This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON TBD-6000

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

JUNE 20, 2013

+ + + + +

The Work Group met telephonically 

at 10:30 a.m. Eastern Daylight Time, Paul 

Ziemer, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman

JOSIE M. BEACH, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, Member
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

DAVE ALLEN, NIOSH ORAU

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

BOB BARTON, SC&A

SAM GLOVER, NIOSH ORAU

MONICA HARRISON-MAPLES, NIOSH ORAU

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

DAN McKEEL

JIM NETON, NIOSH ORAU

JOHN RAMSPOTT

BILL THURBER, SC&A

TOM TOMES, NIOSH ORAU
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

1. Welcome and Roll Call 4

2. SC&A Supplementary Comments on 6

TBD-6000, Rev 01

3. GSI 32

4. Baker Brothers 170

5. Joslyn Manufacturing & Supply Co. 177

6. Simonds Saw and Steel 183

7. Adjourn 192
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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

2 (10:31 a.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: This is the Advisory 

4 Board on Radiation and Worker Health, the TBD5 6000 Work Group.

6 We have an agenda that is posted 

7 on the Board's webpage under today's meeting 

8 date, for people who want to see that, and 

9 there are some other materials also posted at 

10 that location that would help people follow 

11 along with the discussion today.

12 Let's do roll call. We're 

13 speaking about several specific cites -- GSI, 

14 Baker Brothers, Joslyn, and Simonds Saw, 

15 although there is not going to be so much 

16 discussion about the latter three sites. But 

17 please speak to conflict of interest for 

18 agency related people, including the Board, 

19 when we do roll call.

20 (Roll call.)

21 MR. KATZ: Well, we can proceed 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 to the agenda. Just let me remind everyone on 

2 the call, when you are not addressing the 

3 group, please mute your phone so we have less 

4 trouble with the audio. And if you don't have 

5 a mute button, press *6 to mute your phone, 

6 and, again, *6 to take your phone off of mute.

7 Thank you very much.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

9 you, Ted. I will officially call the meeting 

10 to order. 

11 The agenda for the meeting is 

12 posted on the website, and it has also been 

13 widely distributed. So we will proceed 

14 through the agenda as it was distributed.

15 I am going to not specify exactly 

16 when we will take breaks at this point, but, 

17 again, we will take breaks as needed, and just 

18 proceed through the agenda as long as we are 

19 able to keep at it. There are a lot of things 

20 to cover under Item 3, GSI. Items 4, 5, and 6 

21 should not take very long. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 We will begin, though, with Item 2 

2 on the agenda, the supplementary comments on 

3 TBD-6000, Rev 1, which comments were 

4 distributed in May by SC&A. And I think 

5 everybody got those. I think, Bill Thurber, 

6 are you going to lead us through the comments, 

7 and then NIOSH will have a chance to make some 

8 response, if needed.

9 MR. THURBER: I can do that.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, go ahead, 

11 Bill.

12 MR. THURBER: Okay. I trust that 

13 everybody has the documents. There is a lot 

14 of material in there, a lot of detail. I 

15 don't propose to go into any of the detail 

16 unless there is need to.

17 The document addressed four 

18 issues. One was we took another look at the 

19 question of the appropriateness of the 

20 terminal settling velocity of 7.5 times 10 to 

21 the minus four meters per second, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 associated with that the time that would be 

2 required to reach an equilibrium surface 

3 concentration based on deposition from 

4 airborne contamination.

5 We looked at the attenuation rate 

6 of surface contamination; that is, the balance 

7 between deposition and removal processes. We 

8 looked at a number of sites -- I think four 

9 sites -- and we compared the site-specific air 

10 concentrations with the generic air 

11 concentrations used in TBD-6000.

12 You will recall -- or you may not 

13 recall, but the basis for the data in TBD-6000 

14 was a fairly comprehensive report by Harrison15 Kingsley, which was published in 1959. And 

16 they had data on a lot of generic operations, 

17 such as forging, extrusion, et cetera.

18 The paper never did identify which 

19 particular sites they collected data from, so 

20 we don't know where the specific information 

21 came from. So what we did was we compared the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 generic information from TBD-6000 derived from 

2 Harrison-Kingsley with data from specific 

3 sites such as Simonds Saw and Steel, Joslyn, 

4 and so forth, to see whether -- how the 

5 generic data compared with some site-specific 

6 data to see whether the generic data was 

7 sufficiently conservative to ensure that the 

8 workers were properly protected based on using 

9 that data in dose reconstruction.

10 And the final thing that we looked 

11 at in this document was some operations that 

12 weren't specifically covered in TBD-6000. 

13 Some people had suggested, well, floor14 sweeping could be a very dusty operation, and 

15 you might get higher air concentrations than 

16 you would -- than were represented by the data 

17 in TBD-6000.

18 There was also a question of 

19 whether uranium fires might cause 

20 extraordinary air concentrations. As everyone 

21 knows, uranium is very pyrophoric. It's easy 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 to burn, and there are frequent extensive 

2 examples in the literature of uranium fire. 

3 So we tried to address that point.

4 So those were the four general 

5 areas that we looked at. And if you go to 

6 skip all of this intermediate material, and if 

7 you go to the conclusions in Section 6, we can 

8 kind of summarize. And then if people have 

9 questions, we can get back into some of the 

10 detail.

