1 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA 

DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES 

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

+ + + + + 

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL 

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

 WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + + 

TBD 6000/6001, APPENDIX BB WORK GROUP 

+ + + + + 

WEDNESDAY, MARCH 11, 2009 

+ + + + + 

The meeting came to order at 

10:00 a.m., in the Zurich Room of the 

Cincinnati Airport Marriott Hotel, Hebron,

Kentucky, Paul L. Ziemer, Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman 

JOSIE M. BEACH, Member

MARK GRIFFON, Member*

WANDA I. MUNN, Member*

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member 

THEODORE M. KATZ, Acting Designated Federal

Official 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

(202) 234-4433 WASHINGTON, D.C. 20005-3701 www.nealrgross.com 
 2 

IDENTIFIED PARTICIPANTS: 

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH Contractor*

DAVE ALLEN, NIOSH

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

ISAF AL-NABULSI, DOE*

JOHN T. DUTKO, Public*

EMILY HOWELL, HHS

ROY LLOYD, HHS*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

DAN MCKEEL, Petitioner*

JIM NETON, NIOSH

STEVE OSTROW, SC&A*

JOHN RAMSPOTT, Public*

BILL THURBER, SC&A* 

*Participating via telephone 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 3
 

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

2 
 (10:00 a.m.) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Good morning to everyone 

4 
 on the phone. If someone would just let us 

5 
 know that you can hear. 

6 
 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I can 

7 
 hear you. 

8 
 MR. KATZ: Wanda, great. Nice to 

9 
 hear you. Good morning to you, early morning 

10 to you. 

11 MEMBER MUNN: Very. 

12 
 MR. KATZ: So this is the TBD 

13 
 6000/6001 Work Group of the Advisory Board on 

14 
 Radiation and Worker Health, and we're getting 

15 
 started here. We always begin with a roll 

16 
 call, and we'll begin in the room with Board 

17 members, starting with the Chair. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, this is Paul 

19 Ziemer, Chair of the Working Group. 

20 
 MEMBER POSTON: John Poston, 

21 Working Group. 

22 
 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach, no 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 4
 

1 
 conflicts, Working Group. 

2 
 MR. ALLEN: Dave Allen, NIOSH. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Board members? 

4 
 MR. KATZ: And so --

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: On the phone. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: On the phone? 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Wanda Munn, right? 

8 
 MEMBER MUNN: Correct. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: And no conflict? 

10 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And is Mark Griffon 

11 
 on the phone? Okay, Mark should be joining 

12 us. 

13 
 MR. KATZ: Right. I'm sure he'll 

14 let us know. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Board members. 

16 That's all of the work group members. 

17 MR. KATZ: Right. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Any other Board 

19 Members --

20 
 MR. KATZ: No. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- that are 

22 
 eavesdropping, listening in this morning? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 5
 

1 
 Okay. 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, we do have a 

3 
 quorum, and now to NIOSH/ORAU team in the 

4 
 room. 

5 
 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, NIOSH, no 

6 
 conflicts. 

7 
 MR. ALLEN: Dave Allen again, 

8 
 NIOSH, no conflict. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: And anyone from the 

10 
 NIOSH/ORAU team on the phone? Okay. None. 

11 
 None noted. The SC&A -- well, let's do SC&A 

12 team in the room. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, no 

14 conflict. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, no 

16 conflict. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: And on the line, anyone 

18 from SC&A? 

19 
 MR. THURBER: Bill Thurber, no 

20 
 conflicts. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Bill. 

22 
 MR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow, no 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 6
 

1 
 conflicts. 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. Can you say that 

3 
 name again? 

4 
 MR. OSTROW: Steve Ostrow. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Oh, Steve. Welcome, 

6 
 Steve. 

7 
 MR. OSTROW: Thank you. 

8 
 MR. KATZ: Steve Ostrow, and now 

9 
 other federal employees in the room? 

10 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS. 

11 
 MR. KATZ: And on the line, any 

12 NIOSH or other federal employees? 

13 MR. LLOYD: Roy Lloyd, HHS. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: Roy Lloyd, HHS. Thank 

15 you. 

16 
 MS. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi, 

17 
 DOE. 

18 MR. KATZ: Can you say your name 

19 again, please? 

20 MS. AL-NABULSI: Isaf Al-Nabulsi. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: Isaf. 

22 CHAIR ZIEMER: That's Isaf --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 7
 

1 
 MR. KATZ: Isaf. 

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- from DOE. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Good morning, Isaf. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Good morning. Welcome, 

6 
 and who have I left out? Now, going to 

7 
 members of the public and Congress, let's 

8 
 start with petitioners for GSI on the line. 

9 
 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

10 contractor. 

11 CHAIR ZIEMER: Nancy. 

12 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, Nancy. Welcome, 

13 
 Nancy. Do we have any GSI petitioners on the 

14 line? Any members of the public on the line? 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Who want to identify 

16 themselves? 

17 
 MR. KATZ: Who want to identify 

18 themselves, of course. 

19 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: This is John 

20 Ramspott with GSI. 

21 MR. KATZ: John, welcome. 

22 MR. RAMSPOTT: Thank you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 8
 

1 
 MR. DUTKO: This is John T. Dutko, 

2 
 magnaflux operator and betatron operator, GSI. 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Welcome, John. 

4 
 MR. DUTKO: Thank you, sir. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Any other members of the 

6 
 public who want to identify themselves or 

7 
 representatives, staff, or representatives 

8 
 from Congress? Okay. Then just let me remind 

9 
 everyone on the line to mute their phones, *6 

10 
 if you don't have a mute button, and if you 

11 
 need to go offline, hang up and dial back in. 

12 
 Please don't put the call on hold, and, Dr. 

13 Ziemer, it's --

14 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

15 
 very much, Ted. We'll call the meeting to 

16 
 order. I want to take a moment and go over 

17 
 the proposed agenda. I did distribute it to 

18 
 members of the Work Group and to some of the 

19 
 staff members, as well, both OCAS and the 

20 
 Board's contractor, SC&A. I believe I sent a 

21 
 copy of it to John Ramspott. John, did I send 

22 you a copy? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 9
 

1 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, sir, you did. 

2 
 Thank you. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, and I think to 

4 
 Dr. McKeel, the other petitioner, but there 

5 
 may be others on the line that did not receive 

6 
 this, so let me just review where we hope to 

7 
 go today, and we'll pace ourselves 

8 
 accordingly. 

9 
 We're going to begin by going 

10 
 through the TBD 6000 findings matrix. That's 

11 
 the overall technical basis document that is 

12 
 the generic document under which the various 

13 
 appendices reside, and we will -- we have 

14 
 since our last meeting received the NIOSH 

15 
 responses to the contractor's findings, and we 

16 
 have also received additional comments from 

17 
 the contractors on the NIOSH responses, so we 

18 
 will go through those findings in the TBD 6000 

19 
 findings matrix. And to the extent we're able 

20 
 to, we'll try to close out some items in that 

21 matrix. 

22 
 Then we will focus on Appendix BB, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 10
 

1 
 which is the General Steel Industries' 

2 
 specific part of the technical basis document, 

3 
 and there is an issues matrix for Appendix BB, 

4 
 but, as you will recall and we'll see as we 

5 
 get to it, almost all of the issues in the 

6 
 matrix center on the film badge exposure data, 

7 
 the so-called Landauer data, so we will have a 

8 
 discussion that focuses on that data. 

9 
 There has been some analysis by 

10 
 SC&A, some additional input from the 

11 
 Petitioners, and we'll have an opportunity to 

12 
 review what we have there and comment and 

13 
 discuss and see where we are in terms of the 

14 
 usefulness of the film badge data and the 

15 
 extent to which it will assist NIOSH in the 

16 
 bounding of doses for the facility and then 

17 
 other GSI issues that we perhaps want to 

18 address also. 

19 
 And then I'd like to take at least 

20 
 a preliminary look at where we are on the 

21 
 Petition Evaluation Report. This will be 

22 
 simply a status report, I think, from our 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 11
 

1 
 contractor. They were tasked at our last 

2 
 meeting to begin the SEC review, and, John, if 

3 
 you --

4 
 DR. MAURO: For GSI. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: For GSI on Appendix 

6 
 -- well, not on Appendix BB specifically, but 

7 
 the GSI petition review, and we'll just get an 

8 
 update on sort of the timetable on where we 

9 
 are, and I put in the agenda, preliminary 

10 
 identification, if possible, of issues that 

11 
 are emerging, and then, finally, we'll take 

12 
 time to establish a timetable and path forward 

13 
 on the open items that we have before us and 

14 
 any assignments that we need to address before 

15 a follow-up Work Group meeting. 

16 
 My goal, as I said on the written 

17 
 agenda, was to adjourn by 4:00. One of our 

18 
 members has to leave, I think, by 3:30 to 

19 
 catch a plane, so I actually will target that, 

20 if possible, as an outside time for closing. 

21 
 We're allowed to finish earlier 

22 
 than that. We don't have to extend the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 12
 

1 
 discussions to meet the time available, but 

2 
 hopefully we can be efficient and try to 

3 
 finish in a timely fashion. 

4 
 So that's kind of an overview. We 

5 
 are going to take a lunch break approximately 

6 
 12:00. It will depend a little bit on where 

7 
 we are in the discussions, and I think, since 

8 
 we're having a somewhat later start than many 

9 
 of our Work Group meetings, I didn't schedule 

10 a mid-morning break. 

11 
 I'm hopeful we can go two hours. 

12 
 If the Chairman is unable to, we may take a 

13 
 comfort break, but otherwise we'll go until 

14 noon and take a lunch break for an hour. 

15 
 Well, with that, let me ask if 

16 
 there are any questions or comments or, any of 

17 
 the Work Group members, are there items that 

18 
 you wish to add to the agenda or modify? 

19 Okay. 

20 
 Wanda, if you have comments, please 

21 
 speak up, and also let me check and see if 

22 
 Mark Griffon has come on the line yet. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 13
 

1 
 Apparently not. Okay. Let's proceed, then. 

2 
 Now, on the TBD 6000 findings 

3 
 matrix, there are several versions of the 

4 
 matrix. There's the original version, which 

5 
 was generated, I think, in November of 2008. 

6 
 In fact, the date is on the document, November 

7 
 11, 2008. 

8 
 The NIOSH responses were added on 

9 
 March 6, and those responses have been cleared 

10 
 for Privacy Act purposes, so that is an open 

11 
 document. I believe it is available to the 

12 
 Petitioners, although this is the generic one, 

13 
 not specific to General Steel Industries, but, 

14 
 in any event, the document with the March 6 

15 responses is cleared. 

16 
 The Board or the Work Group 

17 
 subsequently has received from the contractor 

18 
 some added replies to the NIOSH responses. 

19 
 Those added replies are dated March 9, which 

20 
 means that they came to the Work Group on 

21 Monday of this week. 

22 
 Those have not been Privacy Act 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 14
 

1 
 cleared, but in a preliminary fashion it's at 

2 
 least been determined that it's unlikely that 

3 
 there is any Privacy Act information in them, 

4 
 and the Work Group may be able to discuss 

5 
 them, since they are simply replies to the 

6 
 NIOSH responses, but counsel is with us and is 

7 
 here to guide us if we go astray on any 

8 
 privacy matters. 

9 
 So, with those preliminary 

10 
 comments, let's move to the TBD 6000 findings 

11 
 matrix, and let me ask is there anyone at the 

12 
 table here that does not have a copy? And, 

13 
 Wanda, do you have a copy of the findings 

14 matrix as I have described it? 

15 
 MEMBER MUNN: I'm working from the 

16 March 9. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, which means 

18 
 you have the findings, the response, and the 

19 reply on each item. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: Correct. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. Okay. Very 

22 
 good. So we're all working from the same 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 15
 

1 
 sheet, and I think we'll just go through these 

2 
 in order. There are seven items on the 

3 
 findings list, and we also had a cover letter 

4 
 from John Mauro, and, John, I think your cover 

5 
 letter -- I'm trying to remember. 

6 
 Maybe it was the email that was 

7 
 with the transmission, and it said this. It 

8 
 said, attached is SC&A's response to the 

9 
 response matrix distributed by NIOSH on March 

10 
 6 pertaining to TBD 6000. Note that SC&A 

11 
 believes that Findings 1, 2, and 3 are 

12 
 basically resolved. However, additional 

13 discussion needed regarding 4 and 7. 

14 DR. MAURO: Four through seven. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Four through -- four 

16 
 through seven, and I just give that as a 

17 
 preliminary sort of statement on your behalf, 

18 John --

19 
 DR. MAURO: Sure. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- that, at least, 

21 
 SC&A appears to be comfortable with the first 

22 
 three items, but let's go through them, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 16
 

1 
 because if we are to recommend closure on 

2 
 them, that has to be an action of the Work 

3 
 Group. 

4 
 So Finding Number -- SC&A Finding 

5 
 Number 1 or Issue Number 1 -- let's identify 

6 
 the issue and then the finding. The issue is 

7 
 failure to discuss elevated levels of thorium 

8 
 234, and is this protactinium-234m -- close to 

9 
 surface of freshly cast --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, it got --

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: There's a word 

12 missing here. 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It got scrolled 

14 off. It was ingots. 

15 MR. KATZ: Freshly cast ingots. 

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Ingots. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That's right. On the 

18 
 matrix copy the ingots is missing, but it 

19 should say, surface of freshly cast ingots. 

20 
 The finding, the TBD would benefit 

21 
 from a discussion of the possibility and 

22 
 potential dosimetric significance of uranium 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 17
 

1 
 metal working operations involving freshly cut 

2 
 uranium ingots where there might be elevated 

3 
 levels of thorium-234 and protactinium-234m 

4 
 close to the surface of the ingot. 

5 
 Furthermore, it is not clear from 

6 
 the TBD whether scrap recovery at any of the 

7 
 covered AWE sites involved melting and casting 

8 
 of uranium. This should be investigated, 

9 
 since it could make a significant difference 

10 in the external dose reconstruction protocol. 

11 
 And then I'm going to ask Dave 

12 
 Allen from NIOSH, who is responsible for the 

13 
 NIOSH responses, Dave, can you either recap or 

14 
 describe or explain? We have the words here, 

15 
 but -- and you can go over the words, as well. 

16 
 I don't know that I want to read them all 

17 
 here but basically your take on this as far as 

18 NIOSH is concerned. 

19 
 MR. ALLEN: Well, our take on that, 

20 
 as what's in the words there, is we agree that 

21 
 issues should be -- you know, the TBD would 

22 
 benefit from a discussion of that, and some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 18
 

1 
 more research needed to be done to figure out 

2 
 exactly where that's going to go. 

3 
 The second part of that, the scrap 

4 
 recovery, is that the TBD was not clear as to 

5 
 whether scrap recovery involved recasting of 

6 
 uranium or not, and I agree that that's true, 

7 
 too. It wasn't clear in it, but the general 

8 
 idea of the TBD is some of these -- the jobs 

9 
 are broken down into -- it wasn't broken down 

10 into sites. 

11 
 It was broken down into types of 

12 
 jobs, and recasting is one of those, and scrap 

13 
 recover is another one of those, and in some 

14 
 cases, if they had recasting equipment, they 

15 
 would actually take briquettes or chunks of 

16 
 steel -- I'm sorry, chunks of uranium that 

17 were cut off and recast those. 

18 
 If a facility had recasting, they 

19 
 would almost definitely also be doing scrap 

20 
 recovery, and there would be both operations 

21 
 happening in that facility, and the way the 

22 
 TBD would be used is they had recasting. They 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 19
 

1 
 had scrap recovery. They had, you know, 

2 
 possibly other operations, and we'd look at 

3 
 all of those. If you can't sort it out, then 

4 
 you pick the high one for a particular 

5 
 facility. 

6 
 So I think the TBD needs to be 

7 
 clarified that the scrap recovery would not 

8 
 include recasting as a separate operation 

9 
 covered in there, but I think it's already in 

10 
 the TBD essentially as multiple operations at 

11 
 a facility. You look at all the operations in 

12 the TBD. 

13 
 DR. NETON: Refresh my memory. The 

14 
 6000 then covers recasting. 6001 was really 

15 the one where --

16 
 MR. ALLEN: 6001 mentions it in 

17 
 there, yes, and as I mentioned last time, that 

18 
 was -- when we were developing 6001, it was 

19 
 for refining essentially for uranium compounds 

20 
 versus 6000 is for uranium metal, and there 

21 
 were some points where it wasn't clear where 

22 
 the cutoff should be, especially reduction, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 20
 

1 
 you know, which one do you put that in, and 

2 
 this ended up in 6001. It is also in 6000, I 

3 
 think, so --

4 
 DR. NETON: But did not 6001 

5 
 address this issue of the daughters/progeny 

6 
 rising to the surface in what we call that top 

7 
 crop, you know, that kind of --

8 
 MR. ALLEN: No, it addressed 

9 
 recasting, but it didn't mention the 

10 concentration of dotters on the surface. 

11 
 DR. NETON: Somewhere I know we've 

12 
 covered this in one of our documents, and it 

13 might have been at the uranium facility. 

14 
 MR. ALLEN: It might have been. I 

15 
 mean, for the most -- the primary production 

16 for recasting was --

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think at 

18 
 Mallinckrodt. 

19 DR. NETON: I recall having this 

20 discussion before. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: One at a time. 

22 John? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 21
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, I have the 6000, 

2 
 let's see, the 6001, I believe. No, I have it 

3 
 here, and I was about to quickly thumb through 

4 
 it. Now I know Bill Thurber is on the line. 

5 
 Bill, are you on the line? Bill Thurber? 

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: You may have to 

7 
 un-mute your phone, Bill. 

8 
 MR. THURBER: I'm here, John. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, hi, Bill. Do you 

10 
 recall whether this business of the 

11 
 thorium-234 protactinium being an elevated 

12 
 level on the ingot recasting being an issue 

13 that we raised in TBD 6001? 

14 
 MR. THURBER: I don't believe --

15 excuse me. I don't believe so. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: And so that was not an 

17 
 issue. 

18 
 MR. THURBER: I'd have to 

19 
 double-check that. 

20 DR. MAURO: Well, if you can, check 

21 
 it while we're working. Maybe you could get 

22 
 back to us on that, because, yes, I don't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 22
 

1 
 recall whether it was there or not. 

2 
 DR. NETON: Bob's right. There was 

3 
 another point at a regular uranium facility. 

4 
 It probably was Mallinckrodt. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, that's right. 

6 
 DR. NETON: We discussed this very 

7 
 issue, and I don't recall what the resolution 

8 
 of that was, but certainly we could go back 

9 
 and look at that. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The Mallinckrodt 

11 TBD specifically mentioned it. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: I think that's where it 

13 
 started, but let me bring up a point. When 

14 
 you make mention of the recasting process as 

15 
 perhaps may or may not be part of the TBD 6000 

16 
 scope, quite frankly, when I was looking at 

17 
 this, I wasn't thinking so much of recasting, 

18 
 but when you receive an ingot or material, 

19 
 metal, if it's freshly cast, when it arrives 

20 
 -- now, I recall the half-life of the 

21 thorium-234 being not so short. 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Twenty-four days. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 23
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Twenty-four days. That 

2 
 it's possible that when it shows up it still 

3 
 may have elevated levels, because elevated 

4 
 levels go up at a factor of ten or more 

5 
 higher, so you could lose a half-life. 

6 
 Let's say the time period is 

7 
 relatively short. You may -- the recipient of 

8 
 the metal at the AWE facility may receive 

9 
 metal that is elevated, at least for some time 

10 
 period before the unsupported thorium goes 

11 
 away. So I would say on the front end and the 

12 back and of the metal --

13 
 DR. NETON: We need to look into 

14 
 that, because I think we -- deja vu. I 

15 
 remember having this conversation before. I 

16 
 think this was a known issue in the formation 

17 
 of uranium metal, and the progeny would 

18 actually --

19 DR. MAURO: Float. 

20 
 DR. NETON: -- float to the 

21 
 surface, for lack of a better word, and they 

22 
 would cut that off. I mean, there would be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 24
 

1 
 what they call the top crop to remove that 

2 
 high activity progeny. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was one type 

4 
 of casting, whether it was done. Like, for 

5 
 instance, in the vacuum induction furnace that 

6 
 definitely occurred. However, and sometimes 

7 
 they actually removed it. They would call it 

8 
 the skull, and it would be -- it would be this 

9 
 very hot material we remove, but on the other 

10 
 hand, as Putzier mentioned, sometimes, and 

11 depending on the --

12 
 I can't -- and I don't recall 

13 
 exactly the form, but in some cases, even when 

14 
 it's cast maybe in the bomb -- Bill Thurber, 

15 
 correct me if I'm wrong on that -- that formed 

16 
 on the surface, not just floated to the top, 

17 but it simply went to the outside. 

18 
 MR. THURBER: I believe that 

19 
 Putzier said that it was -- it could go to the 

20 
 surface of the casting, as well as just to the 

21 
 top, and so you have -- the issue exists then 

22 
 with handling the crop didn't get. It also 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 25
 

1 
 exists with handling the casting molds and so 

2 
 forth where there will be enhanced 

3 
 concentrations of thorium-234 and 

4 
 protactinium-234m. 

5 
 DR. NETON: Isn't this primarily a 

6 
 beta dosimetry issue then, or is it internal, 

7 
 as well? 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, a gamma, 

9 
 also. 

10 
 DR. NETON: Well, gamma, but I mean 

11 
 external. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Not external. 

13 
 DR. NETON: External dosimetry. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, yes, external, 

15 
 yes. 

16 
 MR. THURBER: Yes, it's external 

17 
 and primarily beta. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: My question then is 

19 
 do we need to transpose or import from the 

20 
 Mallinckrodt analysis? Does this need to show 

21 
 up in this document? Is that --

22 
 DR. NETON: I think it needs to be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

 26
 

1 
 addressed in this document, and that's what 

2 
 Dave said. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Even if you refer to 

4 
 the analysis then previously or just 

5 
 incorporate it here? 

6 
 DR. NETON: Yes, it needs to be 

7 
 addressed in some way in the document, whether 

8 
 it's by reference to some other approach, or 

9 
 we could -- it would probably be simpler just 

10 
 to put a section in there that addresses how 

11 
 it would be handled. Do you agree with that, 

12 
 Dave? 

13 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 

14 
 DR. NETON: I think that's kind of 

15 


16 
 MR. ALLEN: I think that's what I 

17 
 was trying to say is it definitely needs to be 

18 
 addressed. Exactly how, I think we've got to 

19 
 look a little deeper, including the 

20 
 Mallinckrodt discussions from long ago. 

21 
 DR. NETON: Yes, I mean, the simple 

22 
 solution is, well, acknowledge it was there 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 27
 

1 
 and have some factor if that was the case or 

2 
 determine that it wasn't really as much of an 

3 
 issue, because they were aware of it in the 

4 
 foundries that it came from and address it 

5 
 that way. 

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: John Mauro, in your 

7 
 reply you mentioned an 82 reference. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: The Putzier reference. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Putzier reference 

10 that deals with this issue. 

11 
 MEMBER POSTON: I wanted to point 

12 out it's not in your reference list. 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, it is. 

14 MEMBER POSTON: No, it isn't. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I beg your pardon. 

16 
 It's on the second -- the Putzier reference 

17 is on page 4 of the matrix. 

18 
 MEMBER POSTON: Oh, there's two 

19 
 different reference lists. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We stick that in. 

21 
 MEMBER POSTON: Oh, come on. I 

22 swear. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 28
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There's a reference 

2 
 to the attachment and a reference list to the 

3 
 matrix. 

4 
 MEMBER POSTON: I went to the back. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: At the end of the 

6 
 matrix there are four references. 

7 
 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. All right. 

8 
 It is there. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And this is a --

10 
 this is a reference out of Rocky Flats, right? 

11 
 MEMBER POSTON: Is that available? 

12 
 I mean, I couldn't get it based on this 

13 action. 

14 
 MR. THURBER: I think we -- I think 

15 it's available. I think we have it. 

16 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: It doesn't have --

17 
 it doesn't have a report number or an actual 

18 
 location. It deals with Rocky Flats, but it 

19 
 doesn't say, you know, is it an AEC document, 

20 
 a Rocky document. What -- do we know what it 

21 is? 

22 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's not, I mean, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 29
 

1 
 it's not something you can get on the web. 

2 
 MEMBER MUNN: Well, if it's easily 

3 


4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It was in the --

5 
 MEMBER MUNN: But if it doesn't 

6 
 make any sense for the ordinary reader, then 

7 
 why is it duplicated there? 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: This is Wanda Munn 

9 
 speaking. Say it again, Wanda. DR. 

10 
 ANIGSTEIN: Did you want to repeat that? 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: We could barely 

12 
 hear you there. 

13 
 MEMBER MUNN: I said it can't be 

14 
 that long a reference, for goodness sake, and 

15 
 if it's difficult for people who are ordinary 

16 
 readers to find the document, just cite the 

17 
 document and repeat it there. It shouldn't be 

18 
 that difficult for us to just repeat a 

19 
 reference. An excerpt from the reference can 

20 
 become a portion of this report. That's my 

21 
 point. 

22 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, Bob? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

 30
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I was the one who 

2 
 put that in. It's not -- it's not a publicly 

3 
 available document, so it can only be --

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Is it classified? 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, it's not 

6 
 classified. It's just, you know, it's just 

7 
 one of those internal reports --

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Internal report. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- that's not --

10 
 that simply a member of the public cannot go 

11 
 to the library and get it. 

12 
 MEMBER POSTON: But we're not 

13 
 members of the public. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon? 

15 
 MEMBER POSTON: We're not members 

16 
 of the public. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, but an ordinary 

18 


19 
 DR. MAURO: Does anybody want a 

20 
 copy? 

21 
 MEMBER POSTON: Bob, look, on 

22 
 Reference 1 you've got the AEC document number 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 31
 

1 
 and so on. Based on my experience at Oak 

2 
 Ridge for 13 years, we never post anything 

3 
 that didn't have some sort of number on it, 

4 
 whether it was a TM or whether it was a report 

5 
 or what it was, and I can't find the document 

6 
 based on what you've given me here. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: We will provide any 

8 
 documents anyone wants. Our apologies for not 

9 
 making the complete reference. 

10 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Now, there must be 

11 
 some other identifier as to who published it, 

12 you know. 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It wasn't 

14 published. That was the whole point. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, even if it's 

16 
 an internal document, you know, a Rocky Flats 

17 
 report. You know, is it a letter report or --

18 MEMBER POSTON: Could be a TM. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: How would somebody 

20 track it down? 

21 
 DR. NETON: Anigstein, how did you 

22 come about this document? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 32
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I got it out of the 

2 
 Mallinckrodt TBD. 

3 
 DR. NETON: Off the Mallinckrodt 

4 
 TBD? 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

6 
 DR. NETON: But the reference to 

7 
 the document --

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon? Yes, I 

9 
 mean, there is a reference. 

10 
 DR. NETON: How did you obtain a 

11 copy of the document? 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon? Good 

13 question. 

14 DR. MAURO: We'll track it down. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Through internal, I 

16 mean, through NIOSH. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: He's not revealing 

18 his source. 

19 
 DR. NETON: My suspicion is it's on 

20 our site research database. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I'm sure, 

22 probably, yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

-- 

 

 33
 

1 
 DR. NETON: And we would have it. 

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, we need to 

3 
 track that down, but, now, so I want to get 

4 
 some clarity here, though, on where we are on 

5 
 this. Does this mean that the issue is open 

6 
 until this is revised? I think we can't close 

7 
 this until we see what the revision is, and in 

8 
 the system, what does that do? It puts it in 

9 
 abeyance. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: If that's how you would 

11 
 like to handle it. This was each Work Group 

12 


13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right, but I think 

14 
 we want to be consistent with how the other 

15 
 work groups -- it appears that both SC&A and 

16 
 NIOSH agree, and I'm asking if the Work Group 

17 
 members agree that this issue needs to be 

18 
 addressed in the document itself, and then if 

19 
 we believe that it's appropriately addressed, 

20 
 then we can close the item. I mean, the 

21 
 finding was you need to discuss this in the 

22 
 generic document. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 34
 

1 
 MEMBER POSTON: That's fine with 

2 
 me. I agree. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: I agree, also. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. Josie. Wanda, 

6 
 you're in agreement with that? 

7 
 MEMBER MUNN: I'm in agreement that 

8 
 we should indeed say this is, for all intents 

9 
 and purposes, closed. However, it's being 

10 held in abeyance. 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, right, 

12 abeyance. 

13 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, abeyance until 

14 the completion of whatever documentation --

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And the task from 

16 
 here would be, I think, to NIOSH to revise 

17 
 that section or whatever we need to do. 

18 
 DR. NETON: Evaluate it. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, evaluate. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If I can interject. 

21 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, Bob. 

22 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The more -- the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 35
 

1 
 more complete reference, which one was the 

2 
 Putzier report, simply identifies it as Rocky 

3 
 Flats Plant. That's the only additional 

4 
 information on that report. It was left out 

5 
 here. 

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, well, and, 

7 
 actually, the title includes that, A Summary 

8 
 of Experience and Observations at Rocky Flats 

9 
 Plant Over Thirty Years. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

11 CHAIR ZIEMER: So --

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's all there 

13 
 was. That was all there was on the cover. On 

14 the cover of the thing, that's all it said. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: It must have been in 

16 
 the database, then. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: We'll need to 

19 
 confirm where it is so that when -- how is 

20 
 that done when we reference these things? I 

21 
 mean, you must have captured it out of the 

22 Rocky Flats. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 36
 

1 
 DR. NETON: Yes. Apparently, 

2 
 there's an incomplete citation in the document 

3 
 itself, so we'll go back and look at it and 

4 
 shore that up. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Would anyone like 

6 
 copies of that, though? I mean, John, it 

7 
 sounds like you'd like a copy. 

8 
 MR. ALLEN: If you have an 

9 
 electronic copy, it might be easiest if you'd 

10 
 email that to me, and I'll put it on the 

11 website or the O-drive. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It came from there 

13 in the first place. That's what we --

14 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I know, but 

15 sometimes it's hard to find. 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We got it - we did 

17 not dig it up ourselves. We found it on --

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: This is a 30-year 

19 
 summary. It must be a report that has a lot 

20 
 of things in it. Like is this a chapter, or 

21 
 is there a page number or something that could 

22 be cited? This --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 37
 

1 
 MR. THURBER: This was basically 

2 
 kind of a guy who worked in health physics, 

3 
 memoirs of what he had seen while he was 

4 
 working at Rocky Flats. It was kind of his 

5 
 personal journal. 

6 
 MEMBER MUNN: So is there any 

7 
 problem with --

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I think that was --

9 
 was that Bill Thurber? 

10 
 MR. THURBER: Yes, it's Bill 

11 Thurber. 

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. Thanks, Bill. 

13 
 Okay, we're -- I think we're good on that. 

14 Is there another comment? Wanda? 

15 
 MEMBER MUNN: I still can't 

16 
 understand why there would be a problem. It 

17 
 shouldn't be a bulky or a lengthy excerpt. 

18 
 Why not just simply repeat the excerpt and 

19 indicate what it's excerpted from? 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, we'll have to 

21 
 go back and look and see what it is. It could 

22 
 be -- it could be a single page. It could be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 38
 

1 
 a paragraph, a sentence. 

2 
 MEMBER BEACH: Well, wasn't it 

3 
 meant to be a reference for NIOSH to look at 

4 
 if they wanted to? I mean, that's the way I 

5 
 read it. 

6 
 DR. NETON: For our information. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. 

8 
 MEMBER MUNN: But I'm thinking in 

9 
 terms of long-term, five years from now, 

10 individuals referencing --

11 CHAIR ZIEMER: How do we go back? 

12 
 MEMBER MUNN: -- the material and 

13 trying to track it down again. 

14 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

15 
 MEMBER MUNN: If it's a difficult 

16 
 thing for people to locate, there's no reason 

17 
 why it -- it would be much simpler to just 

18 
 simply excerpt the information that's 

19 
 applicable and incorporate it into the report. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Very good. Any 

21 
 other comments on Issue 1? If not, we're 

22 
 going to go on to Issue 2. Issue 2 carries 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 39
 

1 
 the title, Omission of External Exposure to 

2 
 Skin from Beta Particles Emitted from 

3 
 Contaminated Surfaces, and the SC&A finding 

4 
 was, the TBD presents generic photon exposure 

5 
 conversation factors for submersion in an 

6 
 airborne plume of uranium expressed in units 

7 
 of mR/hr per dpm alpha per cubic meter and for 

8 
 standing on a contaminated surface (expressed 

9 
 in units of mR/hr per dpm alpha per square 

10 meter). 

11 
 However, the TBD does not present 

12 
 similar dose conversion factors addressing 

13 
 external exposure to skin from beta particles 

14 
 emitted from contaminated surfaces. SC&A's 

15 
 calculations of the potential skin exposure 

16 
 from this pathway reveal that this source of 

17 
 exposure is significant relative to photon 

18 
 exposures and should be addressed in the TBD 

19 and NIOSH. 

20 
 MR. ALLEN: And in our response to 

21 
 her we wrote that, yes, we agree that the beta 

22 
 dose was not included in that source term and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 40
 

1 
 it should be, and we're going to calculate 

2 
 that out, and that'll be included in the next 

3 
 row. 

4 
 DR. NETON: Recognizing it's a 

5 
 fairly small contribution, but for 

6 
 completeness --

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Under certain 

8 
 circumstances, it's small. 

9 
 DR. NETON: Most circumstances. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: Relative to the metal. 

11 
 Right, relative to the metal, but if there's 

12 no metal and you've got that --

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Is that the only --

14 DR. NETON: -- it's still small. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If there's no metal 

16 there, it's very small. 

17 DR. MAURO: Still small, okay. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, so adding it 

19 
 is simply, I think, in NIOSH's mind, just 

20 
 recognizing that we took it into 

21 
 consideration, and we didn't -- we didn't 

22 neglect to look at it. Is that --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 41
 

1 
 DR. NETON: I think we need to 

2 
 include it in there. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But I'm saying that 

4 
 what you're saying is, yes, we'll add it so 

5 
 that it's clear that we did consider this, 

6 
 even though it's small, or do we know that? 

7 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I mean, right now 

8 
 it has the photon dose from surface 

9 
 contamination, which is going to be even 

10 
 smaller than the beta dose. It leaves out the 

11 
 beta dose, so it's a real inconsistency in a 

12 small dose. 

13 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: You have to put the 

15 
 photon but not the beta for the skin. You 

16 
 understand. It's just -- really, when we 

17 
 brought it up it was a completeness issue. 

18 
 Seems to me there's one little scenario here 

19 
 that needs to be closed out. 

20 
 DR. NETON: I have no problem with 

21 it. 

22 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So what would happen 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 42
 

1 
 here then is just a revision where you would 

2 
 -- would this be a full analysis of the 

3 
 contribution? 

4 
 DR. NETON: Yes, the beta dose 

5 
 would be addressed. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: The original -- the 

7 
 report in its current form is very convenient 

8 
 in terms it gives -- unitized dose conversion 

9 
 factors for various exposure scenarios, but, 

10 
 you know, everything is normalized to some 

11 
 unit concentration, whether it's in air or on 

12 
 surfaces, and this would be just adding 

13 
 another table with the unitized dose 

14 
 conversion factors so that the dose 

15 
 reconstructor would have that available to him 

16 when implementing this particular procedure. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So the action item 

18 
 here, this would then go into abeyance in a 

19 
 similar fashion. Let's see if there's any 

20 
 questions, though, from the Work Group on --

21 
 so basically NIOSH is agreeing that they would 

22 
 add a section to address beta dose. No 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 43
 

1 
 comments or questions? Okay, so in abeyance. 

2 
 Wanda? 

3 
 MEMBER MUNN: In abeyance. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: You're good. I want 

5 
 to check again, see if Mark Griffon came on 

6 
 the line yet. Apparently not. Okay. 

7 
 Issue 3, called, Questions 

8 
 Regarding Recycled Uranium. SC&A finding, 

9 
 based on this review, we conclude that the 

10 
 default concentrations of plutonium-239, 

11 
 neptunium-237, and technetium-99 contained in 

12 
 recycled uranium shipped to AWE facilities for 

13 
 metal working as presented in TBD 6000 are 

14 
 scientifically valid and claimant favorable. 

