker's statement on one possible 

11 scenario, perhaps to the exclusion of 

12 remembering that we're trying to cover all 

13 workers, and the existing TBD allows for a 

14 fairly hefty dose during this non-production 

15 period already -- 

16 DR. NETON: Right. 

17 MR. CRAWFORD: -- based on the mere presence at 

18 the site. And many of the people who will be 

19 filing didn't actually work in Building 30 for 

20 long periods during the -- you know, the 

21 relevant time frame anyway. 

22 DR. NETON: Right. 

23 MR. CRAWFORD: So all I'm saying is this is one 

24 scenario. There are, however, probably many 

25 other kinds of scenarios. 
48

1 DR. NETON: Right. 

2 MR. CRAWFORD: If somebody cleaned the attic, 

3 for instance, maybe they got a higher dose than 

4 somebody who didn't. 

5 DR. NETON: Yeah. But what I'm suggesting, 

6 Chris, though, is would it be -- it wouldn't -- 

7 didn't -- wouldn't seem to be that hard, 

8 though, to -- almost with like a page change of 

9 the site profile, to include a computation that 

10 would be -- it could be a paragraph or less 

11 that would indicate what type of doses could 

12 have been received if that scenario were 

13 determined to have credibility to it. I mean I 

14 don't think that's -- it wouldn't be 

15 instructing the dose reconstructor to do 

16 anything with it other than to alert them to 

17 the fact that that scenario, you know, has been 

18 asserted, at least at one point. We right now 

19 find, the general case, no credible evidence 

20 for that to have happened, but it's there, sort 

21 of in -- in there just in case we need it, so 

22 we're acknowledging that, you know, we could 

23 reconstruct it, if necessary. I -- I don't -- 

24 we're not committing to doing these gen-- in a 

25 general case. They're all... 
49

1 MR. CRAWFORD: Right. Jim, I'll -- I'll defer 

2 to you on that. We haven't heard yet from Joe, 

3 if you have any input. 

4 MR. GUIDO: Yeah, I don't -- I mean whether 

5 this scenario is in the TBD or not -- I mean 

6 the -- if -- if a dose reconstructor found this 

7 to -- you know, found any, you know, situation 

8 to be credible, it would be evaluated. And if 

9 that evaluation would involve these kind of 

10 calculations, they would be performed. So -- 

11 DR. NETON: Right. 

12 MR. GUIDO: -- I -- whe-- you know, whether 

13 it's in the TBD or not, to me, doesn't -- you 

14 know, I don't -- I don't think it has to be in 

15 the TBD to make sure it gets done. However, we 

16 did spend a whole lot of money -- 

17 DR. NETON: Well, that's my point -- 

18 MR. GUIDO: -- coming to -- coming to this 

19 point. 

20 MS. BEACH: And time. 

21 DR. ROESSLER: And a whole lot of time. 

22 MR. GUIDO: And so, you know, I guess with that 

23 in mind, I'm not against using the work that 

24 we've -- where we've gotten to. I'm just 

25 saying that, you know, I don't -- I think we 
50

1 should focus -- keep focused on the point that, 

2 you know, if we -- if we didn't put this in 

3 that it wouldn't have ha-- you know, we -- I 

4 don't think that's the way we do the dose 

5 reconstruction. We -- we would do what we feel 

6 is credible and -- and required. 

7 DR. NETON: Yeah. 

8 MR. GUIDO: So -- 

9 DR. MAURO: And I -- and I think it's important 

10 that, you know, we didn't just dismiss this 

11 cla-- this person's affidavit. We took it very 

12 seriously and gave it a lot of attention, so I 

13 don't -- I -- I think that this is -- 

14 DR. NETON: Well, and I think in some ways that 

15 -- that could be reflected in this -- this 

16 modification of the site profile, that this was 

17 discussed, that it had gone through some sort 

18 of rigorous review process, and it was the 

19 conclusion, even in the SC&A report, that this 

20 scenario did not seem likely. However, 

21 calculations are here -- you know, that sort of 

22 thing. I think that's -- that's fine by me. 

23 DR. MAURO: I think that's reasonable. 

24 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So they would be there for use 

25 at the discretion of the -- 
51

1 DR. NETON: Right, but I think they're -- 

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- dose reconstructor. 

3 DR. NETON: -- more I think about what Joe 

4 said, there could be a little preamble to that, 

5 though, saying that -- 

6 DR. MAURO: Yeah, sure. 

7 DR. NETON: -- we have gone through this and it 

8 does not appear credible. However, here is the 

9 doses that would have resulted -- 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That seems reasonable. 

11 DR. NETON: -- you know, they're not trivial 

12 doses, let's put it that way. We've determined 

13 that they're not trivial and they could be X. 