11 As I say, we took another look at 

12 this question of the terminal settling 

13 velocity for five micron 8 MeV particles. 

14 NIOSH had done this before and concluded that 

15 that number was a claimant-favorable value.

16 We took another look at it from a 

17 different perspective using somewhat different 

18 data, and we agreed with NIOSH's conclusion 

19 that that is a good number, that 7.5 times 10 

20 to the minus four meters per second is a good 

21 number for those kind of particles.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 The second thing we looked at was 

2 the question of how long it would take for the 

3 surface concentration that resulted from 

4 fallout from contaminated air to reach an 

5 equilibrium value. This question had come up 

6 before. NIOSH had addressed it. NIOSH 

7 provided revisions to TBD-6000 to better 

8 document a value for the deposition, the time 

9 to reach equilibrium.

10 And NIOSH concluded that a number 

11 of about 30 days was a reasonable value to use 

12 in calculating the surface buildup from 

13 fallout of contamination from the air.

14 We looked at it on -- again, using 

15 a little different calculational approach, 

16 using different number sets, and we felt that 

17 while on average the NIOSH number of 30 days 

18 was reasonable, we came up with an average 

19 value of somewhere between 33 and 37 days. 

20 We felt that based on the 

21 information we were dealing with, which was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 primarily a report by Adley dealing with some 

2 studies that were done at the melt plant 

3 building at Hanford, that there were clearly 

4 cases where 30 days would not be adequate to 

5 cover all of the situations.

6 As I say, on average it looked 

7 like a pretty good number, but we provided 

8 some calculations that suggest that the number 

9 could be as high as around 84 days. So that 

10 is an issue I think that probably requires 

11 some further discussion.

12 As I mentioned, we compared data 

13 from the generic operations in TBD-6000, such 

14 as rolling and extrusion, and so forth, with 

15 values from four or five sites, and in general 

16 we found that while there were in some cases 

17 measured numbers for particular operations at 

18 a specific site that were higher than the 

19 geometric mean values used in TBD-6000, and 

20 also the arithmetic mean values, that these 

21 values were clearly subsumed within a full 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 log-normal distribution with a geometric 

2 standard deviation of five.

3 And we showed that whether you use 

4 these higher values as a constant, or whether 

5 you use the full distribution in calculating 

6 the Probability of Causation for a 

7 hypothetical worker, that the numbers were not 

8 significantly different.

9 We based our analysis in most 

10 cases on comparing the site-specific values 

11 with the arithmetic mean values rather than 

12 the geometric mean values derived from TBD13 6000, because we felt that the arithmetic mean 

14 values were -- using the arithmetic mean 

15 values was a better basis of comparison with 

16 the daily weighted averages, which were 

17 typically the value that is presented in TBD18 6000.

19 So there was more emphasis in our 

20 analysis on arithmetic mean values for that 

21 reason, but it doesn't affect the conclusion.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 We looked at a couple of instances 

2 where there was some information on chip 

3 fires, and we found that even though people 

4 talk about clouds of vapor, and so forth, that 

5 the values that we uncovered were covered by 

6 the variables, the range of variables for 

7 equivalent operations in TBD-6000, so that if 

8 you used the TBD-6000 values you would cover 

9 the kinds of airborne concentrations from 

10 uranium fires.

11 And it was interesting, we didn't 

12 have the information at the time, but recently 

13 NIOSH had arranged a telephone interview with 

14 a worker from Joslyn Steel who was involved in 

15 actually taking the waste from a centerless 

16 grinding machine and burning it.

17 And he gave us a very clear 

18 description, and it was quite fascinating, 

19 really. They took this residue from the 

20 bottom of the machine, and it was wet because 

21 the grindings were immersed in the cutting 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 fluids. And they just shoveled it out, and 

2 they dumped it into a trough that was outside 

3 the building right next to where the 

4 centerless grinding machine was. 

5 And they filled up the trough, the 

6 steel trough, and they put a cover on it, and 

7 they stuck a piece of brown paper in there and 

8 lit it with a match, and it went whoosh and it 

9 was done. So there was not a sustained fire 

10 or anything like that in this particular 

11 instance at Joslyn.

12 And the reaction was apparently 

13 almost instantaneous, and the other 

14 interesting -- another interesting facet of 

15 the whole deal was that they would call the 

16 Weather Service every night, because they did 

17 this burning, or one guy did basically, they 

18 did this burning at night and they'd call the 

19 Weather Service and ask what the wind velocity 

20 was. 

21 And if the wind velocity was at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 least I think seven miles per hour, then they 

2 would go ahead and ignite this residue. And 

3 if it wasn't, then they'd hold off until the 

4 wind velocity picked up.

5 So anyways, that kind of -- that 

6 story, that interview, at least anecdotally, 

7 supports I think the conclusion that the 

8 uranium fires are fundamentally embraced 

9 within the TBD-6000 data set.

10 We also estimated the equilibrium 

11 removal rate from particles and found that 

12 that was about .035 per day, and this is much 

13 higher than the removal rate that is in OTIB14 70. And we felt that was not surprising since 

15 OTIB-70 uses -- if you measure a beginning 

16 point for the residual period, and then 10 or 

17 20 or 30 years later you measure an endpoint, 

18 and that's how the number -- the removal rate 

19 in OTIB-70 was calculated. 

20 But if you -- it is quite 

21 reasonable to suspect that equilibrium is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 attained in a much shorter time and that would 

2 be supported by the removal -- the equilibrium 

3 removal rate that we estimated.