15 
 However, we do not understand the reason for 

16 
 including thorium-232 and thorium-228 in Table 

17 3 of TBD 6000. 

18 
 Furthermore, a default assumption 

19 
 that RU was present during and after 1953 is 

20 
 appropriate unless there is specific evidence 

21 
 from an AWE site's own records that only 

22 
 virgin uranium was handled there. Okay, and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 44
 

1 
 NIOSH response is? 

2 
 MR. ALLEN: We respond that we're 

3 
 still tracking down the origin of that thorium 

4 
 value. We still can't quite sort out exactly 

5 
 where that started. As far as the rest of 

6 
 this goes, seems the comment was that they 

7 
 agreed with the rest of the recycled, that it 

8 
 was -- claimant favorable. 

9 
 They don't understand the origin of 

10 
 the thorium, and neither do I, and it wasn't 

11 
 clear. The last comment was that it wasn't 

12 
 clear if the TBD's default was to include 

13 
 recycled uranium, and I thought it was, but, 

14 
 you know, you can have differences of opinion 

15 there. 

16 
 Section 7.1.3 in the TBD mentions 

17 
 the other assumptions for internal dose, one 

18 
 of which is recycled uranium, and it says that 

19 
 -- it essentially says the default is to 

20 
 assume recycled uranium unless you know 

21 
 otherwise for that facility after 1953, so I 

22 
 don't know if, you know, if that's clear 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 45
 

1 
 enough. I don't know if we're in disagreement 

2 
 whether that piece is clear or that was 

3 
 missed. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So if you found out 

5 
 specifically that there was thorium at one of 

6 
 these facilities, then you would handle that 

7 
 specifically in the appendix for that facility 

8 
 rather than here, or what? 

9 
 MR. ALLEN: Well, I mean, as far as 

10 the thorium. 

11 
 DR. NETON: There are two issues. 

12 
 One is what's the default for handling 

13 
 recycled uranium in general. I think Dave has 

14 
 suggested we believe that it's very clear in 

15 
 our mind that it's anything after 55 is 

16 recycled unless you know otherwise. 

17 
 The second issue is why we include 

18 
 a dose component from thorium-232 and 228 in 

19 
 our recycled uranium calculations, and Dave is 

20 
 saying he's not sure why that's in there, 

21 either. 

22 
 MR. ALLEN: Very small number in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 46
 

1 
 there. 

2 
 DR. NETON: Very small number. It 

3 
 must -- yes, I don't know why, you know. 

4 
 Thorium-232 has nothing to do with recycled 

5 
 uranium, so I'm not sure why it would be in 

6 
 there, either. We could argue it's kind of 

7 
 favorable, I suppose. 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Wasn't there some 

9 
 experiments done at Fernald at one time where 

10 
 they were trying to have mixed thorium and 

11 uranium, you know, as reactor fuel? 

12 
 DR. NETON: I think there was 

13 something like that, but I --

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: In which case it 

15 might have crept into the supply. 

16 
 DR. NETON: None of the recycle 

17 documents I've seen talk about thorium-232. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So we don't even 

19 
 know where this even arose in the --

20 
 MR. ALLEN: I'm still trying to 

21 
 track it down. I tracked it down like two 

22 
 documents, but, you know, where it came from 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 47
 

1 
 for the TBD and where it came from for that 

2 
 document, but it's like a daisy chain of 

3 
 documents I'm tracking down. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Who were the authors 

5 
 of the TBD? 

6 
 MR. ALLEN: Battelle was this one, 

7 
 and I got them on the phone. We don't have --

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

9 
 MR. ALLEN: -- any contact anymore, 

10 
 but I've been corresponding with them a 

11 little. 

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So that was during 

13 
 that period where they were doing a number of 

14 special --

15 
 DR. NETON: Right. All the 6000 

16 series were originally drafted by Battelle. 

17 
 MEMBER POSTON: And the only 

18 
 thorium and uranium that I'm aware of was 

19 
 Indian Point 1, the first core in Indian Point 

20 
 1 with the thorium, but that fuel was 

21 processed at West Valley. 

22 
 DR. NETON: Well, I mean, worst 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 48
 

1 
 case is we remove it. 

2 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes. In all honesty, 

3 
 the numbers in there, it's not going to come 

4 
 up to 1 millirem a year for any organ, I don't 

5 
 think. I haven't actually run those numbers. 

6 
 There's a very -- it's -- what did I write in 

7 
 here, less than six billionths of the uranium 

8 
 activity? It's a very small fraction. If 

9 
 that became significant, then the uranium 

10 should be more than enough compensation. 

11 
 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. In 

12 
 considering the complex inventory, that's got 

13 
 to be such a small figure that it would be 

14 almost indistinguishable. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: Wanda, this is John. 

16 
 The only reason we brought it up is that we 

17 
 were surprised to see it there and not that we 

18 
 were making any statement that it was 

19 significant by any means. 

20 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, well, I can 

21 
 understand why it would be surprising to be 

22 there. Definitely. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

-- 

 

 

 

 49
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: At this point, the 

2 
 only question then is whether to even leave it 

3 
 there, I guess, or to make an additional 

4 
 comment on it. 

5 
 MR. ALLEN: Well, I think, you 

6 
 know, whatever the Work Group decides, I kind 

7 
 of want to track that down as to where it came 

8 
 from. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, you need --

10 
 yes, if there is some other basis for it, then 

11 


12 
 MR. ALLEN: Either way, I'm with 

13 
 John. I was kind of surprised to see that 

14 
 there, too, and I suspect the resolution is 

15 
 going to be to remove that. It's trivial. 

16 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, either way. 

17 
 DR. NETON: Sounds like we've got 

18 
 half of this comment addressed, so the second 

19 
 part, which is the default assumption of 

20 
 recycled uranium, I think John agrees that 

21 
 it's not an issue, and the first part was 

22 
 agreement with the value, so I don't know how 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 50
 

1 
 SC&A feels, but I'm almost going to close this 

2 
 and take --

3 
 DR. MAURO: That's my 

4 
 recommendation. You know, we just want -- we 

5 
 weren't sure -- I guess we should have been --

6 
 regarding your default posture, and it sounds 

7 
 like your default posture is exactly what we 

8 
 thought it should be, and that issue, as far 

9 
 as we're concerned --

10 CHAIR ZIEMER: So we are okay --

11 DR. MAURO: We're okay on that. 

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- as far as you're 

13 concerned. 

14 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, NIOSH is it 

16 
 your intent, though -- once you find out where 

17 it came from, then what happens? 

18 
 MR. ALLEN: When we find out, I 

19 suspect it's going to be to delete those. 

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: But it's not --

21 
 MR. ALLEN: We would not revise the 

22 documents. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 51
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: It's not going to 

2 
 change anything. Is there any reason to keep 

3 
 it in abeyance is what I'm asking. 

4 
 MR. ALLEN: In my opinion, no. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Josie? 

6 
 MEMBER BEACH: I don't believe so. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: You want to close? 

8 
 John, should we close it? Wanda, we're 

9 
 talking closure. 

10 MEMBER MUNN: I'd like to close the 

11 
 item, but I don't know any process that we 

12 
 have for tracking our follow-up to assure that 

13 
 Battelle actually does not have some data 

14 
 source that we have overlooked. That would be 

15 
 my only concern is making sure that that last 

16 
 T gets crossed. I don't know how we do that 

17 once we no longer have --

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Without leaving it 

19 in abeyance? 

20 
 MEMBER MUNN: In abeyance until we 

21 
 can identify -- until Battelle responds to our 

22 request for information, essentially. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 52
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, I guess we 

2 
 could leave it in abeyance and just have you 

3 
 report what you found. 

4 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: We could do that. 

6 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, and one last 

7 
 time look at it and say, now we know this. It 

8 
 can be closed. 

9 
 MR. ALLEN: I can do that, but, 

10 
 like I said, it seems to be somewhat of a 

11 
 daisy chain, and I can't guarantee I'm going 

12 to find exactly where that came from. 

13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, if you don't, 

14 then what? 

15 
 MR. ALLEN: Well, that's my 

16 question is everybody wants --

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Any reason not to 

18 remove it? 

19 
 MR. ALLEN: I mean, is this a T you 

20 
 really want crossed is essentially what it 

21 
 amounts to, or are we willing just to drop it? 

22 
 MEMBER MUNN: Well, if the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 53
 

1 
 originator of the data cannot provide for you 

2 
 the basis of inclusion, then we have a basis 

3 
 for exclusion. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, the other part 

5 
 of that is that they're not even sure they can 

6 
 find the originator, right? It somehow came 

7 
 from a subcontractor who --

8 
 MR. ALLEN: I've got to track down 

9 
 with a group of people that don't work for us 

10 anymore. 

11 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. 

12 
 MR. ALLEN: Obviously, they're not 

13 on our timelines. 

14 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Let's track it down. 

15 
 Wanda is suggesting leave it in abeyance 

16 
 until we -- just to hear what the final 

17 outcome is, I guess, is --

18 MEMBER POSTON: That's fine. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That's fine. Okay. 

20 MEMBER BEACH: That's fine. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I'm okay on that. 

22 
 We'll leave it in abeyance just so we can find 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 54
 

1 
 out the ultimate --

2 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I just don't 

3 
 know of another way to make --

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: We're going to 

5 
 consider it -- the issue is essentially 

6 
 closed. We just --

7 
 MEMBER POSTON: Let's hope all of 

8 
 them don't drop at once. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, we can move 

10 
 on. I think we're up to Issue 4, airborne 

11 
 uranium concentrations recommended in the TBD 

12 might not be claimant favorable. 

13 
 SC&A finding, default airborne dust 

14 
 loadings used in the TBD to drive external 

15 
 exposures and inhalation exposures are based 

16 
 on data provided in Harris and Kingsley, 1959. 

17 
 The TBD would benefit from including a review 

18 
 of the time-weighted daily average uranium 

19 
 dust loadings reported in the Adley, et al. 

20 
 Report, Study of Atmospheric Contamination in 

21 
 the Metal Melt Building, (AEC 1952), and in 

22 
 the site profile for Simonds Saw and Steel, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 55
 

1 
 ORAUT-TKBS-0032 (ORAUT 2005). 

2 
 SC&A's review of these documents 

3 
 reveal that the bounding default time-weighted 

4 
 average airborne uranium dust concentrations 

5 
 recommended in the TBD might not be claimant 

6 
 favorable. Okay, NIOSH. 

7 
 MR. ALLEN: Okay, this is one that 

8 
 I don't know if I understand the details on 

9 
 it. In the report from SC&A they listed 

10 
 Simonds Saw. It says this in this comment 

11 
 here and the Adley document, and they list 

12 
 several values and even mention here, I think, 

13 
 somewhere that it may be two or three times 

14 higher, or maybe I missed that. 

15 DR. MAURO: That's correct. 

16 
 MR. ALLEN: It seems like -- you 

17 
 know, I haven't seen the numbers, but it seems 

18 
 like it's being compared to the value in the 

19 
 table and the TBD, but the table is the 

20 geometric means of distribution. 

21 
 There's a default GSD on those of 

22 
 five, which puts even the 84th percentile 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 56
 

1 
 fives times in it, so the, you know, the 

2 
 values that are two or three times that would 

3 
 then be something less than an 84th 

4 
 percentile. It seems like the TBD values are 

5 
 a distribution that well covers the values 

6 
 that you're mentioning in these other 

7 
 documents. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: Our concern is the 

9 
 Adley report is a very rich source of 

10 
 information on dust loadings and practices for 

11 
 uranium handling facilities. The Kingsley and 

12 Harris report is certainly a useful document. 

13 
 What we did when we reviewed the 

14 
 document was we looked at the Harris and 

15 
 Kingsley numbers. We looked at the Adley 

16 
 numbers, and we found that, you know, they 

17 
 both deal with time-weighted averages, and 

18 
 tried to characterize the range of different 

19 
 types of airborne dust loading that you might 

20 
 see, time-weighted averages, and we found 

21 
 that, when we looked at these other documents 

22 
 over and above Kingsley, there was a richness 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 57
 

1 
 of data which indicated that, to really tell 

2 
 the story, a complete story, and to draw from 

3 
 the wealth of information you have, you should 

4 
 have looked at those other documents and weigh 

5 
 that in. 

6 
 When we looked at the other 

7 
 documents, we walked away, saying, I could 

8 
 have easily come away with a default 

9 
 concentration that could have been twice as 

10 high. I mean, that's how it comes out. 

11 
 Now, you bring up some points about 

12 
 operating off the geometric mean, the 

13 
 geometric standard deviation, 95th percentile, 

14 
 all of which I say, you know, that's fine, but 

15 
 I would -- and I can't say sitting here that 

16 that somehow will not do the trick. 

17 
 What is, quite frankly, disturbing 

18 
 is that Adley and Simonds Saw are a very 

19 
 important source of all data for operations at 

20 
 these types of facilities, and they certainly 

21 
 should have been part of the milieu that you 

22 
 drew upon in coming to the numbers you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 58
 

1 
 selected, and I have to say, thinking back to 

2 
 when I first looked at it, I felt that, gee, I 

3 
 might have come away with numbers a little bit 

4 
 higher than yours if I were picking generic 

5 
 numbers for, you know, for the TBD. 

6 
 MR. ALLEN: Well, I mean, the issue 

7 
 when this was being developed was that there 

8 
 was a number of data sources out there, and 

9 
 the concept of trying to take all those, 

10 
 correlate one operation with, you know, what 

11 
 we can pick out of this report versus what we 

12 
 can pick out of that report, and developing a 

13 
 distribution about those things. As I 

14 
 remember, when they found this Harris and 

15 Kingsley, it was a very rich source itself. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: It's a great report, 

17 but I would say Adley is even better. 

18 
 MR. ALLEN: And they determined 

19 
 that if they put this generic GSD 05 on there 

20 
 using Harris and Kingsley, they essentially 

21 
 looked at some of the other references and 

22 
 determined that this distribution would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 59
 

1 
 encompass all of those, and, no, they didn't 

2 
 do a statistical analysis. 

3 
 You know, they were trying to avoid 

4 
 having to do a statistical analysis and trying 

5 
 to correlate all of this stuff together. That 

6 
 can be done. As you mentioned, I suspect the 

7 
 distribution is going to go down, because we 

8 
 haven't found anything that's really above 

9 
 even the 84th percentile on those 

10 
 distributions right now, but I haven't looked 

11 
 at each and every document, or all the 

12 sources. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: I think Adley should be 

14 
 one of the rocks you stand on. In other 

15 
 words, when dealing with AWE facilities, I 

16 
 tried to get an appreciation of how airborne 

17 
 activity behaved to produce settled levels for 

18 different operations. 

19 
 It is truly an amazing document, 

20 
 and we came across it in the past. I forget 

21 
 under what circumstances, but it's been around 

22 
 for quite some time, and I think that TBD 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 60
 

1 
 6000, prior to TBD 6000, without bringing 

2 
 Adley into the picture, and perhaps also 

3 
 Simonds Saw, seems to be a significant 

4 
 deficiency. 

5 
 DR. NETON: Okay. It sounds to me 

6 
 like we ought to at least review the Adley 

7 
 document, compare our numbers that were 

8 
 generated against Adley, make some reference 

9 
 to the fact that we've done that if, indeed, 

10 
 our numbers appear to be significantly 

11 
 bounding given what we've done, but you're 

12 right. 

13 
 I mean Adley is a very, you know, 

14 
 well researched compendium. Refresh my 

15 
 memory, though. Is Adley the one that was 

16 specific for just the Hanford facilities? 

17 DR. MAURO: Right. It was a --

18 
 DR. NETON: That was my concern. 

19 
 Was it one facility, one building, very 

20 
 controlled circumstances? You start using 

21 
 that and saying, okay, this is essentially 

22 
 surrogate data that's going to be used 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 61
 

1 
 complex-wide. Then you raise the questions 

2 
 about ventilation rates and all these other 

3 
 issues, and I think to hang our analyses on 

4 
 just that one document might be a little bit 

5 
 too narrow. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Oh, I didn't say 

7 
 should. I'm saying that given the stature in 

8 
 terms of -- you saw the work they did in 

9 
 there. It was -- I was -- when I read that, I 

10 
 said -- because they looked at every different 

11 aspect of operation. 

12 
 DR. NETON: That's true, I mean, 

13 
 but the Kingsley Harris one was more of a 

14 
 survey of different operations. So you've got 

15 
 -- you've got sort of a sampling of the 

16 
 complex versus a single facility that was 

17 under controlled environment. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: We critiqued. I mean, 

19 
 we're looking at the matrix, but we do have 

20 
 some concerns with Kingsley and Harris, 

21 
 because it represents at least seven 

22 
 facilities where they went in on one day at 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 62
 

1 
 one facility and pulled some samples, so it's 

2 
 a very, very small snapshot, so in itself, it 

3 
 suffers from that. 

4 
 Bringing Adley in and bringing 

5 
 Simonds Saw in starts to build a foundation 

6 
 that's saying, now we've got some data. You 

7 
 know, right now Harris alone is very thin. 

8 
 DR. NETON: It's thin, but I think 

9 
 that's why they ended up with GSD 05 to just 

10 
 sort of account for that, and then possibly my 

11 
 thinking would be maybe use the Adley and the 

12 other documents as sort of --

13 DR. MAURO: To reinforce? 

14 
 DR. NETON: Not necessarily 

15 validation, but checks, that sort of thing. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: You see, to me, the way 

17 
 I see it is, okay, you've got -- let's say you 

18 
 want to stay with Adley as your base, but then 

19 
 you test it, say, okay, but wait a minute. We 

20 
 have this great study done by Adley. We've 

21 
 got this great work done at Simonds Saw, which 

22 
 -- and we're talking about the same periods, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 63
 

1 
 you know, late 1940s, early 50s. Let's test 

2 
 Adley. I'm sorry. Let's test Kingsley. 

3 
 DR. NETON: Kingsley, yes. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: Let's test Kingsley 

5 
 against it and see how it holds up. 

6 
 DR. NETON: That's what Dave is 

7 
 suggesting. I mean, the 84th percentile is 

8 
 well above anything that's reported here. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, and I think that's 

10 all we're looking for. 

11 DR. NETON: I think that's fine. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: Especially given the 

13 thinness of Kingsley. 

14 
 DR. NETON: I think, to close the 

15 loop, I don't think we have a problem. 

16 
 MEMBER POSTON: The scientific 

17 
 method says you use everything, so even if 

18 
 they think the estimates are conservative, 

19 that's fine. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So you're just 

21 saying, demonstrate that that's the case. 

22 DR. MAURO: Holds up. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 64
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And it holds up. 

2 
 Did the GSD 05 emerge arbitrarily from just 

3 
 looking at the data and its own -- was that 

4 
 the actual GSD from all their data sets? 

5 
 MR. ALLEN: No, it wasn't the 

6 
 actual GSD. It came from Battelle-TIB-5000, 

7 
 and it was essentially a generic GSD for 

8 
 general air samples or --

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That's a pretty big 

10 spread. 

11 MR. ALLEN: I can't remember. 

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And it's very hard 

13 
 to say that that's almost always claimant 

14 favorable. That really --

15 
 DR. NETON: Well, the answer's in 

16 
 there somewhere. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, I mean --

18 
 DR. NETON: That's the basis. I 

19 
 mean, that's --

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

21 
 DR. NETON: It has been shown to 

22 
 cover that kind of rate. Particularly, it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 65
 

1 
 sounds enormous, but if you start with some 

2 
 very small numbers, it doesn't take much to 

3 
 get, you know, to five. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: Let's talk a little bit 

5 
 more. I think that there's some philosophy 

6 
 strategy. In other words, when you've got 

7 
 these different operations, there are a lot of 

8 
 different types of operations that take place 

9 
 in these metal handling facilities, some of 

10 
 which, the dust loadings like at the furnace 

11 
 where they have -- there are certain 

12 
 operations that we know from Bethlehem Steel, 

13 
 the Roller Number 1, the famous Roller Number 

14 
 1, where the levels are very -- could be very 

15 high for prolonged period of times. 

16 
 Now, the idea that you would have 

17 
 -- let's say, you know, you grab a work 

18 
 category, and it sounds like I have to go back 

19 
 and look, and you assign a GSD 05. To me, you 

20 
 know, if it turns out that that's a way of 

21 
 saying, well, it's got such a big GSD, that 

22 
 takes care of all ills, I have to say my sense 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 66
 

1 
 is that doesn't really solve the problem, 

2 
 because if you're saying --

3 
 Is it possible that what we really 

4 
 have here is some -- because you're going to 

5 
 apply this to a real person, and somehow your 

6 
 sense is, well, because we're using a GSD 05, 

7 
 we are being claimant favorable for that 

8 
 person. 

9 
 What happens if that person's 

10 
 reality of his work situation was he was up in 

11 
 the upper 85 percentile, 95 percentile his 

12 
 whole working career? Does that GSD 05 assure 

13 
 him that you're being claimant favorable? So 

14 
 I've always had trouble with the use of a very 

15 
 large spread as being, you know, a way to deal 

16 
 with the problem. It's almost a little too 

17 
 easy. 

18 
 DR. NETON: Our opinion accounts 

19 
 for the uncertainty in our knowledge base. 

20 
 That's what this whole Monte Carlo program 

21 
 does. It's based on that --

22 
 DR. MAURO: I would agree with that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 67
 

1 
 if you felt you had a guy who -- see, I would 

2 
 have -- see, we've been down this road, but I 

3 
 think it's worth repeating, because it's a way 

4 
 of thinking about the problem. 

5 
 If you know you had a guy whose job 

6 
 was he was a supervisor and he roamed around 

7 
 the building, and he experienced a 

8 
 cross-section, and you don't know how much he 

9 
 -- you know, then you, you know, you know he 

10 
 had sort of an essential tendency, but it 

11 could have been out there. 

12 
 But if you don't know that, and you 

13 
 say, gee, he could have been working anywhere. 

14 
 For all we know, he could have been working 

15 
 in the worst possible place, I don't -- to me, 

16 
 then, that one-size-fits-all, that's when it 

17 
 starts to fall apart, because if either you 

18 
 know the person worked in a bad place, or you 

19 
 don't know that he did, and we ran into this 

20 before, and I think that --

21 
 I know how we resolved it on 

22 
 Bethlehem Steel, and we liked the way it was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 68
 

1 
 resolved. In other words, you ended up 

2 
 sighing, well listen, we don't know where this 

3 
 guy worked, so what we're going to do is we're 

4 
 going to -- since we don't know, we're going 

5 
 to put him in the worst place, and assign to 

6 
 him that 1,000 MAC or whatever the number was, 

7 
 600 MAC. 

8 
 So anyway, but this does play on --

9 
 the philosophy plays out here, because when 

10 
 you look at your default value, which this is 

11 
 intended to be, you know, this is going to be 

12 
 a one-size-fits-all by compartment, but you 

13 
 know, the fact that you would assign a GSD 05, 

14 
 whether or not that holds up well when you 

15 
 start to weigh it against the kinds of numbers 

16 
 that come back from Adley, I'd be very 

17 interested in seeing. 

18 
 DR. NETON: That's fair, I mean, we 

19 
 already do that, but you know, I think we have 

20 
 to go with our best estimate. I mean, the law 

21 
 requires us to do a reasonable estimate versus 

22 
 dose, and the reasonable estimate is the best 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 69
 

1 
 estimate with the uncertainty associated with 

2 
 it, in my opinion. We've been down this 

3 
 before. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: I know. 

5 
 DR. NETON: We're sort of getting 

6 
 into a sort of different issue here, and it's 

7 
 not relevant to this comment. I mean, it's a 

8 
 real issue, and it needs to be properly 

9 
 addressed, but maybe in another forum. 

10 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right, because all 

11 
 of your methodologies, whether it's for the 

12 
 internal or even the external, you always have 

13 
 an outside chance that there could be somebody 

14 who you will miss. 

15 
 DR. NETON: Yes, I mean, frankly, 

16 
 even if you pick the 95th percentile, you're 

17 taking a five percent chance that you --

18 
 DR. MAURO: The reason why I'm okay 

19 
 -- even with the end where we're talking 

20 
 external, why I always was comfortable, you've 

21 
 got a thousand workers working in your plant, 

22 
 and you have a distribution of numbers, and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 70
 

1 
 you decide, well, we're going to assign the 

2 
 95th percentile for this guy in this year. 

3 
 Well, reality is you're right. For 

4 
 that year, it's possible there's a five 

5 
 percent chance that his dose for that year 

6 
 might be higher, if you don't know any better, 

7 
 but I'm comfortable with the idea that, well, 

8 
 wait a minute. You're going to assign the 

9 
 95th percentile for your number one, your 

10 number two, your number three. 

11 
 Now, I am convinced. We know now 

12 
 that the likelihood that this guy is going to 

13 
 be hit with the 95th percentile year after 

14 
 year after year after year. Things get kind 

15 
 of slim. Now I'm convinced that you just 

16 
 placed an upper bound. It really is 

17 
 unreasonable to think it could be higher, so 

18 
 that's why, you know, to me the philosophy 

19 
 that you've embraced for external exposure is 

20 truly bounding. 

21 
 Now but that philosophy doesn't 

22 
 seem to be carrying over when it comes to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 71
 

1 
 internal exposure. You've taken a different 

2 
 tack, and I believe the reason you've taken 

3 
 that tack is because you're talking about an 

4 
 integrated exposure, and that the people that 

5 
 were selected for --

6 
 Well, in other words, to this day 

7 
 we've been having this conversation, you know, 

8 
 why -- the rationale for taking a different 

9 
 tack for internal versus external, and it does 

10 
 bear out here. Here's a place where the 

11 
 rubber meets the road, so that when you start 

12 
 to, let's say, take a closer look at TBD 6000 

13 
 in light of these other sources of data, I 

14 
 think it's also important to be thinking in 

15 
 terms of the subject of, you know, how do you 

16 
 come out of a problem like this, and right now 

17 
 I do think we have a difference of opinion on 

18 how to come out of this kind of problem. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But isn't it still 

20 
 integrated? You're still looking -- you're 

21 
 taking the dose commitment for this year, and 

22 
 the next year, and the next year, and the next 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 72
 

1 
 year. 

2 
 DR. MAURO: The full distribution, 

3 
 right. In other words, for this year, here's 

4 
 the intake we're going to assign, and here's 

5 
 the distribution for this year, and it's the 

6 
 full distribution, right, and then the next 

7 
 year, the full distribution. See I would 

8 
 claim -- I would argue that's claimant 

9 
 neutral. 

10 DR. NETON: I don't see that as a 

11 comment in this review. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: No, it's not here. No, 

13 
 it's not here. I apologize for that, but, 

14 
 right, let's keep it here as far as we're 

15 concerned. 

16 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That's sort of 

17 
 underlying your concern, is what you're 

18 saying. 

19 
 DR. MAURO: That's part of it, yes. 

20 
 That's part of it. Well, and we don't have 

21 
 to engage it here, but I do think we see this 

22 
 time and again, and I think it does come out 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 73
 

1 
 in the TBD that you had mentioned, the 050 or 

2 
 the --

3 
 MR. ALLEN: TIB-5000. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: TIB-5000, yes, so maybe 

5 
 that's where it should be, but right now as 

6 
 far as we're concerned, for TBD 6000, our only 

7 
 concern is that Adley and Simonds Saw, the 

8 
 data be factored in for all values. 

9 
 DR. NETON: And we've agreed. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: And that's enough, yes. 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So the action will 

12 
 be for NIOSH to review the Adley document, 

13 
 compare it to the Harris and Kingsley and the 

14 
 Simonds Saw data, and validate that your 

15 
 approach with the Harris and Kingsley data 

16 either is encompassing or not B17 DR. NETON: Bounding. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- or bounding. 

19 Okay, so B20 
 MEMBER BEACH: Is that going to be 

21 
 a white paper, or just a simple paragraph, or 

22 how's --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 74
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Do we know what form 

2 
 that will take at this point? 

3 
 MR. ALLEN: I guess the form is 

4 
 whatever you would like to see. I'm thinking 

5 
 white paper right now, if you just want to see 

6 
 an evaluation of these. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: You're going to have 

8 
 some sort of analysis, which will be the basis 

9 
 of response to the reply, I guess. 

10 DR. NETON: Yes. 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So it sounds like a 

12 white paper or a report. 

13 
 DR. NETON: Eventually that --

14 
 pieces of that white paper would more than 

15 likely be incorporated into this TBD --

16 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

17 
 DR. NETON: -- because we've done 

18 
 the work. We may as well take credit for it 

19 
 in the document, but I think it's best to 

20 flesh it out as a white paper first. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. So this, in 

22 
 our categorical scheme, this continues as --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 75
 

1 
 what's the proper term for --

2 
 DR. MAURO: It's open. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: It's open. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: Open and active. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So it stays open. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Open and active, yes. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Wanda, any comments 

8 
 on this? 

9 
 MEMBER MUNN: No, I think you're on 

10 the right track. 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Mark, did you come 

12 aboard yet? 

13 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: I did. I've been 

14 listening in, Paul. 

15 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. 

16 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm just catching 

17 up here. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: You figured out 

19 we're on Issue 4? 

20 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Any comments 

22 on that? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 76
 

1 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: Not yet, no. No. 

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Very good. 

3 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: Don covered mine, 

4 
 I think. Thank you. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, we're going to 

6 
 keep this one open, then. NIOSH is going to 

7 
 do a white paper to address the concern there. 

8 
 Okay. 

9 
 MEMBER POSTON: We haven't resolved 

10 any of them yet. 

11 DR. NETON: Half of Number 3. 

12 MR. ALLEN: I tried to close 3. 

13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, in abeyance is 

14 
 -- in abeyance is making progress, right. 

15 
 Okay. Number -- Issue Number 5, concerns with 

16 
 method used to derive surface contamination 

17 
 and associated external doses. This is a long 

18 finding. 

19 
 SC&A has several concerns with the 

20 
 method used to derive the surface 

21 
 contamination and associated external doses in 

22 
 Table 6.4 of the TBD. I'm going to stop here 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 77
 

1 
 for a minute. Do I need to read the whole 

2 
 thing or --

3 
 DR. MAURO: Not for me. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I think all the 

5 
 members have read it and have copies of it, so 

6 
 basically the concerns are delineated here and 

7 
 a suggestion on what the TBD should consider, 

8 
 empirical data regarding surface 

9 
 contamination. So NIOSH response? 

10 
 MR. ALLEN: Well, like you said, 

11 
 that's a long one. There's actually a couple 

12 different issues in there. 

13 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

14 
 MR. ALLEN: Essentially it amounts 

15 
 to a disagreement on how we determine surface 

16 
 contamination and what we use that for. One 

17 
 issue is that it's not just deposition. 

18 
 There's large flakes that are created during 

19 
 production, especially hot work on uranium 

20 that can be on the floor. 

21 
 From everything we've seen, those 

22 
 tend to get ground up fairly quickly under 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 78
 

1 
 foot traffic, fork truck traffic, et cetera, 

2 
 and become re-suspendable, and those are part 

3 
 of the airborne that's in the plant once they 

4 
 become re-suspendable. 

5 
 It's been our contention all along 

6 
 that the re-suspendable surface contamination 

7 
 is linked to the airborne whether that is --

8 
 whether that's purely settling out, or whether 

9 
 that's large flakes that are ground up and 

10 
 become part of the airborne through re11 
 suspension, there's a connection between the 

12 two. 

13 
 The very idea of using a re14 
 suspension factor also says that. That re15 
 suspension factor is just a factor that you 

16 
 multiply the surface contamination by to 

17 
 arrive at how much airborne would be in the 

18 
 air from that surface contamination. 

19 
 Between that, removal rates, 

20 
 there's quite a bit of literature that 

21 
 basically says, you know, at least as an 

22 
 approximation you can connect those two, and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 79
 

1 
 it seems that the comment pretty much is --

2 
 I'm not sure if this comment is you don't 

3 
 believe you can connect the two, or if you 

4 
 believe the way we connected the two is not 

5 
 accurate. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Let me -- let me try to 

7 
 capture it. The fundamental problem is the 

8 
 idea that you start off with -- I mean, 

9 
 there's some history here. 

10 
 There was a time when the strategy 

11 
 that NIOSH adopted was, listen, we have some 

12 
 idea of what the airborne dust loading is of 

13 
 these 5 micron particles, and we're going to 

14 
 use that for inhalation. Okay, and we also 

15 
 are going to operate from the premise that, 

16 
 okay, it is that very same airborne dust 

17 
 loading, with these 5 micron AMAD particles 

18 
 that is going to be chronically in the air and 

19 
 is chronically settling, and we know what the 

20 settling velocity is. 

21 
 And so, in theory, one could argue, 

22 
 well, we could figure out, make some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 80
 

1 
 assumption how long is that settling going to 

2 
 go on. Is it going to go on for a week, a 

3 
 day, a year, and assume some buildup on the 

4 
 surface, and that's the way in which the 

5 
 buildup levels on surfaces were derived. 

6 
 Now if you go back to the history, 

7 
 you'll find that different time periods are 

8 
 assumed. I think in this one you assumed --

9 
 in this particular place, you assumed that 

10 
 buildup took place for seven days, but you 

11 
 assumed it was 100 MAC, so in other words, 

12 that's the strategy that was done here. 

13 
 In other settings, different 

14 
 approaches were used, but the idea that your 

15 
 starting point is the sum concentration in the 

16 
 air, and then you multiply by a deposition 

17 
 velocity that's occurring for some time 

18 
 period, is a recurring approach. The actual 

19 
 time periods, the actual starting 

20 
 concentrations in the air differ, we've seen, 

21 in different settings. 

22 
 Now we found that -- well, first of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 81
 

1 
 all, that basic understanding, we don't agree 

2 
 with. We think that what's on the ground is 

3 
 what's important, and to say that it got there 

4 
 based on some deposition velocity from the 

5 
 airborne particles is not the way to get to 

6 
 what's on the surface. 

7 
 We believe, especially in TBD 6000, 

8 
 there is lots and lots of literature out 

9 
 there. What is on the ground? How much --

10 
 how many, you know, Becquerels per meter 

11 
 squared has accumulated on surfaces in these 

12 old AWE facilities? The data are out there. 

13 
 In fact, there's a great piece of 

14 
 work done, again, in Adley, which B- where 

15 
 they put plates out all over the plant, and 

16 
 they allowed the airborne radioactivity to 

17 
 accumulate on it. However they got there, 

18 they don't care. 

19 
 They put the plate out on the 

20 
 ground, sitting there. It could have come 

21 
 from settling. It could have come from chunks 

22 
 falling off. They had it all over. They had 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 82
 

1 
 several of them. I think they had about 15 of 

2 
 them. 

3 
 And at the end of 100 days, they 

4 
 said, how much has fallen? And they came up 

5 
 with a deposition rate, okay? They said, 

6 
 empirically, we have some good information on 

7 
 the number of grams per second per meter 

8 
 squared that's coming down and depositing on 

9 
 surfaces. 

10 Now when we looked at that data, we 

11 
 said, okay, here's some real empirical data 

12 
 under a pretty messy site, old site, doing all 

13 
 the kinds of things that they do at AWE 

14 facilities. 

15 
 That was the purpose of TBD 6000, 

16 
 and we found that the default value you ended 

17 
 up with, in terms of Becquerels per meter 

18 
 square, that the number you picked based on 

19 
 your model, would accumulate under the Adley 

20 approach in three days. 

21 
 In other words, given the Adley 

22 
 rate, in three days, you would get to the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 83
 

1 
 point where you have the numbers here. So 

2 
 it's almost like, quite frankly, I mean, I 

3 
 have a concern about this deposition for the 

4 
 .0075 thing, but you know, that's like a 

5 
 philosophical problem. I say, let's put that 

6 
 aside for a minute. 

7 
 What you did is you took that 

8 
 deposition rate, you assumed 100 MAC, which is 

9 
 an enormous number, you allowed the stuff to 

10 
 settle for seven days, and you got a number on 

11 
 the surface. Let's take -- you know, all I 

12 
 really care about is what's the number you got 

13 
 on the surface, and does it make sense in 

14 light of empirical data that's out there? 

