NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY

AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

TBD-6000/6001 WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

WEDNESDAY,

OCTOBER 14, 2009

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened in the 

Zurich Meeting Room at the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott Hotel, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 9:30 a.m., Paul Ziemer, Chairman, 

presiding.

PRESENT:

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH

MARK GRIFFON*

WANDA I. MUNN

JOHN W. POSTON
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

THEODORE KATZ, Acting Designated Federal 

Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH contractor

DAVID ALLEN, OCAS

BILL THURBER, SC&A*

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

MURIEL BURRELL*

JOHN DUTKO*

LARRY ELLIOTT, OCAS

EMILY HOWELL, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

DAN McKEEL, Co-Petitioner*

JIM NETON, OCAS

JOHN RAMSPOTT*

*Present 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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Call to Order and Roll Call

Paul Ziemer, Chairman

Ted Katz, DFO................... 3

Introductory Remarks and 

Review of Agenda

Paul Ziemer...................... 9

Update on TBD-6000 Findings Matrix and 

Status of Each Issue.................. 12

Appendix BB (General Steel Industries) 

Issues Matrix and NIOSH Petition ER

Issues................................ 83

SC&A Review of GSI SEC Petition

Evaluation Report (Including 

Anigstein interviews with GSI Workers). 146

Time Table and Path Forward on All

Open Items and Issues.................. 318

Adjourn
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

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

2 (9:41 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone 

4 on the phone. We are sorry for the hold up. 

5 This is the Advisory Board on Radiation Worker 

6 Health. This is the TBD-6000/6001 Appendix BB 

7 Work Group and we have been trying to sort out 

8 document questions, as well as getting 

9 technology ready for presentations.

10 But we are going to begin now as 

11 usual, starting with roll call with Board 

12 Members in the room. And please, everyone, we 

13 are discussing, as part of the discussion 

14 today, GSI. So, individuals should speak to

15 their conflict if they have a conflict as 

16 well.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This is Paul 

18 Ziemer, Work Group Chair, not conflicted.

19 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn, member 

20 of the Board, not conflicted.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach, Board 

22 Member, not conflicted.
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 MEMBER POSTON: John Poston, Board 

2 Member, not conflicted.

3 MR. KATZ: And Board Member on the 

4 phone?

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, 

6 member of the Board and not conflicted.

7 MR. KATZ: Okay. NIOSH/ORAU team 

8 in the room?

9 MR. ELLIOTT: Larry Elliott, 

10 Director of NIOSH's Office of Compensation 

11 Analysis and support, not conflicted.

12 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, Office of 

13 Compensation Analysis and Support, not 

14 conflicted.

15 MR. ALLEN: Dave Allen, Office of 

16 Compensation Analysis and Support, not 

17 conflicted.

18 MR. KATZ: On the line, NIOSH/ORAU 

19 team?

20 (No response.)

21 MR. KATZ: Okay. In the room, 

22 SC&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

6

1 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, SC&A, not 

2 conflicted.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, 

4 SC&A, not conflicted.

5 MR. KATZ: SC&A on the line?

6 MR. THURBER: Bill Thurber, SC&A, 

7 not conflicted.

8 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Phil.

9 MR. THURBER: Bill.

10 MR. KATZ: Oh, Bill. Sorry.

11 MR. THURBER: No problem.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, anyone else SC&A?

13 (No response.)

14 MR. KATZ: Okay, then federal 

15 employees or contractors in the room?

16 MS. HOWELL: Emily Howell, HHS.

17 MR. KATZ: And on the line?

18 MS. ADAMS: Nancy Adams, NIOSH 

19 contractor, not conflicted.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. No one from DOL 

21 or DOE?

22 (No response.)
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: Okay. And then 

2 members, we've got everyone in the room? Yes. 

3 Members of the public, petitioners and 

4 others, representatives, staff of 

5 representatives and Congress on the line who 

6 want to identify themselves.

7 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. 

8 I am the co-petitioner for GSI and its SEC.

9 MS. BURRELL: And I am Muriel 

10 Burrell. I worked at GSI.

11 MR. KATZ: Can you repeat your 

12 name, please?

13 MS. BURRELL: Muriel, M-U-R-I-E-L, 

14 Burrell, B as in boy, U-R-R-E-L-L.

15 MR. KATZ: Welcome, Muriel.

16 MS. BURRELL: Thanks.

17 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott, 

18 General Steel.

19 MR. KATZ: Welcome, John.

20 MR. DUTKO: John Dutko, General 

21 Steel.

22 MR. KATZ: John Dutko?
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: Yes, sir.

2 MR. KATZ: Thank you. Welcome, 

3 John.

4 MR. DUTKO: Thank you, sir.

5 MR. KATZ: Any others?

6 (No response.)

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, then let me just 

8 remind everyone on the line to please mute 

9 your phones, except when you are addressing 

10 the group here. And if you don't have a mute 

11 button, *6. Press star and six. And then 

12 when you want to take it off of mute, just 

13 press star and six again. And if you need to 

14 leave the call for a brief period, please do 

15 not put the call on hold. Hang up and dial 

16 back in when you are ready to rejoin us. 

17 Much thanks. And Dr. Ziemer, it 

18 is your show.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, 

20 Ted. And I will officially call the meeting 

21 to order. The agenda has been distributed to 

22 the Work Group and to the staff and 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

9

1 petitioners. I have some hard copies here in 

2 the room if anyone needs a hard copy.

3 DR. MAURO: I will take one.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, John.

5 Okay. I just have a few 

6 introductory remarks to make and I just want 

7 to review the agenda. There really are three 

8 sort of main parts to things that we are going 

9 to deal with today.

10 First of all, we want to update 

11 the TBD Findings Matrix. And I think that 

12 will not take a great deal of time but we do 

13 have some more recent input from NIOSH on that 

14 matrix so we want to get updated on that. 

15 Then we will focus on General 

16 Steel Industries, which is included in 

17 Appendix BB to the TBD-6000/6001 document. 

18 And there we have two parts. We have the 

19 matrix which was generated as a result of the 

20 review of Appendix BB, which some think of as 

21 sort of a site profile. And then we also have 

22 a recent document, which is a review 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

10

1 evaluation report of the petition from the 

2 General Steel petitioners. And to some 

3 extent, there are issues that cross the lines 

4 between both of those. So some of those will 

5 be common issues both to the Appendix BB 

6 itself, as well as to the Petition Evaluation 

7 Report. 

8 But nonetheless, we do have an 

9 issues matrix for the Appendix BB evaluation 

10 that was made by SC&A and we have issues there 

11 that have been in the resolution process. And 

12 then we have the recent review by SC&A of 

13 NIOSH Evaluation Report of the petition and 

14 there are issues there which will require 

15 resolution as we move forward, as well.

16 In addition to those documents, 

17 Work Group members, I believe, have all 

18 received a number of documents from the 

19 petitioners, mostly from Dr. McKeel and then 

20 some additional documents from the site 

21 expert, Mr. Ramspott. And so I think all of 

22 us have those documents as well and we will 
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 also afford the petitioner an opportunity to 

2 make some general statements for the record, 

3 as well as input on these various issues.

4 Now, I recognize that we have a 

5 wealth of documents that we are reviewing. We 

6 have a fair number of issues that we need to 

7 grapple with. We will try to be as efficient 

8 as we can and make as much progress as we can 

9 today. But as I assessed the various 

10 documents and read many documents in recent 

11 weeks and looked at some of the complexities 

12 of these issues, it appears to me that we may 

13 not be able to resolve everything today. I 

14 guess I would be surprised if we can, although 

15 I certainly don't want to discourage it. But 

16 we may need additional information and input 

17 as we proceed.

18 And so I am expecting that this 

19 Work Group will need to meet again in the near 

20 future, perhaps in the next six weeks or so, 

21 perhaps I am thinking now in November and we 

22 will talk later about the path forward 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

12

1 scheduling but we do need to stay on task and 

2 try to deal with all of the issues that are 

3 before us in these matters, both with respect 

4 to the TBD-6000, which is a more general 

5 document, as well as the focus on Appendix BB.

6 Then also we need to be cognizant 

7 of the fact that there are other appendices 

8 that we will need to deal with later as well. 

9 We certainly won't be dealing with them now 

10 but they will be on the horizon.

11 So with those general remarks, I 

12 want to begin with an update on the TBD-6000 

13 findings matrix and the status of those 

14 issues.

15 Now, I do need to check to see 

16 whether the petitioners have a copy at least 

17 of the original matrix. And I am going to 

18 ask, Dan, are you on the line?

19 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir, I am on the 

20 line. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I know that you 

22 requested current copies of the matrices. 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

13

1 Josie sent the cleared copy of the Appendix BB 

2 Matrix just a little bit ago. Did you receive 

3 that yet?

4 DR. McKEEL: Well, actually, I am 

5 about ten feet away from the computer. I can 

6 get that.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

8 DR. McKEEL: I have an early 

9 version of the Appendix BB Matrix with the 

10 SC&A findings but not the NIOSH responses. 

11 And as of yet, I don't have a copy of the TBD12 6000.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the problem 

14 that we have had here at the table this 

15 morning, I will just tell you, is that none of 

16 us seems to have a cleared version here with 

17 us of that that we can send to you.

18 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So we will do 

20 our best to make sure that the issues are 

21 articulated in terms of the responses. And 

22 then we may have to send you the cleared 
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 version after the fact. I apologize for that 

2 but it's just the way it turned out here.

3 DR. McKEEL: That's fine.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

5 DR. McKEEL: Thank you.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, let's turn 

7 to the matrix, first of all, and just for the 

8 --

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: Paul? Paul, can 

10 you tell me which matrix, the exact file name, 

11 so I can make sure I have the right one?

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, hang on. I 

13 am pulling mine out here, if one of the other 

14 Work Group members has it. John, do you have 

15 the matrix that Mark would have?

16 Okay, it would be dated March 6th 

17 or March 9, 2009, Issue Resolution Matrix for 

18 SC&A Findings on TBD-6000. That matrix has 

19 the SC&A original findings. It has the NIOSH 

20 responses. And these go back to November, I 

21 believe. 

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

15

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I will let John 

2 Mauro give you the history.

3 DR. MAURO: The history of it is, 

4 when SC&A completed its review of TBD-6000, we 

5 issued the matrix on November 11, 2008. And 

6 that is what is on the bottom of each page. 

7 Then we had some meetings. NIOSH prepared a 

8 response to each of those findings. And then 

9 SC&A responded and the last set, and it is in 

10 this matrix I am looking at. And the date in 

11 which all of this is captured is dated right 

12 on the top of the page, SC&A response to NIOSH 

13 response added March 9, 2009. This is, if you 

14 folks don't have an electronic version of it, 

15 we certainly can get it because I have a copy 

16 of it. It is on my system. So but this is 

17 the latest version. And it is from here, this 

18 is our stepping stone, so to speak.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But that is not 

20 a cleared version.

21 DR. MAURO: And it is not a 

22 cleared version. And the first action -- 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

16

1 fact we should discuss this a bit. There is 

2 new material.

3 In theory, for items four and 

4 five, David Allen has distributed responses.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And those 

6 responses were cleared.

7 DR. MAURO: And those responses 

8 were cleared. And I have with me SC&A's 

9 response to those responses no one has seen 

10 that has to be added to this.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

12 DR. MAURO: So what I am getting 

13 at is perhaps the best path forward is, let's 

14 process this, update it, and then clear the 

15 whole thing and move it out so that everyone -

16 - a new baseline and everyone will have a new 

17 version of this that is right up-to-date, 

18 including Dr. McKeel. That might be the 

19 simplest way to go, rather than have iterative 

20 versions going out.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We can --

22 because that has intermediate responses 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

17

1 occurred late last year and early this year. 

2 DR. MAURO: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I guess it 

4 must not have ever been submitted to --

5 DR. MAURO: It probably was never 

6 submitted for PA clearance. That is correct. 

7 I suspect that.

8 I could ask Nancy to get on the 

9 line but I just spoke with her --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, --

11 DR. MAURO: -- and she said no. 

12 She does not have it.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we 

14 need to expedite it.

15 DR. MAURO: So we would have to 

16 clear this stuff.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Whatever we do 

18 today, we need to get it to the petitioners as 

19 rapidly as we can as well, so that they have -

20 - although this is not part of the -- this is 

21 separate but it is tied in so closely with 

22 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

18

1 DR. MAURO: It would be very good 

2 for everyone to be current on both documents, 

3 yes.

4 MR. KATZ: Mark, have you located 

5 the document?

6 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I have the 

7 matrix, yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Great.

9 DR. MAURO: Great. I was 

10 concerned that somehow it wasn't distributed. 

11 But it was, except it wasn't cleared.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

13 MEMBER MUNN: And the date of 

14 distribution again was?

15 DR. MAURO: Well, this is it.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I believe it was 

17 in March.

18 DR. MAURO: March 9, 2009 is the 

19 last version of that.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, so first 

21 of all let's pick up the current NIOSH 

22 responses. Actually, let me just review 
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 something which I have sort of just prepared. 

2 And I am going to hand Emily a copy of this 

3 because I think I can use this for discussion. 

4 It is just something that I prepared to help 

5 with the meeting to summarize the issues and 

6 who was going to provide what.

7 And I don't think there is any 

8 names in here other than the authors of 

9 reports which have been used throughout other 

10 documents. There is two reports mentioned in 

11 here. And the first issue on the matrix, what 

12 arose out of our last meeting was the question 

13 of whether or not recasting is considered when 

14 -- let's see.

15 The question of whether or not 

16 recasting is considered was the issue and the 

17 fact that that would result in certain 

18 progeny, namely, thorium-234 and Pa-234 rising 

19 to the surface of the casting. This issue is 

20 in abeyance because NIOSH was to evaluate that 

21 and revise. And I think they had agreed to

22 add a section to TBD-6000 to address that 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

20

1 it also identified the Puzier reference.

2 And Dave, the response to that you 

3 have done, but there is not a cleared version 

4 of that, I believe, or is there now?

5 MR. ALLEN: I am not clear on 

6 whether anything is cleared or not so I don't 

7 know. Like we just talked, we gave our 

8 response. SC&A gave a reply to that. And as 

9 best as we can tell, at least the final thing 

10 is not cleared and I am not sure if the NIOSH 

11 part was ever cleared or not.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the 

13 tasking -- well, I don't want to call it 

14 tasking, but the agreed-to path at the last 

15 meeting was that NIOSH would evaluate and 

16 revise and add a section to TBD-6000. I don't 

17 believe that has occurred yet.

18 MR. ALLEN: Right. That's true.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So it remains in 

20 abeyance. That is something that NIOSH has 

21 agreed to do, is my understanding, to add that 

22 issue or add that as a revision to the 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

21

1 6000. Was that your understanding?

2 DR. NETON: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And that remains 

4 to be done. So there is a revision to TBD5 6000 that is to arise to address that issue of 

6 the progeny that arise during that process.

7 MR. ELLIOTT: Do you have a sense 

8 of when that will occur, Dave? Or can you 

9 speak about other activities that are 

10 compounding that or have to be attended to 

11 along with that? What is going on with this?

12 MR. ALLEN: Well, I did want to 

13 clear one thing up because I am not -- reading 

14 the original SC&A review of TBD-6000 along 

15 with the replies that are here, everybody 

16 agrees, we agree and I think SC&A agree with 

17 that, the TBD would benefit from a discussion 

18 of that. Nothing in anything so far has said 

19 that the numbers look like they should change, 

20 as far as the beta dose from this. And from 

21 what I have looked at, it looks like they are 

22 really accounted for from other remelt areas, 
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 what kind of beta dose you get compared to 

2 what you get, what is assigned in TBD-6000.

3 I am not clear if that is what was 

4 intended from SC&A, if they really thought the 

5 language needed to be revised or if they felt 

6 the numbers were not correct.

7 DR. MAURO: No, we felt that the 

8 numbers are not correct. And what I am saying 

9 is that I believe the radiation yields in the 

10 vicinity of ingots reflect the classic numbers 

11 of 200 mr per hour at contact, 2 mr per hour 

12 at foot, which is the correct numbers for a 

13 slab of natural uranium.

14 However, parts of the report 

15 indicates there are circumstances that have 

16 occurred in the past where the thorium-234 

17 somehow finds its way toward the surface and 

18 there is this crust that is on the outside 

19 now. And as a result, they have seen beta 

20 fields and gamma fields from bremsstrahlung 

21 that were substantially elevated above the 

22 numbers I just mentioned by a factor of ten or 
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 greater.

2 Now, our position is that we are

3 not necessarily saying that all of these AWE 

4 facilities that are covered by TBD-6000 

5 necessarily deal with that material but there 

6 is, I think it was a 24- or 34-day half-life 

7 of the thorium-234, which -- 24 -- which would 

8 indicate that -- well you could envision 

9 circumstances where an ingot would show up at 

10 an AWE facility that may not be very aged, 

11 okay, and as a result, could still contain 

12 some crust, where the unsupported thorium-234 

13 may still be contributing to an elevated 

14 radiation field in the vicinity of the ingot. 

15 And to the extent at which that could occur, 

16 it could substantially increase the external 

17 exposure, both beta and gamma, that a worker 

18 might experience.

19 So I guess what I am asking you is 

20 that that discussion needs to be had in TBD21 6000. Right now, 6000 is silent on that 

22 particular subject. The degree to which 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

24

1 has a substantial effect on your external 

2 radiation fields in the vicinity of uranium is 

3 very much going to depend on the type of 

4 uranium the person is handling. If it is 

5 uranium that has already been skinned of its 

6 crust, then of course it is not a problem. If 

7 its uranium that is many months old, it is not 

8 going to be a problem. Or if, in general, 

9 ingots or dingots are not sent to a particular 

10 facility, then it wouldn't have this crust.

11 And finally, there is even some 

12 discussion of how real this phenomenon really 

13 is. For example, there is some discussion 

14 where it is widely believed that it covers the 

15 entire ingot. In other cases, there is some 

16 evidence that no, no, no, it is more in the 

17 top, the top crop. And there is some other 

18 discussion where it is inside the inner 

19 surface of the bomb, the casing, more there.

20 And so all we are really pointing 

21 out is that there is an issue here where, 

22 depending on the outcome, could have an effect 
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 on the numbers in TBD-6000.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It is a little 

3 late for that from a direct second-hand 

4 experience, rather than a fourth- or fifth5 hand account. And that was working -- we had 

6 an old contract years back with Manufacturing 

7 Sciences Corporation, which was a DOE 

8 contractor at Rocky Flats, and they were doing 

9 vacuum casting of uranium ingots. And we were 

10 out, I and another colleague from SC&A, were 

11 out there talking to them and discussing -- we 

12 were supposed to do the radiation assessment 

13 for them. And they described that the uranium 

14 would be put into this mold and vacuum 

15 induction, with induction heating under 

16 vacuum. And then they would open up the 

17 bottom and the uranium would drain, I think, 

18 from the bottom into this mold.

19 So in that instance, the uranium 

20 itself left behind they called it a skull, a 

21 sort of slag. And there sort of was coating 

22 on the whole inner surface not just on 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

26

1 top. They called it -- it was hot. It was 

2 hot because it was all very concentrated 

3 thorium-234. So in that instance, it was 

4 removed from this ingot but it remained. The 

5 top of it still had it.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Still had it.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And they had to 

8 sort it out. It was called a hot tub to sort 

9 it out.

10 There could have been other 

11 instances where it wasn't drained through the 

12 bottom where it would remain on the entire 

13 ingot.

14 So the theory there was that 

15 during the casting it did migrate to the 

16 surface, not just to the top but to the 

17 surface surrounding the uranium. And 

18 conceivably, if they had used a different 

19 technique, they could have just removed the 

20 uranium. If they allowed the uranium to 

21 solidify there, they would have had the crust 

22 all around.
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 It is a real thing. It doesn't 

2 mean that it happens in each and every 

3 process, due to differences.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think 

5 that is understood. And just reviewing this 

6 issue, after the original finding, NIOSH 

7 agreed that the TBD would benefit from a 

8 discussion of this matter. So that was agreed 

9 on.

10 And SC&A basically said it appears 

11 that NIOSH and SC&A are in agreement on this 

12 issue. Now, whether or not the numbers are 

13 affected wasn't discussed here. They may or 

14 may not be. But at this point, the issue was, 

15 consider this parameter. And NIOSH has agreed 

16 to do that and they are looking into that. 

17 And so that remains in abeyance until the TBD 

18 is revised and we would have an opportunity to 

19 look at what that revision would be.

20 So the matter would be discussed 

21 and then NIOSH would have to determine the 

22 extent or the conditions under which 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

28

1 values would change. In some cases it may be 

2 significant. In other cases, it may be an, 

3 oh, never mind, depending on the situation 

4 such as you described, how it is generated and 

5 what they do with it as the process continues.

6 So I think it will remain in 

7 abeyance until the revision occurs but 

8 everyone agrees that that issue has to be 

9 discussed in some detail.

10 And what did we say on the time 

11 table or did we establish one?

12 MR. ALLEN: Well, that was why I 

13 was trying to make sure.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We need 

15 clarification.

16 MR. ALLEN: I need clarification 

17 because from our preliminary evaluation on it, 

18 it wouldn't really affect the numbers. The 

19 numbers of TBD are --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well the point 

21 is, you need to discuss that and document 

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

29

1 DR. MAURO: By the way, right now, 

2 you have been looking into this matter and you 

3 are finding that this 200 mr per hour, this 2 

4 mr per hour surface, are holding up well, 

5 notwithstanding the crust? I mean, is that 

6 what you are --

7 MR. ALLEN: The beta skin dose 

8 numbers and the TBD are holding up well to 

9 what we are seeing from remelt operations. 

10 And because of that -- and there is other 

11 outstanding issues -- my intent was not to 

12 revise TBD-6000 until these other issues are 

13 further down the road.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you have one 

15 revision but --

16 MR. ALLEN: Right.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But it might be 

18 useful to have a White Paper so that --

19 MR. ALLEN: That is why I wanted a 

20 clarification.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- you can say, 

22 okay this is what is going to be 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

30

1 revision.

2 MR. ALLEN: Right.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That would be 

4 helpful. 

5 Okay, I am just making a note and 

6 I see others are. So a White Paper on what 

7 the revision will cover.

8 And I assume that will give us 

9 some idea of what you are finding on those 

10 values.

11 MEMBER BEACH: So we can expect 

12 that before our next meeting?

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It depends on 

14 how soon we meet, I am sure.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Well you said about 

16 six weeks.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I am thinking 

18 about six weeks or so. We will talk about it 

19 at the end of this meeting. And we have many 

20 other issues so that is not going to be the 

21 showstopper. You know, if that is not ready. 

22 I mean, we are going to have to deal with 
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 other things. And actually, to some extent, 

2 work on petitions becomes a priority. We have 

3 got to deal with the petition itself, although 

4 this becomes part of it.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes, I would like to 

6 add that this, as Dr. McKeel pointed out in 

7 some of his material, this is a cross-over 

8 issue. It has relevance to Appendix BB.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

10 DR. MAURO: Also, Dr. McKeel may 

11 have received a Puzier report. I know there 

12 was -- okay, good. So everybody is on the 

13 same page.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

15 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. I 

16 do have one comment about Puzier.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

18 DR. McKEEL: Besides the fact that 

19 DOE went out of its way to accommodate getting 

20 that report released, but it is in very small 

21 type, very difficult to read. It is a poor 

22 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

32

1 And what would help me is if 

2 somebody who knows where the thorium-234 

3 references are by page, that would help me a 

4 great deal.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I think we 

6 can track that down because in fact Bob may 

7 have that information right now. I think Bob, 

8 can you --

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It is if you go by 

10 the typewritten page numbers on the bottom, 

11 you find it on page 25 and 26. There is also 

12 a second pagination handwritten in the upper 

13 right-hand corner. And those page numbers are 

14 41 and 42.

15 DR. McKEEL: Thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So pages 25 and 

17 26 and 41 and 42?

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, or 41. They 

19 are the same. It is 25 and 26 on the bottom, 

20 41 or 42 on the top.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I got you.

22 DR. McKEEL: Thanks so much.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Issue two. 

2 NIOSH had agreed with the finding that the 

3 beta dose should be included but they 

4 contended that the contribution to personnel 

5 dose was small. And the issue was also placed 

6 in abeyance and the tasking was that NIOSH was 

7 to address beta dose.

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

9 DR. MAURO: I would like to add 

10 that we did do the calculations in our report 

11 and we found that the beta dose contribution 

12 from surface contamination to skin, testes, 

13 and breasts are not insignificant.

14 So we may have a bit of a 

15 disagreement here and it is important that we 

16 get it on the table. We did do some numbers 

17 and we found the numbers were substantial.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think that 

19 NIOSH's point was that if the same worker was 

20 exposed to a slab of metal and to a 

21 contaminated floor surface --

22 DR. MAURO: Got 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

34

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- the slab of 

2 metal would be the dominant.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But the point that 

5 we made was that there may be circumstances 

6 where there is no metal around, just dust on 

7 the floor. And in those cases, that should be 

8 considered.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, where this 

10 issue was at our last -- before the last 

11 discussion was that SC&A agreed with NIOSH 

12 regarding the relative magnitude of the 

13 exposure --

14 DR. MAURO: Within that context.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- but in that 

16 context. Whereas if it is small compared to 

17 the others unless it is the only thing you are 

18 considering.

19 But the last note in the matrix 

20 was that it appeared that NIOSH and SC&A are 

21 in agreement but the issue is in abeyance 

22 until the revision where apparently 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

35

1 would discuss it in the revision and point out 

2 this very thing, I believe, is what was agreed 

3 to. So that becomes part of the revision.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It would seem to 

6 me that we don't necessarily need a White 

7 Paper on that in advance if we understand that 

8 that is what -- it is just going to be 

9 clarified in the revision.

10 MR. ALLEN: It will be a new set 

11 of numbers. But I mean, it is beta numbers 

12 from surface contamination.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

14 MR. ALLEN: I don't think there 

15 will be a lot of disagreement.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, just that 

17 it's discussed.

18 DR. MAURO: Well because we have 

19 put our numbers in. And when you do your 

20 numbers, you know --

21 MR. ALLEN: If any of my numbers 

22 are significantly different --
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Then we have a 

2 different problem.

3 Okay, issue three. At the last 

4 meeting, NIOSH was tracking down the origin of 

5 the 232 value and they were to provide an 

6 update on that, issue three.

7 MR. ALLEN: Unfortunately, the 

8 update is the author reviewed some information 

9 and cannot find that now. He doesn't know 

10 where it came from. There were very small 

11 numbers that he added in there but he is not 

12 quite sure where they came from. I don't know 

13 how to close this out.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So how do we 

15 know that those numbers are -- is there any 

16 independent verification?

17 MR. ALLEN: I think SC&A, I am 

18 putting words in your mouth here, but I think 

19 you basically said, you know, the other 

20 numbers look good but this morning we had no 

21 idea where it even came from.

22 DR. MAURO: We had no idea where 
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 it came from. We don't think the thorium 

2 should be there.

3 MR. ALLEN: And they don't really 

4 disagree. It was a tiny number.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There was an 

6 experiment with a mixed oxide fuel at Fernald, 

7 which would eventually have worked its way 

8 back to the DOE supply pool.

9 DR. MAURO: Thorium-232.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, it was a mix. 

11 They were trying to have mixed uranium and 

12 thorium as a reactor fuel that was fermenting 

13 with it. And that is how thorium got into the 

14 uranium supply, at least there, and it may 

15 have gotten recycled back.

16 DR. MAURO: Okay. I hadn't heard 

17 that before.

18 MR. ALLEN: I don't think that was 

19 ever reprocessed.

20 MEMBER MUNN: Why would they 

21 reprocess?

22 MR. ALLEN: I mean, the idea was a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 thorium breeder chain.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Well it seems 

3 unlikely they would reprocess that channel.

4 MR. DUTKO: They did.

5 MEMBER MUNN: They did?

6 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, the first 

7 core for Indian Point 1 was a thorium uranium 

8 mixture. The reactor was made by Babcock and 

9 Wilcox and the fuel was reprocessed at West 

10 Valley.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Was that kind of 

12 unique, though, John?

13 MEMBER POSTON: The only core that 

14 I know of. They had to rework it for Babcock 

15 and Wilcox.

16 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer?

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan.

18 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan.

20 DR. McKEEL: I believe we have 

21 sent to the Board a page and I can't remember, 

22 there are two tables in this document, Tables 
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 1 and 2, and it is a document about Weldon 

2 Spring. I think it is called the newest U.S. 

3 uranium plant, something like that. But 

4 anyway, they have a table in there where they 

5 have constituents of some of the uraniums that 

6 they processed. And one of the tables does 

7 show a very low, it is less than one percent, 

8 you know, some fraction of that, of thorium9 232. So that is another place that we have 

10 seen it. And that context was, of course, 

11 Weldon Spring supplied some of the uranium to 

12 GSI.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

14 DR. McKEEL: I am sure we can find 

15 that again and send it to you if that would be 

16 of interest but that is in our material.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Again, 

18 that was just a trace then.

19 DR. McKEEL: Yes, but it is there.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I am 

21 wondering if that is something worth looking 

22 at. I tend to vaguely remember that. If 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

40

1 can pick that out, we might even be able to do 

2 that during the break or something.

3 DR. NETON: Yes, we could easily 

4 compare the numbers.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So we will take 

6 a look at that. And Dan, we are going to try 

7 to find that also during the break. I think I 

8 have got all the documents --

9 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- that you had 

11 provided, if I can sort through them, and if 

12 we are going to pick that out today. 

13 Otherwise we can hold this in abeyance and 

14 look at it again at the next meeting.

15 I don't think it is going to end 

16 up being a significant issue but we want to 

17 make sure we put it to rest properly.

18 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: This is John 

21 Ramspott. I did forward that document to SC&A 

22 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

41

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

2 MR. RAMSPOTT: And the one point I 

3 made with it is we are not just talking about 

4 thorium. We are talking about the thorium 

5 that is then activated by the betatron. There 

6 is two steps in that and they are various 

7 articles about betatron activation of thorium 

8 on the internet.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That is right.

10 MR. RAMSPOTT: Thorium is not just 

11 by itself. It then has another step.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: It would be 

14 different than most of the other plants that 

15 handled the --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. In this 

17 context here, in TBD-6000, it is simply the 

18 presence of the thorium in the uranium. The 

19 case you are talking about would be specific 

20 to Appendix BB issues.

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: You are totally 

22 correct. Yes, sir.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Exactly. Thank 

2 you for that, reminding us of that.

3 Then issue four, which was 

4 airborne uranium dust concentrations. At the 

5 last meeting what I had jotted down is that 

6 NIOSH did not understand the funding and 

7 actually that shows up in the matrix here as 

8 well. It says the comment is not clear. And 

9 then there is a reply by SC&A but the action 

10 item at the last meeting was that NIOSH was 

11 going to review the Adley report, compared to 

12 the Harris-Kingsley report and the Simonds Saw 

13 data and validate the Adley value, which was a 

14 GSD of 5 as being adequate and generate a 

15 White Paper. And Dave has done that.

16 And that White Paper -- and I 

17 think that was cleared. So everyone should 

18 have a copy of that White Paper. And Dave, do 

19 you want to comment on that just to summarize 

20 it?

21 MR. ALLEN: Well, I guess it is 

22 best just to summarize it. It was a review 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

43

1 the data in Adley. For issue four, it was air 

2 sample data, I believe is what we were looking 

3 at. And I reviewed what was in Adley and what 

4 was at the Simonds Saw Steel plant and 

5 compared that to what was in TBD-6000. And 

6 there is not a lot or did I get the wrong 

7 issue up here on the screen?

8 I put a table right off the map 

9 there that kind of tries to compare them 

10 apples to apples. One of the bigger issues 

11 was the units were completely different from 

12 --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

14 MR. ALLEN: -- to the other. A 

15 lot of conversion going on so I tried to put 

16 them on similar units and just do a straight 

17 comparison. And still to me, TBD-6000 looks 

18 like it is in-line with that. And I think 

19 John said SC&A hasn't replied.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, we don't 

21 have any official comments but you had --

22 DR. MAURO: Yes, we did some work. 
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 I have restricted -- Bill Thurber, Bill are 

2 you on the line?

3 MR. THURBER: Yes, I am.

4 DR. MAURO: Bill did the work over 

5 the weekend, prepared a brief response, which 

6 I envisioned would go in the matrix, right 

7 underneath your new material, if your folks 

8 would like it and maintain copies of it. This 

9 is our response. 

10 I think the bottom line is, the 

11 bottom line we agree. Bill could explain what 

12 he did to convince ourselves that in fact yes, 

13 it looks like the Adley report is compatible 

14 with the Kingsley and Harris report.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think that 

16 would probably be fine. And then we can get 

17 this cleared also for the petitioners in a 

18 very reasonable time. But is it okay, Emily, 

19 to distribute this here, right, and discuss 

20 the bottom line on it?

21 MS. HOWELL: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And then 
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 --

2 DR. MAURO: Bill, was there 

3 anything that you wanted to just, were there 

4 any exceptions or any aspects where you felt 

5 that there may be some differences that needed 

6 to be discussed or are you pretty comfortable 

7 with where we are on this?

8 MR. THURBER: I'm pretty 

9 comfortable.

10 NIOSH indicated that there weren't 

11 any distributions in Adley. And actually 

12 there is quite a bit of raw data in there. 