4 We found some data on floor 

5 sweeping and concluded that -- again, that the 

6 -- any dust generated by floor sweeping was 

7 adequately covered by the TBD-6000 data set. 

8 And, well, we have kind of already talked 

9 about the outdoor burning, which we found was 

10 -- did not seem to be -- did not seem to 

11 result in air concentrations that were beyond 

12 the -- again, beyond what is embraced in TBD13 6000.

14 And a final minor comment, it 

15 appeared that there are some calculational 

16 errors in some of the tables in TBD-6000 that 

17 ought to be checked.

18 So that's it in a nutshell. As I 

19 say, I think that the main thing that we felt 

20 ought to be further considered is this time to 

21 reach equilibrium in terms of surface 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 deposition where the 30-day number that is 

2 currently used in TBD-6000 may not be 

3 sufficiently claimant-favorable.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

5 you, Bill. So in all of your bullet points 

6 there, the only points where I see that there 

7 is any issue is that one you just mentioned, 

8 which is basically your second bullet point on 

9 your conclusions, and then that calculational 

10 issue that you raise at the end on the GMs in 

11 Section 7.

12 MR. THURBER: Right. Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But, let's see, 

14 any immediate response from NIOSH? Who is 

15 going to sort of look at this? Dave, are you 

16 or Jim --

17 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. 

18 Yes, Dave Allen and I both looked it, but I 

19 think Dave is prepared to at least talk about 

20 the one issue that was identified by SC&A.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead, Dave.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MR. ALLEN: I just wanted to start 

2 by saying, yes, we agree with pretty much 

3 everything SC&A put in that report, including 

4 the calculational error, and that will be 

5 fixed with the next revision. The one issue 

6 we had is the one that Bill mentioned that 

7 needs further discussion, and that is the 

8 settling times for determining contamination 

9 levels.

10 I've got a little bit of an issue 

11 with how SC&A did this evaluation. Primarily, 

12 the only time that it is really used is to 

13 determine a surface contamination level from 

14 an airborne concentration, what the 

15 equilibrium level would be. And I think 

16 everybody probably knows that, you know, what 

17 we do is simply the airborne times the 

18 settling rate times the time it takes to reset 

19 equilibrium gives us that concentration, that 

20 surface concentration.

21 So airborne aside, the important 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 parameter here is not so much the settling 

2 rate or the settling time; it is the product 

3 of the two. That's the default parameters 

4 that would be used. 

5 SC&A's review, they looked at the 

6 7.5 times 10 to the minus four settling rate 

7 that we are using, and I think the report said 

8 that there appeared to be a favorable settling 

9 rate, but that's not the settling rate they 

10 used to determine the time for equilibrium, 

11 which is kind of trying to compare apples to 

12 oranges here. That's not what we would be 

13 doing and not how the 30 days would be used.

14 Just substituting the .00075 

15 settling rate instead of the .00052 that SC&A 

16 used reduces those numbers by about 30 percent 

17 or so, the settling time numbers that SC&A 

18 came up with.

19 Thus, SC&A was suggesting we 

20 should use the .00052. I wasn't clear on 

21 that, but in the settling rate area -- section 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 of the report it seemed to be agreeing the 7.5 

2 would be a sufficient conservative number.

3 Also, on that, the airborne value 

4 they used for Adley was 1,400 micrograms per 

5 cubic meter. I don't think that's 

6 significantly far off, but there is no 

7 distribution associated with it. And where it 

8 came from wasn't actually an estimate of 

9 airborne, it wasn't a measurement of airborne, 

10 it was just an "if" statement in the document.

11 And if we were to take data from 

12 Adley to try to estimate the dose in that 

13 metals building, we would not use that number. 

14 We would never be allowed to use that number. 

15 We would have taken the air sample data and 

16 determined a distribution, and used either the 

17 distribution or the 95th percentile of that 

18 distribution. 

19 I think that would be the more 

20 appropriate comparison is using those numbers 

21 times the .00075 times the 30 days and see how 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 that compares to the contamination numbers 

2 that were actually used in Adley, or measured 

3 in Adley.

4 The last thing I want to say is in 

5 I think it was Issue 5 when we went through 

6 TBD-6000, the purpose at that point was to 

7 compare what we would determine using TBD8 6000, which is potentially some default values 

9 for a variety of tasks, and what kind of 

10 surface contamination we would get from that.

11 And that's what we did in that 

12 White Paper for Issue 5 for TBD-6000, and that 

13 was based on it being a TBD-6000 review. And 

14 I think -- I could be wrong, but I think SC&A 

15 pointed out in their review that the TBD-6000 

16 values typically are higher than the airborne 

17 values they would get in Adley. 

18 And so if we were actually using 

19 TBD-6000, we would be starting with 

20 essentially a conservative -- a higher value, 

21 a conservative value, for the air sample, for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the airborne concentration, would be 

2 multiplying it by a higher settling rate than 

3 SC&A used in this evaluation. And I'm not so 

4 sure we would be getting a lower contamination 

5 number than what Adley measured.

6 So I just don't think the 

7 comparison used here to develop those days to 

8 equilibrium values is an appropriate analysis.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks, 

10 Dave. I'm wondering if it would be helpful if 

11 NIOSH were to actually commit what you just 

12 said to writing in a more formal way, and then 

13 that would give SC&A a chance to look at that 

14 in more detail, and so we could see if we can 

15 come to closure on that issue, unless SC&A 

16 already, you know -- well, let me ask it this 

17 way.