15 
 And my answer is, well, it doesn't 

16 
 hold up very well when you compare it to the 

17 
 empirical data that's out there from the Adley 

18 
 report, because all it took was three days of 

19 
 such deposition occurring in the Hanford melt 

20 
 facility, and you would have achieved to reach 

21 
 that, and so I say that you are not being 

22 claimant favorable. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 84
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Was that three days, 

2 
 and then it's equilibrium? 

3 
 DR. MAURO: And then they stop it 

4 
 there, right. In three days -- in other 

5 
 words, if that -- in other words, if you start 

6 
 it up, three days later at the Hanford metal 

7 
 melt facility, you would have the Becquerels 

8 
 per meter squared that's your default value 

9 
 used in TBD 6000. 

10 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, but what was 

11 the 100-day business? 

12 
 DR. MAURO: No. Oh, the 100-day is 

13 
 the -- wait. All I was saying is that when 

14 
 you go back historically to -- I'm sorry. The 

15 
 100-day period was a time period, I believe, 

16 
 that they left their plates out. There was --

17 all they did in --

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, but were they 

19 -- were they checking them every --

20 
 DR. MAURO: No, they just allowed 

21 
 them to accumulate. They got the total 

22 
 amount, integrated amount accumulated at the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 85
 

1 
 end of that time period. 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, can I? 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Sure. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What you're saying 

5 
 is that the TBD 6000 default value was three 

6 
 percent of the Adley data. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: No. No. What I'm 

8 
 saying is the --

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, you said 

10 three days. You said --

11 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: How did you get 

13 your three days? I'm confused. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: I'm not making myself 

15 clear. Again, picture the Adley facility --

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: -- where they have all 

18 these plates sitting around. 

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

20 
 DR. MAURO: And there were 

21 
 different places, some places where there was 

22 
 a lot of airborne dust, a lot of activity, and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 86
 

1 
 other places where there was very little. 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: So there's a nice 

4 
 table. I might have even put it in my report, 

5 
 and they let them sit there, and I believe it 

6 
 was for about 100 days. It was a protracted 

7 
 period of time. 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, but those 

9 
 don't get re-suspended. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: No, no. Those are just 

11 
 sitting there. Whatever is happening there is 

12 happening there. 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: And at the end of that 

15 
 time period, they grabbed the plate, and they 

16 analyzed, okay, what's on the plate? 

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: And they got number of 

19 
 Becquerels per meter squared, and that's the 

20 
 amount that accumulated by that, after that 

21 
 time period. So now we have Becquerels per 

22 
 meter squared. That's real. That's what 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 87
 

1 
 they're seeing. 

2 
 Now I compared that Becquerel, and 

3 
 now, they didn't -- and what they did with 

4 
 that, they said, okay, what does this mean in 

5 
 terms of the rate in Becquerels per second per 

6 
 meter squared that's coming down? 

7 
 In other words, so they were not so 

8 
 much interested in what they saw at the end of 

9 
 that time period, because you could have 

10 
 picked any time period. What they were really 

11 
 interested in, what rate of deposition during 

12 
 operation would have to have occurred to 

13 
 result in this much activity on the surface at 

14 the end of 100 days? 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Did they 

16 assume --? 

17 
 DR. MAURO: So it was a --

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Did they assume 

19 constant? Did they --

20 DR. MAURO: They averaged it. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: You'd have to have 

22 an average. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 88
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: They averaged. 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, but I mean, 

3 
 did they assume constant? 

4 
 DR. MAURO: No. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: For 100 days? 

6 
 DR. MAURO: They just said that, at 

7 
 the end of 100 days --

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I know. So did 

9 
 they -B how did they get a rate? 

10 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: You'll have to get a 

11 
 -- you have to assume it's constant to get a 

12 rate. 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: How did they get a 

14 rate? 

15 
 DR. MAURO: They said, it 

16 
 effectively means that the rate is these many 

17 Becquerels per second per meter squared. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's assuming 

19 that it's constant --

20 
 DR. MAURO: Assuming that it's 

21 constant, right. 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- for 100 days. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 89
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: The reality is it's not 

2 
 probably constant. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, but they 

4 
 averaged it out. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But I'm saying --

6 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But I'm saying, it 

8 
 wasn't like some exponential factor where it 

9 
 gets re-suspended again from those plates. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: No, they didn't do 

11 that. They --

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So it's linear. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: It's linear. It's pure 

14 linear, right? 

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, fine. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: It's a very simple 

17 model. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So then you do mean 

19 
 that it's -- when you say three days' worth, 

20 you do mean three percent. 

21 DR. MAURO: So --

22 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: The surface 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 90
 

1 
 contamination elsewhere, where it's re2 
 suspended, has got to be about three percent 

3 
 of the --

4 
 DR. MAURO: Well, no. No. All I'm 

5 
 saying -- don't let's talk about re-suspension 

6 
 right now. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: Let's just simply say 

9 
 that, when you look at the Adley data, you 

10 
 find out what the rate of deposition is. 

11 
 That's basically all it gives you. How many 

12 
 Becquerels per meter squared per second is the 

13 
 average rate at which uranium is falling out 

14 onto surfaces. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, I follow that. 

16 
 My question is, how did they get the three 

17 
 days to equilibrium where re-suspension is 

18 occurring? 

19 DR. MAURO: They didn't --

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think you mean 

21 three percent of what's on there. 

22 
 DR. MAURO: No. Well, maybe that's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 91
 

1 
 what -- all I'm saying is that --

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, if they said 

3 
 it reached equilibrium after three days --

4 
 DR. MAURO: No, no. You're -- the 

5 
 number they have that they are using as a 

6 
 default value is the amount that would have 

7 
 accumulated at the Adley plant in three days. 

8 
 In other words --

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, I thought you 

10 
 were saying that the Adley report was claiming 

11 that they reached equilibrium in three days. 

12 DR. MAURO: No. 

13 CHAIR ZIEMER: No. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: No, they did not, no. 

15 
 The Adley report, they just put it out -- for 

16 
 all intents and purposes, they would have left 

17 
 it out there longer, and then they would have 

18 
 more activity, and longer. They would have 

19 more. They stopped at a certain --

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, I'm not talking 

21 
 about equilibrium on these collection plates. 

22 
 I'm talking about the work area where it's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 92
 

1 
 re-suspending. 

2 
 DR. MAURO: Right. They didn't 

3 
 make a distinction between B- all they did was 

4 
 put plates out, and all I'm really saying is, 

5 
 well, in effect, what the Adley report shows 

6 
 us is that the numbers -- that there is a 

7 
 certain rate at which uranium deposits out in 

8 
 Becquerels per meter squared per second, per 

9 
 day, whatever you --

10 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And therefore, this 

11 is the air concentration you would need. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: Well not so much the 

13 
 air, but this is the rate in the working 

14 
 environment. Now, it depended on where you 

15 were in the building. 

16 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: I mean, there are a lot 

18 of different places in the building. 

19 
 DR. NETON: It would depend on air 

20 concentration, right? 

21 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, there's a rate at 

22 
 which it's coming down. This is the number of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 93
 

1 
 Becquerels. Now how it got there, they didn't 

2 
 discuss that. They said, this is what's on 

3 
 the plate at the end of this time period. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, it's probably 

5 
 linked to the air concentration. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: No, no. It could have 

7 
 been guys walking around kicking stuff, re8 
 suspending it. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That's right. That 

10 is air concentration. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: But it's not -- you 

12 
 know, it could have been the original stuff 

13 
 that was produced while you were grinding, or 

14 
 it could have been stuff that was on the 

15 ground and kicked up again. 

16 
 DR. NETON: But the higher the air 

17 
 concentration, the higher this number, 

18 Becquerels per meter squared per second. 

19 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. Yes, but the 

20 
 number --

21 DR. NETON: Directly related to --

22 
 DR. MAURO: But the important point 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 94
 

1 
 is this, and here's the question you have to 

2 
 ask yourself. The number that you ended up 

3 
 with in your report is a certain number of 

4 
 Becquerels per meter squared as being, this is 

5 
 the equilibrium value we're going to use for 

6 
 the purpose of doing external exposure 

7 
 associated with deposited activity, and also 

8 
 re-suspension, which we'll talk about 

9 
 separately. This is your starting point. 

10 Here's what's on the ground. 

11 
 Now what I'm saying is, if you were 

12 
 at the Adley plant, and you started up 

13 
 operation, and you started this activity, in 

14 
 three days of operation, that's the amount of 

15 
 radioactivity you'd have on the ground, the 

16 amount that you folks have selected. Okay. 

17 
 In other words, if you allowed that 

18 
 operation to go for another, let's say, for 

19 
 100 days, you would have 30 times more. In 

20 
 other words, so what I'm saying is it's not 

21 claimant favorable. 

22 
 Three days of accumulation is the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 95
 

1 
 number you would get if you accept the Adley 

2 
 data as being a reasonable way to predict the 

3 
 rate at which uranium deposits on surfaces, 

4 
 and if you accept that as being a reasonable 

5 
 characterization of the rate at which uranium 

6 
 deposited on surfaces in uranium metal 

7 
 handling facilities, then the implication 

8 
 being that your default value of Becquerels 

9 
 per meter squared would have occurred, would 

10 accumulate in three days. 

11 
 That's all it takes, three days' 

12 
 worth of operation, and that's how much you 

13 
 would have accumulated. That doesn't seem to 

14 
 be claimant favorable. Is that clear? I 

15 mean, did I make it --

16 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I think I know what 

17 
 you're saying, but it's not obvious to me, 

18 
 because when you're putting the plates out, 

19 you're not measuring surface contamination. 

20 DR. MAURO: Sure you are. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No you aren't. 

22 
 Surface contamination is what's there. If I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

 96
 

1 
 go -- if I understand it --

2 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- on a working 

4 
 surface, you've got stuff airborne, so the 

5 
 surface contamination in a work area has got 

6 
 to be lower, because a lot of it's up in the 

7 
 air, than a static plate laying -- that's been 

8 
 sitting there. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: No, the plate was put 

10 
 where people were working. In other words, 

11 
 there was a guy -- in other words, they were 

12 
 all over the place. 

13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, but --

14 
 DR. MAURO: They put them down, and 

15 
 that's what so --

16 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But the activity on 

17 
 that plate is not being disturbed like the 

18 
 activity on the work surface. That's what I'm 

19 


20 
 DR. MAURO: That's true. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: It's not subject to 

22 
 the re-suspension. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 97
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: That's true. 

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So in my mind, and I 

3 
 don't know what the number is, but say it's 

4 
 three days, say it's 50 days --

5 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- in the working 

7 
 area, the activity which is not airborne or 

8 
 not re-suspended is -- if I took a smear and 

9 
 got activity per unit area, I get a number 

10 
 which I think is going to be different than a 

11 
 tray or whatever it is that's sitting here, 

12 
 not subject to re-suspension, that's just been 

13 
 letting things settle down on it undisturbed 

14 
 for whatever, whether it's three days or 50, 

15 and that's why I was --

16 DR. MAURO: All right. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- getting at the --

18 
 I think, Bob, you were thinking along that 

19 line is --

20 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- in other words, 

22 
 is the surface contamination, and I don't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 98
 

1 
 think we know that, for example, 30 times less 

2 
 at a given time than activity in the tray, or 

3 
 half as much or whatever. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: Fair enough. Fair 

5 
 enough. 

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So I'm trying to 

7 
 think about --

8 
 DR. MAURO: Fair enough. Fair 

9 
 enough. The exact analogy is not there. 

10 
 You're saying that, because they're a plate, 

11 
 by definition, they're not going to be 

12 
 impacted in the same way that a true surface 

13 
 is where there are people walking around that 

14 could cause --

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. In fact, if 

16 
 the people weren't walking around, that thing 

17 
 is going to -- itself can be equilibrium, or 

18 is going to --

19 
 DR. MAURO: No, no, no. It's 

20 accumulating for -- everything is --

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, no, I mean, as 

22 
 long as there's airborne contamination and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 99
 

1 
 there's processes going on and people stirring 

2 
 things up, but if you just went in and 

3 
 operated three days and stopped --

4 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That would be very 

6 
 different, but here you're going to continue 

7 
 to play it out on that. I don't know. Let 

8 
 the others think about this. John, what do 

9 
 you think about the --

10 
 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I was about 

11 
 to ask if you know details about the plate, 

12 
 because, you know, a lot of places use fallout 

13 
 trays that have sticky surfaces. There was no 

14 way it could reach the --

15 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, in fact, we 

16 
 described the plate dimensions and how they 

17 
 used it, and it was totally done for the 

18 
 purpose of seeing how much stuff is falling, 

19 
 the rate at which material is coming down. It 

20 wasn't --

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Now, you might get 

22 
 some re-suspension from air currents, I grant 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 100
 

1 
 you that, but the bit stuff is not going to be 

2 
 ground up and --

3 
 DR. MAURO: You're right. So in 

4 
 other words, what you're saying is it might be 

5 
 biased high. It might be biased high. 

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I don't know. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: The plates might be 

8 
 biased high, because what happens is its --

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: The heavy stuff will 

10 stay put. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: It's accumulating 

12 stuff, because things are being re-suspended. 

13 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: But it's not losing 

15 stuff, because things are --

16 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: The heavy stuff's 

17 not getting ground up. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: So I would agree that 

19 
 that would be a -- the plates may very well be 

20 
 biased high, and I guess the best way to look 

21 
 at it is to the extent that we looked into 

22 
 this matter, I again drew upon measured 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

-- 

 

 

 

 

 101
 

1 
 information, and there's a lot more to the 

2 
 story than this that's in the main body of the 

3 
 report. 

4 
 There's -- for example, at Simonds 

5 
 Saw, they hung film badges. It's not in this 

6 
 part, but it's another part of the story, and 

7 
 there was a certain radiation field that they 

8 
 measured, and say, okay, if you assume that 

9 
 radiation field that you're measuring from 

10 
 these film badges that are hanging is due to 

11 
 radiation generated from surface contamination 

12 


13 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: Right, now I could -- I 

15 
 back-calculated it. I think, Bob, you may 

16 
 have run the calculation. What -- how much 

17 
 Becquerels per meter squared would have to be 

18 
 of natural uranium on surfaces like an 

19 infinite plane --

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: -- with the badges held 

22 about --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 102
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, I'm okay. 

2 
 DR. MAURO: And it turns out the 

3 
 amount of activity would have to be 100 times 

4 
 higher. So in other words, so now I'd be the 

5 
 first to admit that the radiation readings 

6 
 experienced by these film badges may very well 

7 
 be due to a lot of things. It could be due 

8 
 from what's on surfaces. It could be to what 

9 
 deposited on them directly, and it could be to 

10 the steel bars. 

11 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: And so I didn't really 

13 
 go -- I mean, I mentioned that, but it's 

14 
 interesting, though. But it's interesting 

15 
 that it was a 100-fold difference, and when I 

16 
 did the plate effect, it's a 100-fold 

17 difference, so in other words --

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That sounds a little 

19 
 coincidental to me. 

20 
 DR. MAURO: It's kind of a 

21 
 coincidence, but when you get a coincidence, I 

22 
 say, well, something isn't right here. The 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 103
 

1 
 numbers are too low. I mean, that's how I walk 

2 
 away from this. 

3 
 DR. NETON: These badges are 

4 
 hanging vertical, right? 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

6 
 DR. NETON: They're measuring the 

7 


8 
 DR. MAURO: They're measuring the 

9 
 radius. 

10 
 DR. NETON: -- from quite a 

11 
 distance. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I want to get a 

14 
 little NIOSH response here, too. And I don't 

15 
 know where we are on this except that John's 

16 
 raised the question that I think about whether 

17 
 or not your approach, or whether the link 

18 
 between -- it has to do with the link between 

19 
 surface contamination and the airborne 

20 
 activity, I guess, is what we're telling you. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: Well, I don't even --

22 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Are there two parts 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 104
 

1 
 to it? 

2 
 DR. MAURO: I think there's no 

3 
 doubt that that model is unsound. In other 

4 
 words, I'm not pulling my punches on that one. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Which model? 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Whereas, the idea that 

7 
 the way you calculate what's on surfaces is by 

8 
 measuring the airborne radioactivity, okay, 

9 
 that's in there, and then assuming a 

10 
 deposition rate of 0.00075 meters per second, 

11 
 and then allow that deposition to take place 

12 
 for some time period. I do not think that's 

13 
 scientifically valid. In other words, if you 

14 
 want to know what's on the ground, you do not 

15 
 use that method, because embedded in that 

16 
 assumption is that the only thing that's 

17 
 floating around in the air are 0.5 micron 

18 
 AMAD, and I do not think that that's a valid 

19 way to approach that model. 

20 
 You know, when you have real --

21 
 especially in this particular TBD, when you 

22 
 have real measurements of what's on surfaces, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 105
 

1 
 where you have real measurements of the rate 

2 
 at which material is falling down onto 

3 
 surfaces, you don't use this extremely 

4 
 indirect method where you simply assume that 

5 
 the stuff that's -- the only stuff that's on 

6 
 surfaces got there because it was -- it 

7 
 settled out at a velocity of 0.00075 meters 

8 
 per second, and that very value was selected 

9 
 because it's based on 0.5 micron AMAD, and 

10 
 then you make some assumption about how long 

11 that goes on. 

12 
 I've seen in some places you assume 

13 
 it goes on for a week, and then you stop. 

14 
 I've seen other places where you assume it 

15 
 goes on for a year, and then stopped, and so 

16 
 there are certain inconsistencies on how it's 

17 
 being applied in different places, but in my 

18 
 mind, the whole approach is fundamentally 

19 flawed. 

20 
 I think the right way to go, 

21 
 especially in this case, is to go to Adley, 

22 
 and Adley did the best job they could. That's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 106
 

1 
 why they did it. They said, listen, we've got 

2 
 a uranium handling facility, and it's a big 

3 
 complex facility. Every different room is 

4 
 doing something a little bit different. 

5 
 Let's put these plates out, these 

6 
 flat plates out, and see the rate at which 

7 
 uranium is accumulating on these plates in 

8 
 these different locations, and that's what you 

9 
 should be using as your rate of buildup. 

10 
 And then all I did was I looked at 

11 
 the rate of buildup as determined in the 

12 
 various areas, and I found that that rate of 

13 
 buildup is such that, you know, the amount of 

14 
 activity that you ended up picking as your 

15 
 default activity from the model you used would 

16 
 build up in only three days' worth of 

17 
 operations at the Adley plant, and I think 

18 that's a problem. See, and that's --

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, yes, so --

20 
 yes, so there's a big difference there. Now, 

21 
 I'm trying to envision, though, it's still a 

22 
 way to link to air concentration, is what 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 107
 

1 
 you're after. 

2 
 DR. MAURO: You could. Yes, you 

3 
 could. In fact --

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I mean, what are you 

5 
 going to do with the number? 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Well, yes. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: If you use the 

8 
 Adley. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: No, with the Adley 

10 
 number, all I'm saying is I know my rate at 

11 which it's coming down. 

12 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: And I'm saying that, 

14 
 well, let's make some assumption of how long 

15 is that going to continue --

16 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: -- before you clean it 

18 
 up, before there's some housekeeping, before 

19 you reach some kind of equilibrium? 

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: I don't know the answer 

22 to that, but it's certainly not three days. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 108


1 
 DR. NETON: That's totally 

2 
 independent of any air concentrations that 

3 
 were generated. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: Say that again. 

5 
 CHIEF ZIEMER: No. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: No, it is. No, you 

7 
 could --

8 
 DR. NETON: That number is totally 

9 
 independent, because you don't know what the 

10 air concentration is. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: We don't know what the 

12 -- that's right. 

13 
 DR. NETON: You're just assuming 

14 that --

15 DR. MAURO: Right. 

16 
 DR. NETON: -- the Adley process is 

17 representative of all AWEs. 

18 DR. MAURO: I'm saying that --

19 
 DR. NETON: That's what you're 

20 saying. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: Right, and -- well, no. 

22 DR. NETON: I don't think I agree. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 109
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: No, no, no, no, no, I 

2 
 didn't say that. I said to myself, when I see 

3 
 an analysis like the one you performed, I say, 

4 
 how do I come at this problem from another 

5 
 direction to convince myself it's reasonable? 

6 
 And I did that, and I did that with the Adley 

7 
 work, because you folks didn't use the Adley 

8 
 work. I said, let me come at it from that 

9 
 direction, and let me also come at it from the 

10 
 Simonds Saw direction, where they had the film 

11 badge tie-in. 

12 
 So I said to myself, if all of this 

13 
 rings true, that is, when I'm done looking at 

14 
 the Adley data and looking at the Simonds Saw 

15 
 film badge data, if I see that the activity on 

16 
 surfaces that you folks ended up with, not 

17 
 withstanding how you got to it -- you know, I 

18 don't care about how you got to it. 

19 
 You come up with a -- you end up 

20 
 with a number on the ground. Does that number 

21 
 on the surface seem to be reasonable when I 

22 
 test it against information from other 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 110
 

1 
 sources, Simonds Saw and Adley, and I say, no, 

2 
 it doesn't. Simonds Saw, it's low by a factor 

3 
 of 100. Adley, it could easily be low by a 

4 
 factor of 10. 

5 
 DR. NETON: Have you got something 

6 
 to say? 

7 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I mean, just to 

8 
 make sure we're clear on this, Adley has no 

9 
 contamination levels listed in it. It's a --

10 DR. MAURO: No, they do. 

11 
 MR. ALLEN: -- it's a deposition 

12 rate. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: They do have the 

14 
 amounts, and they tell you, but they give you 

15 
 the rate, because they were more interested in 

16 
 the rate, because they could have left those 

17 
 plates out shorter or longer, so that was 

18 
 almost like arbitrary. They just left them 

19 
 out for some time period so that they --

20 you've got the idea. 

21 
 MR. ALLEN: They did it in the 

22 
 winter months, and then they did it in the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 111
 

1 
 summer months. 

2 
 DR. MAURO: They did it in the 

3 
 winter and the summer, too, to see how 

4 
 different it was. 

5 
 MR. ALLEN: And it was, I think, 

6 
 like 150 days versus 117. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: Exactly. 

8 
 MR. ALLEN: It was arbitrary. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: It was arbitrary. 

10 
 MR. ALLEN: And from that they 

11 divided by --

12 DR. MAURO: Time. 

13 
 MR. ALLEN: -- the days, and they 

14 
 got a -- I think it was micrograms per square 

15 foot per day. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: That's the -- that's 

17 
 the correct units. 

18 
 MR. ALLEN: And, as we mentioned, 

19 
 it's not really susceptible to re-suspension 

20 
 or as much re-suspension as the work areas 

21 
 would get, but it gives you a deposition rate. 

22 DR. MAURO: Right. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 112
 

1 
 MR. ALLEN: And then the question 

2 
 is, with re-suspension, do we expect some sort 

3 
 of buildup to a contamination level, and the 

4 
 real argument here is, how much time do you 

5 
 put on whatever deposition rate that you come 

6 
 up with? How much time do you put on it to 

7 
 get that buildup equilibrium low? And it 

8 
 seems to be that almost anything you do, it's 

9 
 a factor. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: Well, you had to do 

11 
 that, too. 

12 
 MR. ALLEN: And we do that, too. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: You did seven days, and 

14 
 you saw --

15 
 MR. ALLEN: It's the same thing. 

16 
 It's just essentially taking airborne 

17 
 concentrations, because that's what you did to 

18 
 get that rate. 

19 
 DR. MAURO: No, you see, you 

20 
 started with 100 MAC as your airborne, and 

21 
 that's some default upper bound. I agree with 

22 
 you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 113
 

1 
 You picked 100 MAC as your default 

2 
 upper bound value from looking at a lot of 

3 
 data, and I'm not going to argue with that. I 

4 
 think 100 MAC is a very high value for 

5 
 airborne. Then you applied that deposition 

6 
 rate, and you let that go on for seven days, 

7 
 and you came up with a number. 

8 
 Now, you know, to me, that's a 

9 
 fairly arbitrary. There's aspects to it that 

10 
 I think are conservative. I think the 100 MAC 

11 
 is very conservative as what you start -- as 

12 your starting point for what's in the air. 

13 
 Then I say, but hold the presses. 

14 
 I don't buy the mechanistic thing that you 

15 
 used that is -- in other words, that the way 

16 
 in which that activity on the surface gets 

17 
 there at a real plant is because you're 

18 getting 5-micron AMAD particles coming down. 

19 
 You end up with some activity on 

20 
 the surface. There is no doubt you end up 

21 with that. 

22 MR. ALLEN: Right. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 114
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: But the -- now, the 

2 
 method by which you got there, I don't agree 

3 
 with. I don't think that mechanistically 

4 
 exists in reality. That's not the way the 

5 
 real world works. That's not the way in which 

6 
 the AWE surfaces get contaminated, but I said 

7 
 to myself, I don't really care about the 

8 
 mechanism you use. 

9 
 I really care about the amount of 

10 
 activity you ended up with on surfaces and 

11 
 that the amount of activity you ended up on 

12 
 surfaces is not compatible with the 

13 information I reviewed from other sources. 

14 
 MR. ALLEN: So, what it comes down 

15 
 to is you don't agree with the mechanism that 

16 we used, but it --

17 DR. MAURO: More importantly --

18 
 MR. ALLEN: -- would be acceptable 

19 
 if you would agree with the time frame we 

20 applied. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: It would be irrelevant 

22 if it turns out that --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 115
 

1 
 MR. ALLEN: It would be irrelevant. 

2 
 DR. MAURO: -- mechanism ended up 

3 
 with a concentration on surfaces which is 

4 
 compatible and consistent what you see at 

5 
 Adley and at Simonds Saw, because we know 

6 
 those three bounding surfaces. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Do we have any --

8 
 did they analyze what was in the trays in 

9 
 terms of particle size distributions? 

10 DR. MAURO: No, I don't think so. 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: One thing you're 

12 
 going to get on those trays, you're going to 

13 get some big stuff that's not respirable --

14 DR. MAURO: That's true. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- and therefore 

16 
 could not contribute to internal dose. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: Well, that's true. 

18 
 That's true. 

19 
 DR. NETON: Yes. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And if --

21 
 MEMBER BEACH: But if it was on the 

22 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 116
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But would contribute 

2 
 to a significant fraction of what's in the 

3 
 trays activity-wise, because it would be large 

4 
 masses. 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, because what 

6 
 was falling in a work surface, it could be re7 
 suspendable by the crushing and the work 

8 
 activity. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: There is a counter10 
 argument I see. The very argument used before 

11 


12 
 MEMBER BEACH: But use the idea. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: -- that, wait a minute, 

14 
 no one is walking on this stuff, and therefore 

15 
 it's not re-suspending, but if someone were 

16 
 walking on it and there was anthromorphing, 

17 
 you may write that stuff down to a point. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

19 
 DR. MAURO: Now, all of a sudden, 

20 
 there is re-suspendable, and it is inhalable. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

22 
 DR. MAURO: So, I mean --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 117
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But that's where you 

2 
 want to take into consideration some MAC 

3 
 level, I guess, and say, you know, what could 

4 
 the -- what could the airborne concentration 

5 
 be under these conditions where you're 

6 
 chopping this stuff up? Yes, I think it's a 

7 
 puzzle, because --

8 
 DR. MAURO: I think that --

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- there's some 

10 
 things about the trays, the collection trays 

11 
 that cause some problems in terms of relating 

12 it back to respirable particles, so --

13 
 DR. MAURO: No, we're not there 

14 yet. 

15 CHAIR ZIEMER: No. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: All I'm saying is I 

17 
 don't want to talk about the re-suspension 

18 
 factor pathway. All I want to talk about is 

19 
 you folks have come up with an amount of 

20 
 Becquerels per meter square that you're going 

21 
 to use as a default value. Let's forget about 

22 how you got there. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 118
 

1 
 Here's my -- let's say you decide 

2 
 this is the number we're going to use. You 

3 
 didn't even tell us what you did. Let's make 

4 
 believe that happened. 

5 
 Here's the number we're going to 

6 
 use. These may be Becquerels per meter 

7 
 squared, and we think that's a good number. 

8 
 Then you come over to SC&A and say, SC&A, what 

9 
 do you -- do you think that's a good number? 

10 Well, let me check it out. 

11 
 I go ahead, and I look into the 

12 
 literature that I know of, Simonds Saw and 

13 
 Adley, and I say, no, I don't think that's a 

14 
 good number. I think it's too low, maybe too 

15 
 low by a factor of 10, maybe even as much as a 

16 factor of 100, and I give you my reasons. 

17 
 I didn't even know how you got that 

18 
 number. You just gave me a number. Now, 

19 
 that's all I'm saying, now, and for the 

20 reasons I gave. 

21 
 Now, you could come back, counter22 
 argument, wait a minute. Wait a minute. The 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 119
 

1 
 literature you used, let's first go to the 

2 
 Adley numbers, and that was based on these 

3 
 plates, right? You say, yes, that's right, 

4 
 and those plates were not subject to re5 
 suspension, so, therefore, they may be biased 

6 
 high. I agree, but I consider that to be a 

7 
 second-order process. I don't think that's 

8 
 major. In other words, the 

9 
 amount you're going to lose from it just so 

10 
 happens that some of it is going to be re11 
 suspended, you know, I don't give too much 

12 
 importance to that. I would say that I'm 

13 looking for a bounding estimate. 

14 
 I'm looking for a plausible upper 

15 
 bound, and I would say that, well, granted, 

16 
 that might be somewhat biased high. You know, 

17 
 we probably could do some quantitative 

18 
 analysis on how much might be lost, in other 

19 
 words, if there was re-suspension going on, 

20 
 and figure out how much might have been lost 

21 
 from that plate using some high re-suspension 

22 
 factor, you know, and how much would it 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 120
 

1 
 change? 

2 
 We could do a sensitivity analysis 

3 
 on that, and I suspect that we're going to 

4 
 find that it's really relatively insensitive, 

5 
 but I don't want to jump the gun, you know, 

6 
 but it's tractable, which --

7 
 MR. THURBER: John, this is Bill 

8 
 Thurber. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Yes? 

10 
 MR. THURBER: The point -- this 

11 
 specific comment was made in the context of 

12 external exposure. 

13 DR. MAURO: That's correct. 

14 
 MR. THURBER: Not internal 

15 
 exposure. I think that that kind of is 

16 
 getting lost in what I hear in some of the 

17 conversation. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: Well, Bill, that's 

19 
 both. You're right, because I am concerned 

20 about this concentration for two reasons. 

21 
 MR. THURBER: Well, I know it's 

22 
 relevant to dose, but our comment was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 121
 

1 
 specifically as relates to external radiation, 

2 
 where what you care about is the dust cloud 

3 
 the guy is standing in and how much is on the 

4 
 floor that he is getting exposure from. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, but you notice the 

6 
 comment is it's both external and internal, 

7 
 so, I mean, you're right. 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, this particular 

9 
 issue focuses on the external, but there are 

10 
 some --

11 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, they're a follow12 
 on, but --

13 
 MR. THURBER: There are follow-on 

14 
 ramifications, clearly. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. I don't know. I 

16 
 guess, to answer your question, Paul, yes, I 

17 
 think that there are probably ways to place 

18 
 some quantitative estimate. Yes, how much is 

19 
 it biased high? 

20 
 And it might be worth looking at, 

21 
 but at this point in time, all I can 

22 
 communicate is the concerns that -- what I did 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 122
 

1 
 to raise the concerns that I have, and I think 

2 
 that it would be worthwhile for NIOSH to take 

3 
 a look at the Adley report and the deposition 

4 
 plates, for better or worse, you know, because 

5 
 this is what I brought to the table, and also 

6 
 the Simonds Saw data, and see if it speaks to 

7 
 you the way it spoke to me. 

8 
 It spoke to me in a way that says, 

9 
 hmm, I think the activity you guys ended up on 

10 
 surfaces is somewhat too low, but not by a 

11 
 little. Bob, I know you're my biggest critic, 

12 so --

13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, no, I have --

14 
 let me ask one other thing, Bob, and then hear 

15 
 from you. Now, the other part of that 

16 
 external, you've got the dose from the 

17 
 surfaces, and then I guess you've got a cloud 

18 calculation, too, right? 

19 
 DR. NETON: It is trivial, but yes. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And that part is 

21 
 pretty trivial in most of these cases, so if 

22 the --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 123
 

1 
 DR. NETON: The airborne --

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Can we ignore the 

3 
 cloud on this? 

4 
 DR. NETON: Essentially, yes. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. So the 

6 
 difference in the deposition rates and in the 

7 
 particle sizes is the main issue that is 

8 
 affecting, because the trays -- the trays will 

9 
 take care of the big particles. 

10 
 You're saying they're going to get 

11 
 ground up in the workplace a little more and 

12 
 re-suspend. I mean, there would be more of 

13 
 it. Well, I'm trying to -- I'm trying to get 

14 
 a feel for how much of that is going to get 

15 back up in the air versus --

16 
 DR. NETON: Yes, I don't know that 

17 we're going to solve that issue today. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, we can't solve 

19 
 it today. I'm just trying to get a feel for 

20 the --

21 
 DR. NETON: Yes. 

22 CHAIR ZIEMER: You know, what --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 124
 

1 
 DR. NETON: It's been a while since 

2 
 I've looked at the idling tray data. I mean, 

3 
 I'm aware of it. I looked at it at one time 

4 
 pretty extensively and didn't feel it was 

5 
 worth much. Now, that was my opinion when I 

6 
 looked at it. I have not looked at it maybe 

7 
 from your perspective. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: But you can -- Jim, but 

9 
 you think that this model -- do you think 

10 
 that's worse than this model? I mean, come 

11 on. 

12 
 DR. NETON: I don't know. I still 

13 
 haven't gotten past the fact that this is a --

14 
 I don't know why this was not air 

15 concentration dependent, the Adley model. 

16 DR. MAURO: Well, there is no --

17 
 DR. NETON: Per square meter per 

18 
 second is dependent upon the airborne 

19 concentration. 

20 
 DR. MAURO: Well, there is no doubt 

21 
 you can go from the activity on the surface 

22 
 that you know how to get there somehow. Now, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 125
 

1 
 we could theoretically say, okay, we know --

2 
 let's assume it came there from deposition, 

3 
 okay. You could predict. You know, we'd know 

4 
 what the deposition rate is. Well, knowing 

5 
 the --

6 
 DR. NETON: Well, but, I mean, 

7 
 normally these things are presumably out there 

8 
 24/7. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

10 
 DR. NETON: During production, not 

11 during production. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There is a way 

13 
 around a lot of those issues, and that is 

14 
 using a very simple box model, and that simply 

15 
 is you've got an equilibrium concentration on 

16 
 the floor that means the deposition rate is 

17 
 equal to the re-suspension, not the re18 
 suspension factor but re-suspension rate. So 

19 
 once --

20 
 DR. MAURO: No, no, the removal 

21 
 rate, because re-suspension goes up, it comes 

22 back down again. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 126
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I'm just saying 

2 
 the deposition rate is all -- everything that 

3 
 falls from the air, regardless of how it got 

4 
 there, and then there is a re-suspension rate 

5 
 or a removal rate, as you wish, which is how 

6 
 it goes down. 

7 
 So, you know, in other words, 

8 
 income equals out-go, and since we already 

9 
 have a handle on one number -- we know the 

10 
 deposition rate. We accept the deposition 

11 rate from Adley. 

12 
 All we need to come up with is some 

13 
 plausible re-suspension rate, and, of course, 

14 
 the lower the rate, the higher your 

15 
 concentration is going to be, because your 

16 
 surface concentration is simply the deposition 

17 
 rate, which would be in, let's say, in grams 

18 
 or Becquerels per second per square meter, and 

19 
 the -- I'm going to call it re-suspension 

20 
 rate, for lack of a better term, the removal 

21 
 rate, which would be simply a fractional per 

22 seconds. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 127
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, if you could 

2 
 isolate those, but in the meantime you've got 

3 
 source term inputs from processes, I think. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But I'm talking --

5 
 when I say deposition rate, the Adley -- my 

6 
 understanding from what John said of the Adley 

7 
 data is it includes all --

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I know. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- all source 

10 terms. 

