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 

 PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE 

 CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION 

 NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR 

 OCCUPATIONAL SAFETY AND HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND 

 WORKER HEALTH 

 + + + + + 

 WORK GROUP ON TBD 6000/6001, APPENDIX BB 

 + + + + + 

 MONDAY, 

 NOVEMBER 10, 2008 

 + + + + + 

 The Work Group meeting convened at 

9:30 a.m. in the Zurich Boardroom at the 

Cincinnati Airport Marriott Hotel, 2395 

Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky, Paul Ziemer, 

Work Group Chair, presiding. 

MEMBERS PRESENT: 

 PAUL ZIEMER, Chair 

 JOSIE BEACH 

 MARK GRIFFON 

 JOHN POSTON 

 WANDA MUNN, Alternate (via 

 teleconference) 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 2

ALSO PRESENT: 

 TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official 

 DAVID ALLEN, OCAS 

 BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A 

 TERRI BARRIE (via teleconference) 

 JOHN G. DUTKO (via teleconference) 

 ZEDA E. HOMOKI-TITUS, HHS 

 EMILY HOWELL, HHS (via teleconference) 

 JEFF KOCH, DOL (via teleconference) 

 JOHN MAURO, SC&A 

 DAN McKEEL (via teleconference) 

 JIM NETON, OCAS 

 JOHN RAMSPOTT (via teleconference) 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

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

 (9:31 a.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: So this is Ted Katz. I 

am the designated federal official for the 

Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health. 

And we are about to begin the Work Group on 

TBD 6000/6001, Appendix BB. And we will begin 

with the roll call, starting with the Board 

members in the room, please. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Paul Ziemer, 

Chair of the Work Group. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Josie Beach. 

 MEMBER POSTON: John Poston. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Mark Griffon, 

Advisory Board. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: No conflicts, by 

the way. I guess we should say that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. No 

conflicts. 

 MEMBER BEACH: No conflicts. This 

is Josie Beach. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER POSTON: No conflicts. 

 MR. KATZ: The telephone? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Wanda Munn, Work 

Group member, no conflicts. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any other Board 

members? 

 MR. KATZ: Any other Board members 

on the telephone? 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Good. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Great. So we do 

not have a quorum. Then beginning with the

NIOSH team in the room? 

 DR. NETON: Jim Neton, OCAS. 

 MR. KATZ: No conflict? 

 DR. NETON: No conflict. 

 MR. ALLEN: Dave Allen, OCAS, no 

conflicts. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone,

any NIOSH or ORAU staff? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. KATZ: None noted. SC&A 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 

 5

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

room? 

 DR. MAURO: John Mauro, no 

conflict. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Bob Anigstein, no 

conflict. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone,

any SC&A? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Then we go to the 

members of -- oh, federal employees overall.

Any in the room? 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Liz Homoki-Titus 

with HHS. 

 MR. KATZ: And on the telephone? 

 MR. KOTSCH: Jeff Kotsch with the 

Department of Labor. 

 MR. KATZ: Anyone else from NIOSH 

on the phone or HHS? 

 (No response.) 

 MR. KATZ: And now members of the 

public and representatives of congressional 

offices and petitioners, please? I guess 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

begin with petitioners. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes. This is Dan 

McKeel. I'm a co-petitioner for GSI. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott, an 

adviser to GSI workers. 

 MR. DUTKO: John G. Dutko, Betatron 

and Magnaflux operator. 

 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry. Could you 

repeat that again, please? 

 MR. DUTKO: John G. Dutko, Betatron 

and Magnaflux operator, General Steel. 

 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

 Other members of the public who 

want to identify themselves? 

 MS. BARRIE: This is Terri Barrie 

with ANWAG. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. That sounds like 

that's it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any 

congressional? 

 MR. KATZ: And any congressional 

staff? 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 (No response.) 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. So that does it 

for roll call. Then just a couple of other 

things before Dr. Ziemer gets started here.

One, please, everyone who is listening on the 

phone, please mute your phones unless you are 

speaking. And if you don't have a mute 

button, please use *6. 

 Please do not put the phone on hold

at any time but hang up and dial back in 

because hold disrupts the call for everyone in 

the room as well as on the phone. 

 And the last thing I just would 

like to mention, there are a number of

documents that will be discussed in this 

meeting. And not all of them have been 

PA-cleared and are, hence, available to the 

petitioner and the public. 

 There is an evaluation report that 

is available to the public and the petitioners 

as well as a review of that report by SC&A, 

but there is a subsequent analysis by 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 

 8

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that just has been PA-reviewed but too late to 

be of use to the petitioners. 

 But I believe, Dan, it should have 

been e-mailed to you this morning, just in the 

last perhaps 10-15 minutes. So I realize you 

don't have that in time to make use of it. 

 And there is also a response from 

SC&A to that report that has also not been 

Privacy Act reviewed and has not been 

circulated. So I just wanted to make that 

clear up front. 

 And, Dr. Ziemer, it's all yours. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

very much. We will officially call the 

meeting to order. I did late yesterday 

distribute -- I thought I had distributed an 

agenda, but it turns out I did not attach it. 

But the members of the Work Group here 

assembled have copies. 

 And, Dan, I just re-e-mailed you. 

I hope you got the agenda, Dan McKeel. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir, I did. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 9

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And, Wanda Munn, 

did you receive it as well? I re-e-mailed 

you. 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In any event, we 

will try to follow that agenda sequentially. 

I just put a note in here for also the 

approximate times for the comfort breaks 

listed on the agenda as approximately 10:45 

and 2:45, a lunch break at approximately 

12:15. 

 I am going to try to adjourn around

3:30 if we're able to. So we'll see how 

things go. If we get done sooner, fine. I 

expect it will take at least that long to get 

through everything here. 

 I want to take a few minutes here 

at the front end of the agenda to give us kind

of an overview of what is ahead of us today 

and also use this to kind of introduce us to

what has gone before with respect 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 

 10

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

documents that we are reviewing. 

 MR. KATZ: I'm going to have to 

disconnect -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We're 

going to have to disconnect from you. 

 MR. KATZ: -- and call back in. 

 MEMBER BEACH: I was wondering 

because Wanda didn't acknowledge that you sent 

her the e-mail. And that's not like Wanda. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We're back 

on the line. I guess we lost folks along the 

way somewhere. Sorry. But I'll back up a 

little bit. I had asked Wanda if you got a 

copy of the agenda. 

 MR. KATZ: Can anyone on the line 

hear us? Hello? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are we on mute? 

 MR. KATZ: We are not on mute. 

 MS. BURGOS: Ted? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes? 

 MS. BURGOS: Ted? 

 MR. KATZ: Yes. Who is speaking? 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. BURGOS: This is Zaida. Now we 

can hear you. 

 MR. KATZ: Zaida. Now you can hear 

us. Okay, but I don't hear anyone else on the 

line. Wanda, are you? 

 MS. BURGOS: They were going to 

call back because we got cut off. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. We all had the 

same problem. 

 MS. BURGOS: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: Thank you. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I'm just now back in, 

Ted. This is Wanda. 

 MR. KATZ: Welcome back, Wanda. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I know Emily and John

Ramspott also got cut off. 

 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. I 

am back on. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. We all got 

cut off. We got cut off here also. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Okay. 

 MS. HOWELL: This is Emily. 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 

 12

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

back on as well. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Emily is back on. 

Dan, you are on. John, are you on, John

Ramspott? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, sir, I am. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John Dutko, are 

you back on? 

 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Terri Barrie? 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: And, Wanda, did you 

receive the agenda? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I have a copy of the 

agenda that Paul sent out. 

 MR. KATZ: Okay. Great. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay. 

Terri Barrie perhaps will call back in as 

well. Okay. Just at the time we were getting 

cut off, I indicated that we would follow the 

agenda as distributed to the Work Group. 

 We have tentatively scheduled 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

comfort breaks at 10:45 and 2:45 approximately 

and a lunch break at 12:15 approximately. And 

we'll see where we are at those times and try 

to stick fairly close to that. 

 The agenda items, we'll go through 

them in order. Also I would point out that I

am going to try to wrap up by about 3:30 today 

if we are able to in order for folks -- some 

of the folks have to catch planes and so on. 

So I'm going to try to shoot for that. So 

we'll see how well we do. 

 Here at the front end of the 

agenda, I want to take a few minutes to give 

us an overview of what we are going to cover 

today. And also, since this is the first

meeting of this Work Group, a little bit of 

background on where we have been and what has 

preceded us in this endeavor. And I will just 

kind of narrate this for everyone, just to 

give us kind of an overview of what has 

happened on TBD 6000/6001 and specifically on

appendix BB. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 14

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 I am not going to go all the way 

back to sort of the beginning of the 

preparation of the original TBDs, but I want 

to pick it up in the middle of last summer, 

where the Board actually tasked our contractor 

to do the initial reviews. 

 And at the Richland meeting in July 

of '07, SC&A was tasked to review TBD 6000 and 

actually appendix BB as well. So we had that

official tasking at that time. 

 And in September, September 14th of 

2007, SC&A delivered a draft report on TBD

6000. I believe they had four findings on 

that. Was it seven findings? Okay. I didn't 

go back and double-check that, but there were 

several findings. 

 And in a few minutes I am going to 

ask John to give us an update on that as well, 

but just time-wise just to see where we have 

been. 

 In April 21st of this year, 2008, 

SC&A delivered the draft report on 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 

 15

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

review of appendix BB. And I think the matrix 

now shows 13 findings, although the original 

report had one or two additional ones, John, I 

believe, or Bob, but, anyway, I think there 

are 13 findings in the matrix that we need to 

deal with. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We actually had the 

reviewed report to the Board and to NIOSH on 

about March 20th. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, but the 

official date on the report as it was 

delivered -- I checked the delivered copy to 

Dave Staudt. It's dated April 21st. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, we had two 

versions: the original and the PA-cleared 

one. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. The 

PA-cleared one, right. Okay. But, anyway, 

that is the correct time frame. 

 I wanted to insert in here that on 

May 15th, GSI, the SEC petition from General 

Steel Industries was qualified by NIOSH on 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 

 16

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

15th, 2008. 

 On May 20th, 2008, at the 

Procedures Work Group, there was an initial 

discussion of the Appendix BB findings. This

was just sort of to introduce the Work Group 

to the findings. They didn't spend a lot of

time on that but just gave them an overview of 

what the findings were on appendix BB. 

 And I think, Bob, you probably gave 

that, as I recall, at the Work Group meeting. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Then looking back 

at the Procedures Work Group, which was 

handling these items at that time, in their 

meeting on June 24th, they reported that NIOSH 

was still working on their response to the 

SC&A findings, that it had been determined 

that there were now film badge measurements 

available for NIOSH review. 

 And I might note parenthetically 

that the petitioners had indicated, previous 

to that, that there were at least some 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 

 17

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

badge readings. I think Dr. McKeel had 

indicated earlier that there apparently had 

been some film badge readings that they knew 

about. But, in any event, this was announced 

to the Work Group at that meeting in June. 

 And also the Work Group had an 

initial discussion on considering moving TBD 

6000/6001 activities to a separate work group. 

Since their hands were so full of all of the 

procedures, then, they felt at that time that 

some additional attention needed to be paid to 

TBD 6000 and particularly Appendix BB. 

 And in the July meeting of the 

Procedures Work Group, they indicated that 

they were ready to hand these off because a

new work group had been -- well, was being 

recommended. And in August, it was reported 

that the new work group had been formed by the 

Board and was ready for the handoff. 

 Now, early in November, November

4th, the white paper from NIOSH evaluating the 

film badge readings from Landauer, 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 

 18

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

issued just basically a week ago and you have 

all received copies of that. The petitioners 

also received copies of that. 

 Also, subsequently within the last 

couple of days, we have had some responses.

SC&A has had an initial review of that white 

paper, and that was distributed to all the 

Work Group members within the last couple of

days and I believe to the petitioners as well. 

And that has been cleared. 

 MR. KATZ: Not to the petitioners. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, that wasn't 

cleared. Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: I think you should have

received it on Saturday or Sunday. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, Saturday. 

 DR. MAURO: And there really was no

time for -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That has 

not yet been PA-cleared. But we will today at 

least learn something of the responses to that 

to the extent we are able 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 

 19

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Also, the petitioners have had a 

chance to review the report from NIOSH. And I 

believe Dan McKeel distributed over the 

weekend to all the Board members his comments. 

And I want us to at least take an initial look

at those as well today. 

 Many of those are actually directed 

more toward NIOSH, but I want us to at least 

be aware of what his comments are and the 

technical comments that might be appropriate 

for the Board to have under consideration as 

well. 

 One other thing I should note. And

that is that the evaluation report from NIOSH 

on the petition has now been issued. And that 

has been within the last week or so. I don't 

have the exact date on that. Yes, actually, 

it's been -- I had meant to include that. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: October 3rd. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: October 3rd. So

I would just insert that in your sequence of 

events, October 3rd, 2008. The 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 

 20

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

evaluation report of the petition was issued. 

 So that kind of gives you an 

overview of what has occurred sequentially and 

the various documents involved. And, 

actually, as you will see on the agenda, what 

I would like to do is take sort of a quick 

look at TBD 6000 and see where we are on that. 

 Then I want to look at the TBD 6000

Appendix BB findings by SC&A and the responses 

by NIOSH. And I might point out that, at 

least in my files, I could not find a cleared

copy of that, even though it was dated. It 

goes back to -- I'm looking for the date here. 

 I guess at that point I am going to

ask if there was a cleared copy. We have had 

that for quite a while. 

 DR. MAURO: Which document? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This is TBD 6000 

Appendix BB, NIOSH responses. And I have an 

uncleared copy of that. Most of the NIOSH 

responses refer to the fact that film badge 

readings are being evaluated. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Was that done within 

the context of the matrix? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, it was on 

the matrix. 

 DR. MAURO: That's what I was 

thinking. And was that matrix cleared? I 

guess that is the question. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's what I was 

-- no. You had a cleared version of the 

matrix. 

 DR. MAURO: Of the matrix 

initially. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Initially. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And we'll come 

back to this, but we'll need to look at that. 

In fact, I will ask Dan right now if he has 

seen a cleared copy of the NIOSH responses to 

the matrix. 

 DR. McKEEL: No, sir, I have not. 

And nor have I seen the matrix. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The matrix 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 

 22

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the 13 issues, Dan, you have not seen? 

 DR. McKEEL: Oh, yes, I have. Yes, 

the 13 issues -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. McKEEL: -- is the document I 

have, but not the responses. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, yes. The 

initial matrix -- 

 DR. NETON: That's the NIOSH 

responses. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. The 

matrix itself, though, was dated May 2nd, but 

the NIOSH responses had to have occurred after 

that. And I don't see a different date. And 

my copy is the same way, but we will come to 

this. 

 If there's not a cleared copy, we 

need to sort of find out why. And I think 

most of the responses we will be able to share 

because they basically say that the film badge 

study is underway. 

 DR. MAURO: I would like to point 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 23

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

out one of the areas of a bit of ambiguity 

here, -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- especially if you go

back a few months, -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- is the matrices and 

their clearance. Given that they are living 

documents and they are always being revised,

at least at one time we were in a mode of on a 

case-by-case basis to make the judgment 

whether or not at what point should we clear 

the matrix, -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And -- 

 DR. MAURO: -- usually when its 

interest is expressed. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And also 

there may be an issue as to whether they have 

actually -- what their status. See, they were 

originally in the matrix of the other work 

group -- 

 DR. MAURO: That's correct. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 24

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- and what their 

status is in that matrix. And I don't know if

we can -- 

 DR. MAURO: Steve Marschke? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- Steve is 

available to tell us that or Nancy Adams 

perhaps. 

 DR. MAURO: During the break, I 

will give them a call. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We will follow up

on that and make sure that we are all on the 

same page because I discovered that over the 

weekend, that I didn't seem to have a cleared 

copy, and I wasn't sure why. So it may be 

that it was never cleared. 

 Okay. So that is kind of the 

overview. So that draft report of April was 

followed by a matrix dated May 2nd. And I'm 

not sure what the cleared date on that was, 

but at least the original matrix was dated May 

2nd in there. 

 At some date, which does not show 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

on the copy, there were NIOSH responses 

generated. So keep that in mind in the 

sequence here. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There may be a 

little confusion over the fact that our

contact, our liaison with the HHS law office 

decided or helped that. Even though our 

matrix was cleared, she left on the notice

that is not cleared in anticipation that NIOSH 

will insert information that will 

automatically unclear it. So the footnote 

remained. Even though it was cleared, the 

footnote remained. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I 

understand. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: That's the 

standing policy for all matrixes because they 

are changed regularly because there is

clearance -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Now, when 

we get to that point, let's see if we can 

figure out what the real status of that 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 

 26

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan? 

 DR. McKEEL: Dan McKeel. Can I 

just reiterate for the record that I have not 

seen either the matrix from SC&A or NIOSH's 

responses? And, of course, that puts me at an 

extreme disadvantage. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So you

have seen the -- 

 DR. McKEEL: The only thing I -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- report with 

the 13 issues? You have seen -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, but -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, but the 13 issues

was issued as a cleared report. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Actually, 

all of the matrix is, is a list of the 13 

items. That's all it is. 

 DR. McKEEL: Right. But the matrix

also includes eventually NIOSH's responses, 

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 

 27

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And that 

is the issue I am -- 

 DR. McKEEL: And that I have not 

seen. And, of course, that is the crucial 

piece of information that I -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Exactly. That is 

what we are trying to track down here -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Okay. All right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- when we get to

that point. And I want to make sure you get 

that as quickly as we are able to, even if we 

-- and perhaps even today if we are able to do

that. 

 DR. McKEEL: Okay. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And, as I

say, I myself only discovered that I didn't 

have a cleared copy just over the weekend. So 

we will follow up on that shortly, Dan. 

Thanks. 

 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Wanda? 

 MEMBER MUNN: There was one 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 

 28

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

fly in the ointment with respect to that first 

matrix that was issued on May the 2nd this 

year. And that is, mistakenly, the title 

originally indicated the issue resolution

matrix for SC&A findings on Appendix BB to TBD 

6001. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. I have 

the copy right here, and it is miss titled. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. It was miss

titled. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It says 6001. It 

should say 6000. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right there. So

I think SC&A may have to issue a corrected 

copy. 

 DR. MAURO: I'm not sure if we did, 

but -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I believe we did, 

but this is not it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But that is the 

copy 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 

 29

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's the -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: We discussed it, but 

this is the one I have in -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Thank you. 

Okay. So that's kind of the overview. Are 

there sort of general questions or comments on 

that? 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's,

then, move to the general findings on TBD 

6000. Work Group Committee members, I am 

assuming all of you have seen and read the 

original TBD 6000, which is a generic 

document. It's not specific to, for example,

General Steel Industries, but it is to cover a 

number of AWE uranium facilities. 

 John, can you give us an update on 

where we are on that status-wise? 

 DR. MAURO: I would be glad to. I 

am reading from the executive summary of the 

report dated September 14, 2007. There are

seven findings. And I will just go through 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 

 30

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

concept. 

 And I think that it is probably 

important when I go through these to keep in 

mind that their applicability and possible 

relevance to GSI. 

 As you will see, probably a number

of them really are not. So these are just 

universal. These are our findings, and I will 

give you the brief description. 

 The first finding has to do with -- 

bear in mind that this particular TBD is for 

uranium facilities that would handle, process, 

machine uranium. And there is very little, if 

no, data available for the facilities except 

the knowledge that those facilities were 

involved in uranium handling. And this 

presents a matrix of assumptions that can be 

used for different categories of facilities -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- and different 

categories of workers on a way to do a 

realistic dose reconstruction, external 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 

 31

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

internal, for those workers at those 

facilities. 

 In going through that report, the 

first finding you have -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me just 

interrupt very quickly before you give the 

findings. Did the Procedures Work Group --

I'll ask you and Wanda both, did the 

Procedures Work Group initially have these 

findings in their matrix? Do you recall? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I would have to check 

and see. I believe that we did, but I could 

be quite incorrect in that. Let me see if I 

can try to latch onto our -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. We could check 

with Steve. Wanda, this is John. And Steve,

of course, is not on the line. During the 

break, I will give him a call. It sounds like 

we have a number of questions for both Steve 

and Nancy related to clearance matters and 

matters such as this. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 32

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: We can get that cleared 

up. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I will in the 

meantime try to check it myself. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer and John 

Mauro? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 DR. McKEEL: Could you all please 

comment on the fact that the title of this TBD 

6000 is, Uranium and Thorium, and that the 

thorium section 7.2 is not filled out? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I can't comment 

on it, but I think that would be NIOSH's role

to comment. 

 DR. McKEEL: Maybe they could 

comment. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Maybe Jim Neton. 

 DR. McKEEL: I mean, that is the 

title of the document. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There's a section 

reserved for Dave Allen. Dave, do you 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 

 33

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

any comments on that right now? 

 MR. ALLEN: The title was made -- 

it was intended to be Uranium and Thorium. 

And we end up issuing that without pulling it 

apart and since then pretty much decided that 

we were not likely to come up with a generic 

thorium model for a lot of sites. So that 

isn't going to be filled out. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you put a

placeholder in but have not used it and 

probably it sounds like will not use that per 

se. 

 MR. ALLEN: Right now we're not 

thinking there is going to be a generic model 

for thorium, no. It would be site-by-site. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It would be 

site-by-site. Dan, did you hear that? 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir, I did. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. McKEEL: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's proceed,

then. John? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 34

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: The first comment has 

to do with when a uranium ingot is first 

formed. Now, one of the things we found in 

the site literature is that in the bomb, so to 

speak, the reduction process, is a lot of 

literature that shows that, for some reason, 

that thorium, the short-lived progeny of 

uranium, floats right to the surface. And you 

get a higher concentration of the thorium. 

And it's short I think for protactinium, a 

progeny of the uranium present right at the 

surface. 

 And, as a result, the beta and the 

gamma dose rate at the surface of these ingots 

is as much as about a ten, perhaps even 

higher-fold higher than the normal numbers you 

normally see. 

 For example, the contact dose for 

uranium, I think it's about 240 mr per hour. 

That's contact beta-gamma. The one-foot dose 

rate is about two mr per hour. And there is 

literature that shows that when you 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 

 35

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

newly formed ingot, the dose rates could be 

about ten times higher. And it's in the 

literature. 

 Now, we bring this up only from the 

point of view of the TBD 6000 is silent

regarding this matter. And we're not quite 

sure of its relevance. I am envisioning a 

facility. A good example would be GSI. 

 Now, they might receive a slab, a 

cut slab, for nondestructive testing with the 

Betatron. Now, in theory, depending on the

age of that cut -- and please, you know -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's addressed in 

the -- 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. There you go. 

So this is a subject that is not addressed, 

and it does bear on the external dose, beta 

and gamma, to people who come up close and 

personal to a relatively newly formed ingot. 

 I think the half-life of 234 is -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. It's 24 

days. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 36

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Twenty-four days. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And so it would be 

decaying. And the thorium-234 throughout the 

normal uniform distribution would be growing 

in. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So you could easily 

say that during the first month or two, you 

would have an elevated level. 

 DR. MAURO: And then after that, 

it's unsupported. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: After that, it goes 

back to uniform distribution. And, I can add 

some other information on this. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I don't

want to get into all the details right now. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, just on -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But the finding 

is that that issue was not addressed in the 

TBD. 

 DR. MAURO: That's correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So in the molten 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

form, you're saying the thorium floats to the 

top. It actually shows up in the ingots, 

which are intended to be uranium ingots, but 

they had, what, a surface coating, thorium? 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: I think that was a 

process called a top crop on that though that 

essentially cut off that top layer. They 

wouldn't have been appropriated into the 

product itself. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. The answer -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's just 

get the issues before us here. 

 DR. MAURO: Right. That was the 

issue. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: Let's move -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: But the point that 

I heard John say is that he wasn't even sure

of its relevance. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. That's 

right. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 38

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: That's correct. 

 MEMBER POSTON: So it needs to be 

looked at. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, yes. I just

want to get the issue out before us. 

 DR. MAURO: It's broader than that. 

As it applies to this TBD in general. 

 MEMBER POSTON: And the solution 

may be the top crop. 

 DR. MAURO: If the top crop solves 

the problem, that -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's the

answer. 

 DR. MAURO: But we don't have an 

answer. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But I don't want 

to duplicate. If the other work group 

actually looked at this already -- or maybe 

they didn't. 

 DR. MAURO: I don't believe so. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. ALLEN: One side note on that 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 39

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

one is TBD 6001 was intended for uranium 

chemical compounds and 6000 for metal. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For metals. 

 MR. ALLEN: There was a point where 

it wasn't clear where you should split that. 

And the recasting is what we're talking about, 

not the reduction but the recasting itself. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. ALLEN: And that's actually

covered in 6001. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. ALLEN: So it is probably a 

legitimate finding to discuss, but it probably

ought to be in the 6001 document, rather than 

the 6000. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: I wasn't quite sure, in 

other words, just for example, right here in

terms of Appendix BB, where they are only 

dealing with the recast slices. And so the 

degree to which it might have applicability 

here is a subject of interest. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The second item had to do with -- 

the TBD 6000 does a nice job in putting out 

dose conversion factors. It's a generic 

here's your millirem per hour, per picocurie, 

per liter cubed in air, per unit activity on 

surfaces. 

 One of the look-up tables that is

lacking is the external dose from beta, from 

surfaces that are contaminated. And we 

present some calculations that show that that 

is not insignificant. That is, the beta dose 

from surfaces with residual contamination of 

uranium might very well have an important 

contributor to dose over and above that which

is from photons. They do present the photon 

fields per unit activity on surfaces but not 

the beta. 

 Bob, in fact, did the calculations. 

And we present, show some numbers. And then 

they’re something that probably needs to be 

supplemented to the report. 

 The number three has to do 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 

 41

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

recycled uranium. Right now in TBD 6000, it's 

assumed that if it is a facility that is 

working with uranium and they are machining 

it, if it's post-1953, there's a very real 

possibility that it is working with recycled

uranium and as a generic assumption that is 

sort of universal to be applied and that's 

built into TBD 6000 is that the plutonium-239 

concentration is 10 parts per billion. 

 Now, we reviewed that. And we 

walked away with the sense that this seems to 

be pretty claimant-favorable; that is, from 

the literature we reviewed. And the only 

thing is we had some wording concern here.

Let me explain what I mean by this. 

 It seems that if the site you are 

looking at that has very little data where you 

are going to be drawing upon TBD 6000, the way 

it is written right now is that you don't 

automatically assume 10 parts per billion. 

You only assume 10 parts per billion if they 

saw a positive indication that it was handling 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

uranium. I would say it should go the other 

way. 

 So that is really the item number 

three. That is, what your default assumption

is going to be. 

 MEMBER POSTON: It's been a while 

since I read this, but you're saying b, 

billion? 

 DR. MAURO: Parts per billion. Let

me explain that. 

 MEMBER POSTON: I just want to -- 

 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry. Parts per 

billion. That's like 10 parts of 

plutonium-239 per billion parts of uranium. 

 And, now, one thing, though, 

there's a new item that we didn't talk about 

before. And this only emerged as a result of

our Fernald work that dawned on me when I was 

preparing this and for this meeting was that I 

noticed that in Fernald, the default cutoff 

value is 100 parts per billion. 

 Now, I'm 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 

 43

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For recycled? 

 DR. MAURO: For recycled uranium. 

So, in other words, if you're at Fernald and 

you're working with uranium, the automatic 

assumption in this site profile is that 

everyone, even starting from the '50s, is

handling recycled uranium and its at default 

value. And it's at 100 parts per billion. 

 Here we're saying that everyone -- 

well, here we're saying the use is going to be 

ten parts per billion. I suspect I know the 

reason for that. 

 But I figured to build a bridge 

between that apparent inconsistency, I thought 

you saw the drop in the hands of Jim and you 

folks explained why that's okay. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. I think the 

difference is between the blended product 

operations that went on at Fernald and the 

recycled uranium blended into the product

stream and the final product itself, which I 

think is going to be controlled for ten parts 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 44

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

per billion, as opposed to the source term 

that went into the uranium. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That sort of 

diluted it down. 

 DR. MAURO: So Fernald was dealing 

with the higher levels that had to blend down. 

 DR. NETON: In fact, there were 

much higher levels, 100 parts per billion at

Fernald, the way they controlled it. At least 

our contention is that it was 100 parts per

billion. 