13 And if you look at the raw data, it is not 

14 clear how Adley came up with their average 

15 exposures for the various job descriptions. 

16 But if you go to their raw data and use it 

17 rather than what they say are the averages, 

18 you come out with slightly higher numbers.

19 But, as David Allen said, the 

20 numbers in TBD-6000 are higher than those in 

21 Adley. And even if you look at the adjusted 

22 Adley numbers, they are still in line with 
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 TBD-6000. So we are content with the fact 

2 that Adley has been looked at in the context 

3 of TBD-6000 and doesn't change the TBD-6000 

4 conclusions.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, 

6 Bill. Let's see. We need to get a copy of 

7 this to Mark. You can send him an un-cleared 

8 copy.

9 MEMBER GRIFFON: I have -- are you 

10 talking to me? I have the White Paper.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, not the 

12 White Paper.

13 MEMBER GRIFFON: Oh.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Here at the 

15 meeting, John has distributed their response, 

16 which basically says that they agree with the 

17 NIOSH analysis and it is a two-pager. It is 

18 really a page and a third or so. And we will 

19 try to get this cleared right away -- and also 

20 your copy -- out for the petitioners. But 

21 John gave us the bottom line there and Bill 

22 amplified what was 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

47

1 But it appears to me that at this 

2 point, we can close this item. Let me ask the 

3 Work Group members here. Dr. Poston, was each 

4 one --

5 Mark, do you want to see the SC&A 

6 review before we close this?

7 MEMBER GRIFFON: You can send it 

8 along but I am pretty comfortable with it as 

9 it is. So, I agree. I think we can close it.

10 DR. MAURO: Bill, if it is handy, 

11 could you email your report? I don't know if 

12 I sent it out to everybody. No. If you can 

13 email a copy of this to everyone, this way you 

14 have an electronic version, including Mark, 

15 that would be helpful. This way you have it. 

16 Because all I did was hand out hard copies. 

17 I brought it with me this morning.

18 MR. THURBER: I'm not sure I have 

19 the list, John.

20 DR. MAURO: Okay, we will take 

21 care of it. Don't worry about it. In fact, 

22 we will process 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

48

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We will 

2 get it out here probably sometime today 

3 through Nancy or something like that.

4 Okay, very good. So by consensus, 

5 we will agree that we can close issue four.

6 Issue five, there was disagreement 

7 between NIOSH and SC&A on how to determine 

8 surface contamination. I had a note here 

9 NIOSH linked to surface contamination to 

10 airborne regardless of particle size. NIOSH 

11 assumed sediment buildup. SC&A believed that 

12 surface is what is important and they 

13 referenced the Adley report and some 

14 collection plates and so on.

15 And NIOSH was to provide a White 

16 Paper which would review the Adley report. 

17 And that has been done. And that White Paper 

18 was distributed. And Dave, again, you want to 

19 summarize for us there?

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes, it is kind of, 

21 with Adley like I said, units are different. 

22 And for their purpose with the report, 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

49

1 a little difficult to pull the information 

2 that we are looking for from it.

3 They did do settling rates. They 

4 did it as a matter of the amount of uranium 

5 milligrams per square foot per day, set plates 

6 out for 158 days in the winter in the metal 

7 melt building, I think what it was called, the 

8 Melt Building. And they changed those after 

9 158 days and replaced them with new plates for 

10 another 117 days. And that way, they were 

11 looking at winter when the doors were 

12 routinely, normally closed versus spring when 

13 the doors were routinely left open, I think is 

14 what they said in Adley.

15 So just dividing the amount of 

16 uranium, the square footage at the plate and 

17 the number of days they got a settling rate of 

18 uranium.

19 Unfortunately, we were using a 

20 settling rate in meters per second. They are 

21 using a settling rate in milligrams per square 

22 foot per day. So we have to correlate 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

50

1 air sample values to make these two match up.

2 So again, I was trying to use the 

3 time-weighted averages in Adley for those. It 

4 was very difficult to try to correlate those 

5 air samples with the settling plates because 

6 the time-weighted average was four people who 

7 moved from one job to another, whereas the 

8 settling plates were stationary.

9 And I think I listed all of that 

10 in the White Paper. I attempted to anyway. 

11 So that was a difficult comparison. But in 

12 the end, what I found in the White Paper, the 

13 settling rate itself, the 0.00075 seems to be 

14 a reasonable number even towards the high end. 

15 That has to be applied for a particular period 

16 of time and that part in TBD-6000 does not 

17 seem to be a good number. It should be a 

18 little higher than that is what I came up with 

19 in the White Paper.

20 I don't know if John wants to --

21 DR. MAURO: Again, Bill was kind 

22 enough to work on this over the weekend. 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

51

1 have a restricted version of a hard copy that 

2 no one else has seen. I would like to 

3 distribute it. And Bill could describe what 

4 we did to evaluate the White Paper that was 

5 distributed by David. Again, I will give the 

6 bottom line. It sounds like we have got a 

7 resolved issue.

8 And I would like to add one more 

9 thing before -- but I do want Bill to go over 

10 this because we did some work on this. The 

11 most interesting thing that came out of this 

12 is something I had in my mind -- we had in our 

13 mind an idea that when you are working with 

14 uranium and you are milling it and grinding it 

15 and rolling it, you are generating aerosols 

16 and dust in the air but you also generate 

17 large flakes. And I was always concerned, and 

18 this goes back to so many cases, where the way 

19 in which NIOSH was approaching the problem was 

20 well, do you know what your dust loading is in 

21 the air? Well assume it is all about 5-micron 

22 AMAD and we know the velocity, the terminal 
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 settling velocity is .00075 meters per second. 

2 We agree with that and they have let it fall 

3 for some time period. There is some 

4 variability in how you do that. Sometimes you 

5 assume it falls seven days, sometimes you 

6 assume it falls a year.

7 But in any event, what I am 

8 getting at is we were always concerned with 

9 the idea that you estimate activity on 

10 surfaces based on this deposition process, 

11 where we felt that well no, the surfaces don't 

12 get contaminated. I mean, they get 

13 contaminated that way but the way they really 

14 get contaminated is from this grinding and 

15 flaking and these big pieces coming down. But 

16 what happened was when we looked at the Adley 

17 data, son-of-a-gun, that is the way in which 

18 it happens.

19 So, Bill, I want you to please go 

20 through what you did --

21 MR. POLO: Ten minutes to nine.

22 DR. MAURO: Pardon me? 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

53

1 Bill?

2 MR. THURBER: No.

3 DR. MAURO: What I am getting at 

4 is this particular issue which I have sort of 

5 been cranky about for a long time, I think it 

6 might just have gone away across the board. 

7 That is, the way in which you do it, this 

8 velocity, .00075 coming down, works because 

9 the plate analysis when you go backwards and 

10 do all the calculation and looking at what 

11 accumulated on the plates, and then you use 

12 this deposition thing, it worked. I was quite 

13 frankly expecting the plates to be loaded up 

14 with a lot more than what would be there if 

15 only settling was occurring. But son-of-a16 gun, what is there is calculated, is right on 

17 target. In fact, if anything, the .00075 

18 seems to be a little high.

19 So anyway, but Bill, please, there 

20 was a couple of aspects of the work where you 

21 did have some observations and maybe want to 

22 develop the story a little further but 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

54

1 an important issue because it not only affects 

2 this particular TBD-6000 but it must affect 

3 100 cases that we reviewed in the past, where 

4 one of our findings was this. And I think 

5 this is going to be very helpful in resolving 

6 a lot of issues. So I think it is important 

7 that we look at this a little bit. And Bill, 

8 please go ahead and describe the work you did.

9 MR. THURBER: Okay. What Adley 

10 did is as David mentioned, they set a bunch of 

11 plates out in the winter and after 158 days 

12 they took the samples from the plates and 

13 determined how much uranium was there and 

14 basically assumed that the deposition was 

15 linear over that period of time.

16 They did the same thing in the 

17 spring for 117 days, the difference being in 

18 the spring, the doors were open so 

19 conceptually you had more air blowing around 

20 and disturbing what had settled and so forth.

21 We looked at the alternate 

22 assumption that said we don't know whether 
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 this stuff really accumulated linearly for 117 

2 days or 158 days but rather if during that 

3 time it had reached some kind of an 

4 equilibrium situation -- who is talking?

5 MR. KATZ: Bill, can you just hold 

6 one second?

7 Whoever else is on the telephone, 

8 would you please mute your phone, who is 

9 speaking right now?

10 Excuse me. Excuse me. There are 

11 people talking on this line who should not be 

12 talking. Please put your phones on mute. If 

13 you don't have a mute button, you can use *6 

14 to mute your phone.

15 Zaida? Zaida, are you on the 

16 line?

17 (No response.)

18 MR. KATZ: Nancy, are you on the 

19 line? Nancy Adams or Zaida Burgos?

20 MS. ADAMS: Ted, Nancy is here.

21 MR. KATZ: Nancy, can you get a 

22 hold of Zaida and please, whatever line 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

56

1 is, they are having a conversation, they don't 

2 seem to be able to hear us. Can you cut that 

3 line then?

4 MS. ADAMS: Yes, it seems like a 

5 member of the public.

6 MR. KATZ: It is but --

7 MS. ADAMS: I will call Zaida.

8 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

9 MR. POLO: There is a woman lawyer 

10 out there.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, there are 

12 several.

13 MR. DUTKO: Is that Joe Polo?

14 MR. POLO: Yes.

15 MR. DUTKO: Joe, shut up!

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. John, whoever 

17 you are speaking to, if you just, Joe Polo or 

18 whoever that is, if you would use *6, you 

19 will mute your phone and then we won't have to 

20 listen to your conversation so that the Work 

21 Group can do its work. Thank you. *6 or a 

22 mute button.
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 Okay, Bill.

2 MR. THURBER: Okay. Anyways, we 

3 considered an alternate hypothesis which said 

4 that during the deposition period, at some 

5 point during the deposition period, that an 

6 equilibrium had been achieved between 

7 suspension and/or deposition and re8 suspension. The one number that you know for 

9 sure from the Adley results is the number of 

10 milligrams of uranium that are deposited per 

11 square foot. You don't know exactly how many 

12 days over which that occurred, but you do know 

13 that number. That is a number that is very 

14 certain.

15 So, we looked at this alternate 

16 approach where instead of assuming that the 

17 deposition was linear, that sometime during 

18 the deposition period, equilibrium had been 

19 reached. And what we found by making that 

20 assumption was that again the numbers were a 

21 little different than those suggested by NIOSH 

22 but in the same ballpark. That either way 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 look at it, that the numbers were reasonable.

2 Now there were a couple of things 

3 that we didn't understand in the NIOSH report, 

4 probably because the description was a little 

5 bit truncated. But there were some points 

6 made in the discussion of contamination levels 

7 that weren't clear to us. As David mentioned, 

8 the calculated deposition velocities, based on 

9 the Adley data, were actually lower than the 

10 .00075 meters per second number that has been 

11 regularly used. And if the deposition 

12 velocity was indeed lower, we would have 

13 expected that the contamination levels 

14 calculated with Adley were lower and NIOSH 

15 suggested that the opposite effect was true, 

16 which we didn't understand but that is 

17 something that can be sorted out on the side, 

18 as far as I am concerned.

19 The main point is that looking at 

20 the deposition results in two different ways, 

21 we come up with numbers that are within 

22 reasonable expectations.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Bill. 

2 Dave, did you have any comments on that last 

3 part?

4 MR. ALLEN: Well I might not have 

5 understood but to try -- I think you have 

6 already kind of answered that question, if I 

7 understood it. You are basically saying you 

8 didn't understand how the settling rate could 

9 be higher in Adley but the contamination 

10 levels would be lower.

11 MR. THURBER: No, it is the other 

12 way. You calculated settling rate, settling 

13 velocities from Adley and got numbers of 

14 .00023 or .00022 or something, which is lower 

15 than the .00075, but you say in the 

16 contamination levels section, the median value 

17 for the TBD-6000-derived contamination levels 

18 was 3.8 times lower than the contamination 

19 levels derived from Adley. And I didn't 

20 understand that statement.

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that --

22 MR. THURBER: The fact that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 settling velocity was lower from the Adley 

2 data.

3 MR. ALLEN: Yes, the simple fact 

4 that if you are going to use the settling 

5 velocity, you have to apply some duration to 

6 it. And it basically comes down to we had a 

7 slightly -- we are using a slightly higher 

8 settling rate than you would get from Adley 

9 but we are not applying it for a long enough 

10 time in TBD-6000. The seven days should be 

11 longer, basically 3.8 if I remember right, or 

12 something longer, even is we use our higher 

13 settling rate.

14 Does that clear it up?

15 MR. THURBER: Well I guess what 

16 you are saying is that you have introduced 

17 deposition time into this estimate which 

18 wasn't clear from what you had written. That 

19 is all.

20 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Yes, that is 

21 exactly it.

22 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer?
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

2 MR. DUTKO: Can I point something 

3 out, sir?

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

5 MR. DUTKO: I just wanted to 

6 mention the fact that we handled this uranium, 

7 we chained it up. We set it up on shooting 

8 tables. We had to set up film directly behind 

9 the ingot. We had to handle the ingots by 

10 hand. What in fact is the thorium factor with 

11 this handling the ingots as we had to, sir? 

12 Thank you.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, that 

14 actually would be a different question than we 

15 are dealing with right here but we will keep 

16 that in the back of our minds and we can deal 

17 with it probably when we are into the GSI 

18 issues directly.

19 This particular issue is a general 

20 issue in the what is called TBD-6000, which is 

21 the general document that applies to all the 

22 AWE facilities of this type. And we 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

62

1 talking here more specifically about surface 

2 contamination in these facilities. So the 

3 issue you raise will be a separate one.

4 DR. MAURO: Just I would like to 

5 boil it down. Because we didn't look at the 

6 Adley work, we were concerned that maybe there 

7 may be some important data there to take into 

8 consideration. And our main concern was 

9 airborne dust loading to do an inhalation 

10 activity and direct radiation exposure from 

11 residual radioactivity on the ground.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

13 DR. MAURO: All right. And what 

14 you did do was look at the Adley data and show 

15 that yes, in fact there was. It reaffirms 

16 that the Harrison-Kingsley that you used upon 

17 which to base all of your numbers, rings true 

18 with the Adley data, which gives a lot of 

19 assurance because you are coming from two 

20 different directions, two independent sets of 

21 work, and the numbers are coming out in about 

22 the same place.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, thank you.

2 Again, we want to make sure that 

3 Mark gets a copy of the SC&A response here, as 

4 well and then as soon as it is cleared, to get 

5 the copies out to Dr. McKeel and his 

6 colleagues.

7 It would appear that this 

8 particular issue can be closed. Mark, do you 

9 have any questions or comments or do you want 

10 to see the document on this one as well?

11 MEMBER GRIFFON: On this one, I 

12 wouldn't mind seeing SC&A's document. I am 

13 actually in the middle of looking at some of 

14 the numbers itself. But it was quick to 

15 conclude for me.

16 MR. THURBER: Mark, this is Bill 

17 Thurber. I could email to you the documents 

18 right now, if you would give me your email 

19 address. If that would help.

20 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, that is 

21 fine. You don't have it from -- it is 

22 [identifying information redacted] 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

64

1 [identifying information redacted] --

2 MR. THURBER: [identifying 

3 information redacted] at [identifying 

4 information redacted].

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: Right.

6 MR. THURBER: Okay. I will take 

7 care of it in the next minute or two.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, and you are 

9 going to give electronic copies to all of the 

10 Work Group members in any event. Right, Bill.

11 MR. THURBER: Yes, I will be happy 

12 to, but I will need those email addresses from 

13 somebody.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's just hold 

15 off action on this for the moment.

16 MR. THURBER: Yes.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, any 

18 further questions on this particular issue?

19 (No response.)

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Then I would 

21 just point out that issue six had been 

22 transferred. I don't know if I sent you 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

65

1 memo yet, Wanda, but you are on this group as 

2 well. This was transferred to the Procedures 

3 Review Subcommittee, issue six.

4 MEMBER MUNN: I am so pleased.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You had been 

6 getting rid of some but we want to keep the 

7 hopper full.

8 But now that you have an official 

9 transfer letter, I can use that to transfer 

10 this to you officially.

11 MEMBER MUNN: It will be approved 

12 tomorrow. That will be fine.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And then 

14 I point out that, at the last meeting, we 

15 closed issue seven. However, John Mauro asked 

16 for an opportunity to comment on issue seven 

17 again, even though it is closed, you are going 

18 to let the door ajar a little bit and I agreed 

19 to let John comment on that.

20 DR. MAURO: And I appreciate that 

21 accommodation.

22 When we last spoke about this, 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

66

1 came to the meeting and we -- it is actually 

2 the ingestion, inadvertent ingestion -- and 

3 we came to meeting under the impression that 

4 the effect of the full inadvertent ingestion 

5 rate by workers in these facilities was 0.5 

6 milligrams per day. That is, and in fact, you 

7 may even recall Bob brought a little vial with 

8 what 0.5 milligrams looks like and you could 

9 barely see it.

10 Now, Jim correctly pointed out, he 

11 said, no, no, no. We don't really do that. 

12 We have this, and it is a long story but it 

13 boils down to, whatever the air concentration 

14 is, milligrams per cubic meter, you multiply 

15 that number by 0.2 and you get milligrams per 

16 day ingested. And so if you have a hundred 

17 milligrams per cubic meter of dust --

18 MR. ELLIOTT: That can't be.

19 DR. MAURO: Let me finish and then 

20 you can say it.

21 MR. ELLIOTT: That's pretty high.

22 DR. MAURO: -- you can get 20, 
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 depending on what you add. 

2 So at the time, we were talking 

3 about some pretty high numbers. We were 

4 talking about high milligrams per cubic meter 

5 and you end up with pretty high ingestion 

6 rates. But and so as a result of that, we 

7 were wrong. It isn't just an automatic 0.5. 

8 In other words, we walked into the meeting 

9 saying it is always 0.5.

10 But it turns out though that after 

11 having an opportunity to sort of caucus and 

12 think about it a little bit, we realized that 

13 the reality is in most of these sites, the 

14 dust loadings are nowhere near 100 milligrams. 

15 They are closer to one. And then if you 

16 multiply that by you know, your 0.2, now you 

17 are getting back down to those really small 

18 numbers again.

19 And so I just wanted to bring that 

20 up to the Work Group that under most 

21 circumstances, when you are implementing this 

22 OTIB-0009 procedures where you are using 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

68

1 I call the 0.2 rule, you are going to come up 

2 with milligrams per day, in at least the case 

3 of uranium, that are going to be really, 

4 really small. And there is a certain 

5 incongruity between that number, let's say it 

6 turns out to be 0.5 milligrams per day, and 

7 what is widely used as a default value by EPA 

8 and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and 

9 NCRP. If they talk in terms of 50 milligrams 

10 a day or 100 milligrams per day.

11 Now, Jim correctly points out that 

12 when you go back to the literature behind 

13 that, you find out that, well, you know, that 

14 literature and the science upon which it is 

15 based is kind of weak. And we accept that, 

16 too.

17 So we are sort of in a bit of a 

18 strange place now. The 0.5 milligram per day 

19 number that you would get very often using the 

20 0.2 rule, intuitively doesn't seem to be right 

21 because it is so much smaller than what is 

22 reported or recommended by other agencies. 
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 Then we physically looked at it and said, my 

2 goodness, if you are in a dusty environment, 

3 it has got to be more than this.

4 So all I wanted to say is that we 

5 are troubled that if when you are doing a dose 

6 reconstruction for a worker and you are 

7 assigning some ingestion and it turns out that 

8 ingestion, especially if it is a dusty 

9 environment like an AWE facility -- and you 

10 end up with a 0.5 milligram per day ingestion 

11 rate, it just doesn't seem like you are really 

12 giving the benefit of the doubt to that worker 

13 with that number.

14 If you were coming in something in 

15 the order of tens of milligrams per day, it 

16 seems to ring more true. And I guess that is 

17 -- unless Bob you want to add anything --

18 that is where we come out on this.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are we talking 

20 about the actual mass of the --

21 DR. MAURO: Mass.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- material.
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 DR. MAURO: Yes.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Not the mass of 

3 a nuclide.

4 DR. NETON: That is my issue, if I 

5 could comment on it.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay, good.

7 DR. NETON: Everything you have 

8 said so far is true. But I always believed 

9 that the amount that you ingest is directly 

10 tied to the amount of surface contamination 

11 that is on the ground, which is tied to the 

12 air concentration.

13 So I cannot see a scenario where 

14 the air concentration approaches zero, close 

15 to zero -- I can't see assigning a ten 

16 milligram uranium mass intake when it is 

17 distributed maybe amongst some inert matrix, 

18 and that is where the issue comes in.

19 I don't disagree that a normal 

20 person may ingest 20, 50, 100 milligrams per 

21 day of material, dirt, dust, whatever. But 

22 when you spread that uranium among the inert 
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 matrix, then it is quite conceivable you can 

2 ingest 20 milligrams of material but only 

3 ingest 0.5 milligrams of uranium. I am not 

4 saying that you only ingest 0.5 milligrams of 

5 total material in the day. And that is, I 

6 think, our --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You almost never 

8 have a pure -- I say almost never because I 

9 know of cases where accidents have occurred 

10 where something has become airborne. In fact, 

11 I had one where the investigator -- an aerosol 

12 was generated right in his breathing zone. 

13 And he ingested virtually pure nuclide. The 

14 mass was not very much but the activity was 

15 terrific.

16 DR. NETON: Let's say this 

17 material were plutonium. Very high specific 

18 activity, very little mass. You have the same 

19 activity on the ground, are you going to say 

20 ten milligram intake of plutonium is just as 

21 well? So give it the same exact air 

22 concentrations, plutonium versus uranium, with 
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 the same particle size. How are you going to 

2 give a person exactly ten milligrams each for 

3 the same amount of activity? That doesn't --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

5 DR. MAURO: Okay.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: First of all, from 

7 my experience, I have worked extensively with 

8 EPA and NRC, I don't think it should be based 

9 on pure uranium. I think it should be based 

10 on total amount of matter ingested. And then 

11 on a case-by-case basis, it should be said, 

12 okay, here we have like, for instance, at 

13 Blockson when we did it, I maybe presented 

14 this one on several iterations, but in 

15 principle, they said okay. They rolled 

16 uranium on the weekends. They rolled steel 

17 during the week. So the contamination was a 

18 mixture of steel dust and uranium dust. And 

19 then there was a fraction assigned.

20 So, that kind of an approach would 

21 make sense where you assign some recognized 

22 amount of ingestion and then you apportion 
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 that ingestion to whatever else, you know, 

2 using some site specific estimates, here is 

3 steel, here is soil, here is whatever other 

4 substance forms a surface layer of, say, the 

5 upper millimeter or whatever you want to 

6 assign to the surface layer and then you have 

7 a concentration. I think pure uranium, unless 

8 it is a uranium fabricating facility which 

9 would have nothing but uranium, I think pure 

10 uranium probably is too conservative but I 

11 think that the total amount -- and the other 

12 problem I have is this OTIB-0009 is highly 

13 speculative. It is not based on data. 

14 Whereas, here we have at least a published 

15 report that is the policy of another 

16 government agency. And that should be given 

17 some precedence over something that is sort of 

18 ad hoc, made up. This has been, there was at 

19 one time an effort made by three agencies to 

20 come up with a rule, with some guidelines on 

21 recycling of metals from nuclear facilities. 

22 And there were three separate groups 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

74

1 contractors. One was working for EPA, which 

2 is us, one is working for NRC, which was SAIC, 

3 another one was working for DOE, which was 

4 ANL. And we had some disagreement but we came 

5 to a consensus and the consensus was we 

6 weren't talking about milligrams per day. We 

7 were talking about milligrams per hour of 

8 total --

9 DR. NETON: Inert material.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- material, of 

11 contaminated material.

12 DR. NETON: There is a difference, 

13 Bob, though.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?

15 DR. NETON: There is a difference.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But I mean, the 

17 same approach.

18 DR. NETON: Okay. Many of these 

19 facilities that we have, especially these 

20 small, what I call mom-and-pop, AWEs process 

21 uranium for very short durations of time. 

22 They aren't like the, what was the one where 
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 the -- Bethlehem Steel, where we had steel 

2 production and then uranium. There was one 

3 thing on top and mixing. And I think we all 

4 agreed that that model was probably the most 

5 appropriate application there. Well, you have 

6 a facility that works for two or three days 

7 and distributes some uranium and you know the 

8 air concentration, there is going to be 

9 essentially a surface settling.

10 And I think it makes the most 

11 sense to the take the predicted surface 

12 concentration times some factor of the -- and

13 you know the value, square meters per day that 

14 a person would ingest of that material, which 

15 is in the RESRAD-BUILD and there is 

16 distributions that we have calculated. And we 

17 have done that calculation and compared OTIB18 0009 to the RESRAD-BUILD calculations and we 

19 are right on.

20 DR. MAURO: For the 0.5 milligrams 

21 --

22 DR. NETON: No, no, 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

76

1 DR. MAURO: -- distributions.

2 DR. NETON: Based on air 

3 concentration --

4 DR. MAURO: No, no. He uses two 

5 approaches.

6 DR. NETON: Right.

7 DR. MAURO: And one is the 0.5 and 

8 one is the 50.

9 DR. NETON: Well, it has to do 

10 actually with the amount of square --

11 DR. MAURO: The material.

12 DR. NETON: -- area of material 

13 ingested per day. And they did sort of a 

14 sanity analysis and the amount ingested per 

15 day in the workplace using the higher value, 

16 they felt was inappropriate. And we agreed 

17 with them. We agreed with that analysis.

18 DR. MAURO: Well, in the end, I 

19 think that we are closing the gap and I agree. 

20 I see where you are coming from now. So, you 

21 are not disputing that -- listen, 50 

22 milligrams per day may very well be 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

77

1 people might ingest in a very dirty 

2 environment. But that 50 milligrams is not 

3 pure uranium.

4 Now my concern is that, at a lot 

5 of these AWE facilities where, let's say that 

6 is what they do, they roll, grind, that is 

7 what they do -- and it is well established 

8 that there was dust on the ground, on the 

9 floor, dust they could see in the air 

10 associated with the grinding and rolling 

11 operations. So the material that was 

12 distributed was uranium.

13 Now, under those circumstances, I 

14 would say the 0.5 if not going to hold up very 

15 well because you are dealing primarily -- yes, 

16 the stuff that is on the --

17 DR. NETON: You have to go back to 

18 -- under the surface concentration that we 

19 would predict would be on the surface, 

20 available for ingestion. That is where we --

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.

22 DR. NETON: It is intuitive to me 
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 that the higher the air concentration, the 

2 greater the chance for ingestion because as 

3 you just saw in the Adley analysis, our

4 settling rate is about right, if not a little 

5 high.

6 DR. MAURO: I'm with you.

7 DR. NETON: And so we take the air 

8 concentration, settle it down, and then have a 

9 person ingest a unit area.

10 DR. MAURO: That was the part that 

11 I was just troubled with, this business of 

12 well, we are going to assume a certain amount. 

13 Ten percent with something that is on your 

14 hand and then some fraction. That whole 

15 sequence of calculations to go from what is on 

16 the ground to what you ingest was --

17 DR. NETON: Well, for OTIB-0009, I 

18 mean, look at RESRAD-BUILD and they actually, 

19 there is a very good empirical analysis that 

20 was done of all the factors involved and there 

21 is a range. We can apply a uniform 

22 distribution of that range. In fact, I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 I looked at the upper end of that range 

2 against OTIB-0009 and it played out about 

3 right.

4 DR. MAURO: But he admits, you 

5 admit -- listen, let's go with the 0.5 case. 

6 Because it seems to me that it would be 

7 unusual for it to be this very dirty surface. 

8 Yes, it was 0.5 milligram per day.

9 In other words, there were two 

10 categories. The high, very dirty place and 

11 the clean place.

12 DR. NETON: Well, I don't know if 

13 it was dirty or clean. It had to do with the 

14 square meters of ingested material per day. 

15 It is all related to the meters squared per 

16 hour that a person ingests of the surface 

17 contamination. We have to go back and look at 

18 that. It is not a dirty versus a clean 

19 environment. It is like how much could a 

20 person really ingest in one day? Could you 

21 ingest -- I think it came down to you ingest 

22 about a postage-stamp size 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

80

1 DR. MAURO: Whatever is there.

2 DR. NETON: -- your work space 

3 every hour or something like that. Whatever 

4 is on that surface contamination level, --

5 DR. MAURO: But see, I am going 

6 back to what Bob had pointed out earlier about 

7 the amount of material that a person ingests, 

8 in terms of milligrams per day, they were 

9 actually talking the milligrams per hours, 

10 this is a steel mill now. We are looking at a 

11 steel mill.

12 So right now, you are working in a 

13 dirty environment and there is stuff on 

14 surfaces. I don't care if it's uranium or it 

15 is steel. If it is a dirty environment, you 

16 are going to be ingesting fairly large 

17 quantities.

18 Now the outcome of your 

19 calculation for an old AWE facility which is 

20 handling primarily uranium, where there is a 

21 lot of uranium on surfaces and you walk away 

22 with a note that says 0.5 milligrams per 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

81

1 we are going to have a problem with that.

2 DR. NETON: But again, our model 

3 is tied to the amount that is on the surface 

4 contamination.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What about the 

6 case --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You are not 

8 going to get 0.5 milligrams per day, unless it 

9 is fairly --

10 DR. NETON: If it is a fairly low 

11 surface contamination value, you will get a 

12 fairly low ingestion rate because you are not 

13 ingesting much uranium. You are ingesting a 

14 lot of inert material with it.

15 MEMBER POSTON: If you inhale it 

16 or ingest it, you are going to expectorate 

17 with stuff. Right?

18 DR. NETON: That is another point. 

19 And quite frankly, those ingestion models 

20 that the EPA and others rely on, as far as I 

21 can tell, do not account for the amount that 

22 is swallowed from inhalation. I think 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

82

1 are tied, personally.

2 MEMBER POSTON: Just think if we -

3 -

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You mean the 

5 stuff that is trapped and cleared and 

6 swallowed.

7 MEMBER POSTON: If it is oral and 

8 inhalation, you are going to expectorate.

9 DR. NETON: What I am saying, Bob, 

10 is those analyses measured the fecal output of 

11 people and determined the amount that was 

12 ingested and they did not account for the 

13 amount that they could have inhaled and 

14 ingested subsequently via the lungs.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

16 DR. NETON: So I believe that they 

17 are biased high. I can't prove it, but they 

18 certainly don't account for it.

19 DR. MAURO: And I concur with 

20 that.

21 DR. NETON: And that is fine.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are going 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

83

1 take a break. Fifteen minutes. It is 11:00. 

2 We will take a break until about 11:15 and 

3 then we will resume.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off

5 the record at 11:01 a.m. and 

6 resumed at 11:17 a.m.)

7 MR. KATZ: Okay, we are back from 

8 a break. Let me just check with someone on 

9 the line to make certain we have you. Mark?

10 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I am here, 

11 Ted.

12 MR. KATZ: Okay, great.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We are 

14 ready to deal with Appendix BB, which is 

15 General Steel Industries and the Issue Matrix 

16 there and also recognize that some of the 

17 issues involved here also spill over onto the 

18 SEC Petition Evaluation Report as well. So, 

19 to some extent we may get into those issues as 

20 well.

21 Dan McKeel has asked to make a 

22 statement to us. And Dan, are you on the line 
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 now?

2 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir, I am.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We would be 

4 pleased to have you make your initial 

5 statement here, Dan.

6 DR. McKEEL: All right. Thank you 

7 very much, Dr. Ziemer. Can you all hear me 

8 all right?

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, we hear you 

10 very well here.

11 DR. McKEEL: Very good. I wanted 

12 to primarily speak about the most recent 

13 documents from SC&A on its review of the NIOSH 

14 SEC 105 petition. And I think those findings 

15 are so important that they really override 

16 many other considerations and they include 

17 comments about Appendix BB. So they will 

18 pretty much encompass my thoughts on both of 

19 those important documents.

20 The first finding is their issue 

21 seven which has to do with dose 

22 reconstructions not based on based on 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

85

1 available science. And in that finding, SC&A 

2 documented, and this is quoting from their 

3 paper, has documented a number of scientific 

4 errors in Appendix BB. Most noted is a 20-

5 fold error in calculating the dose from 

6 irradiated uranium, which we found in the 

7 computer files used by NIOSH, although this 

8 error increases the dose rate and is, 

9 therefore, claimant-favorable, it is not 

10 scientifically correct.

11 And I think the very important 

12 comment is that the calculated values are, 

13 therefore, not acceptable for use in dose 

14 reconstructions.

15 The second comment is on issue 

16 eight, incomplete model use for exposure 

17 assessments. And SC&A's finding there, and I 

18 quote, is that, other indications were that 

19 the NIOSH model is incomplete, as given by 

20 Buker et al in 2008.

21 In section 7.3.4.1 under the 

22 heading Neutron Dose is the statement, a study 
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 is in place to determine the photon-to-neutron 

2 ratio. That would be a NIOSH study. As we 

3 found in our audit of Case B, NIOSH has 

4 neglected the neutron dose in performing dose 

5 reconstructions. And I would like to add that 

6 I sent four separate requests to OCAS trying 

7 to get a copy of this photon-to-neutron study 

8 and was unable to do so. And I was finally 

9 told that that data was incorporated in the 

10 White Paper that NIOSH issued in November of 

11 2008 and in the SC&A comments to it. And as 

12 you will see later on, apparently SC&A is not 

13 aware of that fact. So I asked for the pages 

14 of that White Paper that had the relevant 

15 photon-to-neutron study data. And I got no 

16 reply about that.