18 Bill, would you want to have a 

19 closer look at that and have a chance to 

20 respond next time around?

21 MR. THURBER: Yes. I would for 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 this reason, Paul. Obviously, it's kind of 

2 complicated, and, you know, I hear what David 

3 said. One of the things that I didn't talk 

4 about when I ran through this is that all of 

5 the settling velocities that were calculated 

6 from the Adley data, from the Hanford melt 

7 plant, were lower than the 7.5 times 10 to the 

8 minus four.

9 And, as David said, and we agreed 

10 with, that means that this theoretical 

11 terminal settling velocity is conservative in 

12 terms of calculating -- in doing some of the 

13 calculations. What we talked about in the 

14 report in a little more detail is why it might 

15 be that the actual numbers were lower than 

16 this theoretical value, and we provided some 

17 information about the need to consider slip of 

18 the particles between the air molecules, and 

19 things like that, which resulted in a lower 

20 terminal velocity.

21 So there was reason for that. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 Now, whether it is appropriate or 

2 inappropriate to then use that to calculate 

3 the settling time is something that, you know, 

4 I'd like to hear NIOSH's thoughts on it in 

5 writing, because it's very difficult to put 

6 all of these pieces together without looking 

7 at them on -- at least for me it is, to look 

8 at them on paper.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

10 MR. THURBER: And one other point 

11 is that I think as I recall, because David 

12 very kindly shared his spreadsheet with me for 

13 the original NIOSH calculations and how they 

14 arrived at the 30-day number, there is an 

15 apples and oranges question there, too, in 

16 that in calculating the number of days the 

17 amount settled on the surface was taken from 

18 Adley.

19 The settling rate was actually 

20 taken I believe from working with the numbers 

21 in TBD-6000. And David can correct me if I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 wrong on that.

2 So the way that we approached it, 

3 we -- in making this time to reach equilibrium 

4 calculation, we only used the Adley data. So, 

5 again, we are trying not to get into an apples 

6 and oranges situation. We may not have done 

7 that, I don't know, but anyway it would be 

8 good to see something in writing.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That 

10 certainly seems like a good direction to go. 

11 Dave, if you could spell out basically what 

12 you told us, just commit that to a very brief 

13 sort of White Paper, and then SC&A can have a 

14 chance to bite that data a bit and understand 

15 fully what the approach is there, and maybe we 

16 can resolve this. And that would basically 

17 take care of the issues that have arisen 

18 through this supplementary comments document.

19 And then, I don't know if there is 

20 -- well, you probably can't give us a time 

21 table now, but basically what you just told 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 us, it would just be a matter of committing it 

2 to writing and letting SC&A have a chance to 

3 study it a bit.

4 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I can definitely 

5 commit to that. As Bill said, it's somewhat 

6 of a complicated and convoluted topic, so I 

7 don't know how brief the White Paper will be, 

8 but we will --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I only say 

10 brief in the sense that you were able to go 

11 through it in several minutes. So, and there 

12 may be some additional issues that you would 

13 insert once you put it -- commit it to 

14 writing, but in any event to formalize it so 

15 not only SC&A fully understands the points, 

16 but the Work Group and others as well.

17 MR. ALLEN: Right.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I think we 

19 can come to resolution on this issue.

20 DR. MAURO: This is John. I might 

21 be able to help a little bit, because I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 understand that David's position is, well, 

2 when you look at the big picture, if you are 

3 starting off with relatively high 

4 concentrations of airborne dust loadings, as 

5 obviously they are doing in TBD-6000, and then 

6 you multiply that by a relatively high 

7 deposition velocity, the .00075 per meter, and 

8 then you multiple that it's going off of 30 

9 days, you are going to basically -- what is 

10 being said is that because the other two 

11 parameters, the airborne concentration and the 

12 deposition velocity, are probably somewhat 

13 overestimated.

14 It makes up for the fact that 

15 maybe our period over which it takes to reach 

16 equilibrium may be somewhat underestimated is 

17 offset. And I would agree with that, in other 

18 words, if you take it in the aggregate. But I 

19 think it's important that that be understood. 

20 That is, that --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It needs to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 spelled out, and that --

2 DR. MAURO: Yes. And --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That would be 

4 helpful.

5 DR. MAURO: Yes. But I think that 

6 -- and what I would be especially interested 

7 in, Dave, is that if you think that 

8 notwithstanding the offsetting effects of the 

9 three parameters, the number itself, the 30 

10 days, how well does that stand up? You know, 

11 as a number on its own merit, as opposed to, 

12 oh, it's okay as long as it's done within the 

13 context of the other two conservative 

14 assumptions.

15 So, I mean, I just -- I want to 

16 point that out because it's important to make 

17 that distinction.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And you 

19 can look at that issue as well as you review 

20 the thing.

21 DR. MAURO: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MR. ALLEN: Yes. And I think John 

2 hit the name on the head there. When this was 

3 originally put out and issued by White Paper, 

4 it was for the purposes of the TBD-6000 

5 review. So that analysis centered on TBD-6000 

6 airborne, because that's what would be used in 

7 that.