 DR. MAURO: And I remember one Work

Group meeting where we were discussing the 

subject. It was actually a technical 

specification on what can be sent out to these 

AWE facilities. They would not be allowed to 

accept anything more than ten parts per

billion. 

 DR. NETON: Ten parts per billion 

was dosimetricly driven at one point. That 

was where the plutonium became, at least in

that era, considered to be somewhat of a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 45

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

dosimetric concern. It started to add to the 

dose. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: Remember, the reason we 

brought this was not where we were challenging 

the ten. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: I just brought it up 

now for the reasons -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. It was 

just the wording of the default. 

 DR. MAURO: The default. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. You got 

it. Go ahead. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Number four has 

to do -- now we're getting into the heart of

the -- in effect, there are a series of 

default assumptions regarding dust loadings 

and dust loadings by way of uranium, airborne 

uranium, and max, you know, what the 

concentration is. 

 They do a very thorough job in 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 46

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

terms of creating a matrix of different types 

of job categories, types of activities. So 

there is an array. 

 And it draws heavily upon a very 

highly regarded report by Harris and Kingsley. 

And from the Harris and Kingsley data set, 

they build a matrix. 

 And it is almost like one from 

column A, two from column B. Depending on 

your site and what you know about your site, 

the user of TBD 6000 will pick the appropriate 

strata within which to work. 

 Now, what we did is we didn't check 

every strata. What we did is check the 

highest strata and say, okay, which are the 

four upper end? And, in fact, the report -- 

and I commend the report for this -- says if 

there is any ambiguity at the site where you 

are trying to do your dose reconstruction 

regarding what strata to use, it recommends 

defaulting to the worst case. 

 So we reviewed the worst case. 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 

 47

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

we found that an area of a possible 

improvement on that approach is to not only 

use Harris and Kingsley but also to take a 

look at the Adley report. That's the 1949 

report from the AEC, I guess was the health 

and safety laboratory at the time, and also

Simon Saw. 

 We found that -- we did a lot of 

review of the literature on uranium for a lot 

of reasons. And we found that not only was 

this Harris and Kingsley a very good source 

document, but there is this other report that

we refer to as the Adley report. And there is

also the Simon Saw data that is out there, 

which has abundant additional information. 

And we looked at that information and found 

that when you look at that data and you sort

of add it into the pot of the Harris and 

Kingsley, the upper bound goes up. 

 In other words, if you were going 

to say, listen, I'm looking for the worst 

case, worst case scenario, it turns out 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 

 48

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

worst case scenario doesn't sit in Harris and 

Kingsley, even at time-weighted average 

numbers. 

 Harris and Kingsley does 

time-weighted average. There is time-weighted 

average information in Adley, for example, 

that are about two to three times higher. 

 So one of our recommendations is 

determine for yourself the degree to which you 

feel the data in Adley might, in fact, enrich 

the default values for the high-end scenario. 

That's number four. 

 In a very similar way -- number 

five is similar. Number four had to do with 

the airborne dust loading and the default 

values that are used. Number five we’re 

moving on to okay, what is on surfaces, again, 

they go to Harris and Kingsley, use the 

available data, and they come up with -- well, 

no. It's more complicated than that. They

have a model that tries to -- here is how it 

goes. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 You start off with the airborne 

dust loading that is the upper bound from 

Harris and Kingsley. You apply to it a 

deposition velocity that allows this stuff to 

fall down and settle on the ground. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think you may 

assume a continuous concentration and -- 

 DR. MAURO: Continuous, right. And 

they allow that to go on for seven days. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: And then at the end of 

the seven days, they assume that there is a 

certain amount of housekeeping that holds it 

at that Becquerel per meter squared forever.

And on that basis, you can derive your 

external exposures, for example. 

 And we calculated what that number 

is, how many Becquerels per meter squared do 

you get. And we have notwithstanding -- now, 

the way they did that, we have a problem with

it. 

 In other words, the idea of 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 

 50

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

deposition velocity, in fact, they are 

assuming that whatever that air dust-loading 

is. I believe they started with the 

time-weighted average and from that applied a 

deposition velocity for five-micron uranium 

particles, which is fairly low deposition 

velocity. It's .00075 meters per second. 

 We have sort of like a layered set 

of concerns. One, if you are going to do 

that, you wouldn't use a time-weighted

average, right? Because time-weighted average 

deals with how much time a person is in the

room. 

 You would deal with the average, 

rather than time-weighted average. It is one 

thing to use a time-weighted average to

estimate your inhalation exposure from the 

airborne radioactivity. It's a different 

question that asks, well, how much is on the 

ground. You wouldn't do time-weighted. So 

you work with the average. 

 But we have a more important 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

problem than that. If you go to Simon Saw and 

you go to the Adley report and you look at the 

actual levels that are measured there and what 

are the Becquerels per meter squared, you will 

find that this approach underestimates the 

residual activity in surfaces by two orders of 

magnitude. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In terms of the

actual ratios? 

 DR. MAURO: Well, in other words -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Ratio of 

air-to-surface contamination? 

 DR. MAURO: No. Just simply the 

absolute level. In other words, this model 

basically says we're going to predict what is 

on surfaces. And then once you know what is 

on surfaces, based on this deposition velocity 

model, which will give you some number -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- in Becquerels per 

meter squared, from there we can estimate what 

the direct radiation exposure rate is. 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 

 52

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

could also estimate what the inhalation rate 

is from resuspension. And we could also 

estimate what the inadvertent ingestion rate 

is by various types of hand-to-mouth 

activities. 

 So this activity that is on 

surfaces becomes the starting point for a

number of scenarios. So we look closely at 

the default assumption for the upper bound, 

the upper bound, not all the different cases, 

but the upper bound. And we say, well, one 

way to come at this from a completely 

different approach is let's look at the

empirical data, what's really out there where 

people measured it. 

 Now, a really nice program is run 

in the Adley report, where they put out 

settling dishes throughout the plant. This 

was in the late '50s. And they measured the 

rate at which this stuff was coming down. 

 And then there is also real-world 

data at Simon Saw, which is 1949, Becquerels 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 53

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

per meter squared. And we find that the real 

numbers, the empirical numbers observed are 

much higher, one to two orders of magnitude 

higher than the derived values using the 

deposition velocity approach. 

 So we suggest just taking a look at 

it the way we looked at it, and make a 

judgment on it as to whether or not it's

appropriate to use for bounding purposes: the 

empirical value versus the modeling values. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: Moving on to number 

six, number six has to do with, once you have 

the activity on the surface, however you get 

it, then you have to say, well, what is in the 

air. And that's a resuspension factor issue. 

 And, you know, we have been 

knocking heads on resuspension factors for a

while. 

 The default value that is being 

used in TBD 6000 and many, many other venues 

is 10-6 per meter. And NIOSH has an abundant 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

amount of literature that has been reviewed. 

And it shows that certainly that is not an 

unreasonable value when it's a quiescent 

condition. 

 If you have an area where there are 

people walking and working indoors, a number 

on the order of 10-5, maybe even 10-4 might be 

even more important. Maybe a long-term 

average, a resuspension may be on the order of

-- I know the number factor. Bob did a lot of 

work on that for the Nuclear Regulatory 

Commission. And you had to come up with a -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. 10-6 was for 

decommissioned facilities where there is no

activity. 

 DR. MAURO: It was cleaned up. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean, where there 

was no -- when I say, activity, I don't mean

radioactivity. Where there was no industrial 

activity. 

 DR. MAURO: No industrial activity. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. I mean, 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 

 55

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

was based on cases that were basically 

warehoused. And they had a number of 

facilities. 

 It was in NUREG-1420, is it? I'm 

not sure if we've got the right number. And 

they came up with the 95th percentile upper 

bound of close to like 9 times 10-7. So we 

can round it up to 10-6. 

 However, just coming into my work 

at GSI, where you have people walking, where 

you have vehicles, trucks coming into the 

terminal, that would probably be inapplicable. 

And while we take a time-weighted average, you 

are interested in the time-weighted average of 

a person's breathing zone, not of an empty

room. And so if that person is working and 

moving around, he is kicking up dust. 

 DR. MAURO: What type of 

resuspension factors, do you remember, they 

were talking about? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You will always be 

-- 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 56

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Do you remember the 

number they were talking about? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. I am just 

speaking from the basis of what I know about 

the facility. It's common sense. But no, I 

have not read. 

 DR. MAURO: What do you use in the 

NUREG-1640? I thought it was 5 times 10-5. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It didn't use 

resuspension factor very much. Honestly -- 

 DR. MAURO: Well, the point -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I understand the 

issue. 

 DR. MAURO: The point being that

you can get a lot higher than 10-6. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: And the last one, 

number seven, has to do with the ingestion 

pathway. And I think this is an interesting 

one. NIOSH has come up with a good approach

to doing ingestion. And they adopted it in 

Bethlehem Steel. And we looked at it. And 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 

 57

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

seemed like it was a very, in other words, 

from cradle to grave, the approach used. 

 Once you know the activity on the 

surfaces, overall the bottom line goes like 

this. Effectively, the ingestion pathway for

residual radioactivity effectively says that a 

person's going to be ingesting about .5 

milligrams per day of residue that's on

surfaces, .5 milligrams per day. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's maximum, 

based on maximum concentrations. I mean, 

that's the maximum. According to the NIOSH 

model, that is the maximum that you would get. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. From the 

distribution. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, not from the 

distribution. There's a whole calculation. 

And depending on what assumptions are made 

about -- I forget what they are now, but .5 is 

the maximum. If you apply it to individual 

cases, it could be less in some cases. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I recall 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 

 58

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

source -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's the mass of

something that you -- 

 DR. MAURO: Right. In other words, 

no matter -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Whatever it is. 

 DR. MAURO: If you are in a room 

and you are just inadvertently ingesting, 

whatever happens to be -- be it dust or 

anything or it could be uranium, effectively 

the amount that is taken in now is assumed to 

be .5 milligrams per day. All right? 

 Now, in going back to the source 

documents -- and Jim and I spoke about this on 

a number of occasions -- it turns out when you 

look at the source documents, you say one of 

our original critiques was that the EPA uses 

50 milligrams per day as their default value, 

NCRP recommends 100 milligrams per day as a 

default value -- in some cases, that would be 

outdoors. We go back to the source documents. 

 And so all of a sudden -- and 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 

 59

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

go back even deeper, Calabresi's work. I 

mean, you go back into the really original 

guys who took the measurements. 

 Somebody went and took fecal 

samples, measured the amount of silica, some 

other residue, and saying how much is in there 

because whatever is in the fecal sample, with 

this material -- I'm thinking silicon -- it's

because he's eaten some dirt. You know, how 

much is it? 

 And Jim correctly pointed out that 

it turns out there is a bimodal distribution. 

There is a population of people who are 

exposed to levels which effectively mean they 

were eating it perhaps on the order of .5

milligrams per day. 

 Then you get this other population 

of people where it is closer to 50 milligrams 

per day. And it's a judgment call regarding 

which of those two different population groups 

you think are the most applicable to the 

problem at hand. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 60

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 EPA, of course, and NCRP, they 

elected for their reasons to go at the 

high-end values, where they were using the 

effectively 50 to 100 milligrams per day, 

NIOSH has elected to go with the .5, you know, 

the lower-end distribution. And I think at

that point, we stop. I will just point that

out. 

 Now, I think you are going to find, 

no matter what, the ingestion scenario 

probably doesn't become a very important one 

except that if that's all you've got, 

especially if you're concerned with GI tract 

dose, I think. 

 I don't know if you're saying --

no, that's not true? Okay. No. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: GI tract dose is 

not very strong. It's counterintuitive, but 

it passes through the GI tract so quickly. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Is that correct? 

Okay. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes according 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 

 61

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the DCAL model, that it doesn't really -- 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So it is the 

absorption from the GI tract into the body.

So in most cases since, in your opinion, John, 

usually a factor of two you say is not -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean, the most 

you would get is a factor of two because the 

ingestion is related to inhalation. And if 

you take the 50 milligrams a day and then you 

compare it to maximum air loading -- and I 

will say the two will go along there -- over

about 5 milligrams per cubic meter of the 1.2 

cubic meters per hour multiplied by 8 hours, 

you get 48 milligrams through inhalation. And 

you might get 50 milligrams through ingestion. 

 For most nuclides, the inhalation

is the more effective. 

 DR. MAURO: The dose conversion 

factor. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. The dose 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

conversion factors are higher. So it -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: It depends on the 

solubility. Are we talking about metal here? 

 DR. MAURO: In the case of uranium, 

I guess. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Well, uranium 

-- 

 MEMBER POSTON: The 

gastrointestinal tract, then, if -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but the 

reality is metals, unless you have a noble -- 

silver, gold noble metals don't remain metals. 

Once they're in a very fine particulate state, 

they usually become oxides. 

 So, for instance, if you are 

working with steel and you are creating dust 

in the air, you don't inhale iron dust. You 

inhale iron oxide. And I think uranium is 

more oxidizable than steel so that you would 

basically be -- even if it's uranium metal you 

are working with, what you are taking into the 

body will be uranium oxide. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: I think maybe Dr. 

Poston's point is those oxides are typically 

more insoluble forms. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, right. And 

you look at the model. Ninety-nine percent of 

the stuff is up in the gastrointestinal tract 

with only about a 42-hour half -- mean life in 

the GI tract. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I think the main 

point -- this is certainly a -- my main 

concern is -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You're making the 

issue of the -- 

 DR. MAURO: -- the .5 versus the 

50. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, right. 

 DR. MAURO: And that's it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's it. Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: Now, the degree to 

which this has applicability to GSI will

emerge as we discuss it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 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 

 64

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: I think as a first 

blush, I think that these are less important 

as some of the issues involved than some we 

have been discussing. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Now, what 

I want to ask now is, has NIOSH done any 

official responses to these findings as far as 

we know? 

 MR. ALLEN: No. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We have not. So 

until that occurs, I don't think we want to 

debate the issues here. I wanted to know the 

nature of them. And if there are some that 

particularly would cause problems with our 

evaluation of Appendix BB, then we want to 

make sure those are handled early. 

 But in the meantime, I think it 

would be appropriate for us to say, you know, 

the next step here is for NIOSH to respond to

these so that we can -- in each of these 

you’ve sort of indicated what the responses 

might look like. But we don't have 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 

 65

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

really, officially. 

 DR. NETON: I just have a question. 

What working group is handling this? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We have 6000. We 

now have 6000. So I think one of our jobs as 

a work group is to make sure that TBD 6000 is

closed out, in a sense. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. We will do that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: See, what I don't 

have a feel for -- and this may emerge as we 

proceed -- is how critical it is to close 6000 

out, for example, before we close out Appendix 

BB or can we close out BB without having

closed these out or do we have to do both? It 

would seem to me that we need to at least be 

proceeding on responses on these. And some of

these may be fairly straightforward. 

 DR. MAURO: I mean, I have been 

giving a lot of thought to that. So I don't 

want to second-guess moving into GSI, but I 

think as we move through the GSI, they should 

not only be the issues related to the white
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

paper, but I believe to a certain degree, the 

extent to which you want to start to broach 

the evaluation report, which we have also 

reviewed, we’ve read but haven't critically 

reviewed, I think it will become immediately 

apparent which, if any, of these might have 

play, which may not. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: My sense is very few of 

them have play, but we will see. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. That's another 

question I have. We are, I think, set to 

present the evaluation report for GSI at the 

next Board meeting. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. So it's

premature. 

 DR. NETON: And so we're here today, 

I think, just discussing the site profile and

the Appendix site profile. But then what 

would happen if history repeats itself is we 

will just morph those over into the SEC 

evaluation report and have to make 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 

 67

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

determination of which ones are site profiles 

versus -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: My sense of it is 

that I don't feel at this point that this work 

group will be in a position to make a 

particular recommendation on the evaluation 

report. We will have seen it, reviewed it, 

but we need to go through a process on it as 

well as on these other findings. 

 And I think also, from my 

understanding, the petitioners would like to 

have that additional time as well. Dan can 

speak to that now or at some point. But I 

think we need to be able to address that and

make sure that not only the ER is addressed 

but these findings are as well. 

 MR. KATZ: Let me just make one 

point from what Jim said just because it's a

concern to Dan. It's not absolutely set that 

we are going to have this presentation of the 

evaluation report at the December meeting. 

 That will depend in part on how 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 68

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this meeting goes because Dan has asked that, 

possibly depending on how this progresses, he 

may not want us to present the evaluation 

report at the December meeting. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, what I am 

saying is, even if that occurs, I think all 

that does is sort of puts the report out.

It's already out there, but it sort of makes 

it public as to what the recommendation is. 

But I don't anticipate this Work Group being 

prepared by then to make a recommendation. 

 Dan, if you have any comments at

this point, please feel free to jump in. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir. Dr. Ziemer, 

this is Dan McKeel. 

 Well, I very much appreciate in 

this instance the need to go through these 

documents really carefully because I think 

there are some of those points in the findings 

on TBD 6000, like the ingestion one, for 

example, where the Betatron buildings were an 

extremely dusty environment. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And we have presented photographs 

showing an inch or so of dust on the floor and 

trucks moving through these huge castings and 

so forth. 

 So I think the resuspension factor 

should be considered at the very highest 

levels to be truly claimant-favorable. So 

there are TBD 6000 issues that impact on 

Appendix BB. And I don't know any other way

to do this other than to go through them 

carefully step by step. 

 And I do think -- I appreciate the 

fact that my copies have to be PA-cleared. 

That's fine. But there are just major, major 

documents that I don't have right now and I 

need to have. 

 And also I think for sure we need 

to have all of NIOSH's complete responses. 

And then I would think we would all be in a 

position to have the Board vote and live with 

the decision. That's the way I feel about it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 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 

 70

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: This is Wanda. May I 

interject one small thing --? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Certainly. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- in reference to

your previous question? I've pulled up the 

procedures tracking database and taken a look 

at it. We did advance all 13 of the original 

BB findings at one juncture or another. 

 The findings were reported on 4/21 

of this year. Our Work Group meeting on 5/20

addressed them. Bob Anigstein presented 

results at that time. And we had political 

inquiries also that pushed us to identify

those topics as being first on our agenda for 

the June 6th meeting of our Working Group. We 

did address them then, discuss them. 

 We had NIOSH responses on June 

19th. Many of those responses had to do with 

the fact that the film badge results had been 

then obtained. And no further work was going 

to be done until those film results had been 

evaluated to some extent. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Then on July 21st, the decision was 

made to request of the Board that they be 

transferred to a separate working group. And 

so yes, we do have several comments. And a 

considerable amount of discussion was devoted

to this, in the Procedures Tracking Group 

during the early part of this year. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Wanda. 

I did note earlier that at the May 20th 

meeting, the Appendix BB findings were 

discussed. What I didn't know or didn't have 

was I think you gave us the June 19th date 

that the NIOSH responses were provided. That 

was the date I was looking for -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- to the Work

Group. Do you have any indication, however, 

that any of the items were closed out? 

 MEMBER MUNN: I do not. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think on May 

20th, we simply had the issues presented by

Bob. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 72

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER MUNN: I think that's true 

from what I can see. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And then 

on June 19th, we received the others. But 

that's as far as we got, the NIOSH responses. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: And if I recall 

correctly, it was at about that time where we 

were in a transition mode where you folks were 

evaluating the external dosimetry data. And 

it's bearing on Appendix BB and the 

responses. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right because -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: My record shows on 

July 21st, a transfer of all 13 TBD BB issues. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. That was 

the official hand-off date that I showed as 

well: July 21st. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In June, we 

simply -- see, I show that on June 24th, at 

that meeting, it was reported NIOSH was 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 

 73

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

working on the findings. But your record 

shows that on June 19th, we already had the 

responses. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I have, for example,

on the first item the response that I have 

from NIOSH reads, the information was used in 

the preparation of the Appendix. Though it

was, admittedly, not well-documented, the 

presence of a second Betatron likely would not 

change the modeled exposure since the worker

could be in proximity to only one at a time. 

But information that has been refined since 

the earliest discussions might effect the 

modeled dose. 

 However, NIOSH has obtained film 

badge results for the Betatron operators and 

is in the process of comparing this data to 

the model dose. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. That's 

exactly the response that I have in my copy 

but was not able to determine exactly what 

date that occurred on. It was either June
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

19th or 24th or something like that, but -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: It's shown on the 

database as June 19th. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: June 19th. Okay. 

Very good. Thank you. 

 MR. ALLEN: That might explain the 

PA-cleared version of the responses to the 

Procedures Group working a little differently 

now off a database. I'm not sure there's

actually a document generated to be PA-cleared 

sometimes off of that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think

they do have documents that they refer to in 

there. And, Mark, you have been involved in 

that some, too, but, in any way -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I am not sure in 

this case I was -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, yes. Well, 

but that is helpful. Thank you, Wanda. 

 In any event, we need to get the 

responses to the TBD 6000 findings. We have 

the responses to the 13 Appendix BB 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 

 75

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that have to be evaluated and reviewed by this 

Work Group now as well. 

 Yes, Bob? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Now, just looking 

at this matrix, NIOSH response to our issue 

number 12, which was specifically about the 

residual surface contamination, and the NIOSH 

response was, this finding indicates it is a 

reiteration of a comment from the Battelle TBD 

6000 review. Therefore, the finding should be 

addressed in that review, rather than -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that points 

back to the need for the 6000 review. So that

is exactly what we are looking for. 

 Okay. I think that sort of takes 

care of our summary of the 6000 findings. 

And, again, to reiterate that in order for us 

to actually act on these, we will need the 

NIOSH responses. And then we can look at 

closing them out in the usual fashion. 

 MR. ALLEN: If we're looking for 

initial response from NIOSH, can we get 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 

 76

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

matrix from SC&A on these first? I don't 

think we have. 

 DR. MAURO: We have not put out a 

matrix for TBD 6000 with the seven items. We

can very readily do that, it’s simply the 

executive summary. 

 DR. NETON: It's nice to work from 

the -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. It's a little 

easier for you to work from. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. If you have 

a matrix for those. John and I, we actually

exchanged e-mail on this. I said, John, do 

you have a matrix for those? 

 And he said, well, there are just

six or seven findings. So do we need a 

matrix? 

 Well, it's a list of the findings 

and a list of the responses. 

 DR. NETON: For the record, to be 

consistent -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's call it 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 

 77

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

matrix and put it in the usual form and make 

sure everybody gets a copy. And I think, I 

guess, if that's a new document, Liz, it still 

needs to be cleared, right, even though it's

just a reiteration of the seven points that 

are in the report? 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But it shouldn't 

take long to get that cleared, make sure the 

petitioners get that. 

 MR. KATZ: Don't we want to get the 

NIOSH responses in there before we clear it? 

 DR. MAURO: That would be great. 

 MR. KATZ: It's going to be more 

useful. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, if NIOSH is 

ready with that. I mean, the matrix is simply 

going to be these seven issues put in the

matrix format. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: If NIOSH wants 

to clear their comments before they send it to 

us for clearance, that's fine, too. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: Yes. I think Ted's 

right. I mean, if we get the matrix, we'll 

just put our responses, insert our responses, 

and forward it to OGC for clearance. Then we

won't have to be doing this the -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: SC&A will prepare 

the matrix format and send it on to -- 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Okay. So we 

won't try to clear that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We know what the 

issues are. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You are just 

reiterating what was in the review that you 

produced anyway. 

 Now, the next -- let's see how we 

are doing here on time. We're good, right? 

Yes. Is it almost 10:45? Yes. 

 What we are going to do next is I 

want to go to the TBD 6000 findings, the 13 

items. I want to give us a head's up on this. 

We would like to pin down this report, which 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 

 79

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think was distributed to everybody, which 

needs to be renamed and which Wanda was just 

reading from and I think Bob was reading from 

and get that cleared as quickly as we can for 

the petitioners. 

 I don't know where that is in the 

system or what is required. Maybe you can 

help us on that during the break. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Is that the one 

she sent on Sunday? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. This was

distributed in June. This is the one that 

Wanda was referring to that was distributed or 

provided June 19th and apparently was never 

sent for clearance. But we need to get that

done as soon as we can. 

 DR. MAURO: Again, this is a 

matrix. And the matrix, unfortunately, we are 

in this kind of limbo situation where -- 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yes. 

 DR. MAURO: -- we don't always 

automatically clear 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 

 80

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This one we did 

before going to NIOSH. 

 DR. MAURO: Before it went to 

NIOSH. But your visions may not be -- 

 DR. MAURO: Just for the record, 

there was -- 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: So that means -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The original 

matrix -- my understanding is clear. I have a

cleared copy of the items without NIOSH 

responses. 

 DR. MAURO: Without. That's it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But the NIOSH 

responses were not cleared. And to the extent 

that we can discuss them today or at least get 

them before us I think would be helpful. 

 This is kind of repeating what the 

other work group did, but we've got to bring 

our other new members up to speed anyway. 

And, Liz, are we able to read verbatim the 

responses? 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I don't know. 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 

 81

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

haven't seen them, sorry. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So I guess 

we perhaps can’t. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Well, I mean, I 

trust we’ve got good judgment. If there's a 

NIOSH claim number in there, don't read it 

out. If there's personal information about 

one particular person or some group less than 

nine, don't read it out. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think the only 

point at which names come up, they talk about 

material furnished by a particular person, 

which is one of the reference literature 

sources. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Is it a

literature source or was it -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: -- an interview 

that was done by -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. It was

published literature sources. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Well, that's 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 82

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

fine. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The one name is a 

NIOSH contractor who -- 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Fine. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- wrote a report 

for NIOSH, and was paid for it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So as long as we 

aren't calling out names or any interviewed 

persons, -- 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- we may be all 

right in at least -- 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: If it's a 

government employee or contractor, you can use 

their name. If it's a published source, you 

can use the name. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Okay. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Do you want a copy 

of that? 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yes. If you 

have a copy, I can -- it doesn't look 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 

 83

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

long. I certainly can look at it right now. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. It actually 

is only like six or seven pages long, seven 

pages long. And all I'm asking is, as soon as

we can get something cleared, I would like to 

get it out to petitioners. 

 I don't know if it's even possible 

today to do that, but I will simply point out, 

Dan, I think to the extent we're able to, 

we're at least going to verbally indicate what 

the findings are or the responses from NIOSH

are. 

 DR. McKEEL: That would be fine, 

Paul. I would like to ask for the record. 

What I don't understand is it sounds to me 

like certain things are cleared, certain 

things are not cleared. 

 Perhaps it would be useful for 

everybody to know why the process didn't go

forward on a report that was discussed on June 

19th. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: The process did 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 84

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

go forward. This is a matrix. They're not 

regularly cleared. So, therefore, it would 

have to be a special request. 

 So it's not that the process 

failed. There was just no request. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, I would like to 

say that -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Perhaps there 

should have -- 

 DR. McKEEL: -- I had no idea that 

that was even a proper request to make, but I

certainly want to make that request this 

morning. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No. It's a 

request that would come from NIOSH. It 

wouldn't come from an individual Mr. McKeel. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, in any 

event, Dan, we want to correct that and make 

sure you get a copy. 

 DR. McKEEL: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So we'll move 

ahead on that as rapidly as 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 

 85

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. McKEEL: Okay. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Well, again, this is 

Wanda. I would like to point out that 

although the electronic document that we have 

been working with in procedures is not that 

easily available, there is no problem at all 

with respect to the transcript of those 

meetings. All of those meetings are 

transcribed, as each of our work groups is. 

 And those, although they are not 

immediately available, I understand, 

nevertheless, they do become available. And

any discussion that was had on any item in any 

of the work groups is available in the 

transcript. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Although 

sometimes there is a delay there, too, as

well. 

 MEMBER MUNN: That's true. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But, in any 

event, we will proceed on that basis. We are 

going to take a 15-minute break at this point. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 86

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

And then when we return, we'll pick up with 

Appendix BB findings and, to the extent 

possible, the NIOSH responses. 

 So I guess we'll just -- 

 MR. KATZ: Just put the phone on 

mute. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The phone will go

on mute here. And we'll plan to resume at 

11:00 o'clock. Thank you. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 10:46 a.m. and 

resumed at 11:02 a.m.) 

 MR. KATZ: This is TBD 6000/6001 

Work Group. And we're coming back online.

And, Dr. McKeel, I think Paul has e-mailed you 

this June document, the matrix with the 

responses from NIOSH. I don't know if you 

have received it yet. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I just now sent 

it, Dan. We got it cleared during the break. 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer and Ted 

Katz. This is Dan McKeel. It must have 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 

 87

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

come through because I just left the machine. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. McKEEL: But during the break, 

I did check on Wanda Munn's suggestion that 

the contents of the Work Group discussion on 

procedures would be in the transcripts posted 

on OCAS. 