11 CHAIR ZIEMER: I know. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So you've got a 

13 
 source -- I mean, the point is you've got --

14 
 the point is this can be -- one can be a blind 

15 
 mathematician doing this. You know nothing 

16 
 about what is going on there. All you know is 

17 this is what's coming in. 

18 
 This is a plausible fractional 

19 
 removal rate now. Removal is fractional. So 

20 
 much is removed per second, and then what is 

21 
 the equilibrium concentration on the floor? 

22 It's simply one divided by the other. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 128
 

1 
 DR. NETON: I've got a basic 

2 
 problem with this Adley data. It represents 

3 
 the deposition rate in a plant over a 100-day 

4 
 period --

5 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

6 
 DR. NETON: -- for that plant only. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: And all the different 

8 
 rooms in the plant. 

9 
 DR. NETON: It's facility-specific. 

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, absolutely. 

11 
 DR. NETON: And it is totally 

12 
 dependent upon the number of times those 

13 
 machines ran or what frequency, if they ran it 

14 
 for an hour and then shut it off for five 

15 days, so you don't really --

16 
 DR. MAURO: And it covers two 

17 
 orders of magnitude, depending on what room 

18 they're in. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And ventilation 

20 
 rates. 

21 DR. NETON: No, but what I'm saying 

22 is --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 129
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: It does everything. 

2 
 DR. NETON: It's specific upon the 

3 
 amount of work --

4 
 DR. MAURO: Right. 

5 
 DR. NETON: -- and the types of 

6 
 work and the time period you see of that work 

7 
 in that plant, so this value is only valid for 

8 
 this plant for that time period. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Good. Good. All 

10 right, and if it turns out --

11 DR. NETON: It's still valid. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: Okay, and if it turns 

13 
 out that they did work, and you know that was 

14 
 a good piece of work -- you look at it. You 

15 convince yourself. 

16 
 DR. NETON: Yes, I'm not -- I agree 

17 with you. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: Everybody convince 

19 
 themselves, and it comes out that the activity 

20 
 in this particular facility is ten times 

21 
 higher than the number you're using for your 

22 
 default value, by definition this can't be a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 130
 

1 
 good AWE, generic AWE, because I've already 

2 
 found one that's ten times higher than yours. 

3 
 You see what I'm trying to say? 

4 
 I'm saying the purpose of TBD 6000 is to be 

5 
 applicable to all facilities when you don't 

6 
 have real data, and along comes one facility 

7 
 that shows you're underestimating the activity 

8 
 on surfaces by a factor of ten, at least. 

9 
 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. I 

10 have to insert one thing here. 

11 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

12 
 MEMBER MUNN: It's very easy to 

13 
 understand what transpired with respect to the 

14 
 Adley data. What no one has mentioned -- I 

15 
 don't even know if it's known -- is the rate 

16 
 of housekeeping that took place in that 

17 facility or in any other facility. 

18 
 Most of the radioactive materials 

19 
 production facilities had at least a modicum 

20 
 and, in most cases, rather severe housekeeping 

21 
 procedures that maintained surfaces relatively 

22 
 clear from one day to the next of debris from 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 131
 

1 
 preceding operations. 

2 
 The same was true of flooring, 

3 
 especially if you were talking about any kind 

4 
 of materials that might be recovered so that 

5 
 when you say you have good, firm figures over 

6 
 what deposition rates were, all you're really 

7 
 saying is you know what the deposition rates 

8 
 were averaged over a period of 100 days or 

9 
 whatever the number of days was. 

10 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

11 
 MEMBER MUNN: You cannot say 

12 
 anything about the adjacent surfaces which 

13 
 must have been cleaned. Even if only once a 

14 
 week, that would give you a 14- or 15-time 

15 
 house cleaning activity, which would have 

16 
 removed, re-suspended or even removed direct 

17 deposits throughout that period of time. 

18 
 So, in order to say that you can 

19 
 relate that figure directly to doses, you have 

20 
 to have some knowledge of whether or not the 

21 
 surfaces which were not collection surfaces, 

22 
 the surfaces where people actually worked, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 132
 

1 
 were cleaned and at approximately what times. 

2 
 In many cases, they were cleaned 

3 
 daily, so this would lead you to the 

4 
 conclusion that any figure that you had 

5 
 accumulated from the plates would certainly be 

6 
 claimant-favorable. They would not have taken 

7 
 into account the cleaning of surfaces that 

8 
 would have taken place in the plant itself. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Wanda, we completely 

10 
 acknowledge and agree with that, and all we 

11 
 can say is that our analysis using the data we 

12 
 have says that your number would be good if it 

13 
 turns out every three days they scrubbed that 

14 
 place clean. Okay, that's a -- and if that's 

15 
 -- if you find that to be claimant-favorable 

16 
 and adequate for TBD 6000, that's fine. I 

17 guess I don't. 

18 
 I think that's a little bit too19 
 short time period, you know. Now, but if 

20 
 there is evidence that across the complex that 

21 
 that type of good housekeeping was in place, 

22 then you're absolutely correct. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 133
 

1 
 The numbers you have are probably -

2 
 - the absolute numbers that you've come up 

3 
 with as your default activity is just fine, 

4 
 but I guess I've been operating on the premise 

5 
 that three days is just a little bit too 

6 
 short. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, even if it 

8 
 wasn't, John, I think you're saying that the 

9 
 number you're getting for surfaces is still 

10 much higher. 

11 
 DR. MAURO: Well, because I am 

12 
 assuming that accumulation goes on for more 

13 than three days now. 

14 DR. NETON: For 100. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: Perhaps as long as 100 

16 days. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But it doesn't even 

18 
 have to be that it gets scrubbed clean every 

19 
 three days. It simply is that the removal 

20 
 rate through all mechanisms is one-third per 

21 
 day, because that's exactly what the equation 

22 will tell you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 134
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Bingo. Right. 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's simply the 

3 
 deposition rate divided by the removal. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: You're right. That's 

5 
 right. Now, is that a good -- is that a good 

6 
 presumption for the purpose of building a 

7 
 generic model for AWEs? I mean, that's what 

8 
 it comes down to. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Let me see if Mark 

10 
 has any comments. Mark, you've been listening 

11 
 here. What words of wisdom do you have for us 

12 on this? 

13 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: Nothing yet, no 

14 words of wisdom at all. 

15 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. 

16 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm listening in. 

17 
 I'm actually trying to find the correct 

18 
 matrix and stuff, so I'm fumbling around with 

19 documents, but --

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: The one we're 

21 
 looking at, Mark, was sent out Monday of this 

22 week. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 135
 

1 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh, okay. I'm not 

2 


3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: It has the -- it has 

4 
 NIOSH response and SC&A's replies in it, so 

5 
 it's very recent. 

6 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay. Okay. 

7 
 MEMBER BEACH: So are we asking for 

8 
 another white paper? 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, I don't know 

10 
 yet what we're asking for. Jim, what's your 

11 
 thought on our next step here from your point 

12 
 of view? 

13 
 DR. NETON: Well, I think we're 

14 
 headed that way. These are some fairly 

15 
 complex issues that need to be worked out, and 

16 
 we're not going to come to a consensus at this 

17 
 table. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I think the main 

19 
 thing here was to make sure the issues are on 

20 
 the floor and we understand what we're talking 

21 
 about. 

22 
 DR. NETON: Yes, a very good 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 136
 

1 
 understanding of where SC&A's position is. 

2 
 DR. MAURO: That's all I could ask 

3 
 for. 

4 
 DR. NETON: No, and we need to go 

5 
 back and re-look at the little plates or 

6 
 whatever they used at Adley. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: And don't forget the 

8 
 Simonds Saw film badge. 

9 
 DR. NETON: Yes, that's a little 

10 more of a stretch, I think. 

11 DR. MAURO: It is. 

12 DR. NETON: The plates --

13 DR. MAURO: But when that --

14 
 DR. NETON: The plates have some 

15 
 merit. The film badges I'm not sure how you 

16 can model. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: But when the two of 

18 
 them came in in the same place, could it have 

19 been coincidence? Maybe. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, so what we'll 

21 
 do, I think, if it's agreeable is leave this 

22 
 with -- NIOSH is going to take another look at 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 137
 

1 
 the Adley paper and evaluate, and we'll have 

2 
 to have further discussion on this. 

3 
 Obviously, some interesting issues on both 

4 
 sides of the plate, but there also is 

5 
 downstream from this some implications on air 

6 
 activity. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: We are about to do that 

8 
 right now. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right, and --

10 
 DR. NETON: And I would point out 

11 
 that these are not huge motions that we're 

12 talking about here again. 

13 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

14 
 DR. NETON: These are sort of 

15 
 second order corrections, but nonetheless they 

16 need to be done. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So this one is going 

18 to stay open. 

19 
 MR. ALLEN: Can we make sure -- I 

20 
 mean, I think one key part of this, I didn't 

21 
 understand exactly what the comment was, and I 

22 
 think John can attest now that it's kind of a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 138
 

1 
 difficult thing to describe. 

2 
 DR. MAURO: I think now we know 

3 
 where it is. That's why this is important. 

4 
 It's pretty simple. 

5 
 MR. ALLEN: But if I understood 

6 
 right, you don't disagree that it is possible 

7 
 to, at least as a first order approximation, 

8 
 to link the airborne with surface 

9 
 contamination. The two are related. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: But not the way you did 

11 it. 

12 
 MR. ALLEN: But not the way I did 

13 it, but you're saying there is some factor --

14 
 CHIEF ZIEMER: Well, they've got to 

15 be --

16 DR. MAURO: Somehow it's got to --

17 
 CHIEF ZIEMER: There's a place for 

18 that, or it wouldn't work. 

19 
 MR. ALLEN: Okay, so that's off the 

20 
 table. There is agreement that there is some 

21 sort of factor you could use with --

22 CHAIR ZIEMER: However it's done. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 139
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: I brought up this lack 

2 
 of relationship simply because when you're 

3 
 grinding uranium, if you want to consider a 

4 
 flake popping off a grinding wheel and falling 

5 
 off to the ground as being airborne, that's 

6 
 fine. Then, yes, I'll say yes, it's 

7 
 proportional, but when I think airborne, I'm 

8 
 thinking about the general air as just sort of 

9 
 like --

10 So, I've got to tell you, I have a 

11 
 problem with saying -- because when they're 

12 
 grinding, you know, I have this picture in my 

13 
 mind of the sparks coming off a grinding 

14 
 machine or whatever they're doing, and these 

15 
 flakes or coming, or a roller, and these big 

16 
 flakes are coming off and falling on the 

17 ground. 

18 
 I don't consider that to be 

19 
 airborne activity. This is a flake coming 

20 
 off, a visible flake. It falls on the ground. 

21 
 You step on it. You grind on it. That 

22 becomes part of what's on the ground. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 140
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And also, to 

2 
 reinforce what you're saying, the comment that 

3 
 everything that's falling on the ground will 

4 
 be uniformly ground to a fine powder, that 

5 
 depends where it falls. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If it happens to be 

8 
 right where someone, a workman is standing at 

9 
 a lathe and he's always moving back and forth 

10 
 within a small area, perhaps, but there are 

11 
 many -- I mean, foot traffic is not uniformly 

12 distributed over the floor. 

13 DR. MAURO: Right. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There are places 

15 
 where you don't walk, because they are behind 

16 
 something. They're in the corner. They're 

17 
 near the wall. They're underneath, so some 

18 
 parts of it will get ground if there are 

19 
 vehicles coming in. Again, they are on 

20 
 wheels. There are tracks, and a lot of this 

21 
 stuff will stay relatively undisturbed, not 

22 
 moved around, but you cannot say that all the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 141
 

1 
 big chunks --

2 
 DR. MAURO: Right, but listen. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I'm 

4 
 reinforcing. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: No, I'm with you. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You cannot say that 

7 
 everything that falls to the ground is going 

8 
 to be ground up to a 5-micron, you know, AMAD. 

9 
 DR. NETON: But if it's not, Bob, 

10 it's not a problem. 

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon? 

12 
 DR. NETON: If it doesn't get 

13 ground up, it's not a problem. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, for external, 

15 it is. 

16 DR. NETON: Right, external. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But then we're 

18 talking about internal. 

19 
 DR. MAURO: You see, one of the 

20 
 things, and Paul said it at the last meeting, 

21 
 you know, a model is -- no model is right, but 

22 
 it could be useful. All I'm trying to do is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 142
 

1 
 say to myself, listen, we're simplifying the 

2 
 reality. 

3 
 Of course, we are, in a way, and in 

4 
 the end we want to be able to say that, well, 

5 
 do we feel that in the end, if we use this 

6 
 approach, will we be placed in a plausible 

7 
 upper bound? And I guess I come down, and I'm 

8 
 saying no. 

9 
 Based on the data I look at, I say 

10 
 no. Based on the data you look at, you say 

11 
 yes, and we disagree, and that's fine. And 

12 
 now you know the reason, my reasoning, for 

13 
 better or worse. There may be flaws in it, 

14 but there it is, naked for the world. 

15 
 DR. NETON: I'm with you, John. 

16 
 I'm a firm believer in empirical data and 

17 
 looking at it. You know, you can have all the 

18 
 models you want, but you take some empirical 

19 
 data. It's best to compare it and see does it 

20 make sense in the real world. 

21 DR. MAURO: That's all Adley. 

22 
 DR. NETON: That's what we need to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 143
 

1 
 do. 

2 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. I think, 

4 
 rather than start the next issue, we will go 

5 
 ahead and take our lunch break now. We will 

6 
 reconvene at 1:00 our time. I guess that's 

7 
 about, yes, 1:12, 11:10, about 10:00 your 

8 
 time, Wanda, I guess. 

9 
 MEMBER MUNN: Give or take a 

10 little. 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Give or take a 

12 
 little bit. Okay. So we'll recess for lunch 

13 
 at this point, and we'll put the phones on 

14 mute or cut them off here. 

15 MR. KATZ: Cut them off. 

16 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. 

17 
 MR. KATZ: Thank you everyone on 

18 the phone. 

19 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

20 
 matter went off the record at 11:54 a.m. and 

21 resumed at 1:00 p.m.) 

22 
 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 144
 

1 
 Board on Radiation Worker Health, the TBD 

2 
 6000/6001 Work Group, and we are reconvening 

3 
 after lunch. Could I just check on the phone? 

4 
 Wanda, do we have you and Mark? Do we have 

5 
 you guys again? 

6 
 MEMBER MUNN: You have Wanda. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Mark Griffon? We'll 

8 
 check a little later. Maybe Mark will be 

9 
 rejoining us. Okay. We are ready to address 

10 
 in the TBD 6000 findings matrix Issue 6, which 

11 
 is called Underestimate of Re-suspension 

12 Factor. 

13 
 The finding, in order to derive 

14 
 upper bound default inhalation exposures due 

15 
 to the re-suspension of uranium particles 

16 
 deposited on surfaces, the TBD uses a default 

17 
 re-suspension factor of 1 x 10-6 per meter. 

18 
 Review by SC&A of literature addressing the 

19 
 re-suspension factors indoors reveals that 

20 
 this value might be low by about an order of 

21 magnitude. 

22 
 Considering that the default 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 145
 

1 
 bounding surface contamination used in the TBD 

2 
 might be low by one to two orders of magnitude 

3 
 and that the default bounding re-suspension 

4 
 factor might be low by an order of magnitude, 

5 
 the default inhalation rate and the associated 

6 
 doses associated with dust re-suspension 

7 
 pathway might be underestimated in the TBD by 

8 
 several orders of magnitude. 

9 
 And to some extent this is a 

10 
 continuation of the other issue but with the 

11 
 focus on the re-suspension itself, which also 

12 
 then leads to the internal dose issue. So 

13 
 that was the finding, and NIOSH's response is 

14 fairly brief, but, Dave, I'll give it to you. 

15 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I mean, our 

16 
 response was essentially that the re17 
 suspension factor is an important part of 

18 
 OTIB-70. That one is already under review, 

19 
 and I apologize. I'm not quite sure what 

20 working group was reviewing that one. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, that would be 

22 
 under the Procedures Work Group, I believe, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 146
 

1 
 since --

2 
 DR. MAURO: Well, it turned out 

3 
 that was part of -- we did review it recently. 

4 
 It was a special procedure that underwent 

5 
 review, and I remember Hans giving a whole 

6 
 presentation on that at one of our last 

7 
 Procedure --

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But that's not been 

9 
 closed in any way. 

10 DR. MAURO: No. 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So that's -- if 

12 
 these two are related, maybe we reserve 

13 
 judgment until that one is completed, or do we 

14 
 need to do that? What do we need to do here, 

15 and --

16 
 MR. ALLEN: I'm just pointing out 

17 
 that it's, you know, you've got two groups 

18 
 doing the same thing. I think it's probably 

19 
 one that could be consolidated somehow, 

20 
 whether this group or the previous group or 

21 whatever. 

22 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: There is a whole 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

 147
 

1 
 range of re-suspension factors in the 

2 
 literature, and they can vary with the surface 

3 
 material. They vary with the chemical and 

4 
 physical form of the material that's being re5 
 suspended. 

6 
 I am a little rusty on it. Can you 

7 
 remind me of sort of the range of numbers? 

8 
 And I've actually seen -- it's probably in the 

9 
 Chemical Rubber Handbook or one of those 

10 
 tables where they give re-suspension factors 

11 
 for different kind of activities and different 

12 
 types of surfaces. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: I sent it. There's an 

14 
 attachment. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Is that in the 

16 
 attachment here? 

17 
 DR. MAURO: It's in the attachment. 

18 
 In fact, I have -- this attachment is an 

19 
 excerpt from previous work products that SC&A 

20 


21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. Oh, yes. 

22 
 DR. MAURO: We summarized the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 148
 

1 
 literature, and to answer your question, 10-11
 

2 
 to 10-2, we're talking nine --

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, it's a big 

4 
 range. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Nine orders of 

6 
 magnitude. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: So, yes, you're 

9 
 absolutely right. It's enormous, and the 

10 
 question is, is the 10-6 in the place where you 

11 
 want it to be. I mean, that's really what it 

12 
 comes down to. 

13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right and, I guess, 

14 
 as I understand the finding, in a sense you're 

15 
 saying justify that number versus one of the 

16 
 other ones. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: Well, no, we're strong 

18 
 on that. We did review the literature. It's 

19 
 summarized in the attachment. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: And in there I think 

22 
 the argument could be made that a 10-5 or a 5 x 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 149
 

1 
 10-5 is a better number for the purpose in 

2 
 which it's being used here. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think the point 

4 
 made clear in our reply is that the 10-6 

5 
 apparently was taken from NUREG-1720, which 

6 
 was inadvertently omitted from the list of 

7 
 references that was an email sent out to --

8 
 DR. MAURO: I emailed it, so you 

9 
 have it. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- replace it. 

11 
 That says NRC 2002, and that's the number that 

12 
 NRC recommends for decommissioned facilities, 

13 
 and this means floors have been cleaned. 

14 
 They've been washed. There is nothing more 

15 going on. 

16 
 It's been released for public use 

17 
 and for unrestricted use, and the residual 

18 
 contamination that remains there has a re19 
 suspension factor of 10-6, and so if that's --

20 
 if that's the good number to use in that 

21 
 instance, then for an active facility where 

22 
 the deposition is occurring on an ongoing 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

-- 

 

 

 150
 

1 
 basis, it would seem intuitively that this 

2 
 would be -- re-suspension factor would be much 

3 
 higher. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Let me ask this 

5 
 related question, however. The re-suspension 

6 
 factor -- well, for a decommissioned facility, 

7 
 you're concerned about a completely different 

8 
 level of contamination in the air than you 

9 
 would be for workers in terms of if you're 

10 
 going to establish any kind of dose limits, so 

11 
 maybe you could argue -- and I just put this 

12 
 out as a thought. 

13 
 Maybe one could argue, say, 10-6 of 

14 
 a low level to start with, which is protecting 

15 
 the public, versus 10-6 of a higher level for 

16 
 workers. So talk to me about --

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The level -- I mean 

18 


19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I mean --

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The purpose of 

21 
 establishing -- that NRC established the 10-6 

22 
 level is to calculate what is an acceptable 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 151
 

1 
 limit of contamination on the surface so as 

2 
 not to exceed, I believe, the 25 millirem per 

3 
 year --

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- you know, 

6 
 release criteria. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So it's backward, 

9 
 so earlier -- and the reason 17, NUREG-1720 

10 
 was prepared was earlier there was this 

11 
 contract for NUREG-5512, Part 3, where they 

12 
 had come up with much higher numbers, and it 

13 
 was a problem, because they felt NRC and 

14 
 probably the nuclear industry felt that this 

15 
 was being too restrictive and that they were -

16 
 -

17 By using unrealistically high re18 
 suspension factors, they were limiting what 

19 
 could be released or to be cleared and 

20 
 increasing level, so when they went back and 

21 
 restudied this, they said that for a 

22 
 decommissioned facility where the floor, the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 152
 

1 
 surfaces have been already washed and cleaned, 

2 
 10-6 is a conservative upper bound. I mean, 

3 
 that was the whole intent of this NUREG. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. So the 

5 
 argument there is if you haven't really 

6 
 cleaned it, you're automatically going to get 

7 
 a bigger percentage --

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- of re-suspended, 

10 
 simply because the source term to start with 

11 is greater. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, it's loose, 

13 the dust. 

14 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's loose, and 

16 
 it's also fresh --

17 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- because even if 

19 you didn't clean --

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: Whereas if the --

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Even if you didn't 

22 
 clean but just locked the doors and walked 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 153
 

1 
 away for months and came back, it would kind 

2 
 of settle in for the outdoor, weathering in, 

3 
 but here it's daily. It's fresh stuff. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So just common 

6 
 sense would say that if that 10-6 is good for 

7 
 that number, then you've got to have something 

8 
 considerably higher for fresh stuff. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So, NIOSH, your 

10 response? 

11 
 MR. ALLEN: The operational 

12 
 airborne levels we use for TBD 6000 came from 

13 
 air sample data from the facilities that would 

14 
 include re-suspension during the operation. I 

15 
 believe the only time we used the 1-6 was for 

16 after shutdown. 

17 
 DR. NETON: After shutdown, yes. 

18 These were basically shut-down operations. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Shut down but not 

20 necessarily cleaned up. 

21 DR. NETON: True. 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 154
 

1 
 DR. NETON: But if there is no 

2 
 beneficial work going on in these facilities 

3 
 at that time and they're not working with 

4 
 radioactive material, then they are 

5 
 essentially storehouses. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I understand. 

7 
 Okay. 

8 
 DR. NETON: So that's what I'm --

9 
 DR. MAURO: So you're saying that 

10 
 the re-suspension factor of 10-6 per meter is 

11 
 something that you would use only for a 

12 
 facility that was inactive, the materials 

13 
 aged, whatever is residual, and therefore, 

14 
 under those circumstances, 10-6 starts to look 

15 a little better. That's for sure. 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but, again, if 

17 it hasn't really been --

18 DR. MAURO: Cleaned. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- washed down --

20 
 DR. MAURO: You know --

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- it wouldn't be -

22 
 - it still may not be --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 155
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: What might be helpful 

2 
 is, you know, we did the best we could to --

3 
 Table 1 in this attachment, it really just 

4 
 says, listen, we went into the literature, and 

5 
 we tried to see what the world is saying about 

6 
 indoor re-suspension factors, and there is no 

7 
 doubt that 10-6 is very often seen, but when 

8 
 you look at the whole picture, you say, hmm, 

9 
 is that the number I want to use for a default 

10 
 upper bound value or reasonable for the 

11 purposes in which you're using it? 

12 
 And I come away saying, I would 

13 
 have gone with something a little more 

14 
 restrictive, something closer to 10-5, and I 

15 
 think that really, you know, it's really a 

16 judgment call at this point. 

17 
 You know, where do you put that 

18 
 number? I would have put it around 10-5, maybe 

19 
 even as high as 5 x 10-5, you know, and if you 

20 
 folks feel that for the reason you just gave 

21 
 maybe 10-6 is better, this is -- you know, 

22 
 given the uncertainties, this is really a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 156
 

1 
 judgment call, and that was our point. 

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, yes, and you 

3 
 mention in your reply that -- or it says, 

4 
 clearly, neither of these assumptions apply to 

5 
 an operating facility, the assumptions that 

6 
 they had made, but Jim is saying, yes, but 

7 
 we're not using it. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: I didn't understand. I 

9 
 thought you were using this to do -- as part 

10 
 of -- this was part of the way in which you 

11 were modeling operations, also. 

12 
 DR. NETON: No, and I think that 

13 
 wouldn't make sense, because the models were 

14 
 based on air sampling that was taken during 

15 
 the operational period, so normally re16 
 suspension is built into those general air 

17 
 samples. We only use re-suspension factors 

18 
 like that once the operation is shut down, and 

19 
 that was really the point of this TIB-70 was 

20 
 how you model residual contamination in atomic 

21 
 weapons in employer facilities was the whole 

22 point of having two. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 157
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Well, I mean, think we 

2 
 are moving closer, and that's good. What we 

3 
 have here is we agree that when you have a 

4 
 place that's been decommissioned, where 

5 
 basically you've cleaned it up, and you're 

6 
 ready to release it for unrestricted use, and, 

7 
 you know, you want to place an upper bound on 

8 
 what the exposures might be to future 

9 
 occupants of this facility that now has been 

10 
 cleared by the NRC that a re-suspension factor 

11 of 10-6 would be a good number. 

12 
 On the other extreme, we are saying 

13 
 that, well, if you have an operational 

14 
 facility, it has fresh contamination. It's 

15 
 loose. A number more like 5 x 10-5 is probably 

16 
 a better number. So it's someplace between 

17 
 those two numbers that you have placed 

18 yourself. 

19 
 Well, we're saying, well, we really 

20 
 don't have a cleaned-up facility, but we do 

21 
 have a facility where you don't have a lot of 

22 
 people walking around kicking up the dirt. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 158
 

1 
 It's been sitting there, perhaps closed for 

2 
 some time. There are no operations going on. 

3 
 What would be a good number to place in 

4 
 there? 

5 
 You know, and I'd be the first to 

6 
 say, well, it's probably going to be someplace 

7 
 between those two numbers, and where a 

8 
 reasonable place is, you know, that's a tough 

9 
 judgment to call, but right now I guess I'm 

10 
 coming down -- I think 10-6 may be a little bit 

11 
 too far in one place, but now that you've 

12 
 clarified 5 x 10-5 might be a little bit too 

13 big. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But, again, if you 

15 
 say nobody is walking around kicking up the 

16 
 dirt, well, if nobody is walking around, 

17 
 nobody is breathing the air, so once somebody 

18 
 comes in and gets exposed, I mean, goes in 

19 
 there, he's going to stir up his own dust 

20 cloud. 

21 
 DR. NETON: Right, but the other 

22 2,000 hours, work hours in a year, right? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 159
 

1 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes, we've got other 

2 
 favorable assumptions, but the other end of 

3 
 that is if people are in there, I think you 

4 
 can make the assumption that the work --

5 
 they're doing something, and typically if 

6 
 that's a place where you're going to get dust 

7 
 on the floor, then they're going to now be 

8 
 getting it with steel something, you know, or 

9 
 something covered --

10 
 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, there is no 

11 
 doubt that, for example, if it was a steel 

12 
 mill, and I think they did a very nice job on 

13 
 that in Bethlehem Steel, where you factored in 

14 
 that you were layering in, so, I mean, I'm 

15 
 fine with it, but, you know, I just look at 

16 this. 

17 
 You know, here is a generic, 

18 
 universally applicable TBD, and you decided 

19 
 for the residual period to use 10-6 as a re20 
 suspension factor. All I'm saying is that, I 

21 
 guess, in my opinion -- all right, maybe I'll 

22 
 buffer it down. I said more than a factor of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 160
 

1 
 ten. It could be on the order of a factor of 

2 
 ten, maybe a little less, you know, but I 

3 
 think 10-6 is coming in on the low end. How 

4 
 important it is --

5 
 DR. NETON: There is also sort of 

6 
 this dual process going on. The more you re7 
 suspend, the shorter it's there, and it goes 

8 
 away quicker. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Right, the residence 

10 times. 

11 
 DR. NETON: I mean, so I think it 

12 
 almost comes out in the wash, to be honest 

13 with you. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It doesn't go away, 

15 unless it's ventilated. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: It could be that, 

17 though. That's what the whole TIB-70 does. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean, in that 

19 
 case it could settle down. 

20 
 DR. MAURO: I mean, it's not 

21 
 complicated. What I'm saying here is not 

22 
 complicated. Here is the literature. You 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 161
 

1 
 know, here's the literature. You guys look at 

2 
 it. You say, hmm, you know, and you come down 

3 
 where you come down. 

4 
 DR. NETON: Look, I agree with 

5 
 Dave. I'm not sure whether we want to take 

6 
 this up here or if this is fundamentally part 

7 
 of TIB-70, as well. I mean, we can --

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: What's the status of 

9 
 TIB-70? You've done a critique on it? 

10 
 DR. MAURO: Under active review. 

11 
 We've completed our review, submitted our 

12 
 report, and we have had one meeting where we 

13 discussed --

14 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Is it exactly the 

15 same issue? 

16 
 DR. NETON: The 1 x 10-6 is clearly 

17 the same exact --

18 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. It's a subset, 

19 
 yes. 

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: It's the same value 

21 
 under the same conditions? 

22 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 162


1 
 DR. NETON: Under residual 

2 
 contamination or under inactive facility, 

3 
 exactly. How do you handle residual 

4 
 contamination periods at AWE facilities? 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Exactly. 

6 
 DR. NETON: This is especially how 

7 
 you're getting --

8 
 MEMBER MUNN: I've been trying to 

9 
 get on the server to give you an update of 

10 
 exactly where we were with each of those 

11 instances. 

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Go ahead, 

13 Wanda. 

14 
 MEMBER MUNN: The server doesn't 

15 let me, so I can't help you. 

16 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, okay. I thought 

17 
 you were ready to go with that. Okay. We 

18 
 certainly don't want to close this out if you 

19 
 still have it open, but it's part of a --

20 
 there is other issues in that one that you're 

21 dealing with, I think, right? 

22 
 DR. NETON: I'm wondering. This is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 163
 

1 
 probably pretty prescriptive, and so I haven't 

2 
 read this 6000 in a while on the residual --

3 
 on the residual period, but it seems to me 

4 
 that TIB-70 supersedes what might be in here. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That's what I'm sort 

6 
 of asking. 

7 
 DR. NETON: To some extent, I mean, 

8 
 is it possible to just remove that from here 

9 
 and refer to TIB-70 for that piece of this 

10 
 reconstruction? I don't know. I'm just --

11 you know, it's --

12 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I think we can, I 

13 mean. 

14 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Or we will make sure 

15 they're compatible. 

16 
 DR. NETON: Well, at some point I'd 

17 
 like to have it in one place, so if we change 

18 
 it once, we don't have to worry about where 

19 else it might occur. 

20 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes, actually, that's 

21 
 probably the best bet on this one, because we 

22 
 were -- TIB-70, that idea was being kicked 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 164
 

1 
 around when this was written, and really 

2 
 wanted that, but it wasn't ready. 

3 
 DR. NETON: I honestly thing TIB-70 

4 
 is a little -- it has a few more options in 

5 
 there. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes. 

7 
 DR. NETON: It allows for more than 

8 
 just the one type of --

9 
 DR. MAURO: It's a very rich tool. 

10 
 DR. NETON: It provides some 

11 
 professional judgment options in there, 

12 
 depending on the facilities, and so I think 

13 
 that it might be best just to remove any 

14 
 reference or direct the user of this document 

15 
 to TIB-70 for guidance on that, and we can 

16 consolidate it. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That appears to be a 

18 
 good solution, because it will -- well, no. 

19 
 Well, two open ones being solved in a 

20 
 different manner, number one. Number two, if 

21 
 that's the one that is more comprehensive, 

22 
 then it's proper to refer to it, and we would 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 165
 

1 
 show it as being transferred. Is that the 

2 
 terminology we're using, transferred? 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: As John is reviewing 

5 
 it, we won't lose the discussion here. 

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But it will show it 

7 
 in our documents. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: We comment on that in 

9 
 TIB-70, yes. 

10 CHAIR ZIEMER: So we'll transfer to 

11 the work group on procedures. 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you so much. 

13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Same people. We 

14 
 just change our hats. I'm on that one. 

15 You're on that one. Mark's on that one. 

16 
 MR. KATZ: I just want to make it a 

17 
 priority to put it to bed so that the petition 

18 issues can be --

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. Okay, any 

20 
 other comments on this one or questions? 

21 
 We're agreed to transfer that. Okay, Issue 7. 

22 DR. NETON: My favorite. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 166
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: You're going to love 

2 
 this one. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Use of Deficient 

4 
 Methodology for Estimating Inadvertent 

5 
 Ingestion of Uranium. Internal doses 

6 
 associated with the inadvertent ingestion of 

7 
 uranium are derived in the TBD using models 

8 
 and assumptions that have been discussed with 

9 
 NIOSH in the past as part of the review of 

10 numerous site profiles and exposure matrices. 

11 
 Based on these discussions, it is 

12 
 our understanding that NIOSH would agree that 

13 
 the basic methodology described in the TBD is 

14 
 deficient and should be revised when the 

15 
 overall revised methodology is developed, and 

16 
 NIOSH's response is basically if the 

17 
 methodology is changed, as a result the change 

18 will be incorporated in this TBD, but --

19 
 DR. NETON: Yes, I think I can take 

20 
 this one. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Where are we on 

22 that? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 167
 

1 
 DR. NETON: I presented our 

2 
 position on this to the Advisory Board back in 

3 
 January of 2008 at the Las Vegas meeting, 

4 
 where I went over our analysis of the 

5 
 suggested issue, and what we did was we took 

6 
 the original model that was developed in TIB7 
 9, and I think SC&A evaluated that in their 

8 
 review where we compared it to some values 

9 
 that you could use in RESRAD, the RESRAD build 

10 
 program, and use the full range, the range of 

11 
 the uniform distribution, and pretty nicely 

12 
 demonstrated that the values that you come up 

13 
 with in 2009 are fairly consistent or very 

14 
 consistent with what you would get using the 

15 
 RESRAD build model based on surface, starting 

16 with surface contamination. 

17 
 The big disconnect between SC&A and 

18 
 NIOSH is do you start -- what is the starting 

19 
 point for ingestion? How much can a person 

20 
 reasonably ingest per day? SC&A has argued 

21 
 from the very beginning that -- I think they 

22 
 started with 100 milligrams per day as a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 168
 

1 
 reasonable number. They have since come down 

2 
 to 50, because there's a Calabrese, I think, 

3 
 paper that came out. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, it's the -- 50 

5 
 is the recommended value for adults in the 

6 
 exposure, the EPA Exposure Factors Handbook 

7 
 for B 

8 
 DR. NETON: Right, and that was 

9 
 based on a paper by Calabrese in 1995, which 

10 you cited. 

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, it was --

12 
 DR. NETON: Well, let me -- bear 

13 
 with me, Bob. I've gone over the literature 

14 
 again, and these methods have flaws to begin 

15 
 with. There's all kinds of uncertainty 

16 
 associated with these, but they were primarily 

17 
 developed for measuring ingestion for cleanup 

18 of contaminated waste sites. 

19 
 They are not -- they are nowhere 

20 
 near generated for determining occupational 

21 
 type ingestion exposures, not even close. 

22 
 These are 24/7 type ingestion that are 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 169
 

1 
 calculated using capsules of tracer materials, 

2 
 using methods of standard addition to 

3 
 determine what comes out in the feces, and 

4 
 that kind of analysis, and there is a number 

5 
 of papers out there that challenge the 

6 
 accuracy of those models. 

7 
 Nevertheless, Calabrese, with 

8 
 Stanek as the first author, in 2000 -- in `96 

9 
 actually released a second pilot study of the 

10 
 soil ingestion, and now they're saying that 

11 
 maybe a better estimate is 10 milligrams per 

12 
 day for an average value, and the median value 

13 was actually one. 