8 So then the question comes up, is 

9 that 30 days appropriate for a site where we 

10 actually have airborne data and we'd be using 

11 that and not --

12 DR. MAURO: Bingo. That's the 

13 whole ballgame right there. 

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

15 MR. ALLEN: I don't disagree with 

16 you, John. I think that hasn't been addressed 

17 in any paper or anything, and I think the 

18 results -- if it ends up being something 

19 different, the results I think, as far as TBD20 6000 would be, is to just put some sort of 

21 caveat in there saying this is only applicable 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 for TBD-6000, you know, or something to that 

2 effect.

3 DR. MAURO: Yes.

4 MR. ALLEN: But I will try to do 

5 all of the analysis I can anticipate, put it 

6 all in as brief a White Paper as I can, and 

7 hopefully we can discuss this during the next 

8 meeting.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That 

10 sounds good. Any questions on that? Josie, 

11 are you okay with that?

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yes. Well, I just 

13 have -- the last bullet on SC&A's White Paper 

14 talked about the GMs in Table 7. Will this 

15 take care of that?

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think that's 

17 separate, but they are correct now, right, 

18 Dave?

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes. We admit that is 

20 a mathematical error in that table, and we 

21 will correct that with the next revision of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 TBD-6000. I would like to get this 30-day 

2 settling thing sorted out before we undertake 

3 any kind of revision.

4 MEMBER BEACH: And then, the only 

5 other question I have -- and I know this is 

6 probably already covered somewhere, but I just 

7 wanted to make sure, we talked about floor 

8 sweepings and we talked about the uranium chip 

9 fires. Are those assumed to be the highest 

10 level of dust at GSI? And you feel that's 

11 covered for activities that occurred there?

12 DR. MAURO: Maybe I could help on 

13 that. This is John. Keep in mind that at GSI 

14 we have elected to use the surrogate data from 

15 real facilities that handled uranium in a way 

16 that we believe that -- NIOSH did, in a way 

17 that is believed to be similar to the way 

18 uranium is handled or was handled at GSI. So 

19 it's purely an empirical number.

20 The degree to which those data 

21 from the -- and it's a good question. The 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 degree to which the data from real facilities 

2 that handle the uranium in a similar manner, 

3 as best we can tell, to GSI, that's what we've 

4 got.

5 Now, you're asking the question, 

6 well, does that real data from these other 

7 facilities capture the full range of types of 

8 activities such as sweepings, et cetera, that 

9 might be important? And the answer is I guess 

10 we -- you know, we are taking the data on face 

11 value, and they are using the 90 -- well, 

12 we're going to get into this in a minute. 

13 But they are using a 95th 

14 percentile value, which I guess my first 

15 reaction, because I haven't thought about the 

16 question that you just asked, and it's a good 

17 question, but I think that the fact that NIOSH 

18 is operating with -- given the surrogate data 

19 that they are using, by picking the 95th 

20 percentile value, it is likely that that 

21 captures these transients and that could drive 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the number high for some short period of time.

2 So, I mean, that would be my 

3 sense, that by picking the 95th percentile you 

4 accommodate these uncertainties in the data 

5 set that is being used for the -- as the 

6 surrogate data.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Thanks, 

8 John.

9 DR. MAURO: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Any other 

11 questions on that at this point? This will 

12 be, then, revisited once we see the White 

13 Paper and the response to that. So are we 

14 good to go on to the next agenda item, which 

15 is GSI?

16 (No response.)

17 Okay. We will do that.

18 DR. McKEEL: Paul?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

20 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer?

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. 

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan.

3 DR. McKEEL: I know this is not 

4 the time allotted for us, but I have something 

5 that is very germane to the points that Josie 

6 just brought up and John Mauro just mentioned.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead.

8 DR. McKEEL: Can I make that 

9 comment, please?

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, sure. Sure.

11 DR. McKEEL: One of the papers 

12 that I submitted was I also reviewed Adley 

13 '52, and one of the major findings that I felt 

14 had been overlooked in that paper was -- and 

15 this is in answer to Josie Beach's question.

16 I also thought that the sweeping 

17 data showing elevated MAC concentrations above 

18 the acceptable limits had not been paid enough 

19 attention to at GSI. But the other thing that 

20 was probably even more important and more 

21 significant and more striking about Adley '52 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 was the data they had on unloading uranium, 

2 cold uranium, from freight cars, and of course 

3 that is exactly what happened at GSI when they 

4 had to unload the Mallinckrodt uranium from 

5 both freight cars and trucks.

6 But Adley goes into great detail 

7 showing that it took seven men to unload 

8 uranium from freight cars at the Hanford melt 

9 plant, that they had to restrict their time 

10 doing that job, because the doses were high, 

11 and that it required workers from two 

12 different departments at the plant.

13 So unloading freight cars has been 

14 totally ignored at GSI, and I think it's a 

15 major undetermined exposure route for GSI 

16 yardmen, and the people who actually had to go 

17 in there and unstack or unload the uranium, 

18 put it on some kind of a transport vehicle, 

19 take it to the loading dock, weigh it, and so 

20 forth.

21 So I would say the freight 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 unloading tables, which are highlighted in my 

2 paper, should be paid more attention to.

3 Thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks, Dan. 

5 And, actually, when we get into the next 

6 series of presentations and under Item --

7 actually, it would be Item D, when you have a 

8 chance for additional comments, I have some 

9 questions on the Adley information as well 

10 that relates to what you just talked about.