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: To -- I don't know if I should 

15 be opening up another dimension, but would it 

16 be appropriate -- I mean would -- would -- no, 

17 I'm just saying if NIOSH would be interested in 

18 seeing our MCNP input files and spreadsheet, 

19 you know, so you could do your own calculations 

20 to verify ours. 

21 DR. NETON: Yeah, I -- I could (unintelligible) 

22 the technical folks who worked on it, but we 

23 could -- we could make that decision at a later 

24 point. 

25 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure. 
52

1 DR. MAURO: Yeah, but I think it'd be -- I 

2 think the decision has been made. The degree 

3 to which you want to see that calculation, 

4 that's up to you. 

5 DR. ROESSLER: So the question that I think 

6 remains is once NIOSH adds this to the site 

7 profile, then do we need to go back to SC&A to 

8 see if it -- or -- or are we done? Are you -- 

9 say okay, if you in essence add this as he's 

10 discussed, then -- then it's okay. 

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It would be a very quick 

12 turnaround, you know, if -- for us to have -- 

13 for us to review it and say -- you know, in one 

14 hour say. 

15 DR. ROESSLER: That would require, I would 

16 assume, another meeting? 

17 DR. MAURO: No. 

18 DR. NETON: No. 

19 UNIDENTIFIED: Absolutely not. 

20 DR. ROESSLER: No? Okay. So then I think it's 

21 -- everything is approved, as long as when you 

22 see it you say okay. 

23 DR. NETON: I think a lot of these issues get 

24 closed conditionally, sort of -- I might say 

25 that -- 
53

1 DR. MAURO: And this -- on different work-- 

2 DR. NETON: -- (unintelligible). 

3 DR. MAURO: In different work-- my experience 

4 is different workgroups have different -- 

5 approach for this. Some workgroups don't 

6 really close the issue until the document has 

7 been revised. For example, in the procedures 

8 workgroup, once we achieve -- get to the point 

9 we're at, we all agree this is how to fix the 

10 problem, and then -- but it's not closed until 

11 -- it's at -- until the procedure's actually 

12 been revised and we take a look at it and say 

13 yeah, it looks good. Or on site profiles, such 

14 as this -- I'll give a -- we have in the past 

15 agreed in principle, on the white paper, and we 

16 never looked again. It was over. 'Cause we -- 

17 we felt that -- listen, the -- fund-- 

18 fundamentally we agree. The numbers we're all 

19 in agreement on and there's no reason for us to 

20 really go back and look at it again because we 

21 -- 'cause it's not a complicated -- it's not as 

22 if you're going to be implementing some compli23 - some -- some enormous calculation, you know, 

24 like high-fired plutonium when, after you did 

25 your analysis, it was a big effort on our part 
54

1 to review it and -- and to say yeah, it looks 

2 good. We're not dealing with something on that 

3 scale here. We're dealing with something very 

4 simple. So in my opinion, if you would like us 

5 to look at it after it comes out, great. But I 

6 don't see that it's essential. 

7 DR. ROESSLER: Okay, so I'm assuming we're 

8 going with the latter -- it's approved. Then 

9 if the workgroup agrees, based on the 

10 conversations today -- and I guess we should 

11 take a vote -- then we'll proceed with that. 

12 So Dr. Lockey? 

13 DR. LOCKEY: Yes. 

14 DR. BRANCHE: And Josie? 

15 MS. BEACH: Yes. 

16 DR. ROESSLER: And I vote yes, and that's three 

17 out of the four, so I -- I think -- unless 

18 somebody has something that we've missed, I 

19 think we have completed our assignment of the 

20 review of the site profile and, with this small 

21 addition, find it's adequate. Okay. 

22 DR. BRANCHE: Does that conclude your meeting? 

23 DR. ROESSLER: I think that concludes the 

24 meeting. 

25 DR. BRANCHE: Dr. Roessler believes that we've 
55

1 concl-- concluded the business for today, and 

2 so we are adjourning, and thank you very much. 

3 (Whereupon, the meeting was adjourned at 5:23 

4 p.m.) 

5 

6 

7 
56

1 CERTIFICATE OF COURT REPORTER 

STATE OF GEORGIA 

COUNTY OF FULTON 

 I, Steven Ray Green, Certified Merit Court 

Reporter, do hereby certify that I reported the 

above and foregoing on the day of June 23, 

2008; I, Steven Ray Green, then transcribed the 

proceedings, and it is a true and accurate 

transcript of the testimony captioned herein. 

 I further certify that I am neither kin 

nor counsel to any of the parties herein, nor 

have any interest in the cause named herein. 

 WITNESS my hand and official seal this the 

7th day of Aug., 2008. 

___________________________________ 

STEVEN RAY GREEN, CCR, CVR-CM, PNSC 

CERTIFIED MERIT COURT REPORTER 

CERTIFICATE NUMBER: A-2102