14 
 So, you know, these keep coming 

15 
 down, and I still question the applicability 

16 
 of this technique to an occupational exposure 

17 
 study. In fact, that's the exact reason why 

18 
 RESRAD, Bill, chose to ignore those values and 

19 
 go with a model where how many times one 

20 
 person can actually to go their hands and 

21 
 mouth, you know, put it in their hands and 

22 
 come up with the intakes that way, and that's 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 170
 

1 
 what we've chosen to use, and that does come 

2 
 down closer to five milligrams per day, but I 

3 
 think it's more consistent with the 

4 
 occupational setting compared to this 

5 
 environmental setting that you guys have been 

6 
 touting for a number of years. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: We're not -- when we 

8 
 engage in discourse, I hear what you're 

9 
 saying, and I recognize the limitations of the 

10 
 studies, and, remember, we said, "Yes, you're 

11 
 right." The 100 and the 50 number may have 

12 certain deficiencies how they got to it. 

13 
 Then you came up with the .5, which 

14 
 you're right. Charlie Yu used it as a default 

15 
 value in the RESRAD, and so we're at a point 

16 where we're saying, "I really --," you know. 

17 
 So we did something a little 

18 
 unusual, and you might get a kick out of this. 

19 
 I asked Bob to put into a little 

20 
 glass vial .5 milligrams, and I want you to 

21 
 visualize now. You're working in a steel --

22 
 not a uranium, a weapons, AWE facility, all 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 171
 

1 
 right. There's uranium flakes coming down. 

2 
 Particles are settling. I understand it's 

3 
 actually you can see the stuff on surfaces. 

4 
 Some of it might be falling on the 

5 
 cup. Some of it might be falling on the 

6 
 sandwich, not unlike you're at a beach when 

7 
 the wind is blowing. You eat a sandwich. You 

8 
 get a little grit, you know, so, in other 

9 
 words, it's not a clean place. 

10 
 So I said, you know, "How much is 

11 
 .5 milligrams?" All right, you're not going 

12 
 to believe this. Pass around the vial, okay. 

13 This is .5 milligram. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm going to even 

15 
 pass around the magnifying glass. In the 

16 
 bottom of this, sort of try to keep it like at 

17 
 an incline, this way, and see it. There is a 

18 
 big chunk and a little chunk. This is 

19 something. This happened over the weekend. 

20 DR. MAURO: Oh, he did his own. 

21 
 DR. NETON: And I happen to have a 

22 
 shoulder bag that I had taken to the beach in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 172
 

1 
 the summer, and that's sand stone in the 

2 
 crevices. I just dug up some sand, examined 

3 
 it. By the way, I don't have an analytical 

4 
 balance at home, but I did have a micrometer. 

5 
 So I examined the sand grains and, 

6 
 you know, measured samples of them, and found 

7 
 a big one, some bigger ones, and assuming that 

8 
 this is clear, which it's not -- it's more 

9 
 like an oblong, ovoid shape, and when the 

10 
 micrometer comes down, automatically you're 

11 
 getting the smallest diameter, because it is 

12 trying to push it down. 

13 
 But assuming it's a sphere, and 

14 
 assuming it's pure quartz, which is a pretty 

15 
 good assumption, because it's clear, this 

16 
 happens to come out to almost exactly .5 

17 
 milligrams within a percent or so, and then 

18 
 along side it is a very small one, and that 

19 one I estimate to be .01 of a milligram. 

20 
 So we could envision either 

21 
 swallowing one big one or 50 little tiny ones 

22 
 in a day, and it does not amount to anything. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 173
 

1 
 It's a very, very tiny entity and just, 

2 
 again, for illustration. Whoever is 

3 
 interested in seeing this, look at the --

4 
 again, look at the bottom corner, the lowest 

5 
 part of the vial. 

6 
 The big one you can see with the 

7 
 naked eye. The smaller one you need the 

8 
 magnifying glass for. Now keep this lower. 

9 
 Keep it -- don't -- yes, because there's holes 

10 in the cap when we go to see it. 

11 DR. NETON: I'll pass. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: Jim, I was going to 

13 
 call you. I was going to cal you on Friday 

14 
 and say, "Jim, do you guys have analytical 

15 
 balance in your lab?" You know, you could --

16 I would -- because we did this --

17 
 DR. NETON: Let me rebut that by 

18 
 saying we don't use .5 milligrams per day. We 

19 
 use the surface contamination dependent model, 

20 
 how many times a person can mouth their hands. 

21 
 This is more based on first principles by 

22 mouth to hand. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 174
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I know. I know. 

2 
 I'm familiar with --

3 
 DR. NETON: And if you look at the 

4 
 comparison we did on our chart, for a very 

5 
 high surface contamination we can allow 10 

6 
 milligrams per day. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, I was looking 

8 
 at --

9 
 DR. NETON: Dependent upon the sort 

10 
 of contamination that's there, and that's 

11 
 really what's more important, because you 

12 
 can't just ingest pure uranium. I mean, 

13 
 you're going to ingest uranium that's 

14 
 contaminated with other inert materials, and 

15 
 that's part of the contamination mix, so you 

16 
 have to account for that. This absolute 

17 
 ingestion per day does not make any concession 

18 
 for the amount of material, the fraction of 

19 material that's present in that. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, no, it's 

21 
 supposed to. I mean, I've used the eaten 

22 
 model in studies for EPA and for NRC, and we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 175
 

1 
 say, "This is the amount of dirt someone takes 

2 
 in." Now what fraction of that dirt is 

3 
 radioactive material that's already factored 

4 
 in? 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Remember, we're talking 

6 
 -- I mean, I don't know if I -- I understand 

7 
 what you're saying, but, you know, remember 

8 
 what we're talking about. We're talking about 

9 
 an AWE facility where they are grinding and 

10 where the stuff is on the surface. 

11 
 It's a dirty place, and the stuff 

12 
 that's on the surface is this residue of 

13 
 uranium oxide, and that's what the hand-to14 
 mouth behavior is bringing in. Now, whether 

15 
 or not it is commingled with some other dirt -

16 - okay. 

17 
 DR. NETON: I forget what it was, 

18 
 but the way the model works is you mouth the 

19 
 entire surface of your hand every hour or 

20 
 something like that. I forget the exact 

21 
 number. It's a very generous amount of 

22 
 licking of the surface of your hand. It 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 176
 

1 
 essentially comes out the units are square 

2 
 meters per day or per hour. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

4 
 DR. NETON: And so how many square 

5 
 meters per hour you would effectively end up 

6 
 ingesting that's on the ground, and I don't 

7 
 know. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: I've got to tell you, I 

9 
 look at this, and I say, No. I have to say I 

10 say, no. I mean, this is --

11 
 DR. NETON: My point is we're not 

12 saying there's .5 milligrams per day. 

13 DR. MAURO: That's too little. 

14 
 DR. NETON: We're saying that it's 

15 
 a fraction of what's on your hand. That .5 

16 milligrams starts with the lower bound. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Where I got the .5 

18 
 milligrams from was from -- maybe it's changed 

19 
 now. From your TIB-9, it relates to the air 

20 
 concentration, and the .5 milligrams comes out 

21 
 if you have an air concentration of something 

22 
 like five milligrams per cubic meter, some 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 177
 

1 
 high end. There was some fairly high air 

2 
 concentration gives you that .5. Now, if 

3 
 you're not -- if you're using a different 

4 
 methodology now, then --

5 
 DR. NETON: No. No, we're not, but 

6 
 I'm just saying that --

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't have the 

8 
 mind of the TIB-9. 

9 
 DR. NETON: I mean, but it makes 

10 
 sense to me. Like say if you have 11 dpm --

11 
 I'm looking at the values that we had in this 

12 
 table. If you have 2,000 dpm per cubic meter, 

13 
 we would predict that that would have a 

14 
 surface concentration of 54,000 dpm per square 

15 
 meter, and then we would predict that you 

16 
 would ingest every hour in that facility about 

17 
 50 dpm per hour, so in a ten-hour day, 500 dpm 

18 of uranium. 

19 CHAIR ZIEMER: This is pure oral. 

20 
 DR. NETON: Which is about half a 

21 milligram. 

22 
 DR. MAURO: Listen. I mean, we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 178
 

1 
 would -- we discussed the numbers in terms of 

2 
 the literature, what Charlie Yu had to say and 

3 
 his rationale, and with the -- and the other 

4 
 extreme, the other distribution where it was -

5 
 - where it was 50 milligrams. 

6 
 I mean, all I had -- and I was 

7 
 sitting there thinking, "But I don't know 

8 
 what's right. I don't know what the right 

9 
 answer is to this," so that's the only reason 

10 
 we did this, and I have to say common sense 

11 
 tells me I don't -- you know, if this is .5 

12 
 milligrams, I find it hard to believe that 

13 
 this is claimant favorable. That's all. I 

14 mean, it's as simple as that. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But the numbers in 

16 
 the chart are milligrams of the uranium 

17 fraction of the total ingested. 

18 
 DR. NETON: It's total uranium 

19 
 ingested per day, not what the total mass was. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right, the mass may 

21 be much greater. 

22 DR. MAURO: Right. That's right. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 179
 

1 
 DR. NETON: The mass could be much 

2 
 greater than that. I don't know what the mass 

3 
 ingested per day is. I don't need to know 

4 
 that. All I need to know is how much uranium 

5 
 they ingested. You can't say half a milligram 

6 
 a day equates to their total ingested --

7 
 DR. MAURO: Let's say it's U308 or 

8 
 UO2, whatever it is on the ground, all right, 

9 
 on the surface. The mass is all uranium. 

10 
 DR. NETON: But, John, what's the 

11 
 transfer factor of a surface contamination to 

12 
 the hand, to the mouth? These are things that 

13 
 you --

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's not the only 

15 
 possible contamination. I mean, there is --

16 
 for instance, the inhalation model deals only 

17 
 with what goes into the lung. For instance, 

18 
 what goes into the nose, 50 percent gets 

19 
 expelled, and some of that can end up getting 

20 
 swallowed, you know. 

21 
 DR. NETON: That's taken care of in 

22 
 our inhalation model. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 180
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: No, only the trachea --

2 
 the tracheobronchial clearance is swallowed. 

3 
 DR. NETON: Anything that is 

4 
 smelled is swallowed. 

5 
 MEMBER POSTON: No, that's not 

6 
 true, John. 

7 
 DR. MAURO: It's also what's in the 

8 
 mouth and what's in the nose. 

9 
 DR. POSTON: Depends on what's in 

10 the nose and swallowed. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Not correct. The 

12 
 fraction -- I've been looking at the model. 

13 
 The fraction that gets caught in ET1, you 

14 
 know, it's not considered to be part of the 

15 
 party, so if you blow your -- in other words, 

16 it's only what goes past. 

17 
 DR. NETON: If you blow your nose, 

18 but then you don't swallow it. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It can be -- it can 

20 
 accumulate in the nose. It can get aspirated, 

21 
 you know. You know, you can suck it in. It 

22 
 can go from the back of the nose, into the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 181
 

1 
 mouth, and then get swallowed. You know, 

2 
 that's not uncommon. There are many 

3 
 mechanisms by which it can be ingested without 

4 
 having to -- it's not just, you know, licking 

5 
 the hand, and --

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But you're not 

7 
 including that here, are you? 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. My, I mean, my 

9 
 point is, you know, when we have here -- I 

10 
 mean, I'm just being now legalistic. If there 

11 
 is a government agency that already has a 

12 
 published policy for exposure on -- I mean, 

13 obviously it's not -- it's not going to --

14 DR. NETON: It's not occupational. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: True. It's not 

16 occupational. It's residential. 

17 DR. NETON: Environmental. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, residential, 

19 
 but it's not like breathing. The person --

20 
 there is never any assumption that this person 

21 
 will be ingesting 24 hours a day, just 

22 
 enjoying his normal activities during the day. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 182
 

1 
 DR. NETON: That's part of my 

2 
 problem with those models, Bob, is these are 

3 
 capsules that are swallowed, and they do not 

4 
 discount the fact that all the material that 

5 
 person breathes and is cleared through the 

6 
 nose and swallowed in the fecal excretion. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I guess I'm just 

8 
 going by the fact that if this was already 

9 
 established policy of the Environmental 

10 
 Protection Agency -- I'm deliberately using 

11 
 its full name right now -- why should that not 

12 
 be considered a claimant favorable assumption 

13 
 here, whereas the RESRAD model is a model, and 

14 
 the number, the default numbers in the RESRAD 

15 code are simply a matter of convenience? 

16 
 They are there, but it's up to the 

17 
 user to accept them or to change them. It 

18 
 comes up on the screen, and you put in 

19 
 whatever values you want. So that's not a 

20 
 policy decision made by a government agency to 

21 
 decide, yes, the RESRAD -- the default RESRAD 

22 value is a good number. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 183
 

1 
 DR. NETON: You can't compare the 

2 
 Environmental Protection Agency to the 

3 
 occupational --

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon? Excuse me? 

5 
 DR. NETON: You can't compare the 

6 
 Environmental Protection Agency limits for 

7 
 residential exposure to an occupational work 

8 
 environment. 

9 
 MEMBER POSTON: For anything. 

10 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What's the 

11 
 difference between someone living in --

12 
 DR. NETON: Why don't we use those 

13 
 conversion models, then, that the EPA puts out 

14 
 for environmental exposure? Why do we have 

15 
 our own occupational, you know, dose 

16 
 conversions? 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't think they 

18 
 are any different except for the one micron --

19 
 DR. NETON: The breathing rate, the 

20 
 one micron, the five micron particle size, the 

21 


22 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The five-micron 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 184
 

1 
 particle size is simply --

2 
 DR. NETON: I'm not going to argue 

3 
 with you, Bob, whether EPA models are 

4 
 applicable here. I don't think they are. I 

5 
 think an occupationally derived model put out 

6 
 by -- sponsored by the Nuclear Regulatory 

7 
 Commission to evaluate occupational exposures 

8 
 is more directly relevant. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And what did 

10 
 Nuclear Regulatory Commission put out? I'm 

11 not aware that they have a number. 

12 
 DR. NETON: Well, they've adopted 

13 these values. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: They put out that --

15 
 they use RESRAD, whether they have adopted the 

16 
 point. Well, look, I mean, you know, we've 

17 been --

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: A NUREG for 

19 
 recycling put out by the Nuclear Regulatory 

20 
 Commission uses the value of 50 milligrams. 

21 
 They use a range of zero to 20 milligrams per 

22 
 hour for occupational exposure for inadvertent 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 185
 

1 
 ingestion. That's an NRC document. I just 

2 
 happen to have a little to do with it, but 

3 
 it's not a contractor NUREG. 

4 
 DR. NETON: I think that it is 

5 
 inappropriate to assume 50 milligrams per day 

6 
 ingestion of uranium in the workplace. It's 

7 
 just ridiculously low. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: I know. This is 50 

9 
 milligrams. Look at this thing. 

10 DR. NETON: That's --

11 
 DR. MAURO: This is 5. I'm sorry. 

12 
 This is .5 milligrams. I find it impossible 

13 
 to say that this is claimant favorable. I 

14 
 can't. I mean, I can't do it. It's too 

15 
 small. You know, I could inhale this and put 

16 
 this somewhere. I wouldn't even know what 

17 happened. 

18 
 DR. NETON: But, John, it's not .5. 

19 
 Only under very low exposure conditions where 

20 
 the uranium is a very small component of the 

21 
 inert material that's contaminated in the 

22 first --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 186
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: But that's not the case 

2 
 for AWE. The purpose of this is just for 

3 
 those early year AWE facilities. 

4 
 DR. NETON: But it depends upon --

5 
 our model depends upon the air concentration 

6 
 that generates the surface contamination. It 

7 
 goes up and allows for the fact that as the 

8 
 facility becomes more and more contaminated, 

9 
 we allow for more and more ingestion. That's 

10 the nice part of this model. 

11 
 Your model would assume that a 

12 
 person would ingest 50 milligrams of uranium 

13 
 per day if they didn't process a small amount 

14 
 of uranium. You know, how would you account 

15 
 for that? I ran one uranium sample through 

16 
 here, and therefore I need to ingest 50 

17 milligrams of uranium in one day. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, it's not 50 

19 
 milligrams of uranium. It's 50 milligrams of 

20 total --

21 
 DR. NETON: And how would you 

22 partition that? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 187
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Depending on --

2 
 just like with the steel mills when you say 

3 
 there is so much uranium and so much steel 

4 
 dust, like Bethlehem Steel. 

5 
 DR. NETON: I don't find that's any 

6 
 different than what we're partitioning here 

7 
 based on the actual surface concentrations 

8 
 available for ingestion. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Your number says that 

10 
 with default airborne dust loading, depending 

11 
 on where you look it up in your table, it's --

12 
 in the TBD 6000, basically you have different 

13 
 categories of workers where the air dust 

14 loading could be fairly high or not so high. 

15 
 Then the ingestion rate is, if I 

16 
 remember, .2 times the air concentration, 

17 
 whatever that is, in milligrams per cubic 

18 
 meter, is the ingestion rate in milligrams per 

19 
 day, and I believe when you do the numbers, 

20 
 you come up with something that turns out to 

21 
 be about .5 milligrams per day, and I have to 

22 
 say, when we got into this discussion, my 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 188
 

1 
 answer was, I don't know what the right answer 

2 
 is. 

3 
 I hear why you don't like the 50, 

4 
 and I didn't have any argument to say why .5 

5 
 was good or not, and then all I did was 

6 
 something which you all may consider it to be 

7 
 silly, but I said, "How much is .5 

8 
 milligrams?" Now, it's really small. I mean, 

9 
 it's really, really small, and common sense 

10 would argue, "Well, that's --." 

11 
 Now, you're arguing that, but wait 

12 
 a minute. The stuff that's on the surface is 

13 
 really a mixture of uranium with other stuff, 

14 
 and I say no. So the stuff that's on the 

15 
 surface at these AWE facilities is uranium 

16 oxide. That's the dust that's settling. 

17 DR. NETON: No way. 

18 DR. MAURO: That's the residue. 

19 
 DR. NETON: It's a smear. Have you 

20 
 ever taken many smears? If you take a smear 

21 
 and observe it, if it's a visibly dirty smear, 

22 
 there is no way that the 300 picocuries you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 189
 

1 
 measure on there, all that mass, is due to the 

2 
 --

3 
 DR. MAURO: 1949, 1950, 1951, AWE 

4 
 facilities doing grinding, and we've heard the 

5 
 stories about the sources. 

6 
 DR. NETON: If you have 50,000 dpm 

7 
 per square meter on the surface, then we will 

8 
 allow for 10 milligrams per day ingestion of 

9 
 uranium. That's my point. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: That comes out, you 

11 will come out with a 10 milligram per day. 

12 
 DR. NETON: Well, a real high 

13 
 value. I forget what it comes out to. This 

14 
 is per square meter, so for 100 square 

15 
 centimeters it would have to be, yes, about 

16 
 50,000, 42,500. Now 40,000 dpm for 100 square 

17 
 centimeters, which is a pretty high smear, 

18 
 would end up ingested somewhere in the 

19 
 vicinity of 10 milligrams in a day of uranium. 

20 
 When you smear things, it's not 

21 
 uniform. You're not sitting in a seat. 

22 
 Contamination where it would be completely 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 190
 

1 
 covered with uranium -- help me out here, 

2 
 Dave, here -- is hundreds of thousands of dpm. 

3 
 It's a lot. I mean, uranium has a specific 

4 
 activity of something like 600 picocuries per 

5 
 milligram. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Right. 

7 
 DR. NETON: 670, say 700. That's 

8 
 1,400 dpm per milligram, so when you start 

9 
 getting visible amount that you could see, as 

10 
 you know, because that's a half a milligram --

11 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's right. 

12 
 DR. NETON: If you can see a thick 

13 
 crud on the smear, which I have seen you're in 

14 
 the hundreds of thousands of dpm per hundred 

15 
 square centimeters. So it's not like you 

16 
 think, that they are like standing on this 

17 carpet of uranium oxide. 

18 
 When you have something in the 

19 
 order of 500 dpm per hundred square 

20 
 centimeters, what's on that smear is not all 

21 
 uranium. It's a very large percentage of 

22 
 inert material. That's where I'm coming from. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 191
 

1 
 Right there you have 300, maybe, 

2 
 picocuries of uranium. That's going to be 600 

3 
 dpm per hundred square centimeter smear of 

4 
 uranium. I don't know. That's where --

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, in fact, if 

6 
 you take an air sample virtually anywhere, you 

7 
 get the same thing. You get -- you're loading 

8 
 with dust, which also typifies the surface, 

9 
 because the dust plates out just like anything 

10 
 else, and, well, in fact, in most air samples 

11 
 you even have to take into consideration the 

12 thickness of that. If you were sampling --

13 
 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes, self14 
 absorption, sure. Even if it's only uranium, 

15 you'd have to use self-absorption. 

16 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, so I, you know, 

17 
 I don't intuitively feel it's unreasonable to 

18 
 operate under the assumption that even in what 

19 
 looks like a pretty clean facility you still -

20 
 - in almost any area you think of and any 

21 
 surface, including my house, you wipe 

22 
 something up, you get mass. There is mass 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 192
 

1 
 there. 

2 
 MEMBER MUNN: There's somebody 

3 
 carrying on conversations in the background. 

4 
 Someone isn't muted. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Let's --

6 
 MR. KATZ: For the people listening 

7 
 on the telephone, please, if you don't have a 

8 
 mute button, please use *6. There is a 

9 
 conversation that's been going on, and 

10 
 although it's not that loud in this room, 

11 
 because I lowered the volume for other people 

12 
 who are trying to listen on the phone, it's 

13 
 disturbing and making it difficult for them to 

14 hear. Thank you. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Let's see. I want 

16 
 to check and see if Mark came back on the 

17 
 line. 

18 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I'm here, 

19 
 Paul. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, Mark. 

21 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: Hi, Paul, but I'm 

22 having the same problem Wanda is having. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 193
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

2 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm getting a lot 

3 
 of background noise. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Did you have 

5 
 any comments on this issue on the 

6 
 contamination surface, contamination and 

7 
 ingestion masses? 

8 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: No, I mean, no, I 

9 
 tend to think like John was saying, but I 

10 
 haven't looked at those. You know, Jim's 

11 
 explanation is compelling that if it is geared 

12 
 to allow for higher values as the 

13 
 contamination -- surface contamination gets 

14 
 higher, then, you know, that model may account 

15 
 for SC&A's concerns, so I haven't looked at 

16 
 that in a while, but that is a compelling 

17 argument. 

18 
 DR. MAURO: But, Mark, keep in mind 

19 
 that -- remember, this AWE, this is a generic 

20 
 AWE, so it's not that -- they may not have 

21 data. That's the whole point. 

22 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that's the --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 194
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: They don't have any --

2 
 they don't have data on the air dust loading. 

3 
 They don't have surface contamination. They 

4 
 don't have bioassay data. 

5 
 The problem is that we're going to 

6 
 assign to this particular worker who worked at 

7 
 a facility where we don't have the data, and 

8 
 on that basis, as I understand it, and this is 

9 
 where I might be wrong, they are effectively 

10 
 going to say, "Well, we're going to assume 

11 
 that the person's ingestion rate is .5 

12 milligrams per day of this residual uranium." 

13 
 Now, I might be wrong about that. 

14 
 That's not what you're doing. You know, I've 

15 been operating on a --

16 
 MEMBER GRIFFON: That's a question 

17 
 for Jim. I'd like to hear the answer to that, 

18 
 too. 

19 
 DR. NETON: You know, I'm not 

20 
 familiar exactly with all the tables in 6000 

21 
 right now, but it's air concentration 

22 
 dependent, and depending on whatever air 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

-- 

 

 

 195
 

1 
 concentration was used as the upper bound 

2 
 value for that facility, we would generate a 

3 
 surface concentration, and I'm looking here at 

4 
 this one table that I constructed a while ago. 

5 
 An air concentration of like 11,000 

6 
 dpm per cubic meter would effectively end up 

7 
 ingesting about half a milligram per hour with 

8 
 a surface concentration of 15,000 dpm per 100 

9 
 square centimeters. I don't know. Maybe this 

10 
 is one of the lower bounded values in the TIB 

11 
 for some facilities. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: Well, I'll be the first 

13 
 to say if the .5 number that I've been 

14 
 operating on the premise that that's 

15 
 fundamentally where you're standing on, you 

16 
 know, the Charlie Yu .5 milligrams per day, if 

17 
 that's wrong, and I have been misunderstanding 

18 


19 
 DR. NETON: It's not .5 milligrams. 

20 
 It's not a fixed value at all. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. It's a function 

22 
 of the air dust loading, and if it turns out 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 196
 

1 
 in practice, in practice, when applying this 

2 
 particular OTIB to a case, you're coming in at 

3 
 milligrams per day, ten, whatever --

4 
 DR. NETON: It could be five. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. Now we're in a 

6 
 realm where it seems to be making a little bit 

7 
 more sense to me. 

8 
 DR. NETON: I think where you got 

9 
 this .5 also is that when Charlie Yu was 

10 
 looking at these models and he saw there was 

11 
 some dichotomy in the data -- you know, 

12 
 there's 50, and then there's these low values. 

13 
 Then he said, well, let me think 

14 
 about this 50 in an occupational setting. 

15 
 Does it make sense? Could I mouth that much 

16 
 material in one work day, in one hour, to get 

17 
 a 50-milligram intake in a nuclear-type 

18 facility? And he came to the conclusion, No. 

19 
 And he said, well, there is this 

20 
 lower bounded value that looks like it could 

21 
 be .5, around there, and it fit better with 

22 
 sort of the model you could develop where you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 197
 

1 
 say, okay, how much of your hand can you lick 

2 
 every hour or would you predict a person would 

3 
 lick? 

4 
 And there are studies out there 

5 
 that have done this, for instance, in 

6 
 industrial hygiene areas. How often does a 

7 
 person, you know, like their hands and smoke a 

8 
 cigarette and that kind of thing? 

9 
 And I think that fit much more in 

10 
 line with this .5, although .5 was never, ever 

11 
 used. We never intended to use that. It's 

12 
 just consistent with that for very low levels 

13 of concentration. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: My recollection is 

15 
 using TIB-9 and using an upper-end air 

16 
 concentration of mass loading, not dpm, just 

17 
 mass loading in the air, it ends up at .5. I 

18 don't have that in front of me. 

19 
 DR. NETON: I've got numbers here 

20 that I presented in January. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Then if I was 

22 wrong, I'm --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 198
 

1 
 DR. NETON: For air concentration 

2 
 of 48,800 dpm per cubic meter --

3 
 DR. MAURO: How many MAC is that? 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It doesn't really 

5 
 matter --

6 
 DR. NETON: 100 MAC? 

7 
 DR. MAURO: That would be 70 axels. 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- because it's a 

9 
 unit, okay, so air -- wait a minute. Let me -

10 -

11 DR. MAURO: It would be 700. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Let's get an 

13 
 average. The air concentration, say this 

14 again. 

15 
 DR. NETON: 48,800 dpm per cubic 

16 
 meter. 

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: 48,800, okay. 

18 Let's call it 50,000, okay. 

19 
 DR. MAURO: That's one of your 

20 higher numbers, basically. 

21 
 DR. NETON: Yes, you have a very 

22 high steel level. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 199
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: If you have 70 MAC, 

2 
 you're up there. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: Absolutely. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So we've got -- so 

6 
 with 50,000 or 48,800 --

7 
 DR. NETON: 50,000 dpm per cubic 

8 
 meter. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So what's the 

10 ingestion rate? 

11 
 DR. NETON: The ingestion rate is 

12 1,220 dpm per hour. 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So it's 1,220, 

14 okay. 

15 DR. NETON: So that's roughly --

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Let's go back to 

17 the 48. So it's basically 1:40. 

18 
 DR. NETON: Wait a minute. 1,200 

19 is 600 picocuries, roughly. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, just on the dpm 

21 
 it's roughly -- you just divide one by the 

22 other, so you take the dpm --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 200
 

1 
 DR. NETON: That's about a 

2 
 milligram per hour. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon? 

4 
 DR. NETON: That's about a 

5 
 milligram per hour. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

7 
 DR. NETON: It's coming at a 

8 
 milligram per hour. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But what I'm saying 

10 is --

11 
 DR. NETON: Well, 1,200 dpm is 

12 roughly --

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- you had 400. We 

14 don't even have to do that. We can --

15 
 DR. MAURO: Well, let's see who 

16 gets the number. We might be at the end. 

17 
 DR. NETON: It will be about a 

18 milligram. 

19 
 DR. MAURO: We might be at the end. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You have about 

21 
 48,000 --

22 DR. NETON: 800. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 201
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We have 48,000 

2 
 units, doesn't matter what they are, 48,000 

3 
 units per cubic meter, and then -- just a 

4 
 second. I want to get a ratio. And then you 

5 
 are ingesting 1,220 units per hour, right? 

6 
 DR. NETON: Correct. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: 1,220, okay, so the 

8 
 ratio is 1:40 in terms of milligrams. Now, in 

9 
 a reason -- a maximum dust loading, the 

10 
 maximum dust loading allowed by OSHA is 5. 

11 
 The OSHA PEL is five milligrams per cubic 

12 meter. 

13 
 DR. NETON: We've gone way beyond 

14 that in these facilities. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, but I'm 

16 
 saying the reason we don't get much higher 

17 
 than that is we've got -- we've done a study 

18 on that. 

19 DR. NETON: Where were you on --? 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: When you get much 

21 
 higher than that, people just can't work in 

22 that environment. It's not safe. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 202
 

1 
 DR. NETON: Well, don't go there, 

2 
 Bob. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon? 

4 
 DR. MAURO: -- did this breakdown, 

5 
 because at Bethlehem Steel --

6 
 DR. NETON: You're going to 

7 
 invalidate our entire Bethlehem Steel model. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: Bethlehem Steel is 300 

9 
 milligrams. 

10 DR. NETON: 300 milligrams is --

11 DR. MAURO: You are unbreathable. 

12 DR. NETON: Exactly. 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I thought we had 

14 
 this report, you know, this comment from 

15 
 Wesley Van Pelt, who said much more than 30 

16 you can't even --

17 DR. MAURO: Right. 

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It becomes --

19 
 DR. MAURO: 300, you're in trouble. 

20 You can't go in the room. 

21 
 DR. NETON: You can't go in the 

22 room. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 203
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: That's why we were okay 

2 
 with Bethlehem Steel. 

3 
 DR. NETON: We said that was a --

4 
 it was a higher plausible upper bound. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, and that's why 

6 
 Bethlehem Steel, you know, so I hear what 

7 
 you're saying. So you're -- so I see where 

8 
 the breakdown is in the calculation. You're 

9 
 blocking it at five milligrams. You're 

10 
 saying, "No, your number is not five 

11 
 milligrams. Your number is higher than that," 

12 and you're coming in at a milligram an hour. 

13 DR. NETON: A milligram an hour. 

14 DR. MAURO: This issue is closed. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: You assumed it was 

16 
 .5 across the board. 

17 DR. NETON: A milligram an hour. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I am assuming 

19 
 that -- yes, because I just got -- by using 

20 
 Jim's ratio, I had done it differently, but, 

21 
 anyway, we were in the same ballpark, so by 

22 
 using Jim's ratio I get that at five 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 204
 

1 
 milligrams -- I think I was even thinking 

2 
 lower than that, more like 2 milligrams time3 
 weighted average was a good number, and you go 

4 
 1/40 of that. Then you come out with 

5 
 something like .5 per day, you know. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: That's not the case. 

7 
 DR. NETON: That's not the case. 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We're talking about 

9 
 very, very heavy -- you're talking about very, 

10 very heavy dust loadings now. 

11 
 DR. NETON: Most of our AWEs are 

12 well above what you just talked about. 

13 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

14 DR. NETON: Well, well above that. 

15 
 DR. MAURO: Good. There was -- we 

16 
 actually had -- it takes a while. We had a 

17 miscommunication here. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Time weighted 

19 
 average for an eight-hour day is more than 

20 five? 

21 DR. NETON: Oh, yes. 

22 
 DR. MAURO: The miscommunication 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 205
 

1 
 was --

2 
 DR. NETON: Way higher than that. 

3 
 A hundred is not --

4 
 DR. MAURO: I was operating on the 

5 
 premise that .5 milligrams per day was the 

6 
 default ingestion rate effectively built into 

7 
 this relationship, and it's wrong. What 

8 
 you're saying is under a dirty environment, 

9 
 you're on the order of milligrams per day, and 

10 I'm perfectly fine with that. 

11 MEMBER BEACH: Did we close one? 

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: We need to have --

13 
 we need to have a -- we need to have a closure 

14 
 statement here, but, John, you're in agreement 

15 
 that what we're -- what we would be -- we 

16 
 would be going with the original NIOSH 

17 position on this. Josie, you okay with that? 

18 
 MEMBER BEACH: I am okay with that. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And perhaps -- and 

20 
 let me hear from Wanda and also from Mark. 

21 
 Mark and Wanda? 

22 MEMBER MUNN: A simple statement 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 206
 

1 
 after discussion, "Agreement was reached. The 

2 
 original NIOSH position is acceptable." That 

3 
 should be fine. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And Mark? Did we 

5 
 lose Mark? 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Mark, do we still have 

7 
 you? 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. I'll recap 

9 
 for him when he comes back on, but we would 

10 
 need to -- I guess the action would be that 

11 
 after discussion with the contractor and 

12 
 NIOSH, we agree that the original methodology 

13 as described is acceptable. 

14 
 MEMBER BEACH: I have a quick 

15 
 question, though. How was it missed? Was it 

16 
 just in numbers, or is it not clear in the 

17 TBD? How did you --

18 
 DR. MAURO: We researched carefully 

19 
 the basis for the OTIB 009, which is the OTIB 

20 that describes ingestion. 

21 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

22 
 DR. MAURO: In going back through 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 207
 

1 
 that process, which was very tortuous to try 

2 
 to figure out what they did, we ended up 

3 
 coming out at a place that said, "Oh, I think 

4 
 I see what they're doing. It looks like they 

5 
 have adopted Charlie Yu's .5 milligrams per 

6 
 day as a default ingestion rate," okay, and I 

7 
 have been operating on that premise ever 

8 
 since. 

9 
 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: And it sounds like 

11 operating incorrectly. 

12 
 MEMBER BEACH: I just want to make 

13 sure it's clear in 6000. 

14 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, there's 

15 implications on 009, then, in terms --

16 DR. NETON: 009 has not changed. 

17 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, but --

18 DR. MAURO: Somehow I got there. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, but is 009 still 

20 under review? Is it open? 

21 
 DR. MAURO: It's still under 

22 
 review. I believe it is. Unfortunately, we 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 208
 

1 
 can't get online to get it, but I believe 009 

2 
 is still under review. 

3 
 DR. NETON: This ingestion issue is 

4 
 the overarching issue that has been open for -

5 
 -

6 
 DR. MAURO: Forever. 

7 
 DR. NETON: As a matter of fact --

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: Four years. 

9 
 DR. MAURO: Four years. 

10 
 DR. NETON: They pointed out in 

11 their rebuttal there that --

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But it's still open 

13 
 in some other places. That's what I'm getting 

14 at. 

15 
 DR. NETON: Well, but I was 

16 
 prepared to come here and say that this is one 

17 
 of those issues where we can agree to 

18 
 disagree, because we're not moving from our 

19 position, but if SC&A has --

20 
 DR. MAURO: No, but no, more --

21 
 something important happened today. The 

22 
 important thing was SC&A realized that we were 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 209
 

1 
 operating -- I was operating on a premise that 

2 
 this .5 was the number that you've been 

3 
 working with, and you have convinced me, based 

4 
 on the calculations that you just did, and, 

5 
 no, it's not --

6 
 There may be certain circumstances 

7 
 where, if it's a fairly clean environment, it 

8 
 might go that far down. But if you're dealing 

9 
 with dirty environments -- now, right now I'm 

10 
 -- right now, the sensibility I have out of 

11 
 all this is that when you apply TBD 6000 to 

12 
 one of these unknown circumstances, you're 

13 
 going to be assigning a fairly high default 

14 
 airborne dust loading, and, in addition, 

15 
 coupled with that, when you're at that high 

16 
 dust loading, it automatically brings you into 

17 
 milligram per day ingestion rates. As far as 

18 I'm concerned, that's good. 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: And that is clear in 

20 
 6000. That's just what I wanted to make sure, 

21 because we were --

22 
 DR. NETON: That is something Dave 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 210
 

1 
 is going to have to speak to. 