11 We all have a chance to return to 

12 that. I appreciate you bringing it up, 

13 though.

14 Okay. Item A under 3 is just the 

15 report of the technical conference. And I 

16 just -- that was the May 28th conference. 

17 There is a one-page summary that was 

18 distributed. 

19 I just want to ask -- I don't 

20 know, Ted Katz, I think you put the summary 

21 together for us. Do you have any comments on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the summary? And then either DCAS or SC&A, 

2 any other comments on the summary in terms of 

3 if you felt it captures what the discussion 

4 was about.

5 MR. KATZ: Hi, Paul. This is Ted. 

6 No, I mean, I don't have any comments on the 

7 summary. I was just serving as secretary in 

8 effect for that conference to record, and then 

9 I did distribute it to all the parties and 

10 heard back from almost everyone. Everyone I 

11 heard back from said it was a reasonable 

12 summary of what was covered.

13 But I put this on the agenda, so 

14 that the participants in the leads, whatever, 

15 from SC&A and/or from NIOSH could just speak 

16 in any more detail that they want to about 

17 that discussion before we get into the actual 

18 -- the White Papers and the public comment 

19 submissions, and so on, SC&A review of the 

20 public comments for this meeting.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 Ted.

2 Well, let me ask either Dave 

3 Allen, Jim Neton, any comments from NIOSH on 

4 the summary?

5 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen. I 

6 don't have any comments.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And how 

8 about SC&A?

9 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. I 

10 thought it was fine and accurately 

11 characterized and what we discussed.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And Bob Anigstein. 

13 I also agree.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

15 you.

16 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

17 Dan McKeel again.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan.

19 DR. McKEEL: Again, I seem to be 

20 the lone dissenter that that summary was all 

21 fine. So may I make my two short comments 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 about that now?

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure.

3 DR. McKEEL: Okay. So my comment 

4 is that the gist of that meeting, the main 

5 point of that meeting was to bring up a brand6 new method for determining intakes, the square 

7 function approximation. It had never been 

8 talked about before. No paper has been 

9 published about it.

10 Now, Dave Allen did publish a 

11 paper about that several days later. So my 

12 question was, I thought that the issues to be 

13 discussed at the technical meeting had been 

14 defined at the 4/26 Work Group meeting, and 

15 then I find from the summary that a brand-new 

16 method was brought up and discussed.

17 I also want to comment that that 

18 summary had two other things that concerned me 

19 greatly. One was I had asked specifically 

20 whether TIB-70 would be discussed at that 

21 meeting, at the technical meeting, and Ted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 Katz had assured me that, no, it would not be, 

2 and yet the summary indicates that it was at 

3 least touched upon.

4 The second question -- second 

5 issue is that at the last bullet point in that 

6 summary is that Ted Katz actually asked a

7 question about production workers and numbers 

8 of hours of labor, and so forth. And that 

9 certainly is not the ordinary function of a 

10 secretary taking minutes of a meeting. 

11 And I just needed that to get on 

12 the record, that it seems to me that if you 

13 were listening to that call, Dr. Ziemer I'm 

14 talking about, as a silent observer, not 

15 participating, that it seems very odd and 

16 inappropriate to me that the DFO, who is not 

17 really a technical member of the Work Group 

18 for technical issues, that he was actually 

19 participating actively in the technical call. 

20 So that would be my comment.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 Dan. Let me make a couple of comments on what 

2 you just said. Number one, the so-called 

3 square function actually is the function that 

4 had been proposed by Dave Allen previously. 

5 It was not -- that description of it wasn't 

6 used, but that is exactly what the function 

7 was that we had been discussing in the last 

8 Work Group meeting.

9 It was a square function. I think 

10 they adopted that terminology when they 

11 recognized what it was Dave had been 

12 describing. The point of the call was for 

13 folks to understand each other's models, and 

14 it became clear that the model we had been 

15 talking about, in fact, it's -- we thought in 

16 the previous Work Group meeting was in fact a 

17 square function, and they started calling it 

18 that.

19 So it wasn't a new proposal. It 

20 was exactly the same set of --

21 DR. McKEEL: Are you talking about 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the triangular distribution?

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I'm not. 

3 I'm not talking about the triangular 

4 distribution. This was only --

5 (Audio cuts out.)

6 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, I can't 

7 hear you.

8 (Pause.)

9 COURT REPORTER: This is the court 

10 reporter. Can anybody hear me?

11 DR. McKEEL: I can hear you, but 

12 the other Members are cut off.

13 MEMBER POSTON: I can hear you. 

14 I'm on --

15 MEMBER BEACH: I can hear you as 

16 well. I think it's just Paul's phone.

17 DR. NETON: Yes. Paul dropped off 

18 for some reason.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. He'll realize 

20 it, I'm sure, and come back to us in a second.

21 (Pause.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 COURT REPORTER: Just confirming 

2 one more time -- this is the court reporter --

3 am I being heard?

4 DR. McKEEL: You are being heard.

5 COURT REPORTER: Okay.

6 DR. McKEEL: Yes.

7 (Pause.)

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I got 

9 dropped somewhere along the line.