17 Under the heading Neutron Dose on 

18 page 36 of SC&A's review is the statement 

19 again that a study is in place to determine 

20 the photon-to-neutron ratio. And there the 

21 comment by SC&A was we have to reserve further 

22 comments on the neutron dose assessment until 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 we have had a chance to review the 

2 aforementioned study.

3 The third comment I have relates 

4 to issue eight. And again, that is the 

5 incomplete model used for exposure assessments 

6 and I think this is a very powerful statement. 

7 Given the undetermined status of the model, 

8 we find that the dose reconstructions 

9 performed by NIOSH to date, do not meet the 

10 standard of scientific accuracy. And of 

11 course, we all recognize that they are the 

12 words that are a necessary determination to 

13 award an SEC.

14 The fourth comment I have is about 

15 SC&A's issue number three: lack of 

16 documentation. And the conclusion of that 

17 finding I want to highlight is that 

18 consequently, it does not appear to be 

19 possible to determine the exposure of workers 

20 to uranium from January 1st, 1953, the assumed 

21 start of uranium handling operations to March 

22 1, 1958.
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 And furthermore, my comment to 

2 that was that part of the source 

3 characterization at GSI would include not only 

4 the cobalt-60 sources, which there are two of, 

5 but also the iridium-192 source, the 250 kVp 

6 x-ray unit, and perhaps as was discussed in 

7 TBD-6000, the thorium-234 that is in the top 

8 crop and sides and top and bottom, as a matter 

9 of fact we believe, of the raw un-machined 

10 dingots and ingots that were sent over from 

11 Mallinckrodt to GSI for x-ray examination.

12 And then SC&A also confirms that 

13 finding and says on page 30 that, finally, no 

14 mention is made of the potential exposures to

15 other radiation sources during the pre-'64 

16 period, such as the 250 kVp x-ray machine and 

17 cobalt-60 and perhaps iridium-192 sources. I 

18 wanted to highlight that.

19 The finding number four and issue 

20 relates to film badge dosimetry dependence on 

21 photon energies and exposure geometry. And 

22 the major finding there was SC&A observes 
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 after a long set of deliberations about this, 

2 that the film badge records are, at best, an 

3 approximate measure of the radiation doses 

4 received by their wearers.

5 Later on page 29, SC&A comments on 

6 several incidents that involved sealed sources 

7 and has a note there about a particular 

8 incident that we believe refers to the highest 

9 dose recorded at GSI. This was a dose 

10 received by a worker when he, we believe, was 

11 unable to replace a cobalt-60 sealed source 

12 and left it open for 16 hours. And that 

13 comment should be noted as well.

14 And I think after I finish, 

15 perhaps later in the discussion, John Ramspott 

16 may be able to fill in details if that 

17 particular incident still is an issue.

18 On page 3 -- 31 of the SC&A review 

19 is this comment. Another issue is the energy 

20 dependence of the film badge dosimetry. The 

21 exposure conditions at GSI were different from 

22 those in most other facilities. Before 
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 relying on the film badges to validate its 

2 model of worker exposures, NIOSH should 

3 characterize the spectrum of the photons 

4 incident on the film badge, including angular 

5 corrections and compare it to the spectrum of 

6 the radiation source used to calibrate the 

7 badges.

8 Only by means of such a comparison 

9 can the film badge readings be meaningfully 

10 translated into radiation doses. Even then, 

11 the dose registered by the film badge would be 

12 meaningful only if the radiation field were 

13 consistent with the anterior-posterior 

14 exposure geometry.

15 And my comment is that I believe 

16 at the November 10th, 2008 Work Group meeting, 

17 Dr. Neton from NIOSH was going to look into 

18 several aspects that were not finalized by 

19 then, including the isotope sources and the 

20 film sensitivity, the dental film sensitivity 

21 used at GSI in the Landauer badges to 24 and 

22 25 MeV betatron energies. And I think 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

91

1 still need to have that assessment, as SC&A 

2 seems to indicate.

3 My sixth point relates to issue 

4 number five, the lack of validation of models 

5 of radiation exposure of betatron operators. 

6 And I would just comment that, as we all know, 

7 SC&A developed a model. NIOSH developed a 

8 model. And in the White Paper in November 

9 '08, both of those model external doses were 

10 compared to the film badge readings.

11 SC&A's finding was, in short, 

12 neither the film badge data nor the model 

13 exposures can be used to establish an upper 

14 bound to the external exposures of betatron 

15 operators that is claimant-favorable and 

16 scientifically correct. That is the end of 

17 that quote.

18 The next to the last point is on 

19 page 32 of the SC&A report. And that relates 

20 to Section 7.2.4, internal dose reconstruction 

21 feasibility conclusion. And in that, SC&A 

22 states the following: NIOSH concludes 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

92

1 the methods described in Battelle-TBD-6000 and 

2 Battelle-TBD-6000 Appendix BB provide 

3 reasonable approaches to conservatively bound 

4 internal doses for all members of the class 

5 under evaluation. That is NIOSH's statement. 

6 SC&A says, we disagree with this conclusion 

7 for reasons discussed in sections 4.13 and 

8 5.16.

9 And finally, I would like to draw 

10 attention to the quote on page 38 of 50 that 

11 is 5.24 in the SC&A report and relates to 

12 Section 7.6 of NIOSH's SEC Evaluation and that 

13 is titled Summary of Feasibility Findings for 

14 Petition SEC 00105.

15 SC&A says this: we agree that with 

16 a few exceptions Allen and Glover in 2007 do 

17 provide guidance to enable health physicists 

18 to perform dose reconstructions. And of 

19 course Allen and Glover 2007 is Appendix BB. 

20 The exceptions are vague instructions for 

21 assessing intakes of uranium dust via the 

22 ingestion pathway and ambiguity in assigning 
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 workers who may have performed radiography 

2 using sealed sources outside the betatron 

3 buildings, the radiation exposures prescribed 

4 for betatron operators or those prescribed for 

5 the general worker population.

6 These issues aside, we find that 

7 the guidance provided by Allen and Glover is 

8 neither claimant-favorable nor scientifically 

9 valid.

10 And to the petitioner and I 

11 believe the workers and site experts that I 

12 represent, those eight items are really fully 

13 sufficient and compelling for the TBD-6000 

14 Work Group to recommend to the full Board, 

15 hopefully even as early at the October 20-22 

16 upcoming meeting in New York to reverse 

17 NIOSH's recommendation to deny SEC 105 based 

18 on Appendix BB and the SEC Evaluation Report 

19 assertions that it is feasible for NIOSH to do 

20 accurate dose reconstructions.

21 So that is my final finding 

22 comment. I just wanted to add one footnote --
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 and there are some other footnotes in the 

2 written version of this that I mailed to 

3 everybody this morning -- and that was that, 

4 in the SC&A report Attachment A, which has to 

5 do with Dr. Anigstein's interview with the 

6 petitioner, the primary petitioner, it says 

7 that the primary petitioner had not responded 

8 to Dr. Anigstein by the time of his report. 

9 And I did talk to the petitioner 

10 and she said, and sent me the email confirming 

11 this, that she did reply to Dr. Anigstein. 

12 And it was distributed to members of the Work 

13 Group, to SC&A and NIOSH on July 7, 2009. 

14 That reply is very interesting and I would 

15 urge you all to please read it because it has 

16 a different tenor to it and some additional 

17 facts about herself and her relatives that 

18 were GSI claimants. And I think that's 

19 important: to keep the record accurate.

20 So, that is the end of my comments

21 and I am extremely appreciative that you all 

22 let me address you this morning on these 
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 ideas. Thank you very much.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, 

3 Dan. And I think Bob is going to comment on 

4 your last comment right now. I think he did 

5 in fact subsequently receive that.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Tell us what the 

8 status is of that.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If Dr. McKeel 

10 would note on the top of the interview report, 

11 Attachment 1 is dated June 24th. And I 

12 submitted the -- that was the date on which I 

13 initially wrote this.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This report.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I originally wrote 

16 the report. Now I don't have the date here 

17 where I distributed it, but I think it was at 

18 least one week later. It was early in July 

19 that I sent this out to the Work Group. And 

20 my point was that at that time, they said she 

21 has not responded as of this date.

22 I fully acknowledge that I did get 
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 the response later emailed to me and I 

2 forwarded that response to the members of the 

3 Work Group and to NIOSH staff involved with 

4 Appendix BB. And as a matter of fact, I will 

5 comment on that later on because there is an 

6 agenda item where I am asked to report 

7 specifically on my interviews. So I will 

8 comment on that.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And 

10 initially that was a separate item on the 

11 first draft agenda. But then, since you had 

12 incorporated -- then that is fine and it is 

13 still on this agenda but it appears as part of 

14 the SC&A document here because your reports on 

15 those interviews were incorporated into the 

16 document.

17 Originally when I made the agenda, 

18 I didn't realize those reports were going to 

19 be in the document so had called that out as a 

20 separate item.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes and no, 

22 because there was another interview that 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

97

1 not strictly part of the SEC that I conducted 

2 and sent a report on.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It was not in 

4 here.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It is not in here.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

7 Yes and thank you, Dan, for that input. 

8 Actually, we will be discussing the SC&A 

9 report specifically as part of item five. 

10 I do want to back up a little bit 

11 here first and take a look at the original 

12 Appendix BB Issues Matrix and make sure we are 

13 updated on that. And just some carry-over 

14 items which were directly related to the 

15 original matrix, although they all have 

16 implications also on the petition as well.

17 First of all, to see if there is 

18 any additional update from SC&A on the film 

19 badge review. Is there anything since our 

20 last meeting that we need to be updated on? 

21 And --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: 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

98

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- I guess I 

2 will lump in there, both for SC&A and maybe 

3 for NIOSH as well, the third item which has to 

4 do with the so-called Picker x-ray issues. I 

5 don't know if SC&A looked at that at all but 

6 NIOSH was going to look at that.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We looked at it to 

8 some extent.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. But 

10 anyway, so update us on that and then I am 

11 going to report briefly or remind you of the 

12 one document that I generated reviewing those 

13 high dose values, which that was distributed 

14 after our last meeting.

15 Okay, Bob, go ahead. We have a 

16 PowerPoint presentation. And are these slides 

17 that we can later share with --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, these have 

19 been, at the last -- 15 minutes before my taxi 

20 was due, I saw Emily's email clearing --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So these have 

22 been cleared and we can --
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 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But I have not 

2 distributed them.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No but we can 

4 get electronic copies distributed both to the 

5 Work Group and the petitioners very soon.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So we 

8 have a series of PowerPoints and Bob is going 

9 to discuss those. And Dr. McKeel, we'll get 

10 you copies of these. Work Group members don't 

11 have copies yet either.

12 DR. McKEEL: Thank you very much.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If the 

14 electronics fire up here, we will be able to -

15 -

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, so I am just 

17 going to -- this is a complete history of the 

18 film badge measure issue.

19 I distributed a preliminary 

20 version which wasn't cleared and so there was 

21 some material on yours and back here, and also 

22 on a later, my next presentation of 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

100

1 material that I added later is now in use. 

2 So, the two are not consistent.

3 Okay, so our first review, I was 

4 working from a CD and I tried printing. And 

5 some of the results were not clear, 

6 particularly in 1954.

7 COURT REPORTER: Sir, I need you 

8 to keep your voice up.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon me?

10 COURT REPORTER: At the end of 

11 your sentences, you trail off. I need you to 

12 keep your voice up.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

14 Then there was a Work Group 

15 meeting about November 10th I think or 

16 something like that. And immediately after 

17 the meeting, or when I requested or commented 

18 on the fact that some of the data was not 

19 legible, I was sent a much better copy, a hard 

20 copy of 1964. So I was able to read those and 

21 then the later one through '65 and later, we 

22 are able to decipher. So I would say 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

101

1 100 percent.

2 In the end, I had 100 percent 

3 coverage of every weekly report from January 

4 '64 through June '66. The January '64, by 

5 implication, went back to mid-November 1963. 

6 There were seven previous weeks which were not 

7 covered but where I did not see the actual 

8 report but we could infer because they would 

9 give cumulative doses and in no case was there 

10 a dose where all cases that all the readings 

11 were minimal.

12 So if it was a total during this 

13 period, a total of 88 workers, NIOSH reported 

14 89, but it turned out there was one worker 

15 that was added after the fact.

16 COURT REPORTER: Sir, please keep 

17 your voice up.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?

19 COURT REPORTER: You need to keep 

20 your voice up.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, okay.

22 COURT REPORTER: You trail off 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

102

1 the end of the sentence.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It is just the 

3 microphone placement.

4 COURT REPORTER: I will just say 

5 that you trail off at the end of your 

6 sentences and that is what I was --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Okay, thank 

8 you. I will try to remember that.

9 So, of these as it is said, there 

10 were 66 workers during this two and a half 

11 year period, every reading was kept. There 

12 were 13 total readings where the reading was 

13 seven millirem and then there were ten 

14 readings -- sorry, 13 readings equal to ten 

15 millirem and ten readings greater than ten 

16 millirem. There was some question for the 

17 film badges of that period whether ten 

18 millirem was really a good number.

19 So then based on material that was 

20 sent by Dr. McKeel, communicated to the Work 

21 Group, Dr. Ziemer has asked that we look at it 

22 further because Dr. McKeel was under 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 impression there was some very high dose 

2 readings and I had not seen those high 

3 original review. And I confirmed week by week 

4 and confirmed that there were no such very 

5 high readings.

6 And then by accident, I was 

7 looking at the later data to investigate the 

8 report by another worker who said he had had 

9 an accident with a cobalt-60 source. And I 

10 knew his name. I was going to look him up and 

11 see what kind of readings were reported on his 

12 film badge. And in the process of doing that, 

13 I found yes, there were some very high 

14 readings. I found that out by simply skimming 

15 every six months down to every six weeks from 

16 1966 through 1973. But by looking at every 

17 six months it would tell me if there were some 

18 high readings and then I was able to go back 

19 and trace the actual week.

20 MEMBER POSTON: What does high 

21 mean?

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Emily?
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 MEMBER POSTON: I'm not asking you 

2 for a name. I am asking for a --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I know. I 

4 know. I was told I can't mention numbers.

5 MS. HOWELL: I didn't hear the 

6 question.

7 MEMBER POSTON: I want to know 

8 what high means. High is qualitative.

9 MS. HOWELL: That is fine.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I can mention 

11 numbers?

12 MEMBER MUNN: You can say how high 

13 is high.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We had one dose 

15 that was recorded at 38,500 millirem. Another 

16 one that was 19,000 something. 

17 Okay. What happened there was 

18 these would have immediately caught attention. 

19 These were higher than the annual limits at 

20 the time. So these would have most likely 

21 been communicated immediately. The badges 

22 were typically processed up to a month later. 
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 So these, you know, in retrospective 

2 probability analysis, we said undoubtedly 

3 these would have been -- those readings would 

4 have most likely been communicated to the 

5 radiation -- the person assigned radiation 

6 officer who also was known to be the 

7 supervisor at the time.

8 These took place in 1969 and in 

9 1970. There were two such cases. In the 

10 first such case what we found was the notation 

11 DS on the film badge report. First there was 

12 the weekly report for all the workers that 

13 covered that week. Then there was a second

14 page with just for that one worker same dose 

15 but it said DS. And we confirmed with Joe 

16 Zlotnicki who is an SC&A associate who 

17 formerly worked for Landauer, he said DS means 

18 does subtractant. And he said most likely, 

19 they would have some correspondence. 

20 He communicated with Landauer and 

21 found inside with variability of all of the 

22 correspondence which showed in the first case 
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 the worker had written a memo to the 

2 supervisor, a very simple typewritten memo, 

3 saying during the week of, the week 

4 corresponding to that high reading, I wore so 

5 and so's, you know, Smith, to give you a name, 

6 Smith's badge and I dropped it in the betatron 

7 room and I retrieved it later.

8 Then that memo was attached to a 

9 memo from the supervisor/radiation officer to 

10 Landauer requesting that that dose be 

11 subtracted. And in fact, the dose -- this 

12 took place over a month or two; it took a 

13 while for the letter to get written, for 

14 Landauer to act. And once Landauer acted and 

15 issued that second report with the DS on it or 

16 subsequent for the rest of the time this 

17 worker worked at GSI or at least was part of a 

18 film badge program, all of his cumulative 

19 doses were at a minimum. So that dose had 

20 been removed from his record.

21 The second case would be 19-plus 

22 rem dose. The worker himself wrote the letter 
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 to Landauer saying that he had, during that 

2 week or during a particular day, it was on 

3 Friday he dropped his badge in the shooting 

4 room and retrieved it the following Monday, 

5 from my memory. 

6 And he requested, and as 

7 documentation for this, he said he worked with 

8 three other workers and gave their names and 

9 badge numbers. And he said at all times that 

10 he was in the shooting room, at least one of 

11 those three were with him and all of their 

12 badges showed no reading. Therefore, he uses 

13 that as evidence that his badge in fact was 

14 not exposed while he was wearing it.

15 And again, Landauer issued another 

16 dose report with a DS and subsequent to that 

17 all of that person's badges, all of that 

18 hazard report had cumulative, I think in this 

19 case he already had a 40 millirem accumulated 

20 dose so in the future, it reverted back to 40.

21 There was a third one of 

22 approximately seven rem where there were 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

108

1 comments and no redactions. Now all of this 

2 took place in the '69 -- in the post-AEC 

3 period. So strictly speaking, it is not 

4 relevant. But it is relevant only if you say 

5 well, GSI continued with the same supervisor, 

6 the same radiation sources, meaning the 

7 betatrons and whatever, isotope sources and x8 ray machines that they had. There is no 

9 indication they got new machines or new 

10 sources. So it could be argued, therefore, 

11 that this was representative of what could 

12 have happened in the earlier time, even though 

13 there were no such high badge readings during 

14 -- the highest badge reading was in excess of 

15 two rem during the covered period.

16 So, basically then, the later 

17 report, later documents for this one, this 

18 April 2, 2009 report, detailed chronology on 

19 this day the letter was sent, on this day the 

20 redaction, the dose subtraction took place. 

21 And it was very plausible chronology that it 

22 would have taken that many days for this 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

109

1 have taken place and then --

2 COURT REPORTER: Sir, I will ask 

3 you one more time. Please keep your voice up 

4 at the end of your sentences.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Finally as 

6 requested on April 17th, I produced redacted 

7 copies of all of this correspondence so that 

8 it could be shared with members of the public 

9 who requested it. And this consisted of the 

10 two letters. One letter from the radiation 

11 officer, accompanied by the memo of the worker 

12 to the radiation officer. The second letter 

13 from the worker himself and then copies of the 

14 corrected dosimetry report. So all of that is 

15 publicly available.

16 The only other items that I have 

17 which were -- the question had arisen about 

18 whether there were metal filters in those 

19 badges. And there is a photograph that can be 

20 furnished at SC&A's request by Landauer. And 

21 this is from the historical collection. One 

22 of the badges that they talked about 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

110

1 little red badges. And if you look here and 

2 here are evidence of these metal discs that 

3 were placed over the film as filter. And 

4 there were three so maybe I guess there is a 

5 third one back here.

6 And the purpose of these, of 

7 course, was to give some idea of the quality 

8 of the radiation. And in one case, there was 

9 even a notation on the dose, the H, which 

10 means high energy.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, plus the 

12 cut-out represents the open window part as 

13 well. So that is a third energy determiner.

14 MEMBER POSTON: Actually, there 

15 would be four.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I used Landauer 

17 badges and there were typically three metals 

18 plus the plastic. And the left one probably 

19 was not a metal filter here. It is probably 

20 just plastic. So we had open window, plastic, 

21 and three different metals.

22 MEMBER POSTON: So there are four 
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 filters over it.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. The 

4 plastic, I would guess, would take out the 

5 betas.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, because there 

8 was a space. In the report there was a column 

9 for beta and it was always black.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Your 

11 open window you get beta plus gamma.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The other, less 

14 would be gammas or x-rays. And you could do 

15 some energy determinations from the filters.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And the next page, 

17 this is taken from an -- ORAU has a museum, I 

18 haven't visited it in a long time, of 

19 historical radiation devices. And on their 

20 website, excerpts from their website, it shows 

21 exactly the same Landauer badge. And it 

22 comments they have three circular metal 
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 filters.

2 So okay, that is the end of the 

3 film badge story.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So what we 

5 insert here, on those, one of the questions 

6 that was raised by the petitioners was whether 

7 or not those memos that went into Landauer and 

8 the removal of the subtracting of the value, 

9 whether those corresponded to people whose 

10 badges were on the list.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Now the one issue 

12 where there was a little discrepancy is the 

13 worker, and this was, I mean, I have the 

14 report but this is from my memory --

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, let me get 

16 it because it is in my report. And that is, 

17 there were two things. One is, on the one 

18 high exposure, the worker whose name 

19 corresponded to the number on the list had 

20 written or another worker had written, there 

21 were two individuals, that he had used that 

22 other person's badge and had dropped it 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

113

1 there.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the names 

4 agreed with names on the list.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There was one 

6 discrepancy. There was a discrepancy and that 

7 was that that worker said I used Smith's 

8 badge. He himself was not issued the badge 

9 until over a month later or six weeks later, 

10 was the first time that his name appeared.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: His name 

12 appeared in January. This was --

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Actually, I found 

14 it in December.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, you found 

16 it in December. I know I saw it on the 

17 January badge.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was in the 

19 report.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: He certainly 

21 showed up later on the list. 

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: 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

114

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So he was an 

2 individual there.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But he was not 

4 badged --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: At that time.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- at that time.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And apparently 

8 had used this other person's badge or at least 

9 that is what he was claiming.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. I did notice 

11 that at times there were unassigned badges. 

12 That badge lists were composed of badge 

13 numbers with names and then there were 

14 frequently numbers in the badge report with no 

15 names.

16 Now I can't comment any further on 

17 that. Whether that worker could have been 

18 told, take one of these temporary badges, 

19 unassigned badges that we have, because in 

20 discussing this again with Zlotnicki, he said 

21 well, the number was only attached to the 

22 badge report once GSI told them 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

115

1 assigned badge number 50 to worker such-and2 such.

3 And they might very well, if they 

4 were given, I am just speculating, if they 

5 were given these, why would they have been 

6 given extra badges, and I would speculate well 

7 if somebody shows up, they are not going to 

8 say well you can't work until we send your 

9 name in to Landauer and they issue you a 

10 badge. Yes, you start working now and here is 

11 the badge. And later on when we get around to 

12 it, we will tell Landauer that you are the 

13 person wearing that badge.

14 So I am just speculating, he may 

15 have been told to pick up the badge that is 

16 unassigned and instead, he picked up an 

17 assigned one.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well in any 

19 event --

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It is plausible, 

21 whether it is true or not. 

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- we confirmed 
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 that those were people who were on the list.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, there was a 

3 real person who had not been issued a badge.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: On the other 

5 case, also the individual, all of the 

6 individuals named, including the ones with 

7 minimals that he referred to, all showed up on 

8 the list of workers.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And they were 

10 current.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And I 

12 found one discrepancy in the number and I 

13 included this in the report. There was one 

14 digit in the badge number that I couldn't tell 

15 whether it was a three or an eight. The copy 

16 was very fuzzy.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think I 

18 confirmed that it was probably an eight.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well in any 

20 event, --

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We magnified it.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- I thought 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

117

1 looked like a three when the number was listed 

2 on the list as an eight.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well my impression 

4 was that it probably was an eight.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, in any 

6 event, the only other question that some may 

7 have is whether or not workers were made to do 

8 this. There was some implication I think that 

9 there was an implication at least, and I don't 

10 know if anyone was actually asserting this, 

11 that these workers may have been told that 

12 this had to be subtracted. I don't know that 

13 to be the case.

14 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

15 Dan McKeel. May I --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We have this 

17 written documentation. Dan, do you have a 

18 comment on that?

19 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir. I would 

20 like to just -- John Ramspott has done 

21 extensive -- more investigation of this but I 

22 have two comments.
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 One is when I wrote Landauer and 

2 received my set of data from them in January 

3 2007, their employee wrote me a letter which 

4 stated, highlighted, that there were two 

5 workers that had received above-the-limit 

6 doses in the reports that she was sending to 

7 me.

8 And so all I can say is perhaps 

9 she overlooked those DS notations that Dr. 

10 Anigstein apparently has in his dataset. But 

11 at least the official Landauer letter to me 

12 conveying those data did not contain any 

13 information about doses having been retracted.

14 And then the other thing to 

15 comment is of course we know the names of the 

16 people who had the 38 rem and the 19 rem 

17 doses. And moreover, we have talked to 

18 everybody alive in their families. Now 

19 neither of those two workers are alive. They 

20 are both deceased. And we have claimed all 

21 along that the Privacy Act certainly does not 

22 cover deceased persons and, in fact, as proof 
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 that the HHS OGC office apparently agrees with 

2 that idea sometimes but not others, in the SEC 

3 Evaluation Report by SC&A, they in fact 

4 revealed the name of John Ramspott's wife who 

5 is deceased, while they redact John's name, 

6 itself.

7 So anyway, I would like Mr. 

8 Ramspott to fill the Board and everybody in on 

9 what we have found but I will give you the 

10 headline first. The headline first is that 

11 one of the workers who by all reasoning that 

12 we can do without knowing the names on you 

13 all's letters and memos, the second worker 

14 that Dr. Anigstein mentions denies that he 

15 ever wrote such a letter to Landauer and in 

16 fact has no knowledge of him having that high 

17 dose reading. So that is number one.

18 The first one, the person with the 

19 highest dose; we have talked to all 

20 [identifying information redacted] of his 

21 [identifying information redacted] who were 

22 told about this incident by their father, 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

120

1 person that we have named on this, and I am 

2 going to let John fill in the story. We 

3 believe that the story told is true. We 

4 believe that the highest dose reading actually 

5 was incurred by the gentleman whose name that 

6 dose is assigned to.

7 So John, are you on and could you 

8 fill in the Board on what we found, please?

9 MR. RAMSPOTT: I am on the line 

10 and I am going to ask Terry Dutko, are you on 

11 the line as well?

12 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir.

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: The reason I am 

14 asking if Terry is on the line is that Terry 

15 and I actually interviewed live, in person, 

16 about two and a half months ago, the isotope 

17 supervisor foreman who actually reported the 

18 incident that took place that we believe 

19 resulted in the highest badge reading. We do 

20 know the names. Actually, Terry tracked down 

21 this foreman, the isotope foreman for the 

22 gentleman whose name ends in P. You will -- 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

121

1 know who I am talking about.

2 But I do have to follow up on Dr. 

3 McKeel's one comment. We had to go through a 

4 lot of cloak-and-dagger and hit-and-miss to 

5 find these people and I really was surprised 

6 to see the redaction of deceased names apply 

7 sometimes to us and not to others. You know, 

8 my wife, Christine, has no problem, I am sure, 

9 with her name being in this report. As a 

10 matter of fact, I know she is smiling down on 

11 us because we are trying to remedy this for 

12 all the workers and her father happened to be 

13 one of them. But to use her name, redact 

14 mine, then play a lot of cat-and-mouse where 

15 we can't get names, seems like there is two 

16 sets of standards to me, and I think that 

17 should be noted.

18 But I am going to move into the 

19 meat of the situation and one comment that, 

20 before I let Terry start to explain some of 

21 this because he was a worker who was there. 

22 You guys like first-hand information. He 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

122

1 there. He was a worker. I just happened to 

2 be sitting in on this interview. And Terry 

3 and I both swear to the fact that we sat 

4 there. As a matter of fact, the gentleman we 

5 interviewed, I have a nice smiling picture of 

6 him in a 1964 magazine with him noted as an 

7 isotope operator and a picture of him that 

8 morning Terry and I met with him. And he does 

9 happen to have a GSI dosimetry pencil in his 

10 pocket, which he showed us as well. So there 

11 definitely were other sets of detection 

12 devices used at GSI, which we don't seem to 

13 have any records for.

14 The one big factor that I am going 

15 to bring out, I hope, in my own personal 

16 opinion, this should show the amount of -- I 

17 am going to use a nice word like deceit 

18 because the story starts to change a lot when 

19 you talk the man who was a foreman there. 

20 This incident, as Dr. Anigstein noted in the 

21 letter he received, was from the betatron 

22 room. Well it couldn't be further 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

123

1 truth, unless there is two such accidents with 

2 the same man, at the same place, at the same 

3 time, with the same high badge reading because 

4 this gentleman was very, very specific to tell 

5 us that this whole incident took place in 6 

6 Building in the 

7 small isotope NDT testing area, totally 

8 opposite direction from the plant. And of 

9 course, we think this will lend credence to 

10 why the isotope sources must be considered. 

11 Actually by law all radiation must be included 

12 in dose reconstructions. It is the law. It 

13 seems to have been overlooked.

14 And in this case here, this 

15 Building number 6 also happened to house her 

16 other supervisors at GSI, anywhere from 200 to 

17 300 unbadged, I am going to repeat that, 

18 unbadged workers when the supposed accident 

19 took place. So, Terry, can you fill us in on 

20 the details as we heard them from Mr. last 

21 name starting in D? Would you, please?

22 MR. DUTKO: Yes, we met with 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

124

1 gentleman early in August. We stated that 

2 this individual who he was supervisor over 

3 supposedly dropped the film badge, supposedly 

4 in the shooting area of number 6 Building. 

5 For some odd reason, I don't know why, went 

6 home off the job, signed the report in the log 

7 sheet when he left as to there being a hot 

8 isotope in the shooting room.

9 [identifying information 

10 redacted], supervisor, came in 16 hours later, 

11 saw this report. Joe Polo happened to be 

12 there. I talked with Joe Polo and Joe Polo 

13 verified that the pit was left hot. This 

14 gentleman had gone home. He expected to be 

15 fired. 

16 Now when this gentleman went home 

17 -- and I talked to this gentleman's son not 

18 too long ago, his son claimed that when he 

19 came home he was very upset and crying that he 

20 had a bad exposure. He had a bad exposure 

21 occur at work. He expected to be fired.

22 One thing I know for sure without 
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 question, without speculation: any time anyone 

2 was brought in employment into the betatron, 

3 they were the top Magnaflux operator. 

4 Magnaflux was a starting job. They did not 

5 enter the betatron without an assigned film 

6 badge. At no time, especially not six months 

7 or six weeks or two months later. They had 

8 temporary badges if needed. These temporary 

9 badges were always recorded and assigned if 

10 needed.

11 This gentleman supposedly took a 

12 film badge of the reported incident of 

13 somebody else's, dropped it in a shooting 

14 room, when all in all this incident occurred 

15 in 6 Building. It was a contrived incident 

16 made up by management as a cover-up to this 

17 film badge incident. I know the gentleman's 

18 name. Not only that, another exposure 

19 incident I talked personally, the fellow from 

20 work I worked with, he had a seven rem 

21 exposure and didn't even know it. He was 

22 never even told of it but it was on his film 
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 badge records.

2 Now it is this kind of, well, how 

3 would you call it, injustice that we found out 

4 personally there is no doubt in my mind 

5 something happened to this gentleman. I know 

6 not what but I think he had a serious 

7 accident. It had to be covered up and that is 

8 exactly what it looks like because that is 

9 what this gentleman basically told us.

10 DR. McKEEL: Terry, this is Dan 

11 McKeel. Can you also tell about the 

12 involvement of St. Louis Testing in this? 

13 Because that is further corroboration of what 

14 happened.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Before you do 

16 that, let me ask a question. This is Ziemer.

17 DR. McKEEL: Sure.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Did I understand 

19 you to say that he did actually leave the area 

20 but left his badge in there? In other words -

21 -

22 MR. DUTKO: This is what 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

127

1 told by this gentleman. He left. He 

2 accidentally dropped his film badge in the 

3 shooting room and not know it.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But not in the 

5 betatron room.

6 MR. DUTKO: No, this was in number 

7 6 Building, shooting room, sir.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So that was 

9 what?

10 MR. DUTKO: Number 6 Building 

11 cobalt.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That is the 

13 cobalt source?

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was a small 

15 cobalt source.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, but what I 

17 am sort of asking is you are not asserting 

18 that the value on the badge then represented 

19 his exposure, since the badge was left in the 

20 shooting room overnight, apparently.

21 MR. DUTKO: Sir, I think it was 

22 there for 16 hours because [identifying 
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 information redacted] was called in by 

2 [identifying information redacted] --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I have got 

4 you --

5 MR. DUTKO: -- at the suggestion 

6 of Joe Polo.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But the 

8 individual was not in there during that 

9 period.

10 MR. DUTKO: Right. They called 

11 him --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

13 MR. DUTKO: But whether this man 

14 had an exposure, I can't say, sir. I can't 

15 say. But there was something that happened, 

16 something that happened in this closure 

17 completely away from the betatron --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Got you.