2 
 MR. ALLEN: 6000 says, essentially, 

3 
 use OCAS TIB-9 and then calculates some 

4 
 numbers based on it. 

5 
 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So we need to make -

7 
 - and TIB-9 is under review by Wanda's? 

8 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So, Wanda, if you're 

10 
 on the line, we need to make sure, because 

11 
 we're in essence recommending closure of that 

12 issue for TIB-009, I think. 

13 MEMBER BEACH: 006 or 6000. 

14 DR. MAURO: 6000. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, but by 

16 implication for 009. 

17 
 DR. NETON: I want to rain on the 

18 parade a little bit here. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: It's another aspect. 

20 
 DR. NETON: There is another aspect 

21 
 to this calculation that we disagreed with, 

22 
 and that is the conversion of air 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 211
 

1 
 concentration to surface concentration. I 

2 
 mean, you've already heard that discussion 

3 
 this morning. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, we have to be 

6 
 careful. 

7 
 DR. NETON: So, you know, I think 

8 
 what I heard is there is an agreement that if 

9 
 we do have an established surface 

10 
 concentration, the use of our TIB -- our 

11 factor is appropriate. 

12 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

13 DR. NETON: The ingestion --

14 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Once you come to an 

15 
 agreed-upon air concentration and surface 

16 value. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, because we still 

18 
 have -- that's the one --

19 
 DR. NETON: Given the surface 

20 
 concentration value we calculated, we're okay, 

21 
 because we are allowing for milligrams per day 

22 
 ingestion, so the approach that we've adopted, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 212
 

1 
 but it's the conversion from air concentration 

2 
 to surface concentration that's still --

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: It may still be 

4 
 open. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: It's still open. 

6 
 DR. NETON: We just demonstrated 

7 
 that about an hour ago. 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

9 
 DR. NETON: We can't agree on that 

10 
 for re-suspension factors, and that same 

11 calculation applies to the ingestion issue. 

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But for this smaller 

13 part we're okay. 

14 
 DR. NETON: For this smaller part, 

15 which is the --

16 
 DR. MAURO: What we're saying is 

17 
 the concept of using .2, a factor of .2, which 

18 
 is the -- if you know the airborne 

19 
 concentration, and what we're really saying 

20 
 here is you know the airborne concentration, 

21 
 let's say, in Becquerels per cubic meter. You 

22 
 multiply by .2, and you'll get Becquerels, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 213
 

1 
 that number. You'll get Becquerels per day as 

2 
 being your ingestion rate, and I believe that 

3 
 works. 

4 
 DR. NETON: If a factor of .2 is 

5 
 appropriate, then it works. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: And it works, right, 

7 
 and the reason I'm saying that is that, from 

8 
 what I have heard, is this going to bring --

9 
 if you are dealing with a fairly high dust 

10 
 loading in Becquerels per cubic meter, which 

11 
 would be the circumstance in a very dirty 

12 environment, in an early AWE facility --

13 DR. NETON: Right. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: -- and I'm taking this 

15 
 on faith. It's going to bring you into the 

16 
 milligrams per day ingestion as opposed to .5, 

17 
 and on that, given that, I'm comfortable with 

18 that. 

19 DR. NETON: I'm happy. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The 

21 
 misunderstanding was on what is a high dust 

22 loading. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 214
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And we're talking 

3 
 about --

4 
 DR. NETON: You are privy to these 

5 
 early conversations on the AWEs, where we have 

6 
 gone to some very high levels, and, actually, 

7 
 they did exist. 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Do you have other 

9 
 comments on that, or should we go ahead? 

10 
 DR. NETON: I'm okay. I'll keep 

11 quiet now. 

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: While you're ahead. 

13 DR. NETON: I'm ahead. 

14 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I think, then, 

15 we're ready for Issue 8. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: We're done here. We're 

17 
 done. 

18 CHAIR ZIEMER: I just want to keep 

19 going here. Can't we find some new issues? 

20 
 MEMBER POSTON: And then it'll look 

21 like we closed a couple, anyway. 

22 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Very good. Okay. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 215
 

1 
 We're ready to move, then, to the Appendix BB 

2 
 matrix, and let's -- we need to make sure 

3 
 everybody's got the right document on this 

4 
 one. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Didn't we review 

6 
 the matrix at the last meeting? 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: We reviewed it, yes. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: The latest we have 

9 
 is May 2. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Nothing has been 

11 added. 

12 
 MEMBER BEACH: I haven't seen 

13 anything. 

14 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: If you look at the 

15 
 matrix, well, we'll use -- we use the matrix 

16 
 as the framework. We're not going to go 

17 
 through issue by issue on that, because if you 

18 
 look at it, you'll see that virtually every 

19 
 issue says that there are -- NIOSH's response 

20 
 basically says we have film badge data that 

21 
 will be utilized, but I did want to pull the 

22 matrix up here if I can find it. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 216
 

1 
 MEMBER MUNN: I'm having a hard 

2 
 time finding what the date of the matrix is. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: The original date of 

4 
 the matrix is May 2 of 2008. 

5 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I have --

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And then we had 

7 
 NIOSH responses. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: But we don't have a 

9 
 date for NIOSH's responses? 

10 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Actually, I don't 

11 
 see a date on the NIOSH responses, but may 

12 
 have -- I guess I don't, but we have a version 

13 
 of it that has the NIOSH's responses in it, 

14 
 and they all say, "As indicated, NIOSH has 

15 
 obtained film badge results for betatron 

16 operators. 

17 
 "We are in the process of comparing 

18 
 this data to the model estimates provided by 

19 
 both the Appendix and SC&A. The data includes 

20 
 operators," and so on, and virtually every one 

21 
 of the responses by NIOSH refers to the film 

22 badge data. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 217
 

1 
 So I think our main focus here has 

2 
 to be on that, and that will in turn allow us 

3 
 to move forward one way or the other with the 

4 
 matrix itself. I'm trying to see if there 

5 
 were any here that didn't mention the film 

6 
 badge data. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just a couple of 

8 
 minor ones. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, there were 

10 
 some other comments, but I think every --

11 
 well, there was one thing about the period of 

12 
 covered employment, but that was a separate 

13 
 issue. That was Issue 2, but the other issues 

14 all mention the film badge data, I believe. 

15 
 Well, there was the issue on 

16 
 failure to assess other sources. Even on that 

17 
 one, you -- let's see. You mention the film 

18 badge data, also. 

19 
 So, anyway, we need to -- we need 

20 
 to go to the film badge issues, and we have 

21 
 several papers that Bob prepared for us, and 

22 
 so let me refer us to those, if you want to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 218
 

1 
 have those handy, and then we'll ask Bob to 

2 
 walk us through, and also I want to double3 
 check and see if Dr. McKeel is on the line. 

4 
 Dr. McKeel, are you with us this afternoon? 

5 
 John Ramspott, are you still with us? 

6 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I definitely am, and 

7 
 I know Dr. McKeel was going to join us. 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I thought he was, 

9 
 and that's why I wondered. 

10 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'll send him a 

11 quick email. 

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, that's fine. 

13 
 I appreciate that, and he's had some 

14 
 correspondence with Bob, and I think Bob will 

15 
 share with us some of the information that Dr. 

16 
 McKeel provided for him, but I was hoping he 

17 
 would also be on the line in case he had 

18 
 additional comments, as well. 

19 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm just now showing 

20 
 1:00 our time, so maybe he's getting on in a 

21 minute. 

22 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. So we have --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 219
 

1 
 I think the original one was called -- was it 

2 
 called white paper? 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, the white 

4 
 paper was --

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, that was the 

6 
 NIOSH paper. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was the NIOSH 

8 
 paper. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That was the 

10 analysis. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. There was a 

12 
 response. There was an SC&A response to the 

13 
 white paper. There was, I believe, a PA 

14 cleared version of that that was distributed. 

15 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And then there was 

17 
 -- which dealt with a number of issues, not 

18 
 just film badges. So then there was a more 

19 
 definitive one, which somehow slipped through 

20 
 the cracks and did not get PA cleared, the 

21 
 review of the film badge symmetry report, 

22 which was dated January 13. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 220
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: January 13 is --

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- the first one, is 

4 
 it not? 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, and, yes, that 

6 
 was the -- that was the review. Okay, that 

7 
 was a review that was performed after NIOSH 

8 
 furnished us more legible data, because the 

9 
 1964 data, a lot of it was blurred and was 

10 simply unreadable, so we got the printout. 

11 
 Somehow, somebody at ORAU had 

12 
 managed to manipulate the -- I don't know if 

13 
 they had the microfiche, if they worked 

14 
 directly from the microfiche, but, anyway, 

15 
 they gave me a nice printout, which was, you 

16 
 know, a little bit of a struggle, but with a 

17 
 magnifying glass and looking at it carefully, 

18 all the pertinent data was there. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Now, let me ask this 

20 
 question before you proceed. We have the 

21 
 original white paper from NIOSH, which was 

22 
 prior that. In fact, we had that at the time 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 221
 

1 
 of our last meeting, and then did NIOSH get 

2 
 some additional printouts that were subsequent 

3 
 to that from Landauer that were more clear, or 

4 
 did you have all the legible ones at that 

5 
 time? I'm a little fuzzy as to whether there 

6 
 were some additional reports which you had to 

7 
 go without initially. 

8 
 MR. ALLEN: No, the only thing we 

9 
 received from Landauer was a box of paper. It 

10 
 was their printouts from the microfiche, and 

11 
 that is -- we scanned those, put them on the 

12 database for easy --

13 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

14 
 MR. ALLEN: -- to distribute that 

15 
 easily, but, you know, a scan of a printout of 

16 a microfiche, it just --

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But what you had for 

18 your analysis is -- that's what you have. 

19 MR. ALLEN: Right. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So you got some 

21 better copies. 

22 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. What I got, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 222
 

1 
 basically, must have been then copies. 

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Better copies. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You know, like well 

4 
 produced copies of those, rather than the 

5 
 scanned microfiche on, you know, on a CD, 

6 
 which then I had to print out myself, and some 

7 
 of it was not legible. 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, but you --

9 
 NIOSH doesn't have any additional readings 

10 that go into the mix. 

11 MR. ALLEN: We got a box --

12 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

13 MR. ALLEN: -- one day from them. 

14 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

15 
 MR. ALLEN: And then it's a matter 

16 
 of trying to get that into a form that's more 

17 readable. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And it appeared to 

19 
 me initially that Dr. McKeel thought that he 

20 
 may have had some additional values or 

21 individuals or readings --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I believe --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 223
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- that were outside 

2 
 of that time frame or were other people, but 

3 
 you can speak to that. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I believe, yes, I 

5 
 can speak to that. 

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So why don't you 

9 
 proceed? 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: From the latest 

11 
 correspondence, what Dr. McKeel got from 

12 
 Landauer was, since he didn't want to ask them 

13 
 for the entire older records, because it would 

14 
 have been costly for one thing, so what he got 

15 
 was the -- My impression was that what he got 

16 
 was the final week, the final report for each 

17 
 year, for each calendar year, starting with 

18 
 1963, which happened to be something not 

19 
 included in the data that were furnished from 

20 
 NIOSH, that particular one, and then he got 

21 
 the reports for every year for the end of the 

22 year. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 224
 

1 
 And so part of the disconnect was 

2 
 there were different numbers of workers, 

3 
 because what we did, what NIOSH did, and I 

4 
 confirmed, and we came out with the same 

5 
 number. I think it's very similar. It looked 

6 
 like one worker in one case, which I know why 

7 
 there was a difference. 

8 
 We went through week by week, and 

9 
 some workers -- now they issued the film 

10 
 badges to the workers that needed them, so the 

11 
 workers that are working in the betatron, the 

12 
 workers that are working with the cobalt-60 

13 
 sources will be issued badges while they were 

14 doing that. 

15 
 Then they might leave. They might 

16 
 take a vacation. They might be reassigned. 

17 
 More likely they were reassigned to other 

18 
 duties, which did not involve, you know, 

19 
 radiation exposure, at least in their 

20 definition. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: At least not 

22 directly. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 225
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So they didn't get 

2 
 the badges. So when you go through, people 

3 
 come in to the badge program. They drop out 

4 
 of the badge program. You know, no one else 

5 
 asks for it, but, you know, the Excel 

6 
 spreadsheet I prepared shows that, which I 

7 
 sent you a copy. 

8 
 So during the covered period, 

9 
 during the overlap between the covered period 

10 
 and the film badge records, which is from 

11 
 January 6 -- actually, the first one is 

12 
 January 1 -- 1964 through middle of 1966, 

13 
 there were 88 individuals that were monitored. 

14 
 There were actually 89, but one of 

15 
 them seemed to be the same name. For some 

16 
 reason or other, he had two film badges for a 

17 
 short period of time. I think it was the same 

18 
 person. If there were two different people 

19 
 with the same last name, they would have given 

20 their initials to differentiate them. 

21 
 And then NIOSH counted 108, because 

22 
 they were going for the entire period of the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 226
 

1 
 film badges, which is, I believe, through 

2 
 1973, which is essentially when the facility 

3 
 shut down, whereas Dr. McKeel looked at the 

4 
 year-end, at any particular time there were 

5 
 only 30 on that particular week, which is 

6 
 typical. Some weeks were a more, but, anyway, 

7 
 that's typical of what there would be, anyway, 

8 
 so I think that discrepancy has been resolved. 

9 
 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Anigstein, may I 

10 break in, please? This is Dan McKeel. 

11 CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, yes, Dan. 

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, hi, Dan. 

13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: We were just 

14 wondering if you were on. Good. 

15 
 DR. MCKEEL: The last time, Dr. 

16 
 Ziemer, that you asked if I was on, I was in 

17 
 my same mode, mute off, speaker off, and I 

18 
 spoke as loudly as possible, and you all 

19 apparently couldn't hear me. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: We could not hear a 

21 thing. 

22 DR. MCKEEL: Well, I'm very --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 227
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That's all right. 

2 
 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Now we hear you very 

4 
 well now. 

5 
 DR. MCKEEL: Now I have. I have 

6 
 been listening all morning and all this 

7 
 afternoon --

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Good. 

9 
 DR. MCKEEL: -- except I redialed 

10 
 back in. Dr. Anigstein has it essentially 

11 
 correct except for a couple of things. What -

12 
 - he is correct. Landauer sent me the year13 
 end reports, and the first report I have, 

14 
 actually, is the January 1964 one, even though 

15 
 the badges are listed as being -- the reading 

16 
 was in November 23, 1963, so that part is 

17 
 correct. 

18 When I actually counted up all the 

19 
 names on the reports that I have for the year20 
 end, there are 52 names on there, and, as I 

21 
 said, the 1964 data that I got from Landauer 

22 
 is very fuzzy and difficult to read, so I'm 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 228
 

1 
 not positive about all the names on there, but 

2 
 I came up with at least 52 different names, 

3 
 and my data was through the closure of the 

4 
 plant in 1973, what they sent me. 

5 
 So I think that does sort of 

6 
 clarify why there is a difference in the 

7 
 number of badge reports that we have, and I 

8 
 still don't understand at all how it is that 

9 
 NIOSH got clear data for 1964. I sent the 

10 
 Board and SC&A and NIOSH my letter from 

11 
 Landauer stating that their data from 1964 was 

12 quite fuzzy and difficult to read. 

13 
 Now, again, they may have been 

14 
 referring to just the year-end reports, and 

15 
 other 1964 data was quite clear. I just don't 

16 know, but --

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Bob, can you speak 

18 to that? 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I agree. It 

20 
 was fuzzy. It was difficult to read, but it 

21 
 was nevertheless legible. If you spent enough 

22 
 time with it with a magnifying glass, you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 229
 

1 
 could make out each name, and if you, for 

2 
 instance if the name is a little fuzzy on one 

3 
 report, you can make out the badge number, and 

4 
 you look to another report and you see what 

5 
 name, but they never changed badge numbers. 

6 
 So by comparing week after week, 

7 
 there was not a single data gap that couldn't 

8 
 be filled in. As I said, it was not an easy 

9 
 job, but I can stand firmly behind the fact 

10 
 that we were able to interpret each week's 

11 report. 

12 
 DR. MCKEEL: And then, Dr. 

13 
 Anigstein, would you also please comment? I 

14 
 was quite surprised in your latest report, 

15 
 which I got yesterday, that it mentions in 

16 
 there correspondence that SC&A had with 

17 
 Landauer, and it would help me at least to 

18 
 know. So you got data independently from 

19 Landauer --

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. 

21 
 DR. MCKEEL: -- and then 

22 corresponded with them? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 230
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, let me -- one 

2 
 second. Let me see what you are referring. 

3 
 Give me one moment, please. The latest report 

4 


5 
 DR. MCKEEL: You say -- in this 

6 
 latest report you say, "Each of the dose 

7 
 subtractions" --

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, yes. 

9 
 DR. MCKEEL: -- "was made by 

10 
 Landauer following requests from TSI. 

11 
 According to copies of correspondence 

12 
 furnished by Landauer" --

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is correct. 

14 
 DR. MCKEEL: -- "to SC&A." 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. That is 

16 
 correct. We have a person on our staff who is 

17 
 a SC&A associate, which means one of our 

18 
 outside consultants, who happened to have a 

19 
 personal connection at Landauer, because he is 

20 
 retired former vice president of Landauer. 

21 
 So I asked him for an explanation 

22 
 where there was on one of the -- on two of the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 231
 

1 
 reports, there would be a high dose, and in 

2 
 public I can't really speak to what the dose 

3 
 was, but, anyway, a very high dose. 

4 
 DR. MCKEEL: Why can you not name a 

5 
 high dose in public --? 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, again, I --

7 
 DR. MCKEEL: -- so there they 

8 
 named? 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There's an OGC 

10 lawyer here who won't allow me to make --

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Can he mention the 

12 dose? 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon? 

14 CHAIR ZIEMER: The dose number? 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It was not a real 

16 
 number. It was an -- it was --

17 
 MS. HOWELL: That's fine. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon? 

19 
 MS. HOWELL: That's fine. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: The amount of dose. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The dose, there was 

22 
 a dose of -- there was a recorded dose of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 232
 

1 
 38,500 millirem in one case and 19,000 in 

2 
 another case, and so this was -- I was able to 

3 
 trace back and find the weekly, you know, 

4 
 thumbing through the weekly reports. 

5 
 First of all, I preface it with 

6 
 saying it was not during the covered period. 

7 
 It was during the residual period, so it was -

8 
 - one was in 1969, one was in 1970. So that 

9 
 was -- so the initial review I had made, I 

10 
 only covered the period of AEC operations 

11 through, you know, middle of 1964 -- 1966. 

12 
 Okay, now, following the report for 

13 
 that week, so, you know, you have the dates, 

14 
 the beginning and end dates for that weekly 

15 
 badge, and then at the top there is a 

16 
 processing date, which is typically two, three 

17 
 weeks later, when the report is actually 

18 printed. 

19 
 The next page in the sequence is a 

20 
 badge report for just that one individual, the 

21 
 same format, but only the one individual is 

22 
 listed. The processing date was a couple of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 233
 

1 
 months later. Like in one case the report was 

2 
 for the date in November, and then the next 

3 
 one was the following -- a new report for the 

4 
 same individual but for the same weekly 

5 
 exposure period, but the date of the report 

6 
 was in February, if I remember correctly, and 

7 
 there was a notation alongside it, DS. Again, 

8 
 it said 38,500 millirem but a notation DS. 

9 
 Not having any idea of what that 

10 
 meant, I called our consultant, Joseph 

11 
 Zlotnicki, and I said, "Do you happen to know 

12 
 what DS means?" He said, "Certainly. DS 

13 
 means dose subtracted, so basically I go with 

14 
 like a negative dose," and then, indeed, later 

15 
 reports for that same individual showed his 

16 cumulative dose M, minimal. 

17 
 So then I was speaking to Mr. -- is 

18 he a doctor, Mr. --

19 
 DR. MAURO: Doctor. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Dr. Zlotnicki. I 

21 
 said, "Do we have any information on it? Do 

22 
 you have any?" He says, "Yes, chances are 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 234
 

1 
 that Landauer would have had documentation on 

2 
 that," and using his -- you know, this is like 

3 
 informal. 

4 
 Nobody paid for this. He just --

5 
 people there, you know, whom he knew doing him 

6 
 a favor, and they sent him a, again, a scanned 

7 
 printout of a letter, which he then passed on 

8 
 to me, and in the first case it was a letter 

9 
 from the radiation officer at GSI and a letter 

10 
 to Landauer, and it's mentioned in my report, 

11 
 and then attached to it was a little memo from 

12 
 a worker saying, "I wore So-and-So's badge on 

13 
 this particular week, and then I accidentally 

14 
 left it in the shooting -- dropped it and left 

15 
 it in the shooting room," so that explains the 

16 exposure, and --

17 
 DR. MCKEEL: Well, no, that's one 

18 possibility. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. It's 

20 
 documented. It's documented. That person 

21 
 wrote a note to his supervisor saying, "I wore 

22 
 Mr. X's badge, and I left it, and I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 235
 

1 
 accidentally dropped it in the shooting room," 

2 
 and this letter was sent to Landauer, and 

3 
 Landauer removed that exposure from his 

4 
 record, and --

5 
 DR. MCKEEL: Just for the record, 

6 
 this is a report that you got from a former 

7 
 Landauer employer, not an employee, not a 

8 
 Landauer employee now. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This report was 

10 furnished -- well, up the chain. 

11 DR. MCKEEL: He worked for SC&A. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, that was the 

13 
 chain of custody, but the letter itself has, 

14 
 which I have in front of me, but I can't --

15 
 you know, I'm not at liberty to share it. The 

16 
 letter itself has -- is on -- basically, the 

17 letter is from GSI to Landauer. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: On GSI letterhead. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I believe so. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, while you're 

21 looking for that --

22 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There is a 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 236
 

1 
 signature. It's a GSI letterhead. It's 

2 
 dated. It's signed, and, again, I don't wish 

3 
 to speak his name, but it's a name that we 

4 
 have come across as a supervisor and radiation 

5 
 officer in Landauer, and, as a matter of fact, 

6 
 the film badge reports are addressed to him. 

7 
 He was the one who collected the report, who 

8 
 was --

9 
 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, I understand 

10 
 that. My question is that letter --

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So the authenticity 

12 


13 
 DR. MCKEEL: Has that letter been 

14 
 transmitted to the Board and to NIOSH? 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, it hasn't. 

16 
 DR. MCKEEL: Well, should it not 

17 
 be? 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We just got it, but 

19 
 yes. The point is accepted. That's an 

20 
 internal matter here, but it's --

21 
 DR. MCKEEL: And can it be -- and 

22 
 can it be sent to me, as well? 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 237
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, we cannot 

2 
 release it, because it's, again, Privacy Act. 

3 
 DR. MCKEEL: I object strongly, and 

4 
 I request that letter after Privacy Act 

5 
 redaction. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

7 
 MS. HOWELL: Can it be released 

8 
 after it's redacted? 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Dan, absolutely, you can 

10 get it with Privacy Act redactions. 

11 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And the second --

13 and the second instance was --

14 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: There would be two 

15 letters, actually, right? 

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Is there -- there's 

18 
 one --

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: One is two pages, 

20 which is the --

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: One is from --

22 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: One is from the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 238
 

1 
 supervisor to General Steel, to Landauer with 

2 
 an attachment, which is a memo from the worker 

3 
 to the supervisor. Okay. 

4 
 Then the second letter was written, 

5 
 in the case of another worker, was written 

6 
 directly by the worker, who simply -- it's not 

7 
 on a letterhead. It simply had a -- it's 

8 
 simply headed. 

9 
 Granted, somebody obviously typed 

10 
 this for him, or he typed it himself. It 

11 
 simply said Granite City, Illinois, with a 

12 
 date, and it's addressed to R. S. Landauer, 

13 
 Jr. and Company, and it says that he 

14 accidentally lost his film badge. 

15 
 It says, "My film badge -- sometime 

16 
 during the evening of, my film badge was --." 

17 
 I quoted that in the report, I think, "-- was 

18 
 accidentally lost in the exposure room of the 

19 
 GSI betatron. The badge was not found until 

20 Monday morning," leaving on Friday. 

21 
 And then he goes on to say that 

22 
 that week he worked with other workers, and he 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 239
 

1 
 lists their names and their badge numbers and 

2 
 says that he was always with one of those men 

3 
 in the radiation area and since none of their 

4 
 film badges showed any readings, you know, 

5 
 above minimal. 

6 
 Therefore, he is saying he 

7 
 therefore uses that as evidence that he also 

8 
 did not get any exposure and says that -- and 

9 
 he concludes by saying, "Since their badges 

10 
 showed no exposure, I am sure that the 

11 
 exposure shown on my badge is due to being 

12 accidentally lost in the radiation area." 

13 
 DR. MCKEEL: Do we know if that 

14 
 worker that signed that letter is alive or 

15 dead? 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't -- I do not 

17 
 know that. 

18 DR. MCKEEL: Well, that's a very 

19 
 important thing, because if that worker is 

20 dead --

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Because I have no 

22 way of --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 240
 

1 
 DR. MCKEEL: -- the Privacy Act 

2 
 does not apply to him. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. I have no 

4 
 way of finding that out. 

5 
 DR. MCKEEL: Well, I mean, is it a 

6 
 worker that's known to you through your 

7 
 satellite --

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, it's not --

9 
 it's not any of the workers that attended 

10 meetings or --

11 
 DR. MCKEEL: Well, if there is some 

12 
 way that you can privately or the Board can 

13 
 privately interact with some of the living, 

14 
 active betatron workers that are working with 

15 
 us now, I'm sure they can confirm whether or 

16 not that gentleman is alive or dead. 

17 
 MEMBER BEACH: Bob, that says in 

18 
 your statement that occurrences are consistent 

19 
 with statements made by two former GSI 

20 operators at the August 22 meeting. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They're not the 

22 same ones, though. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 241
 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: They're not the 

2 
 same? 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, they're not the 

4 
 same. That is simply the two operators where 

5 
 Dr. McKeel was there, because I think he had 

6 
 organized the meeting, who simply stated --

7 
 interestingly enough, both these occurrences -

8 
 - in one case that it was not uncommon, or, at 

9 
 least, it had been done, that somebody would 

10 
 take another worker's badge and deliberately 

11 
 expose it as a way of getting that worker 

12 canned. 

13 
 There was an expletive that I 

14 
 deleted, and in the other case, another 

15 
 current betatron operator, I mean, currently 

16 
 living betatron operator said also sometimes 

17 
 they would deliberately leave their own badge 

18 
 in and expose it just to see if anybody picked 

19 up the readings, and so here were two cases. 

20 
 MEMBER BEACH: Because of their 

21 
 failure to trust dose rates. 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 242
 

1 
 MEMBER BEACH: Right. Okay. 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And so here were 

3 
 two cases, documented, where exactly that 

4 
 happened, one of each. 

5 
 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I'm sorry. This 

6 
 is Liz Homoki-Titus. I don't mean to 

7 
 interrupt, but I don't want to leave an 

8 
 incorrect statement floating out there. Dr. 

9 
 McKeel is correct that when someone passes 

10 
 away they no longer have a privacy interest, 

11 
 but there may be other interests in that 

12 
 letter, so just because the person may be 

13 
 deceased does not necessarily mean that we 

14 
 will release the name or personal information. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I understand 

16 that. That was said during our last meeting. 

17 
 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I just wanted to 

18 
 clarify for the Board and have it on the 

19 record. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Thanks, Liz. 

22 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 243
 

1 
 John Ramspott. May I ask Bob a question? 

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

3 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Bob, did you -- did 

4 
 I understand you correctly to say the first 

5 
 individual that is being discussed now, 

6 
 according to that official document and 

7 
 letter, was wearing someone else's badge? 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, the other way 

9 
 around. The individual whose badge -- the 

10 
 badge report comes back with the badge number 

11 
 and the name of the worker that badge number 

12 
 was assigned to, and the badge number, once 

13 it's assigned, it's forever. 

14 
 If that worker goes away or dies, 

15 
 that badge number is retired. It's never used 

16 
 for anyone else at that same facility, of 

17 
 course, the same numbers for the facilities. 

18 
 So worker -- the badge number, the badge for 

19 
 Worker X, came back with this very high 

20 reading. 

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 

22 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So apparently what 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 244
 

1 
 happened then, there must have been some kind 

2 
 of an internal -- I mean, I'm just -- now I'm 

3 
 just extrapolating, but the first thing we 

4 
 know, the supervisor sends a letter to 

5 
 Landauer with an attached memo written to him, 

6 
 so a worker whose name I never saw, and, by 

7 
 the way, his name does not appear on any of 

8 
 the badge records that I could find, that I 

9 
 saw, so it's a new -- it's a new name. 

10 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Simply wrote a 

12 
 letter to his supervisor saying, "On that 

13 
 particular week, I picked up Worker X's badge 

14 by mistake." 

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: That's what I have. 

16 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: "And then I left it, 

17 
 and it fell off my pocket," or something like 

18 
 that, and it fell into the betatron room and 

19 was left there during exposures. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But he never had a 

21 badge? 

22 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Did I miss 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 245
 

1 
 something? Doesn't it sound like --? 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm just saying --

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But you're saying 

4 
 that worker never had a badge of his own. 

5 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: That's what I'm 

6 
 saying. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: As far as I can 

8 
 tell from all -- you know, this is in the 

9 
 period, in the later period, so I didn't look 

10 at each and every week. 

11 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I guess what I'm 

12 questioning is did --

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I did -- I did -- I 

14 
 did during the covered period, but I did, you 

15 
 know, skim through, and I thought, "Well, 

16 
 let's see. Did he have a badge a previous 

17 
 week, two weeks before, three weeks before, 

18 one week after, two weeks after?" 

19 
 I just randomly looked at other 

20 
 reports during that year. I never saw his 

21 
 name. That's all I can say. I can't say that 

22 
 it -- I did not look at every one of the, you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 246
 

1 
 know, 400 or 500 pages of reports for the 

2 
 later period to see whether his name appeared 

3 
 or not. 

4 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I guess what I'm 

5 
 saying is that individual or that letter that 

6 
 you have there --

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

8 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Doesn't it -- did it 

9 
 not come from an individual saying he had 

10 somebody else's badge on? 

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is correct. 

12 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: That's what I 

13 thought. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But I'm saying the 

15 
 man who signed the letter, I did not find his 

16 name on any badge reports. 

17 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I guess what I'm 

18 concerned about is --

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The one, oh, the 

20 report of whose badge he wore, definitely. 

21 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, I'm more 

22 concerned about --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 247
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was the one 

2 
 with the very high reading. 

3 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: -- being able to 

4 
 identify the correct person to the correct 

5 
 badge. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

7 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I mean, that would 

8 
 be pretty --

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Let me - again, I'm 

10 
 going to make up a name now. Remember, it's a 

11 
 made-up name. I'm going to say here it is, 

12 memo to Mr. Supervisor. 

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Subject, film badge 

15 
 exposure. "While working the week of 10/6/69, 

16 
 I wore Mr. Smith's film badge by mistake, of 

17 
 M. Smith's film badge by mistake. The badge 

18 
 fell off in the shooting room and was 

19 exposed." 

20 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: "I wore somebody 

21 
 else's badge by mistake" is the point I wanted 

22 to make. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 248
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, exactly, and 

2 
 he gave the name. 

3 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: So he did wear 

4 
 somebody else's badge. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is what he 

6 
 says. 

7 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. That's what I 

8 
 thought I heard. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, that's what he 

10 
 said, and then --

11 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: That's pretty 

12 
 important. 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This was attached 

14 
 to the letter from the supervisor to Landauer, 

15 
 saying, "Attached is a copy of a letter 

16 
 explaining the exposure of Mr. Smith's film 

17 
 badge during the week of October 6, 1969. 

18 
 Please correct your records to show Mr. 

19 
 Smith's annual exposure with consideration 

20 
 being given to this letter." 

21 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, well, that's, I 

22 
 guess, the accuracy of who wore what badge, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 249
 

1 
 when, the right person. That's my main point. 

2 
 I'm not questioning that letter. That letter 

3 
 is actually very helpful. If we ever get a 

4 
 copy of it, it shows that the badges were a 

5 
 little loose. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, it shows that 

7 
 during the meeting -- I mean, it simply 

8 
 confirms the statement made by a person, and 

9 
 I'm sure you will remember his name. I can't 

10 
 say it here -- during the meeting where, John, 

11 
 you and Dr. McKeel -- it was the -- I believe 

12 
 it was the August 21, 2006 meeting, outreach 

13 
 meeting where NIOSH was present. Mr. Allen, 

14 David Allen, and Stuart Hinnefeld were there. 

15 
 The statement was made. Somebody 

16 
 would take -- you know, you guys all -- if I 

17 
 read correctly the statement he -- actually, I 

18 have his statement. I can read it for you. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, that's all 

20 right. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But he says, you 

22 
 know, you guys will all remember, "There was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 250
 

1 
 somebody we didn't like, we didn't care to 

2 
 work with, we would expose their badge." 

3 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: But that's different 

4 
 than not having the right badge. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If I can just put 

6 
 it in my personal opinion, I don't think this 

7 
 worker is going to say, "I deliberately took 

8 
 his badge and left it there," so it's a very 

9 
 convenient way of saying, "Well, I 

10 
 accidentally wore his badge, and I 

11 accidentally dropped it." 

12 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, that's all 

13 hypothetical. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's a lot of 

15 accidents. 

16 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, okay --

17 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. I just wanted 

18 to make sure I heard that right. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Sure. Okay. Okay, 

20 
 so, Bob, as far as you know, you now have a 

21 
 record of all the film badge exposures. What 

22 
 further -- what's the bottom line on all of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 251
 

1 
 this? 

2 
 DR. MCKEEL: May I please 

3 
 interrupt? 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

5 
 DR. MCKEEL: Are you all going to 

6 
 forget the information I just sent to Dr. 

7 
 Anigstein about the additional worker who 

8 
 provided us with another second set of --

9 
 another film badge report --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

11 DR. MCKEEL: -- from another pool? 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I will be getting 

13 that. I will be getting to that. 

14 DR. MCKEEL: Oh, okay. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, we won't -- so 

16 
 the additional information that Dr. McKeel 

17 
 submitted, again I will just, you know, give 

18 
 the worker a pseudonym so it will be easier to 

19 talk about. Let me see it here. 

20 
 Okay. The first page was 

21 
 apparently transmitted by fax to, I assume, to 

22 
 Dr. McKeel. There is a little tag heading at 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 252
 

1 
 the bottom. It's headed, "Atomic Energy 

2 
 Commission, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission. 

3 
 Occupational External Radiation Exposure 

4 
 History," and in the upper left-hand corner, 

5 
 barely legible but legible, it says, "Form AEC 

6 
 4," and then a date, you know, month and year, 

7 
 I guess, when the form was adopted, and for 

8 
 those in the health physics community, you'll 

9 
 know this is essentially the same as the 

10 current NRC Form 4. 

11 
 And the purpose of this form is to 

12 
 allow a worker going from one job to another 

13 
 to carry his exposure history, and the 

14 
 importance of that in those days was that the 

15 
 exposure, radiation exposure, was based on the 

16 
 assumption that the worker could receive up to 

17 
 5 rem a year for every year past the age of 

18 
 18. 

19 
 So if he was under 18, he wasn't 

20 
 allowed to work in a radiation, you know, 

21 
 facility. So if he was 19, you could say, 

22 
 "Okay, he was allowed 5 rem for the previous 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 253
 

1 
 year that he was not exposed," and then you 

2 
 subtract from that any actual exposure, and 

3 
 that's the logic behind it. 

4 
 So, on this form -- so the fact 

5 
 that it has the heading of Atomic Energy 

6 
 Commission simply means it's their form, just 

7 
 like you do -- your income taxes will have, 

8 
 you know, Internal Revenue Service on the top. 