10 MR. KATZ: Paul, this is Ted. So 

11 you had just finished explaining that the 

12 square function was not actually a new method 

13 whatsoever, but -- and that's -- you dropped 

14 off right after that, so --

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh. Well, then, 

16 the other thing I was pointing out was that 

17 OTIB-70 per se wasn't discussed. It was 

18 simply mentioned as the fact that it would 

19 need to be discussed at the next Work Group 

20 meeting. They were going to get into the 

21 issue of the deposition modeling and the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 number of days to determine that during the 

2 residual period some -- someone just pointed 

3 out that that would have to be discussed in 

4 the Work Group.

5 So, in my mind, OTIB-70 wasn't 

6 discussed, but simply pointing out that that 

7 part of the issue would have to be a Work 

8 Group discussion. 

9 And then, I said as far as the 

10 DFO's comments, you could --

11 (Audio cuts out.)

12 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Now this is 

13 Dave Allen. Can anybody hear me?

14 DR. McKEEL: Yes, I can.

15 PARTICIPANT: I can hear you, 

16 Dave.

17 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

18 MEMBER BEACH: So can I.

19 MR. ALLEN: Ted, are you on the 

20 line?

21 (No response.)
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MEMBER BEACH: Boy, this is odd 

2 today.

3 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I'm 

4 here, but we've apparently lost Ted and Paul.

5 MR. KATZ: So you didn't lose me. 

6 I was doing what everyone else does and 

7 speaking into a muted phone.

8 So, Paul, are you on the line?

9 (No response.)

10 I'm thinking we lost Paul again.

11 DR. GLOVER: Ted, one thing we 

12 were hoping to find out is perhaps Joslyn and 

13 Simonds could call in after lunch, or do you 

14 think we need to stay on through the GSI 

15 discussion?

16 MR. KATZ: Oh, yes. No. So, Sam, 

17 I think that would be fine. There's no way we 

18 are going to get through GSI before our lunch 

19 break. So, Sam, I think it should be 

20 comfortable. For that matter, it seems like 

21 someone could just pop you an email, Jim or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 someone, when you are coming up, your item.

2 DR. GLOVER: Okay. So --

3 DR. NETON: I can do that. It 

4 would be Tom Tomes for Simonds and Sam for 

5 Joslyn. I can let them know.

6 DR. GLOVER: I'll plan on signing 

7 in sometime after 1:00.

8 DR. NETON: Yes. Just make sure 

9 you guys -- both Tom and Sam you stay near 

10 your office, so that when the time comes you 

11 are ready to go.

12 MR. TOMES: That works for me. 

13 This is Tom.

14 DR. NETON: Okay. Good. 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I got blocked 

16 out again, but I'm back. Sorry. I've been 

17 having phone trouble here.

18 Where are we at, Ted?

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. Paul, so I think 

20 I spoke into mute, and you dropped off sort of 

21 concurrently, but I think, Paul, you asked me
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 to address the third item as to why I would 

2 ask a question --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

4 MR. KATZ: -- during the Work 

5 Group meeting -- I mean, during a technical 

6 call. Or we could say for Work Group 

7 meetings, too, because I do that in Work Group 

8 meetings as well. And I ask questions all the 

9 time when something is unclear to me. 

10 I have multiple roles here. I am 

11 both the DFO for the Advisory Board, and I am 

12 also the contract officer's technical 

13 representative for the contract with SC&A, and 

14 serve as staff director in respect to that, 

15 the staff for the Board.

16 So I ask questions all the time. 

17 It is perfectly appropriate, and that's really 

18 all I need to say about that I think.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

20 you. I think we are going to go ahead now to 

21 the White Paper and --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MR. KATZ: Paul?

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

3 MR. KATZ: Oh, okay. I'm sorry. 

4 I thought we lost you again.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I heard some 

6 beeping. I wasn't sure what was going on 

7 there.

8 We have two White Papers from 

9 DCAS. Dave Allen was the author, and, Dave, 

10 do you want to give us a quick summary? Those 

11 are fairly brief papers. The first one was 

12 the dose estimate for employees not routinely 

13 working in the production areas.

14 And this was the issue we were 

15 talking about, of what would the dose 

16 assignment be if in fact you could identify 

17 people who were not normally working in the 

18 production area but who might have 

19 occasionally visited the production area, so 

20 -- and the other one had to do with the --

21 what is now being called the square function 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 for estimating the inhalation intakes.

2 MR. ALLEN: Okay, Paul. You 

3 wanted to take these in series, right? Just 

4 start with the --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure. Sure. Do 

6 them both, and then we'll have the SC&A 

7 responses, and then we'll have a chance for 

8 the Petitioner to also make comments.

9 MR. ALLEN: Okay. As you said, 

10 the first one is the -- what I was asked to do 

11 at the last Work Group meeting was to -- we 

12 discussed an exposure estimate for people not 

13 routinely working in the production area. I 

14 think we were loosely calling them admin 

15 workers, but it's really for anybody not 

16 routinely working in the production areas.

17 And we had a short discussion of 

18 using a previous estimate, but it was clear 

19 that some adjustments were going to have to be 

20 made. So as a result I wrote this White Paper 

21 and sent it around.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 One of the issues with the 

2 previous estimate -- previously, we put 

3 somebody at a boundary all the time at --

4 previously, we assumed there was a boundary 

5 that was placed one and a half times the 

6 required distance from radiography occurring 

7 out in the plants, away from the radiography 

8 room. 

9 And the previous estimate had 

10 somebody standing at that boundary all the 

11 time the radiography was going on, with the 

12 exception of 10 percent of the time they were 

13 actually walking through the boundary -- the 

14 roped-off area.