19 MR. DUTKO: -- where they 

20 contrived this letter that somebody dropped 

21 not even their own film badge. And sir, as 

22 long as I worked there, nothing like this ever 
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 happened, --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

3 MR. DUTKO: -- as far as somebody 

4 not having an assigned film badge, by 

5 liability alone, when they walked into that 

6 betatron. You could take that to the bank.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

8 Go ahead.

9 One comment from Bob here.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I would like to 

11 make two responses. One is Dr. McKeel's 

12 observation or Dr. McKeel's report or the 

13 letter that he got from Landauer, that is 

14 completely consistent with the dose 

15 subtraction because each of these two initial 

16 reports, the 38-plus rem and the 19-plus rem, 

17 happened towards the end. One was October 30 

18 and one was in November.

19 So what Dr. McKeel was given or 

20 what the lady from Landauer was looking at was 

21 the year-end report. And in fact, the year22 end report, the December 31st report, 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

130

1 these workers for two different years, 1969 

2 and 1970, would, in fact, have contained those 

3 doses. They were subtracted in January or 

4 February in those two cases, of the following 

5 year. 

6 So she was giving correct 

7 information but it was not complete. 

8 Unknowingly incomplete information.

9 DR. McKEEL: But Dr. Anigstein, I 

10 did get the end of year badges through 1973. 

11 So, Emily, apparently, I presume, looked at 

12 those badge readings, too. She may have just 

13 missed the reports with the DS but --

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

15 DR. McKEEL: -- we discussed --

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I can certify that 

17 after the DS every badge reading for that 

18 individual was M in one case and 40 millirem 

19 in the other case. So what she was looking 

20 at, she looks at a 1969 year-end report and 

21 says, okay Smith had the high reading over the 

22 limit. She did not look at later years. 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

131

1 mean, this was having dealt indirectly through 

2 my colleagues. They don't have the manpower. 

3 They don't have the resources for that. They 

4 charge by the hour and Dr. McKeel submitted 

5 the statement where, you know, that he was 

6 charged so and so much.

7 If she had done this sort of 

8 exhaustive search that I did, it would have 

9 taken many more hours and they would have had 

10 to charge them. Besides, Landauer is not in 

11 business to supply this information.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, in any 

13 event, the records show both.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. So what she 

15 said was entirely correct but not complete.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I also did, after 

18 having talked to Terry Dutko, who called me a 

19 few days ago and gave me the account that he 

20 just gave, I just out of curiosity and 

21 assuming, we really don't know what the 

22 strength of that source was but someone 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

132

1 said it was a microcurie and others said it 

2 was a curie. I said, well just 

3 hypothetically, let's assume it was a 250 

4 millicurie source and what was the exposure 

5 rate and one foot away from that source, just 

6 an arbitrary value, and it turns out that it 

7 would have taken ten hours at one foot away to 

8 have accumulated 38-rem. Rems are not quite 

9 the same but --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Close enough.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: A two percent 

12 difference.

13 So that story -- and since we 

14 don't know how close the badge was to the 

15 source and we don't know the actual strength 

16 of that source. So the story of it, it was 

17 there for 16 hours and got that kind of 

18 exposure is quite possible.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do you have 

20 additional comment, John or Terry?

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, it is 

22 John Ramspott. 
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 DR. McKEEL: I have a comment, 

2 too, please.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead, John 

4 and then Dan.

5 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: I think the point 

7 that I am actually trying to make -- and I 

8 definitely appreciate that verification that 

9 16 hours is viable. But the whole fact that 

10 this is a contrived story about happening in 

11 the betatron vaults is what I understood --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I 

13 understood that point, John.

14 MR. RAMSPOTT: The fact that it 

15 didn't happen there?

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

17 MR. RAMSPOTT: It happened at the 

18 opposite end of the plant?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

20 DR. McKEEL: Calls into question, 

21 into total question about the validity of any 

22 badge information or any letters. And 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

134

1 sure that Landauer got something from GSI. I 

2 am not questioning them by any means.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, and indeed 

4 that is what I looked at, what was in the 

5 Landauer records. So those do exist.

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, actually and I 

7 believe it but it is the old bad data in, bad 

8 data out.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I 

10 understand your point.

11 MR. RAMSPOTT: I think the 

12 question, the badges I don't believe can be 

13 used for anything. I think this is indicative 

14 of what went on at GSI. I might add that the 

15 isotope foreman said the reason they did this 

16 little concoction was because they didn't want 

17 the whole place interviewed or inspected by 

18 the Atomic Energy Commission for any 

19 violations. That is the quote from the 

20 gentleman. Is that correct, Terry?

21 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, 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

135

1 John, for that additional input. Dan, you had 

2 a comment also?

3 DR. McKEEL: Yes, for everybody. 

4 My take on what is the important carry-away 

5 message here is actually something that Dr. 

6 Anigstein said earlier and that is that the 

7 high badge reading, even if it was incurred 

8 from this open source on a badge that the 

9 gentleman whose name is assigned to that high 

10 badge reading left the facility, what 

11 everybody needs to understand is there is 

12 incontrovertible evidence now from the 

13 supervisor D and from the head person at St. 

14 Louis Testing that the source was left open, 

15 out of its shield and container for 16 hours 

16 and there were 300 men working around that 

17 open source in that building in a concrete 

18 block structure that Dr. Anigstein's report 

19 and others have said, since it was built out 

20 of cinder blocks, was basically transparent to 

21 those gamma photons. 

22 And so the carry-home message 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

136

1 that there was an open source for 16 hours at 

2 that facility that could have exposed 300 

3 unbadged workers and nobody has accounted for 

4 that dose and that is the really important 

5 thing. That this was not, as Dr. Anigstein's 

6 report carefully delineates, this was not the 

7 only accident/incident that occurred with 

8 isotopes at General Steel Industries. And so 

9 we may never know what that worker did, 

10 whether he was wearing the badge and took it 

11 home but all indications are if that badge was 

12 left in the 6 Building open, that that was 

13 another major exposure source for the people 

14 working there.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do we know

16 procedurally when they used those sources 

17 procedurally, did they have a rope-off area? 

18 They must have restricted personnel during the 

19 exposure times normally. Right?

20 DR. McKEEL: No. No, they didn't 

21 have any --

22 MR. DUTKO: Yes, they did. May 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

137

1 make a comment, sir?

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

3 MR. DUTKO: I talked to the 

4 supervisor over at Isotopes. And he told me 

5 it was a common practice to take the cobalt 

6 source out in the plants, not the shooting 

7 room at 6 Building but out in the actual 

8 plant, rope off an area one and a half times 

9 more than needed and set up the shot. But he 

10 said what was very risky about the situation, 

11 a lot of the times the operators would leave 

12 the exposed shot going, run some film or get a 

13 cup of coffee, or whatever. And that is what 

14 he always considered very risky. They had 

15 cases of people walking through the tape and 

16 into the isotopes.

17 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer?

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

19 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott again.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John.

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: Terry may have 

22 misunderstood the first part of that question. 
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 Does that old cinder block building -- that 

2 had no rope around it. Is that correct, 

3 Terry?

4 MR. DUTKO: Yes, that is correct.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I understand 

6 that and indeed in many cases where that kind 

7 of work is done, the users rely on distance 

8 and, hence, roping off areas because you can 

9 indeed simply by inverse-square law, protect 

10 your other workers.

11 Now, if workers are wandering 

12 through the area, that is another issue of 

13 concern, of course. But I understand the 

14 point you are making.

15 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, the 

16 workers told us that cinder block building --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

18 DR. McKEEL: -- it would have been 

19 right next to it. The only thing that was on 

20 there, obviously the radiation symbols. We 

21 got mixed stories whether they were ever on 

22 there, maybe at a later date. But as far 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

139

1 roping the cinder block, these guys worked 

2 right up next to it. It was the rest of the 

3 plant, including 10 Building, was pretty 

4 infamous. That is where they actually 

5 transported the cobalt into another testing 

6 area that has never even been discussed yet, 

7 that this foreman shared with us. And that is 

8 actually where the infamous plumb-bob cobalt 

9 source got stolen from; not from 6 Building 

10 but from 10 Building, which is right adjacent 

11 to the new betatron building. And that 

12 building was occupied by probably 800 people.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I got you.

14 DR. McKEEL: Thank you.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I can actually add 

17 here --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We will get a 

19 comment here and then we are going to take our 

20 lunch break.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I can answer that 

22 account from what I was told during 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

140

1 meeting with the workers in Collinsville and 

2 that was, if I remember correctly, not in the 

3 transcript but just in the summary, there is 

4 hopefully a summary of what went on for two 

5 and a half hours.

6 And on the one hand, [identifying 

7 information redacted] was testing the, I think 

8 it was the founder of St. Louis Testing who 

9 attended our meeting said that they were 

10 called in -- there were few other contractor 

11 who was called in to do radiography with all 

12 his own sources. And his practice was, he 

13 would set it up outdoors and he would have one 

14 of his men always there. He set up 12-hour 

15 shifts and they would rope off. They would go 

16 around with a survey meter and find the 

17 distance of two mr per hour and rope that off.

18 So it sounds like when GSI was 

19 doing their own, see, they looked to this 

20 gentleman for guidance. He was more 

21 knowledgeable. He also was responsible for 

22 calibrating the machinery. But he probably 
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 followed the same practice of the safety 

2 factor of another, 50 percent of this one.

3 I do want to mention, by the way, 

4 that the incident of the source which I 

5 thought was the 6 Building anyway, being left, 

6 yes, the source in the 6 Building is, in fact, 

7 my incident number four in finding number one. 

8 So we did manage to account for that but we 

9 did not know to relate that to the 38-rem 

10 region.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

12 Folks, quick comment?

13 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir. I just 

14 wanted to comment, sir, that at number 6 

15 Building cobalt shooting room was right next 

16 to the foundry walkway. Very close proximity 

17 to major traffic, sir.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We are 

19 going to take our lunch break here. It will 

20 be an hour. We will reconvene at 1:30 and we 

21 will continue from this point and also get 

22 into the discussion of the Petition Evaluation 
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 Report and the review by SC&A, as well as the 

2 general concepts of bounding the doses at GSI.

3 So we will be back at 1:30 folks.

4 (Whereupon, the matter went off the 

5 record at 12:26 p.m. and resumed at 1:30 p.m.)

6 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N

7 (1:30 p.m.)

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, we are 

9 ready to resume our deliberations. I want to 

10 confirm that Board Member Mark Griffon --

11 Mark, are you on the line?

12 (No response.)

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, I don't 

14 hear Mark but maybe he will let us know when 

15 he gets back. 

16 Let's see if the petitioner is on 

17 the line. Dan McKeel? Hello, Dan?

18 MR. KATZ: Dan?

19 (No response.)

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any of the other 

21 -- John Ramspott, are you on the line?

22 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm on, Doctor, 
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 thank you.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, we seem to 

3 have lost Dr. McKeel but I assume he will be 

4 back momentarily.

5 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm sure he will.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We are 

7 going to just continue a little bit with our 

8 Appendix BB Issues Matrix, particularly the 

9 film badge area. One of the items on the 

10 agenda had to do with the possibility of there 

11 being additional film badge records that might 

12 be at the Landauer site, and more specifically 

13 old records from Picker X-Ray and NIOSH was 

14 going to look into that and we will just ask 

15 for a status report from Dr. Neton. What do 

16 we know about the possibility of additional 

17 film badge records from Picker X-Ray via 

18 Landauer?

19 DR. NETON: Yes, this will be 

20 great. We contacted Landauer and they do have 

21 information from Picker in their possession. 

22 Unfortunately, the count coding system 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

144

1 different now than it was before so they 

2 couldn't make any direct correlation between 

3 General Steel and Picker. 

4 So now they are going back and 

5 doing a customer index for all the Picker 

6 information they have as well as customer 

7 index for the Landauer customers for those 

8 early years that we are interested in. And we 

9 have a purchase order in play that they are 

10 working under to provide.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Did your 

12 purchase order stipulate any timetable or do 

13 we have a rough idea from Landauer what this 

14 is going to take?

15 My understanding is those early 

16 records are not in really -- they might have 

17 been microfiche records, somewhat difficult to 

18 read.

19 DR. NETON: Correct.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do you have any 

21 feel for what or did you stipulate any 

22 timetable in your purchase order?
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 DR. NETON: I don't know. I mean, 

2 I can get back to you on that.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I am just 

4 wondering if it is something we would expect 

5 in the near future. Just sort of keep us 

6 updated if you find out something.

7 DR. NETON: I will check into it.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Just let us 

9 know, you know, if it is going to be many 

10 months or if it is going to be a couple of 

11 weeks or whatever. It may be a long shot, but 

12 at least you are pursuing it.

13 I also had written on the agenda 

14 here, petitioner input on the high-dose cobalt 

15 sealed source incident in Building 6. I think 

16 that is the incident that we have just 

17 discussed and so I think we have covered that.

18 I put on here general discussion 

19 relating to bounding of doses at General Steel 

20 Industries. And this perhaps is just as well 

21 covered as part of the SEC petition. So 

22 perhaps we will just move into the SEC 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

1 Petition. 

2 Dr. Neton, does that make sense to 

3 you as well?

4 DR. NETON: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Because you have 

6 to talk about bounding doses in that regard. 

7 And I simply put this in here in part because 

8 there was concerns raised by the petitioner 

9 that particularly with respect to, I think the 

10 original Appendix BB review, that didn't 

11 specifically call out all the sources that we 

12 know were present and some implication that 

13 perhaps they weren't considered in the 

14 bounding. So we want to make sure that there 

15 is an understanding that the bounding is such 

16 that it would include both the betatrons and 

17 the other isotropic sources, as well as the 

18 uranium and the other components there. And 

19 that can be covered, I think, in the SEC 

20 petition evaluation report as well as the SC&A 

21 review of that report.

22 Now the petition evaluation report 
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 we have had for a bit of time. The evaluation 

2 or the review by SC&A we all just received. 

3 Some of the items in that were highlighted 

4 already by Dr. McKeel this morning but we have 

5 not formally looked at that review. And I 

6 think it would be important for us to look at 

7 that petition or the evaluation report review 

8 by SC&A. That report, in turn, I would expect 

9 should generate some sort of a matrix of 

10 issues that need to be explored and --

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Do we have the 

12 matrix?

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, yes. But 

14 not everybody has that matrix yet. The 

15 petitioners have not seen it. I know you have 

16 generated a matrix within the past couple of 

17 days following the report and I don't think it 

18 is available yet in cleared form to the 

19 petitioners, or is it?

20 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

21 Dan McKeel. I do have a copy of the Issue 

22 Resolution Matrix, the SC&A Findings.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For the petition 

2 evaluation -- for the review of the evaluation 

3 report?

4 DR. McKEEL: Yes.

5 DR. MAURO: That must have been 

6 very recent.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I have not seen 

8 the cleared copy yet so it must have been. 

9 Did you get that in the last day or two, then?

10 DR. McKEEL: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

12 DR. McKEEL: There are no NIOSH 

13 responses to it.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, there would 

15 not be any NIOSH responses.

16 DR. McKEEL: Okay. That is what I 

17 have got.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It was generated 

19 within the last couple of days, I would think.

20 DR. MAURO: It is the clearance on 

21 it that would have been generated.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, 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

149

1 clearance on it, right. Because the report 

2 itself has not been cleared that long, let 

3 alone the Matrix.

4 DR. MAURO: Both the report and 

5 the Matrix were cleared all at the same time 

6 and relatively recently.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So, the 

8 petitioners do have the Matrix as well. So 

9 that is good.

10 In any event, we will go back and 

11 go through these items and get a feel for what 

12 the issues are from SC&A's point of view. 

13 NIOSH has not had an opportunity formally to 

14 respond to all of these but you may have some 

15 comments.

16 DR. NETON: We did provide some 

17 preliminary comments and SC&A has actually 

18 already responded back.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, it is moving 

20 rapidly. But are those comments on the --

21 they are not. Are they on the Matrix yet?

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We have a triple 
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 set of SC&A findings which Dr. McKeel had 

2 quoted from extensively earlier. But we have 

3 the SC&A findings that Dr. McKeel has and 

4 quoted from, the cleared version. Then NIOSH 

5 responded to each of our findings and then 

6 just this past weekend, I think five of the 

7 ten findings there was an SC&A reply to the 

8 NIOSH responses. And that was circulated to 

9 the Board and to NIOSH but has not yet been --

10 I submitted it for clearance but it has not 

11 been cleared.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

13 MS. HOWELL: I have returned 

14 everything I have received.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Everything Emily has 

17 had, she has returned.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, somehow --

19 MR. KATZ: But I think you just 

20 produced this on Friday.

21 MS. HOWELL: And I did it.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay then I 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

151

1 not have seen it.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't think I 

3 have seen it.

4 MEMBER BEACH: I've read that. I 

5 just don't know what I did with it.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The cleared 

7 version?

8 MR. KATZ: Not the cleared 

9 version.

10 MEMBER BEACH: I don't know if it 

11 was cleared. I tend not to pay attention.

12 MR. KATZ: Josie would have gotten 

13 the version on Friday. The report was cleared 

14 by Emily.

15 MEMBER MUNN: It is dated the 

16 14th.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Anyway, this is --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we will 

19 get the cleared version up. Dan, does the 

20 version you have have those responses on it?

21 DR. McKEEL: No, sir. The only 

22 thing on mine is the original SC&A findings 
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 and that is what I reported on this morning.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, okay.

3 DR. McKEEL: There are no other 

4 NIOSH or SC&A responses.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well those are 

6 all very recent when apparently that final 

7 clearance came out. So we will get those out 

8 right away.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I will get those 

10 out as soon as I can.

11 DR. McKEEL: Thank you.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, go ahead, 

13 Bob.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, well I just 

15 want to step through the issues first. Ignore 

16 the screen for the moment. You can shut it 

17 down.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You can move 

19 your computer over and lock it up.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Not to be a 

21 distraction.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, it 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

153

1 going off.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. So I am 

3 just reading. So issue number one, which I 

4 think is the overriding issue, consists of the 

5 lack of monitoring data from 1953 through 

6 1963. And I don't think I need to belabor 

7 this. I cite four incidents that were 

8 reported by workers, one of whom taking the 

9 cobalt-60 source that was described as 

10 appearing to be a plumb-bob. [identifying 

11 information redacted] has described that he 

12 thought it was a fishing sinker and was going 

13 to use it for that purpose. At any rate, that 

14 had to be retrieved. 

15 They did, I mean, it was found. 

16 Its absence was noted. They searched the 

17 plant and naturally -- walking around with a 

18 survey meter. They thought that maybe it had 

19 gotten into the castings, it had gotten thrown 

20 in with the scrap metal that formed the 

21 casting. And finally, they did an aerial. 

22 They had an airplane going around 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

154

1 neighborhood and they found it. Either in the 

2 guy's house, he had thrown it out. The 

3 accounts differ but everybody agrees that 

4 there was such a source, it was taken, and the 

5 last informal conversation I had was that he 

6 actually did have radiation burns, which is 

7 not surprising because he put it in his 

8 pocket. So that was one incident.

9 The second incident, there were 

10 two incidents where someone was actually 

11 inside a casting while it was being 

12 radiographed. They said the betatron went on. 

13 The alarms went off, lights flashed and the 

14 guy just didn't notice or wasn't paying 

15 attention. One case was inside of an army 

16 tank and he was just blocked off.

17 And there were two such incidents 

18 over the years. Neither of these were 

19 radiation workers. Neither of these were 

20 licensed betatron operators so they were 

21 probably never issued badges. There was no 

22 recording of their exposures.
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 Then the fourth incident was the 

2 one that was discussed earlier of the so3 called small pill that was stuck in the open 

4 position and the one account that we were 

5 given at the meeting I had in Collinsville was 

6 the order of the St. Louis Testing whose job 

7 it was among other things to calibrate the 

8 meters, all the survey meters, was called in 

9 because the meter had pegged. I mean, that is 

10 the way he gave the account. 

11 They called him in because the 

12 meter pegged. He came in with his own meter 

13 and found that there was, in fact, a source 

14 left open. And I asked, well what was the 

15 scale of the meter. And he said he assumes it 

16 was on the highest scale, which was five r per 

17 hour, which would cause rate. We would call 

18 into question whether, in fact, there was a 

19 250 millicurie source.

20 No one seems to know what the 

21 center of that source was. They simply 

22 referred to it as the small pill. They 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

156

1 know when it was acquired. If it was in fact 

2 5 r per hour and it was at any sizeable 

3 distance, most likely, it would have been 

4 stronger than 250 millicuries.

5 Incidentally, I did try -- we did 

6 try -- I should say we because several people 

7 were involved in trying to get any records for 

8 the licenses. The Illinois -- I forget the 

9 exact name but they were Illinois Department 

10 of Safety.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Department of 

12 Nuclear Safety.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The state 

14 department that takes care of radiation 

15 control had no records. They referred us to 

16 the NRC district, which was District Three, 

17 the one that encompasses Illinois. They have 

18 no records. They said, call Washington.

19 I talked to several people at NRC 

20 whom I knew personally in Washington and I 

21 finally ended up with the Public Document Room 

22 and they said well, we have the film. You can 
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 file a FOIA request. The way they described 

2 it, all of those records have been turned over 

3 to NARA, the National Archive Repository, 

4 something like that.

5 And they said the normal practice 

6 there is after 30 years, the records are 

7 destroyed. That is the standard practice. 

8 Some records, obviously, they keep longer like 

9 the U.S. Constitution but that is their 

10 practice. And they also told me that a FOIA 

11 request had been filed in 2006 by Dr. McKeel. 

12 And he was told that there were no records. 

13 At that time they did a complete investigation 

14 and were told that there were no records. I 

15 did not ask them to repeat this investigation.

16 So in fact, every -- oh, and 

17 furthermore, there was a company, I can't 

18 think of the name right now, that was in the 

19 business at that time -- still is -- of 

20 furnishing such industrial sources and again, 

21 Mr. Zlotnicki who works for SC&A had a 

22 contact. He seemed to have a wide range 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

158

1 contacts. He contacted them to try to find 

2 out whether they had any records for General 

3 Steel Industries or General Steel Castings and 

4 the answer was they could not find anything. 

5 So I think every conceivable avenue has been 

6 exhausted to get information on those sources.

7 Anyway, that is kind of a long8 winded answer on issue one. If I may just 

9 summarize, NIOSH response was that the 

10 incidents mentioned of specific events from 

11 years ago based on recent memories of 

12 operators. And then to jump to their 

13 conclusion, NIOSH accommodates no incidents in 

14 the individual dose reconstruction. And the 

15 reply to that is there were thousands of 

16 workers there. I went over all the interview 

17 reports. There were approximately 40 workers, 

18 40 different individuals who showed up at one 

19 or more meetings. There were, like, five 

20 different meetings. There were four meetings 

21 that were organized by the Union and Dr. 

22 McKeel and Mr. Ramspott and then one that 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

159

1 organized by SC&A so there were five meetings 

2 total. There were 40 different workers or I 

3 counted a widow as being one of the workers, 

4 and compared this to the several thousand GSI 

5 workers. So there was no -- this is a sample. 

6 I mean, yes, their account gave a sample of 

7 what happened. I don't think we can say that 

8 this was, that there were no other incidents. 

9 These were four incidents and as long as 

10 these four incidents -- we know about these 

11 incidents, we know who was the exposed worker 

12 that can be accounted for.

13 It may very well be that there 

14 were others or other incidents that were not 

15 known to these people or not remembered by 

16 these people. And then the lack of monitoring 

17 data, that cannot be ruled out.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well okay, do 

19 you want to discuss this?

20 DR. NETON: Yes.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, okay.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's discuss 
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 them as we go. Jim?

2 DR. NETON: A couple of things. 

3 Refresh my memory. The four incidents were 

4 all in a time frame where there is no 

5 monitoring data. Is that right?

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No some of them 

7 were before, during, and after. No, they were 

8 all -- no. There were some before and some 

9 after -- some during. There was no after 

10 because the monitoring continued until they 

11 shut down. But they involved, at least two of 

12 them involved unmonitored workers.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The person in 

14 the tank was an unmonitored worker.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, exactly.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There may have 

17 been monitoring but the worker was not a 

18 betatron worker.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, he was in 

20 there making some measurements with a tape 

21 measure.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The person 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

161

1 took home the source mistakenly was not a 

2 radiation worker.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is correct.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The third one --

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Was also in one of 

6 the castings.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What was the 

8 third one?

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The third one 

10 whose name we have that has been redacted --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It was a 

12 betatron incident.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Actually, I 

14 miscounted. 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The fourth one 

16 was the unsecured cobalt source that we talked 

17 about.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There were two 

19 incidents of someone being inside a casting.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: One was identified 

22 full name. One was identified only by 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

162

1 first name.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And neither of 

4 them were radiation workers.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The third one 

6 was a betatron operator was involved in an 

7 incident.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No other knowledge 

9 --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- of what that 

11 means. We don't know. Okay.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We don't know. He 

13 signed an affidavit. He has died since then.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And he just said 

16 there was an accident involving the betatron, 

17 too. And it happened to be -- he was a 

18 radiation worker and his name appears on the 

19 badge records earlier -- I mean, later. But 

20 it happened the week before Landauer records 

21 started.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, as 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

163

1 understand it, SC&A's concern here is that 

2 these are four incidents we know about. Might 

3 there have been others that we don't know 

4 about that somehow have to be taken into 

5 consideration in the bounding process? Is 

6 that --

7 DR. MAURO: Yes. The way we look 

8 at it is there a long period of time, '53 to 

9 '64 where, right now, we don't have film badge 

10 records. What we heard is a story that these 

11 incidents do occur occasionally and there is 

12 reason to believe that there could very well 

13 have been additional incidents like that in 

14 that ten-year time period.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

16 DR. MAURO: What do you do to 

17 reconstruct a person's --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The incidents we 

19 know about, you certainly can reconstruct.

20 DR. NETON: And in fact, I think 

21 we have done that at least in one instance.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If they put 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

164

1 source in their pocket or are exposed.

2 DR. MAURO: Sure.

3 DR. NETON: So if it is brought in 

4 the dose reconstruction interview, which we 

5 had at least in one case we have done that, 

6 and we certainly will handle that under 

7 standard practice.

8 What concerns me here though is 

9 that it is not so much that we don't have 

10 badges; I am hearing now that there are 

11 incidents to unmonitored workers that, even if 

12 we had heroic efforts to go and find dosimetry 

13 data, there are questions being raised about 

14 these incidents that we couldn't reconstruct 

15 anything. 

16 So does that make the whole issue 

17 --

18 DR. MAURO: Confounding.

19 DR. NETON: Yes, confounding it 

20 even more. So we find a lot of -- say Picker 

21 X-Ray comes up with a cache of records from 

22 Landauer, then the allegations are still 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

165

1 tape. Allegation is probably not the right 

2 word, but the assertions are that there were 

3 workers who were exposed that weren't 

4 monitored and then we are back to square one, 

5 I guess. 

6 That is my concern right now.

7 DR. MAURO: I think that is a 

8 legitimate concern. I mean, we have that 

9 concern also.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And probably the 

11 number was small because the initial Landauer 

12 film badge record that we have is only 18 

13 workers.

14 DR. NETON: Right and that is my 

15 next question is how --

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And it grew to as 

17 many as 73.

18 DR. NETON: How frequent were 

19 these radiography operations in this period 

20 versus the frequency in which they were 

21 practiced during the betatron era where we 

22 have records? It seems to me that the usage 
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 of those devices was much less frequent in the 

2 earlier years than it was in the current. And 

3 Dave, you might know something about that.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The first betatron 

5 you have to remember was built in '52, early 

6 '52.

7 MR. ALLEN: Right. We do have 

8 from the meetings that you are talking about, 

9 the transcripts from there, there was a guy 

10 that was the supervisor at the time. He 

11 mentioned that prior to, I believe he said 

12 prior to '63, it was fairly slow, a few guys 

13 working type of thing and everything changed 

14 in '63 and that was one of the reasons they 

15 brought the new betatron over and they started 

16 to do 100 percent instead of an actual 

17 sampling of a quality control type of work.

18 And I think that Mr. Dutko has 

19 even stated that '63 --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well prior to 

21 the betatrons, do we know what they had? Were 

22 these cobalt sources in use at that 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

167

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No.

2 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

3 Dan McKeel.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan.

5 DR. McKEEL: We do know about 

6 several of the isotope sources. As best we 

7 can understand from the workers, the large, 

8 possibly 80-curie, source of cobalt-60 was 

9 acquired somewhere around 1963, you know, in 

10 the era where the Landauer film badge program 

11 started.

12 The iridium source, according to 

13 one of the isotope workers who was there from 

14 the beginning was in use in the early '50s and 

15 then he left GSI and came back in 1956. It 

16 was still there. So the iridium-192 source 

17 was used in those early years, particularly in 

18 Building 6 on the railroad trucks. And that 

19 is what the small cobalt source was also used 

20 primarily for x-ray inspection of railroad 

21 trucks. And that was in use between those 

22 two, the iridium source and that small source 
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 were used continually for a long time, 

2 probably through the 1950s and the 1960s, plus 

3 they were also used in other parts of the 

4 plant as has been put on the record this 

5 morning.

6 So, those other sources were used 

7 in the '50s.

8 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer?

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes?

10 MR. RAMSPOTT: This is John 

11 Ramspott.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John?

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: In reference to a 

14 comment, I think it was Dave Allen was making, 

15 about one of the supervisors saying the 

16 betatron was used less frequently, the 

17 gentleman that made that statement did not 

18 become the betatron manager until 1963. So 

19 his knowledge before that would be limited, at 

20 best. If you look at his name, he definitely 

21 will tell you he started as a manager in '63.

22 Now the other thing that we know, 
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 there was only one betatron so it definitely 

2 did get used heavily. Their main product was 

3 different at the time. It was tank turrets, 

4 and tank hulls, and some submarine parts.

5 So the betatron was actually used 

6 quite heavily and even by NIOSH's own 

7 document, if you look at the uranium going 

8 over from Mallinckrodt, the purchase orders 

9 that you have from 1964 actually going 

10 backwards to '58, you will see -- and after 

11 '64 I think there was 12 hours of use for 

12 Mallinckrodt. Prior to that there was 437 

13 hours of uranium work alone being done at the 

14 betatron, that is why they were sending it 

15 there. And with the newer information that we 

16 know now as to how they were using the 

17 betatron to actually shoot the corners of the 

18 ingots to figure out the depth of the crust, 

19 you could do four times as many ingots in the 

20 same time frame as originally indicated by 

21 Appendix BB.

22 So the amount of uranium going 
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 over, the way it was actually used is 

2 considerably more. So the use of the betatron 

3 in the early days is heavier than I think they 

4 indicate.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you.

6 Now, the actual use of the 

7 betatron, NIOSH has a methodology for bounding 

8 that. But I think the issue we are asking 

9 about now is this issue of prevalence of 

10 possible incidents where non-monitored workers 

11 might have been exposed. I am trying to get a 

12 feel for -- I mean, this question has arisen 

13 in other facilities. What is an approach that 

14 has been used in other facilities? And I am 

15 just talking in general because one can always 

16 postulate almost anywhere that something might 

17 have occurred that we all know about.

18 So you know, there are sources and 

19 somebody might have wandered in. How do we 

20 handle them? These incidents that we know 

21 about by themselves rise to a level where the 

22 people themselves identify them. In fact, 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

171

1 is pretty rare to have something of this 

2 nature that goes unnoticed. So it is back 

3 between zero and one of these that one would 

4 say, well, are there things, for example --

5 was the practice such that when the source is 

6 out, guys are taking breaks and people are 

7 wandering through. Is that a regular thing or 

8 is that unusual and we would know about it? 

9 Or how do we handle this?

10 Give us some thoughts on that, 

11 Jim. I don't know the answer to that. I am 

12 speculating here about what one would do. You 

13 could bound it in some regard by taking a 

14 worst case and assigning everybody but that 

15 doesn't make sense. You don't have 24 -- you 

16 don't have an incident every day 24/7 for ten 

17 years. 

18 DR. NETON: That was sort of our 

19 response to that finding was that these are 

20 sort of well known, well remembered events in 

21 these peoples' minds. I mean, so the fact 

22 that they are not saying there were hundreds 
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 of these things and here is a few examples, 

2 but these are sort of well emblazoned in their 

3 memories leads one to think possibly that 

4 these were sort of isolated things and we 

5 would probably know about, maybe not every 

6 single one but it wasn't a very frequent 

7 occurrence.

8 The other thing that comes to mind 

9 here is that these iridium and cobalt sources 

10 that were used early on, I've forgotten the 

11 doses that we are assigning to the betatron.

12 DR. MAURO: Six. Six rems.

13 DR. NETON: Six rem, that is going 

14 to be pretty much everyone, right? I don't 

15 think we are really triaging those doses to 

16 speak of.

17 DR. MAURO: Well, I think you 

18 break it up between --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, everyone, 

20 there were two groups, weren't there?

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But not workers. 

22 Basically, we are assigning those doses 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

173

1 everyone who, as it happened, would have been 

2 badged or who was repairing the castings right 

3 after the radiography.

4 DR. NETON: Right but if you took 

5 a person who was a radiographer and it seems 

6 to me if they were assigned a 6 rem betatron, 

7 one could establish that that would more than 

8 likely bound their exposure as a radiographer. 