9 
 That doesn't mean the Atomic Energy 

10 
 Commission prepared the form. I mean, they 

11 simply furnished the blank form to be used. 

12 
 And it lists two different -- oh, 

13 
 there is another employer and then General 

14 
 Steel Industries. The other employer seems to 

15 
 be a -- I guess this is Pittsburgh Testing. 

16 
 It seems to be a radiographic facility that 

17 
 did radiographic testing of steel structures. 

18 
 I looked them up on the internet, 

19 
 and they were being sued by U.S. Steel for not 

20 
 having properly examined some steel structure 

21 
 that was then -- that a bridge had to be 

22 
 closed because it was defective, so apparently 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 254
 

1 
 they were doing radiography. I mean, I'm just 

2 
 guessing. I mean, it's an informed guess. 

3 
 And then, also, it says that he 

4 
 worked at General Steel Industries for so many 

5 
 quarters, and he got a certain dose, but the 

6 
 basis of the dose was -- simply it just says, 

7 
 "Record." There is -- it doesn't necessarily 

8 
 mean that it was monitored, and then, after 

9 
 that one page, there is a record from 1963 for 

10 the same individual. 

11 
 DR. MCKEEL: Excuse me. Oh, excuse 

12 
 me, Bob. That's not really a complete reading 

13 of what's on that report at all. 

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

15 
 DR. MCKEEL: It's also not a 

16 complete --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I'm --

18 
 DR. MCKEEL: -- revelation of the 

19 
 fact that that worker is also the recipient 

20 
 and is on my list and, I'm sure, on yours for 

21 
 receiving the R.S. Landauer, Jr. badge reports 

22 from `64 on. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 255
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is correct. 

2 
 DR. MCKEEL: That worker was there 

3 
 for a very long time. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I will agree 

5 
 with that. 

6 
 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I am trying to be 

8 
 as unspecific not to get in trouble with the 

9 
 lawyer. 

10 DR. MCKEEL: No, we need to be as 

11 specific and accurate as possible. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I'm limited 

13 
 to what I'm allowed to say. Yes, this worker 

14 -- I mean, but I haven't finished yet. 

15 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I simply gave the 

17 
 first page, which is his exposure, his prior 

18 exposure history. 

19 
 DR. MCKEEL: You forgot to put the 

20 
 date that that report was. That's extremely 

21 important. 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm asked not to. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 256
 

1 
 DR. MCKEEL: Pre-1962 was the date. 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Dr. McKeel, you are 

3 
 at liberty to read that, to read anything you 

4 
 wish from that report. We're constrained. 

5 
 You are not covered by Privacy Act. If you 

6 
 wish to read that in --

7 
 DR. MCKEEL: You can't even name --

8 
 give the date of that report? 

9 
 MS. HOWELL: Dr. McKeel, we try to 

10 -- this is Emily Howell. 

11 DR. MCKEEL: Yes. 

12 
 MS. HOWELL: We're trying to 

13 
 protect people's privacy, and it's not simply 

14 
 their name or their badge number that could 

15 
 identify them, but there are also dates that 

16 
 could and other information for individuals 

17 
 that were there, so Mr. Anigstein is just 

18 
 trying to maintain that information boundary 

19 
 in a respectable way, and certainly the Board 

20 
 members can see this information, so I don't 

21 
 want you to feel that they are in any way 

22 
 being constrained from having all the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 257
 

1 
 information they need to perform their duties. 

2 
 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, but what is 

3 
 happening is that there is being put on the 

4 
 official record information that I think is 

5 
 highly misleading, and I would simply like to 

6 
 respectfully challenge the fact that we're not 

7 
 talking about this gentleman's birth date or 

8 
 any other thing, simply that he signed this 

9 
 report on March[Identifying Information 

10 
 Redacted] of 1962, which is prior to any of 

11 
 the R.S. Landauer reports, and it was a man 

12 
 who had gotten additional reports from 

13 
 Landauer with Landauer at the top of the 

14 
 report form and appears on many Landauer year15 end reports. 

16 
 So I just want to indicate that 

17 
 this is apparently for one individual, two 

18 
 sets of radiation monitoring data, and this 

19 
 particular one is so important because it's 

20 
 before any of the badge data that SC&A and 

21 
 NIOSH have discussed thus far, and it's also 

22 
 data that I brought to everyone's attention 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 258
 

1 
 back in 2006. 

2 
 So we are discussing something that 

3 
 could have been followed up, should have been 

4 
 followed up, should have been researched 

5 
 thoroughly, and, also, at the bottom of that 

6 
 report that Bob just mentioned is another very 

7 
 important fact, and that is that the apparent 

8 
 source of that is the Nuclear Consultants 

9 
 Corporation, and I sent him some additional 

10 
 information showing that Nuclear Consultants 

11 
 Corporation was later acquired by 

12 
 Mallinckrodt, and what that indicates is that 

13 
 here is badge data from 1962 of a company that 

14 
 eventually was purchased by, acquired by, 

15 
 merged into Mallinckrodt, and it's a strong 

16 
 indication that NIOSH should go back and 

17 
 investigate the Mallinckrodt dosimetry records 

18 
 carefully and make sure that there are no more 

19 GSI data. 

20 
 I mean, we have, you know, this one 

21 
 report, but it implies the possibility, at 

22 
 least, that there was data from this same 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 259
 

1 
 corporation for years before that and that 

2 
 this is just one surviving record that this 

3 
 gentleman decided to supply to us. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Let me 

5 
 interject here, though, one point, the fact 

6 
 that it was on a Landauer form. The practice 

7 


8 
 DR. MCKEEL: It wasn't on a 

9 
 Landauer form. 

10 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is the --

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, which are you 

12 
 talking about? 

13 
 DR. MCKEEL: I'm talking about --

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The attachments to 

15 
 Dr. McKeel's email --

16 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, yes. Yes. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- that you should 

18 
 have gotten. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I have it here. We 

21 
 can --

22 
 DR. MCKEEL: Well, I know more 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 260
 

1 
 people on the Board got that form, because I 

2 
 sent it to everybody. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Everyone has it. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, but what were 

5 
 you saying about Landauer on this particular 

6 
 one? 

7 
 DR. MCKEEL: I was saying that this 

8 
 gentleman appears on the Landauer listings for 

9 
 GSI `64[Identifying Information Redacted] to 

10 
 `73[Identifying Information Redacted] on 

11 
 various of those reports that NIOSH, SC&A and 

12 
 myself and the Board, I presume, have all seen 

13 
 by now, so this gentleman is a link between 

14 
 the Landauer data, which we have been 

15 
 discussing, and a previous data set, I 

16 
 believe, of monitoring data at GSI that was 

17 
 compiled by this Nuclear Consultants 

18 
 Corporation on an AEC standard form. And we 

19 
 have a series, actually, of those reports on 

20 
 AEC-4 from the same gentleman for subsequent 

21 
 years, so either, you know, the AEC some way 

22 was or another company was using AEC forms. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 261
 

1 
 Now, on the later forms from this 

2 
 same gentleman, interestingly, what's listed 

3 
 at the bottom after the `63 report that I'm 

4 
 talking about -- I mean, the `62 report that 

5 
 I'm talking about, March[Identifying 

6 
 Information Redacted] 1962. The reports, 

7 
 rather than having Nuclear Consultants 

8 
 Corporation at the bottom, what I call the 

9 
 footer, they have the Commonwealth Division of 

10 
 General Steel Industries at the bottom, so 

11 
 there again there is some indication that even 

12 
 though this is an AEC-4 form, it's completely 

13 
 different or quite different from the R.S. 

14 
 Landauer form, or at least the year-end report 

15 that I got. 

16 
 There are two different groups 

17 
 noted on the bottom of that form, Nuclear 

18 
 Consultants Corporation for 1962, and 1964 

19 
 through 1969 is Commonwealth Division of 

20 
 General Steel Industries. Anyway, so, sorry 

21 
 to interrupt, but I think it's very important 

22 to get that accurate picture on the record. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 262
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, and this AEC 

2 
 form would have been used by all licensees. I 

3 
 mean, we used them at Purdue. They would 

4 
 appear on everybody's records, and they were 

5 
 prepared by the film badge users and, upon 

6 
 request, the record from previous uses could 

7 
 be provided to your current film badge user, 

8 
 in this case Landauer, so that they would 

9 
 carry it forward, because they calculated the 

10 5(N-18) value that Bob referred to earlier. 

11 
 So the preferable thing is, if 

12 
 there was previous exposure with a different 

13 
 film badge vendor, would be to supply Landauer 

14 
 with the AEC form information so that it would 

15 
 be incorporated into the Landauer records as a 

16 new base point for a new worker. 

17 
 I just want to make sure everybody 

18 
 understands that there is a link -- there 

19 
 should always be a linkage for people who 

20 
 worked in earlier time periods at other 

21 
 places. They should -- they didn't always do 

22 
 it, but they should have linked their previous 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 263
 

1 
 exposure through their current film badge 

2 
 supplier. 

3 
 So if the person came from -- where 

4 
 was that before -- and filled out this form, 

5 
 which was a requirement, because you were 

6 
 supposed to determine their previous exposure 

7 
 history and calculate 5(N-18) to determine if 

8 
 they were even eligible for exposure, and then 

9 
 presumably you would provide that to the 

10 supplier. 

11 
 DR. MCKEEL: Well, Paul, I agree 

12 
 with all of that. I'm sure you're correct, 

13 
 but this particular individual we know started 

14 
 working at GSI in 1953[Identifying Information 

15 
 Redacted], and this report wasn't until 

16 
 March[Identifying Information Redacted] of 

17 
 1962, and what's interesting is we -- and I 

18 
 say we collectively -- as far as I'm aware, 

19 
 have no other AEC form for reports for any GSI 

20 
 worker other than one other person who 

21 
 supplied us with some from a later time 

22 period. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 264
 

1 
 So, you know, either all of those 

2 
 reports are missing, which seems possible --

3 
 you have to remember that for 2005 and 2006, 

4 
 NIOSH said they had no badge data at all on 

5 
 GSI workers, so, you know, I just think there 

6 
 needs to be intensive additional 

7 
 investigation, including the linkages that you 

8 
 mentioned back to, you know, those older 

9 
 records, wherever they reside at the NRC now 

10 or at Department of Energy. 

11 
 I'm not sure. You all would know 

12 
 better than I, but the -- we need to find out 

13 
 whether there are more film badges from 

14 
 1953[Identifying Information Redacted] to 

15 
 1963, and then I also mention that this same 

16 
 worker, in another page that I sent to you 

17 
 all, has data from 1963 where there are four 

18 individual quarterly reports. 

19 
 So this worker, who we know was 

20 
 there after 1964 forward and has Landauer 

21 
 listings, also has at least four readings 

22 
 during 1963, and we believe that the Landauer 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 265
 

1 
 badge program began probably in November `63 

2 
 at the earliest, and we know that that same 

3 
 worker had information from -- had monitoring 

4 
 information from the year before, and we know 

5 
 that that same individual worked at GSI since 

6 
 1953[Identifying Information Redacted]. 

7 
 So, somehow a coherent picture of 

8 
 all that has to be fitted into place and 

9 
 juxtaposed, I believe, with the information 

10 
 that we haven't discussed that I put on the 

11 
 record when I presented my -- our response to 

12 
 the SEC evaluation report at the February 

13 Board meeting. 

14 
 At IAPP they had concluded that 

15 
 badge data for those radiographers from a 

16 
 later time period could not be extrapolated 

17 
 back to the covered period at -- they had 

18 
 badge data from 1955, but NIOSH concluded it 

19 
 could not extrapolate back to the year of the 

20 
 IAP radiographers SEC, which I think was `47 

21 to `48. 

22 
 So all that needs to be kind of put 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 266
 

1 
 together and considered when you all make a 

2 
 final recommendation about where you judge all 

3 
 of this badge data, and I guess the other 

4 
 related thing that I have to say is that, as 

5 
 far as I'm concerned, the NIOSH reports that 

6 
 everything was going to be resolved by looking 

7 
 at the film badge data, including your point 

8 
 that the sources had not been looked at, all 

9 
 the sources had not been looked at, I just 

10 
 don't believe that's an adequate response to 

11 this. 

12 
 I don't think these badges are 

13 
 going to solve all those questions. I'm not 

14 
 questioning that we need to explore the badge 

15 
 data in detail, but we can't simply overlook 

16 
 all of the uncertainties that are not 

17 
 addressed for Appendix BB and for the white 

18 
 paper that I mentioned to you all on February 

19 
 18. 

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, yes, thanks, 

21 
 and I don't think we're at the point of saying 

22 
 that the film badges are going to solve all 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 267
 

1 
 this. In fact, we are trying to assess their 

2 
 value, so we're mindful of your comments, Dan. 

3 
 We appreciate that. 

4 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

5 
 John Ramspott. May I comment? 

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: You bet. 

7 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: And, again, Dr. 

8 
 Anigstein, the reports you have that are from 

9 
 Dr. McKeel --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

11 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: -- does it not show 

12 previous quarters? 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm not sure. 

14 Could you state your --

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: On these reports --

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

17 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: -- they show 

18 previous quarters. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The reports, 

20 
 perhaps you -- okay, the report for the worker 

21 
 in question shows two quarters of employment 

22 at another employer. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 268
 

1 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And there was no --

3 
 there was no record of exposure, so under the 

4 
 explanation of the dose, it said calculated at 

5 
 3.75 rem per quarter. There is no basis. We 

6 
 don't know why they chose that number. That 

7 
 was something that was --

8 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Does it show his 

9 
 employment history? 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, it showed his 

11 employment history. 

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: May I ask what --

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Again, McKeel can 

14 
 share that with you. I cannot do it on the 

15 phone. 

16 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay, what I'm 

17 
 getting at, I thought it showed the number of 

18 quarters. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is correct, 

20 
 and the second line shows the number of 

21 quarters employed at GSI. 

22 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: And how many 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 269
 

1 
 quarters is that? 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, 18 quarters. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, I can tell you 

4 
 what they did. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

6 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Oh, good. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Just looking at the 

8 
 numbers. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

10 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: The old annual dose 

11 limits were 15 rem per year. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, there was --

13 there was a time? 

14 CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, yes. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I didn't know that. 

16 CHAIR ZIEMER: 3.75 per quarter. 

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Got it. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And he worked there 

19 
 at that facility for two quarters I think it 

20 shows. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, thank you for 

22 telling me that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 270
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: They assigned him, 

2 
 apparently -- in the absence of dosimetry 

3 
 data, they apparently assigned him the maximum 

4 
 allowable dose for that facility. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Got it. 

6 
 MEMBER POSTON: Which was the law 

7 
 at the time. If you don't know the dose, you 

8 
 give them the maximum. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

10 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: That's what I was 

11 getting at, 18 quarters --

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, no. The first 

13 two quarters are done that way. 

14 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay, and then the 

15 18 quarters? 

16 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Then it shows --

17 
 then he's at -- there's actual records then, 

18 according --

19 MR. RAMSPOTT: That's my point. 

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, when I look --

21 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: There are records 

22 
 going back 18 quarters prior to this 1962 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 271
 

1 
 date, which means this man has records going 

2 
 way back with somebody, but, I mean, just tell 

3 
 me if I'm right or wrong. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, all we know --

5 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: We've got 18 

6 
 quarters. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- is that it says 

8 
 -- it gives a starting date, and --

9 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes. The starting 

10 
 date was the `53[Identifying Information 

11 Redacted]. 

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Correct. 

13 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: There are records 

14 
 going way back on this guy somewhere. Then I 

15 guess the other question I had --

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The quarters were 

17 
 not -- in other words, there's nine years from 

18 
 the starting date to the date of the -- that 

19 
 this was signed, and yet there are only 18 

20 quarters, so there was like --

21 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, I understand 

22 they only go back so far. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 272
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You have to go to -

2 
 -

3 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: If I thought I -- I 

4 
 mean, I think I heard that, but I'm not 

5 
 positive about that part, but we do know there 

6 
 should be 18 quarters. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: There's 36 quarters 

8 
 in the period of interest. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, exactly. 

10 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: So they are 

11 reporting on 18 of them. 

12 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, so I guess what 

13 
 that means is there's time prior to this 

14 
 report somewhere. If these guys have the 

15 
 records, they got them from somewhere, and I 

16 
 would assume they got them from the 18 

17 
 quarters prior to this date. That definitely 

18 proves there were records. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That's what it 

20 
 appears. 

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: But then the other 

22 
 point I'd like to make, this other report that 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 273
 

1 
 Dr. McKeel referred to, it would be real 

2 
 interesting, and wouldn't there be two sets of 

3 
 records running at the same time? It would be 

4 
 interesting to know if this other individual 

5 
 that we know had an AEC report also had a 

6 
 Landauer report for the same times. I'd be 

7 
 kind of interested. If they don't get added 

8 
 together that could be a real mess. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, they wouldn't 

10 
 add them together, but most places were 

11 responsible to keep their own AEC reports. 

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 

13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And then when the 

14 
 person went to their next job, you would take 

15 
 -- you would basically give them an update, 

16 
 which was the old AEC report plus anything 

17 
 they got when they worked from you, and you 

18 
 would update it, but, I mean, that was the 

19 
 practice. In fact, we were -- there was a 

20 
 legal requirement that you furnish an employee 

21 when they left with that information. 

22 
 DR. NETON: Before you could start 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 274
 

1 
 employment, you needed to furnish the new 

2 
 employer an AEC Form 4 or NRC Form 4 that 

3 
 establishes what your cumulative dose was to 

4 
 date, and that's the purpose of this form. 

5 
 This has nothing to do with his 

6 
 monitoring program. This has to do with 

7 
 maintaining his cumulative exposure record so 

8 
 that you could enter that and make sure he 

9 
 didn't exceed this 5(N-18) requirement. 

10 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: My point is it would 

11 
 be kind of interesting to see if there is a 

12 Landauer report running. 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, let me --

14 
 John, let me -- let me interrupt you and 

15 clarify. 

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Landauer -- we're 

18 talking about two different things. 

19 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Landauer prepares 

21 
 reports for its client. The client is GSI. 

22 
 Landauer does not prepare reports and send 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 275
 

1 
 reports to workers. They send reports to GSI, 

2 
 which is a paying customer. 

3 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The AEC forms are 

5 
 prepared, as far as I can tell, by GSI and 

6 
 given to the worker based on whatever 

7 
 information they have, which would include the 

8 
 Landauer badges. 

9 
 MEMBER POSTON: Only if the worker 

10 requested it. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, if the 

12 
 worker requests. Now, I can say that for the 

13 
 very last year of this worker, in 1964, where, 

14 
 as Dr. McKeel pointed out, and I completely 

15 
 agree, he was, in fact, monitored, and his 

16 
 name is listed on the Landauer reports to GSI, 

17 that were sent to GSI. 

18 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What is here is 

20 
 entirely consistent with what is on his weekly 

21 
 badge reports, so basically this was simply 

22 
 copied from the weekly badge -- not copied, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 276
 

1 
 but assembled from the weekly badge reports. 

2 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It was assigned a 

4 
 dose based on those weekly badge reports. So 

5 
 this was done by his employer, not by 

6 
 Landauer, so to say, you know, Landauer 

7 
 reports to GSI. GSI then reports to the 

8 
 employee, to the worker. 

9 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Do we know how long 

10 Landauer has been in business? 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: They were one of the 

12 
 first film badge companies. They started in 

13 the mid-fifties. 

14 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: They should have all 

15 those guys' records. 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But they did not 

17 
 start --

18 CHAIR ZIEMER: But they may not 

19 have been his --

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They were not --

21 
 they were not -- GSI was not their client, 

22 
 because that film badge reports only start --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 277
 

1 
 in other words, we have the first report for 

2 
 January 1964, and, as a matter of fact, Dr. 

3 
 McKeel supplied me the report for the week 

4 
 before that, which is the final week of 1963, 

5 
 and on each report it will say how many 

6 
 previous reports were there for that worker, 

7 
 and all of the workers had a maximum of six or 

8 
 five previous reports, depending on which one 

9 
 you look at. 

10 So we simply back-calculate using 

11 
 the calendar that the program started on 

12 
 November 23, 1963, since no one had more than 

13 
 six previous reports as of January `64. So 

14 
 that's how we back-calculated the beginning of 

15 the Landauer program. 

16 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: That helps clarify 

17 
 it. So we now know Landauer started when you 

18 guys started to get the reports. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. We're missing 

20 
 the first five reports, six reports, but since 

21 
 all the accumulated doses were blank or M, we 

22 
 assume nobody, you know, got any measured 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 278
 

1 
 dosage during those first six weeks. 

2 
 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Anigstein and 

3 
 John, I'd like to interject that when I first 

4 
 talked to Landauer and Chris 

5 
 Passmore[Identifying Information Redacted] in 

6 
 2006, they told me that the program -- they 

7 
 told me the names of the program managers, 

8 
 that it started in November of 1963 for GSI. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, which is 

10 what I said. 

11 
 DR. MCKEEL: And on the letter that 

12 
 I sent to all of you, there is a specific 

13 
 account number, 2084, Landauer Account 2084, 

14 
 so this idea that there was a lot of Landauer 

15 
 GSI data before November `63 is not supported. 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. I never 

17 
 said that. 

18 DR. MCKEEL: No, I'm just saying 

19 
 for the record that the idea was just floated 

20 
 that there -- I mean, John Ramspott said that 

21 
 maybe Landauer had more data. Landauer was 

22 
 adamant that they did not have earlier data, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 279
 

1 
 and so that 18 quarters of data that Dr. 

2 
 Ziemer admitted seems to have existed must 

3 
 have existed elsewhere, and, like I say, this 

4 
 idea that this data was recorded on AEC forms 

5 
 by GSI, you know, that's one possibility, but 

6 
 that still doesn't explain why Nuclear 

7 
 Consultants Corporation appeared at the bottom 

8 
 of a 1962 March 19[Identifying Information 

9 
 Redacted] report from this worker. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

11 
 DR. MCKEEL: That still needs to be 

12 looked into. 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Dr. McKeel, again, 

14 
 to answer another point you made, if you look 

15 
 at the first form, which would be AEC Form 4, 

16 
 and the remaining forms, which are a different 

17 
 AEC form, the reason it has General Steel 

18 
 Industries, Inc., Commonwealth, Inc. on the 

19 
 bottom is the bottom is the box -- I assume 

20 
 it's Box 19, because it follows Box 18. It's 

21 
 cut off. It says "Name of Licensee." That is 

22 the name of the licensee. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 280
 

1 
 On the AEC Form 4, it has also 

2 
 "Name of Licensee" near in the lower right3 
 hand portion, and again it said General Steel 

4 
 Industries, Inc., so that is entirely 

5 
 consistent. Now, in addition, in this blank 

6 
 area with no heading, I do agree. There is 

7 
 this -- it says Nuclear Consultants 

8 
 Corporation, Number 110. 

9 
 I did a little also additional 

10 
 research on this company, and they were -- at 

11 
 least, in 1964 they were a radiopharmaceutical 

12 
 supplier, because I found a catalog, their 

13 
 price catalog, on the web for 1964, at least a 

14 
 reference to a price catalog, which is 

15 
 archived by the Smithsonian Institution in 

16 
 1964, and it just simply said 

17 
 radiopharmaceuticals, radioisotopes, and so at 

18 
 some later time they merged with Mallinckrodt, 

19 
 who was also in the radiopharmaceutical 

20 business. 

21 
 DR. MCKEEL: That's a current 

22 
 Mallinckrodt business. That's true, but their 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 281
 

1 
 name does appear on the bottom of it. 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, that's true. 

3 
 DR. NETON: But the only reason 

4 
 that he would obtain this form would typically 

5 
 -- well, a reason he would obtain this form is 

6 
 because he was leaving GSI and going somewhere 

7 
 else, and he needed to demonstrate his 

8 
 cumulative exposure. This could very well be 

9 
 indicating that he was going to this Nuclear 

10 Consultants Corporation. 

11 
 DR. MCKEEL: No, he wasn't. He was 

12 
 employed there the full time. This gentleman 

13 
 is very well known. He appears. His 

14 
 affidavits appear. He appears in worker 

15 outreach testimonies, and even --

16 
 DR. NETON: Well, Dan, Dr. McKeel -

17 
 -

18 DR. MCKEEL: If you all want to 

19 
 clarify it, this man is alive and well and 

20 
 willing to talk to anybody, so you could 

21 interview him and get the facts straight. 

22 
 DR. NETON: Okay. Interesting you 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 282
 

1 
 only have 18 quarters of monitored exposure, 

2 
 though, almost as if he's some sort of a -- I 

3 
 don't want to call him a jumper, but a person 

4 
 who moved from one facility to another for 

5 
 radiography purposes. 

6 
 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Neton, he wasn't. 

7 
 He was an isotope licensed AEC person who 

8 
 worked in the betatron on weekends. We know a 

9 
 lot about him, and he wasn't a jumper or any 

10 
 unusual type of thing. He was a mainline 

11 
 important worker there. He appears in one of 

12 the photographs of AEC --

13 
 DR. NETON: How does one explain he 

14 
 has only 18 quarters of monitoring data in a 

15 nine-year period? 

16 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Jim, may I enter 

17 something? It's John Ramspott. 

18 
 DR. MCKEEL: I've got to -- I've 

19 got to preempt this conversation. 

20 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. Go ahead, 

21 Dan. 

22 
 DR. MCKEEL: Your answer. You are 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 283
 

1 
 asking me questions that are not appropriate. 

2 
 This is your job to find out about all the 

3 
 monitoring records for these people. We have 

4 
 provided you with massive amounts of data of 

5 
 all kinds, including initial recognition that 

6 
 there were GSI film badge data at Landauer. 

7 
 Now, why there are 18 quarters is 

8 
 not something that I have to answer. You have 

9 
 to answer that, and if you can't answer that, 

10 
 in my opinion, this is one of the reasons the 

11 
 Board should overturn your recommendation to 

12 
 deny the GSI SEC. It's one of many, many, 

13 many reasons, and so I reject that idea. 

14 
 I don't know why 18 quarters is on 

15 
 there, but I would say that all of this 

16 
 discussion raises and keeps raising the level 

17 
 of uncertainty that you all have about these 

18 
 film badge data and what they mean, and as Dr. 

19 
 Ziemer said, the main purpose is what is their 

20 
 value, and I believe that's the thrust of Mr. 

21 
 Ramspott's comments about one worker feeling 

22 comfortable picking up another badge. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 284
 

1 
 I would just add to that 

2 
 explanation why it shouldn't be completely 

3 
 accepted on its face is here you have a 

4 
 worker. He picks up a badge, recognizes that 

5 
 it's not his badge, drops it on the floor, but 

6 
 eventually has to turn that badge in to be 

7 
 read to his supervisor. 

8 
 Now, why didn't that gentleman 

9 
 reveal all this information to his supervisor 

10 
 at the time and the supervisor say, "Gee, this 

11 
 is not a proper badge to turn it," and, again, 

12 
 have all the names? Some of those supervisors 

13 
 who collected badges, one in particular gave 

14 
 extensive testimony, and you could call him up 

15 if that happens to be the same person. 

16 
 If it's a dead supervisor, that's 

17 
 another matter, but all of those things could 

18 
 be checked and should be. So that's my 

19 
 comment. 

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: John, did you have 

21 an additional comment? 

22 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, Jim, I was 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 285
 

1 
 going to try and answer your question about 

2 
 the quarters there. 

3 
 DR. NETON: Okay. 

4 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I don't know. 

5 
 Terry, are you on the line? 

6 
 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir. 

7 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm going to, if I 

8 
 could, and I always try to watch, make sure 

9 
 I've got my information correct, so I asked 

10 
 another GSI betatron worker to contact this 

11 man this morning --

12 MR. DUTKO: I did. 

13 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: -- so I could be 

14 
 clear on employment dates and what have you, 

15 
 because I'm like you, Jim. I see 18 quarters. 

16 
 Okay, let's try to -- let's match this up. 

17 
 Terry, could you identify yourself and share 

18 this, if you don't mind? 

19 
 MR. DUTKO: My name is John T. 

20 
 DUTKO. I was a betatron and magnaflux 

21 
 operator at GSI. I talked to this gentleman 

22 
 about 20 minutes before the meeting started. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 286
 

1 
 He is alive and kicking. He stated he started 

2 
 working at GSI in February of 1953[Identifying 

3 
 Information Redacted]. 

4 
 I asked him at that time, "Sir, 

5 
 were you badged at that time?" He says he 

6 
 was. He does not recall where the badges were 

7 
 monitored by or who they were monitored by, 

8 
 but they were badged. 

9 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: He definitely worked 

10 
 there in `53-`54[Identifying Information 

11 Redacted] era? 

12 
 MR. DUTKO: That's what he said. 

13 
 He was our shop steward[Identifying 

14 
 Information Redacted] in 1964 when I started 

15 
 working there, John, and he also worked in the 

16 
 chem lab, which was -- if you could break down 

17 
 the department, the lower portion, our 

18 starting jobs was magnaflux. 

19 
 The middle of the department was 

20 
 betatron people, and the upper echelon, the 

21 
 seniority people, were chem lab people. 

22 
 Jim[Identifying Information Redacted] had been 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 287
 

1 
 there quite a number of years. I'm sorry. 

2 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. That's --

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

4 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I hope that 

5 
 clarifies, and if I could, Terry alluded to 

6 
 something else, and this is -- I think this is 

7 
 key, the badges and the charts and all the --

8 
 I mean, I've taken these upside down trying to 

9 
 figure them out, and there's one thing that 

10 keeps coming back. 

11 
 There is nobody at General Steel 

12 
 that we're aware of that wore a badge 100 

13 
 percent of the time. This individual here 

14 
 with the record we have, his main job was the 

15 
 chem lab. He was an isotope worker. Most of 

16 
 those came out of the chem lab area, and then 

17 
 he worked in the betatron, because the first 

18 
 lead comments today were the badges, that they 

19 
 thought they had all the badges for the 

20 betatron workers. 

21 
 Well, this man worked the betatron, 

22 
 and this could be confirmed, and it's in 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 288
 

1 
 affidavits. He worked in the betatron part2 
 time to gain overtime hours for pay, and all 

3 
 the badges were only worn in the betatron 

4 
 building unless you were an isotope specialist 

5 
 who went in the 6 Building. 

6 
 So this guy's information, if 

7 
 anything, is partial or incomplete, and maybe 

8 
 it encompasses 20 percent of his possible 

9 
 exposure over there. So the badges -- the 

10 
 bottom line is the badges weren't worn full11 
 time by anybody at GSI that we're aware of, 

12 
 and we've heard that from supervisors, 

13 
 workers. This man will, I'm sure, attest to 

14 it. 

15 
 MR. DUTKO: May I comment, Dr. 

16 Ziemer? 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: You bet. 

18 
 MR. DUTKO: Magnaflux was the 

19 
 starting position of the department. Badges 

20 
 were never issued to anybody at any time in 

21 
 magnaflux. Only when you reached by seniority 

22 
 and classification were they issued in the 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 289
 

1 
 betatron. 

2 
 We worked -- I repeat -- quite a 

3 
 bit of overtime, not 46-hour average, as NIOSH 

4 
 stated. We worked at least a 65-hour average 

5 
 of overtime, at least three shifts a week. 

6 
 That was -- that was the norm, sir, and it was 

7 
 company policy, and I repeat to Dr. Poston, it 

8 
 was company policy that we would not -- we 

9 
 would have to take those film badges off when 

10 
 we left the betatron, and the reason I 

11 
 couldn't answer or give any kind of percentage 

12 was that there was so much overtime work. 

13 
 I might be working a standard 40-

14 
 hour shift in the betatron, but I might work 

15 
 overtime a number of evenings in magnaflux, 

16 
 and the film badges would come off by order 

17 
 when I worked in 10 Building or 9 Building in 

18 magnaflux. 

19 
 It was impossible to relate, in all 

20 
 fairness to Dr. Poston's question, what kind 

21 
 of average it was. I would have to have 30 

22 
 timekeepers and go back 50 years to do it. I 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 290
 

1 
 answer questions honestly as I can with not a 

2 
 purpose to evade. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Thanks for that 

4 
 input. I want to go ahead here. Bob, I'd 

5 
 like to sort of get through the rest of your 

6 
 report here, so you reported on this 

7 
 particular one, and there are obviously some 

8 
 questions here which aren't going to be fully 

9 
 answered today. What else do you have for us 

10 in terms of your overall report? 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, the one that 

12 
 I can make, and I'll just redact it as I'm 

13 
 going along from the one that was sent out 

14 
 just yesterday, yes, and that is basically 

15 
 it's commenting on Dr. McKeel's comments and 

16 
 Dr. McKeel's information, and I'm just going 

17 through it. 

18 
 I believe I have actually stated 

19 
 all of it, that it's simply from my reading, 

20 
 and perhaps, Dr. Ziemer, you may have a 

21 
 different opinion, it's not clear from that 

22 
 AEC Form 4 whether there was film badge 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 291
 

1 
 dosimetry. When it says record, I don't know. 

2 
 Would you assume that it was a film badge 

3 
 record, just looking at that? 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I would interpret it 

5 
 that way. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Certainly. 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And certainly this 

9 
 person --

10 CHAIR ZIEMER: As opposed to a 

11 
 calculated value, which they have for the 

12 
 earlier period. In that particular one, that 

13 
 earlier period at -- where was it -- in 

14 
 Pittsburgh overlaps the employment period at 

15 
 GSI. It's almost as if maybe he was -- well, 

16 we don't know. I don't want to speculate. 

17 
 He could have gone there for some 

18 
 training, but, in any event, there is some 

19 
 overlap in time there, but if there were 

20 
 earlier film badges prior to Landauer, I guess 

21 we don't know who the vendor was. 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And the 19 --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 292
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: There were not many 

2 
 commercial vendors. 

3 
 DR. NETON: In fact, Landauer 

4 
 bought up many of the early vendors as they 

5 
 grew. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The impression I 

7 
 got was, first of all, the 1963 record AEC 

8 
 form is unambiguous. It says film badge. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

10 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So clearly there 

11 
 was something, and, again, I discussed this 

12 
 with, actually, one of the former GSI workers 

13 
 that I was in touch with and also with, again, 

14 
 Dr. Zlotnicki for our -- and our best guess 

15 
 right now, our best -- our prime suspect is 

16 
 that it could have been Picker X-ray for two 

17 
 reasons. 

18 They were in the film badge 

19 
 business. Also, they were the suppliers of x20 
 ray film to GSI. That we were told, so it's, 

21 
 you know, not illogical they would have turned 

22 
 to the same vendor, and then at one point they 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 293
 

1 
 bought their film badge dosimetry business was 

2 
 bought up by something called Tech/Ops, which 

3 


4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Tech/Ops and 

5 
 Landauer came together later. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- which also 

7 
 bought Landauer. 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And a final piece 

10 
 of information, in the Landauer office 

11 
 headquarters, in their storage area there is a 

12 
 file cabinet marked Picker X-ray. That's the 

13 
 extent to which we know, so one can -- now I'm 

14 
 off in fairytale land. I usually don't like 

15 
 to go there. 

16 
 Perhaps Picker X-ray was a 

17 
 supplier, and perhaps they terminated their 

18 
 business just about November `63, and 

19 
 therefore GSI turned to Landauer. I mean, 

20 
 that's just a wild guess. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, we don't know. 

22 
 Now, so we have -- we have fairly complete 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 294
 

1 
 film badge records from the start of the 

2 
 Landauer period to the end. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Totally complete. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: They are associated 

5 
 with specific workers. There are questions 

6 
 that the Petitioners have raised about the --

7 
 I guess you'd say the misuse of badges. 

8 
 Sometimes it appears mischievous in 

9 
 the sense that maybe trying to get other 

10 
 workers in trouble or whatever it was. There 

11 
 are issues about whether the badges, because 

12 
 of limitations to where they could use it, 

13 
 were there other areas that they should have 

14 
 been monitored or could have been monitored in 

15 
 the facility, and we'll have to deal with that 

16 
 separately, but that's one of the issues 

17 that's been raised. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Is there additional 

20 
 exposure unaccounted for? And then we'll have 

21 
 to reach a point where NIOSH, and I don't know 

22 
 if we're there, yet, Jim, but where NIOSH 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 295
 

1 
 indicates or makes a determination as to how 

2 
 they will use these film badge records. 