 And during the break, I checked and

found that neither transcript from the May 

20th meeting of this year nor the June 24th 

meeting of this year of the Procedures Work 

Group has yet been posted on OCAS. 

 So I understand they will be coming 

along sometime, but, you know, that's not 

really a realistic possibility for me right 

now. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. But check 

again on your e-mail, Dan. 

 DR. McKEEL: I will. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I just hit the 

SEND button just as we came back online. 

 DR. McKEEL: Thank you very 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 

 88

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So see if it's 

there yet. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So let's 

go to that document, which actually was 

distributed to the Board members on June 19th, 

I guess it was. Yes. 

 What I would like to do is go 

through each of the issues. Again, this is 

not to resolve them at this point but to

identify the issue, identify NIOSH's response. 

 And I would point out that many of 

the responses refer to the film badges. A 

vast majority of them do, but not all of them

do. And at least we can have an initial 

discussion on some of these as well. 

 If we think that there is some 

obvious rapid closure, we can actually do 

that. But my main purpose here is to identify 

the issues, the SC&A issues, and look at the 

NIOSH initial responses. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Paul, you said
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

this came up June 19th? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. I found 

that here's what it's called, Appendix BB 

Draft. There's something. It looks like 

draft. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Issues Matrix? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Issues Matrix, 

June 19th, '08. It was apparently distributed 

by e-mail. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I simply 

saved the document into my General Steel file. 

So that's where it is. I don't actually have 

the actual e-mail here. So the e-mail could 

have been a few days later, I suppose. 

 MR. ALLEN: I think that was

actually sent by Stu, and I'm not sure when it 

was sent. He was the point of contact for the 

percentage group. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right. 

 MR. ALLEN: I'm not even sure. I 

guess he wasn't sent an e-mail. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: What time frame do you 

think that was? 

 MR. ALLEN: June 19th, give or 

take. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The actual

document has the June 19th date on the title 

that was distributed by e-mail, the document

title. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think I've got 

it, yes. June 20th from Stu I see an e-mail 

that looks like -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, if you would 

like, I will put it on my memory stick here 

and you guys can transfer it onto -- 

 DR. NETON: I think I probably have

it. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: I think you've got 

it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let me

know if you want me to put it on the memory 

stick. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. I have got 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 

 91

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

right here. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Other members? 

Well, Bob you have a copy. John, you have a 

copy. Josie has her copy. John, do you have

a copy of that? 

 MEMBER POSTON: I do. My 

recollection is I got it just recently. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I know I sent you 

several things. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It might have 

been one of them. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: June 20th from Stu 

I saw it circulated. There are two documents 

he has. It was for the Procedures Work Group,

I think. 

 DR. NETON: Our GSI findings matrix. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Did you find 

yours, Jim? And, Mark, you have a copy now? 

Okay. Very good. That will help if we all 

have copies. 

 Okay. Issue 1 is entitled
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Completeness of Data Sources, The SC&A 

Findings, the authors of Appendix BB have not 

utilized some key information on the GSI 

Granite City site. For example, they failed 

to note the presence of two Betatrons housed 

in two different buildings, as indicated in 

the reports by Murray and Uziel, 1992, and

Murray and Brown, 1994, and as was brought out 

at the General Steel Industries worker 

outreach meeting on August 21st, 2006. Other

examples of incomplete utilization of 

available data are presented in the context of 

other findings discussed below. 

 Okay. That is the item. I am just 

going to insert here parenthetically for our 

court reporter -- would you like to have a 

copy of this at some point as well for that 

because I am just reading verbatim. We will 

get you a copy. Okay. Maybe we can Xerox one 

during the break. 

 MR. KATZ: I'll give him mine. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 93

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

NIOSH response, the information was used in 

the preparation of the Appendix , though it 

was, admittedly, not well-documented. 

 The presence of a second Betatron 

likely would not change the model with

exposure (since a worker could be in proximity 

to only one at a time). But information that

has been refined since the earliest 

discussions might affect the model dose. 

 However, NIOSH has obtained film 

badge results for the Betatron operators and 

is in the process of comparing this data to 

the model doses. It should read these data, 

but I will -- 

 (Laughter.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So I think 

on each of these, we can have kind of a 

preliminary discussion. John or Bob, do you

want to make a comment and Jim or Dave to 

comment? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I think that 

this is -- I don't see any further -- I don't 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 94

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

really have much of a further comment because 

if it's going to be addressed, you know, they 

said that they would be addressing it. 

 I should just say as a preface, the 

findings perhaps somewhat I'm sure could have

been broken down. I think typically SC&A 

separates findings and observations. And I 

just rolled them together as issues. So this 

is more of an observation how Appendix BB 

could be improved. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It doesn't 

necessarily change the results. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Dave, any 

preliminary or additional comment on this one? 

Obviously one of the questions will be at some 

point, does the film badge data really answer 

this? 

 If you end up modeling it in some

way -- and you might have to for some workers 

still, as I understand it. 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes, might have to for 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 95

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

some workers. So, if I remember, even Dr. 

Anigstein mentioned in their report that the 

buildings were quite a distance away, that the 

effects from one do not affect both at the 

other building. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is correct. 

Actually, however, we never saw -- this may be 

jumping ahead. We never saw the model that 

was used for the previous Attila calculations. 

And the two buildings were quite different in 

that one, the old building was better shielded 

than the new building. The new building had 

an area where there was no shield wall. 

 And so we don't know which one was 

actually used in the NIOSH filler runs. So 

that was built into the -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I suppose 

at some point and perhaps after the film badge 

data is evaluated, we may have to come back 

and say, are you going to have to model some

of the workers? And if so, is this an issue? 

 I think it was established 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 

 96

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

outputs were different for the two. 

 MR. ALLEN: I think that is still 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is that still in 

-- 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They were 

definitely different. 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is

Dan McKeel. May I make a comment, please? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You certainly 

may, Dan. 

 DR. McKEEL: On this finding number 

one, just to add to the record, I understand 

why SC&A may want to cite things they are 

familiar with, but I do want to mention that, 

as early as 2005, when John Ramspott and I 

both started making public comments at Board 

meetings about GSI, we pointed out many times 

prior to the October meeting that is 

referenced in finding one, that there were 

multiple radiation source terms at GSI. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 We carefully delineated the fact 

that there were two Betatrons in two different 

buildings, that there were two cobalt-60 gamma 

sources and iridium-192 gamma source and a 250 

kVp portable X-ray source, all of which were

used in the nondestructive testing 

applications. 

 So, you know, I think that's just

important to realize here that completeness of 

data sources, the second Betatron should have 

been mentioned in Appendix BB based on just 

what we said. 

 That's my comment. Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks. 

 My recollection is that one of the 

Betatrons operated at a slightly different 

energy, -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- 25 or 24. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That is probably 

not a significant 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 

 98

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The output -- and I guess we don't 

know the milli amperage, John, but the output, 

the specified outputs, were different, both 

compensated and uncompensated means. Is that 

correct? 

 MR. ALLEN: I think that is where 

we might have some -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, okay. And

we may have to return to that, but that was 

certainly one of the issues. I think that 

NIOSH was saying that they felt they had a 

bounding value that would cover both of them 

versus if you had to reconstruct for a 

particular individual that -- 

 MR. ALLEN: At the time the 

Appendix was written, yes, we thought we had 

a bounding value that covered both. And since 

then we got some more information where we

might -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The bounding 

value could change if you wanted to use the 

worst case for one or the other and apply 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 

 99

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

as a -- 

 MR. ALLEN: Right. And I think 

we've got enough information to say that you 

don't need one bounding value for both. You 

can have two different values that for the 

time frame when they are both in operation, we 

would use a bounding value and then for a time

frame when only one was in operation -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You would use one 

or the other. Okay. Any questions, Board 

members, on this? 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Shall we proceed 

or do you want to delve into this in any more

detail right now? What I want to do is get 

the total picture before us. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I would suggest 

that we can discuss this. This is part of the 

discussion of the white paper. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right. 

That's what it is called, yes. Okay. The 

next issue, Period of Covered Employment, 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 

 100

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Finding: Appendix BB states that the covered 

activities took place in 1953 to 1966. 

 It is plausible and 

claimant-favorable to assume that this work

began in 1952. We base this assumption on 

Atomic Energy Commission correspondence 

reference form, with a hand-corrected date of 

December 5th, 1952 that has a summary titled 

Regarding Ingots of Uranium Metal Furnished to 

General Steel Castings Company for Betatron 

Testing. 

 Since the Army installed the first 

Betatron in Granite City in January 1952, an 

event that was reported in the local 

newspaper, it seems likely that Mallinckrodt 

would have taken advantage of this facility at 

an early date. 

 NIOSH response, NIOSH uses the 

official covered period established by the 

Department of Labor and does not have the 

authority to amend that covered period. 

 It is our understanding that this 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 101

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

information was available at the time the 

period was established for GSI. However, we 

will forward the information to the DOL for 

their consideration. 

 I will add just as a personal 

comment I think in general, the practice of

NIOSH has been where they discover information 

like this that might change the period is to 

ask DOL to look into it. But NIOSH

unilaterally is not in the position to make 

that change. 

 Dave, do you have any other 

comments on that or do we know whether that 

has been looked at by DOL? 

 MR. ALLEN: The only other comment 

is that it does appear that that is the 

document that they used to make it 1953. So

we will forward that with the assertion from 

the report that it looks like a hand-corrected 

1952. 

 I mean, it's their call whatever 

they decide to do with it. I did print out 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 102

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that page if you're interested. It's not as 

clear-cut that it's a hand-corrected or a 

stray mark or what the heck it is in my 

opinion on that, but -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: Has DOL received

this information yet? Has it been forwarded? 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, it came from 

them, but we're going to forward it to them. 

We have not forwarded to them -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. You have not 

yet? 

 MR. ALLEN: -- the objection that 

it's potentially a hand-corrected date and it 

should be '52. If you wanted to see that at 

the top there? 

 It would be nice if they had 

corrected it with a nice clear tube. Somebody 

slashed a line across the bottom. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, of course, 

it's a little easier to think that could occur 

in January of some year. 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that's the other 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 103

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

thing, correcting it December. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If you haven't 

figured out what year it is by December, I 

don't know unless they're anticipating a new 

year, although it's possible that could have 

happened. 

 I don't know. Dan or John, do we 

have any other evidence that is -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. That's the 

only piece of evidence, actually, that there 

was any uranium work done prior to 1958, I 

think, when we have copies of the -- no. 

There are two indications. We have copies of 

purchase requisitions, a continuous record 

from about '58 on through '66. 

 Then there is one memo going back 

and forth between what was then General Steel 

Castings and Mallinckrodt saying we did some

work that was not covered by a purchase order, 

Could you please pay us? 

 And then there is a response 

saying, yes. Go ahead and pay them. That's
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 104

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reasonable. And that was done -- 

 MR. ALLEN: February of '58. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, right. 

 MR. ALLEN: And then the purchase 

orders actually went into place March of '58,

-- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

 MR. ALLEN: -- which almost looks 

like this was a task that will work, we'll put 

a purchase order in place. But then you have 

this, which clearly says they did a test or 

something, in '53 or '52. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, right. 

 MR. ALLEN: So something happened 

before the purchase orders. 

 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. I 

have one more comment. 

 There is one other bit of 

documentation possibly of the start date of 

the old Betatron operations. And that is that 

John Ramspott guided me, and we both went and 

examined the minutes of the General Steel
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 105

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Industries board, which is over at the 

Missouri Historical Society on Lindell 

Boulevard. 

 And in there they clearly describe 

that there was a contract from the government

to build the old Betatron building in 1951. 

And then there was a little dispute that went 

on where the government wanted GSI to actually 

purchase that building, but GSI, their board, 

decided not to do that. 

 So the machine itself was in place

and ready to go in 1952. And this paper 

indicates possibly that Mallinckrodt actually 

had contracted to do the work in 1952. 

 But those historical documents from 

the board meetings are available. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is

John Ramspott. If I may? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? Go 

ahead. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: There is clear, 

clear evidence of Mallinckrodt sending 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 

 106

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to General Steel that was actually made 

available during the Mallinckrodt SEC petition 

meetings. And that document is actually 

included in my critique to the original 

Appendix BB. And I will be able to get you 

that exact document. 

 The reason most of the purchase 

orders start at 1958 is because that is when 

the uranium work began at Weldon Spring. No 

one apparently looked back for the purchase 

orders, for all the work that was taking place 

at Mallinckrodt Destrehan. 

 There is a whole window from at 

least 1953, which is, again, documented in the 

Mallinckrodt verbiage that was used in the SEC 

petition. That work started, it actually

mentions sending uranium to General Steel in

this Mallinckrodt AEC document. 

 I think the reason or, actually, I 

would imagine and would bet money on the fact 

that no one looked for purchase orders prior 

to '58. If you go back to '53, Mallinckrodt, 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

if someone were to pull those purchase orders, 

I am sure they are there. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, John. 

There are on the website, on the GSI website, 

some comments. I don't think they're 

identified by individual on Appendix BB that

have similar statements in them I think there 

were comments by two individuals -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, those 

critiques on the OCAS Web site were by John 

Ramspott and myself. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: That's correct. 

 DR. McKEEL: And we specifically 

vigorously protested having our names removed

from those documents and redacted. And I at 

least offered, I think John did, too, but I 

know that I offered to sign a waiver so that 

my name could be used and those critiques be 

attributed. 

 But, in any case, I was assured 

several times that Board members had the 

unredacted copies of those critiques. And our 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 108

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

names were all over those critiques. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. McKEEL: Make no mistake that 

the -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I believe we have 

those copies. I was simply pointing out that 

-- 

 DR. McKEEL: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- the 

information that John just identified, that 

information, is on the website as well. 

 DR. McKEEL: Right. Yes, sir, I 

think it is. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And, actually, 

there is also a response from NIOSH to both

your comments. 

 DR. McKEEL: Correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't recall 

off the top of my head what they said about 

searching for the Destrehan site purchase 

orders. Well, in any event -- 

 DR. McKEEL: I don't remember 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 

 109

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

ever mentioning that they did search for 

those, but this would be a great time this 

morning to ask the NIOSH people on the line 

did they look for those purchase orders. 

 MR. ALLEN: We have -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This is Dave 

Allen responding here. 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes. Under the 

Mallinckrodt, all the reviews that were done

with that, we searched for lots of documents,

you know, two years, three years ago, whenever 

that was. 

 But that is my recollection. There 

was no good file of purchase orders that we 

uncovered as far as any kind of systematic way 

of searching through that. We dug through the 

information we had collected. And we didn't 

see anything in particular on that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's sort of 

inconclusive in the sense that there weren't 

any found, but you can't rule out that they 

might have been there. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 110

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ALLEN: There was tons of data 

on Mallinckrodt. We collected some of it. I 

think there's tons more out there somewhere. 

But to sort through all that for these is 

almost an insurmountable task. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, but -- 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, John

Ramspott again. If I may? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: The importance of 

those purchase orders is going to really be 

crucial because if there definitely was

uranium in '53 through '58, which everybody 

seems to agree. The amount would definitely

be important for any badging information. 

 Badging, trying to use badges is an 

example from '64 to '66, when there was very 

little uranium going to General Steel, as 

pointed out in Appendix BB, really makes a 

difference when it comes to badge readings. 

 So knowing exactly how much uranium 

was going to General Steel from '53 to '58 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would be very important. Then from '58 to '64 

would also be very important. Trying to use 

any badge information from '64 forward makes 

assumptions prior time is totally and 

scientifically inaccurate. 

 We are missing all of the uranium 

that was over there except, as pointed out in 

Appendix BB, only $500 worth of work done. 

Well, prior to that, it was as high as $7,200

worth of work done. That's a big difference 

in uranium exposure by itself. That's if 

you're hitting it with a Betatron causing 

fission, if I'm understanding correctly. 

 But thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks. 

 Again, on this particular one, I 

simply observe that there would have to be 

evidence uncovered that would cause the

Department of Labor to change the designation. 

And we'll have to keep that in the back of our 

mind as we proceed that this still could be an 

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 

 112

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Let's move on to the other items 

here. Issue 3 titled Underestimate of 

Betatron Beam Intensity. The SC&A finding, 

the authors assume a Betatron beam intensity 

of 100 hour per minute without the aluminum 

beam-flattening compensator and a distance of 

3 feet from the target. 

 They cite an interview with 

Schuetz, S-c-h-u-e-t-z, as the source of 

information that the Betatron beam had a 

design maximum output of 100 r per minute. 

 This value is inconsistent with the 

material furnished by Schuetz (2007), which 

lists outputs of up to 282 r per minute. It 

is also inconsistent with the Allis-Chalmers

acceptance criteria for the Betatron tubes, 

which required a minimum output of 220 r per 

minute at 25 MeV. We find that assigning an 

uncompensated intensity of 250 r per minute at 

3 feet is reasonable and claimant-favorable. 

 And the NIOSH response says, to be

clear, Mr. Schuetz indicated, quote, tubes 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

manufactured in the early 1950s produced 

outputs between 125 and 150 r per minute, the 

1960s between 200 and 275 r per minute, and by

the late 1970s between 300 and 375 r per

minute at 25 MeV. It says MV. It's the same 

thing, really. 

 These levels were only obtainable

in my laboratory machine with varying percent 

reductions depending on individual field 

locations and whether in-house personnel or my 

trained service engineers installed the tubes. 

End of quote. 

 Mr. Schuetz then went on to list 

the last seven tubes purchased by GSI in a 

table. The shipping dates range from 

12/29/1969 to 5/31/1973. The output at 25 MV 

ranged from 260 to 282. 

 At the 8/11/2006 worker outreach 

meeting, operators recalled values from 100 r 

per minute from the old Betatron and 250 r per 

minute from the new Betatron. 

 Based on worker accounts, 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 

 114

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

concluded that the old Betatron, which dated 

from the early 1950s, could only develop 100 r 

per minute in use at GSI while the new 

Betatron could develop 250 r per minute. 

 This information along with other 

refined information and possible issues with 

uranium activation could affect the model 

dose, but NIOSH has obtained film badge 

results for the Betatron operators and is in 

the process of comparing this data to the 

modeled doses. 

 However, as indicated in the SC&A 

review, NIOSH has obtained film badge results 

for beta operators. We are in the process of

comparing this data to the modeled estimates 

provided by both the Appendix and SC&A. 

 Now, again, this although it 

discusses those different outputs, it goes 

back to an indication that the film badge 

results may help to resolve the issue. 

 Dave, any additional comments on

this at the moment? 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ALLEN: No. Like Dr. Anigstein 

said, some of that information is included in 

that white paper. I don't know if you want to 

discuss that stuff now or -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no. We'll 

come to that, but I just wanted to see if you 

had anything to add right now. And we sort of

talked about the outputs in the previous one 

as well. 

 Work Group members, any questions 

or comments on this particular issue? 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, may I make 

a comment? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, you may.

Dan McKeel. 

 DR. McKEEL: I just want to comment 

that John Ramspott and I also interviewed Jack 

Schuetz when we visited the West Allis 

operating 24 MeV Betatron, actually before the 

interview with and the contract with NIOSH by

Mr. Schuetz. 

 And one of the things 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 

 116

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

revealed in that situation was that 

Allis-Chalmers as a routine procedure surveyed 

facilities in which they had placed one of 

their Betatrons. 

 All of those facilities were

surveyed. And, of course, we were very 

interested because if those reports and 

particularly the one at General Steel or the 

ones at Eddystone, Pennsylvania, where the 

second new Betatron came from in '63 to GSI, 

then we might have some real data on 

Betatron-generated fluxes of both gamma and

electrons and maybe even neutrons at real 

Betatron facilities. 

 And, unfortunately, Mr. Schuetz 

said that when he left Allis-Chalmers and 

started his own company in 1990, that he made 

a corporate decision not to maintain those 

records. And all of them were destroyed. 

 And I remember we spent five 

minutes exploring whether any of those things 

could have survived. And the answer was 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 

 117

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

at his place, but a copy of those was provided 

to all of the installations. And so there was 

a possibility that they might have survived. 

 We never were able to retrieve the 

one for General Steel, but I found that very 

interesting. So, anyway, that's my comment. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: While we are talking 

about the output of the machine, I would like 

to point out something and believe Dr. 

Anigstein did talk with Mr. Schuetz as well. 

 Betatron is a set power, 24-25 

million volts. The fact that can change the 

output that is stated in this white paper,

actually, and in Dr. Anigstein's report, the 

SC&A report, is the tubes make a difference, 

apparently. They are actually explained from 

1950. There is one power. Nineteen sixty, 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there is another power. 

 Betatron itself, machine, the 

device, I would compare it and liken it -- and 

this is something experts can verify -- to a 

light fixture. 

 If I screw in a 50-watt light bulb, 

then a week later change the 50-watt light 

bulb to a 100-watt light bulb, which is what 

they essentially did at the Betatron sites, 

they changed those tubes regularly, the

output, the amount of light from a 50-watt 

light bulb would be different and when I 

screwed in a 100-watt light bulb. 

 So the machine itself, 24 or 25 

MeV, when you put in a different tube, you get 

a totally different result. So trying to 

compare the tube that was in a 1951-installed

machine to the tube that was installed in a 

1964 or '65, whatever, I think there would be 

a difference. 

 But, you know, Dr. Anigstein had 

that conversation with Mr. Schuetz 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 

 119

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

difference of the tubes. And the difference 

in the tubes I think was confirmed through 

some patents through the company that made the 

tubes. That would be a pretty big factor. 

 Now, the other thing about output. 

you've got to remember you're putting out 100

roentgen or you're putting out 262 roentgens, 

the only thing that changes, if I'm 

understanding correctly, or not the only thing

but one of the things that changes, is the 

amount of time you have to do the shot for. 

 If you're going through 20 inches 

of steel, it is going to take longer with 100 

roentgen Betatron than it does with a 262 

roentgen Betatron. Well, really, what that 

equates to unless I'm wrong is more exposures. 

The longer the machine is running, the more 

radiation that is created. 

 So, actually, 100 roentgens in my 

estimation would be more dangerous because it

means more exposure. It also, if I am 

understanding correctly, I have been told 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 

 120

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

neutrons are created only when the machine is 

running. The longer the machine runs, the 

more neutrons you get unless I'm missing the 

point. 

 So I would just like to add that, 

if I may. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you, 

John. 

 Comments? Bob? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. I would like 

to make a couple of comments of a didactic 

measure, as a former physics professor. John, 

I would say that your analogy is good up to a

point. 

 I wouldn't liken the Betatron -- I 

agree with you about the Betatron tube -- I 

wouldn't like the Betatron machine to the 

light fixture. I would go a little further 

and say you have your own home generator, and 

you use that to power your light bulbs. 

 Well, the output of the generator 

also will affect the amount of light coming 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

out of the light bulb. If the volt of the 

generator changes, the output of the light 

bulb changes. 

 What happened, my understanding 

with the old Betatron is it was originally -- 

when it was first installed, it was a 22 MeV 

machine because that is what Allis-Chalmers 

was making at the time. And sometime later, 

perhaps at the time that the new Betatron was 

called the new Betatron -- actually, it is an 

older manufacturer -- was brought in from

Eddystone, that one was refurbished and 

brought up to 25 MeV. And somewhere -- and I 

am not sure of the time frame -- the old,

quote unquote, Betatron was brought up from 22 

to 24 MeV. So it was a little lower voltage. 

 So the same tube will produce a 

different output depending on which machine it 

is, just the same way if you changed the

voltage from the light bulb, it will change 

the light output. 

 In terms of the exposure, 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 

 122

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

because it's longer duration. But the reason 

it is a longer duration is because you have to 

give the same dose to the film. 

 You typically go from one to two,

from one to four rads, which is similar to a 

roentgen, to the film to get a good exposure. 

So you don't increase exposure by running 

longer and the same way with the neutron 

generation. 

 The neutron generation would depend

on the tube current, so if you have a the 

lower current, you have fewer neutrons per 

minute but more -- a longer running time. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Doctor, I totally 

agree, the running time actually adds to

radiation as well as a power. Pointing out 

the power, that extra million is a very good 

point. I stand in agreement on that one. 

That is a very valid point. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, actually, 

we don't know the current. You might raise

the power, but if the current is lowered, your 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

wattage would go down, actually. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. We don't 

know. And maybe I'll just jump ahead to my 

response to the white paper. We don't know 

the current involvement. And, therefore, we 

just made, we SC&A made, the conservative

timetable assumption. 

 Let's assume that the tube current, 

the micro amps, in both were the same. Then

you will get a somewhat lower X-ray production 

because X-ray production, at least in lower 

energies, machines, is proportional to the 

square of the voltage. 

 So if you go from 25 down to 24 

MeV, you get maybe ten percent less output

just on that basis. The other factors in the 

machine are as the machine gets old, what 

happens is the insulation -- the magnet is 

composed of many thin layers of iron. 

 And there is insulation, not

electrical insulation but magnet insulation 

between them to prevent eddy currents, which 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would go to act to lower the field. 

 As this insulation breaks down, you 

start getting current in the magnet, which 

counteracts the field and you get a reduction 

of the magnetic field, which is why the 

machine deteriorates. But then how often was 

it refurbished, how often was it maintained, 

you know, that is unknown. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Actually, Doctor, 

this is John Ramspott again. There are in the 

operations manual that we retrieved from the 

West Allis site. They, actually, in the back 

of that manual show that the insulation 

waivers, was what they called them -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: -- were replaced 

during normal preventive maintenance. So it

would maintain power. It is kind of like 

preventive maintenance on a car or a copier or 

whatever. They replace certain things in

order to keep the power. 

 So it might lose it during 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 

 125

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

three-month cycle, but then it would be 

rejuvenated again. And those records are in 

the back of that instruction manual on the 

West Allis site, which would be typical, I 

would think, of the GSI and the other sites. 

 Actually, Mr. Schuetz was the head 

of that preventive maintenance department, as 

he explained to us. I am familiar with that

because I likened him to my service managers 

in my old job. 

 And he said he definitely -- that

was his whole department's function, was to 

keep -- they had to guarantee a certain output 

in their maintenance contract. 

 Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John Poston? 

 MEMBER POSTON: This was an 

interesting discussion, but it seems to me 

that it is all moot as to what the output of 

the machine was because what we ought to be 

relying on is the dosimetry data, which we 

have and we haven't finished analyzing. So 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 

 126

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

doesn’t make any difference what the output of 

the machine was. We have the data, and we 

ought to be analyzing that. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But it goes back. 

There was a period of time from, let’s say, 

forgetting the '52-'53 issue, from 1952 until 

through 1963, where only the old Betatron was 

operating and there was no dosimetry data. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So there may be a 

question of whether they have a model -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: There may be a 

question, but at this point it seems to be we 

need to wait. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: To see how they

are prepared. 

 MEMBER POSTON: It's nice, 

interesting physics. And I remember it from 

graduate school myself, you know. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But they may end 

up having to model some of this. We will have 

to wait and see. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 127

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

John Ramspott again. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Poston, I agree 

with you 100 percent, but there's one little 

catch. The dosimetry data, it's only good if 

it's accurate. 

 And there are some other factors 

that enter into the dosimetry data that were 

totally overlooked in the white paper. And 

one of those I made public on the 24th in my 

public comment along with an actual worker, 

Mr. Terry Dutko. It's really critical. 

 If you only wear the badges part of 

the time, you only get part of an accumulated 

dose if you're in a radiologically 

contaminated area, which is definitely the 

case because some areas have been identified 

actually by the Appendix BB and by the SC&A 

report, example being 10 building at GSI, 

which was connected right to the new Betatron, 

which is the more powerful of the Betatrons as 

data only if it's accurate. Uranium 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 

 128

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

missing. People are wearing badges part-time. 

 You know, I don't want to jump 

ahead to the white -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. We'll 

discuss that in more detail, John. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: That would be great. 

Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Thanks for 

noting that, however. 

 Let's see. Let's go on, then, to 

issue 4, which is called Underestimate of

Stray Radiation from Betatron, SC&A Finding: 

Appendix BB underestimates the stray 

radiation during the operation of the 

Betatrons. Our calculations show higher dose

rates in the control rooms than the .72 

millirem per hour cited in the Appendix . 