9 There are historical analyses done that go 

10 back in time. And I forget this guy, 

11 [identifying information redacted], I think, 

12 did this for EPA. He went back and developed 

13 distributions of workers going back into the 

14 '50s. Radiographers are consistently among 

15 the higher-exposed class of workers. But 

16 there are values that are in those tables. I 

17 wouldn't be surprised if these betatron doses 

18 would bound the doses of the radiographers in 

19 that time frame.

20 DR. MAURO: I would agree that the 

21 6 rem per year or the 13 rem that -- We came 

22 up with a different 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

174

1 DR. NETON: Yes, whatever.

2 DR. MAURO: Whatever number you 

3 pick certainly is a high dose. But now the 

4 idea that -- and I would also argue that the 

5 vast majority of the workers that worked 

6 there, whether they worked on the betatron or 

7 they worked with sources, and even if there 

8 were some incidents with the sources, may not 

9 have experienced that.

10 I am troubled by -- that it is 

11 almost, well, the six probably covers all 

12 ills. Now this is really almost like a 

13 philosophical question. I mean, is that okay? 

14 Is it okay to say, listen, we have got a 

15 number and intuitively, our sensibility is 

16 that well, even if these incidents did occur 

17 and maybe even occurred often, once a month or 

18 once every three months, or whatever it was, 

19 the six probably covers it. I mean, this is a 

20 tough call. And as a health physicist, I 

21 would say yes, you are probably right but so 

22 would ten. In other words, you could pick 
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 just about any big number and say it likely 

2 covers these kinds of transients. There may 

3 have been an occasional one, perhaps a 38 rem 

4 was a real one. The guy that went home with 

5 the one in his pocket. So I mean, there may 

6 have been others that could have occurred.

7 But I am looking at it more from 

8 the point of view and this becomes -- if you 

9 assign some number that everyone agrees is a 

10 big number, 6 rem a year is a big number or 13 

11 rem a year, and then say, well, that is going 

12 to cover a lot of ills, the fact that we don't 

13 have data for those 13 years. And somebody 

14 asked me, John, do you think that it is likely 

15 assigning that to everybody, not just the 

16 betatron workers but everybody? You know, we 

17 are just going to give that to everybody. 

18 Would you feel that that would probably be 

19 claimant-favorable? And I would say, sure.

20 But the question I guess is richer 

21 than that. And by that I mean, it seems to be 

22 too easy a solution. Well, we will just 
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 assign everybody this big dose. And how big 

2 is good enough then?

3 DR. NETON: I think there is more 

4 to it than that, John. I mean, we have the 

5 dosimetry data at 60-whatever plus for the 

6 betatron. So that is well modeled and well --

7 I think we differ on exactly what that number 

8 is.

9 DR. MAURO: But that is not the 

10 issue.

11 DR. NETON: We agree. So we have 

12 a dosimetry data that encompasses not only the 

13 betatron activity but also the radiographers 

14 because they weren't just monitoring the 

15 betatron operators in the '60s. They were 

16 monitoring radiographers.

17 So we know what these workers' 

18 exposures were and, in general, they were very 

19 low with a few exceptions.

20 DR. MAURO: Right.

21 DR. NETON: And then also the same 

22 process going back in 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

177

1 DR. MAURO: Right.

2 DR. NETON: No differences. Not 

3 only the same sources, probably less intense 

4 sources because, as we heard from Dr. McKeel, 

5 the large cobalt source didn't come into play 

6 until --

7 DR. MAURO: Until later.

8 DR. NETON: -- '63.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes.

10 DR. NETON: So it certainly is 

11 based on facts, which is not made up 

12 information, it is just going back in time and 

13 saying well, there are gaps in the previous 

14 era but we know that it is no worse than what 

15 we know in the '60s.

16 DR. MAURO: I would agree. I 

17 would say that a reasonable person would agree 

18 it is unlikely that very many people could 

19 have gotten more than six rem a year in that 

20 time period. And I would agree with that. 

21 But you know, is that -- and now we have left 

22 the realm of, what I would say, the degree 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

178

1 which analysis helps us. In other words, and 

2 the facts before us help us.

3 MR. ELLIOTT: Well, that is an 

4 interesting word you use, and it is a really 

5 interesting point you are raising, John. The 

6 law says we are to provide reasonable 

7 estimates. Reasonable dose estimates. The 

8 law does not say anything about claimant9 favorability. That comes into being, it says, 

10 benefit of doubt and we translate that into 

11 claimant-favorability aspects in how we do our 

12 work.

13 So you know, where does the line 

14 of reasonability depart and it become 

15 unreasonable?

16 DR. MAURO: When I was thinking 

17 about this, I said to myself, we know one 

18 thing for sure, no one died of acute radiation 

19 exposure. So we know that no one probably got 

20 more than a couple of hundred rem in one shot. 

21 So we can stop there.

22 So one could argue that, well, 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

179

1 will assign 200 rem to everybody. So I don't 

2 want to --

3 DR. NETON: Let's go back to 

4 Bethlehem Steel. How would you juxtapose what 

5 we did at Bethlehem Steel up against this and 

6 how was that very different in that approach, 

7 which is a one-size-fits-all model?

8 DR. MAURO: And why I am 

9 comfortable with Bethlehem Steel is that what 

10 you did is you went back to measure data. We 

11 are talking dust loadings now. I guess that 

12 is what you are referring to or the external 

13 exposure.

14 External exposure you went with 

15 the worst possible situation.

16 DR. NETON: What I am talking 

17 about is assigning everybody the same high 

18 dose. Everyone at Bethlehem Steel, 300 

19 workers, or 400, whatever cases we had, all 

20 received 500 MAC air --

21 DR. MAURO: Right.

22 DR. NETON: -- for two years 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

180

1 operation, whether they were secretaries, 

2 cafeteria workers, or parking lot workers. 

3 That is not very different than what we are 

4 proposing to do here.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I beg your pardon. 

6 It is.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, good.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: According to 

9 Appendix BB and that has been followed, and I 

10 just reviewed a case where this was applied, 

11 only workers, only the radiation workers and 

12 the workers working on the castings 

13 immediately after radiography were assigned

14 the betatron operator's dose. Everyone else 

15 was assigned a dose of 0.72 millirem per hour 

16 for their entire work year, which comes to 

17 about, if you assume 2400 hours, which the 

18 attendant VP assumes, it comes to about 1.7 

19 rem. 

20 So right away, there is a

21 dichotomy there, and so these workers who 

22 would have had these accidental exposures 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

181

1 did not fit that category. They would have 

2 been in the non-radiation worker category in 

3 terms of dose reconstruction.

4 DR. NETON: Well, now we are 

5 getting back into the incident issues, which 

6 is different than what John was arguing. John 

7 was arguing about the validity of our model, 

8 in general, not based on facts.

9 DR. MAURO: I would like to make a 

10 distinction between the setting that we dealt 

11 with at Bethlehem Steel and the setting that 

12 we are dealing with here. It is important.

13 At Bethlehem Steel, there were 

14 inherent boundaries to where you can go. And 

15 the boundaries are pretty straightforward. 

16 From an external point of view, it really was 

17 virtually impossible for a person to get more 

18 than 2 millirem per hour at one foot away and 

19 you gave them that. You gave everybody that. 

20 You can't get more than that. And they were 

21 there all the time. And that is a boundary in 

22 external.
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 So as far as I am concerned, you 

2 gave a plausible upper bound, external. 

3 Internal, you gave a dust loading that was so 

4 high that, if it was higher, then you couldn't 

5 even stay in the room. And there was some 

6 evidence that in fact on some occasions it did 

7 get that high. This was the Simonds Saw early 

8 data. And so you had physical limitations on 

9 -- it really can't be higher than that. And 

10 there was reason to believe there were 

11 occasions when it might it have even gotten 

12 that high. And you assigned that value to 

13 everyone that was working in 1949, 1951.

14 In other words, so you went down a 

15 road where you did, in fact, find a plausible 

16 upper bound that we found and even uses some 

17 surrogate data. So we came down favorably on 

18 that.

19 Now, how does that circumstance 

20 apply here? I am saying that there was 

21 mechanistically a reason why you could place 

22 the upper bound where you did at Bethlehem 
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 Steel. You don't have a mechanistic method 

2 here to place a plausible upper bound on the 

3 exposures that unmonitored workers might have 

4 experienced in that ten-year period.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are we talking 

6 mainly about isotopic exposures?

7 DR. MAURO: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well --

9 DR. NETON: Those are 

10 radiographers.

11 DR. MAURO: Those are the 

12 radiographers.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But, for 

14 example, unmonitored workers wandering through 

15 the zone. I mean, that has what has been -- I 

16 think you can model that. If we are talking, 

17 for example, about the half-curie source --

18 DR. MAURO: We don't know the size 

19 of the curie source.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, we don't know 

21 the size of it. We really have only the 

22 vaguest -- I mean, we said it was under 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

184

1 curie. We were told it was a quarter of 

2 curie. Nobody knows.

3 DR. MAURO: Listen. What I would 

4 argue is, if we had a handle on the size of 

5 the curies and could come up with plausible 

6 circumstances that would place an upper bound 

7 on all workers for that ten-year period, then 

8 we would be in the realm of the way we dealt 

9 with the problem on Bethlehem Steel but I 

10 don't think that is where we are.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Because I think 

12 you can model people wandering through a zone. 

13 I mean, unless somebody is going to go down 

14 and sit and eat their lunch next to the source 

15 for 30 minutes or something which you can also 

16 model, but people wandering through a zone, I 

17 agree it makes a difference if it is 80 curies 

18 or a half a millicurie or whatever you are 

19 talking about. So that --

20 MEMBER POSTON: Well, he just said 

21 it was under, they were told it was under a 

22 curie.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I know.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was one 

3 account. These people were not, you know, 

4 were not experts on radiation. They received 

5 some training --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, but part 

7 of that is the amount of time it is out is 

8 very related to the size of that source. If 

9 you are doing radiography with an 80-curie 

10 source versus a millicurie, it is very 

11 different how it gets -- whether you have to 

12 leave it.

13 So, I would say sort of 

14 generically, I think you can model that. I 

15 mean, you have limits on how much exposure you 

16 can give a film and still use it. So --

17 DR. MAURO: But we heard stories 

18 where the sources were left out. They would 

19 go get a cup of coffee.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, okay but I 

21 am saying that if it is an 80-curie source and 

22 you are going out and getting a cup of coffee, 
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 you are going to have usable films.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The 80-curie 

3 source seemed to consistently -- the quote4 unquote 80 curie source, they consistently 

5 said was used in the betatron building only. 

6 And it was kept in the chem lab, somewhere in 

7 the basement. It had a special wheel, a heavy 

8 shielded wheel device for transporting it.

9 So that seems to be consistent but 

10 nobody could tell me when it was. Dr. McKeel 

11 said 1963. I did not -- I mean, I believe I 

12 have talked to all of the same people he 

13 talked to. They really didn't know. My 

14 feeling is that it was earlier.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think 

16 what we have at the moment, let me, we have 

17 the nature of the concern. We have some sort 

18 of early thoughts on how one might address 

19 this. We have some unknowns here. What I 

20 would like to do because we are not going to 

21 solve this one today --

22 MR. ALLEN: Can I add one --
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Maybe we are 

2 not, unless David is. David has been waiting. 

3 And then we want to move through the others 

4 so we have a feel for the nature of the issue 

5 and maybe get a feel for what the next steps 

6 would be. Dave?

7 MR. ALLEN: I think hopefully Mr. 

8 Dutko is still on the line. I think he can 

9 probably shed some light on this.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You mean the 

11 activity of the source or the --

12 MR. ALLEN: Well, I think we -- on 

13 some information. If Mr. Dutko is still on 

14 the line, please correct me if I am wrong, but 

15 I believe you and a couple of other operators 

16 have said for the time frame you were there, 

17 anytime you were working with the sources in 

18 Building 6, you wore your film badge as well 

19 as a pencil dosimeter.

20 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir, that is 

21 true. We have later information from people I 

22 have contacted that said that the sources 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

188

1 stored in number 5 Building in a fenced-off 

2 cage with radiographic warning signs but it 

3 was in 5 Building that the sources were 

4 stored.

5 MR. ALLEN: Stored but when they 

6 were actually exposed and used, they would 

7 still -- when you were there, not earlier --

8 but when you were there, they would have been 

9 in 6 Building in that cinder block room?

10 MR. DUTKO: That was only one 

11 place, sir. They actually used the cobalt 

12 sources all through the plant for different 

13 situations. Again, I repeat, they would flag 

14 off one and a half times the area needed and 

15 set up the shot.

16 MR. ALLEN: Okay, I misunderstood 

17 you earlier. I thought you were saying that 

18 was prior to you getting there that that was 

19 happening.

20 MR. DUTKO: Even when I was there, 

21 sir, they used the cobalt sources out in the -

22 - besides 6 Building. They used both places, 
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 6 Building and out in the plant.

2 MEMBER MUNN: I think he is saying 

3 they were stored in one building, used --

4 MR. DUTKO: They were stored in 5 

5 Building, ma'am.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, okay. 

7 Thank you.

8 MR. ALLEN: And one last question 

9 here. The small sources we are talking about, 

10 do you know, were they still there when the 

11 monitoring began? Because I was under the 

12 impression they were still there.

13 MR. DUTKO: What was that 

14 question, sir? I didn't understand.

15 MR. ALLEN: The small cobalt 

16 source and any of the other small sources you 

17 would have used out in Building 6 and 

18 everywhere else, the ones that were there in 

19 the early years, were they still there when 

20 you were working there or would you know?

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, are you 

22 there yet? Did we lose him?
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 MR. KATZ: John?

2 DR. McKEEL: Terry Dutko, are you 

3 on the line?

4 MR. KATZ: Terry.

5 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. 

6 My understanding is that Terry and all of the 

7 men that we are talking to all said who were 

8 there, primarily in the later years through 

9 '73, said the small source in Building 6 was 

10 in use, in daily use.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Through that 

12 time period, Dan?

13 DR. McKEEL: Yes, through that 

14 time period. Right.

15 MR. ALLEN: That was how I was 

16 remembering it but I wanted to --

17 DR. McKEEL: I think that is 

18 correct.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What do we know 

20 about the starting date on the small sources? 

21 Can you remind me? Did those go back into 

22 the '50s?
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 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Definitely.

2 DR. McKEEL: Well, the iridium-192 

3 was during the '50s. And my understanding was 

4 the small cobalt source, whatever the size 

5 was, still unknown, was used in the 1950s as 

6 well.

7 They made railroad cars. That was 

8 the primary thing that company did from the 

9 beginning almost.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It is agreed. The 

11 General Steel Castings, it was called then, 

12 acquired the St. Louis Car Company in 1960. 

13 Before that, they made the beds for -- it was 

14 like a baseplate for locomotives. That was 

15 the original reason the company was founded.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well 

17 okay, we sort of have a feel for the issue on 

18 issue one and the concerns and so on. Let's 

19 go ahead and identify, go ahead with issue 

20 two, Bob, and lay that out for us.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

22 MEMBER MUNN: May I ask --
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, questions, 

2 first?

3 MEMBER MUNN: One last question.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's see if 

5 Mark -- Mark, did you come back on the line 

6 yet? Mark Griffon?

7 (No response.)

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Apparently not. 

9 Okay.

10 MEMBER MUNN: I don't think so.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wanda?

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: I'm on, Paul, 

13 actually.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, Mark is on. 

15 Okay, thank you, Mark.

16 MEMBER GRIFFON: On my cell phone, 

17 but I am on.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

19 MEMBER MUNN: I just wanted to ask 

20 Bob again before we leave this business of the 

21 incidents, the five incidents that you know 

22 about, someone asked me --
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 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I keep correcting 

2 myself. There were four incidents during the 

3 unmonitored period and one later.

4 MEMBER MUNN: That's -- okay. 

5 That is what I wanted to make sure we 

6 understood.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Four during the 

9 unmonitored period.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

11 MEMBER MUNN: So those are the 

12 ones that we are focusing on with respect to 

13 unknowns.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Okay.

16 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer?

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

18 MR. DUTKO: I'm sorry. I lost 

19 you, sir.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, Dave had 

21 asked you a question about the years that the 

22 smaller sources were in use.
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 MR. DUTKO: Well, the smaller 

2 sources were in use from the start, about '52, 

3 '53, sir.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

5 MR. DUTKO: They used them on 

6 railway work in 6 Building quite a bit in the 

7 early days. They used them on tanks, tank 

8 hulls and tank turrets, of course, and 

9 different type of work, under frames. But 

10 they were, the sources were in use in the 

11 early days.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you.

13 DR. NETON: What about past 1960, 

14 though?

15 MR. DUTKO: Past 1960?

16 DR. NETON: Yes.

17 MR. DUTKO: There was 6 Building 

18 work still going on. Of course, the betatron. 

19 I assisted an operator in a large curie 

20 cobalt source in the new betatron one time. 

21 They brought a large cobalt source in to x-ray 

22 nuclear channel heads.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you.

2 MR. DUTKO: This was done in the 

3 new beta.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

5 MR. DUTKO: By a fellow named 

6 [identifying information redacted]. 

7 [identifying information redacted], who was an 

8 isotope man.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

10 Let's go ahead, Bob with Issue 2.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Issue 2 continues, 

12 and is probably a continuation of Issue 1, and 

13 that is the incomplete monitoring of workers 

14 during the Landauer -- let me just shorten 

15 that and call it the Landauer era. And that 

16 we have -- there were times where they weren't 

17 monitored. For instance, they had to leave 

18 their badges behind when they left the 

19 building. For instance, to use the restroom. 

20 The restroom was just outside the new 

21 betatron building and depending on the 

22 orientation of the beam, now the significant 
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 exposure is something like 50 mr per hour and 

2 that would not have been captured. So albeit 

3 not a huge exposure, but you know, it is 

4 there. 

5 So, and then some of the same men 

6 would have alternated as layout men, where 

7 they would have to mull over this casting and 

8 mark the placements where the films showed 

9 defects. And during that time, they didn't 

10 wear their badges because the were outside the 

11 betatron room and apparently there was a 

12 concern on the part of the management that if 

13 they wore their badges, they might become 

14 damaged from various, you know, physically.

15 So, all of their exposures would 

16 not have been captured. That is my second 

17 point.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's 

19 discuss that for a moment. And as I read the 

20 evaluation report, it appeared to me that 

21 NIOSH had modeled the restroom values, using 

22 an occupancy factor.
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 MR. ALLEN: Yes, actually --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Am I right or 

3 was that --

4 MR. ALLEN: Yes, but there was an 

5 error there that came to light afterwards. It 

6 is actually -- SC&A modeled restroom doses 

7 with two-shot scenarios. One was flipping the 

8 head.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

10 Flipping the head, so to speak?

11 MR. ALLEN: No pun intended. But 

12 in the ER report, we pointed out that it 

13 occurred after this one supervisor left and 

14 that was after the covered period. As it 

15 turns out, it was after he left that 

16 department, not after he left the site and 

17 there was a little over a year or two that 

18 this could have been happening --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: During the 

20 covered period.

21 MR. ALLEN: And so yes, we have 

22 got to look into that a little deeper. But 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198

1 actually I like relying on Mr. Dutko there. 

2 And he was an operator in the new betatron.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It sounded like 

4 he had a new assignment that went elsewhere in 

5 the company but was still employed.

6 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that was the 

7 error I made.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I spoke to him.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, I think, 

10 confirmed that, right?

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

12 MR. ALLEN: And, Mr. Dutko, sorry 

13 to keep bugging you but you have always been a 

14 good source of information and I think you are 

15 the one that originally brought up this idea 

16 of flipping the head on the betatron. And I 

17 know you have made the statement that if it 

18 occurred once, it occurred too often. You 

19 weren't real happy with it and I don't blame 

20 you.

21 MR. DUTKO: That is correct, sir. 

22 It was first introduced by [identifying 
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 information redacted]. He was the replacement 

2 boss for [identifying information redacted]. 

3 He was, I believe, from Los Alamos at the 

4 time. He introduced this move that we had no 

5 knowledge of whatsoever and I guarantee you 

6 when the betatron head was inverted, it would 

7 violate its own set limits. The far right 

8 limit would limit you to the northwest in 

9 rotation and the far left limit would limit 

10 you to the northeast in rotation. But even 

11 shooting on the tracks, the far northwest 

12 limit would put you with the cone shooting 

13 slightly down toward the ribbon door, down the 

14 railroad tracks to the ribbon door. That 

15 would allow that much rotation, slightly 

16 northwest.

17 MR. ALLEN: Okay and as far as 

18 inverting the head, do you have any feel, you 

19 were if I am not mistaken, you were primarily 

20 in the new betatron building.

21 MR. DUTKO: I was in both betatron 

22 buildings, sir.
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 MR. ALLEN: Okay and was that a 

2 routine occurrence or once a month?

3 MR. DUTKO: Routine? Well, I 

4 would not call it routine but again I say it 

5 was a move I was never happy with. When 

6 ordered to do so, I questioned it. And well, 

7 I was told to mind my own business and to do 

8 what I was told. It was a move I was not 

9 happy with, I felt was dangerous. And again, 

10 the order was by the head of the department.

11 It was nothing more than a time12 saving move. That is all it was. We were 

13 limited to zones shooting toward the control 

14 room in all instances by the limits. And this 

15 man introduced this but none of us had any 

16 knowledge of it. That was our first knowledge 

17 it could be performed in such a manner.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right. Is 

19 this the configuration that had the potential 

20 of exposing someone on the roof?

21 MR. ALLEN: No, that would be 

22 pretty much any configuration.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any 

2 configuration.

3 MR. ALLEN: This was more --

4 again, Mr. Dutko can correct me if I am wrong 

5 but the machine had limit switches on that 

6 prevented it from pointing towards the control 

7 room.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

9 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir, it did. Its 

10 normal limits again. The control room was on 

11 the north.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So this would 

13 allow it to point toward the control room?

14 MR. ALLEN: There was --

15 basically, this [identifying information 

16 redacted] introduced a procedure that would 

17 allow them to essentially defeat those limits.

18 MR. DUTKO: That is exactly right, 

19 sir.

20 MR. ALLEN: And again, I know that 

21 you were upset about it enough to where the 

22 impression I got -- it wasn't very frequently 
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 but I don't think I ever got a --

2 MR. DUTKO: I wouldn't say very 

3 frequently but they would use it as a 

4 timesaving mode whenever they chose. We had 

5 nothing to say about it, sir.

6 I knew it was questionable. 

7 Anybody with any common sense knew it was 

8 questionable. But when you get an order by 

9 the department head to do it to save casting 

10 moves and time, well you did what you were 

11 told.

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

13 John Ramspott.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: Just for 

16 clarification for everyone, there was a 

17 misunderstanding earlier about flipping the 

18 head of the betatron in order to expand the 

19 shooting parameters. That was misunderstood 

20 or mixed up with also shooting castings 

21 sitting on the railroad tracks versus in the 

22 actual center of the shooting vault.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

2 MR. RAMSPOTT: And I think that 

3 got mixed up because -- and Terry Dutko can 

4 correct me if I am wrong -- but Terry, wasn't 

5 shooting on the railroad tracks themselves, 

6 which is shooting out of the vault towards the 

7 opposite end of the shooting area, was that 

8 very consistent? Was that a regular process?

9 MR. DUTKO: Again, it was a time10 saving move. If they had a hot casting, they 

11 knew our rotation perimeters. They would set 

12 up the casting where we could set up the 

13 betatron due west, roughly and traverse it 

14 over to the tracks.

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: That is a big 

16 difference, Dave. That is shooting towards 

17 that 10 ribbon door, too.

18 MR. DUTKO: You did not have to 

19 rotate the betatron head or invert it to shoot 

20 on the tracks.

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: That was my point.

22 MR. DUTKO: This was a selling 
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 point by the betatron maker that you could 

2 shoot a casting on the track in place if the 

3 casting was placed properly. Not all shots, 

4 not all quadrants could be gotten on the 

5 tracks but in the case of one, two, three, 

6 four shots due west, that is what they would 

7 do.

8 MR. RAMSPOTT: Terry, which is the 

9 most frequently used process, shooting on the 

10 railroad tracks or flipping the head?

11 MR. DUTKO: I would say shooting 

12 on the railroad tracks, John, because it was a 

13 selling point of the betatron. It was used on 

14 an as-needed basis on a foreman's call.

15 If a foreman had a hot casting and 

16 he would bring it in, we would shoot it on the 

17 car and out again it would go.

18 MR. RAMSPOTT: Thank you.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me ask a 

20 question here, at this point, of NIOSH. When 

21 you do your modeling and you can model people 

22 who worked, for example, outside the building, 
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 or used the restroom and so on, did you assume 

2 a certain number or a frequency of the 

3 flipping of a certain -- well, you didn't do 

4 the flipping because you thought it was after 

5 the period, but let's say a certain frequency 

6 of pointing toward, I guess it would be 

7 pointing toward the ribbon door at that point 

8 versus a frequency of pointing, say, toward 

9 the west wall?

10 MR. ALLEN: Well, Mr. Ramspott, I 

11 think we had a misconception there too as far 

12 as what was flipping the head versus pointing 

13 at that west wall.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I got you.

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: I might add that 

16 restroom is towards that west wall. Is it 

17 not, Terry?

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the 

19 restroom, the diagram we are looking at one 

20 here, John.

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It looks like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206

1 the restroom is kind of at an angle between 

2 the north and the west wall and sort of 

3 adjacent to the ribbon door, just down a ways 

4 from it.

5 MR. DUTKO: It is about northwest.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

7 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

8 MR. DUTKO: Mr. Ziemer?

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

10 MR. DUTKO: If you can visualize a 

11 casting with the north quadrants of shots left 

12 on the corner of it, that is when they would 

13 invert the betatron to pick up that north 

14 quadrant of shots without rotating the 

15 casting.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I see, okay. 

17 Yes.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If I can comment, 

19 this is a briefing that was given back in May 

20 of 2008, luckily I have it here. But, I think 

21 it was distributed and it describes in the 

22 original, in the SC&A 2008 proposal 
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 summarizing it. And the calculations that 

2 were done here showing for instance the dose 

3 rate to the restroom. It is not test result. 

4 That was simply moving. Here is a betatron. 

5 It is pointing directly at a steel casting 

6 which is centered on the railroad tracks. You 

7 don't see the railroad tracks here.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I 

9 understand.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And so this is 

11 pointing at the railroad tracks. The casting 

12 is still there. And what you are getting 

13 there is -- remember, you can actually draw a 

14 straight line. You can see that the line from 

15 the betatron target to the restroom bypasses 

16 the shield wall. There is some thin metal 

17 wall here. It is not open air but it does not 

18 show up. This is the actual MCMP model but it 

19 is based on the ORNL diagrams from the two 

20 reports.

21 So unlike the betatron-1, it was 

22 completely surrounded, except for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208

1 entrance, by huge heavy shield walls. The 

2 betatron-2 was not.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I 

4 understand.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: One was, for 

6 whatever it is worth, one was actually built 

7 by the Army Corps of Engineers --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- and this one 

10 was built by a civilian contractor working for 

11 GSI.

12 Now if you added -- so here we 

13 have 22 millirem per hour in the restroom.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Near the corner of 

16 the restroom here. Now, but this is with the 

17 betatron being parallel for the proposed 

18 listing of the phone, like parallel to the 

19 south wall, aiming straight at the west wall.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: At the west 

21 wall.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: In the direction 
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 of the west wall.

2 Now if you then turn the betatron 

3 beam, let's say you wanted to have a casting 

4 somehow going here and the betatron beam is at 

5 an angle, it could be much worse. So even 

6 though this is line of site, the betatron beam 

7 is not isotropic, it is very heavily focused 

8 in the center and which you are getting just 

9 like the penumbra, the very stray edge of the 

10 beam. If it was to be otherwise direct hit, 

11 things could be much higher, even if it was 

12 not that common.

13 The thing I also want to point out 

14 is I think there is a misconception, perhaps 

15 if I recall on NIOSH response, well, there was 

16 an SC&A model. There is not an SC&A model. 

17 The reports are very careful. I mean, I 

18 thought I made clear in the report but it may 

19 have gotten lost in the words that this is 

20 simply examples of exposure scenarios not 

21 modeled by NIOSH which gave higher doses. We 

22 do not claim -- we claim that these 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

210

1 accurate. For that particular scenario, our 

2 calculations are as accurate as we know how to 

3 make them. However, we do not claim that 

4 these were limiting scenarios because, unlike 

5 NIOSH used the ATILLA code because it is much 

6 quicker to run and it allows you to get many, 

7 many locations, running MCMP X as we did, a 

8 typical one takes 24 hours. And we are 

9 talking about at that time, it was the best 

10 machine available to us, it was a 2.7 

11 gigahertz machine, and I know, factor one. 

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But these are 

13 dose rates, not integrated doses.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, these are 

15 rates.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: These are dose 

17 rates.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: These are hourly 

19 rates.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the bounding 

21 process, you basically are doing what I would 

22 consider to be an integrated dose over say 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

211

1 year for someone at some location.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. We did that 

3 also. We take the integrated dose for the 

4 radiography but we did not do an integrated 

5 dose for people outside the radiography area. 

6 The radiographers are not affected by this. 

7 They are here behind the shield.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I 

9 understand.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They do get a 

11 little scattered radiation going through the 

12 light shield these are cinder block walls. 

13 But they most likely would not have been on 

14 the side of the betatron when they were in 

15 here.

16 So they were reasonable and they 

17 actually had survey meters, which they used. 

18 And they never recorded the --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, let me 

20 make an analogy here. And I will do it in 

21 terms of shielding design. If you are 

22 designing a shield, say you are designing 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

212

1 shield and you have exactly that 

2 configuration, one of the things you do is 

3 determine what is going to be the annual dose 

4 to someone in that restroom? And to do that, 

5 you have to make some reasonable assumptions. 

6 What percent of the time is the beam in that 

7 direction?

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What percent is 

10 the restroom occupied?

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And you do it in 

13 a sort of generic way. It is a kind of 

14 bounding.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All I am saying 

17 is in principle, that can be bounding.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, there may 

20 be some issues with the assumptions made in 

21 terms of occupancy factors and the time that 

22 the beam is on for a shot and the percent 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

213

1 the time that it is pointed in some direction.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There is a 

3 problem. The occupancy factor we can probably 

4 say is, you know, is unlikely to be more than 

5 an hour a day.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I am just 

7 saying in principle you can do that. There 

8 may be some problems with coming up with the 

9 right assumptions.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And so in the 

12 bounding case that we are doing here, you 

13 make, I mean, for normal shielding design, 

14 there are accepted occupancy factors --

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- for 

17 bathrooms. For control rooms.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For all of those 

20 things. So you know, there are some sort of 

21 underlying principles that can be used. But I 

22 am trying to get a feel for two things. One 
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 is, once we know things about when the 

2 flipping occurred and other things, can it be 

3 bounded? And number two, are there other, are 

4 there incidents of the type you described that 

5 sort of exceed those bounds to the extent that 

6 we have not really bounded it correctly? I 

7 mean, the bounding, if done for this program, 

8 I would think would have to include the kind 

9 of things we do in shielding design but also 

10 consider the workplace issues that the 

11 petitioners have described which sometimes --

12 and you always, you often have this in real 

13 life, is where people defeat the system. The 

14 flipping of the thing is defeating of the 

15 system. They basically defeated interlocks 

16 and bypassed the designed safety features of 

17 the system.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And although 

20 that is unfortunate that that was done, and 

21 that never shows up when you are designing 

22 things a priori because you think everybody 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

215

1 going to follow the rules, but since that was 

2 done then you have to account for that.

3 But it seems to me in principle it 

4 could be accounted for. What is your feeling 

5 on that, Jim?

6 DR. NETON: I tend to agree with 

7 you. I mean, we might have to go back to the 

8 drawing board and fix a few issues here but I 

9 think it could be modeled based on certain 

10 assumptions, occupancy factors, and such. 

11 Because the theme is pretty well 

12 characterized. I think we might have some 

13 fundamental differences about the 

14 characteristics of the beam itself.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The beam should 

16 be normally characterized in terms of the 

17 energy, the targets, and the beam size.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We were able to 

19 actually characterize the beams in the first 

20 principle --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- microbeams 
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 would actually be the electrons --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, and you 

3 can do that not only for the photons but the 

4 numbers of neutrons generated, all of that. 

5 Right.

6 DR. MAURO: When all is said and 

7 done, there are certain classes of problems 

8 that we believe are tractable. That is, we 

9 may disagree on occupancy times and lots of --

10 such as how long does a person stay in a 

11 bathroom, but they are tractable. And at some 

12 point in the process, we could come to some 

13 consensus on what is a reasonable set of 

14 assumptions. And thereby place a plausible 

15 upper bound. I think that is what we are 

16 talking about on that.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

18 DR. MAURO: And then there is 

19 another class of problem, and this is the 

20 other side where we have some difficulty 

21 saying whether it is tractable or not.

22 And you know, when you boil it 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

217

1 down, I think that this ten-year period where 

2 you don't have available tools at this time, 

3 film badge data, I feel that falls under the 

4 category that may be very difficult to track. 

5 I am not saying it is not tractable because I 

6 understand your position. I am saying that 

7 falls on the side of the fence where I say we 

8 have got a problem.

9 All the things we are talking 

10 about here, I believe they are tractable. I 

11 think that reasonable people could come to 

12 some judgment regarding how we place a 

13 plausible upper bound on all of these 

14 different scenarios, whether it is the guy on 

15 the roof or the folks in the bathroom, what 

16 assumptions you want to make and we could work 

17 those out.