3 
 Will there be facility bounding? 

4 
 Will there be individual records, which 

5 
 normally you would use, anyway, and how would 

6 
 you account for cases where exposures outside 

7 
 the betatron area might have occurred? And I 

8 
 think there were the additional concerns about 

9 
 inadvertent exposures in areas in proximity to 

10 
 the shielded facility, including sky shine and 

11 scatter and those kinds of things. 

12 
 But -- and you haven't had SC&A's 

13 
 report very long, either, but are you in a 

14 
 position where you can give us a preliminary 

15 
 indication of the degree to which you see you 

16 
 would use the Landauer data and also whether 

17 
 it's -- whether there are areas to explore on 

18 
 supplementing that for those earlier years? 

19 
 Give me a feel for where -- what the next 

20 steps might be. 

21 
 MR. NETON: Well, maybe Dave can 

22 start, and I can finish. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 296
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, I put you on 

2 
 the spot, because I think in one sense we have 

3 
 some good records, but there are some issues 

4 
 raised by the Petitioners. There are some 

5 
 additional issues that -- well, I think we 

6 
 still want to hear maybe the -- also the issue 

7 
 of how we deal with the energy dependence. 

8 
 I sort of know the answer to that, 

9 
 but I think we need to make sure that we're on 

10 
 the same page on energy dependence. This is a 

11 
 high-energy facility, as well as -- and that 

12 
 issue had been raised as to how to use the 

13 
 numbers, and then what do we do on the earlier 

14 years? Any thoughts at this point? 

15 
 MR. ALLEN: Well all the B- I mean, 

16 
 first step is all the sources of radiation. 

17 
 We have to sort out what we think actually 

18 
 happened there as far as modeling, et cetera, 

19 
 and that -- exactly when the badges were worn, 

20 
 where they were, et cetera, and that helps us 

21 
 determine what the usefulness of the film 

22 badge data is going to be. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 297
 

1 
 I don't know if we've got all those 

2 
 answers yet. There's a few things to sort 

3 
 out, so basically we're down to where we have 

4 
 to sort out the details to know exactly how 

5 
 we're going to use that data. 

6 
 DR. NETON: I would say right now 

7 
 there is nothing -- the film badge data that 

8 
 we do have clearly indicates, at least to me, 

9 
 that the model that was developed using the 

10 
 betatron exposures very well bounds the 

11 exposures of the workers. 

12 
 Now, there are some pieces of 

13 
 extrapolation backwards. I'll grant Dr. 

14 
 McKeel that that's an issue, and then also 

15 
 these additional what I call ancillary sources 

16 
 of the additional radiography devices need to 

17 
 be factored in there, but I think it's been 

18 
 our position that the assumption that a person 

19 
 working full-time essentially at the betatron 

20 
 activity would be bound -- that dose would 

21 
 bound any exposure that they would receive 

22 
 using these individual sources of radiography, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 298
 

1 
 but we need to go back and clearly show that. 

2 
 So, I guess, to answer, we're not 

3 
 there yet, but I don't know to what extent 

4 
 we're going to be able to rely totally on the 

5 
 film badge data if we can't find any data 

6 
 prior to `64 other than sort of this bounding. 

7 
 Dave might have some different thoughts on 

8 
 that. This is not -- these are just 

9 
 preliminary thoughts on my part. 

10 
 I am intrigued, though, by what Bob 

11 
 Anigstein talked about, this Picker 

12 
 information. This is the first I've heard of 

13 
 this. It wouldn't be unlike that if we have 

14 
 Landauer and we would search their contracts 

15 
 they would have given us data from when they 

16 
 had contracts, but they may have indeed picked 

17 
 up records from this Picker company, and they 

18 exist in some file drawers there. 

19 
 MEMBER BEACH: That was my 

20 question. Are you going to research that? 

21 
 DR. NETON: We're going to look 

22 
 into that. This issue came up in context of 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 299
 

1 
 another facility just recently, I think. I 

2 
 can't remember. Maybe I dreamt that, but, 

3 
 anyway, I think it's worth pursuing. 

4 
 I don't know to what extent we're 

5 
 going to be able to get there and how well 

6 
 Landauer may be willing to cooperate. You 

7 
 know, they are in the business to make money. 

8 
 We have to figure out, you know, how we might 

9 
 get access to those records even if they do 

10 exist. 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, and it may not 

12 
 have occurred to the Landauer people when the 

13 
 requests were made either by you or Dr. McKeel 

14 
 to go back and search Picker records. My guess 

15 
 is that one reason Landauer would keep those 

16 
 would be if someone from earlier on said, "I 

17 
 have Picker x-ray or film badges. What are my 

18 
 records?" but they may very well not have gone 

19 
 back, so it certainly needed to be explored and 

20 see if there are some earlier things there. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Probably one reason 

22 
 was that, according to Dr. Zlotnicki, Landauer 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 300
 

1 
 was one of the first companies that 

2 
 computerized their records, and we're talking 

3 
 about 1963. This was very early, and so 

4 
 therefore they went into their computer files 

5 
 to get -- to find out, get these, and if Picker 

6 
 was just paper records, they would obviously 

7 
 not have been included. 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

9 
 DR. NETON: And that's the other 

10 
 issue. They may be in a file vault of 

11 
 thousands of records that are completely 

12 
 uncatalogued and unorganized, which may be very 

13 difficult. 

14 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I mean --

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I need to ask the 

16 question. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: People organized 

18 records before there were computers. 

19 
 DR. NETON: When they turn them over 

20 
 to other organizations and they file them, they 

21 
 can be quite disorganized, but we do need to 

22 look at that. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 301
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, so we've got --

2 
 so NIOSH will be needing to follow up on 

3 
 additional records there. Now, realizing that 

4 
 the AEC 4 forms in general are kept by 

5 
 employers, as opposed to, for example, the 

6 
 Landauer film badge records kept by the vendor, 

7 
 but do we -- you have the individual files of 

8 
 the workers or claimants, or do you know 

9 
 whether AEC 4 forms are available on any other 

10 workers? 

11 
 DR. NETON: That's a good question. 

12 
 I don't know. I have not run across any in my 

13 
 searches of these forms, but, you know, it may 

14 
 be -- I mean, those don't go into the 

15 
 individual exposure record files. They're 

16 
 merely sort of a entry card, if you will, 

17 although they probably --

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, it would depend 

19 
 on the facility. I know that at our place we 

20 
 always had a copy of it in the individual's 

21 
 file. Usually it was the copy from when they 

22 
 started work and when they came to you, and 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 302
 

1 
 then if they left, you generated a copy, 

2 
 because you were required to provide that 

3 
 information, and that was available for the 

4 
 next employer. 

5 
 DR. NETON: I guess that's my 

6 
 question is where would we go look for such 

7 
 forms, because the person would leave GSI and 

8 
 go virtually anywhere. Mallinckrodt's a 

9 
 possibility. 

10 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, for example, if 

11 
 we generated the form, we would give it to the 

12 
 worker. Some places would keep what was then a 

13 
 carbon copy for the file, but there was no 

14 
 requirement to do that, because you often had 

15 
 the original records, or you didn't depend on 

16 
 the AEC 4 form. It was used for the worker in 

17 transitioning from one location to another. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, according to 

19 
 all the GSI workers that are, you know, part of 

20 
 this group that communicates with each other, 

21 
 apparently there was only one other one who 

22 
 said he had records, and he left them in his 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 303
 

1 
 mother's house, and after his mother died, the 

2 
 house burned down, and there went the records, 

3 
 but nobody else came up and said they had 

4 
 records. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Now, there is one --

6 
 there is one --

7 
 DR. MCKEEL: Excuse me, please. 

8 
 This is Dan McKeel. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, Dan? 

10 
 DR. MCKEEL: I'll just mention again 

11 
 we do have forms. I'll have to look and make 

12 
 sure whether it's the AEC Form 4, but we do 

13 
 have reports that one other worker, whose name 

14 
 is known and was in the 2006 August 11 

15 
 transcript that you all have access to, who 

16 
 gave us some forms that look similar to me that 

17 
 the ones that we've been discussing were that 

18 
 had AEC, Atomic Energy Commission, across the 

19 
 top, and so we have those type of forms from --

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: From some others? 

21 
 DR. MCKEEL: Two workers. Two 

22 
 workers total. I also comment that this 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 304
 

1 
 comment about looking in the workers' files, 

2 
 you know, the only file we have is for people 

3 
 who file claims at --

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Understood. 

5 
 DR. MCKEEL: -- at GSI, because all 

6 
 GSI original records have been lost. John 

7 
 Ramspott and I have spent several years trying 

8 
 to find out whether the successor companies 

9 
 that bought the intellectual property of GSI, 

10 
 National Roll, for instance, in Pennsylvania, 

11 
 whether they had any carryover records from 

12 
 GSI, and we actually have a person who 

13 
 investigated that, and we have not been able to 

14 uncover or discover any residual records. 

15 
 And we do have the affidavit 

16 
 statement of one worker who was there until 

17 
 National Steel actually sold the old GSI 

18 
 properties, and I think in 1982 a lot of 

19 additional records were burned --

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

21 
 DR. MCKEEL: -- that belonged to 

22 
 GSI, so it's just possible that those old files 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 305
 

1 
 and employee files were gone. 

2 
 And so what we would now have access 

3 
 to is those few people who may have kept their 

4 
 forms, but we have asked specifically all the 

5 
 living people did they have any reports like 

6 
 the ones we're discussing that had Atomic 

7 
 Energy Commission on the top, and they said no. 

8 
 I also asked Landauer back in 2006 

9 
 did they -- I mean, what did they know about 

10 
 the Atomic Energy Commission reports, and they 

11 
 said that at one time, without being specific 

12 
 about the years, that Landauer would send a 

13 
 copy of their reports to the Atomic Energy 

14 
 Commission, who would then generate a year-end 

15 
 cumulative report that went back to the plants, 

16 
 and then they said, "Then Landauer stopped 

17 
 doing that," and I'm not sure what the time 

18 
 frame was, but, anyway, that's all I know about 

19 that. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, in fact, those 

21 
 AEC 4 forms would not have been required for 

22 
 betatron workers in any event, because they 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 306
 

1 
 wouldn't be licensed people. They would have 

2 
 been required for the cobalt and cesium 

3 
 radiography sources and for the individuals. 

4 
 You said there were some that were handling 

5 
 radioisotopes. In fact, the one individual 

6 
 whose records we were looking at apparently --

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's the cobalt. 

8 
 DR. MCKEEL: Both people that we 

9 
 have those AEC reports from were isotope 

10 workers. 

11 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

12 
 DR. MCKEEL: And the isotopes that 

13 
 we are aware of, there was no cesium sources, 

14 but we are aware of an iridium --

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Oh, iridium. I meant 

16 
 iridium. 

17 
 DR. MCKEEL: One 92 source in the 

18 
 1950s and then the two cobalt-60 sources. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Those radiography 

20 sources are the ones I meant. 

21 DR. MCKEEL: Right. 

22 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, thank you for 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 307
 

1 
 clarifying that. Okay, so we have some follow2 
 up to do on the film badge data before NIOSH 

3 
 will be able to answer the extent and method 

4 
 for which they will use them, and that includes 

5 
 perhaps some additional detective work on 

6 
 whether Picker, the Picker records will 

7 
 supplement this in any way. 

8 
 I do want us to also -- John, if 

9 
 you'd take just a couple minutes to tell us 

10 
 where we are on the SEC petition review 

11 
 process, because we're going to -- you know, 

12 
 we've got to address that in tandem with these 

13 
 issues here that we're look at, as well, and we 

14 
 will want to schedule a meeting as soon as you 

15 
 guys have reviewed that and NIOSH has a chance 

16 
 to see your comments on it. The petition was 

17 
 presented at the last -- or the evaluation 

18 
 report has been presented, and the Petitioners 

19 are waiting, so --

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I will start 

21 
 off by simply saying it was approximately three 

22 weeks ago that we were given --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 308
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- the assignment to 

3 
 do this. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: No, I wasn't 

5 
 expecting it to be done today. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, exactly. No, 

7 
 there has been, and, actually, I have been 

8 
 working on the film badge, you know, follow-up 

9 
 work, so not very much progress has been made. 

10 
 We went through this, and I can give you some 

11 
 very, very preliminary impressions. We may not 

12 even -- you know, we may contradict ourselves. 

13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Don't divulge 

14 anything if you're not ready to. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Well, then, 

16 
 in that case, I better say we have no, because 

17 we don't have any even tentative results --

18 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. 

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- at this time. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: You're still 

21 reviewing it? 

22 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We're still 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 309
 

1 
 reviewing it. It would be unsafe to --

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: What kind of a 

3 
 timetable do you think you will have, because -

4 
 -

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What kind of a 

6 
 timetable do we need to? 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, like many of 

8 
 the SEC petitions, we feel some degree of 

9 
 pressure to turn the information around. We 

10 
 need to balance, you know, doing a thorough 

11 review while still being timely. 

12 
 It's a difficult balance, but 

13 
 looking ahead on the calendar, for example, we 

14 
 have a face-to-face meeting. Well, let's look 

15 
 at where our next face-to-face meeting is. May 

16 in Amarillo. 

17 DR. NETON: May. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And if we are going 

19 
 to do anything in Amarillo, it means that we 

20 
 would need to have something in early May, say, 

21 
 so here we are halfway into March already, so 

22 it's --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 310
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's a little --

2 
 that would be a little -- that would be a 

3 
 little aggressive, so I think let's just --

4 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, if I may, I'd like 

5 
 to try to clear away a lot. When we last met 

6 
 and we concluded our last meeting, this group, 

7 
 we did discuss those aspects of the site 

8 
 profile review that you've been talking about 

9 
 that in our mind clearly and unambiguously at a 

10 minimum represent SEC issues. 

11 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: I mean, it's not that we 

13 
 have to do a lot of -- you know, we are 

14 
 immersed in the site profile and with surfaces. 

15 
 I mean, really, it's almost like it's done. 

16 
 You know, I do this all the time, but you're 

17 
 into two big issues. One is what are you going 

18 
 to do about 1953[Identifying Information 

19 Redacted] to when you have the data? 

20 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: And that's what we've 

22 been talking about. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 311
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right, and can you 

2 
 bomb the dose? 

3 
 DR. MAURO: And you have to somehow 

4 
 deal with that, and second, yes, there are a 

5 
 lot of locations throughout this facility where 

6 
 based on the work we've done to date as part of 

7 
 the site profile where there could be elevated 

8 
 irradiation levels where people were not 

9 
 wearing badges, and so you have these two 

10 places --

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. Can I 

12 interrupt? 

13 DR. MAURO: Sure, yes. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Not where people 

15 
 were not wearing badges but exposures of people 

16 who were never issued badges. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, that's what we -

18 
 -

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's the point. 

20 
 DR. MAURO: No, I appreciate the 

21 clarification. 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But both. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 312
 

1 
 DR. MAURO: Right. 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And even the 

3 
 betatron worker could have gone to the bathroom 

4 
 and leaving the betatron building hangs his 

5 
 badge up on the rack, and the bathroom happened 

6 
 to be an exposure area from the betatron. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. Understood. 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, you know, so you 

9 
 have that. 

10 DR. MAURO: What I like to do 

11 
 sometimes is really some common sense aspects 

12 
 of this. Yes, we're going to finish our 

13 
 report. We're going to do our formal review, 

14 
 and we'll deliver it on the SEC petition, where 

15 
 we will address the petition issues and the 

16 
 degree to which NIOSH has addressed those 

17 issues in the evaluation report. 

18 
 But, at the same time, I don't want 

19 
 to lose sight of some of the simplicities of 

20 
 some -- when I say simplicity, in essence it's 

21 
 clear that lacking data from `53[Identifying 

22 
 Information Redacted] to `64 is, in my mind, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 313
 

1 
 the single biggest SEC issue on the table. 

2 
 Without film badge data, with lots 

3 
 of folks working with iridium, cobalt-60, quite 

4 
 frankly, the betatron model, we have a betatron 

5 
 model where, I mean, in principle we could 

6 
 figure out and model what we think the 

7 
 radiation feedings were based -- we've done it, 

8 
 and we are not --

9 
 You know, we have our estimate. You 

10 
 have your estimate. We have estimates inside 

11 
 the shield, outside the shield, in the 

12 
 bathroom, up on the crane. In other words, in 

13 
 theory, we are in a very good position to start 

14 
 to understand what the potential upper bound 

15 
 might have been of the radiation fields in the 

16 
 vicinity and outside the shield wall. How much 

17 
 time people spent at each location, you know, 

18 that's another question. 

19 
 So, I'm, you know, as part of this 

20 
 work group, I'm more concerned about the time 

21 
 period where there is no film badge, and I am 

22 
 very encouraged by the fact that there may very 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 314
 

1 
 well be some film badges out there. I mean, 

2 
 when I say encouraged, that would be very 

3 
 valuable. So --

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: For those workers 

5 
 who were badged. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: For those workers who 

7 
 were badged, it will certainly enrich our 

8 
 understanding of what the range of exposures 

9 
 might have been. That doesn't mean we've 

10 
 solved the issue of what about the workers that 

11 
 were not badged or at a given period of time 

12 
 were not wearing their badge, and that goes for 

13 
 post-`64, and that goes for post-`63, so it 

14 applies across the board. 

15 
 In any event, I mean, I don't want 

16 
 to -- I don't want to leave the impression that 

17 
 we are not in -- we are in very much a position 

18 to understand what the SEC issues are. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Other, you know, 

20 
 other issues along that line, for instance, the 

21 
 instance -- and we only know of one instance. 

22 
 There may have been others -- where a worker 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 315
 

1 
 not involved with radiography literally -- and 

2 
 I thought I maybe misstated, but no, I went 

3 
 back, and I looked at the testimony --

4 
 literally put the source in his pocket and took 

5 
 it home, I mean, which means, obviously, that 

6 
 worker got an exposure, but more than that, 

7 
 having been a radiation safety officer for a 

8 
 short while one time, and so I recognize that 

9 
 means there is a total breakdown of radiation 

10 control. 

11 
 If such an incident could happen, I 

12 
 guess the question is what else could have 

13 
 happened that nobody -- that of the handful of 

14 
 survivors of this -- of that workforce that we 

15 
 happen to be in touch with recall? Maybe there 

16 
 were other things they didn't know about or, 

17 
 you know, happened to other people. That's, 

18 you know, that's one aspect. 

19 
 The other aspect is looking at the 

20 
 film badge readings outside the monitored 

21 
 period. During the monitored period, during 

22 
 the period that was monitored and was during 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 316
 

1 
 the AEC operation period, there was only one 

2 
 exceptionally high reading on one weekly 

3 
 reading, but then later on there were several 

4 
 in addition to these two that were mostly 

5 
 likely artifacts. 

6 
 There were several, which indicates 

7 
 that there could have been incidents with the 

8 
 betatron or, more likely, and, again, this is 

9 
 from what I have gathered from talking to 

10 
 people, a stuck isotope source where the -- I 

11 
 think they called it the tail didn't retract 

12 
 properly, and suddenly somebody gets a 7.5 rem 

13 reading for one week. 

14 
 There could have been others in the 

15 
 early period or even in those couple of years, 

16 
 which -- well, probably, let's say, in the pre17 
 19 -- pre-November `63 period. So it's very, 

18 very hard. 

19 
 How do you place upper estimates on, 

20 
 you know, on exposures when you've had these 

21 
 few, albeit few, but, you know, very high 

22 
 readings? It's -- you know, then it becomes, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 317
 

1 
 of course, a policy issue of what constitutes 

2 
 a, you know, a maximum exposure, I mean, you 

3 
 know, a plausible maximum exposure, but these 

4 
 are the --

5 
 So we're not saying -- I mean, 

6 
 neither John or I are saying what our 

7 
 recommendation is going to be, but these are 

8 
 the kind of things which are --

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Issues that you're --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Issues. 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- thinking about. 

12 Okay. 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: By the way, from our 

15 
 perspective in delivering a report that's going 

16 
 to be helpful, let's say, in support of a May 

17 
 Amarillo meeting, the work that -- is that not 

18 possible? 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't think we can 

20 have a finished report. 

21 
 DR. MAURO: But bear in mind -- I 

22 
 understand, and I don't want to put you in a --

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

 

 

 

 318
 

1 
 put SC&A in a position of making a commitment 

2 
 that we can't meet. However --

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I'm just saying we 

4 
 want to move ahead as rapidly as possible. 

5 
 DR. MAURO: We want to move ahead, 

6 
 but bear in mind, when all is said and done, 

7 
 you know what our concerns are. We just talked 

8 
 about them. 

9 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

10 
 DR. MAURO: And what you find out --

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And the film badges 

12 
 and the bounding will become part of that, too 

13 


14 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- for the SEC, as 

16 
 well. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: I assume they will. 

19 
 DR. NETON: I mean, we're going to 

20 
 pursue it. My concern is that if we have to 

21 
 cover every possible incident that could have 

22 
 conceivably occurred using high radioactive 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 319
 

1 
 sources, then we're wasting our time going to 

2 
 look at film badge data. I mean, you know --

3 
 DR. MAURO: Yes, what are we talking 

4 
 -- yes, I think we've got a -- this is a 

5 
 serious problem. 

6 
 DR. NETON: If there is a -- if 

7 
 there is a potential incident that could have 

8 
 occurred or one had occurred, and that is going 

9 
 to be used as the poster child for the fact 

10 
 that you can't do dose reconstructions, why 

11 
 would we even bother to go look through all 

12 
 these Picker X-ray data for? What's the 

13 utility of that? 

14 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Doctors, this is John 

15 Ramspott. 

16 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

17 
 DR. MCKEEL: John? Go ahead. 

18 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer? 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, we're listening, 

20 John. 

21 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Neton just made a 

22 
 very, very important point. The one gentleman 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 320
 

1 
 that we have documented of having an accident 

2 
 apparently had it one week, and Dr. Anigstein 

3 
 can correct me, because you guys have all the 

4 
 records of badge information being available 

5 
 for this individual. 

6 
 According to, and this is just what 

7 
 Dr. Ziemer or, I'm sorry, Dr. Neton started to 

8 
 say, if this individual, according to the 

9 
 records, looks like a poster child for 

10 
 radiation safety, you've got one week before 

11 
 that, and we know the exact date, because he 

12 
 was home sick, had the day off the day before 

13 Kennedy got shot. 

14 
 He watched Kennedy get shot, so we 

15 
 know the exact day, and yet we don't have any 

16 
 of his records. He comes back as a poster 

17 
 child, "Oh, there is no danger." He had an 

18 
 accident over at GSI, was sent to the hospital, 

19 
 sent home, yet his records make him look like a 

20 cream puff. 

21 
 So I agree with Jim. If you don't 

22 
 have all the good data, you're really wasting 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 321
 

1 
 your time. 

2 
 DR. MCKEEL: Can I please make a 

3 
 comment? This is Dan McKeel. I need to make a 

4 
 comment here. 

5 
 We sent the Board and SC&A recently 

6 
 that worker's declaration made soon before he 

7 
 died, and, you know, it explains that instance 

8 
 in great - incident - in great detail, and it 

9 
 mentions that either an AEC report was made, or 

10 it was deemed to be AEC reportable. 

11 
 So whereas it may be not equivalent 

12 
 to a criticality incident, it certainly was a 

13 
 major incident involving one of the main, we 

14 
 think, isotope sources that has not yet -- that 

15 
 source has not at all been characterized. We 

16 
 don't have the AEC license for that source 

17 
 term. We don't even know what size it actually 

18 was, the manufacturer, et cetera. 

19 
 So here we have a worker that's 

20 
 involved and at least was, you know, sent home 

21 
 from his workplace and has an affidavit to that 

22 
 extent, so we already do have one worker who, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 322
 

1 
 in my opinion, should be granted an 8314 SEC 

2 
 just on the very face of the information 

3 
 already provided, and, of course, as you all 

4 
 well know, Mr. Ramspott and I have been 

5 
 advocating since 2005, when we first outlined 

6 
 the six radiation source terms at GSI, that 

7 
 this site, if any ever deserved it, should have 

8 
 gotten an 8314 long ago. 

9 
 So, you know, Dr. Neton's comment 

10 
 not only is pertinent, but, really, NIOSH ought 

11 
 to go back and think about the implications of 

12 
 what they've just said and think about all the 

13 
 uncertainties that there are in our discussions 

14 
 of film badges, the fact that the models, which 

15 
 one way to look at it is that the models well 

16 
 bound the overall dose. Another way to look at 

17 
 it is that the models, you know, are 15 to 18 

18 
 times higher than the film badge doses, and so 

19 they don't model them very well at all. 

20 
 You know, the level of uncertainty 

21 
 here is enormous, and it is not going to be 

22 
 resolved, I don't believe, by getting even 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 323
 

1 
 those old data for the betatron workers who 

2 
 were 100 people out of 3,000 that worked at 

3 
 that plant, and we have provided voluminous 

4 
 data that there were other radiation sources 

5 
 that other workers in Building 6, Building 10 

6 
 were exposed. 

7 
 We have provided affidavits that 

8 
 showed that the uranium itself was carried 

9 
 through the plant on railroad transfer cars, 

10 
 electric cars, and thus could have exposed 

11 people in the rest of the plant, as well. 

12 
 So there are enormous uncertainties 

13 
 about this plant, about the job descriptions, 

14 
 about who handled the uranium while it was 

15 
 being transferred in and out of the plant, 

16 
 which was not necessarily the betatron workers 

17 themselves. 

18 
 So I just please ask everybody to 

19 
 think about the big picture, that we've been at 

20 
 this now since 2005, and to try to get that 

21 
 research done and get some answers for us, if 

22 
 possible, you know, well before the May 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 324
 

1 
 meeting, and at the end of all this, we need a 

2 
 recommendation from the Work Group, whether 

3 
 they support NIOSH's denial of the SEC or they 

4 
 don't, and, of course, we hope and believe that 

5 
 the facts that we've presented thus far marry 

6 
 the recommendation to overturn NIOSH's 

7 
 recommendation, and we ask that that all be 

8 
 borne in mind, please. 

9 
 I ask personally that my points of 

10 
 uncertainty that were addressed to the Board on 

11 
 February 18 -- you know, we're still waiting 

12 
 for that transcript, and when we get it, I 

13 
 would please ask you all to read those, review 

14 
 those, and to think about those uncertainties 

15 
 that I've mentioned, and if you can't resolve 

16 
 those and you can't answer them satisfactorily, 

17 
 please consider my recommendation that we 

18 
 should recommend right now that the NIOSH 

19 recommendation be overturned. 

20 
 And I would point out to you that as 

21 
 far as I am aware, although we've talked about 

22 
 it and talked about it for four years, we don't 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 325
 

1 
 have a single calculation made of the dose 

2 
 delivered by either of the cobalt-60 or the 

3 
 iridium-192 or the 250 kVp radiation source 

4 
 terms that have been known to be present at GSI 

5 
 from us since the fall of 2005, when we were 

6 
 discussing Mallinckrodt in the original SEC 

7 
 petition. So I guess that's my final comment. 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks, Dan. 

9 
 Jim, a comment? 

10 DR. NETON: I just want to say 

11 
 something for the record. I want to be clear 

12 
 that I was not necessarily advocating this 

13 
 become an SEC based on these incidents. I was 

14 
 trying to point out that NIOSH does try to keep 

15 
 an open mind, and we certainly need to look at 

16 
 these incidents and put them into some 

17 perspective. 

18 
 Now, at the end of the day, I don't 

19 
 know where we're going to end up on that, but 

20 
 you raise a very good point, and I don't think 

21 
 an incident in and of itself is necessarily a 

22 
 reason to make it an SEC, and we need to really 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 326
 

1 
 look at this very carefully, though. 

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, in fact, where 

3 
 you know an incident has occurred, such as this 

4 
 case --

5 
 DR. NETON: Right. 

6 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- you can, in fact, 

7 
 bound that, because you know the source terms. 

8 
 DR. NETON: The particulars of the 

9 
 incident. 

10 CHAIR ZIEMER: I think Bob was 

11 
 talking, raising at least sort of a general 

12 
 question. It may be almost rhetorical, but 

13 
 either incidents we don't know about, and 

14 
 that's the kind where you say, you know, it's 

15 
 sort of unknown incidents, or were there things 

16 
 equivalent to a criticality that we don't know 

17 about. 

18 
 DR. NETON: Correct. 

19 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: But those will have 

20 
 to be considered, as well, in conjunction with 

21 
 the issues that Dan has raised, and, Dan, we 

22 will not be overlooking the points you made. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 327
 

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'd like to -- I'd 

2 
 just like to mention one point. 

3 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Bob, you have a 

4 
 comment? 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: One brief comment, 

6 
 Doctor. The SC&A report, which is, I believe, 

7 
 on the web, and, you know, our comments and 

8 
 review of Appendix BB did include detailed 

9 
 calculations of exposures from cobalt-60 

10 
 services, both from a small source used in 

11 
 Building 6 and the large used in the betatron 

12 building. 

13 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: And, actually, those 

14 
 are -- those kind of sources, the dose rates 

15 
 are much easier to bound than many things that 

16 
 we work with, but nonetheless that has to be 

17 taken into consideration, as well. 

18 
 DR. MCKEEL: It's also true, though, 

19 
 just for the record, that although SC&A has 

20 
 offered calculations that it has not been 

21 
 resolved whether NIOSH or the Board accepts 

22 
 those calculations and believes they should be 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 328
 

1 
 part of Appendix BB. 

2 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, you're quite 

3 
 correct on that. 

4 
 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. All right. 

5 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes, we do know, I 

6 
 think, at least, we know what needs to be done 

7 
 as far as how you approach that. We're going 

8 
 to have to come to closure here today. We have 

9 
 made good progress in closing out some issue 

10 matrices. 

11 
 We've gotten some additional good 

12 
 definition on the dosimetry issues and 

13 
 problems. I'm not going to be able to schedule 

14 
 our next meeting until we get a little better 

15 feel for when the report will be ready. 

16 
 On the other hand, if, as NIOSH 

17 
 receives and, Dave Allen, as you reach a point 

18 
 on some of these issues where -- well, let's 

19 
 see. I guess we have a white paper, maybe two 

20 
 white papers that we generated. I think 

21 
 whenever those are ready we can at least 

22 
 distribute those and have a chance to react to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 329
 

1 
 them well before we meet, so there are things 

2 
 that we need to be doing as we proceed. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: I would like to usually 

4 
 make sure I understand what SC&A's action items 

5 
 are, and the only ones I have is to provide 

6 
 copies of the Putzier and NUREG citations to 

7 
 the rest of the Work Group. This had to do 

8 
 with the TBD 6000 review. Other than that, we 

9 
 have no action items. Of course, we have our 

10 SEC petition. That's done, yes. 

11 CHAIR ZIEMER: Right. 

12 
 DR. MAURO: In other words, nothing 

13 
 coming from the Work Group where you expect us 

14 to perform. 

15 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That agrees with what 

16 
 I have here, as well. I want to see if --

17 
 Mark, did you get back on the line, or Wanda, 

18 did you have any additional comments? 

19 
 MEMBER MUNN: No, I've just been an 

20 eager listener. 

21 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

22 
 Okay, and thanks, Dan and John and the others 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 330
 

1 
 for your input again today. We appreciate your 

2 
 being on the line for the day with us. We 

3 
 appreciate your input, as well as your -- I 

4 
 guess I'll say it, and I mean this in a kind 

5 
 way, your persistence in making sure we get the 

6 
 information that we need from you, so we 

7 
 appreciate that. Ted, any other pressing 

8 
 issues? 

9 
 MR. KATZ: I just want to check one 

10 
 other follow-up. So, as I understand it, SC&A 

11 
 has the letters, and you will be providing 

12 
 those then to OCAS and for us for Privacy Act 

13 redaction that Dan was referring to. 

14 DR. MAURO: The letters, right. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, we will follow 

16 up with that. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: The materials that --

18 
 MR. KATZ: Dan, we will get you 

19 Privacy Act reviewed versions of those. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: That's the material -

21 
 -

22 DR. MCKEEL: Thank you. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 331
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- that he got 

2 
 directly from Landauer. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: Okay, I got you. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Was that direct from 

5 
 NIOSH? 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, I just want to make 

7 
 sure. 

8 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Did you get that for 

9 
 your --

10 
 DR. MAURO: I missed that. 

11 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- review so they can 

12 
 get out to the Petitioners in the appropriate 

13 
 form and a timely fashion? And so, Ted, are 

14 
 you going to make sure that gets transmitted to 

15 
 Dan? 

16 
 MR. KATZ: I am. 

17 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay. 

18 
 MR. KATZ: I will be responsible for 

19 
 that. 

20 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Dan, are you still on 

21 
 the line? 

22 
 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, sir, I am. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 332
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Okay, so Ted is going 

2 
 to, as soon as he can get these things cleared, 

3 
 we're talking about the earlier materials that 

4 
 Bob got from Landauer, which --

5 
 MR. KATZ: Right, the letters or 

6 
 what have you. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

8 
 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, I do have a 

9 
 comment about that. I did send you and Ted, I 

10 
 believe, what I believe are relevant sections 

11 
 of the FACA law. I think they're Sections 3B 

12 
 and C in which the law as I read it says that 

13 
 presidential commissions such as yours are 

14 
 supposed to -- commissions and advisory boards 

15 
 are supposed to furnish the public with -- and 

16 
 it specifically says in there working papers, 

17 
 so would you all please have your legal team 

18 
 look at that carefully and provide me an 

19 
 answer, because I believe it opens up the 

20 
 possibility, for instance, that the issues 

21 
 matrices that are what's guiding your work, 

22 
 that those are probably considered working 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 333
 

1 
 papers, and, honestly, I would be interested in 

2 
 all of these papers like the one this morning 

3 
 that was mentioned. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: We will get -- we can get 

5 
 you those. In fact, Dan, I thought you had the 

6 
 matrices. I'm sorry if you didn't. 

7 
 DR. MCKEEL: That would be good. 

8 
 MR. KATZ: In fact, we cleared a 

9 
 version, not the latest version, because SC&A 

10 
 responded then to NIOSH's responses, but we 

11 cleared the NIOSH version of that. 

12 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: We have the NIOSH 

13 
 response version, which was, I think, of this 

14 
 Monday. In fact, I think I sent John Ramspott 

15 
 a copy. I didn't realize you didn't have one, 

16 Dan. 

17 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. 

18 CHAIR ZIEMER: Yes. 

19 
 DR. MCKEEL: Well, I'm really asking 

20 for a general --

21 MR. KATZ: And on the broader --

22 
 DR. MCKEEL: There's a general 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 334
 

1 
 ruling on that. 

2 
 MR. KATZ: On the broader issue, 

3 
 Dan, I mean, I followed up immediately upon 

4 
 receiving your email about that, and I'm 

5 
 waiting to close the loop with folks, with 

6 
 counsel folks in the department. 

7 
 DR. MCKEEL: I'm just asking to 

8 
 please keep that alive and ongoing. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: It's completely alive, 

10 Dan. 

11 
 DR. MCKEEL: Ask them to please 

12 
 render a decision. I mean, the language seems 

13 
 pretty clear to me, but I understand it may be 

14 more complex, so I'd appreciate it. 

15 
 MR. KATZ: It's completely alive. I 

16 promise. 

17 DR. MCKEEL: Thank you. 

18 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Well, I think 

19 
 anything that's not -- it's got to be Privacy 

20 Act prepared. 

21 
 MR. KATZ: There's all sorts of 

22 things like Privacy Act clearance. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 335
 

1 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: As fast as we can 

2 
 provide it --

3 
 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. 

4 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: -- we will certainly 

5 
 try to do that. 

6 
 DR. MCKEEL: All right. 

7 
 CHAIR ZIEMER: Thank you very much. 

8 
 Anything else here? If not, we are in 

9 
 adjournment. Thank you all. 

10 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

11 matter went off the record at 3:53 p.m.) 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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