 We calculated effective dose rates 

of 208 millirem per hour on the roof, which 

was occasionally occupied by maintenance 

workers, 22 millirem per hour in a restroom

and up to 51 millirem per hour in other 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 

 129

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

accessible to workers while the Betatron was 

in operation. 

 The Appendix ignores neutrons 

generated in Betatron target, which make a 

minor but potentially significant contribution 

to the effective doses. 

 MEMBER POSTON: John, one thing I 

noticed in this finding, you don't tell us 

what you calculated. You just said it was 

higher, but you didn't tell us how much 

higher. We have no order of magnitude. Was

it .73 or .75 or what was it? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry. It's in

the -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's in the 

report. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's in the report. 

 MEMBER POSTON: But if you

calculated it, shouldn't it be in the finding? 

I mean, you gave us the other data. Why

didn't you give us that data? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I completely agree. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 130

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And we can 

get those numbers. Let me give the NIOSH 

response. And then we will discuss it 

further. As indicated in the SC&A review, 

NIOSH has obtained film badge results for 

Betatron operators. We are in the process of 

comparing this data to the modeled estimate 

provided by both the Appendix and SC&A. The 

data includes an area dosimeter from the 

Betatron control room. 

 Yes. And, Bob, do you know what 

those values were off the top of your head? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: In the control 

room? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The neutron 

values that John was asking about. 

 MEMBER POSTON: No, not the neutron 

values, just the calculated values that they

-- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, the 

calculated values? 

 MR. ALLEN: 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 

 131

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER POSTON: I'm trying to get 

an order of magnitude, John. That's all I'm 

asking. What is the order of magnitude? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: In the control 

room, we have doses, total doses, photon and 

neutron, of 2.6 mr per hour, millirem per 

hour, -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: Thank you. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- both of .72. 

 DR. NETON: But we do have badges 

that were in the Betatron control room. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So this is 

another one that we'll -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. I think the 

essence of the point is that the .72 is 

juxtaposed to the 2.6. But then we have these 

other locations. 

 I don't know if you folks 

explicitly addressed in your original Appendix 

BB where the dose rates could have been 

substantially higher in uncontrolled areas, I 

presume, but we are going to get into all of
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 132

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that. 

 DR. NETON: I think some of that is 

covered in the white paper. 

 DR. MAURO: Occupancy factors 

certainly apply. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You know, there 

was the issue that the people on the roof were 

changing the klystron tubes or something that

required the -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Servicing the 

ventilators. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay. I 

thought they were doing something that 

required the Betatron to be shut down so that 

they didn't get electrical shocks. That was 

something on the roof. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Maybe there was 

something else, but at the outreach meeting,

the meeting that we sponsored, the site 

experts meetings, one worker testified that he 

would go up on the roof to service the plant. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, 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 

 133

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And I asked him if 

he would communicate with the Betatron 

operator to shut it off when he is up there. 

And he said he did not. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But he accessed the 

roof from outside the building. The Betatron 

operator didn't even know he was there. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think we also

had times on that, John, in the number of 

times per year that were done so you could 

bound that dose. 

 MR. ALLEN: Twenty minutes 

semiannually. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. You could 

bound that dose based on even on these numbers 

if we accepted these. 

 Okay. Any other comments on this

issue at the moment? Okay. Let's go ahead 

and get the next one on the board. Issue 5, 

Failure to Assess Other Radiography Sources, 

The SC&A Finding: The authors acknowledge 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 

 134

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

use of other radiography sources, notably 60- 

cobalt, but dismiss the doses from these 

sources, as shown in our analysis, an 80-curie 

cobalt-60 source produced a dose rate of up to 

960 millirem per hour on the roof of the new 

Betatron building and rates of 12 to 16 

millirem per hour in other locations outside 

the building. 

 Furthermore, stray radiation from a 

250 millicurie cobalt-60 source that was used 

in a lightly shielded structure could have 

produced dose rates in accessible areas of 9 

to 17 millirem per hour. These rates are one 

to three orders of magnitude higher than the 

stray radiation cited in the Appendix . 

 Then the NIOSH response, as 

indicated in the SC&A review, NIOSH has

obtained film badge results for Betatron 

operators. We are in the process of comparing 

this data to the modeled estimates provided by 

both the Appendix and SC&A. The data 

includes operators that indicated they used
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 135

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the sources. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, John 

Ramspott. If I may? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? Go 

ahead. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: The 250-millicurie 

cobalt source used in building 6 would have 

been done totally separate and independent 

from anything going on in the Betatron 

building. 

 And we do have some old-timers, I'm 

going to call them, from GSI that were there 

in the earlier days, one of them being a 

supervisor of the Betatron, a Mr. Burgess, and 

another cobalt-certified person, Jim Powers. 

 And they both confirm that that 

small source according to Mr. Burgess was used 

as far back as into the '40s to examine 

railway car parts, namely trucks, which are 

the wheels, for a New York Transit Authority 

contract. And he knows 100 percent for sure 

when he came to work in '53, it was definitely 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 136

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

being used then down in 6 building. 

 And all this tends to really 

reemphasize the importance of missing badge 

data from '53 to '64. And that was my point I 

was trying to make a little earlier as data is 

only good if it is accurate and everything is 

factored into it. 

 And not having it for that 

operation, which definitely was not running at 

the same time, you definitely can use cobalt 

at GSI and a Betatron at the same time. If it

is done in different locations. That is the 

point that is really missed. I just wanted to 

add that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Thanks, 

John. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, was it also 

your concern, then, that, particularly at the

earlier times, that there could have been 

radiographers using only the isotopic sources 

who weren't monitored, versus individuals 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 

 137

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

used isotopic sources plus Betatron? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Absolutely. That is 

the other inaccuracy of the badge data, is we 

have photographs, which we have provided with

names. I'm going to use one example: Mr. Jim 

Powers. 

 Mr. Powers, his main job was 

working in the chem. lab. We spoke with Mr. 

Powers. And he is available. He is actually 

signing a document as far as to confirm this. 

 Mr. Powers if you look at that 

photograph of the chem. lab, which everybody

refers to because they're also the 

isotope-certified guys, he didn't wear a badge 

in the chem. lab. 

 He did wear a badge while he was 

working with isotopes. And then he worked 

part-time in the Betatron on Saturdays for 

overtime pay. 

 So how do you know what his badge 

data is? It's part-time, on/off? You know, 

we're looking at accumulated doses, I think 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 

 138

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the term that is used, accumulated doses for a 

guy that had it on one day versus a guy that 

had it on seven days. 

 There is going to be a real 

difference trying to use his badge to 

extrapolate anything, it just seems to me like 

it would be totally inaccurate because all of

the information is not there. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks. 

 MEMBER MUNN: A point of 

clarification with respect to the information 

that we were just given. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This is Wanda 

Munn. Go ahead, Wanda. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Are we working 

on the assumption that any exposure to any of 

the sources was all related to the covered 

contract here or am I hearing something that 

is telling me that there were likely exposures 

to those low-level sources which 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 

 139

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

affiliated with work the company is doing not 

connected to the contract? 

 DR. McKEEL: Wanda, this is Dan 

McKeel. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, Dan? 

 DR. McKEEL: It is true that the 

small gamma source, for instance, in building 

6 was used on railroad trucks not used on 

Mallinckrodt uranium. 

 We really don't have any positive 

evidence that the large cobalt-60 source was 

used on Mallinckrodt uranium either. However, 

the two points that are highly relevant are 

both the old Betatron building and the new 

Betatron building had ports through the

control room wall for the control cable that 

was used to draw -- to retract the top of the 

pig that carried the cobalt-60 source pill 

inside. 

 MEMBER MUNN: I remember that. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes. And so the men 

also described a few occasions where, for
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 140

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

example, Mr. Dutko was instructed to shut down 

and lock out the Betatron while the large 

source was used inside the Betatron building. 

 The other relevant thing I think 

that there still is confusion about is that in 

making dose reconstruction for the contract

period of 1953 to 1966 with the AEC and with

Mallinckrodt for the uranium, all source terms 

must be included. 

 And so the beta term operators did 

work outside the Betatron building as well. 

And, in fact, for those uses, they all 

described that their badges were placed on 

little clip racks on the wall when they went 

to work, for example, in building 10. 

 And so all the sources have to be 

included. And that's why we keep commenting

on the fact that in the white paper and in 

Appendix BB, the gamma sources, which were 

iridium as well as the cobalt-60, and the 

smaller portable 250 kVp unit that was used in 

different buildings in the plant, that 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 

 141

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

also have to be included because the SEC 

proposed class, for instance, involved all the 

workers at the plant. 

 And, as far as I understand it, 

NIOSH and ORAU use uniform dose assumptions 

for all workers at GSI: Betatron, isotope, 

chem. lab, and other workers in their dose 

constructions, a number of which have been 

done by now. So that is all very important 

supportive reasoning why you have to consider

all of the sources. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you, Dan. I 

was just trying to establish clearly in my own 

mind that the sources that were being used 

were not solely used for contract purposes. 

 DR. McKEEL: That's absolutely 

true. Correct. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott again. 

If I may? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Wanda, the document 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 142

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that I found by accident, actually, -- and 

maybe it is just my oversight -- is 

OCAS-IG-003. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: And that document, 

and I really applaud NIOSH. November 7th or 

November 5th, I think, 2007 is when it's 

issued. That is the first document we have 

ever seen that thoroughly starts to describe

radiography as having to or I think the term 

is "All radiation sources must be used in dose 

reconstruction." Those are the words, -- 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: -- the words. And 

with that 13-year window we have, you really

have a good point. Those 13 years where all 

sources must be used. And that, of course, is 

either the big cobalt, little cobalt, X-ray 

machines. You hit it right on the head. 

Thank you. 

 MEMBER MUNN: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And 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 

 143

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

generally true of all facilities where there 

may have been other non-contract work going on 

coincidentally, but if the workers are exposed 

to both, you take the totals. And we have 

done that at other sites as well. 

 I guess the only exclusion to that 

would be if one could very specifically and 

clearly identify workers who were completely

unassociated with one of the contracts and 

only got exposed to those sources. But in 

general, that is going to be difficult to do, 

I would think. 

 DR. NETON: No. It would be 

included unless the facility designation 

excluded those workers. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. You would 

have to be able to show clearly that they had 

no association. 

 DR. NETON: It would have to be 

defined -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Defined in the 

definition of the facility. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER POSTON: I have a couple of 

questions here. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

 MEMBER POSTON: This could be a one 

-- a "Yes" or "No" question. Have you guys 

modeled the 80-curie source? 

 MR. ALLEN: We didn't, SC&A did, at 

any point, we didn't in ours. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. So you 

haven't done it. 

 DR. NETON: But I think the brief 

answer to this, and Dave, correct me if I am

wrong, is that we believe that the assigning 

exposure to a Betatron worker would be

bounding to those people who were working with 

the other sources. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I was going 

to ask just doing it in my head, John, 80 

curies would be about, well, less than 130 r

per hour at one meter from the source. And 

the dose on the roof is two or three times 

what was in one of the other findings. 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 

 145

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

these buildings are that much different? 

 Well, then why? That doesn't make 

sense. I mean, if you've got a machine that

is putting out 250 r per minute versus 140 r 

per hour, how can you get a higher dose on the 

roof for the situation for the cobalt source 

than you can for the beta source? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Can I answer? 

Since we did the model? I use the cobalt 

source based on the description from one of

the operators who had actually handled that 

source was you have a -- for me, the 

description I wasn't quite sure. 

 But let's say, for example, a 

pressure vessel for a nuclear reactor. And it 

would be open on one end. The cobalt source

is placed in the middle. And then it's lined 

or, rather, the opposite sequence, of course, 

is lined with X-ray film and then place a 

cobalt source in the middle. It is open on 

top. The source is visible from the roof. 

 The Betatron rarely, if ever, 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 

 146

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

be shot straight up at the roof. So that's 

the answer. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. I still -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So you're getting 

straight radiate. The 208 millirem per hour 

from the Betatron operation is the Betatron is 

higher in this model, this simulation, is

fired horizontally at a heavy steel casting, 

so the tubular casting. 

 And then you find the dose 

immediately above the point where the center 

of the beam hits the steel. So it's all due 

to scattered radiation and a little penumbra 

effect from the Betatron because it's not all 

straightforward. But it's mostly -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: My concern is you 

are talking about one. For cobalt, you are 

talking about r per hour. For -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, no. If I'm 

talking about millirem per minute in both 

cases -- I'm sorry -- millirem per hour in 

both cases, the cobalt, as Dave pointed out,
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 147

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is isotropic. 

 MEMBER POSTON: But you have 4 pi 

r2 effects associated with that -- you know, 

let me say it again. And then we'll leave it, 

and you can chew on it. The gamma factor for 

cobalt-60 is 1.33 r per hour for curie in a 

meter. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: In a meter. 

 MEMBER POSTON: So you multiply 

that by 80. You get somewhere around 120 or

less r per hour at a meter from the source. 

Okay? And so that is per hour; whereas, the 

output of the Betatron is per minute. Okay? 

So that is a factor of 60 right there. 

 So I am saying the dose on top of 

the roof, even though it is isotropic, is 

higher for the cobalt source than it is for 

the Betatron. And I recognize that what you 

are doing, you are dealing with the scatter. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Betatron. 

 MEMBER POSTON: I understand. I am

just saying it looks a little screwy 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 

 148

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the 

standard component is probably a thousandth of 

the main -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, sure. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- or something 

like that. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: As I said, we did 

an MCNP run for the cobalt source. And MCNP, 

I mean, that is a very simple calculation. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Straight inverse 

squared? 

 MEMBER POSTON: I understand. I am

quite familiar with MCNP. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, we didn't, 

actually. I mean, we actually take and count 

the scatter and put it inside the container. 

And, you know, no. I mean, that was reviewed, 

and I believe that is correct. 

 MEMBER POSTON: What's the height 

of the building? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: About 35 feet above 

the level. Well, that is not -- the roof 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 

 149

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

about 35 feet, positioned the worker at about 

38 feet. It's in the report. I can check it 

out. 

 But then the source and the casting 

are elevated from the floor. I mean, the 

Betatron and the casting are several feet

above the floor. The casting is generally -- 

we have a photograph, actually, of it, and 

that’s how we did it. 

 So the casting will be a few feet 

up off the floor. So the actual distance is

less than 35 feet. Maybe it's 30 feet. The 

idea of those numbers have come to my head. 

 MEMBER POSTON: I'm just trying to 

get an order of magnitude to understand the 

problem. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

John Ramspott. If I may again? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Poston, you 

raise a really good issue. The issue is

cobalt sources in 6 building have 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 

 150

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

ignored. It has not been modeled except by 

SC&A. 

 NIOSH does not account for them in 

all these other areas that we're talking about 

other than the Betatron building itself unless 

you are an isotope-certified person in 6 

building and that little block building, or 

unbadged. 

 Again, we keep coming back to the

badging. There will be no badge information 

for many of the workers other than the isotope 

worker in 6 building. That's used. That's 

the missing data. 

 MEMBER POSTON: I understand, but I 

thought I had heard the NIOSH folks say that 

they accepted the SC&A estimate and didn't 

model when I asked. Is that what you said? 

 MR. ALLEN: We accept the criticism 

and it should be modeled -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: Oh, accept the 

criticism. Okay. 

 MR. ALLEN: -- and likely end up 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 151

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

accepting their model. We’ll look at it a 

little closer. 

 DR. MAURO: Do I hear an action 

item here for us to write a note explaining 

the apparent inconsistency between the 

radiation field on the roof when you look at 

the cobalt-61? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Well, it depends on 

what you're talking about. That's why I asked 

what the height of the building is because he 

mentioned pressure vessels. And now we're 

talking about something that is huge. It 

probably would be -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think at some

point we'll have to be mapping perhaps when 

NIOSH looks at whether they model it to see 

how it agrees. 

 MEMBER POSTON: That was why I 

asked the question first. I wanted to know 

who -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Part of it is 

they're in the primary beam on the cobalt 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 

 152

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

some distance. They're in a scattered beam 

from the other at a somewhat similar distance. 

But, you know -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: Yes. If it was

human tissue, the scatter factor would be

1,000. But this is steel. And the scatter 

factor is probably smaller than that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It could be. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: If I may? This is 

John Ramspott again. We're talking about the 

roof of the Betatron buildings now for some of 

these equations. We can't miss a little 

block, one layer thick, brick or block wall in 

6 building, where cobalt was used. It was a 

smaller source that was used. There is no 

roof on it. The wall is about eight feet high

according to the workers. 

 That whole part has been missed 

except to Dr. Anigstein. 

 MEMBER POSTON: There's no roof, 

period? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: None. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ALLEN: It's inside the other 

building. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Six building. There 

were grain operators going over the top of

that building because that is how they would 

lift the railroad car, part they called the 

truck, into the building. And that is also 

the reason the wall could only be eight feet 

high because you have a roof that is X high. 

You have to be able to lift these railroad 

parts over and into that little block 

building. 

 And we have workers that say -- I 

mean, we're not talking about any 35-foot 

distance. We've got guys working on -- and 

this is a heavily occupied finishing area. We 

have guys working immediately on the other 

side of those concrete part of the -- those 

block walls, which are only about at the most 

a foot thick. 

 We have diagrams of that wall that 

were done based on the workers' testimony 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 

 154

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

were done by an engineering consulting firm 

which will show that -- I have shared with 

SC&A and NIOSH, Dr. Poston. There is no roof

on that building at all. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, John. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, sir. 

 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. I 

just want to underscore that, underscore also

that there is additional testimony that in 

building 6, there may have been several 

hundred workers at a time working around that 

concrete building. 

 So without quantifying things, 

which none of us have done, there is a cobalt

source operating in an open space, no roof, in 

concrete blocks that would not completely 

attenuate the beam and the gamma protons that

were going through there and that unbadged, 

unmonitored workers, which also included from 

time to time Betatron workers, isotope 

workers, people who had been badged in the 

Betatron facility and when working 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 

 155

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

isotopes but were not badged when they went 

into building 10, 9, 8, and 6 because they 

were worried that the badges might get hit by 

some of the flying hot particles -- and so 

they took those badges off. 

 Anyway, there were people who were 

not badged who were exposed to gamma radiation 

there. And there were people working in 

building 10, which was right adjacent to the 

new Betatron larger unit with a higher output. 

And they were also not badged. And they were 

exposed to radiation that came through that 

ribbon door, which offered minimal attenuation

of the beam. 

 So there were really a large number 

of GSI workers who were never monitored that 

were exposed to those kinds of radiation.

Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, you did 

model a lot of that, I think, because you had 

the flow plans and so on, right? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. I'm sorry. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

For a moment I wasn't paying attention. I was 

looking at -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, he was 

talking about modeling the cobalt work. And 

it's basically the transmitted beam through 

the concrete. And that's actually fairly easy 

to model that if you know the source -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. We very -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- and the 

thicknesses of the wall and the geometric 

position. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Of course. Yes.

Well, we just use the heavy machine, our heavy 

machine, meaning MCNP, -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- for all of it. 

Yes, we model the doses at one meter. It's a

rectangular building. So we model it one 

meter from the long wall, one meter from the 

short wall. And that's why in the findings I 

think I just said 9 to 17 millirem per hour. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 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 

 157

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was very 

definitely. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, you -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We did not model 

the crane operator above the building. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But that could be

modeled as well. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Of course. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And basically it's 

a matter of distance because that hollow 

cinder block wall does not afford much 

shielding. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. John, 

additional comment? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes. Doctor, if I 

could? Dr. Anigstein and if somebody could 

answer from NIOSH? You guys use different 

computer software, I believe, MCNP-X and MCNP 

and then I guess Attila? That was different 

software that was used? Is that all 

pre-proven and tested 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 

 158

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. The MCNP, 

basically it's a political division within Los 

Alamos. You had the MCNP code. And then it 

diverged into two different groups doing 

further development on it. 

 So you have the MCNP-5, which is a 

code that is a little easier to run. It's a 

simpler code. It's not as demanding on the 

computer on the -- you don't need as much 

horsepower on the computer to run it. 

 The MCNP-X has additional. For 

instance, only the MCNP-X could do the delayed 

radiation from the irradiated steel. But for 

the simple thing like a cobalt source, either 

code will give identical answers. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Either one of those

programs would be accurate. Do you agree with 

that, Mr. Allen? 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes. Yes, I do. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: So it's a good, 

reliable program, both of them? 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I believe so. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's been very -- 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: I guess my question 

is if those programs are completely reliable 

and used? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. They have 

been used for the last 30, MCNP codes have 

been used, initially developed for nuclear 

weapons design. They have been used for about 

30-40 years. 

 They have been extensively 

benchmarked, which means they will do a 

simulation of a problem. And then they will 

take the actual measurement of that exact same 

geometry. And they come in within a very 

small percent, you know, two, three percent. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: And I guess NIOSH 

agrees that they are that accurate. So then 

my question is, how can the badges not show 

any radiation when the best computer models 

do? I guess that would be my question. 

 And my thought is perhaps the 

badges aren't gathering all of the doses 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 

 160

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

exposures like they were supposed to because 

they weren't worn regularly in sites that were 

radiologically dangerous. If you have 

computer programs that are tested and used at 

probably every site in the United States and 

then you have a badge that says, "Nothing," 

something doesn't match. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, there are 

any number of explanations for that. For 

example, we take the computer models. And 

then we make some assumptions about the amount 

of time that people are there. 

 Usually we assign them in a 

high-exposure spot, for example, for eight 

hours a day. In reality, we know that doesn't

happen. So in one sense, the badges are more 

realistic. 

 Now, we have to take that within

the framework of what the badges' detection 

limits are and any other limits on the badges. 

But keep in mind the bounding calculated

values are often much higher than real values. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

And we see that in many locations. That may 

not be the only explanation, but that is one 

kind of issue we have to keep in mind. 

 The other issue, you're quite 

right, the workers don't wear their badges all 

the time. That also comes into play. And so 

-- 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: That's part of my

quality -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And we're aware 

of that. And for a given worker, one has to 

-- you know, for a given claim, you would have 

to look at the situation and see. 

 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 MR. DUTKO: Can I speak, sir? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. KATZ: Can you identify

yourself, please? 

 DR. McKEEL: John. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's John 

Dutko, I think. Isn't it, John? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 162

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. DUTKO: This is John Dutko, I 

was a Betatron and Magnaflux operator, GSI. 

 Sir, there was 91 people in our 

department in '64 and '65. More than a third

were Magnaflux operators, who were never 

issued any badges at all. They never were. 

 When we were in magnaflux, you were 

not issued a badge. When you were a Betatron 

operator, it was the next step up, then chem. 

lab. Betatron operators were instructed to 

remove their badges when they left the

Betatron. 

 If we worked overtime on the Mag 

floor, they were afraid of chipping, burning, 

grinding, welding, intense hot sparks flying 

around those badges. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. DUTKO: They simply did not 

where them off on out of the Betatrons. And 

that was policy, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Understood. 

Thanks for that comment, then, John, 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 

 163

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are going to 

take our lunch break at this time. After 

lunch, we will pick up with issue six and 

continue from there. 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan. I hate 

to delay lunch, but could I make a 

several-sentence comment? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You certainly 

may. 

 DR. McKEEL: And it has really got 

to do with this issue. And I don't want to 

leave it before lunch. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure. 

 DR. McKEEL: That is that one thing 

I want to dispute, the first thing I want to 

dispute is that the normal difference between, 

let's say, MCNP-5 code values and real data, 

someone made the comment that it was on the 

order of two three percent. And I have read
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

many papers that would dispute that. 

 I also read papers, which I can 

furnish, where MCNP-5 data, for example, was 

compared to real data at three different time 

points at a given facility, where the MCNP-5 

dose calculations for each of those three 

periods was basically the same; whereas, the 

real data on two occasions was very close and 

then on a third occasion was quite different,

significantly different, between the other two 

time periods of real data. 

 And when the authors traced that 

back, they found that there were variations in 

the machine itself that was generating the 

doses. 

 And so the point of the paper was 

that you had to be careful in that; that, 

whereas, the computer code will run very

uniformly assuming you don't change the 

parameters time after time after time; 

whereas, the real machine might not. So 

that's one comment. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The second comment was that we have 

not commented at all, I don't believe, in 

Appendix B in any of the NIOSH comments. And 

I don't think it has even been covered by the 

SC&A review. 

 And that is that our experts from 

the Milwaukee School of Engineering, one of 

the first comments out of their mouths was

that ordinary film badge film -- and we 

believe that some of the film used at GSI was 

standard dental film, which is designed for 

much softer, lower-energy X-rays, was simply

not sensitive and not accurate when applied to 

24-25 MeV Betatron output. And the badges at 

GSI gave no information about neutrons. 

 So, just to go on the record, I

would say for the sources at GSI, no one has 

modeled the 250 kVp portable X-ray source. 

Nobody has done that. There is no real data

for that. 

 There is no real data for people 

who were responsible for the isotopes, 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 

 166

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

cobalt-60 and the iridium, except as with 

respect to the time that they were in the 

Betatron building. 

 We have no real information whether 

those men wore their badges. We know they did 

not wear their badges, for instance, when they 

were in certain areas of GSI, such as the 

chem. lab and when they went into building 10. 

So I just think that's really important. 

 The other thing that I would 

comment on is that I think, without exception, 

every paper that I read that used MCNP or 

Attila modeling also made an attempt to use at 

least some real data as a verification that

the models were providing accurate results. 

And the real and the computed data often vary 

by at least ten percent. 

 So we don't have that situation 

here. We have computer-generated model data,

period. Then we have dosimetry data from 

individual film badges with film that was 

insensitive to Betatron, photons, did 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 

 167

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

measure neutrons. 

 And so we do not have complete 

representative, appropriate, accurate film 

badge data either. And I just need to put 

that on the record. 

 We do need to have a discussion 

today of whether the film badges that people

think were used at GSI, the red Landauer type, 

whether they were really adequate to monitor 

the Betatron. And I will just let it go at 

that. 

 Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks, Dan. 

 I don't know if anyone has

established that the films were insensitive. 

I think you used the term that they were 

insensitive to the high energy. Do we know 

that or -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Kuttemperoor and 

Dr. Kobiske from Milwaukee School of 

Engineering said that they made that as a 

categorical statement. And I have seen 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 

 168

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

information to the positive. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I thought 

they were speculating. Did they have 

something positive that would demonstrate that

that's the case? 

 DR. McKEEL: No. But I'm saying 

the opposite. You all are speculating that 

the film that was used is sensitive. And Dr.

Kobiske and Dr. Kuttemperoor said it was 

well-known that ordinary film badges were not 

accurate when used to monitor 24-25 MeV 

photons. And certainly you gentlemen should 

be the ones who are experts in that area. So

you would have to tell us. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Dan, you can't have 

it both ways. Either you're dealing with 

scattered radiation or you're not. And once

you start dealing with scattered radiation, 

you're not talking about 25 MeV. In fact, 

that's the maximum energy. You have some sort 

of distribution. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, Dr. Poston, 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 

 169

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

are dealing with multiple kinds of X-rays: 

direct beam, scattered X-rays, activation 

daughter products, fission products caused in 

the uranium by the Betatron. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Now, that is 

speculation. 

 DR. McKEEL: No. We furnished 

multiple papers that showed that 25 MeV

Betatrons caused fission in uranium-238. 

 MEMBER POSTON: The cross-section 

for that is tiny. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. In any 

event, we will have to address those 

questions. Actually, it has to do with the 

adequacy of the films. 

 DR. McKEEL: Correct. That's -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And that relates 

to -- 

 DR. McKEEL: I just wanted to get 

that on the table. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: I don't want 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 

 170

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

into this too much detail here, but we have 

looked at the sensitivity of the film. And 

it's our position that that film is sensitive 

to the energy of the photons that were 

measured. We could talk about that later. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's go 

ahead and take our break now. It's 12:30. 

We'll reconvene at 1:30. Thank you very much. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter went off the record at 12:28 p.m. and 

resumed at 1:31 p.m.) 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 171

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

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

 (1:31 p.m.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We will call the 

meeting back to order. I want to confirm that 

we are still discussing TBD 6000 Appendix BB. 

And I want to confirm that Dr. McKeel is on 

the line. 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: How about John 

Ramspott? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm on, Doctor. 

Thank you. Ramspott. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Ramspott. 

 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel on

the line. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I’m putting a 

‘port’ on there John, sorry. John Dutko, are 

you on the line? 

 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Very good. Dan 

McKeel? 

 DR. McKEEL: 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 

 172

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 DR. McKEEL: Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Also I will just 

double check if Terri Barrie is on the line. 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wanda, are you 

back? 