18 But I am troubled very deeply by 

19 the ten-year period where there is no film 

20 badge data available to us right now. It is 

21 simple as that.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, 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

218

1 comments on the second issue?

2 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer?

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

4 DR. McKEEL: I would like to 

5 comment.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

7 DR. McKEEL: I have been listening 

8 to finding one and finding two and the 

9 bounding discussion. And I believe -- I sort 

10 of hesitate because you are the health 

11 physicist and I am not, but it seems to me 

12 that in all instances where you all are 

13 talking about bounding and you can probably do 

14 it, what is left out of the equation is that 

15 you don't know the basic features of some of 

16 the major source terms that have to be 

17 bounded.

18 And this has been brought out in 

19 the discussion. You know quite a bit about 

20 the betatron but there is no definition of the 

21 cobalt sources. We have some anecdotal idea 

22 from the men about what the sizes 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

219

1 Nobody has discussed the portable x-ray unit 

2 or how that dose can be bound. And I believe 

3 and I have an explicit example in my critique 

4 to the SEC evaluation report by NIOSH and what 

5 I think is, you all seem to say that you can 

6 bound things by looking at the seven sources 

7 or so that there are at NIOSH, I mean at GSI, 

8 and you can pick the one that has the highest 

9 dose rate and say, well, that bounds all the 

10 others. And if it were true that radiation 

11 doses were not cumulative over time, I would 

12 say, well, okay maybe so. But the fact of the 

13 matter is, they are cumulative.

14 And so I think the way you have to 

15 bound things correctly is you have to first do 

16 the hard work of characterizing all of the 

17 sources completely, as in OCAS-IG-003. Then 

18 you have to set an upper dose range, 95th 

19 percentile, something, for that cumulative 

20 dose and then that could be used to set an 

21 acceptable bound.

22 But what I think you all have 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

220

1 you have a bound that you can place for 

2 uranium but not all the forms of uranium 

3 because they haven't really been covered 

4 adequately. You can place an upper bound for 

5 the betatron beam but not for the betatron 

6 beam and the glancing shots on the uranium, 

7 for example. But you cannot adequately place 

8 an upper bound on isotopic sources where you 

9 don't have any licenses and you really don't 

10 know their strength at a given time. You know 

11 the half life of cobalt but that changes over 

12 a 13-year period. You know, some of the 

13 cobalt sources would have decayed down to 

14 their half value and have to have been 

15 replaced.

16 So that is one comment. I just 

17 don't think -- and everybody is talking about 

18 what can be done. And we are four years into 

19 this process and I don't think you all have 

20 any more time to carry out the can-be-done 

21 thing. The issue, I believe is, can you do it 

22 now and has it been done. And basically 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

221

1 SC&A says, and I am sure we will get into 

2 this, but you know, they said that the bases 

3 for calculating accurate doses is not there in 

4 Appendix BB and that the dose reconstructions 

5 done thus far are flawed. And I just can't 

6 sit here and listen to the discussions and not 

7 make that as a very major point.

8 And so, you know, I was waiting 

9 today to hear some characterization. Now, I 

10 do have another comment about the efforts that 

11 have been expended to get characterization of 

12 those isotopic sources. And I have pointed 

13 out repeatedly that there was a law enacted in 

14 Illinois in 1957 -- I sent you actually the 

15 language of that law -- that required all 

16 radiation devices in that state to be 

17 registered with the State of Illinois. Now, 

18 somebody has got to have those records or at 

19 least explain why they don't have them. The 

20 law was to be administered by the Illinois 

21 Department of Health, which actually hosted 

22 the Nuclear Safety Division for a long 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

222

1 before it ever became IEMA. And so you know, 

2 I just think those things have to be looked 

3 for.

4 And I want to comment about my 

5 FOIA request to the NRC in 2006. At that 

6 time, there was a great amount of controversy 

7 about Granite City Steel versus General Steel 

8 Industries. And when I wrote that FOIA back 

9 then, I was confused about the issue somewhat. 

10 And it was late at night on the web and I 

11 filed a FOIA request because my thought at 

12 that time was, well, we have been talking 

13 about these sources, why not see if we can get 

14 the licenses. And that was three years ago. 

15 And so my FOIA request asked for Granite City 

16 Steel.

17 Now just recently, I submitted 

18 another request to the NRC. So I ask that 

19 that issue be revisited.

20 I also ask that -- Dr. Anigstein, 

21 you know did a tremendous job of trying to 

22 track down those licenses but I did notice 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

223

1 his narrative when he mentions that NARA said 

2 that they usually destroy things after 30 

3 years, did not ask the next question which I 

4 think is crucial, and that is, well, would you 

5 please look and see if by some chance those 

6 records from GSI and those source term 

7 licenses were not destroyed at the end of the 

8 30-year period.

9 So I think somebody -- once again, 

10 this is a data capture issue. Somebody from 

11 NIOSH or ORAU or whoever captures data should 

12 go to NARA and pursue that with vigor and look 

13 for those licenses. Because I sent you all 

14 recently a Case Western Reserve license that 

15 was terminated in 1996. It was active in 

16 1956-57. They were able to recover all of 

17 those records back then. That is the same era 

18 as we are talking about at GSI.

19 So you know, I hate to say this 

20 but I am going to say it anyway. I don't 

21 think we have tried hard enough and that was 

22 what SC&A was doing. My comment is, why isn'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

224

1 NIOSH actively pursuing all of that and 

2 sending a data capture team out to scour 

3 everywhere, including NARA. And actually Pat 

4 Worthington has agreed to extend the search 

5 she made for the sealed sources licenses at 

6 DOE to include the records from Weldon Spring 

7 and Mallinckrodt in the rare hope that in one 

8 of the Mallinckrodt technical reports, of 

9 which there were many on almost everything 

10 they did in that plan, there were hundreds of 

11 them issued, was there not one or more 

12 technical reports on 13 years of work done at 

13 GSI inspecting uranium.

14 I, frankly, would bet you anything 

15 that those technical reports exist. We need 

16 to find them. And I guess that is all I need 

17 to say on this issue.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

19 DR. McKEEL: But we need to try 

20 harder.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks, Dan, for 

22 those comments. And certainly characterizing 
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 the sources is important.

2 On the bounding issue, I was 

3 focusing specifically on bounding the betatron 

4 exposures. I wasn't actually addressing the 

5 other ones but I agree that they have to be 

6 looked at as well and that is one of the 

7 reasons we had the concern about the size of 

8 these sources.

9 Let me add one other things on the 

10 documents on licensing and registration. I 

11 would guess that registration records would be 

12 more important and I will tell you why. Most 

13 places that I am familiar with, the licenses 

14 do not correspond to what people actually 

15 have. For example, if I want to use an 80-

16 millicurie cobalt source, I am probably going 

17 to ask for a license for 100 because I am not 

18 exactly sure that the vendor is going to be 

19 able to give me exactly 80 and if he gives me 

20 81, I will be in violation of a license. 

21 I have had many licenses at my 

22 institution over the years and I have 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

226

1 many, many things on the license that I never 

2 possessed simply because you put them in there 

3 in case you want to get them. Or if you know 

4 you are going to get them like a cobalt 

5 irradiator, which I have for many years a 

6 couple of them, the activity I asked to be 

7 licensed was always greater than what I knew I 

8 was going to get, just to make sure that the 

9 actual device I got was lower than the license 

10 limit. Because if I am over, I am in 

11 violation.

12 On the other hand, registration, 

13 and I have been involved in that because most 

14 states early on had registration rather than 

15 licensing because NRC or AEC at that time took 

16 care of licensing. They registered the actual 

17 things they had.

18 And so I think your point that the 

19 Illinois registration information, it would 

20 seem to me, is the likeliest to be more in 

21 one-to-one correspondence with what actually 

22 existed on that site because you 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

227

1 register exactly what you had, usually no more 

2 and no less. So I personally would be 

3 interested if we were able to track it down in 

4 seeing what the facility registered.

5 Bob, you are shaking your head but 

6 --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We contacted 

8 Illinois. 

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They said they had 

11 nothing on it. They had no records. A fellow 

12 named [identifying information redacted] used 

13 to work for Landauer, he lives Chicago and 

14 knows who to talk to --

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: He said they have 

17 nothing and go to NRC.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, NRC would 

19 only have licensing records. They wouldn't 

20 have the --

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but I mean 

22 they said they had no knowledge. 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

228

1 information whatsoever. 

2 You know, as for General Steel 

3 Industry, General Steel Castings --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is this an 

5 official search by --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I guess not.

7 DR. MAURO: No, we just took it 

8 upon ourselves to see --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, --

10 DR. MAURO: -- because we knew 

11 this was going to be important.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right. I 

13 don't know if it makes any difference.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think it was a 

15 private citizen inquiry.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I don't 

17 know. I mean, we are assuming anecdotally 

18 that the small source was really small.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It sounds like 

21 from what you have seen, Jim, other factors 

22 that it probably 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

229

1 DR. NETON: I don't know that we 

2 did contact the Department of State.

3 MR. ALLEN: No --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You did contact 

5 them?

6 MR. ALLEN: We contacted NRC and 

7 the Department of Illinois --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Department of 

9 Nuclear Safety and their predecessor? They 

10 should have inherited those records. Right?

11 MR. ALLEN: Yes, the request 

12 wasn't isolated to licenses. We asked for any 

13 information they had on these sites and we 

14 didn't limit it to the particular dates 

15 either. We ended up with licenses for --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, they 

17 became a licensing agency later.

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that was all the 

19 information we got was some licenses. They 

20 were for years after, I think the '90s. I 

21 don't remember the dates. There was nothing 

22 in the time frame we were interested in. 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

230

1 included the other GSI sites. And I think 

2 they were primarily the other site and on the 

3 license itself, on a couple of them, it gave 

4 two or three addresses, one of which was 

5 including this address.

6 But the impression I got was 

7 moisture, density gauges and cesium, americium 

8 -- I am thinking it was the 1990s but I don't 

9 recall off the top of my head. I mean, it was 

10 definitely nowhere near the time frame we are 

11 interested in.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: GSI didn't exist 

13 after 1973.

14 MR. ALLEN: I actually wrote it 

15 down.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: After what date?

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Seventy-three was 

18 when GSI went out of business.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And what you had 

20 Dave was dated what?

21 MR. ALLEN: I have got termination 

22 of license January 8, 1992.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For what site?

2 MR. ALLEN: That is what I am 

3 trying to find here. I have got in the '80s, 

4 an amendment to that license was National 

5 Steel Corp., General City Division.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, they acquired 

7 the Granite Steel -- they acquired the GSI 

8 property but not the GSI operation. 

9 MR. ALLEN: Yes, we tried to find 

10 anything with any names of its predecessors.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But, they did not 

12 inherit the company.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Where were the 

14 betatrons at that point?

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The betatrons 

16 remained in -- both betatrons were put into, I 

17 think, one of the two betatron buildings, I 

18 don't know which one.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the sources?

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The sources we 

21 have no knowledge. If the company went out of 

22 business in 1973, then they dismantled 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

232

1 They sold the property, not the machinery, not 

2 the operation. They didn't sell the business. 

3 They just sold the property to Granite City 

4 Steel. As a matter of fact, a number of the 

5 workers simply crossed the street and got jobs 

6 with Granite City Steel.

7 But the operation did not continue 

8 and all records were destroyed and I remember 

9 there was a worker who testified to being 

10 ordered to destroy the records and supervise 

11 them being land-filled or incinerated.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do any of the 

13 site experts, John, do you or Mr. Dutko know 

14 or have some idea of the disposition of the 

15 sources?

16 MR. DUTKO: No, sir, I don't. 

17 This is John Dutko. I really don't, sir.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We don't know if 

19 they were, for example, sent to a burial 

20 ground, a waste site, versus returning to a 

21 vendor or transferred to another kind of 

22 similar facility somewhere then, I gather.
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 MR. DUTKO: Sir, I have no idea. 

2 I think the plant was sold in '73, '74 -- '73, 

3 I believe. And I have no idea what happened 

4 to the sources.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you.

6 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

7 Dan McKeel. I would like to say again, 

8 though, [identifying information redacted] was 

9 an extremely well versed person. He ran the 

10 film badge program. It is totally 

11 inconceivable to me that, yes, the company 

12 went out of business in 1973, but you probably 

13 know better than I do that when you terminate 

14 a source license, particularly for an 80-curie 

15 source, you know, somebody had to terminate 

16 those licenses and go through that process. 

17 And that is what I was trying to point out 

18 when I sent you all the decommissioning for 

19 the large cobalt-60 source at Case Western 

20 Reserve. That was 100 curies. CHAIRMAN 

21 ZIEMER: Well --

22 DR. McKEEL: It was many years, 25 
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 years after that source was disposed of that 

2 NRC finally closed out and terminated the 

3 license.

4 So again, I just can't believe 

5 there is no track of where those source 

6 licenses went and they were decommissioned. 

7 And I really think it is not fair to attribute 

8 to a fellow like [identifying information 

9 redacted] that he wouldn't have taken care of 

10 that as the plant closed down in an orderly 

11 fashion.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I would assume 

13 he would, too. And of course, in the case of 

14 Case Western Reserve, they still exist. They 

15 could have, I don't know when they actually 

16 closed the license.

17 DR. McKEEL: 1996.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: `96, so they 

19 possessed those sources up until recent years. 

20 So it remained in place --

21 DR. McKEEL: No, I'm sorry. They 

22 got rid of the sources a long time ago.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But the license.

2 DR. McKEEL: The license 

3 termination was not finally --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So the 

5 records, in a sense, are much more recent.

6 But I think you are exactly right. 

7 There certainly was a requirement in place in 

8 the '70s they would have had to have either 

9 transferred those sources to another licensee 

10 or they would have had to have disposed of 

11 them to a licensed facility. There is no way 

12 you could just dump an 80-curie source and 

13 have it -- I mean, I don't think it is going 

14 to happen. So the license had to be closed 

15 out for those sources by the NRC. That is why 

16 it is --

17 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I agree 

19 that it had to have occurred.

20 DR. McKEEL: Thank you.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Would it still 

22 have been AEC in '73?
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It would have 

2 been, or ERDA. No, it wouldn't have been 

3 ERDA. It would have been NRC. Either NRC or 

4 AEC, yes --

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: NRC came back --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, in any 

7 event, NRC or --

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but the point 

9 about how long the records are kept, the point 

10 that Dr. McKeel made that, here were the 

11 records going back to the '50s, yes, but it 

12 was a license that wasn't closed until recent 

13 years.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, they still 

15 had the license.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Whereas a license 

17 that's been closed over 30 years, they may not 

18 have had the records.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, you 

20 have contacted Illinois Department of Nuclear 

21 Safety then and they claim that they don't 

22 have the records.
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 MR. ALLEN: All we did was cast a 

2 wide net with a lot of names and time frames. 

3 What we got back was not relevant.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh. I guess I 

5 am a little surprised that they would destroy 

6 those kind of records in any event.

7 DR. NETON: They may not have 

8 destroyed them, they just don't know where 

9 they are, the storage vault they are located 

10 in.

11 MR. ALLEN: They actually had 

12 them. The licenses, like I said, were not 

13 relevant. They actually had those and we got 

14 copies of those but they are all from the '80s 

15 and '90s.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Not the earlier 

17 ones. 

18 MR. ALLEN: No, nothing earlier.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The later 

20 licenses were for this other company?

21 MR. ALLEN: Primarily -- yes.

22 DR. McKEEL: I got copies. 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

238

1 is Dan McKeel. I got copies of those later 

2 licenses, too and they were for basically 

3 Granite City Steel in the later years, owned 

4 by National Steel and U.S. Steel and 

5 subsequent owners.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There is no hint 

7 that the sources went over to Granite City, is 

8 there, that you can see?

9 DR. McKEEL: You know, those 

10 companies, they really didn't use -- well, all 

11 the source licenses I got from Granite City 

12 Steel were like Dave Allen mentioned, you 

13 know, americium-241. They looked like small 

14 tiny sources. I don't know what they would 

15 have used them for.

16 MR. ALLEN: There were some cesium 

17 and some americium. They were like the 

18 nuclear density gauges.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay. I got 

20 you.

21 MR. ALLEN: I'm not sure if that 

22 is correct but --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

239

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We need to take 

2 a comfort break here and then we will come 

3 back and continue. Give us 15 minutes.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

5 the record at 3:03 p.m. and 

6 resumed at 3:15 p.m.)

7 MR. KATZ: Mark, are you still 

8 with us? We are just starting up again.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's okay. We 

10 will come back to order again, anyway. We are 

11 going through the resolution matrix of the 

12 SC&A findings on the Special Exposure Cohort 

13 Petition Evaluation Report. We are ready to 

14 look at Issue 3, which is called lack of 

15 documentation.

16 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer?

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Somebody 

18 have a comment there?

19 MR. KATZ: John?

20 MR. DUTKO: I have a question, 

21 sir.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead.
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 MR. DUTKO: How are we given the 

2 correct bounding dose when our hours have been 

3 wrong for two years?

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, you are 

5 talking about the hours per week that are 

6 assigned to the workers?

7 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, that is an 

9 issue. Let's see, I am not sure if that comes 

10 up on this item but we are aware of the 

11 concerns on that issue.

12 MR. DUTKO: Well, we are shorted 

13 by 35 percent, sir, and it is hard to 

14 understand how we can be given correct credit 

15 for anything with such an hour shortage. When 

16 we gave an estimate of hours, it was an 

17 across-the-board average. And believe me, we 

18 had some people work quite a bit more than the 

19 hours average we gave you.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Yes, we 

21 will ask NIOSH at the appropriate time to 

22 address that issue 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

241

1 MR. DUTKO: Thank you, sir.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right now we are 

3 going to look at the third issue on the 

4 matrix. Bob, are you ready to go on this?

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, proceed.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, we came to a 

8 particular discussion of this matrix, of this 

9 issue -- gets bigger than the issue so a lot 

10 of it spills over from one issue to another. 

11 We have sort of partially discussed this. But 

12 the basic thing is, in summary, is that there 

13 is really very little documentation. We have 

14 the accounts of the workers that we just 

15 discussed. We have no records of the sources 

16 from either the possible source vendor that we 

17 contracted or the state or federal agency. So 

18 it is basically information estimates from 

19 workers of what they thought the sources were.

20 Similarly, there is the purchase 

21 orders for the uranium from 1958 through 1966 

22 and nothing beforehand. So NIOSH assigned 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

242

1 first dose -- I guess it's the highest dose --

2 not dose, the hours of exposure during which 

3 the uranium was being radiographed and 

4 handled.

5 And then so it is a philosophical 

6 question which arises. What constitutes 

7 sufficient accuracy? In other words, when 

8 there was speculation and anecdotal, and I 

9 might say without impugning anything to 

10 anyone, not always consistent -- different 

11 workers have different recollections. Some 

12 people I've interviewed even changed their 

13 recollection, you know, over a period of 

14 months or it may even be two years now. 

15 And so then the question is, what 

16 is sufficient accuracy. Is it sufficient 

17 accuracy to say let's take the bounding case, 

18 well the one person says we worked 45 hours a 

19 week and another one says we worked 80 hours a 

20 week, should we take 80? Should we take a 

21 consensus, which is like an average of 65? 

22 That is one example, and that is 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

243

1 tractable for a person. You are not going to 

2 be off by more than a factor of two. Full3 time workers work 40 hours. Hardly anyone 

4 would ever work more than 80, week in and week 

5 out. So that is a factor of two.

6 The sources, you know there is 

7 really that small source, especially well 

8 defined, the hours. So there was just a lot 

9 of well defined parameters and the question 

10 is, is it enough to take the worst possible 

11 case. Is that sufficiently accurate? We can 

12 certainly take the worst possible cases.

13 John Mauro said it is certainly 

14 highly unlikely that no one got more than 100 

15 rads a year because you would be getting some 

16 symptoms. Should that be a bounding case? Or 

17 should the film badge records for those -- or 

18 should the average film badge records which 

19 shows hardly anyone got more than 10 millirem 

20 a week if you can believe that M corresponds 

21 with a millirem bounding dose, should that be 

22 the bounding dose and the others considered 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

244

1 succession?

2 So I am just raising the 

3 philosophical question of how do you bound it 

4 with sufficient accuracy. And I have no 

5 answer.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So, and 

7 you spelled out some specifics in the 

8 discussion there. NIOSH had made a response 

9 that their assignments of doses, giving 

10 everyone a dose that is equivalent to the 

11 operators would be claimant-favorable.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, basically --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Then there are 

14 some other related questions that you have 

15 raised. Maybe the numbers of hours per week 

16 comes into this. I am trying to remember. I 

17 think some numbers were taken into 

18 consideration when you did your bounding. And 

19 that can be discussed more. I guess we have a 

20 range of different testimonies where numbers 

21 have come in.

22 DR. MAURO: Or shots, wasn't 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

245

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There were two 

2 things. One was work hours and the original 

3 Appendix BB tried to get it on the basis of 

4 the pay scale, which, you know, there was 

5 unanimous consent by the workers at the 

6 meeting, at the Collinsville meeting that this 

7 was not an appropriate approach and that their 

8 recollection was that it could be from 50 to 

9 80. They proposed anything from 50 to 80 

10 hours was a typical workweek. So they told us 

11 to compromise it, if we say 65, would it be 

12 reasonable and they said yes. And that 

13 corresponds to, if you say 64, that 

14 corresponds to three additional shifts a week, 

15 which is -- during the peak years. So that is 

16 a reasonably tractable, calculable issue.

17 And the point again about the 

18 analysis which we did which showed that under 

19 a very particular set of circumstances, the 

20 radiography of steel actually has higher doses 

21 of uranium, one reason being that the 

22 assumption, which has now been contradicted, 
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 was that all the uranium was in the form of 

2 four-inch slices and was simply way, way back 

3 two and a half years ago did some 

4 calculations, actually we got the information 

5 from the, I can't remember the name, something 

6 with the word Penny in it, an arsenal in 

7 Pennsylvania which is still operational, has a 

8 25 MeV betatron and they advertised they can 

9 go up to 20-inch thick steel.

10 So I simply put the associated 

11 coefficients for steel and for uranium and 

12 that translates into four inches for uranium. 

13 And then the workers agreed with 

14 perhaps a little bit of suggestion on my part, 

15 would you say those are four-inch slices? 

16 Yes, they were four-inch slices. So I might 

17 have put words into their mouth, but that is 

18 what we did.

19 Now more recently, Mr. Dutko and 

20 another worker that John Ramspott recommended 

21 that I interview, which I did, both said, oh, 

22 yes, they did these corner shots. I am 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

247

1 not 100 percent sure but those things I have 

2 yet to -- and those would have been shorter 

3 shots and they would have had less time 

4 protruding the uranium and more time up close 

5 and personally handling it. So those doses 

6 would go up.

7 Again, what we did, we were not 

8 trying to redo NIOSH's job. We were simply 

9 saying here are some examples. They are not 

10 binding. So, I would not necessarily -- I 

11 disagree with NIOSH saying, well, SC&A said 

12 that the uranium gives you less dose than the 

13 steel. In this particular example, yes.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Not necessarily 

15 in general.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Not necessarily in 

17 general.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, let's see. 

19 Jim or Dave, do you have any discussion on 

20 this third one? You have your response here. 

21 Any additional comments on this 

22 particular issue?
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 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer?

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes?

3 MR. DUTKO: I originally talked to 

4 Dr. Anigstein on x-raying of slices: that's 

5 for sure, we did. However, I forgot, which 

6 was my fault at the time, about corner shots 

7 we fired on ingots. We did agree that you 

8 cannot penetrate, because of density, a full 

9 ingot. But the corner shots were performed 

10 and inspect the first inch and a half of depth 

11 for metallurgy purposes. But I simply forgot 

12 at the time I was talking to Dr. Anigstein 

13 about the ingots about the corner shots.

14 [identifying information redacted]

15 wrote up an affidavit quite some time ago, 

16 years ago, about the corner shots and laid it 

17 out in detail, actually.

18 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan?

20 DR. McKEEL: [identifying 

21 information redacted] put that testimony on 

22 the record. It was posted on OCAS August 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

249

1 11th, 2006. So these recent findings are what 

2 are discouraging me. There doesn't need to be 

3 a recent finding. You know, he described the 

4 process. And between then and now, John 

5 Ramspott and I have offered voluminous direct 

6 evidence that both Mallinckrodt, Destrehan 

7 Street, and Weldon Spring, undoubtedly one of 

8 their main goals in having their ingots and 

9 dingots examined at GSI was to define that 

10 outer crust and the interface with the inner 

11 pure uranium core. So we believe that was a 

12 major thrust for the inspection work all 

13 along. And there are just, every report 

14 except Dr. Anigstein's and SC&A's indicates 

15 that ingots, not just slices, were sent over 

16 to General Steel. So that again is something 

17 I hope the new search by Pat Worthington at 

18 DOE or under Dr. Worthington at DOE by their 

19 chief researcher, she said, would disclose 

20 that in fact what we are claiming and what we 

21 have produced many documents to show by now 

22 probably is the truth.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

2 Let me ask Dave or Jim, what is the impact on 

3 your bounding, original bounding calculations 

4 of the corner shots? Was that included or is 

5 that going to change things very much, or at 

6 all, or a great deal, or do you have a feel 

7 for that at the moment?

8 MR. ALLEN: Not a good feel. 

9 There are competing effects. We originally in 

10 Appendix BB used essentially just a large slab 

11 of uranium, tried to x-ray it for a good 

12 amount of time to build up the fission 

13 products in it and develop a couple of 

14 scenarios and thought based on what we were 

15 told at that time that this would be a 

16 reasonably bounding estimate because at that 

17 time, we were told primarily it was four out 

18 of the troughs.

19 Now we have started working on it 

20 a little more. This idea of the cone of the 

21 machine getting near enough, activated to

22 produce residual radiation from the cone 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 the machine has become one of the larger 

2 pieces of dose in any kind of a scenario. So 

3 it suddenly becomes more bounding but shorter 

4 to shot. But you have also got to consider 

5 that the short shots are very short and that 

6 the dose of that cone has got to be a lesser 

7 amount than it had been for a long shot. It 

8 has got to be cone-activated first. 

9 A lot of different competing --

10 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer?

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But you haven't 

12 actually looked at it in any detail yet?

13 MR. ALLEN: We haven't looked at 

14 every possible scenario. We looked at what we 

15 thought would be a bounding --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

17 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer?

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead.

19 MR. DUTKO: When we are shooting 

20 short shots, which is 90 percent of the time, 

21 ten percent of our work was probably long 

22 shots or intermediate. We are in the shooting 
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 room, out of 15 minutes we are in the shooting 

2 room about 12 minutes setting up the shot. 

3 And simply, we have got a hot machine to our 

4 rear 100 percent of the time and a hot casting 

5 to the front of us 100 percent of the time.

6 I have heard the Board remark that 

7 we are shooting behind ten-foot walls. But 

8 this scenario, I wonder if it hasn't been 

9 overlooked. I know it was covered by Dr. 

10 Anigstein but if we are on activation at 100 

11 percent of the time, but I only shoot four 

12 shots an hour, one every 15 minutes, 52 

13 minutes we are in the shooting room, eight 

14 minutes we are in the control room.

15 Now, I don't understand where ten16 foot walls are very safe in this factor, sir.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well of course, 

18 there is a big difference between the beam 

19 itself and the activation in terms of those 

20 levels but, nonetheless, we are going to have 

21 to look at some additional -- do you need to 

22 look at the corner shots anymore or do 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

253

1 think you have got them covered at this point?

2 MR. ALLEN: Well, I thought when 

3 we were putting together the evaluation report 

4 was that the film badge was going to cover 

5 whatever scenarios we come up with. It has 

6 got to be consistent with the measurements.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Bob you 

8 had a comment?

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Two things. One 

10 is the way it would affect our analysis of the 

11 uranium, of the exposure from uranium, I 

12 assume the uranium slices. So what we call 

13 the Puzier effect would be small because you 

14 would have the large ingots, which would have 

15 the enhanced thorium all over its surface but 

16 now you are cutting a slice like a salami from 

17 the center. So that slice, which is four 

18 inches thick, 18 inches in diameter, only the 

19 circumferential surface has its enhancement. 

20 The flat surfaces, planar surfaces, do not. 

21 And so it is assumed that the worker was 

22 exposed 60 percent of the time, looking 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

254

1 effective percent of the time and he got some 

2 beta dose. Primarily it would have been a 

3 beta dose. I think also he would get some 

4 photon dose.

5 Now, if in fact some of the time 

6 there were in fact ingots, there would have 

7 been a much larger surface for the thorium-234 

8 and 234-m really, I think the real culprit, to 

9 have an effect. So it would make a 

10 difference, that exposure.

11 Also, speaking of the activation, 

12 back in March -- and we issued in April 2008 

13 report, I concluded Chapter Two by saying --

14 I'll read from it. The major source of 

15 uncertainty in the exposure analysis of the 

16 betatron operator is the residual incubation 

17 from the betatron itself after it is de18 energized. Our only sources of information 

19 are 2007 and further from the location with 

20 that author who reported having taken a 

21 measurement of which he had no written record. 

22 He was going by his recollection from 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

255

1 years earlier, that he went out into the 

2 shooting room immediately after or shortly 

3 after the thing was shut off and took a 

4 measurement at six feet from the target, from 

5 the betatron target to measure 15 millirems 

6 per hour or micro -- millirem per hour which 

7 then was gone within 16 minutes.

8 Now our MCMP X model could not 

9 reproduce that. We could not find where it 

10 was. We were quite certain they would not 

11 leave -- in the beam and it did not show any 

12 activation product that would account for 

13 anything like that kind of an exposure.

14 Now, on the other hand, we did not 

15 model the entire betatron apparatus. We just 

16 modeled the tube and the cone. We didn't try 

17 to model the magnet and everything surrounding 

18 it. It was too complicated. We didn't have 

19 enough data on it.

20 So my suggestion was -- so at that 

21 time when it was still operational, the 

22 original betatron or the piece of it 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

256

1 bought out but this company called MVP, to do 

2 testing and they would go there. Since then, 

3 from what I understand, their machine has 

4 self-destructed. It fell off the train and is 

5 no longer operational.

6 But there are still two metal 

7 facilities, one in Pennsylvania and another in 

8 China Lake that is operated by the Army and 

9 the one in China Lake Naval Testing, Naval 

10 Weapons Station in California. And it might, 

11 you know, it would be a fairly simple matter 

12 to send one or two people there, you know, 

13 make an arrangement to go into routine testing 

14 and run out immediately after it has shut off 

15 with the appropriate radiation monitor and try 

16 to measure that. It is a major part of the 

17 radiation.

18 DR. NETON: Actually, I am having 

19 trouble understanding why all of this film 

20 badge data we have is not relevant towards 

21 helping bound it and then the fact that the 

22 MCMP calculations are a factor of two or 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

257

1 higher than the film badge data indicate, why 

2 would we bother refining that model even more?

3 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer?

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well that brings

5 up one other issue. With the film badge, you 

6 bring another issue. If we do not know the 

7 quality of that radiation, we have no idea 

8 what it is.

9 DR. NETON: Well, we --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Then if the man is 

11 spending most of his time with his back to the 

12 machines and he is launching off the casting 

13 and the betatron is behind him. The film 

14 badge is on his chest. If you don't know the 

15 energy of the photon, we cannot make a 

16 correction for the absorption, but if the 

17 photons are say below 50 KeV, then you can

18 adjust the volume. I mean, round it off to 

19 two decimal places, the number is zero.

20 And so consequently, it is --

21 DR. NETON: Every scenario you 

22 have was sort of the worst-case scenario along 
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 the line here. And I just have trouble with 

2 these theories, almost like, are just sort of 

3 defeatist, almost.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No.

5 DR. NETON: I just think it is 

6 unlikely that every scenario along the way is 

7 as you portray.

8 You are pointing out technical 

9 issues that are possible. Are they plausible? 

10 I say no. I mean, that is my thought.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, it is a 

12 matter of --

13 DR. NETON: I mean sure, you could 

14 have a guy with his back to the source every 

15 single time. At worst case, it is a 

16 rotational geometry.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Assuming that he 

18 is turning and -- you see, he has removed, 

19 there is no reason for him to face the 

20 betatron because he has remote controls to 

21 adjust the position of the betatron.

22 DR. NETON: Well you are not 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

259

1 there when the betatron is on.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon me?

3 DR. NETON: You are not in there 

4 when the betatron is on.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Of course not. I 

6 am not suggesting that the betatron is on.

7 I am talking about this residual 

8 radiation. It is an unknown. It is a 

9 complete unknown.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You would have 

11 that with any monitoring situation. It is 

12 very rare that it is only one direction unless 

13 there is a particular task in some cases, such 

14 as hot cells and glove boxes, where the 

15 orientation is always a certain way.

16 Almost all jobs, and there is a 

17 lot of data to show this, get a mix of angles 

18 and that sort of thing. But I do want to ask 

19 a question here and then I think John or 

20 somebody on the phone had a question.

21 There is a concern that the 80-

22 curie source would be decaying and therefore, 
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 your dose is changing. Well if I were 

2 bounding it, I would just say just call it 80.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I agree.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So why would it 

5 be a concern that it is decaying? It is 

6 always getting lower, if anything.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Of course. I 

8 guess I --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I mean, at that 

10 point, it doesn't matter when it was acquired 

11 if it was an 80-curie. Do we know it was an 

12 80-curie? I mean, it must have been labeled.