 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I am. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Very good. Then 

we'll proceed. I want to move us ahead 

through the matrix. We had finished issue 5, 

5 of 13. I want to move us through the rest 

of those so we can get into the white paper. 

So let me read issue six and the responses, 

and then we'll go from there. 

 This is issue 6, "Neglect of Skin

Dose from Activated Steel," "SC&A Finding: 

Appendix BB ignores the skin dose from beta 

radiation from activated steel. Our analysis 

yielded doses of about two rads per year to 

bare skin from beta radiation from irradiated 

steel. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 173

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 NIOSH response: As indicated in 

the SC&A review, NIOSH has obtained film badge 

results for Betatron operators. We are in the 

process of comparing this data to the modeled 

estimates provided by both the Appendix and 

SC&A. 

 The modeled beta dose and photon 

dose are linked. And so the beta dose can be 

adjusted to the film badge data by using the 

model. 

 And I will ask, Dave, do you have 

any additional comments on the NIOSH response 

at this time? 

 MR. ALLEN: No, not at this time. 

I think there was a little bit of that in the 

white paper. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And, Dr. 

McKeel, do you have any other questions on -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, you know, I, do 

have a comment. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 DR. McKEEL: My comment 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 

 174

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

basically all of these NIOSH responses really 

did avoid the question. The finding was that 

you neglected to do anything about the skin

dose from the activated steel. 

 And we've got to assume, even 

though we don't know when NIOSH got the film 

badge data, that at the time they wrote 

Appendix BB, they did not have the film badge 

data or they would have let us know that. 

 And so the finding was that you 

didn't mention it. And I think the response 

should include why didn't you include beta 

skin doses in Appendix BB. 

 And I think the response is sort of

disingenuous. It's really a non-response to 

that finding. So I understand that there is 

an official final response coming, but that's 

the general comment about all of these

responses that I am hearing from NIOSH. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

 And I think at the time of the SC&A

finding, the materials in BB were based 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 

 175

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

modeling the doses. At the time that NIOSH 

responded, they had become aware of the film 

badge data. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, like I say, Dr. 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you're right, 

yes. 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, I just 

have to stress -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. I 

understand. 

 DR. McKEEL: -- it's not a matter 

of that they had become aware of it. It's a 

matter of when they actually tried to get it 

and did get it. We don't know those dates 

yet. 

 I told them about the presence of

the data at Landauer in 2006. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. McKEEL: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Thank you. 

 Should I go on to issue seven 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 

 176

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

or, Bob, did you have a comment first on this 

point? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. I mean, I 

don’t want to be interrupting, but I don't 

think that Dave actually responded to this 

already in the finding because unless I missed 

something, I didn't see anything in the white

paper about beta dose from activated steel. 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, I might be wrong 

there. When you get all the way to the end of 

the white paper, basically the white paper is 

essentially -- you know, the first part of it 

is analyzing the film badge data and coming up 

with an estimate of that, making some

adjustments to the SC&A model and essentially 

accepting that and prorating it for the film 

badge and prorated all the doses down. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't see how the 

film badge date can be used to adjust, since 

the film badges do not have beta dose. I 

don't see how that can be used. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do we know 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 

 177

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

for sure, Bob? If this is a typical Landauer 

film, what were the dates on those? 

 MR. ALLEN: It was '64 through -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I used 

Landauer during that same time period. They 

always had an open window. 

 MR. ALLEN: They didn't report it. 

It's not reported on this form. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Not reported, but 

they did have open windows. So there was 

capability if you had a separate -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's not even 

reported as M. I mean, there is a column for 

it, but it's simply not -- I don't think it 

was reported, period. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I guess there we 

would almost have to investigate Landauer's 

practice because my recollection is they 

didn't report skin doses unless there was a 

specific indication that there was one. They 

just did not report it. I am not absolutely 

certain of that, but I know that their badges 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

had open windows as well as filters. 

 DR. NETON: Aren't there certain 

stocks, ratios of stock, dose that one can 

apply? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think

that's what you were -- 

 DR. MAURO: That's not what we had 

in mind, though. When we get to the white 

paper, we'll -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. We'll come 

back to that. Anyway, Bob, that was -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean, there is a 

column. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There is a column 

under exposure, column for gamma and X-ray. 

And they always have an entry, either a number 

or M. There is a column for beta, and it is

blank on all of the reports. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think that was 

the case in the reports I got from Landauer, 

too. If there was not a specific -- in 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 

 179

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

words, if you had only darkening under the 

open window and not under the filters to 

indicate that it was pure shallow dose, they 

would not have reported it probably. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They wouldn't even 

have reported it if -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We could probably 

go back and establish that, maybe talk to 

Craig Creode or somebody. But let's deal with 

that later. 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 DR. McKEEL: I have one quick note. 

And that is that two GSI workers furnished us 

with three of their annual AEC dosimetry 

reports. And on those reports as well, there 

was a column called beta dose that was not 

filled in. 

 So the reports -- the few reports 

there, there were only three we know of, that 

the workers ever got and that have been -- 

survived, you know, there was no beta skin 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

dose on that either. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 MEMBER MUNN: So the white paper 

addresses the inconsistent assumption between 

photon and beta dose, but I assume we are

going to -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. We'll get 

to that. Yes. 

 MEMBER MUNN: -- further down the

line. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Let's go

on. Issue seven. This is called 

Underestimate of Exposure to Activated 

Betatron Apparatus, SC&A Finding: Appendix

BB assigns an initial exposure rate of the 

Betatron operator of 15 mr per hour from 

activation products in the Betatron apparatus 

based on the measurement reported by Schuetz,

2007, at 6 feet or 183 centimeters from the 

Betatron target. 

 This exposure rate would apply only 

if the operator were located six feet 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 

 181

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Betatron during the setup period. Such an 

assumption is inconsistent with the 

calculation of dose rates from the handling of 

irradiated steel or uranium, which assumes 

that the Betatron operator spent one-half of

the setup time at a distance of one-fourth or 

30 centimeters from the metal and the rest at 

one meter, assuming, as we did, that his 

distance from the Betatron target ranged 

uniformly between 3 and 6 feet or 61 to 183 

centimeters with double his exposure rate. 

 NIOSH response: As indicated in 

the SC&A review, NIOSH has obtained film badge 

results for Betatron operators. We are in the 

process of conferring this data to the model 

of estimates provided by both the Appendix 

and SC&A. 

 So, again, basically NIOSH is 

referring to the film badge data as the way to 

address this inconsistency here. But the

initial finding I think had to do with 

differences in how you were modeling 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 

 182

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Exactly. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- as to whether 

or not you would use two -- 

 DR. MAURO: Distances. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Two discrete 

distances versus a continuum. And I guess one 

could debate that, of course. 

 Yes? 

 MR. DUTKO: Can I speak, sir? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. DUTKO: It goes without saying, 

sir, an operator is touching an activated 

casting of putting lead X's, arrows, numbers, 

and pentrometer, climbing up on a casting, 

laying down on it, when necessary, to hand 

film to the man on the inside. The inside man 

is touching, handling the cassette constantly 

that is reused, plus a lead standard shield. 

 When an operator is shooting six 

feet and nine feet to designated distances, 

how close do you think he is going to be to an 

activated doughnut tube when the machine 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 

 183

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

only six foot away from a casting and he is in 

between the machine and the casting setting it 

up? 

 Thank you, sir. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. So I 

think that was John Dutko, I believe. John I

guess is asking whether these distances also

are realistic, I guess, John. Is that what 

you are asking? 

 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. I 

would like to speak on John Dutko's point. 

And that is what he is saying is that those 

distances are not realistic. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. That's what 

I was asking. 

 DR. McKEEL: And literally the man 

described being crouched inside hunched up 

against the casting sitting the cassettes and 

on those big castings, their whole bodies

basically being arrayed on top of the casting 

reaching to set the film for the next shot. 

So they were in intimate contact except for 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 184

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

their clothing with the activated casting. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So I 

believe that both Dr. McKeel and Joe Dutko are 

arguing maybe that both estimates may be -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This statement is 

just a very tiny summary. In the actual

model, we modeled both situations. We modeled 

a situation where it was what John Dutko 

described to me as the short shot, where the 

heavy casting and also the uranium would be 

six feet from the target or assumed, well, the 

Betatron takes a certain amount of space. 

 So in those things, we put the 

worker at a fixed distance of three feet, 

halfway in between. Then for the long shots, 

where it's nine feet away, it was more room 

for him to move. So only there did we assume

that he moved uniformly between three and six 

feet. 

 So I just gave this as an example 

of how it gets. I didn't want to repeat the 

whole report in the finding, the matrix
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

finding. But we did address both situations. 

 And then, just to jump ahead and to

answer Dr. McKeel and John Dutko, we 

separately assumed. And, as Dave Allen 

correctly pointed out in the white paper,

there is a logical inconsistency. But we also 

assumed that he was between one meter and one 

foot from the metal itself to account for this 

close -- because some workers will be very 

close to the metal, and others would be a

little further away manipulating the Betatron. 

So we basically tried to capture both 

situations in one exposure, make it bounding 

basically for both classes of workers. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What about the 

contact situations that he has described? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, when you are 

one foot away, that is essentially contact. I 

mean, we're talking about a center of the 

body, -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- one foot 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 

 186

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

center of the body. So that's essentially 

contact. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. But it is 

not clear to me here. They're not necessarily 

talking about skin dose here, then. They're 

talking about depth dose. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. But you get 

both from contact with metal essentially. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean, the finding 

should not be used as a surrogate for the 

whole report. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

 Let's go ahead and go through the 

next one briefly. This will be issue 8, 

Underestimate of Work Hours. The authors 

assume that the GSI employees worked an 

average of 2,400 hours per year. 

 This estimate is contrary to the 

recollection of workers who remember working

50 to 80 hours a week. The consensus estimate 

was 65 hours a week or 3,250 hours per year. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 187

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Such a value is reasonable and 

claimant-favorable and should be adopted as a 

default value for dose reconstruction. 

 NIOSH response: As indicated in 

the SC&A review, NIOSH has obtained film badge 

results for Betatron operators. We are in the 

process of comparing this data to the modeled 

estimates provided both by the Appendix and 

SC&A. 

 Since the film badges measure the

dose covered over the course of a week, the 

amount of time taken to receive that dose 

would no longer be relevant. 

 So the argument here is that if the 

film badge data turns out to be useable, then 

you have taken care of whatever time it took 

to receive that dose. If not, we have a 

difference in the modeling of the time. 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 188

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. McKEEL: I will restate my 

comment that I don't believe NIOSH addressed 

the finding, but there is a practical reason

why NIOSH needs to address the finding and not 

revert back to the skin dose. 

 And that goes back to the fact that 

when Appendix BB was first released, almost 

immediately John Ramspott and I gave feedback 

to NIOSH that we thought there were many flaws 

in the formulation of this Appendix . 

 And we believe that SC&A's 

subsequent report that we're now reviewing 

amply confirmed, basically, all of their 

concerns that were actually put up on OCAS 

well before SC&A furnished its report. 

 And so we pled with NIOSH not to 

start making dose reconstructions based on 

this Appendix BB. And NIOSH said, no. We're 

going to go ahead anyway, and we can resolve 

all of that later. 

 Well, here we are at this point. 

And large numbers of what we believe 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 

 189

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

flawed dose reconstructions have already been 

done with Appendix BB. Lots of workers have

been denied. Forty-eight have been paid. 

 But basically the bottom line of 

all of this, regardless of what happens with 

the SEC, is that a bunch of those dose

reconstructions we are going to contend have

to be reopened dose reconstructions done again 

with the new revised Appendix BB. 

 So it will be very important when 

that comes around to have these legitimate 

concerns of SC&A done before the film badge

data was available answered for the record. 

And it seems to me that we are hearing an 

attempt not to have to do that. 

 So, please, I am begging the Board 

not to allow that to happen either and look 

forward to what really is in our collective

futures to be dealing with these dose 

reconstructions that have to be revised and 

redone, maybe by a new PIR that is in addition 

to PIR 24, which still needs to be resolved. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. McKEEL: So that is my comment. 

Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 One thing that occurs to me -- I

don't know if NIOSH has thought about this, 

but one possibility would be that the film 

badge data are considerably lower than the 

modeled data. Usually that is the case. 

 Those workers who were subject to 

dose reconstruction based on modeling and who 

were successful, did they benefit in not 

having the film badge data available? 

 And is it, therefore, fair for 

those who were denied without the film badge 

data to -- if, for example, let's say you 

agreed with SC&A's work time. And I assume 

that must come into play in the modeling. If 

you agreed with that work time, would those 

workers have been successful had they been 

constructed or if the dose had been 

reconstructed without film badge data? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 191

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Do you see what I am saying? 

 DR. NETON: I understand what you 

are saying. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's kind of a -- 

 DR. NETON: I think the relevant 

question, though, is the model that we

employed to do those dose reconstructions, was 

it sufficiently bounding given what we know 

about the film badge data today? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: If the film badge data 

could be established to be a reasonable 

representation, then given that there may be

some tweaks in that model, is it insufficient 

bounding given what we know now about the 

monitoring data? That's sort of the way we 

would approach it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. I 

understand that. 

 DR. NETON: In fact, even at the 

end of the day, if we ended up reducing the 

doses in the new model because of the 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 

 192

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

badge data, NIOSH typically has not gone back 

and had those reworked tat were granted 

compensation. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, no. I know 

that. I know that. That's why I saw -- 

 DR. NETON: I understand the -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- some may 

benefit from -- 

 MR. ALLEN: From having it done 

early, you mean? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: That's always the case. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's always the 

case, yes. 

 DR. NETON: But I think, you know, 

Dr. McKeel raises a valid point. I mean, 

there are issues here that we have got a long

way to go to iron out whether or not our model 

as posed is sufficiently bounding. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 MR. ALLEN: And what you have said 

entered into the decision, I mean, the worst 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 193

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

case, some will benefit from jumping the gun 

if it turns out to be lower later. 

 But as far as the PDR system, it's 

we've got an Appendix to which a bunch of 

dose reconstructions were done. Once this 

Working Group is done and we come to some sort 

of settlement, there will be a revised 

Appendix and if the doses are lower, then 

there won't be anything done with those 

previously, comparatively to have been as 

higher, we will ask for those that were 

completed and not -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Of course. 

 DR. NETON: I take a little 

exception to your statement that we have 

jumped the gun. I don't think we have

actually jumped the gun here. You know, it 

has always our position. And we will move 

forward given that we believe we have a 

sufficiently bounding model that can move dose 

reconstructions forward and provide a 

claimant-favorable, probably, analysis 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 

 194

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

their situation. 

 It's always going to be the case 

almost invariably when we find more 

information doses typically go down. I can 

think of very few cases. There have been 

some, Super S comes to mind, where we have had 

to have gone back and reworked and raised the 

model. 

 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 MR. DUTKO: May I please make one 

comment on workers' time? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure. 

 MR. DUTKO: Sir, I don't 

understand. We were working a heck of a lot 

of hours back at that previous time. We

agreed that 65 hours per work week across the 

board average in a year was very reasonable. 

 Some of the workers, I guarantee, 

worked a lot more than that, a lot more than

that. Yet, somehow miraculously 46 hours 

appears on a work record for NIOSH in Appendix 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

BB. Now, I am completely confused as to how 

they arrived at this figure, sir. 

 Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's see. 

NIOSH used the -- did you use a 40-hour week

or -- 

 MR. ALLEN: No. It was more of a 

46. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Was that the 46 

hours he's mentioned? And you arrived at that 

based on something. That is what he was 

asking. 

 MR. ALLEN: It was based on 

information in the transcript about hourly 

rate and hours, et cetera. And it spelled out 

in the Appendix what we used. The 65 hours 

came from a worker outreach meeting that we

were there to explain what was in Appendix 

BB. It came after the Appendix was written 

and -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So that is a 

later figure? 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ALLEN: That is a later figure. 

And we said at the time we would have to 

consider that for a revision. But there is no 

reason to do a revision when there are other 

things to be considered. We need to get it 

all spelled out in -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. DUTKO: Sir, it shorts the 

worker 30 percent of their time. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: When you say 

consensus estimate, that came out of the 

worker groups? 

 MR. ALLEN: That came out of the --

I've got the data somewhere -- October 9th of 

'07, I think. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That came out of 

the meeting, the SC&A-sponsored meeting. And

we had a range. As I said, the range was 50 

to 80 hours. And there seems to be kind of -- 

I sort of proposed the 65 would be a 

reasonable estimate. And everyone said, yes.

That's 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 

 197

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The workers said 

this? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. There were 

about 2000 workers there. And they said, yes, 

sixty-five sounds -- 

 DR. NETON: I guess I have a 

question. I probably should know the answer

to this. The 65 hours, would that be 

continuous operations involving Betatron work? 

Is that what they're saying? Is that what the 

workers are asserting or -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This would just be 

the work hours. That's what -- 

 DR. NETON: We would assume 65 work

hours with Betatron. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They typically put 

in -- maybe it should have been 64 because 

they said they typically put in their regular 

5 shift and 3 shifts of overtime. So that 

would come to 64. 

 DR. NETON: My point is this is 

continuous Betatron operations. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, this was 

their job. Betatron, some were Betatron 

operators. Some were other, other operators. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Jim is saying the

model assumes they're working the Betatron -- 

 DR. NETON: A hundred percent of 

their work hours. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- 100 percent of

the time. So that even though the 65 --

maybe, then, that number is 80, but the 65 is 

reasonable since it is unlikely that any 

worker worked continuously on the Betatron. 

Is that what is being said? 

 DR. NETON: I think you're -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. I think 

we're missing that. Their assignment, the

Betatron -- first of all, the way it was 

explained to me, the Betatron involved a team 

of three people. 

 The operator, who is the most 

highly trained, would be the one to account 

for it. You would have an assistant, who, 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 

 199

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

John Dutko pointed out, will be on the far 

side of the casting placing the film, locating 

the film. And then there is a third one that

would be running back and forth to develop the 

film. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Then they rotate. 

Those jobs, then, were sometimes rotated with

the layout man. So they would have the beta. 

One week he would be operating the Betatron. 

Another week he would be taking the hot 

castings, I don’t mean the hot castings, the 

especially radiographed castings immediately 

after he left the Betatron room and start 

crawling all over it with chalk and marking 

where the defects were, first of all, marking 

the film locations. And then from the film 

locations, they could find the defects. 

 So that job according to our model 

was almost as high because, number one is they 

were getting their radiation from the

activated steel. And also if they happen 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 

 200

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

be in this location in the 10 building, where 

it was essentially unshielded from the 

Betatron, it was a portion of the wall, they 

will be getting a number from the Betatron. 

So the dose rate there was significant. 

 And so that would be according to 

our estimate -- yes, they would be. I mean, 

that's their job. You know, they're not 

working continuously. Simply, during the 

shot. They're in the control room. So they 

have little breaks, you know, in that way. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think Jim 

was saying -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: We heard John Dutko 

say -- maybe it was -- I don't know who said 

it, that they would take off their badge and 

go to another part of the building to work 

overtime. So they're not even anywhere near. 

They're not involved in it. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

John Ramspott. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 201

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Poston, you made 

a very good point. When they were in 10 

building climbing all over those castings, 

they weren't badged. 

 Mr. Dutko, am I correct on that? 

 MR. DUTKO: Absolutely, sir. 

 MEMBER POSTON: I didn't make that 

point. 

 DR. NETON: You were making a 

slightly different point, yes. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I was just 

trying to understand what we heard earlier. 

 MR. DUTKO: Every time we left for 

Betatron, our badges came off and were put on 

the clipboards. When we went to magnaflux out 

on the floor, anywhere out on the floor, we 

wore those badges, sir. 

 DR. NETON: That was my question. 

What fraction of the time was devoted to 

Magnaflux versus Betatron versus others? 

 MR. DUTKO: There is absolutely no

way I could tell you, sir. We were working 7 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

days a week, 24 hours a day. It was like that 

for a good three-year period. And to try to 

lay this out as some kind of a format for how 

much we worked where would be impossible, sir, 

absolutely impossible. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel.

I've got to weigh in on that thing, too. 

 We're putting the onus on the wrong 

place. The right place to put the answer to

Dr. Poston's question is how can NIOSH decide 

what percentage of the time was spent in the 

Betatron building, what percentage was spent

in building 10? 

 Our contention is if petitioners -- 

they can't possibly do that with the data on 

hand. And, therefore, you can't possibly 

allocate those doses. But it is true that a 

Betatron operator could leave the Betatron 

building, walk across, let's say, in the new 

Betatron building, could walk across the 

causeway to building 10, be working 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 

 203

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

building 10 near the ribbon door, be exposed 

to the Betatron that was operating, get 

exposure, then go over and work around an 

activated casting that had been brought out of 

the Betatron into the rest of the building, 

get more dose, not be badged. 

 And so this is just one of our 

arguments where people were being exposed in

the other buildings besides the Betatron 

buildings that were not badged. And so that 

part of their dose was not recorded and, 

therefore, the film badges are not accurate. 

 Thank you. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Dan, that's not the 

question we're asking. The only way we can 

find out what percentage of the time that you 

were in the Betatron and others is to ask the 

workers. I don't understand why you expect 

NIOSH to make that assumption without some 

input from -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Poston, I don't 

expect NIOSH to do anything. If the 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 

 204

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is, what information does NIOSH need to be 

able to accurately, sufficiently, accurately 

calculate doses --? 

 MEMBER POSTON: Well, you just 

heard one of those questions. And you chose 

not -- no one can answer it. 

 DR. McKEEL: No. We didn't choose 

not to answer it. The -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: I didn't say that. 

I said no one -- 

 DR. McKEEL: We don't know the 

answer. 

 MEMBER POSTON: -- chose to answer. 

 DR. McKEEL: We don't know the 

answer. 

 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. 

 DR. McKEEL: And if we don't know 

the answer and NIOSH doesn't know the answer, 

then NIOSH can't accurately calculate the

doses. That's their contention. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think 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 

 205

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER POSTON: I'm going to have 

to read the transcript, but I'm not sure 

that's what you said. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think Bob has

told us that the workers have indicated to him 

that they felt that 65 hours a week was a 

reasonable estimate of -- 

 DR. McKEEL: That's true. That was 

agreed on -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. McKEEL: -- at that October 9th 

meeting by all attending. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The only point I 

was making is, even if it was 80 hours a week, 

I think John Dutko suggested 80, but one of 

the questions that Jim Neton asked was, but 

would it be likely that they would be doing 

that task continuously for 80 hours or was the 

65-hour-a-week pretty good estimate or

bounding estimate of how much work effort went 

into the task of working on these facilities? 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, you know, 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 

 206

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

don't think we ought to prolong this because I 

think everybody at that meeting agreed, as Dr. 

Anigstein just said quite correctly, that 65

hours was agreed on as a good average work 

hour week for the people at GSI. 

 MR. DUTKO: I agree, sir. I just 

wanted to make one comment to Dr. Poston, is 

it? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Poston, yes. 

 MEMBER POSTON: However you want to 

pronounce it. 

 MR. DUTKO: I just wanted to tell 

him of his question of how much time could be 

associated in magnaflux or chem. lab or 

Betatron, my answer was 100 percent honest. 

It would be impossible to figure, sir. Unless 

you were the timekeeper back in those days and 

recorded all of it, it would be absolutely 

impossible. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. I 

understand that. And that is true of most of 

our jobs, but at least we got an estimate from 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 207

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the workers that Bob used with his model. So 

that is helpful. 

 Bob has one additional comment. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Let me make 

one more observation. The question is partly 

moot because the -- you know, in our report on 

Appendix BB, the high-end estimate, the

bounding estimate, of the exposure of a worker 

doing radiography on steel is 33.5 mr per 

shift. 

 The worker spending all his time -- 

again, a bounding estimate for doing layout on 

the steel immediately after the radiography is 

33.3 mr per shift. So it's -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: How you split 

them off. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's go 

on. I think we have got the information here

on this for future reference. Issue 9 called 

Mischaracterization of Steel Work Practices, 

SC&A Finding: According to Appendix BB, 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

overall estimate for Betatron X-ray of steel 

is 30 minutes set up with no dose, one-hour 

Betatron X-ray closure due to sky shine at .72 

mr per hour, and 30 minutes tape-down. 

 Such a description is at variance 

with a report prepared by former GSI workers 

that imitates repeated exposures of the same 

casting with 12 to 15 minutes between 

exposures. Since both the steel and the 

Betatron were activated from previous 

exposures, there was no setup period with no 

dose. 

 Furthermore, most exposures were of 

a few minutes' duration, which reduced the 

time in the control room, where the exposure

rates were relatively low, and increased the 

number of times during the day that the 

operators were exposed to the steel and the 

Betatron. 

 Then the NIOSH response, as 

indicated in the SC&A review, NIOSH has

obtained film badge results for 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 

 209

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

operators. We are in the process of comparing 

this data to the model estimates provided by 

both the Appendix and SC&A. Since the film 

badge measures the dose received while 

performing this work, the exact exposure 

scenario is no longer important. 

 Again, that's basically a similar 

answer to the previous one that, if one 

establishes that the film badge data can be

used, then these time differentials make no 

difference at that point. We still have to 

deal with the film badge data, but that is the 

basic response. 

 Bob, any other comments on that

finding? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Board 

members, any questions on that one? 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And, Dr. McKeel 

or Don or John, do you have any other 

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 

 210

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. McKEEL: No. I'm just going to 

make my same comment that -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. McKEEL: -- it's really not an 

answer. And it will become important in the 

future to address this. We said in our, I 

said in my critique of Appendix BB, that

there is abundant evidence from the 

literature, I believe, that says that the 

steel activation, the significant activation, 

and the activated daughter products have 

half-lives that extend much further than 15 

minutes. 

 So I think that's a very limiting 

non-claimant-favorable assumption that 

exposure to activated products only lasts 15

minutes. I don't know any nicer way to put it 

than I think that's just plain wrong. So 

that's something to address at a later time. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Issue 10 

called Errors in Calculating Dose Rates From

Uranium, SC&A Finding: we have found errors 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 

 211

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

calculations that lead to a significant 

overstatement of the dose rates from uranium 

presented in Appendix BB. 

 The Appendix lists a dose of 21.7 

millirem during the first 30 minutes following 

irradiation. Our model yields a dose of 1.4 

millirem using the same assumptions regarding 

the duration of radiologic exposure, the 

duration of the worker's exposure, and his 

distances from the metal. 

 Since the dose rates in the 

Appendix are not scientifically correct, they 

should not be used as the basis of dose 

reconstructions of exposed workers. 

 And the NIOSH response: to the 

extent model doses are used, any errors in

this calculation will be corrected. However, 

NIOSH has obtained film badge results for 

Betatron operators. We are in the process of 

comparing this data to the model estimates

provided by both the Appendix and SC&A. 

 Can you clarify, Bob, on this? 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 

 212

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

you saying that NIOSH overestimated? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Yes. We 

obtained the spreadsheets used to make the 

calculations, all the input files, and our

expert reviewed them. And he found that there 

was just an error in the spreadsheet. It was 

a factor of 20 error and 25, I think it was. 

 I mean, we have some differences 

with the model, but that would have led to a 

small difference. But there was a major 

difference in the way the data was evaluated. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, NIOSH has 

indicated they would correct that if that is 

-- 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is

John Ramspott. If I may? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: It appears that an 

adjustment down is pretty easy to do. It 

would be fast to happen. All I can say is I 

hope an adjustment up can be that easy and a 

correction could be made where necessary. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 It definitely shows that mistakes 

can happen. I know they are accidental. It

can go both ways, but hopefully this gives us 

-- I think the answer of why we're so 

concerned about the badges, you want them to 

be wrong, badges to be wrong. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And 

you're right. In this case the issue is not 

whether it's up or down, but if it's a 

calculation error, whether it's this one or 

any other, wherever we find a calculation 

error, obviously it has to be corrected. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: It’s also 

calculation. It's also factual, like not 

wearing badges a good portion of your 65 

hours, perhaps. Thank you, though. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Issue 

11, SC&A Finding -- oh, let me give -- this is

titled Underestimate of Doses to Other 

Workers, SC&A Finding: Appendix BB states 

that workers who do not work in the Betatron 

building and did not routinely handle steel 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 

 214

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

uranium within 2 hours following X-ray 

exposure should be assigned a dose rate of .72 

mr per hour. And the dose is in quotation 

marks here because technically it is an

exposure. I'll just insert that. But we 

understand what is meant. 

 As discussed under finding four,

there were many situations in which these 

other workers could have been exposed to much 

higher radiation levels. 

 NIOSH response: this finding 

appears to be -- it says, a included in 

finding four. I think it should say, this 

finding appears to be included in finding 

number four. 

 As noted, NIOSH is in the process 

of evaluating the effect of film badge data on 

the exposure models presented by both the 

Appendix and SC&A. Okay. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, Dr. Ziemer, this 

is Dan McKeel again. Again I would say this

comment by NIOSH not only doesn't answer 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 

 215

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

question, but it doesn't follow the logic that 

we have already established. And that is the 

people who were not Betatron operators, not 

isotope operators, didn't wear badges. 

 So, actually, the people that 

worked in building 10 and building 6 around 

the gamma source and the people in building 10 

who worked near the ribbon door and were 

exposed to the Betatron rays who were never 

badged, the film badge readings aren't going 

to have any relationship to them at all. So I 

don't even think that is an answer that makes 

sense within the aspect of having to wait 

until the film badges got analyzed. 

 Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

 MR. KATZ: Excuse me. There is

someone on the line who is having a 

conversation. Will you please mute your 

phone? Thanks. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any questions 

from the Work Group on this one? Bob, 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 

 216

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

other comments? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: On? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Eleven. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: On 11? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or NIOSH? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I mean, 

essentially it's that the film badge results 

would not apply to people who were outside the 

building. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is

John Ramspott again. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: One point I made at 

an earlier meeting seems to be overlooked. 

Uranium didn't fly into those Betatron 

buildings. It had to come across and through 

the main gate, actually the main receiving 

gate, checking off with a scale. So other 

workers that weren't badged definitely are a 

big part of this. 

 That uranium came across the entire 

plant. And the only way to get uranium into 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 

 217

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

new Betatron building was actually to go 

through either 8, 9, or a 10 building or all 

3. There was no other access to that building 

except through those, number 10 building. 

 And number 10 building, you talk 

about number 10. Nine is badged. But number

10, you get uranium through there regularly 

for 13 years. And those people, nobody in 10 

building was ever badged. That's an issue 

that can't be overlooked. 

 I thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Any other 

questions on this one or comments right now? 

 (No response.) 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The way this one 

currently reads, it's talking about a dose 

rate that NIOSH would assign to individuals 

who were not badged, this, that, and the other 

thing. 

 Jim or Dave? 

 MR. ALLEN: It's in Appendix BB, 

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 

 218

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And then 

SC&A is saying, in essence, -- it doesn't say 

here -- that .72 mr per hour is not high 

enough. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So at this point, 

the issue that is being raised is whether the 

right number is being assigned. And both 

parties are recognizing that there are 

individuals exposed, as John Ramspott just 

described, who were not badged but who would 

get assigned dose of some value. 

 DR. NETON: This is not unlike what 

we run into at every site. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. NETON: It's sort of the 

appropriateness of a coworker model. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. NETON: If you take the 95th 

percentile highest value, whatever you use, is 

that a bounding analysis for the workers who 

were more exposed to more ancillary functions? 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And that's something we probably 

need to pick up when we do our review of the 

white paper because we agree that this might 

be an issue. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So it's not an

issue saying everybody got badged and we have 

the numbers. The issue of how you use that 

and what do you assign to unbadged workers -- 

 DR. NETON: Exactly. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- in terms of

both their job tasks and their times of 

exposure and years of exposure. 

 Okay. Issue 12, which is called

Incorrect Calculation of Residual Surface 

Contamination and Resuspension -- and I think 

you sort of covered this before, Bob, but for 

the record, we'll read this and the SC&A 

finding. 

 The Appendix uses the same methods 

of calculating surface contamination and 

resuspension as were used in the main report,

which is Scherpelz, S-C-H-E-R-P-E-L-Z, 2006. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The TBD 6000 

basically. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. In SC&A's 

review of that report, we pointed out that

calculating surface contamination on the basis 

of the settling velocity of five micrometers 

AMAD, aerosol particles, ignores the sloughing

off of much large flakes of uranium oxide that 

fall directly onto the floor. We also showed 

that a resuspension factor of 10-6 might 

underestimate airborne concentrations by one 

or more orders of magnitude. 

 NIOSH response: this finding 

indicates it is a reiteration of the comment 

from Battelle TBD 6000 review. Therefore, the 

finding should be addressed in that review, 

rather than in here. 

 We talked -- 

 DR. MAURO: We talked -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We talked about 

that this morning. And that would be 

addressed under TBD 6000. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Okay. I just have one question in 

relation to that one. It seems that you're 

saying that they sort of didn't take into 

account some of the larger particles in terms 

of calculating surface activities and -- 

 DR. MAURO: No. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- the sloughing 

off of -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes, the -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- greater than 

five micrometer particles. 

 DR. MAURO: Think of it this way. 

TBD 6000 is really not written for this 

scenario. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay? It was written 

generically to apply to a broad range of AWE 

facilities where the premise, the operating

premise, was they were handled, these other 

facilities were handling uranium in such a way 

that it would generate an aerosol, airborne 

particles -- 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: -- in milligrams per 

cubic meter or whatever. And that that is 

your starting point. And from there they 

would calculate it on the surface. So, I 

mean, there is a whole series of calculations

that fly across the board. 

 Here we are dealing with -- and 

that approach, they simply adopted TBD 6000 to 

this situation. Now, what happens when you do 

that is, well, really, we have a completely

different situation here. 

 I mean, the way in which airborne 

particulates might occur here in terms of the 

handling of these slabs, the movement of these 

slabs, and what is being done, the question

you have to ask yourself, to what extent does 

that generic TBD 6000 model apply to this

circumstance? Either is it too conservative, 

too unconservative? 

 So, in effect, all we really did is

when we got to this part of our 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 

 223

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Appendix BB, we simply saw that they adopted 

TBD 6000. And we simply said, listen, we have 

a problem with -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Does it apply? is

what you asked. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. Well, really, it 

is a two-pronged problem. First of all, we 

have some serious problems with TBD 6000

generically. And then, of course, the secondorder question, which you really haven't 

gotten into, is that, to what degree does that 

fundamental approach adopted in TBD 6000 apply 

to this circumstance? In other words, it is 

because of the very different nature of the

handling of the material. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I understand. 

 DR. MAURO: So, I mean, that's the 

issue here. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. But you

seem to focus on the larger particles, like -- 

 DR. NETON: Explain that to me. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me ask 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 

 224

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

question, then, because it seems as if the 

premise is that you are underestimating the -- 

 DR. MAURO: Surface. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- surface

contamination because these large particles 

carry additional activity down. But 

ultimately we are concerned about the 

resuspension. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And my question 

is, don't you have the reverse problem with 

resuspension? The heavy particles are hard to 

resuspend. They all become aerosolized or do 

they get ground out? 

 DR. MAURO: Exactly, exactly. That 

is always. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Being stepped on or 

-- 

 DR. MAURO: But even only -- 

 DR. NETON: Oxidized uranium comes 

up in big chunks like that. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, I mean, you 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 

 225

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- 

 DR. NETON: It's a very fine

powder, very fine. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, five micron. I 

mean, I think, really, the question becomes we 

have a circumstance here where I am 

visualizing the handling of these slabs. Now, 

I don't know the degree to which there is very 

much flaking occurring. There is no cutting 

on. There is no grinding going on. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. MAURO: So then it becomes a 

question of, okay. Under those circumstances,

as their handling there, what would be a 

reasonable amount of activity deposited on 

surfaces? 

 Now, it may turn out that in my 

mind, remember, I said two levels of problem.

One is where the problem is with TBD 6000. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. MAURO: Now, the other is now, 

all right. Given the TBD 6000, would 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 

 226

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

simply, even if it were correct -- let's say 

we have no problem with TBD 6000. Okay? Then 

we come along and say we're going to use TBD 

6000 to this problem. 

 Then you have to ask yourself the 

question, does that make sense, because this 

operation from my perspective bears no 

resemblance. In other words, the X-raying of 

slabs bears no resemblance to any of the 

scenarios in Harris report, the Adley report, 

Simon Saw report. 

 In other words, there are three 

major sources of data which characterizes

airborne activity and activity on surfaces and 

which caused the empirical data that we have 

in the literature. None of that data has any 

applicability to this circumstance. 

 DR. NETON: There is probably good 

reason for that just on the fairly low 

airborne-generating activities. 

 DR. MAURO: And I would agree with 

that. From reading everything, the activities
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I don't 

know if there's evidence that you get flaking 

of this or is this more like I know if you 

handle many oxidized metals, for example, if

you are wearing white gloves, you see it right 

away. Aluminum would be a good example. You 

do get removal of the oxidation. 

 But it's not in big chunks. It's 

pretty fine. But is there evidence externally 

that -- 

 DR. MAURO: I have no evidence that

it would -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. You are 

just raising this as a question -- 

 DR. MAURO: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- to say we have

got to think about -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Aluminum is 

different -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, okay. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- in the sense 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 228

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that it forms, the aluminum oxide actually 

forms a refractive layer. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's a surface 

layer. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's a single, very 

thin surface layer that prevents further 

oxidation. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Otherwise aluminum 

would burn, actually. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is

John Ramspott. If I may? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Mauro, the 

FUSRAP clean-up report, the DOE report -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: -- they actually

removed uranium from the old Betatron building 

in 1993 that was on the floor. So I don't 

think that's just us. That's got to be fairly 

big particles to start with, especially since 

it was still there in 1993. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 The plant closed in '73. That's 20 

years of walking over, doing whatever you are 

going to do, I mean, in and out because that

was the main pathway into that old Betatron. 

 And, yet, in 1993, according to new 

photographs we actually received from DOE, I

think if you read that clean-up report, they 

hauled out of there either two or three 

barrels of contaminated waste. But they

definitely had to use a scalping process. 

 I think they called it the concrete 

that was contaminated. That must have been 

some fairly good-sized pieces, definitely was

flaking, as they describe it. 

 The other thing the photographs 

give us as far as a resuspension -- we have 

never really seen these photographs before. 

They're hanging furnaces in that building, 

non-HEPA recirculating air, hanging furnaces. 

 If there was anything in that air, 

any dust, uranium dust in that building, it is 

sucked right in there and blown right out.
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 230

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

The guys say those furnaces were running 

year-round during the cold weather. 

 There are definitely some chunks or 

flaking. I'm not going to say chunks but 

flaking. I don't know what the definition of 

a chunk or a flake is, but there are 

definitely some decent-sized particles there 

apparently that they still had there in '93. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I'm not 

sure that that establishes the size, the fact 

that they are still there. 

 DR. MAURO: I could help. I think 

we might be making more out of -- we did 

something very simple. We simply said that 

they defaulted to TBD 6000 for this exposure 

scenario. We have some serious concerns with 

this scenario. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Justify the use 

of that. 

 DR. MAURO: And that's the extent 

of it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All 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 

 231

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Now, we never went this 

next step. So that's it. We stopped there. 

 DR. NETON: We need to prepare a 

response to TBD 6000, which we -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: I just couldn't get 

that -- 

 DR. MAURO: Well, that's -- 

 MEMBER POSTON: I understand what 

you're saying. I know what you're saying. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We're 

going to go on to issue 13. 

 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry. Can I get 

one clarification? From what you said, I'm

not sure if you're saying you're not sure that 

TBD 6000 or you question whether TBD 6000 is 

applicable to GSI in this regard? 

 DR. MAURO: Well, yes. There are 

two levels. 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes, but does that mean 

that we should disconnect this finding from 

the TBD 6000 review, then, make this a 

separate deal altogether? I mean, right now 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 

 232

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

think what you have got written down is this 

is being covered under the TBD 6000 review. 

But I think I'm hearing different from John. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Well, if you have 

it included in the 6000, we sort of have to 

address it under 6000, don't we? 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I mean, there -- 

 DR. NETON: What John is saying is 

this is a unique exposure scenario that is not 

covered in TBD 6000. It would not be 

necessarily covered in -- 

 DR. MAURO: And I would go a step 

further in saying -- and I am very familiar 

with the literature on the uranium facilities

where you have residual radioactivity, and I 

could say with a further degree of confidence

that there is nothing about the nature of the 

operation that I have read that comes anywhere 

near the potential for generating aerosols as 

it does in the Adley report. 

 So, in other words, the potential 

for surface contamination and resuspension
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

seems to be much greater in the other 

operations that I looked at that are 

summarized by Harris and by Adley. 

 DR. NETON: So wouldn't that, then, 

sort of imply that TBD 6000 might be bounding 

if we apply it to this scenario? 

 DR. MAURO: I have so much problems 

with TBD 6000 I wouldn't want to give it any 

credence. I mean, I don't even -- 

 DR. NETON: Well, let's assume the 

analyses of TBD 6000 are appropriate, like you 

had done before. Let's assume that they are 

okay. 

 DR. MAURO: Well, if they were 

okay, then they would be -- 

 DR. NETON: They would be bounding 

to this scenario. That is what I am trying to

-- 

 DR. MAURO: I would say yes. I 

mean, the TBD 6000 -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If you are agreed 

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 

 234

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: The way it -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Those are much 

more extreme. There are grinding and other -- 

 DR. NETON: We are applying that

grinding, cutting operation to this particular 

-- 

 DR. MAURO: Here's a good way to -- 

 DR. NETON: -- scenario. 

 DR. MAURO: If, in fact, the

methods you folks have adopted for predicting 

residual radioactivity at these other 

facilities was, in fact, struck me as 

appropriate, reasonable bounding, 

scientifically sound, without a doubt, there 

would be bounding for this facility. 

 DR. NETON: So I think that would 

speak that we should cover this in 6000. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. We need to 

cover it, right. 

 DR. NETON: That is how to apply 

it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's do 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the last one here. This is issue 13, Use of 

Incorrect Units. I think this is almost an 

editorial comment more than anything. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, technically, 

but it -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: SC&A Finding:

your comment switches erratically between 

units of millirem and mr. I will put in 

parentheses as do most health physicists when 

they're talking. 

 The result of the sky shine 

calculations are stated as .72 millirem per 

hour in section BB 4.2. And there's .72 mr 

per hour in a later section. 

 Dose rates are incorrectly stated

in units of milli rad per hour, which is an 

exposure rate. Uranium dose rates are stated 

in millirem; whereas, the output files from 

Appendix BB analysis shows that the 

calculations were air kernel, which is 

expressed in m-rads, milli rads. 

 The notable misuse of units appears 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in the table of section BB 4.5 where the dose 

to the skin from beta radiation is expressed 

as 4 r per year. Beta radiation should not be

expressed in roentgens, which only applies to 

photons. 

 NIOSH response: we accept the 

comment and will correct the units in future 

revisions. 

 I think we have taken care of one 

of those. They agree. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The same switching 

appears in a white paper. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 MR. ALLEN: I think at one point 

the white paper is just because the Landauer

report actually calls it millirem and -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, they do. They 

call it millirem. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And if 

you're looking at old film records, you will 

also find mr. You will find reps in some of 

them and rads and who knows what else. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 237

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Okay. Thank you. That gives us an 

overview of what has to be done. We're going 

to talk a little later this afternoon about 

steps forward, but part of what happens is 

independent of what the outcome of the white 

paper is. 

 So let's move on to the white 

paper. And, Dave, all of us received copies 

of this quite recently. I guess it would 

probably be helpful for you to give us sort of 

a summary overview of the white paper and kind 

of reiterate the bottom line. And then we can 

go from there. 

 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I guess it has 

been pointed out here earlier the Appendix BB 

was put together without the benefit of the 

film badge data. And the SC&A review of that

Appendix also was put together without the 

benefit of that film badge data. 

 And I just thought it was 

worthwhile to evaluate the film badge data and 

have that as at least a starting point 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 

 238

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

discussion and to try to compare that with the 

models, et cetera, and reach some sort of 

middle ground on a lot of it. 

 So, with that, my intent was with 

this first part of the white paper -- was to

analyze the film badge data, which that in 

itself is very difficult when the vast 

majority of the badges were recorded as just a 

capital M, meaning they were monitored but it 

was less than ten millirem. 

 I went through several different 

aspects or several different possibilities of 

trying to analyze the data into a 

distribution. And I think, as Dr. Anigstein 

pointed out in his review of this, that there 

is simply no good distribution that dealt with 

this data the way it is. 

 I settled on one or at least in the 

white paper we settled on one, where we 

substituted that censored data, all those 

capitol Ms, with ten millirem, which is 

essentially an overestimate of that missed 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

dose. We assumed every single one of them was 

ten millirem that indicated less than ten 

millirem. And that by itself would not 

account for the 22 readings that were greater 

than ten millirem. 

 So from there, I am trying to

remember which way we ended up going, but we 

went through several iterations and eventually 

came up with the approach that we would 

substitute ten for each non-positive reading. 

We would then add up everybody's dose, adding 

ten for the non-positive, adding the recorded 

dose for what was recorded. 

 And since everybody worked at 

different time frames and different lengths of 

time in there, the only way to really 

normalize this was per badge reading. So then

we came up with totaling all that up, dividing 

by the number of badge readings, an individual 

got to get an average dose per badge reading. 

That, like I said, includes the ten millirem 

for each non-zero reading. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 From that, then, we had the other 

reading for -- I don't remember the number, 89 

I think it was, 89 individuals in the contract 

period, and came up with a couple of different 

distributions for that, none of which fit the

distribution well. 

 But we settled on the one that I 

believe it was a normal distribution where we 

just put the average and standard deviation 

with the standard techniques and came up with 

the 95th percentile of 14.87 and half a basis 

for that. That was one of the larger numbers 

we came up with that is not too outrageous or 

too ridiculous. 

 All of the ones without the 

substitution, all of those with normal 

distributions, essentially will have you with 

almost half your readings as a negative 

number. So a normal distribution simply 

wasn't going to work that way. And that's why 

we did the substitution. 

 As far as the rest of this 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 

 241

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

and the intent of that, then, was to try to 

come up with what we would call a bounding 

estimate of the weekly badge reading and 

adjust essentially what I call the SC&A model, 

the model in the SC&A review of our Appendix , 

and adjust that estimate to the badge reading, 

in order to do that, what I call a few 

inconsistencies in there. 

 And we can discuss those 

inconsistencies or what, but I saw what I 

consider to be a few inconsistencies in there. 

So I tried to reproduce their model and then 

adjust it for these inconsistencies to come up 

with a new -- and it's table 16, near the end 

of the white paper. And then those numbers 

were then adjusted on the last page of the 

white paper to the film badge data. 

 And that's the whole white paper in

a nutshell. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me open the 

floor for questions for Dave on the white 

paper, on the methods. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan? 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes. I have two very 

basic questions I would like to ask Dave 

Allen, please. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure. 

 DR. McKEEL: The first question, 

David, is, when did OCAS first contact the

site about the data, the date? 

 MR. ALLEN: I don't know the date 

when we first contacted. We contacted them

about a number of possible sites. At one 

point they finally got back to us with several 

sites that they had dosimetry data for without 

necessarily telling us how much they had. 

 DR. McKEEL: You don't have any 

idea of when that was? 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, I got a date when 

we got this data. 

 DR. McKEEL: When did you get that? 

That was my second question. 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, that I have 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 

 243

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

look. Just a second. Near the date. It 

might not be the exact date. The date we gave 

it to ORAU and asked them to scan this and put 

it in our database was March 12th of '08. 

 DR. McKEEL: And you couldn't even 

estimate whether it was one month, two months, 

three months, or a year before that that you 

asked for it? 

 MR. ALLEN: There was some time. 

It was several months at least because we had 

to go through what they had and what they were 

capable of giving us, what sites they might 

have. 

 And then we also went through some 

iterations as far as them being assured that 

we would handle this as Privacy Act type of

information. It's their company record, but 

it's also the records of the customers. And 

they wanted some assurances we weren't going 

to be just sending this information out all 

over the place. 

 DR. McKEEL: Can you tell 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 

 244

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Board, please, and myself and SC&A, why it is 

when I informed Larry Elliott that the 

Landauer badge data existed in 2006 that you 

all did not try to obtain it then? 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I think I can. I 

haven't been able to find where you had said 

that other than in transcripts that you sent 

us. And in the transcripts, you were 

describing this data as -- I'm trying to find 

it here. You indicated that you had seen two

reports and that they both said Atomic Energy 

Agency at the top. 

 DR. McKEEL: No. That wasn't the 

Landauer data. That was reports that GSI 

workers simply had in their possession and 

shared with us. 

 MR. ALLEN: Okay. In those reports 

you mentioned they said Nuclear Consulting

Corps at the bottom. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, that's correct. 

That was not the Landauer data at all. But 

when I contacted Landauer, I was told 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 

 245

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

Landauer -- what I sent to Landauer was we 

were looking to find any place that had any 

data on film badge personnel monitoring data 

on either the Dow Madison facility or General 

Steel Industries. 

 So we got permission from the 

workers. And I think we had lists of 90

workers at each place and, you know, with 

Privacy Act waivers and HIPAA waivers and all 

that kind of thing. And we sent lists of 

those people to Landauer to see whether they

had any data at all. 

 And I talked to a gentleman there 

named Chris Passmore. And Chris Passmore told 

me that Landauer was unique in having kept a 

record of every film badge reading that they

had ever recorded, which I thought was truly 

remarkable. 

 Anyway, in about a couple of weeks, 

they came back and said, well, yes. They had 

not located any data at all on Dow people, but 

they had located data on 30, about 30, GSI 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

workers. And they wanted to know whether they 

wanted us to try to prepare that data and send 

it back to us. 

 And we said, well, what do you

actually have? 

 And they said, well, we have weekly 

data. And we have some monthly data. And 

then we have annual summary reports on

cumulative doses. And they said, 

unfortunately, there will be a charge to you 

all to get this. 

 So we came up with a compromise, 

which we would get the annual report. And 

pretty soon they did send us those on 30

workers. And I think we paid them $230 or 

something. 

 What was interesting was, apropos

the white paper, they told us that that is all 

the data that they had ever had on GSI, was on 

those 30 workers. They also said that there 

was a -- and this was pretty much a quote -- a 

marking on the drawer on the file cabinet 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 

 247

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

contained that data, which indicated that 

maybe NIOSH had sought that data previously 

and maybe had even gotten that data. 

 So I didn't know what to say about 

that. I said, well, you know, be that as it 

may, we would like to see the data on the

annual reports. 

 And they sent us that data. And 

they did warn us beforehand that some of the 

data was barely readable or not readable at 

all and did we want that. 

 And we said, well, yes, because we 

just -- at this point, we need to -- there 

being no monitoring data that NIOSH has turned 

up, that we would like to see any data. 

 And I told them we had those three 

reports from those three people. Anyway, we 

then got the data. And much of the data from

'64 was really grayed out. And the lady who 

sent it said that they had tried to copy that

data every way they could to make it clear, 

but it just wasn't clear. And basically 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 

 248

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

wasn't readable. And they told us that. 

 So the third question I have for 

you is, in your white paper, you don't really 

describe -- you describe the number of

readings, the number of names that were 

mentioned, but you don't describe the 

readability percentage of all the reports that 

you got. 

 Mr. Dutko said, at my instigation, 

he requested the data that applied to him be 

sent to him because he would like to see that. 

And he said of the 20 pages that he received, 

19 were totally unreadable. 

 So my question to you is, how many 

pages did you get from Landauer? And of those 

pages, how many were completely readable? And 

how many were not? 

 MR. ALLEN: I don't know a page 

count. We got '64 through '73, so ten years’

worth of data. And many of those we got over 

100 pages on most of those years, if not all 

of those years. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. McKEEL: And how much of it was 

not readable? 

 MR. ALLEN: Nineteen sixty-four was 

very hard to make out. Most of the rest of 

it, you know, a lot of it, there is some 

difficulty to it. But you can make out most 

of it on the other years. There will be some

pages where we can't. 

 DR. McKEEL: Words like most are a 

big problem for me. I think that NIOSH should

actually make a much more detailed rendition 

of exactly what they got, the number of pages, 

the number broken down by year, and the number 

of pages that were readable and were not 

readable. And I assume you will share that 

data with SC&A if you already haven't done so. 

 But that needs to be put into a

report so that we all know exactly what you 

got and exactly how representative. I mean, 

it bears importantly on how representative the 

data is. 

 We do know that people were badged 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

at GSI for much longer than '64 to '73. And 

so we really need to know exactly what you've 

got. So that's that question. 

 The related question is that there 

is an enormous discrepancy between the numbers 

of people badged that were estimated by you in 

the white paper as you obtained data from 

Landauer. 

 You said 108 people were badged. 

Landauer basically affirmed to us 

unequivocally that they only had data on 30 

people in an independent interaction with 

them. 

 And Jerry Dutko sent me a list 

based on a 1964 or '65 seniority list from GSI 

that 61 workers were badged. So somehow we 

all have to come to an accounting of that 

data. And I don't see how we can do it other 

than comparing lists. 

 So that is something for the 

future, but I would be interested to know if 

you have any comments on that. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 251

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ALLEN: I don't have any 

comments on what Landauer gave you or told 

you. There is no way I can comment on any of 

that. 

 DR. McKEEL: I will look up and 

find the e-mails and so forth where I informed 

you all of that data. One time was at -- 

well, I'll furnish you and the Board and 

everybody with that data. 

 MR. ALLEN: Okay. As far as the

readability, I don't think you can go through. 

It would be between 1,000 and 1,500 pages. 

And, I mean, as far as how readable each page 

is, it's going to be very subjective type of 

information. 

 The good thing about this data is

that they assign the same badge number to 

people over and over. And on one page a name 

might not be that readable, but on the next 

page with that badge number, it is readable. 

 So sometimes you have to put 

information together from two or three pages 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

to get a clear picture, but the picture does 

get fairly clear with all the information. 

 DR. McKEEL: That was 108 people, 

then, that had some readable data for all 3 

years. Well, that's the other thing that is 

not broken down. How much readable data do 

you have? What number of individuals have 

readable data for each of the years '64 to 

'73? 

 Don't you think that would be a 

perfectly reasonable thing to ask because the 

contract period for the AEC only extended to 

'66? So presumably the uranium was gone 

except for the residual contamination, but the 

metal itself was gone from the plant by '66. 

 So we would really be interested in 

how many badge readings you all have between 

'64 and '66. And maybe that will resolve the 

issue of 30, which we had. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Dan, I have a 

question for you. This is Josie Beach. Did 

you end up only getting the annual dose 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

readings? 

 DR. McKEEL: Correct. As I said, 

it would really cost us thousands of dollars 

to get the whole set. 

 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. 

 DR. McKEEL: And we didn't have 

that much money to pay. So we got just the 

annual reports. 

 MR. ALLEN: The annual reports,

were they by name or -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes. 

 MR. ALLEN: And you recognize the 

names on there, I guess, a number of them? 

 DR. McKEEL: Some of them, yes. 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes, some of them. 

Okay. 

 DR. McKEEL: I didn't have all of 

the names of all of the GSI workers then or 

now, still don't. But I did recognize some

names, yes. 

 MR. ALLEN: I was just making sure 

you verified it was Granite City, Illinois, 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

not Pennsylvania or some other -- 

 DR. McKEEL: John Ramspott and I 

spent two years getting straight with 

everybody that it was General Steel Industries 

and not Granite City Steel. So yes, we got 

that straight. 

 MR. ALLEN: I didn't say Granite 

City Steel. I said Granite City. That's the 

city it is located in. 

 DR. McKEEL: We well knew that. We 

knew it first, and we told everybody first. 

No. They were General Steel Industries 

workers in Granite City, Illinois. Right. 

 MR. ALLEN: That was my only guess 

on what the inconsistency is with what 

Landauer gave you and what they gave us. 

 DR. McKEEL: Would you all be 

willing at some point to compare lists and 

names? 

 MR. ALLEN: With the lawyers’ 

permission. I don't think she is going to let 

us. We could take your list of names, 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 

 255

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- I am looking at her right now. We could, I 

think, get your list of names and see if they

fall on our list. Okay. That seemed to be 

acceptable. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, I leave that up 

to the Board, but that is not acceptable to

me. This one-way exchange of data is 

ridiculous because I have -- I mean, so if we 

can't work that out, we can't work that out. 

Okay? 

 So that's the main four questions 

right now. And then I have a big question 

about your last table, but I will save that 

until we get to that part of the discussion. 

 Thank you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks. 

Let's see. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is

John Ramspott. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: If I could, Dr. 