13 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. 

14 No, you don't know it was an 80-curie.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Why was it 

16 called an 80-curie?

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Somebody said it 

18 was.

19 DR. McKEEL: You know, there is no 

20 evidence. There is no record of anything 

21 written about that source.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well wait 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

261

1 minute, how do we know they had a source then?

2 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer?

3 DR. McKEEL: I'll tell you why. 

4 Because we have --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm being 

6 facetious but somebody knows.

7 DR. McKEEL: I am not being 

8 facetious. 

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I said I was. 

10 Dan, I said I was being facetious.

11 DR. McKEEL: Oh.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I didn't say 

13 you were. I was being facetious. I know they 

14 had a source. I am just -- somebody has 

15 identified it as 80. That didn't come out of 

16 the blue.

17 MR. RAMSPOTT: We did identify it, 

18 Dr. Ziemer. [identifying information 

19 redacted], who was the real safety officer, 

20 identified it as 80. I spoke with no fewer 

21 than five isotope experts at the site to 

22 identify it as 80.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, so there is 

2 no reason for us to say it wasn't 80. And I 

3 am saying then we don't worry about decaying 

4 it down. We leave it at 80 so it always gives 

5 the maximum dose whenever we are calculating 

6 exposure to workers. We wouldn't necessarily, 

7 although you could, say okay then ten years 

8 later it has gone through two half-lives and 

9 we will cut that down. But I don't think the 

10 fact that it is decaying is an issue. You can 

11 either leave it uncorrected and you are over12 estimating or you can correct it. So, unless 

13 there is some reason to think there is really

14 500 or something.

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: This is John 

16 Ramspott again.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John.

18 MR. RAMSPOTT: We have heard 

19 occasionally 100, nothing more.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: I did ask to speak 

22 just a second ago.
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure. Yes, go 

2 ahead, John.

3 MR. RAMSPOTT: It is addressing 

4 Dr. Neton's question about all of the badge 

5 information and part of the reason, Dr. Neton, 

6 that the badge information would be inaccurate 

7 and incomplete; the men did not, the 

8 recognized badge-wearers did not wear the 

9 badges all of the time. Even though they were 

10 in radiological areas like 10 Building on the 

11 other side of the ribbon door, the same 

12 people, everybody is assuming they wore these 

13 badges full-time. That is 100 percent 

14 incorrect and we don't know what that 

15 breakdown is. That is one reason the badges 

16 are pretty much inaccurate.

17 Now the other reason is the front18 back thing. We are missing part of the reason 

19 here, too. The frontal back, posterior badge 

20 dose coming through the body, if it does, only 

21 getting part of it as noted at other sites. 

22 The other sites usually only had one radiation 
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 dose and, true, the person was spinning around 

2 and moving and you can do that. But at GSI, 

3 these guys were like an Oreo cookie, them 

4 being the cream. They had a hot spot in the 

5 front, being the uranium or the activated 

6 casting and you also had the activated 

7 betatron to the backside. So there were two 

8 radiation doses at the same time going from a 

9 badge that was on the front.

10 If they had a badge on the front 

11 and they had a badge on the back and you added 

12 them together, I would have to agree with you. 

13 But that is the other thing. We are missing 

14 it. There is two radiation sources in the 

15 room with the guy.

16 The other reason, and I think we 

17 are going to address this later, the badges 

18 did nothing with the neutrons, absolutely 

19 nothing. And I am talking about the neutrons 

20 coming off the uranium and the neutrons coming 

21 off, I guess, the metal product. My 

22 understanding is these kind of badges 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

265

1 they had did not read neutrons. And I looked 

2 at that Landauer site, too. They actually had 

3 badges that would read neutrons and that is 

4 not what these guys had. They had the red 

5 badges. They didn't have the blue ones.

6 And then the other thing was 

7 something we were waiting for from you and 

8 that is the film information. We know it was 

9 dental film. I have had workers say no 

10 filters, whatever that conversation was about 

11 today. I don't understand that completely. 

12 But the power, the photon beamed and the beams 

13 coming off, or the energy coming off the 

14 various sources, were they picked up by these 

15 badges? That I don't know. I have got to 

16 rely on you guys. You guys are the experts 

17 but that is something we still don't have an 

18 answer on either.

19 So there is four, maybe five 

20 things that we -- the badges are essentially 

21 useless. It is just my feeling. You have got 

22 to have good data and good foundation to build 
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 an assumption on. I hope that helps.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Jim, you 

3 had a comment here or did you?

4 DR. NETON: Well just a comment. 

5 I didn't mean to imply that the badges covered 

6 all exposures. I was trying to bring out the 

7 fact that we modeled exposures from the 

8 betatron itself would have been measured by 

9 the badges, not the time periods when the 

10 workers allegedly, supposedly weren't wearing 

11 their badges outside the betatron area.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

13 DR. NETON: And then also on this 

14 other issue, we can't have it both ways. The 

15 x-rays, the energy can't be 50 KeV and not 

16 recorded in AP geometry and they can't be so 

17 high if they are not recorded by the film 

18 badges. If they are that high, the AP 

19 geometry, the geometry is almost irrelevant. 

20 It just penetrates the body completely. 

21 So somewhere in the middle, I 

22 think, is going to be the exact story.
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 MEMBER MUNN: By the same token, 

2 you can't say the badges were worn always when 

3 there was low or no exposure.

4 DR. NETON: Yes. I agree though, 

5 John, that you raise a lot of good issues that 

6 do deserve to be addressed.

7 MR. RAMSPOTT: Thank you. 

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think I am 

9 certainly satisfied that there were filters in 

10 the badges. I am not aware of any Landauer 

11 badges that didn't have filters. I actually 

12 have used Landauer service myself since the 

13 first year they were in business back in the 

14 '50s and on up through. Their badges, those 

15 red ones particularly always had filters.

16 I don't know that any of our 

17 workers would know that that was the case. 

18 That is, the radiation safety staff was aware 

19 of it because they are very important in 

20 assessing whether you have got beta, gamma, 

21 low-energy photons, high energy. And the film 

22 badge company, Landauer, then assessed 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

268

1 very readily from the badge. But I don't 

2 think the average worker would be aware, 

3 number one, that there were filters, number 

4 two, what they were all about anyway. 

5 So it wouldn't surprise me. I 

6 mean, we didn't tell people that your badge 

7 has filters in it. They are not typically 

8 visible to the person wearing the badge. They 

9 are inside the packet. When the film is in 

10 there you don't see any filters. So I don't 

11 know that they would be aware of them even.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think that issue 

13 came up from a worker who actually changed the 

14 film. Somebody said it, though. But there 

15 were also badge designs where the filters were 

16 molded into the plastic and they would not 

17 have been visible.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You couldn't see 

19 them.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, they would 

21 not have been visible.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well in any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

269

1 event.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And as far as the 

3 sensitivity to high energy, we looked into 

4 that and it could be a factor of two. It was 

5 definitely not, like, invisible. I mean, high 

6 energy programs were definitely not invisible 

7 to somebody.

8 DR. MAURO: It is important we 

9 know whose side and what the weight of the 

10 evidence is telling us and that is that these 

11 workers didn't wear their badges when they 

12 were involved in doing their betatron 

13 operations. The overwhelming evidence is that 

14 the readouts we were getting there were very, 

15 very low. Most of them below the limit of 

16 detection on the badge. Whether the limit of 

17 detection was 10 millirem per change-out, or 

18 20 millirem. So in the end by going with the 

19 model to characterize the exposures, certainly 

20 the model itself is assigning a dose. In your 

21 case, six rem.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Down to 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

270

1 depending on what you are --

2 DR. MAURO: Depending on the 

3 thing. And of course our model, I think was 

4 as high as 13 because of certain differences.

5 But I think that I agree with Jim 

6 completely. The value of the film badge data 

7 that we do have certainly does one thing. It 

8 shows that the doses that are going to be 

9 assigned to the people involved in the 

10 betatron operations are certainly claimant11 favorable, as from the perspective of what did 

12 the film badge data tell you.

13 Now are they as claimant-favorable 

14 as they can be? Well, SC&A says well now, I 

15 think we could give you a little bit more on 

16 that. But we are talking about a completely 

17 tractable part of the problem. What is 

18 unfortunate here is I think that we are 

19 spending an awful lot of time modeling and 

20 arguing about different aspects of the 

21 betatron operation which in my mind, that is a 

22 tractable problem. We could deal 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

271

1 We will find a way. We will find a way to 

2 achieve closure on what is the best way to 

3 deal with those exposures.

4 So to me, I think the real 

5 challenge here, and this goes to the SEC 

6 issue, the real challenge here is -- and this 

7 is going to be a tough call -- can you assign 

8 doses to those workers for those ten-year 

9 period when there was no film badge data 

10 available to us. Is it reasonable for a 

11 health physicist to say, I think I could place 

12 a plausible upper bound with sufficient 

13 accuracy? It now becomes a definition of 

14 sufficient accuracy. Now we are in a realm 

15 where I think different people could 

16 reasonably differ on this. I know where I 

17 come down and where SC&A comes down on this. 

18 I think you have got a real problem there in 

19 terms of sufficient accuracy for that ten-year 

20 period.

21 And I mean, I guess I am at the 

22 point where I know we are spending a lot 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

272

1 time talking about the betatron but that is 

2 not where the issues are. The issues are the 

3 lack of film badge data for ten-year period. 

4 We will solve our betatron problem.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well if I could 

6 quote, this is from a report of the Work Group 

7 on the Special Exposure Cohort Petition Review 

8 January 16, 2006 plan. This was written, it 

9 was produced by SC&A, but it is a report on 

10 the meeting.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Which work group 

12 was this?

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon me?

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Which work 

15 group?

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is the Work 

17 Group on Special Exposure Cohort Petition 

18 Review.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And so there was a 

21 report. There was a long procedure document 

22 prepared by SC&A but I think the pertinent 
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 thing is the Appendix A to that procedure 

2 which was the actual report of the Work Group, 

3 and the key criterion that is spelled out in 

4 the regulation is radiation dose that can be 

5 estimated with sufficient accuracy that NIOSH 

6 has established that it has access to 

7 sufficient information to estimate the maximum 

8 radiation dose for every type of cancer for 

9 which radiation doses are reconstructed that 

10 could have been incurred in plausible 

11 circumstances by any member of the class. So, 

12 that seems to be the guiding principle.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

14 DR. MAURO: Now you are talking. 

15 Right on target.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That is exactly 

17 right.

18 DR. MAURO: Right. We are all 

19 operating from that premise. And as you heard 

20 from me, I mean, this is where I come out, I 

21 think that the way that, even though there are 

22 considerable uncertainties and differences 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

274

1 opinion on how best to come at the betatron 

2 issues, whether it is the mix of concrete, how 

3 much europium there might be in the count, I 

4 mean, all of these are issues that go toward 

5 how best to model that.

6 I think that, according to that 

7 definition, it is tractable. We can come 

8 someplace. And I think that, but according to 

9 that definition, we have got a problem with 

10 those. I am going to say it over and over 

11 again because that is where it is now.

12 Folks, if we are fortunate enough 

13 to get that data for the ten-year period, I 

14 mean, that is going to be very important. 

15 Because then we are in a situation where we 

16 have a dataset that will allow us to know the 

17 degree to which we have these unusual 

18 circumstances. So in the end, you know what 

19 we really have here is that we know that even 

20 the people who were working with the sources 

21 during the time period the badges were worn, 

22 they didn't get very much exposure at 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

275

1 But we also know that once in a while 

2 something bad happens.

3 Now in theory, if you have got ten 

4 years' worth of data, that puts you in a 

5 pretty good position to say that with that 

6 data, whether or not anything unusual occurred 

7 and when it occurred and who it occurred to, 

8 so that you can deal with that person's 

9 unusual circumstance and then you would be in 

10 a much stronger position to say we could place 

11 a plausible upper bound on just about every 

12 worker there because you have the badges.

13 So to me, and this is, and I am 

14 speaking as SC&A's position is that that is 

15 where I believe we believe the SEC issue lies.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, let me 

17 point out, and maybe we will skip ahead here, 

18 issue four has to do with some badge dosimetry 

19 energy dependence. We sort of talked about 

20 that a little bit.

21 Issue five has validation of the 

22 models of the exposure to the betatron 
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 operators. And we talked about some of that 

2 although there may be some refinements but I 

3 think with what you just said, that is 

4 solvable.

5 And then issue six, the external 

6 exposure of unmonitored workers. And in the 

7 finding it is titled underestimate. But --

8 and I guess that is part of what you are 

9 talking about now. It is that unmonitored 

10 part.

11 DR. MAURO: I think that the one 

12 thing, it is panning out.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

14 DR. MAURO: They are very much 

15 related.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And then 

17 I do want to point out I think --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There is a 

19 distinction. Unmonitored, meaning ones who 

20 were normally not -- even during that time 

21 period --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, 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

277

1 understand that.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- because they 

3 were not considered radiation workers.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

5 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry but if they 

6 were working with, at that time period, now we 

7 are talking about the late '60s now.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We are talking 

9 about the Landauer time.

10 DR. MAURO: During the Landauer 

11 time period, it is my understanding if you 

12 were working with a radioactive source or a 

13 betatron, you were wearing a film badge.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right but I am 

15 talking about the workers using -- working on 

16 the roof --

17 DR. MAURO: Okay.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- using the 

19 restroom, working in an area where they would 

20 spray betatron beams --

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- who were not --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

278

1 who were, by the present policies, are not 

2 given a higher dose.

3 DR. MAURO: But we think that is 

4 correct. I think that is tractable.

5 DR. NETON: That is a modeling 

6 issue.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, that is a 

8 modeling issue, yes. It is only issue one.

9 DR. NETON: I thought you were 

10 also referring to these people who were not 

11 monitored who were involved. That is the one 

12 that sticks in my mind.

13 DR. MAURO: That is what I am 

14 worried about. I am saying that people who 

15 were not monitored of an incidence, could have 

16 gotten multi-rem exposure.

17 DR. NETON: From these radiography 

18 --

19 DR. MAURO: Right. And it does, 

20 the idea that you are assigning six rem -- you 

21 are not doing that. Right now you are not 

22 doing 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

279

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

2 DR. MAURO: But let's say you were 

3 to do that. In my mind, that is pushing the 

4 boundaries of --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You are talking 

6 about unmonitored workers in the early --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right now we are 

8 talking about the later period.

9 DR. MAURO: No, no, no.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, you are 

11 talking about during the Landauer period but 

12 the unmonitored workers.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I am really 

14 talking about, perhaps the unmonitored is 

15 misleading here. What I am really talking 

16 about here in issue six is the workers who are 

17 assigned a 0.72 mR per hour. That this 

18 distinction between these two classes is not 

19 necessarily claimant-favorable because they 

20 did not -- the assumption made in Appendix BB 

21 was that there was a -- I never saw the 

22 details of the ATILLA analysis but my guess 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

280

1 that it simply said there was a ten-foot wall 

2 solid with no breaks all the way around the 

3 betatron, and the control room has the highest 

4 dose rate which is 0.72 mR per hour.

5 And I would say based on --

6 assuming that the betatron was in the center 

7 of the room, of the shooting room, not off to 

8 the edge so that the ten-foot wall was in fact 

9 this area, I would agree with that. But the 

10 fact is, showing the picture I showed before, 

11 a lot of areas were much, much higher. And 

12 consequently, I don't agree that 0.72 mR per 

13 hour is a sufficient bounding dose to the non14 radiation worker, under NIOSH.

15 DR. NETON: And we can talk about 

16 that but it needs to be calculable. I mean, 

17 it can be solved. I mean if we are going to 

18 try to incorporate this if it can be solved or 

19 it can't be solved.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There is a 

21 disagreement on the assumptions, not on the 

22 fact that it can be 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

281

1 DR. NETON: But the overriding 

2 issue on top of that, from what I am hearing, 

3 is that there will be other sources of 

4 exposure out by the betatron that could have 

5 gone unmonitored by workers who were 

6 frequenting the roped-off areas where people 

7 went to drink coffee and they walked through 

8 or had incidents, that sort of thing.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes, there is that 

10 category and I guess my -- you are right. You 

11 are bringing up another dimension.

12 My main concern is workers who 

13 were badged during that ten-year period. We 

14 don't have their data. And without their 

15 data, it is very difficult to assign a dose to 

16 those workers with sufficient accuracy for 

17 those workers, which include all these workers 

18 that were working with sources.

19 Now you bring up another category, 

20 which is, here is a worker who might have 

21 found himself in a very unusual circumstance 

22 who would normally not be monitored to wear 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

282

1 badge. In other words, you mentioned it, is 

2 the case where a person was inside the tank 

3 that was being irradiated and he wasn't 

4 wearing a badge because it was an incident.

5 Now here is a place where I think 

6 we could have a good discussion that these are 

7 very unusual incidents that, when they do 

8 occur, especially if you had a radiation 

9 protection program place with the badges, you 

10 would record doses and we would know a little 

11 bit more about it.

12 So I am sort of inclined to see 

13 the virtue in your argument. That is, listen, 

14 when those very strange things happened in the 

15 program where people were badged, there was a 

16 radiation protection program in place, and 

17 something very unusual like that occurred 

18 where some guy wasn't wearing a badge, wasn't 

19 supposed to be there, found himself in harm's 

20 way, there is going to be a record of that.

21 But you are saying, okay, --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There is no reason 
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 -- the main thing is, all internal GSI records 

2 were destroyed but there was no reason why 

3 they would report to Landauer or we would have 

4 a worker that was not covered of the badge 

5 program and he was on the premises, that is 

6 none of Landauer's business.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We only get the 

8 information through Landauer anyway on that. 

9 The workers are self-reporting it. Right?

10 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, absolutely.

11 DR. MAURO: So Bob, --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The guy that got 

13 irradiated in the tank was not badged anyway. 

14 Right?

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: He wasn't badged 

16 and the only reason we know about it is that a 

17 supervisor at the time remembered the incident 

18 but there was some question as to how long he 

19 was a supervisor.

20 I know when he terminated, when he 

21 stopped be a supervisor, because that is when 

22 his badge record stopped, but when he 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

284

1 is a little fuzzy.

2 DR. NETON: I have a little 

3 problem with the sort of the logic of this. 

4 Because there are incidents and because we 

5 can't possibly know of every single incident 

6 that occurred, then we can't do reasonable 

7 dose reconstructions for the individual worker 

8 because that essentially applies to every 

9 single site. Every single site we have done 

10 has that.

11 DR. MAURO: I like to always put 

12 everything on the table. When we are working 

13 at these DOE facilities and there is a health 

14 physics program and people are badged, records 

15 are kept, radiation work permits are in place, 

16 and when these kinds of strange things happen, 

17 there is a record. All right?

18 Now, Bob brings up a point that I 

19 guess in reality is what you are saying is 

20 well, there may have been a record. These 

21 unusual things occurred, but we don't have 

22 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

285

1 So I guess there are two tiers 

2 here. The big tier is that we don't have the 

3 film badge records for ten years. That is my 

4 number one concern. And then I would say then 

5 behind that you are saying that, well, there 

6 might have been some records of these unusual 

7 occurrences at one time but they don't exist 

8 anymore.

9 So you are in a difficult spot. 

10 It is not like a DOE facility where you can 

11 argue, and rightly so, when there was an 

12 unusual circumstance, there was a record made 

13 of it and we could go back and identify that 

14 person and somehow deal with it. But what I 

15 am hearing is that, if there was a strange 

16 circumstance that did occur here, the records 

17 don't exist anymore.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So what we hear 

19 from the workers is the GSI management, that 

20 was the last thing they were interested in. 

21 They were interested in doing the business, 

22 producing the casting, keeping their contract, 
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 and to help report something where there was 

2 no outside evidence of it, they many not have 

3 wanted to do it.

4 DR. NETON: I don't know.

5 MR. ALLEN: Well I mean the 

6 incidents themselves came about not from any 

7 records but from memories of the operators. 

8 And it wasn't one guy that remembered or told

9 some story. It is several guys, different 

10 settings telling the same story with the same 

11 names of who was involved.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

13 MR. ALLEN: These are memorable 

14 events for these guys.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, right. 

16 More than one person knows about it because it 

17 is shared within the group. They do emerge, 

18 significant events like that emerge with --

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes, a common everyday 

20 event is not going to have that kind of 

21 clarity and detail that these events --

22 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer?
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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes?

2 MR. DUTKO: Sir, I know film badge 

3 records have their purpose. But also those 

4 dosimeter logbooks have their purpose. We 

5 have dosimeter log exposure books in both 

6 betatrons. And you will probably find them in 

7 the dump somewhere because they ordered the 

8 last guy to leave the plant -- personally 

9 burned and destroyed, on orders, these 

10 records.

11 DR. McKEEL: I need to put on the 

12 record -- this is Dan McKeel.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan.

14 DR. McKEEL: There is one thing 

15 that is incorrect about what is being said and 

16 that is that [identifying information 

17 redacted] saw some records being destroyed but 

18 he also said, and I think this may be in his 

19 affidavit but it certainly was told to us, but 

20 he also saw loaded onto trucks several, and I 

21 think he said three or four, file cabinets 

22 that were taken to GSI headquarters 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 Clayton, Missouri.

2 Because as a matter of fact, when 

3 GSI went out of business at the current site, 

4 the facility that is covered, they did not 

5 close their doors forever, fold up their tents 

6 and go away. In fact, they had a corporate 

7 life of their own after that at National Roll 

8 in Avonmore, Pennsylvania, and we have tracked 

9 and gone to those people and seen whether they 

10 had any additional records.

11 So as a matter of fact, I am not 

12 saying that those records are now recoverable 

13 but to say that they were all completely, 100 

14 percent destroyed in 1973 goes against the 

15 information that we found and we have 

16 provided.

17 So, we need to be accurate in the 

18 comments that we make.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, thank you 

20 for clarifying that, Dan.

21 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me make one 
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 other comment on film badges and dosimeters. 

2 It certainly would have been helpful to have 

3 the dosimeter readings as kind of a 

4 verification.

5 I will tell you that in most 

6 facilities from the legal point of view, 

7 unless almost you get permission from the NRC, 

8 the film badge is the so-called dose of 

9 record. And for example, if you have pocket 

10 dosimeters that totaled below the legal 

11 quarterly dose limit and the film badges are 

12 over -- and this happens. They never agree 

13 100 percent. It is the film badge record that 

14 will be the one that will determine whether or 

15 not a licensee is in compliance.

16 MR. DUTKO: I understand what you 

17 are saying.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So the film 

19 badges, from the legal point of view and 

20 partially because those records can be 

21 retained and reviewed as we are able to 

22 recover them from Landauer and they keep those 
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 sort of forever, those are considered legally 

2 the dose of record. So, that has some sort of 

3 legal force. Obviously, we have to be careful 

4 how we interpret those and understand what 

5 they mean and what they don't mean. But as a 

6 starting point, they do carry some legal 

7 weight in this country.

8 So it certainly, whenever we have 

9 those kind of records, it is important that we 

10 do try to interpret them in terms of what do 

11 they mean, in terms of organ doses. Do the 

12 numbers mean, you know, for example, we don't 

13 have neutron information but can we calculate 

14 that based on what the gamma is and so on. So 

15 they are helpful.

16 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer, my point 

17 being --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes?

19 MR. DUTKO: -- why do we have one 

20 and not the other?

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well I think one 

22 of the reasons for that is the 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 records were with Landauer and they don't 

2 destroy records.

3 MR. DUTKO: I understand that.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, but the 

5 others, from a legal point of view, would not 

6 be considered dose of record. And there would 

7 be nothing to prevent a company from 

8 destroying those. The legal system normally 

9 would not consider those to be the dose of 

10 record.

11 MR. ALLEN: I was going to say, I 

12 mean, Landauer kept a copy but the customers 

13 who would have gotten the report from Landauer 

14 and GSI and we never tracked those down. We 

15 never found one report. We never found 

16 anything from GSI.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

18 MR. ELLIOTT: Even though we 

19 looked.

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes. There is not a 

21 lot of places to look for GSI but --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I was hoping 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

292

1 could at least get through all of these 

2 issues. Let me kind of see where we are here 

3 and see what we can focus on here.

4 Let me ask at this point, and I am 

5 not even sure this is part of the findings but 

6 I know that there has been a question about 

7 the neutron exposures. And could we discuss 

8 that for a moment? There are not neutron 

9 records but NIOSH has indicated that they are 

10 able to calculate neutron doses. And I think 

11 the petitioners have basically asked, how is 

12 that going to be done. Can you speak to that 

13 issue?

14 MR. ALLEN: The basic idea is that 

15 the only evidence of any neutron is good 

16 evidence, which is the physics behind what is 

17 going on there. And the physics behind the 

18 neutron creation creates much more gamma. And 

19 we have, like you said, film badge records for 

20 the gamma, depending on minor differences, 

21 depending on exposure scenarios and timing and 

22 stuff as far as what the ratio of the two 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

293

1 But if you know what the gamma is 

2 from the film badge measurements, they can 

3 determine the component of neutron that should 

4 be associated with it.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

6 MR. ALLEN: That is the basic 

7 idea.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have not 

9 actually done the calculation.

10 MR. ALLEN: In the White Paper 

11 from the last Work Group meeting we used what 

12 SC&A had come up with in the Appendix BB 

13 review and adjusted that for the film badge 

14 data and adjusted the appropriate neutron 

15 portions of that down.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Do you 

17 recall, and of course we know there is 

18 neutrons there because there is neutron 

19 activation as well as photon activation. But 

20 my experience with these is that the numbers 

21 of neutrons generated or the neutron flux is 

22 extremely low, compared to what it takes 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

294

1 give significant doses.

2 And do we have that number? I 

3 just want to make sure that the --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. The actual 

5 flux but that is not really -- it is relevant 

6 to build --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well you have a 

8 flux and you have an energy spectrum but go 

9 ahead.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The MCMP 

11 calculations said that there are 7.6 ten to 

12 the minus four neutrons per source electron.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Say it again.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: 7.56 E minus four 

15 neutrons per source electron. There are --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Per electron.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Per electron in 

18 the beam striking the target. Per electron 

19 striking the target.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Now, did 

21 anyone calculate the neutron -- well, either 

22 ask for the neutron fluence per unit photon 
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 fluence or the neutron dose per unit photon 

2 dose.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, that we have 

4 in the review of Appendix BB and they are very 

5 variable. It varies, for instance, in the 

6 control room with the betatron in the center 

7 of the shooting room pointing away from the 

8 control room, you get almost one to one. If 

9 you round it off, it is 0.4 millirems -- we 

10 are talking about dose now -- 0.4 millirem per 

11 hour photon, 0.3 millirem per hour neutron. 

12 That is at the one extreme.

13 On the other extreme, I am just 

14 eyeballing it but it looks like the other 

15 extreme would be in the restroom. I am 

16 quoting from Table 2 from my report, 21 

17 millirem per hour photon, 0.5 neutron. So in 

18 one case it is almost three to four and the 

19 other case it is one to 40. So the question 

20 is -- and all of the others are in-between.

21 So the question is, given that, 

22 how can you determine a neutron to photon 
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 ratio, short of doing what we did, which is 

2 analyzing each location and each exposure 

3 geometry. The reason being that the photons 

4 are, first of all, highly directional in a 

5 forward direction. The neutrons, I think, are 

6 isotropic, giving off -- I don't know the 

7 direction of the neutron. I should just say I 

8 don't know. But I don't think they 

9 necessarily follow the same shape as a photon 

10 beam.

11 And second of all, the 

12 continuation is very different, easier to 

13 attenuate photons than neutrons.

14 So, in this heavily shielded area 

15 in the control room --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The shielding is 

17 concrete?

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, it is 

19 concrete and sand. The way we modeled it for 

20 lack of better information is two 12-inch 

21 walls of concrete -- because it seems that 

22 less than that, from an engineering 
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 standpoint, it is not feasible -- and then in2 between filled with sand. And the dimensions 

3 are different because from the drawings of the 

4 FUSRAP report, the water is less than ten 

5 feet.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Does your 

7 program determine the neutron spectrum as it 

8 goes through the --

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, what we do or 

10 what the program does -- yes. What the 

11 program does is it tracks each particle. We 

12 have it in this coupled neutron/photon mode, 

13 which is what was done. I conferred with my 

14 colleague [identifying information redacted]

15 about this night before last. It tracks each 

16 particle. So basically, it tracks the 

17 electron, it swipes the platinum target and it 

18 goes through all the cross-sections of all of 

19 the particle interactions. The bremsstrahlung, 

20 which is the main reaction that produces the 

21 photons and also the short-lived activation of 

22 the target -- short-lived interaction. 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

298

1 sorry, it is not activation. The electrons 

2 actually knock neutrons out of the target, 25 

3 MeV. The 25 MeV electrons, the binding 

4 energies of the nucleons are on the order of 

5 10 MeV. So you can actually knock the neutron 

6 out of the platinum target.

7 And we did not take the trouble to 

8 characterize the spectrum. I mean, the 

9 program does it, but we did not ask for that 

10 output. We could. 

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well if there is 

12 that much concrete, you have got to have 

13 almost all thermals, don't you?

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You must have 

16 almost all thermal neutrons by the time it 

17 gets into the control room.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We did not ask 

19 that question.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, but the 

21 program must have --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. 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

299

1 entirely right. You are probably right. But 

2 I just said, we did not put that question to 

3 the program. Simply, in the program we have 

4 the --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have 

6 conversion built-in.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We have the dose 

8 conversion factor as a function of energy. 

9 The table dose conversion factors, so whatever 

10 energy the neutron comes in, it is assigned, 

11 it interpolates from the table that it is 

12 assigned a dose. If there was interest, we 

13 could re-run the calculations.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no.

15 DR. MAURO: Well, you want to get 

16 to the dose and you factor that in.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I guess I was a 

19 little surprised that the neutron dose in the 

20 control room approached that of the photon. 

21 Intuitively, I wouldn't have guessed that.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Because 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

300

1 for the case -- this is only for the case 

2 where the betatron is in the center of the 

3 shooting room, pointing away from the control 

4 room. So therefore, the photon dose is only 

5 from scattered radiation.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So the 

7 photon dose is dropped way off, anyway. The 

8 neutrons are leaking out in all directions.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

10 DR. NETON: I was going to say, 

11 the photon dose in the control room is pretty 

12 small.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is right. It 

14 is just that the neutron dose is slightly 

15 smaller but comparable.

16 DR. NETON: Yes, but it is a small 

17 dose of a --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It is a large 

19 factor.

20 DR. NETON: It is a big factor in 

21 a small dose.

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

301

1 As far as the other, I looked into 

2 that, as far as the activation of the steel,

3 any neutron-emitting radio nuclides are so 

4 short-lived that they would be gone by the 

5 time the worker came out of the control room 

6 and approached the steel, they would be long 

7 ago dead.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Really short9 lived stuff.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It takes a few 

11 seconds to get there and a small fraction of a 

12 second. 

13 The question that was raised by 

14 John Ramspott, as far as uranium, yes, 

15 uranium, there is some spontaneous fission of 

16 uranium and it does give off some neutrons. 

17 But it is a very, very small fraction of the 

18 photon dose. So we just did it on theory.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You are talking 

20 about --

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The natural 

22 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

302

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- the natural 

2 spontaneous fission rate of U-238?

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, U-238 has a 

4 higher spontaneous rate of fission than 235.

5 DR. NETON: Oh, you mean just the 

6 spontaneous fission.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, it is tiny. 

8 It is small. It is very small.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't think 

10 you could detect that.

11 DR. NETON: We have a TIB that has 

12 that calculation.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And then as far as 

14 the delayed -- and we did that. We looked for 

15 delayed neutrons out of uranium. And after 

16 one second, there are none.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. What a 

18 physicist means by delayed may be more than a

19 millisecond.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. The 

21 latest version that we have, it was in the 

22 latest version SC&A had just introduced 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

303

1 delayed gamma and delayed intra-capabilities.

2 And you start off with a shake, 

3 which is ten to the minus eight seconds. And 

4 during that shake, you get -- well, but as 

5 soon as you go past that.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, but delayed 

7 neutrons for what we are talking about, a 

8 worker going in, has no meaning. They go on 

9 before --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I'm just 

11 saying we analyzed it and I agree, there were 

12 none.

13 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer?

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That is -- no, 

15 never mind.

16 DR. NETON: Bob, my question is 

17 what percentage of the total photon dose does 

18 the neutron dose represent, under the most 

19 extreme circumstance?

20 DR. MAURO: So you are limiting 

21 case.

22 DR. NETON: I mean, that 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

304

1 goal --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we may not 

3 know the limiting case. The worst case that 

4 you saw was the restroom which was --

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, the worst case 

6 is the roof.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- the one that 

8 went on in the control room.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, the worst case 

10 is the roof. I just used the restroom as a --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The roof is 

12 what?

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The roof of the 

14 betatron building right above the betatron and 

15 again, they were not necessarily the limiting 

16 configuration. Because as I showed before, 

17 the betatron beam is horizontal.

18 Now, with a round casting, there 

19 will definitely be some shots. They never 

20 shoot straight out but there were definitely 

21 some shots at an elevated angle. And 

22 therefore, the dose for the roof would 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

305

1 been higher than we calculated.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What did you 

3 find for neutron versus --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, for the 

5 neutron, 16.2 and 192 for photon.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So that is a ten 

7 to one.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: About.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Roughly.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: A little less than 

11 ten to one.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or 16.2 and 192?