McKeel, did you not get Privacy and HIPAA 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

releases for all of the names that we did get 

information from Landauer, in case that's part 

of NIOSH's -- 

 DR. McKEEL: John, that's what I 

said. Yes. Every single patient that we sent 

to Landauer, we had a fully notarized, signed, 

sealed Privacy Act release and HIPAA release. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: I guess I am 

wondering if that would solve NIOSH's concern

about the legality. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: No. 

 DR. McKEEL: What does NIOSH need? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For? 

 DR. McKEEL: To compare lists. Is 

there not some way that we can code the list

and have an intermediary like the Office of 

General Counsel compare the names on the list? 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: We'll be happy 

to compare the names on the list for you if 

you want to provide your list to the Office of 

General Counsel and NIOSH provide their list. 

 DR. McKEEL: What kind of feedback 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

will we get? I want verification that we are 

looking at the same list. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: So you want to 

know if the 30 names you have match the names 

that NIOSH has? I'm just trying to get clear 

exactly what you are looking for. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, I think what 

else needs to be done -- it's not just what I 

am looking for. It's to clarify the validity 

of the data that NIOSH is reporting. We need

to ask the same question in reverse of them. 

How do you know that all of the patients that 

you are reporting actually worked at General 

Steel Industries? 

 And you have another way to 

internally verify that. You can look at your 

own lists and see how many of those patients 

file claims. You can get with Department of 

Labor and find out how many of those patients 

or those individuals filed claims for OIPA. 

 Now, obviously some of them 

probably didn't file claims, but you can do
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

verification of those people that they were 

actually workers at General Steel in those 

ways. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: But the Office 

of General Counsel wouldn't be needed to do

that. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: You know, there's 

another solution to this -- this is John 

Ramspott -- possibly. Mr. Dutko has already 

requested his badge information. That 

apparently has been sent to him, but he can't 

read it. That's being worked on now, if I 

understand correctly. 

 Is that right, Jerry? 

 MR. DUTKO: Yes, sir. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: If every worker that 

we're familiar with requested their badge 

information like Mr. Dutko did, would you be 

kind enough to send him that information? 

 MR. ALLEN: As far as I know, we 

would. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: If it's a FOIA
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

request, we would have to. They would have to 

sign a Privacy Act waiver that is provided by 

HHS, not the one that Dr. McKeel has. And 

that information would be provided directly to 

the employee. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: That would be great. 

 MR. ALLEN: Now, these pages have, 

I'll say 20 names. You know, this is one line

per person. So I'm assuming we -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We've got a lot 

of names. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: It’s going to 

take a long time to get. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm talking about 

the weekly or monthly reports, not a big 

summary report. 

 MR. ALLEN: Yes. The weekly 

reports have each individual on one line. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Multiple entries. 

 MR. ALLEN: Multiple individuals. 

Each person has one line for their each week. 

Each week is a different page. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you would have 

to redact all the names except one on a given 

page. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: I guess I am just 

curious what Jerry got. And if you could 

provide that for all these people, that would 

probably be pretty helpful. Jerry didn't seem 

to have any problem. 

 DR. McKEEL: Mr. Dutko's list was

all the other names were redacted, of course. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, same thing. 

 DR. McKEEL: Right. 

 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 MR. DUTKO: I had 20 pages. All 20 

were unreadable. The only thing I could make 

out on any of them was one week of record. I 

could make out my name. I couldn't make out 

any of the numerical values. The 20th sheet 

was a 3-month record, sir. And I couldn't 

make anything out on them. 

 MR. ALLEN: Mr. Dutko, did you 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 

 261

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

those from us or through the Department of 

Labor? Do you remember? 

 MR. DUTKO: I requested from Tonya 

Fields from the Department of Labor. 

 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Because I know 

you contacted us, and we are seeing if we can 

produce a more readable version of that. But 

we weren't positive of what you had before. 

We're going to try to produce a more readable 

-- 

 MR. DUTKO: I had never seen them. 

I never saw them when I worked there. They 

were not displayed to us. That's really why I 

wanted to see it, because I had never seen 

them in my life. 

 MR. ALLEN: I understand. And we

are going to try to produce one that you can 

actually read, but -- 

 MR. DUTKO: Thank you, sir. Thank 

you so much. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I mean, a 

lot of times we're talking about copies 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 

 262

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

copies of copies. And this is a copy. 

 MR. ALLEN: Right, copies of 

microfiche, I think. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: They keep losing 

their quality as they get -- 

 DR. NETON: Especially those forms 

have like sort of a light green, darker green 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Did Landauer have 

these on -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Microfiche. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- microfiche, 

and then you had the copy? 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, the ones that I 

got were direct copies from the originals. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Those are

probably better quality, then. Did you get -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Except 64, a lot of 

that data was unreadable. That's what I said. 

That was the best they could do, but it was 

still -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The original -- 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. McKEEL: -- not readable on -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The originals 

were poor quality, were they, Bob? 

 DR. NETON: I have a lot of 

experience with Landauer readings. I mean, I 

was there probably ten years ago working on a 

study with X-ray technologists at the National 

Cancer Institute. And sometimes you almost 

have to go back there and just look at the 

original microfilm outputs to get the 

readings. 

 But they're much clearer. 

Microfilms are better. 

 DR. McKEEL: Did you all do that 

this time? 

 DR. NETON: No, we did not. We 

requested this from Landauer, and they printed 

out what came off the microfilm. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, Jim, is that an 

unreasonable question that I asked, to 

estimate what percentage? Well, let me ask 

you this. Were there any records that you got 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 264

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

from Landauer that were not readable? 

 DR. NETON: I think Dave has 

indicated that is true, but I think what he 

also said, though, is you have to be careful 

because the percentage unreadable does not 

necessarily track to how well we can establish 

a worker's dose because, like you said, 

sometimes you have weekly readings. And don't 

they give you like cumulative dose per year? 

 You could go two or three readings, 

weekly readings that have nothing readable,

then come up one that gives you the cumulative 

dose for that monitoring quarter or whatever. 

So you had to be careful. 

 DR. McKEEL: Right. I understand 

that. 

 DR. NETON: You have to be careful 

in generalizing the unreadability, I suppose, 

is what I'm saying. But I think it is a 

reasonable request for us to establish the -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, the question

would be, then, to frame the question 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 

 265

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

precisely to be more useful to everybody. Of 

the 108 names that you have, how many have 

useable, readable, interpretable data? 

 MR. ALLEN: From all of them, we 

can get the interpretable data from all of 

them. Like I said, sometimes you might not be 

able to read the total number of badges he's 

had on one page, but then the next page you 

can read it and the page after that is 

incremented, the cumulative of it is the same

on the page you can read as it was three pages 

earlier. And you pretty much know what those 

other pages said. 

 So either there is a little bit of 

interpolation on some of it or interpretation 

on some of this, but when you put them all 

together, you can get data from pretty much

all of it. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, I will tell you, 

one thing I will share, is when I look up the 

transmission date that I informed you about 

Landauer, I am going to also recontact 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 

 266

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

people that I interacted with at Landauer. 

 And I am going to replay for them 

their assertion that they only had data on 30 

people and that NIOSH was given data on 108 

people. I am going to ask Landauer to resolve 

that huge discrepancy for me. And I will be

happy to share their answers back with you 

all. 

 I am also suggesting in my review 

of the white paper that you all share the 

correspondence that you all had with Landauer

so that we could all be transparent and know 

exactly what you asked for and know exactly 

what they believe they sent you. 

 MR. ALLEN: I have to see if we can 

find out. Some of it was telephone 

conversations, but I have to see what we've 

got. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dave, this is John

Ramspott. If I may? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead, John. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Can someone tell us
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

how many badged employees you have information 

on from '64 to '66? I tried to pick that up 

out of the white paper. And I just did get 

the white paper. So I haven't looked at it 

maybe closely enough. But exactly how many

workers do you have information on from '64 to 

'66? 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, I thought I put 

that in the white paper, but I don't see it. 

So I must not have. I didn't? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You said 80. The 

white paper says there were 89 workers during 

the covered period. Separately from that, in

my response to the white paper, I counted 92 

badge numbers that had been issued during that 

time. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Including the 

control room? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. Excluding the 

control room. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Excluding it. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: In other words, 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 

 268

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

highest badge number at the end of this period 

was 93. Number one was the control room. So 

that leaves 90. However, it's possible -- I

won't dispute that -- that some badge numbers, 

for some reason, were never assigned.

Sometimes you get a badge reported with no 

name attached to it. 

 So I would say somewhere between 89 

and 92 is the right number. It's no more than

92 and might be as low as 89. 

 MEMBER POSTON: It's normal to say 

control badges shifting back and forth. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. There are 

two control badges. There is a manpower 

control badge that is no-number. In addition, 

apparently GSI must have taken one of the 

numbered badges, number 1, and called it

Betatron CTL, beta control. 

 We have no idea what it is. I 

mean, maybe they just kept it in the Betatron 

control room to see what the dose, you know, 

like an aerial monitor -- 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, if that's 

where the badges were racked, that would be

fairly common practice for a badge in where 

the other badges sit when they're not in use. 

And that typically would be subtracted from 

the other readings. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But that's a 

control. They have one badge that Landauer

assigned control to, which is unnumbered. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. What I'm 

saying, Landauer does that for shipping 

purposes. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Your badge batch 

can be exposed during shipment. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But many places, 

in addition, take a badge. And if you have a

rack of badges up, in case that rack gets 

exposed on site, -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- you have 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 

 270

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

of those as your control. And if you specify 

that to Landauer, they will also subtract that 

from the others or you can do it yourself if 

you don't want to do it that way. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That seems to have 

been the case. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, one question 

I had, it looks to me like they may have had 

90 people, but at any given time, there's just 

a single-page report. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. Two pages. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is it two? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. I mean, these 

just happen to have been things that I printed 

out when I wanted to examine a particular 

week. But, in fact, there were typically two 

pages in each of the reports. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Maybe there were 

like 30 at a time, even though the numbers may 

run to 90, 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 

 271

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was not my 

impression. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I have at the end 

of 1964 the weekly report for the first week, 

I think, of '65. There were actually 62. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But actually 

means that -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay. That

would explain it, then. I thought perhaps at 

any given time -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There were already 

people who confirmed NIOSH's assumptions about 

this. I already mentioned the white paper. 

And I, incidentally, checked it. 

 Just about every one that I have

heard of, every name that I have heard 

mentioned, in one way or another, has been 

among the GSI workers I seem to have found 

here. There were 11 that were in a GSI news 

handout that said, these workers, it could be 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 272

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the isotope, right? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They were always -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I found that, I

think, in your report or somebody's report if 

it wasn't in yours. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There doesn't 

seem to be any doubt that you have the crux of 

the report. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And the fact is -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I wasn't sure on 

comparing the names. Dan, were you concerned 

that you might have gotten a different data 

set from Landauer than -- 

 MR. ALLEN: I think that was my 

guess to Dan. He said he recognized the -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But you recognize 

names on your set, too, Dan, right? 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir. I'm sure it 

was GSI data set that -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And this 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 

 273

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

clearly identified as GSI with an account 

number. So I -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, not only did 

they have an account number. That actually is 

another question, which you can answer with a 

FOIA request, I suppose. 

 When I got my data from Landauer, 

they gave me the name of the two account 

managers that had managed the badge program 

from 1964 to 1966 and then a new one who 

managed it from 1966 to 1973. And the men all 

verified that the person named as the badge 

manager in 1966 had come on board in 1966. So 

that was an exact match. And the individual 

named as the badge manager for that first 

period was also -- many of them knew him 

there. 

 So everything jibes that I was 

told. The thing that doesn't jibe is that I 

was told that all they had was data on 30 GSI 

workers. And I want to know from them why if 

they really had data on 108 they didn't tell 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

me that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. I think 

that's a valid point. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes. I don't like for 

people to say they have one thing and then 

they have -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't really 

think the issue is whether or not we have the 

right data set. 

 DR. McKEEL: It's not. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's why yours is

incomplete. And it seems to me it's 

appropriate for you to ask Landauer that 

question. Maybe -- well, I have no idea. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, there is one 

other thing that needs to be done. And that

is -- and we'll get to this, I guess, later. 

But I have three people listed who I know 

worked at GSI who had very high readings on 

their badges. 

 And those individuals, some way we 

have to work out to verify that those three 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

individuals are also on your data set. And at 

that point, then I would ask why it is that 

those three very high readings, cumulative 

lifetime readings, were not singled out 

specifically in the white paper and used and 

at least considered as to why they wouldn't 

factor into the bounding doses. And when you 

all reduce it down to an average, of course, 

those three very high readings are negated. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I am going to ask 

a question here. I am going to ask counsel. 

Is it possible for us, for example, to ask Dan 

what the badge number was for the high 

readings? 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Yes, he can tell 

you any information that he wants to give you. 

It's the government that has to protect the 

information. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. I don't 

think the name is -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: He's got them in

his comments, actually. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: The numbers -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. I don't 

think the names are important at this point if 

we can match it up to see if he has some data 

that we don't have versus the reverse of that. 

 But if we can identify, for 

example, those three high readings and that we 

have access to those as well. Dan, I don't 

know if -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, I mean, within 

whatever we can do according to the legal team 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we can 

certainly -- 

 DR. McKEEL: I mean, what I have is 

the people's name and a date. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do you have a 

badge number on them? 

 DR. McKEEL: I can't remember. I 

will have to look and see. But I have their 

name. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: He can tell us the 

name. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we should 

do that offline, though, right? 

 DR. McKEEL: No, I'm not going to 

do that here. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. 

 DR. McKEEL: But what I'm saying is 

I will do it. You all tell me the 

instructions, and I will follow the 

instructions. But what I do want back -- I 

don't somehow want verification back the other 

way of what I have sent, what was the answer. 

I have to have that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Of what you sent? 

 DR. McKEEL: That's a requisite. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, yes, yes.

Well, we -- 

 DR. McKEEL: If they match. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. 

 DR. McKEEL: And that I have to

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 

 278

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Dan, those three 

high values that you have in your report, are 

those all from '64 to '66? They're in a -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Right. They're in the 

covered period of time. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Just checking 

that, right. 

 DR. McKEEL: Right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I was going to

say I think it would be important for us to 

also hear the SC&A initial response. Dr. 

Poston will have to be leaving in 15 minutes. 

And Josie does, too. So let's get to the

initial response. And then we can talk about 

next steps. 

 Bob, do you want to go through that 

with us? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Okay. The 

response which I assume everybody has -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I skipped a 

break. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But if you need a 

comfort break, you're on your own. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I assume everybody 

who was interested -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're going to 

keep going. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I assume everybody 

who was interested had gotten the e-mail. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I just went through 

in the same sequence as the white paper was 

written. I just went through and answered.

In terms of just in summary, in terms of the 

dosimetry data, we don't have any quarrel with 

their -- I mean, again, given the fact that 

some of the data was totally illegible; others 

were barely legible -- and, frankly, it's a

real, real big chore going through page by 

page on the screen and trying to decipher the 

data because it turns out that it is easier to 

read on a screen than on a printout. But that

doesn't make it easy. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 So I did not look at every page. I 

did spot-checks looking at cumulative doses in 

various places. I found one discrepancy with 

their conclusions is that the conclusion and 

particularly reiterated in the evaluation 

report is that every one of the significant 

dose -- I won't say non-zero but above the 

recording level, was received in one week. 

 We found at least one case where an

individual whose punitive dose end of the year 

with 300 millirem. And I found a ten millirem 

reading for him earlier in the year. So that 

point was split at least two times. We don't

know how many more times, just a technical 

observation. 

 The bigger observation we have is 

the statistical handling of the data. I

consulted our house statistician, Harry 

Chmelynski, who has a Ph.D. in statistics. 

 And if you see on my pages 4 and 5, 

we plotted the data. And it does not -- we 

both tried a normal and a log-normal 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

distribution. All this data, which I 

produced, alternated the same way that NIOSH 

said they did, meaning everybody who was an M 

was assigned a ten. 

 And then I looked for each of these 

individuals, I got the total amount at the end 

of the period of employment or at the end of

the covered period how many total badge 

readings there were because they are listed, 

cumulative and divided the total dose by the 

total badges, to get an average weekly dose. 

 So of these 89 people, 79 had 10 

because either 69 or 67 were all Ms -- there's 

a 10 -- another 13, 10, 12 had, in fact, 

readings of 10 at one time or another. So, 

again, their average would be ten. Then the 

others were a little higher. 

 So when you plot those, they 

absolutely do not resemble a normal 

distribution. We did a correlation. And for 

a normal distribution, you get an r2 of .096. 

For a log-normal, it rises to .115 as an r2. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 Now, inherently applying an r2 to 

this kind of a normal plot, there is a bias. 

We commented on this on our review of OTIP-19. 

There is an upward bias. You typically get r2 

that are way up in the .9 something because

you already rank ordered the data. 

 So here given that it's already a

bias in there, to have something as low as 

this, it is simply not a normal distribution. 

So, therefore, using the method of, as the 

white paper did, simply saying, well, we just 

calculated the mean, standard deviation, and

take 1.645 times the standard deviation to 

calculate the 95th percentile, I mean, we

checked the arithmetic. Our arithmetic is 

correct, but it is not a valid, scientifically 

correct way of estimating the 95th percentile. 

 We don't have a better way, I 

should say, immediately. I was hesitant to

make that observation because somebody once -- 

I remember once hearing in a totally different 

context, don't bring up a problem if you 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 

 283

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have a solution. Well, we don't have a 

solution. 

 Speculating, whether it should be 

15 millirem, as they have, whether it should

be the highest of these data, the highest 

one-week dose, which was 2,470 -- and for that 

individual, I did confirm that, in fact, he

got no other dose. Every other dose, every 

other one of his hundred odd batch readings, 

was M. 

 I might suggest it occurred to me 

that through the advocate for the workers, 

perhaps if that person is still available, 

somebody could contact him and find out if he 

had any recollection of that. 

 Then I will just go on. Then there 

is most of the white -- 

 DR. McKEEL: I can tell you what 

letter of the alphabet is -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. Don't do

that, Dan, right now. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, that is a 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 284

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

problem. Then the rest of the white paper is 

pointing out, as Dave Allen said, 

inconsistencies in our analyses. And for each 

of these, I believe we have an adequate 

response. The first is consistency, the

location of the Betatron operator. And I 

touched on that a little earlier. 

 Yes, he says he can't be at two 

places at once. He can't be one foot and one 

meter away from the steel and also be moving 

back and forth. And we simply did that to 

cover all bases. 

 So it's true. And John Mauro even 

criticized me for that. Adding the two is 

not, strictly speaking, scientifically

correct. However, it makes no difference 

because the total dose per shift for 

radiographic steel, our estimate, is 33.5 mr

per shift. 

 If you take away the radiation from 

the steel -- and we're talking about whole

body dose now, not skin -- it drops to 33. So 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

there's only .5 of the 33.5. So, even if we 

said, okay. He's really further away from the 

steel, and we recalculate the dose from the 

steel, it is going to be somewhere between 33 

and 33.5. So that's an insignificant point. 

 MR. ALLEN: Well, the biggest 

inconsistency with that, though, then becomes

the beta dose. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The beta dose needs 

to be at those close distances because some

workers were literally falling over the seal. 

 MR. ALLEN: I agree, but the photon 

dose will -- well, start over. The beta dose 

predominantly is going to affect skin cancer. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

 MR. ALLEN: And the photon dose is 

not insignificant with skin cancer. It also 

affects it. So with the methods you've got 

there and the table you presented to the 

working group, the Procedures Working Group,

and you put -- 

 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 

 286

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MR. ALLEN: -- beta dose side by 

side with the photon doses, those numbers have 

that person in two places at once. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I agree. And I 

think that has to be handled on a case-by-case 

basis except that, again, the other scenario

is the worker just handling the steel after 

and he gets the same dose, the same photon 

dose, as the Betatron operator because it is a 

different scenario. 

 So, really, I think it is really 

moot. I think that it is -- 

 MR. ALLEN: If that part is true, 

then yes, by the time we work it all out, we 

will find out that that one is limiting, 

instead of this one. I haven't gotten that

far with the layout manual. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Moving on, 

the other one is the time of onset of exposure 

to residual radiation. I pointed out that, in 

calculating the exposure from the steel of the 

Betatron operator, we give it a five-second 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

lapse because there is no way he is going to 

get out of the control -- open the door to the 

control room, and walk over to this steel in 

less than five seconds. 

 And our MCNP calculations of this 

delayed gamma start, you know, time zero is

the time the beam is shut off. However, in 

doing this residual exposure from the 

apparatus itself that starts off at 15 mr per 

hour, the way that it was measured is that Mr. 

Schuetz reported to us that Allis-Chalmers did 

exactly that. Naturally he was in the control 

room when the Betatron was running. 

 And then after the beam was shut 

off, he walked out, took a meter, and made the 

measurement. So the measurement, his time 

zero, was actually the time a person reaches 

the apparatus from the control room. So there 

was no reason to put any additional delay. 

 Going on to what I think is really 

the heart of the matter. And that is the 

white paper asserts that the railroad track 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

exposure could not have happened during the 

covered period because the supervisor who was 

in charge at that time and attended our 

meeting with the workers and was mentioned by 

name by the workers and he himself was there 

also -- no, he would not have allowed such a 

practice. Well, his name appears on the badge 

reports. 

 And, in fact, even though he

retired from GSI sometime in 1966, at the end 

of the covered period, he changed jobs because 

his name on the film badge record week by week 

-- and those happen to be luckily legible -- 

stops the week of November 9th, 1964. 

 And I contacted him to verify this. 

And he said yes, he did change jobs. He got a 

promotion. He got put in charge of the 

finishing operation and had nothing more to do 

with the Betatron operation. I'm interpreting 

that's why he longer needed a badge because if 

he was issued a badge, was being monitored,

they wouldn't suddenly stop monitoring him if 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

he was still doing the same work. 

 And then they also mentioned the 

name of the supervisor who succeeded him who 

ordered them to reverse the head and override 

the limit switches. And his name, in fact, 

starts on the badge reports exactly when the 

other one left. His name actually appears 

about two months later, but by his name, you 

see that he had seven previous weeks, so 

whatever reason. 

 So, therefore, this practice, this 

supervisor who ordered them to the point of 

practice was on duty at the end of 1964 and 

certainly by the beginning of 1965. So that 

practice may well have occurred during the 

covered period and cannot be discounted. 

 DR. MAURO: Bob, could you explain 

why that is important? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Okay. It is 

important because if the Betatron -- it's very 

simple. Let's do this from a Betatron

shooting. There is a very good example 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 

 290

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that. 

 If the Betatron is in the middle of 

the room and it actually had limits, it 

couldn't even point to where it happened. 

They drew me an arc through which it was 

allowed to travel. Then it can only point 

towards these walls. 

 These are these six to 

ten-foot-thick walls. Two feet are like

concrete with several feet of sand in between 

the walls of concrete. And the radiation 

would be pretty much confined to the Betatron 

room. However, there is a corner. 

 The railroad track comes in right 

there past that bathroom out here. If they 

bring the Betatron close to the railroad track 

and reverse it, it can -- I'm not going to say 

the direct beam goes out that door, but the 

scattered radiation will definitely go out 

that door. 

 And, furthermore, that portion of 

the wall there is not shielded. The shield 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

wall for some reason goes here. And then 

there in this corridor, the one side is not 

shielded. 

 The Betatron control room is not 

shielded. It's just a hollow cinder block 

wall there. So both the Betatron workers get 

more dose because now the scattered radiation 

gets into the control room. That accounts for 

the difference between that .7 and the 2.4, I 

think. 

 And also workers outside, workers 

inside the bathroom will get 51, I think it 

was, millirem per hour, mr per hour. Workers 

in what they call the break area get 30 or 40. 

 And workers working on the castings 

that have been removed in this 10 building,

they actually get, not merely scatter, they 

actually get the penumbra from the beam, that 

if you look at the beam, you can actually draw 

a straight line out from the Betatron target, 

internal Betatron target, out to that area 

that does not pass through the heavily 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

shielded wall. 

 Now, most of the radiation goes 

forward. So that angle is a much lower flux, 

but still -- 

 MEMBER BEACH: So you're saying 

that that was not normal procedure, but 

because of this new supervisor, -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

 MEMBER BEACH: -- he allowed that

to take place? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: He ordered them to 

do it because it was quicker. And the 

estimate by John Dutko, if I remember this 

correctly, he said that happened maybe 15

percent of the time. 

 So, again, I admit that this 

probably will be a little bit overstating to 

say that this was the practice, you know, 

every 40 hours a week on every shift. But at

least it happened sometimes. 

 And, by the way, the initial SC&A 

report critiquing Appendix BB was not to 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 293

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

substitute, not to say, you should throw this 

one out and replace it with this across the 

board, but to point out where there were cases 

and instances where the original analysis was 

not sufficient, was not bounding. 

 The other thing I will go over very

quickly, we talked a little bit about the 

output of the old Betatron, whether it was 

250. We never said it was 250. We just said 

we used the same beam current calculated for

the 25 MeV machine, applied it to the 24. And 

then it will be a lower output, somewhat lower 

output. But maybe that assumption, I don't 

say was necessarily correct, but I thought it 

was the only safe thing we could do. 

 And there was again a 

misunderstanding of what we did when we said 

the beta doses were calculated assuming that 

the operator did all the uranium radiography 

that year and the steel doses were assumed he 

did no uranium radiography. They work on

different shifts. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 All the uranium radiography, 

according to the purchase order, had to be 

done between the hours of 7:00 and 5:00 Monday 

through Friday. My guess is they didn't want 

workers who received overtime or shift 

differential. They didn't want to have to pay 

for that; whereas, the operation went on 24/7. 

 So, therefore, it's not implausible

there would be workers who never did uranium 

radiography and workers who did all the -- so 

that's why the two are not inconsistent. 

 Finally, there was a minor point

raised about -- they couldn't check our 

numbers. Well, there was a wrong bill. I 

mean, they took rounded numbers and tried to

calculate our result and got a slightly 

different result. And that is because I 

deliberately put in -- didn't want to put in 

ten significant figures, which Excel uses. I 

just put in a couple. And when you use those, 

you don't get exactly the same number. So 

that is basically 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 

 295

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 And then what I would like to 

perhaps take this point is to go off slightly 

answer the points made by Dr. McKeel and John 

Ramspott. I mean, how can the badge readings 

be different than the model? 

 The model, correctly in my 

estimation, calculates the dose rate or 

exposure rate at a certain point in space for 

a certain exact configuration of the exposure

condition, meaning the Betatron at this energy 

shooting in this direction at this piece of 

metal. And that's the dose at that moment. 

However, that is not where the film badge is, 

you know, all the time that it is being worn. 

So naturally there is going to be a 

difference. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you. 

 Questions or comments? 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 DR. McKEEL: I would like to make 

my single comment, last comment, 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 

 296

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

final conclusion of the white paper before 

hopefully Josie and Dr. Poston have to leave. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead. 

 DR. McKEEL: They're gone? 

 MR. KATZ: They have left, but -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Just went out the

door, but I'm sure we will share it. 

 DR. McKEEL: That's fine. I find 

that sad. But, anyway, I'm going to have to

make this comment. I would like to have at 

least this conclusion addressed. 

 The bottom line of all of these 

manipulations in the white paper was to

markedly decrease the external dose. And 

that's as listed in the last page. 

 And so if you take, for example, 

the year 1958, the SC&A model comes up with a 

dose, an external dose, of 12.4 roentgen per 

year. NIOSH's rendition with ATTILA code

comes out to 5.8 roentgen per year. And the 

new film badge manipulation, which everybody 

admits cannot be described by a log-normal 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 

 297

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

normal distribution comes out as .7 roentgen 

per year. 

 We have already heard comments 

today that ATTILA and MC&T agree within a few 

percent of one another. Well, this final 

table proves that that is not the truth or 

somebody has made a mistake or somebody has

made a grossly different assumption. But, 

anyway, the real difference is not 2 to 3 

percent, but it's 225 percent between the two

dose estimates by SC&A and NIOSH. 

 Then when you say, but the film 

badges -- I think Dr. Poston was trying to 

negate all of the other calculations and say,

well, that is what matters. And that is what

we should rely on. 

 I know he didn't quite come to that 

conclusion, but it seems to me that is where 

he was heading. And I'm sure that is one of 

the considerations that will come forward from 

all of this. That is at .7 roentgen per year.

And that differs from the highest dose
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

proposed by SC&A's model by a factor of 18 or 

1,800 percent. 

 Now, I would say that my 

interpretation of all of that is that, number

one, the two models don't agree with each 

other by a major factor of over 200 percent. 

And neither of the models agree with the film 

badge data by factors of 8 to 18-fold. 

 And so my conclusion of this is

exactly what we said when we started back in 

2005, that if you couple those numbers with 

the fact that not all the source terms are 

modeled, including the cobalt-60 -- and, in 

particular, no one has factored in the 250 ABT 

machine. And there are no actual neutron

measurements at the site. 

 The proper course of action long 

ago should have been to award an 83-14 SEC to

this site. And we still contend that this 

data, even more strongly than anything that 

has ever been presented, in fact, shows that. 

 So we will all now enter into 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 

 299

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

process where we will wrangle with this 

another two to three to four to six months. 

And I will predict that we will not be able to

resolve all of this. 

 And so I am perfectly happy to keep 

on doing this and know I must. But that is 

the way I feel about this white paper and what 

it actually shows, actually extremely clearly.

And I think that is my time limit. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Thanks, 

Dan. I hope that you have not characterized 

what we are going to do quite correctly. I 

don't think we want to wrangle so much as try 

to understand each other's views and see if we 

can come to more of a consensus on if there 

are differences why or the models, do they 

need to be modified, has one side or the other 

neglected something. 

 You know, this is the first time we

have all seen sort of these various views of 

things, -- 

 DR. McKEEL: Oh, yes, sir. 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 

 300

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- including your 

own. 

 DR. McKEEL: I guess all I am 

saying is at this point, the discrepancy 

between the measures is huge. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And at 

least we know what the starting point is here. 

We are going to try to see if we can come to a 

reasonable closure on this. 

 And, again, your comments are also 

helpful in this process, as are the others 

from the petitioners, to make sure that we 

have not overlooked things or if it appears 

that we have, that we have at least reasonable 

rationale for why various assumptions or other 

models are being used or, when we can't use 

them or when we can use them and so on. 

 In any event, we do want to make a 

good effort and a fair effort on this, as we 

are charged to do. And it does often take 

longer than we would hope. But these are not 

simple situations. And I think none of us 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

would be happy if we simply glossed over these 

issues and sort of took an easy road because 

the law doesn't allow us to do that either. 

 We are mandated to make our best

effort to see if we can reconstruct dose or at 

least find the limits and make the appropriate 

determinations. So we will proceed on that 

route. 

 Now, what I want to do here because 

I don't think you had benefit of or did you --

you had benefit of the SC&A paper? 

 DR. MAURO: No. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, not? 

 DR. MAURO: As we speak, we are 

trying to have it cleared. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We would 

like to have you have a chance to also review 

the SC&A paper and provide your comments on 

that. We have also now just received and some 

just this morning, Dan, your own comments on

the white paper. 

 I think some of those comments 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 

 302

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- I kind of interpret them as being directed 

toward NIOSH, such as the comment when did you 

get the information and so on. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, Dr. Ziemer, 

actually, they weren't at all directed toward 

NIOSH except that was a question that I 

thought needed to be answered in this report. 

But I would think it would be quite 

interesting for you all to know that as well. 

 I mean, one of the things, I did 

get that answer today. And the data was 

received in March. And we were having this 

meeting on the 10th in November. 

 And so, you know, the comment is

that it has taken eight months to produce this 

white paper. And also if you look at the time 

of issuance of some of the key reports in 

here, one wonders if this data was received

back in March, why it wasn't commented on 

before now. 

 So my comments in the white paper 

are intended for the Board, SC&A, and 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 

 303

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

equally. And I approached it exactly the way 

that you are talking about, that we all need 

to understand each other. 

 And what we are confronted with

here specifically is a bunch of techniques 

that are designed to estimate dose at a site, 

and they are grossly way apart. 

 And if we were all scientists and 

we were trying to develop a method to 

characterize a dose, which I think is what we 

are all about, and we said, okay, we've got 

three different ways to do it. Are we within

the ballpark or are we within 20 percent 

standard deviation? Fifty percent? Well, the 

answer is no, we are really not. We have got 

three results that are just extremely far 

apart, 1,800 percent apart. 

 And as a scientist, that's a big, 

tough problem. And I agree it is going to 

take a while to solve, but I think that's 

fine. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Yes. And 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 304

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

I guess the point I was making on some of your 

comments was the information asked for it, not 

information -- the Work Group itself can come 

up with. NIOSH would have to provide that. 

 DR. McKEEL: But, Dr. Ziemer, no, I 

don't want to let it rest at that because, 

correct, you can't provide that information. 

But in my opinion, these are questions that 

are vital to your interest. And you can 

certainly ask and reiterate the -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, I understand 

what you are saying, yes. Yes. No. I am not 

saying that the information shouldn't be 

obtained. I am differentiating between 

questions that the Work Group can address here 

sitting around the table versus what sort of 

information NIOSH would have to come up with,

yes. 

 DR. McKEEL: The Work Group if you 

agreed with me, which you might not or you 

may, but if you do agree with me, you could 

certainly support the need for NIOSH 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 

 305

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

provide these answers. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, yes. Yes. 

 DR. McKEEL: That's all. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. I agree. 

 DR. McKEEL: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Now we

need to sort of wrap up here today. Mark? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Along those lines, 

I have one request for an action from NIOSH. 

Just on the raw data -- I know this is 

probably being tasked back to Dave, but if 

they could put on there, draw the spreadsheet 

with the analysis of that raw data, it might 

be helpful. 

 Certainly all of us don't have the 

time to go through all of these sheets of data 

and find the 30 or so positive values and do 

all of the work that you have done already. 

 So if you can post that when it's 

in the right format. 

 MR. ALLEN: Some readable form? 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: 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 

 306

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I'm going 

to write that down. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I just have a 

question for Jim. You did not get copies of 

the microfiches. You got printouts. Have you 

explored the possibility? I know microfiche

can be copied because I know in a different 

project, we had to get that. 

 DR. NETON: I don't know. We've 

not talked about getting a better quality of 

the data. I mean, I think we ought to do this

analysis first and see if it's sufficient for 

our purposes, given the fact that we can look 

at multiple needs and establish, fill in the

gaps, so to speak. 

 MR. KATZ: I am sorry. We have 

some discussion going on on the telephone. 

Can someone mute their phone, please? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Mark has 

asked that NIOSH put on O: drive the analysis 

of the film badge data. 

 Let me go back, though, quickly. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

The TBD 6000 findings we need to have NIOSH 

address those. So, NIOSH, if you can respond? 

 DR. NETON: SC&A analysis will be 

very simple, but we will wait to start on 

that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And then 

let's see. The TBD 6000 Appendix BB 

findings, we need to now be able to go back 

and resolve each of those. Partially that has 

to be done in the framework of the film badge 

analysis. 

 Now, the petitioners don't have the 

film badge analysis yet either, do they? So 

we need to have -- 

 DR. MAURO: Our white paper, you're 

saying? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The analysis of

the film badge white paper. 

 DR. MAURO: And the white paper, 

but -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I think we

need NIOSH also to react to the SC&A 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 

 308

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

or SC&A's comments on the white paper. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. My concern is 

that we're kind of getting narrowly focused on 

these small issues. 

 DR. MAURO: Could I do something? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure. 

 DR. MAURO: I have been reading the 

material, working with Bob, listening, and 

trying to educate myself. Then I have to step 

back and say, you know, what is it that really

is disturbing me -- and I think SC&A would -- 

about the whole picture that is sort of 

emerging in front of us? And there are two 

things that I would say emerges that I think 

we have to look at that I am concerned about. 

 One is that apparently there are 

locations outside the shielded area where the 

exposure rates were potentially fairly high 

for some periods of time. 

 I think the number Bob had 

mentioned was outside the ribbon door and 

other locations where it could have been 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 

 309

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

the order of 50 millirem per hour. 

 So it sounds like there are 

locations where there could have been a few 

people, perhaps many people, that were not 

badged. They were in the vicinity of the area 

but not badged and maybe never were badged as 

part of the program -- I'm not sure -- where 

the exposure rates could have been on the 

order of 50 millirem per hour or perhaps 

higher. 

 So what that means is the default 

value -- and if you can conceive of 50 

millirem per hour, now we have a default value 

of .7 or 700 millirem per year. There are 700 

millirem per year as being the default value. 

 Does that capture the exposures 

that might have been experienced by people in 

unprotected areas outside the ribbon door that 

we heard before, where it was 50 millirem per 

hour? 

 And it doesn't take very many hours 

that the person over the course of a year 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 

 310

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

may not have been badged could have 

experienced exposures. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. 

 DR. MAURO: Sure. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You know, that one 

would be about 24 outside the ribbon door. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Go ahead. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The 50 or 55 

depending on the way you look at it millirem 

or mr is an area that later I learned was 

probably not accessible. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It was just outside 

an unshielded area, but apparently there was a 

fence around it. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There was an 

exclusion. So that 50 is probably not -- 

 DR. MAURO: Conceptually my concern 

is that -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But somewhere in 

the range of 10 to 25 is definitely 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 

 311

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

accessible to occupy that area. 

 DR. MAURO: So I think the model, 

the generic model, the degree to which there 

is a level of assurance that the default 

values were selected that would be applied 

apparently to everyone at the site would, in 

fact, be claimant-favorable for all workers, 

especially given that there were areas in the

site where the exposure rates could have been 

10 to 20 millirem per hour. A person may not 

have been badged and perhaps could have been 

there for many hours. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. And, I 

mean, when you kind of contrast that with 14 

and a half millirem per week, -- 

 DR. MAURO: Right. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- you know, 

there's a disconnect. 

 DR. MAURO: Now, I'll just give you 

my second analysis. 

 DR. NETON: Well, you're talking 

about the default value is 700. Which -- 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: For the year. I'm 

looking at your all per year. 

 DR. NETON: Okay. That's the 

modified one that Dave came up with. 

 DR. MAURO: The most recent one,

right. So that would be, I assume that's your 

14 millirem. 

 DR. NETON: Well, I'm thinking that 

we need to start with what we currently have 

on the table, Appendix BB. 

 DR. MAURO: That's the other 

question I have. 

 DR. NETON: In Appendix BB, what's 

on the table -- 

 DR. MAURO: Oh, going back to the 

5.8 per year. 

 DR. NETON: I don't know if it's on 

the table, but I'm saying that that's what we 

viewed to reconstruct couple of hundred doses 

like that. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Good. 

 DR. NETON: And I'm saying, 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 

 313

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

sufficiently adequate now given that we have 

this new piece of information? That's where 

I'm coming from. 

 DR. MAURO: Good. Then what you're 

saying is we could look at the whole thing 

collectively: -- 

 DR. NETON: Reexamine -- 

 DR. MAURO: -- the data; the

conversation we had today; your original 

analysis -- that was 5.8 roentgens per year -- 

our original analysis, which is 12.4. In 

other words, we have all this on the table. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Let me understand 

something. 

 DR. NETON: Go ahead, probably the 

same question. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If you had to 

assign a new case -- I don't know how you 

would make it, but if you were able to assign

a new dose reconstruction tomorrow, worker, 

claimant came in and percolated and you 

sending it out to one of your dose 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

reconstructors, what would he be using? Would 

he be using Appendix BB or would he be using 

the SEC ER, which -- 

 DR. NETON: Appendix BB, which is 

the approved document -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So Appendix BB is 

still the -- 

 DR. NETON: That's my point, you 

know. 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Well, I think 

that -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: At what point does 

it get replaced with the film badge 

calculation with a 14 and a half -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: Are you proposing 

that at all? You're not. 

 DR. NETON: Dave, you might want to

answer that. 

 MR. ALLEN: We're not proposing. 

We're throwing the information out there to -- 

 DR. MAURO: Okay. Good. Good. 

 DR. NETON: I think the best 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 

 315

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

say at this point is the film badge data 

clearly in our opinion supports the fact that 

our model is bounding, SC&A's model is even -- 

 DR. MAURO: I would agree with 

that. So you have heard my -- then the second 

thing that is troubling me is the ten-year 

period where apparently there was source or 

sources on site and there was no -- at least

we have no data, film badge data, for the 

workers who were working for that ten-year 

period. 

 I find that very troubling, 

especially when you're dealing with -- quite 

frankly, I am less concerned with the Betatron 

dose reconstruction, you know, the old 

Betatron, because in theory, models could

place an upper bound on it. When it comes to 

nondestructive testing -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There's no 

nondestructive testing. 

 DR. MAURO: No. I am so used to 

thinking about sources. When you talk about 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 

 316

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

cobalt-60 source, even if it was a relatively 

small, a 250-millicurie, source, I am 

concerned -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's the worst 

one. That one is worse because it was 

considered to be not very dangerous and would 

not -- 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. One of the things

we did -- 

 DR. NETON: The 250-millicurie? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: At that point the 

80-curie source -- 

 DR. NETON: Was in use. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- they put in a 

well-shielded area. 

 DR. NETON: It was also in use at 

the time. And we have that data. 

 DR. MAURO: That's right. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's true. 

 DR. MAURO: That's true. But let's 

keep it -- 

 DR. NETON: So sometimes -- 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. MAURO: Let's just keep it -- I 

think there is pretty good evidence that there 

was, in fact, a cobalt-60 source that might 

have been on the order of 250 millicuries that 

was not very well-controlled because 

apparently someone brought it home. We have 

some information to that effect. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. The guy put 

it in his pocket and took it home and -- you 

didn't read that? 

 DR. NETON: I haven't heard that. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And they actually 

hired an airplane to fly over the area. And 

they located it with a Geiger counter. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What size source? 

 DR. MAURO: Two hundred and fifty 

millicuries, which is not that much, but it's

logical -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Put in your 

pocket. 

 DR. MAURO: Yes. He brought it 

home. Let's call it hearsay. Let's stay 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 

 318

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

-- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: He thought it was a 

fishing sinker. 

 DR. MAURO: This is certainly 

information that is coming to hearsay, you 

know, the degree to which. But the more

important point is I can't conceive of working 

with nondestructive testing sources or not 

having some way of surveying, controlling 

access to the areas once it's withdrawn. And 

I know I am very concerned about these being 

stuck in the open position and how do you

respond to that. 

 So I would say if there is a single 

place where I think there was a health, 

potential health physics problem that needed

to be properly managed is when you are working 

with a sealed source to nondestructive 

testing, and there were no records of either 

film badge records or radiation survey

controls that we can say we can place an upper 

bound on the doses to the workers who might 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 319

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have been involved in those practices from 

1953 to '63. That's my single greatest 

concern. 

 DR. McKEEL: John Mauro, this is

Dan McKeel. 

 I highly support that, but in all 

these analyses, everybody keeps on leaving it 

that there is testimony, sworn affidavit 

testimony, that an iridium-192 gamma source 

was used. You have no calculations for that. 

And there was a 250 kVp. 

 So if you pay attention to your own 

guidance by OCAS, those sources have to be 

modeled or real data found for them. And if 

they're simply not accounted for, just 

ignored, then these doses cannot be considered 

either bounding or sufficiently accurate. 

 And before this is all over, I am 

going to bring that up enough times that it 

will either be answered and addressed or we

will just have to leave that on the table as

not complying with OCAS' own guidance. 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 

 320

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that is my really big problem. 

 And I agree with you about your 

point number two wholeheartedly. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Bob? We 

need to wrap up here. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The iridium-192 

source we looked into, I looked into. That

was not owned by GSI. That was owned by St. 

Louis Testing. They brought it on site. And 

the radiographers from St. Louis Testing were

the only ones who used it. 

 They would set up a perimeter that 

excluded everyone from an area where it was 

more than two mr per hour. So it would not be 

a significant source of exposure to GSI 

personnel. 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Anigstein? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes? 

 DR. McKEEL: In all due respect, I 

know you had that meeting on October the 9th 

of 2007. We’ve had three long meetings that 

the transcripts are 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 

 321

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I read the 

transcript, Dr. McKeel. 

 DR. McKEEL: And St. Louis Testing 

also brought on site a gamma source that was 

used in between the old Betatron and the new 

Betatron buildings. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

 DR. McKEEL: And many men testified 

that they were near that area. It was done in

the open. And there were definitely potential 

exposures from that. And, even though it is 

brought in by St. Louis Testing, it is still a 

source at GSI and by the OCAS guidance just 

put out, that has to be calculated. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I agree with that 

part of your statement, but the gentleman from 

St. Louis Testing who attended the meeting 

described how he did it. And he said the GSI 

personnel, meaning everybody except his own

people, were excluded from that area. 

 DR. McKEEL: But I am telling you 

for the cobalt-60, I know that gentleman. 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 

 322

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have talked to him, too, long before you had 

any contact with him at all. And we have also 

talked with the workers. And they put it on 

the record that some of that testing was done 

and people observed it being done. So the -- 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: From a distance. 

 DR. McKEEL: They were GSI workers. 

So they definitely were not excluded from that 

area. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, when I say 

excluded, meaning adequate distance. I didn't 

say they couldn't -- they could see it. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, I think that you 

have to consider that gentleman, you know. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

 DR. McKEEL: He has a certain 

potential liability aspect. And, of course, 

that is what he is going to say. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We need to 

define what is going to happen before our next 

meeting. So, Jim, what do you see as NIOSH's 

next steps? 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: I'm trying to sort this 

out. I tend to agree with John that there are 

a few sort of key issues that if we can't get 

past those, then maybe the other ones are moot 

because, you know, we just have to get past 

maybe some of these unmonitored source 

exposures. And if we can't get past that, 

then I don't know what the occasions are. 

 So I don't know. Maybe we need to 

go back and readdress some of these 

unmonitored exposures. We haven't done that

yet, at least to anybody's satisfaction, I can 

tell so far. 

 So key in on the cobalt-60 

250-millicurie source. At least somehow 

address the 250 kVp and the iridium-192,

either using what Bob has provided and other 

information -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What was that 

X-ray source, by the way? Was that one of 

those portable --? 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Apparently, 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 

 324

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: Yes. These sources 

tend to be not isotropic but sort of focused. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

 DR. NETON: We certainly need to 

address those. I think that is a good 

starting point. I don't know about the other 

issues that are on the table. Possibly we 

need to go back and do something with the film 

badge data to demonstrate its reliability or

robustness or I'm not sure what the right term 

-- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: One starting point 

would be those high values that Dr. McKeel 

identified and try to -- 

 MR. ALLEN: You said that was in 

the -- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: They're in his 

redlined text, yes. You can talk to him 

offline. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. But we don't 

know who. And we didn't find it. 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: 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 

 325

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But there is a 

possibility, actually a logical possibility. 

I'm just putting this out as a possibility 

that somebody could have gotten the high 

exposure, but what he mentions is much higher

than what we saw. 

 Somebody could have gotten a high 

exposure and, not coincidentally, been 

terminated from the work because, my God, he 

got over five rem. He shouldn't be doing his 

-- 

 MEMBER GRIFFON: For the record, he 

has been -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, Dan said 

it's in his film badge records and, 

unfortunately, isn't in your film badge 

records. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. I 

understand that. But it could be in the 

record that we did not look at because they 

were hard to read, the in-between year. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, it could 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

have been. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I look at the end 

of each year. But that person might have 

dropped out of the record precisely because he 

got a high exposure. And so it's somewhere in 

there, but it may be in the illegible records. 

I'm just saying this as -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Maybe offline you 

can learn from Dan the dates and the badge 

number. 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 DR. McKEEL: Can I mention

something? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure. 

 DR. McKEEL: I have had this 

confirmed by the CDC FOIA office. And I 

believe Emily and Liz have said this as well. 

The Privacy Act of 1974 does not apply to

deceased individuals. And the individuals 

with the very high doses I believe are all 

deceased. 
 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 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Assuming -- 

 DR. McKEEL: I want the legal 

counsel to go back and review everything that 

their guidances, their policies, and so forth. 

But when I was at Washington University living 

under the Privacy Act and HIPAA laws for 31 

years and had to administer a program where we 

delivered human tissue for research, Privacy

Act and HIPAA do not apply except for certain 

significant information, which is not involved 

here, for deceased individuals. 

 So I know for a fact some of those 

individuals were not for RC. So I don't think 

those considerations really apply. So why 

don't we revisit that question as well? And 

maybe the exchange of the data will be much 

simpler. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Dr. McKeel, 

you're right that the Privacy Act doesn't 

apply to deceased individuals, but if one of 

their descendants has a claim with the OCRA, 

then they have Privacy Act interest in 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 

 328

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

information and will protect that information 

under their Privacy Act interest. But we 

would just have to determine that. 

 And I am not saying that you can't 

see it. All I'm saying is that it's not just 

a straight, fast rule that because somebody 

has died, all of a sudden, for this program, 

the Privacy Act interest is gone, because it

is not. 

 DR. McKEEL: I'm just saying we 

need a definite ruling on that particular

point from you, please. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: Well, I mean, I 

am giving you a definite ruling. You are 

right that there is no Privacy Act interest

for a deceased person, but under this program, 

since their descendants can make claims or 

their spouse can make a claim, then those 

people have a Privacy Act interest in the 

information under that claim. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, I just -- 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: I am not saying 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

that that is what is going to -- 

 DR. McKEEL: -- registered for the 

record. Your understanding of the Privacy Act 

law is different from my understanding of the 

Privacy Act law. So you will have to prevail, 

but I don't accept what you said as being 

correct. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And also I 

suppose that we would -- I don't know how you 

would confirm that the person was necessarily 

deceased. And you can't go by hearsay, I 

don't suppose. 

 MS. HOMOKI-TITUS: We would either 

have to have a death certificate or we go by

the -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What's that? 

 DR. McKEEL: If there's a death 

certificate, that's one way. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Yes. Okay. 

We're trying to determine here our next steps 

for NIOSH. 

 DR. NETON: The first thing I 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 

 330

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

is provide to look at the analysis of 

unmonitored sources we talked about. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: The second one so far 

as my mind is reliability of the film badge 

data that we have, which would include someone 

who challenged the sensitivity of the film, 

the representativeness, legibility, and some 

type of inter-comparison with Dr. McKeel's 

data sets. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 DR. NETON: So we have got some 

work to do on that. Those are the two big 

ones that stick out in my mind. The other 

ones I think are important, but until we can 

get by this -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And, 

plus, you are going to start working on the 

6000 matrix findings. 

 DR. NETON: Oh, yes. Right, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And let's see. 

For SC&A, you also are going to try to confirm 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

those high numbers. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Maybe work with 

Jim on that. Make sure that we're looking at

the same thing. 

 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We're working on 

it. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's see what 

else. Well, as you address the reliability of 

the film badge data, I guess you also will 

take into consideration whatever comments,

both in terms of the SC&A comments and Dr. 

McKeel's, insofar as they apply to that issue. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. We probably need 

to revisit the statistical analysis of the 

film badge data. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is

John Ramspott. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: If I may ask, will 

someone be -- do you need sworn affidavits by 

these workers who say they wore badges for 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 

 332

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

time? How do you analyze a badge if it's not 

on a person in the 10 building? Are they 

grouped into the people who didn't have 

badges? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't think the

Work Group needs that. I think NIOSH if

they're doing individual dose reconstruction, 

if a person says, I didn't wear my badge -- 

well, Jim, you respond to it. 

 DR. NETON: Yes. Well, we're going 

to have to look at this whole picture now that 

there are some questions raised. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now that you have 

film badge data, yes. 

 DR. NETON: This has not come up, 

to my knowledge, until we got the film badge 

data at any level that I was aware of. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Actually, the not 

wearing the badges was a public comment on the 

24th. 

 DR. NETON: When? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: This year, 2008. 
 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 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 DR. NETON: Twenty-fourth of what? 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Twenty-fourth of 

June. I'm sorry. The St. Louis Board 

meeting. 

 DR. NETON: Something that hasn't 

surfaced, at least in my mind. And we need to

look a little bit more at what that really 

means, not wearing it, not wearing it in a 

radiation environment. We are going to as 

part of this analysis looking at the 

underlying sources of railroad shots, that 

sort of thing. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: A lot of these 

people already had their dose reconstructions 

without the information available. 

 DR. NETON: Again, we have a 

bounding analysis right now. And the film 

badge data, at least as we see it now, is 

fairly low. And we need to look at both

pieces and see where reality lies. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And if there's 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 

 334

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

change in the method of dose reconstruction, 

you would go back and revisit those claimants, 

yes. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Because not wearing 

them would certainly flaw the credibility of 

the data, would it not? 

 DR. NETON: It depends on under 

what conditions they weren't wearing them, 

yes. 

 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, any time they

left the Betatron. 

 DR. NETON: Well, yes. The 

question is, were the exposures that were

captured by the film badge data representative 

of some of the highest exposed workers, yes or 

no? If we can establish that, then we'll go

ahead and work with it. If we can't, then we 

have to drop back and rely more on modeling. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Any other 

comments or questions for the group? Oh, I 

want to find out when we can meet again. 

 MR. KATZ: 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 

 335

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Part of that 

depends on the -- 

 DR. NETON: When we can get this. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't know if

you would be in a position to respond to that 

yet, Jim. 

 DR. NETON: We're not. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me do this -- 

 DR. NETON: I’ve gotten in trouble 

before, yes. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's do the 

following. After you get an idea, whether 

it's later this week or when you have some 

idea of when the information might become 

available so that we can address it further, 

then I would like to set up another meeting. 

 We do have the Board meeting coming 

up next month in Augusta. I know the 

Procedures Work Group plans to meet Monday

afternoon prior to that meeting. I think 

there is going to be a tour of Savannah River 

site on Monday morning. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 336

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 There's a possibility we could 

possibly meet, like, the afternoon after the 

meeting adjourns. 

 DR. NETON: I think I'm even 

pushing that a little bit. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The meeting gets 

pretty long, yes. 

 DR. NETON: To get this out in 

advance in time for people to review it and 

everything would mean we would have to have it 

completed in a couple of weeks. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. That 

being the case, we're talking about early 

January, then, because that's going to take us 

into the Christmas holidays. 

 MR. KATZ: Early January is shaping 

up to be very busy with work groups. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Okay. 

We're going to have to plan a meeting early 

January just -- 

 MR. KATZ: You're right. I agree 

with that. 
 NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 337

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

 MS. BURGOS: And we do have the 

Board call on the 13th. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And we have a 

Board call on the 13th as well, yes. 

 MR. KATZ: January 13th, right. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you,

everybody. Thanks, everyone on the phone. 

 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer? 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

 DR. McKEEL: I was just saying 

thank you for the meeting. I'm glad I got to 

-- 

 MR. KATZ: Dr. McKeel? 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir? 

 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes? 

 MR. KATZ: You don't need to give 

me an answer now, but if you would think about 

the upcoming Board meeting and whether you 

would like to have the NIOSH presentation if

it's an evaluation report then or whether you 

have concerns about that and just let me 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 

 338

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

in the next day or two, that would be great. 

 DR. McKEEL: Well, Ted, I can't 

answer that question. It really depends on -- 

I have to have all of the information that is

allowed to get to me by the Privacy Act law 

and all of those constraints. 

 And I cannot have them the day

before I go to December. I'm busy, too. So, 

you know, my decision is based on -- I need

those documents. And I need to prepare my own 

presentation. And the resources are limited. 

 So unless everything can get to me, 

why don't we say, by the last week in November 

or something like that, I don't think it's

possible for me to be expected to prepare 

adequately. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. Dan, I think 

you are right. And this is Ziemer. And, as I 

indicated before, I don't think the Board is 

going to be in a position to respond, in any 

event. And I think it would be more fruitful 

if you had more time so that when the ER 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 

 339

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

presented, that you will be in a position to 

present fully. 

 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir. I think 

that's really the -- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So I think we're 

talking about the first face-to-face meeting

in the next year. 

 MR. KATZ: I mean, that's what I 

suspected, but I just wanted Dr. McKeel to 

have the opportunity to say differently. 

That's all. 

 DR. McKEEL: John, I think that's 

-- 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, otherwise 

what will happen is, they could present the 

evaluation report, and you could defer your 

response to the later meeting. 

 DR. McKEEL: No. I don't want to 

do that. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But I think it's 

more effective if they're both side by side. 

 DR. McKEEL: No. I want to talk 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 

 340

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

everybody face to face and talk about it. And 

hopefully you all can make a decision then. 

That would be great. 

 MR. KATZ: So I agree, Dr. McKeel. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

 MR. KATZ: So, for the record, 

there will not be a presentation at the 

December Board meeting. 

 DR. McKEEL: That's good. Thank 

you. 

 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

very much. We're adjourned. 

 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

matter was concluded at 4:14 p.m.)