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And 192, right. 

14 It was less than 11, 12 to one. Eleven to 

15 one, twelve to one.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So the stuff you 

17 have given us, the worst case is roughly one 

18 to one in the control room --

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- but the dose 

21 is --

22 DR. MAURO: Small. The dose 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

306

1 small.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The dose is small. 

3 I mean, the range of neutron doses goes, you 

4 know, the dose rates for all the scenarios 

5 ranges from 0.3 to 16 on the roof; 0.3 in the 

6 control room, 16 on the roof. The range of 

7 photon doses goes from 0.4 in the control room 

8 to 192 on the roof.

9 DR. NETON: What I am trying to 

10 get at, though is that the six rem total dose 

11 that we are assigning for photon, we are going 

12 to increase it by some --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But you haven't 

14 settled on a factor yet. Is that correct?

15 DR. NETON: I don't know.

16 MR. ALLEN: Like I said in that 

17 White Paper, you got different factors so we 

18 put them to a scenario. There are other 

19 scenarios in here where you get, really, a 

20 ratio of zero. You can't use numbers that 

21 don't have neutrons associated with them that 

22 would show up on a 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

307

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. But 

2 based on this, you are using the same approach 

3 then, this kind of a model and then --

4 MR. ALLEN: In the White Paper, we 

5 did.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In the White 

7 Paper. And what is the bottom line there? 

8 Remind me so I don't have to look it up.

9 MR. ALLEN: I'm trying to 

10 remember. We got an adjustment to the film 

11 badge dose. The gamma went way down, 

12 obviously, and we already know there are 

13 errors now from what we were told. But that 

14 was 0.74 rem photon and 41 millirem neutron. 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, 0.74 --

16 MR. ALLEN: It's in the teens.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- rem photon.

18 DR. NETON: 0.7 versus 0.04?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And what was the 

20 neutron?

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Have we seen this 

22 White Paper? Oh, this is the White Paper --
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 MR. ALLEN: This is from a while 

2 back.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- for TBD-6000.

4 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

5 DR. NETON: It is five percent.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 0.04?

7 MR. ALLEN: Yes, 0.04.

8 DR. NETON: 0.7 versus 0.04, 

9 around five percent.

10 MR. ALLEN: Around. It is a 

11 little higher than that. That is the overall 

12 scenario for this particular scenario.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, okay.

14 MR. ALLEN: And that is adjusted 

15 for film badge, like I said. Like I said, it 

16 took some analysis because sometimes you could 

17 adjust the gamma. You know, based on the 

18 scenario, you could adjust the gamma down to 

19 the film badge but the neutrons you couldn't 

20 do directly because it depended on when it was 

21 exposed to neutrons and gammas and when it 

22 was exposed to just gamma. The scenario 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

309

1 important there.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, but I am 

3 trying to help the petitioner get an answer to 

4 the question. And Dan McKeel, are you still 

5 on the line?

6 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir, and I would 

7 like to --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I want you to 

9 ask -- you have heard this discussion here.

10 DR. McKEEL: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You probably 

12 have some questions now but at least you, at 

13 this point, have an idea of the approach that 

14 is being proposed for assigning neutron dose 

15 so you may have some questions at this point.

16 DR. McKEEL: I do.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Go ahead.

18 DR. McKEEL: Basically, I have 

19 three comments and a question. My original 

20 question was that, on page 30 of the NIOSH 

21 evaluation report of SEC-105, it says that a 

22 photon to neutron study is in place, quote. 
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 And I asked four times where was this study 

2 published. Where is it? Is it a White Paper? 

3 Where is the actual report? In place, to me 

4 means it is done.

5 And I wrote to Laurie Breyer, the 

6 SEC counsel. Then I copied it to Larry 

7 Elliott and then I copied it to Larry and Dr. 

8 Neton. And I could not get an answer from 

9 them but Laurie said it was in that White 

10 Paper in November 2008. And then I looked at 

11 that carefully and I wrote back and said well, 

12 I do see neutron doses listed but there is no, 

13 zero, none, no methodology. And so how could 

14 you do a study without at least describing the 

15 basic methods and what you did.

16 And I said so, if I am missing 

17 something, please show me. Tell me the page 

18 numbers in that November 2008 White Paper 

19 where the photon to neutron study is located. 

20 And I got no answer.

21 The second observation I would 

22 make is I think it is important to note 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

311

1 as far as I can determine, NIOSH has not used 

2 a dose calculation for neutrons in any of the 

3 dose reconstructions completed to date. And 

4 you know, it seems to me that that is a 

5 definite inadequacy. They did not describe a 

6 methodology for calculating neutrons in 

7 Appendix BB. So that seems like another big 

8 problem.

9 So I primarily -- oh. And the 

10 other thing that seems to me extremely odd is 

11 that we have been hearing all day about the 

12 calculations that SC&A has done of neutrons at 

13 GSI. And it seems to me that that is exactly 

14 backwards of what I understand everybody's 

15 jobs to be. 

16 It seems to me the job of NIOSH is 

17 to calculate neutrons and apply them in dose 

18 reconstructions. And if they can't, that 

19 would contribute, as it did at Rocky Flats, to 

20 awarding an SEC or recommending an SEC.

21 In this case, NIOSH, as far as I 

22 can tell, has not done that. They may have 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

312

1 way to approach the problem but they have not 

2 actually approached it and done a study that 

3 they can hand to anyone to see. And somehow, 

4 SC&A has taken over that role. And I will 

5 admit to you, that bewilders me completely.

6 So I think I don't have anything 

7 more to say about it right at this point. But 

8 I would like today to hear an answer probably 

9 from Dr. Neton, if possible, is -- has NIOSH 

10 done a separate, stand-alone, published 

11 photon-to-neutron study. And if so, could the 

12 Work Group, and myself, and SC&A please get a 

13 copy of it?

14 MR. ALLEN: The neutron study that 

15 was referred to, and it is the White Paper, 

16 just like you were told three times in the 

17 emails, if you would like, I will send the 

18 emails with your question and our replies to 

19 the Working Group.

20 DR. McKEEL: I don't think that 

21 would be useful because I think everybody can 

22 read the White Paper and there is no photon-
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 to-neutron methodology described in that 

2 paper. I will just make that as a flat-out 

3 statement. If I am wrong, I wish somebody 

4 would send me a correction of that. That is 

5 all I can say.

6 So no, I don't think that would be 

7 helpful.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Remind me. The 

9 paper describes what? I don't have it open 

10 here before me.

11 MR. ALLEN: The paper described, 

12 essentially like I said, that SC&A did a 

13 review of Appendix BB, which included several 

14 scenarios of exposure models and that included 

15 neutron dose in those exposure models.

16 After they did their review or 

17 that review they published and will after we 

18 did Appendix BB, we got the Landauer film 

19 badge data.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

21 MR. ALLEN: So what we decided to 

22 do was to take what SC&A put together in 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

314

1 exposure models and tried to adjust that to 

2 what the film badge data told us. And that is 

3 essentially what the White Paper did, which 

4 includes the neutrons but you couldn't just do 

5 a straight average. You had to adjust the 

6 scenarios. You know, there are different 

7 ratios of photon-to-neutron for different 

8 portions of the scenario. So we wanted to 

9 make sure we had all that correct.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So what 

11 you are saying is that as far as you are 

12 concerned, the White Paper describes how you 

13 have used the neutron information, which 

14 agreed was generated by SC&A simply as they 

15 were evaluating, I think, the original part, 

16 Appendix BB. And being aware that, I guess, I 

17 am trying to remember in the Appendix, you had 

18 already discussed neutrons or you hadn't 

19 discussed them at that point but you raised 

20 the point --

21 MR. ALLEN: Exactly.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- and used 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

315

1 as an illustration --

2 MR. ALLEN: Yes, to see if it was 

3 important.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- to see if it 

5 was important.

6 MR. ALLEN: Yes. Basically when 

7 we read it we said listen, is it possible that 

8 --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I guess 

10 having done that, NIOSH basically agreed, yes, 

11 this probably should be looked at and the way 

12 you did it seemed appropriate and they would 

13 adjust it within the parameters of the other 

14 data that was available.

15 So, that appears -- I guess, 

16 perhaps Dr. McKeel, your concern is that you 

17 don't feel that NIOSH explained in a formal 

18 way exactly how they approached this or --

19 DR. McKEEL: Well, what I think is 

20 that it would be better instead of saying that 

21 a photon-to-neutron study is in place, now 

22 that the NIOSH White Paper is available, 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

316

1 don't believe that White Paper, I'm not sure 

2 whether it has been published to OCAS or not, 

3 but anyway, once that becomes an official 

4 technical document, I think that should be 

5 referred to as, you know, as the reference for 

6 the statement that a photon-to-neutron study 

7 is in place. I personally don't think it is 

8 very well described at all but I guess others 

9 can make their judgment. And I can't imagine 

10 that that would be useful for dose 

11 reconstructors.

12 But anyway, that is up to NIOSH. 

13 But I think they ought to fairly represent. 

14 If a method they are using was originally 

15 worked out by SC&A, then that should be stated 

16 in the technical document and that would at 

17 least put the record straighter. So I guess 

18 that is what I was saying.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, the date 

20 on that document is what?

21 DR. McKEEL: It is November 2008, 

22 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

317

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do you have 

2 that, Dave? Is that a dated document? I 

3 mean, I believe I have it but --

4 MR. ALLEN: I know you have it but 

5 there is no date on it. I'm sorry.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think I could 

7 cast a little light on that because I have the 

8 White Paper and we responded to it on November 

9 8th. Oh yes, October 31st. But then my 

10 response I cite here would be the White Paper. 

11 But October 31, 2008 and I --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That was the 

13 NIOSH date?

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, the -- well, 

15 there is no date on it but that is the date on 

16 which we received it.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me remind 

18 everybody this is always an issue of mine. I 

19 am all documents. Date them because sometimes 

20 they undergo revisions, and which copy am I 

21 looking at? It is very helpful to have the 

22 date.
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 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This was the --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Because I know 

3 they are often transmitted by email and has 

4 the date but then they get separated. I 

5 always pull my reports off the emails and file 

6 them separately because my email box, I found 

7 out on my computer, has limits and I get too 

8 many of these big documents and then my system 

9 won't accept any more.

10 Yes, so it would be helpful, 

11 actually, to have a formal copy of that that 

12 is dated. People can debate and Dan has 

13 rightly pointed out, we can discuss whether 

14 that is a study or not but it does describe 

15 what NIOSH is doing and I think that is 

16 helpful for all parties to know that. 

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: About the date, as 

18 I said, we received it on October 31st. 

19 However, as I recall, there was a PA-cleared 

20 version put out a little later with no 

21 changes.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 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

319

1 original one, you still have a date on it. 

2 The PA-cleared version can still carry the 

3 original data. It is just the PA-cleared 

4 version of that.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. But as I 

6 said, there was no actual date in the body of 

7 it.

8 I don't know if I can -- I just 

9 want to clarify what I said before because I 

10 think I was a little ambiguous. I was just 

11 giving you all of the exposure rates.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I forgot that we 

14 have a summary table where we do say that for 

15 instance, for the radiography of steel, on the 

16 25 MeV betatron. The cumulative dose is, with 

17 all of the different types of shots, 1.8 to 

18 the operator now, to the betatron operator, 

19 1.8 millirem neutron per shift, per eight-hour 

20 shift and 33.5 from photon. Or that is 

21 actually the exposure. 

22 So we mix millirem here and mR but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

320

1 the ratio is like 15 to one, something like 

2 that. And then the NIOSH White Paper, I 

3 believe, simply takes that or a similar ratio 

4 and after first using the film badge data to 

5 calculate an effective dose, weekly dose, or 

6 annual dose rather, they then use that ratio -

7 -

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: To increase the 

9 total.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- to assign a 

11 neutron dose of 41 millirem, based on our 

12 calculated photon and neutron and their 

13 estimate of photons based on film badge, based 

14 on the statistical analysis of the film badge 

15 data.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And there is no 

18 more detail. I just read this one paragraph. 

19 There is no detail.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we 

21 are going to have more work to do. And I had 

22 hoped to at least get through all of these 
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 issues today. I had tried to commit to people 

2 that we would finish by 4:30. We are not 

3 going to make that. We need to allow a little 

4 time to identify sort of the path ahead and 

5 also to talk about when we can meet again.

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer?

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes?

8 MR. RAMSPOTT: Could I ask one 

9 question? This is John Ramspott.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead, John.

11 MR. RAMSPOTT: It was on item 

12 eight. I have been listening to this neutron 

13 information.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Anigstein's 

16 item number 8(e), NIOSH has neglected the 

17 neutron dose in performing dose 

18 reconstructions. Is that correct?

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry. Could 

20 you repeat the question?

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You mean on past 

22 dose reconstructions?
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 MR. RAMSPOTT: NIOSH has neglected 

2 the neutron dose in performing dose 

3 reconstructions. Is that correct to date?

4 DR. NETON: I will try this. That 

5 is correct as far as the dose reconstructions 

6 that have been done thus far.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In the past.

8 DR. NETON: That is true.

9 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay.

10 DR. NETON: I would say, though, 

11 that is in conjunction with a lot of 

12 additional changes that are being discussed as 

13 part of the Appendix BB and the other review 

14 of Appendix BB. So it is just one of several 

15 items that will eventually change in the dose 

16 reconstructions for all GSI.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In which case, 

18 they would go back and re-do those.

19 DR. NETON: Right. And we 

20 consider it our practice not to redo these 

21 dose reconstructions piecemeal because it is, 

22 frankly, onerous and burdensome on 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

323

1 claimants.

2 MR. RAMSPOTT: I can understand 

3 that but I've got people dying. And I am just 

4 curious why has it been neglected in total to 

5 this date? Is that not contrary to the 

6 guidelines about all radiation must be 

7 included in dose reconstruction? That is my 

8 question.

9 DR. NETON: Well, you are right, 

10 John. This is Jim. It wasn't included. It 

11 was an oversight on our part, I guess.

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay.

13 DR. NETON: If you consider that 

14 neglect, so be it.

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: Oversight I can 

16 understand, as long as it is addressed now. I 

17 have some people that are 49.23s and what have 

18 you and this would blow them over the top, 

19 probably. But I would just like to tell them 

20 --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, don't tell 

22 them in advance. You don't know that until --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

324

1 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm not going to 

2 tell them they are getting paid. I would just 

3 like to be able to tell them the neutrons are 

4 going to be looked into.

5 DR. NETON: I hear you very 

6 clearly, John.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

8 MR. RAMSPOTT: Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, my thought 

10 is, as I indicated earlier, maybe in six weeks 

11 or so we need to get through the rest of these 

12 items in some depth. Also, I want to get a 

13 feel for what we need to do on the issues that 

14 we already discussed. 

15 On issue one, it is sort of what 

16 dose gets assigned for unmonitored workers. 

17 Do we need to wait and find out what we find 

18 from the Picker information before that?

19 DR. NETON: Are we back on -- I'm 

20 sorry --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I am looking at 

22 issue one. I made a note 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

325

1 DR. NETON: It is for the ER 

2 review or the ED?

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, this is 

4 issue one of the ER review.

5 DR. NETON: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Issue one of the 

7 ER review. I think the other items we have 

8 sort of already covered those. But on the ER 

9 review, particularly those who were not the 

10 people with the incidents but these other 

11 unmonitored people. How do we assign dose? 

12 That is still the question. 

13 And I don't know if you will have 

14 further thoughts on that in terms of is there 

15 a way to take into consideration no 

16 assumptions about lots of incidents but what 

17 are we going to do about the small source? 

18 One thought on the so-called small source. We 

19 might be able to get a handle on that based on 

20 the practices there at GSI. For example, John 

21 or Terry, do we know what the distance was 

22 that was used to rope off a shot from a small 
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 source? Like was it ten feet or twenty feet?

2 DR. MAURO: It is mR per hour.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I know that. I 

4 want to know if they can tell me about what 

5 the distance was. If I know it is --

6 MR. DUTKO: All the supervisor 

7 said was one and a half times. One and a half 

8 times.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Yes, but 

10 can you just tell me based on your experience? 

11 Was that like five feet away or was it 20 

12 feet away?

13 MR. DUTKO: I can't tell you what 

14 they roped off, sir. I was in the betatron.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Do we 

16 have, is there anyone still around that knows 

17 that?

18 MR. DUTKO: [identifying 

19 information redacted] might be able to say.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Here is my 

21 thought. We know that the one and a half 

22 times -- I mean, legally, you work hard to get 
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 2 mR per hour, I believe. And if we know what 

2 they roped off and it was one and a half times 

3 what it required to get to two and a half, we 

4 know what the strength was at a given 

5 distance. And for cobalt it is very easy to 

6 back-calculate. We can get a handle, I think 

7 on the size of that source.

8 MR. DUTKO: The only thing that 

9 comes to my mind is he was referring to one 

10 and a half times a safe distance.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Exactly.

12 MR. DUTKO: A safe distance.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And does 

14 somebody know typically what that distance 

15 was? Like was it five feet or 50 feet?

16 MR. DUTKO: I'll check into it, 

17 Dr. Ziemer, and see if I can find out.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It would very 

19 helpful because I think if we knew, and we can 

20 over-estimate a little bit but it makes a 

21 great deal of difference if that was five feet 

22 or 50 feet in terms 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

328

1 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, Terry?

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

3 DR. McKEEL: There was no roping 

4 in 6 Building, was there, Terry? I thought 

5 you said that earlier?

6 MR. DUTKO: Not in 6 Building.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But the small 

8 source?

9 MR. DUTKO: The supervisor said 

10 when the sources were set up out in the plant 

11 itself, ten or nine or eight, wherever they 

12 are going to set the source, they roped off 

13 the distance one and a half times safe area 

14 and set up the shot.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay and that is 

16 what I am asking. Is there anyone around that 

17 knows typically what that distance is in feet?

18 MR. DUTKO: I will see if I can 

19 find out, sir.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I think if 

21 we knew that, we could kind of pin down the 

22 source size. Because if they followed 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

329

1 rule, we know that --

2 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer, generally 

3 the only time I worked with the sources is 

4 when they were brought into the betatron.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I 

6 understand. But someone there might know the 

7 answer to that and that would be helpful.

8 MR. DUTKO: Sure.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then, I 

10 don't know, Jim, if there's a way to think 

11 about the possibilities of people wandering 

12 through these things, not in terms of is it an 

13 incident but is it -- no, you can model this.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, you can model 

15 it, if you know the time and distance. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes or if you 

17 know the source size and then make some 

18 reasonable assumptions about it. I mean, we 

19 can find out if it something that is 

20 significant compared to the present bounding 

21 thing. Is it possible for a typical person 

22 wandering through that area -- wandering 
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 through it. I am not talking about someone 

2 who goes in there and sits down and eats their 

3 lunch next to the source. I mean, you can 

4 think of all kinds of scenarios that aren't 

5 plausible. 

6 A plausible scenario, I can think 

7 of a worker. Now they weren't texting in 

8 those days but they were doing something else 

9 and wandering through there with something 

10 else on their mind, maybe it is possible. I 

11 think you could determine whether it is 

12 plausible.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I agree.

14 DR. NETON: And from our end, I 

15 think we need, I will push to see how long it 

16 might take to get any Picker information 

17 because that, in my opinion, is --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, the Picker 

19 information may be helpful there.

20 On issue two, which are the 

21 assumptions for bounding, at some point we may 

22 need to come to some kind of concurrence 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

331

1 what should be assumed for bounding. I am not 

2 sure we can do anything between now and the 

3 next meeting, unless either of you have either 

4 SC&A or NIOSH has thoughts on that. Right now 

5 we are a factor of two at least on the --

6 DR. MAURO: Our case versus their 

7 case, in terms of the limiting --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, but that is 

9 only on the betatron.

10 DR. MAURO: The betatron.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It is a separate 

12 issue on the other sources until we get a 

13 better handle on that.

14 DR. MAURO: Well to clarify, when 

15 you think about the exposures during betatron 

16 operations, we have the exposures. We have a 

17 difference of a factor of two about on the 

18 dose to the betatron operators.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But you see, it is 

20 much more complicated than that. It is by 

21 fortuitously comes out a factor of two during 

22 the time of heavy uranium operations because 
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 the dose from the uranium is overstated by a 

2 factor of 20 --

3 DR. MAURO: Okay.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- and the dose 

5 from the betatron and the steel is way 

6 understated.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So if they fix the 

9 uranium, then the difference will be much 

10 greater.

11 DR. MAURO: I see. Okay. Okay, 

12 never mind.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think issue 

14 five, in a sense, is part of that bounding 

15 concern. So, if we can sort of move on that, 

16 that will help with issue five.

17 I am not sure what else needs to 

18 be done on issue four, photon energy. Were 

19 you going to check, Jim on the response of the 

20 films from the high energy photons?

21 DR. NETON: I had actually looked 

22 into that. I don't know, if David 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

333

1 followed up any more on that but identified a 

2 few sources that --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Maybe you can 

4 just report back. There is -- now once the 

5 photons pass a certain energy, I mean, 

6 typically, the response on film badges gets 

7 pretty flat but maybe something has changed.

8 DR. NETON: I have looked into 

9 this and my recollection is is it is not that 

10 different. I mean, Bob mentioned a factor of 

11 two but I recall less than that.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The response, 

13 typically, is much different at low energy 

14 but, we should talk about an MeV.

15 DR. NETON: Frankly, I don't think 

16 they hit as high as 25 MeV.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, of course not.

18 DR. NETON: You are down to around 

19 a third of that or less.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well but could 

21 you report back to us on that one?

22 DR. NETON: Maybe that is what 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

334

1 was looking at, what I figured was sort of the 

2 average energy. And I want to say it was very 

3 close to flat out in that region. There is a 

4 graph out there, I think there was some 

5 Battelle reports that I looked at.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, also now 

7 there is a lot of high-energy accelerators 

8 around and maybe even some of the accelerator 

9 health physics people have some publications 

10 on this, maybe SLAC or some of those would 

11 know. I just don't have a feel for it.

12 DR. NETON: Again, I don't think 

13 it is going to be an issue but we need to 

14 formalize.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Intuitively, I 

16 don't either, but I think we should turn that 

17 down and make sure. Because the concern has 

18 been raised. I think the petitioners deserve 

19 an answer on that as well. What can we 

20 confirm in the literature on that.

21 And then it would be good if we 

22 could -- if you have your calendars, we can 
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 at least see what --

2 MEMBER MUNN: Six weeks is 

3 Thanksgiving week.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, we are open 

5 Thanksgiving.

6 DR. NETON: I'm open on Thursday.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Well, it looks like 

8 the next week, then, the first week in 

9 December. 

10 MEMBER BEACH: How about the 

11 third? That would be --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have a 

13 meeting here on the fourth, right?

14 MEMBER BEACH: We have one on the 

15 second and the fourth but I think there is a 

16 problem with the third.

17 MR. KATZ: The third is a problem. 

18 There is an OCAS can't attend. I can't 

19 attend.

20 MEMBER MUNN: And Tuesday the 

21 first?

22 MR. KATZ: The first is open 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

336

1 now. That may be one of the -- yes, the first 

2 is open right now.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The first of 

4 December?

5 MS. HOWELL: November 16th.

6 MR. KATZ: That is too soon for 

7 six weeks.

8 MEMBER MUNN: November 16 is open.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think that is

10 too soon.

11 MS. HOWELL: That wasn't the first 

12 open for Mound. I thought there was a problem 

13 there.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well maybe some 

15 of the people on the Work Group.

16 MR. KATZ: It probably wasn't open 

17 for -- was it not an option I laid out in my 

18 email?

19 MEMBER BEACH: Exactly, yes.

20 MR. KATZ: That is a concern.

21 MEMBER BEACH: But I had mentioned 

22 it to you and it never came back up. So 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

337

1 is why I was concerned.

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, which makes me 

3 think that there is something there that is 

4 not showing on my BlackBerry.

5 The second is Worker Outreach. I 

6 will have to check on the first. It may be 

7 that there was something there that is gone 

8 now, that is cleared or it could be a problem. 

9 Because I did look at this for Mound.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: December first?

11 MR. KATZ: Right.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me also ask 

13 the petitioner. Dan, we want to make sure you 

14 have an opportunity to interact again. How 

15 does December first look? Dan, are you on the 

16 line?

17 DR. McKEEL: Yes, Dr. Ziemer, this 

18 is Dan McKeel. I think that is okay for me, 

19 so far.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Shall we 

21 block that off and then Ted you will check and 

22 see if there is a problem.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

338

1 MR. KATZ: Let's pencil it in but 

2 let's come up with another date, in case that 

3 is a question.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the rest of 

5 that week is already taken up. We have two 

6 other Work Groups meeting that week plus 

7 another conflict in there.

8 MR. KATZ: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We have a full 

10 Board teleconference. Is December 7th a 

11 holiday for the Feds?

12 MR. KATZ: It doesn't show on mine 

13 as a holiday.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Pearl Harbor? I 

15 can't believe it is not a federal holiday.

16 MR. KATZ: It is not a holiday.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You guys 

18 couldn't remember that.

19 We have a teleconference on the 

20 eighth.

21 MR. KATZ: Right.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I have conflicts 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

339

1 the rest of the week.

2 MR. KATZ: December 7th is okay.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I could do --

4 MEMBER BEACH: You'd have to fly 

5 on a Sunday.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

7 MEMBER BEACH: And for me it is a 

8 fly home on a Saturday from the previous week.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, because you 

10 are --

11 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, that is a long 

12 week.

13 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes, that is long.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: How about the 

15 week of the 14th?

16 MEMBER BEACH: Clear. I am clear 

17 all week.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Anybody have 

19 problems on the 14th, 15th?

20 MR. KATZ: The 15th is clear. The 

21 16th looks clear.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We need to check 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

340

1 with John Poston. He has classes. What is 

2 today? He will have classes on Tuesday.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Today is Wednesday.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Today is 

5 Wednesday. John won't be able to do it the 

6 15th or the 17th.

7 MR. KATZ: So what about the 16th?

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And that will be 

9 a problem for him on the first. John won't be 

10 able to --

11 MEMBER BEACH: Oh, that's true. 

12 The 16th is open.

13 MR. KATZ: So what about the 16th?

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The 16th, I 

15 think that would be okay. It is certainly 

16 okay for me.

17 MR. KATZ: Is that okay for you?

18 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

19 MR. KATZ: Dr. McKeel, does 

20 December 16th work for you?

21 DR. McKEEL: That would be okay 

22 with me, 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

341

1 MEMBER GRIFFON: This is Mark 

2 Griffon, I am still online, believe it or not.

3 MR. KATZ: Oh, sorry, Mark. You 

4 have been too quiet.

5 MEMBER GRIFFON: The 16th I may --

6 it may be a phone call from me again, 

7 unfortunately. I could do it but I have a 

8 commitment early that evening so I would 

9 probably have to be doing it by phone.

10 MEMBER MUNN: But you are okay for 

11 the first?

12 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay for the 

13 first, yes.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But I am almost 

15 certain that John Poston can't do the first 

16 because he teaches on Tuesday and Thursday. 

17 So, let's --

18 MEMBER MUNN: But he would be 

19 finished December 15th, wouldn't he?

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Who?

21 MEMBER MUNN: Wouldn't students go 

22 home in December?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

342

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I wouldn't count 

2 on it that early.

3 MR. KATZ: Yes, I wouldn't count 

4 on it that early either.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That is, I would 

6 guess most schools aren't going to be out 

7 before the 18th.

8 MR. KATZ: All right, it sounds 

9 like December 16th works, though. I haven't 

10 heard anyone say it doesn't work. 

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's pencil it 

12 in, then.

13 MR. KATZ: Mark would have to do 

14 it by telephone. Mark would probably rather 

15 not travel anyway.

16 MEMBER BEACH: So are we taking 

17 the first off the table then?

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think so, 

19 since John won't be able to be available.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think in 

22 fairness to him --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

343

1 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, December 

2 16th, I am pretty -- oh, wait. Wait. Yes. 

3 Why do I have it already penciled in there? I 

4 already have some mysteriously TBD-6000 

5 penciled in for December 16th.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, good. 

7 Thanks all for your input today. We still 

8 have a lot of issues to deal with. I think we 

9 have made some progress but very clearly, 

10 there are some additional items that we need 

11 to deal with.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Is there anything 

13 you want from SC&A between now and then?

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me see. I 

15 think I sort of said we are still basically 

16 responding to your issues. So the only thing 

17 would be, based on our discussions, if you 

18 have any additional ideas on bounding are any 

19 different from what you already have.

20 Let's see.

21 MR. KATZ: There were some action 

22 items from earlier on. Bob is going 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

344

1 distribute his evaluation.

2 DR. MAURO: Oh, distribute 

3 documents, yes. PA-cleared documents.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just the very 

5 latest one.

6 MR. KATZ: And the presentation 

7 that you have made.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The presentation 

9 of today and the issues with the responses --

10 MR. KATZ: Once everybody is 

11 involved in --

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: TBD-6000.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The earlier 

14 stuff that was agreed to --

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, but also it 

16 would be the issue --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- give us the 

18 White Paper on what the revisions will cover 

19 on that issue one. Yes, and you have that.

20 MEMBER BEACH: And on five, we 

21 were waiting for Mark to get back to us on 

22 closing out issue 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

345

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Mark Griffon 

2 wants to have a chance to look in more detail 

3 at issue five.

4 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes, I did 

5 receive the SEC --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, we can 

7 close that next time, Mark.

8 MEMBER GRIFFON: Okay.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Can I make a 

10 suggestion? Perhaps everybody has a little --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, and if John 

12 or Terry, if they are able to get that 

13 information on the rope-off distance for the 

14 small source, that would be helpful also. Are 

15 they still on the line?

16 MR. KATZ: John Dutko, are you 

17 still on the phone?

18 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir. I will do 

19 everything I can to dig up that distance for 

20 you.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We appreciate 

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

346

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I have got a 

2 procedural question or a suggestion. With all 

3 of this discussion earlier about the cleared 

4 and un-cleared matrix, what I would envision 

5 is when we first, we have this matrix and it 

6 is still essentially open. But what I would 

7 suggest is once I checked with Emily she said 

8 she cleared it, so I presume I have that, what 

9 I propose doing then is creating a PDF file. 

10 And a PDF file will have the cleared footnote 

11 on it.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And then we retain 

14 the Word file that is un-cleared because the 

15 Word file is subject to grow.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, we just 

17 need a cleared version that can be 

18 distributed.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So it might be a 

20 good idea to always have a PDF version and --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And make sure --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- if something 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

347

1 cleared, there should be a PDF.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- there is a 

3 date on that. Make sure there is a date on 

4 that.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly. With a 

6 current date. Well, my documents I always 

7 have a live date. Whenever I print it from 

8 PDF, the date is the day I print --

9 MR. KATZ: Just to be clear, Emily 

10 cleared the version before this meeting and we 

11 agreed that we would include the information 

12 all the way up through this meeting before 

13 putting out a cleared version. That way, the 

14 petitioners get everything, including what we 

15 have discussed today.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So we need to 

17 update it with -- are we going to update it 

18 with --

19 DR. NETON: I don't think we 

20 normally -- it would be difficult to update it 

21 with what we discussed today. I think we 

22 would just --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

348

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Which one are 

2 you talking about?

3 DR. MAURO: TBD-6000 or this one, 

4 or GSI?

5 MR. KATZ: TBD-6000.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I have nothing 

7 to do with 6000 or at least not much.

8 DR. MAURO: Well, 6000 is an 

9 action on my part to fill out the matrix with 

10 the new information, which includes the 

11 material that came from David and --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The White 

13 Papers.

14 DR. MAURO: The White Papers. I 

15 will load it right --

16 DR. NETON: I was looking at the 

17 ER matrix.

18 DR. MAURO: Oh, no, no, no. I am 

19 talking about 6000. 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But that one, I 

21 was not thinking of adding anything else to 

22 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

349

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We weren't able 

2 to share a version because it wasn't marked 

3 cleared.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, so we will 

5 get that out as a PDF file.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

7 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

8 Dan McKeel.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan?

10 DR. McKEEL: Please, if you could, 

11 what I need is all three matrices, the TBD12 6000, --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

14 DR. McKEEL: -- the Appendix BB, 

15 and the SEC.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. You will 

17 get all of them. The first two --

18 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We will get 

20 cleared versions of everything, as far as they 

21 are formally filled in.

22 DR. McKEEL: That's great. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

350

1 Wonderful.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And who is going 

3 to send those, SC&A?

4 MR. KATZ: They will share it with 

5 the Work Group and we will get it Dr. McKeel.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, we will 

7 get it to you.

8 DR. MAURO: We can get the 

9 mechanics of these --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You guys will 

11 work it out.

12 DR. MAURO: We will work it out.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, so those 

14 will come as quick as we can, Dan.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We basically 

16 distribute to everyone in this room.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And let me 

18 thank the folks on the phone. We appreciate 

19 your input and your patience.

20 MR. KATZ: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Guys here in the 

22 room, thank you. We appreciate your input 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

351

1 patience.

2 Any final word for the good of the 

3 order? If not, we stand adjourned.

4 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

5 matter adjourned at 5:02 p.m.)

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14