15 There was issue taken with the one 

16 and a half times that -- there is no solid 

17 evidence that that occurred, and so we backed 

18 the boundary back up to the two millirem per 

19 hour area. And that caused the -- I'm sorry, 

20 we shrunk it to the two millirem per hour 

21 zone, which causes the dose rate at the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 boundary to increase, but also shrinks the 

2 size of the area that is roped off, and that 

3 changes the amount of time somebody is walking 

4 through the area. 

5 So all the numbers had to be 

6 changed, even though the concept was, you 

7 know, essentially the same. Other changes 

8 were that previously it was -- assumptions 

9 were made assuming somebody was routinely 

10 working in the production area. And so the 

11 bounding time was going to be always right 

12 there by the radiography.

13 Now, with this estimate, since 

14 this is essentially admin workers or people 

15 that are not routinely in the production area, 

16 the 100 percent occupancy seemed to be a 

17 little too conservative. So we made the -- we 

18 changed the assumption to 25 percent of their 

19 time they are in the production area, and we 

20 made the assumption that they walked through 

21 the boundary, under the rope, and on through 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the boundary, made one round trip per shift, 

2 each and every shift, during radiography.

3 When we put those together using 

4 the same techniques we used before, the result 

5 ended up being a grand total of 571-1/2 

6 millirem per year for these essentially 

7 administrative workers.

8 Did you want me to put any more 

9 detail in there, or is that sufficient, Paul?

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think that's 

11 sufficient for me. I don't know, Josie, did 

12 you have a question on that?

13 MEMBER BEACH: I guess for me I 

14 can understand why you may have hit that 25 

15 percent mark, and it said they would walk 

16 through twice per shift. And that's probably 

17 going to cover a portion of the admin 

18 personnel, but I think there's an upper end to 

19 that personnel that we might not be capturing 

20 here. That's just my only comment.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Just to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 follow up on that a little bit, are you 

2 thinking, Josie, in terms of more time in the 

3 plant, or an admin person --

4 MEMBER BEACH: I think -- yes. 

5 Sorry, Paul. I think we have heard that some 

6 of the admin folks actually had offices in the 

7 production areas and spent more time -- this 

8 seems like a lower end or a lower --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Let me 

10 comment on that, and maybe Dave will as well, 

11 or even Jim Neton. But my understanding is, 

12 if we're calling them an administrative 

13 person, they can't -- if they have an office 

14 in the plant, they are going to be 

15 characterized the same as the regular 

16 radiographers and other layout people.

17 These are people who you are able 

18 to confirm did not have a location in the 

19 plant. And if you can't confirm that they 

20 didn't, then you have to assume that they did. 

21 So, in my mind, it's got to be -- it's going 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 to be a very limited number of persons, 

2 because you have to be able to identify, 

3 probably through a CATI, that they were not 

4 located in the -- what we are calling the 

5 radiation envelope.

6 If they had an office in there, 

7 then they are not an admin. And that was my 

8 understanding. Dave, is that what your 

9 approach was on this?

10 MR. ALLEN: Yes. That's certainly 

11 the intent. We have glanced through the 

12 records we've got. We haven't done a detailed 

13 analysis using these criteria. But, you're 

14 right, it's going to be a very small number of 

15 people.

16 DR. NETON: Yes. Actually -- this 

17 is Jim -- I've gone through the case loads, 

18 and there are almost very few people that 

19 would qualify for this. Everyone else would 

20 be considered radiographer. I mean, very few.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Then I'm 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 satisfied with that.

2 DR. NETON: It really boils down 

3 to something like, you know, a secretary-type 

4 position that was on payroll. You know, they 

5 would walk through the plant, but very rarely.

6 But the other job categories are 

7 somewhat ambiguous, I have to say, in looking 

8 through them. And you couldn't really say 

9 with any confidence that they didn't have some 

10 function to walk through the plant, you know, 

11 or have an office there.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In which case 

13 they would be counted with the radiographers 

14 and the other -- in the envelope.

15 DR. NETON: That's correct.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Dave, why 

17 don't you proceed with the other -- the square 

18 function approximation.

19 MR. ALLEN: Okay. The square 

20 function approximation, as we have started 

21 dubbing this thing, and I put it in paper, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 that grew out of -- well, frankly --

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob

3 Anigstein. I just want to interject a 

4 comment, that it just so happens that it's 

5 coming out a little over 500 millirem a year. 

6 And that was the limit for non-occupational 

7 exposure that was in place during most of the 

8 GSI operating period, starting somewhere in 

9 the late '50 when they -- when the revised 10 

10 CFR 20 came out. So it just, by coincidence, 

11 happens to be hitting that number.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks, 

13 Bob.

14 Go ahead, Dave.

15 MR. ALLEN: Okay. The small 

16 background is previously I put together a 

17 White Paper with the estimate how we would do 

18 the airborne estimate, using the 95th 

19 percentile, the surrogate data that we had 

20 already agreed on.

21 SC&A, in their response, raised a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 question about the airborne not 

2 instantaneously ending. It would slowly 

3 deplete over a little bit of time, and they 

4 weren't convinced that that piece was 

5 accounted for. That part wasn't -- exactly 

6 what their concern was wasn't clear to me, and 

7 that was the purpose of the technical call we 

8 had. 

9 And the technical call, I tried to 

10 summarize that towards the end, that that was, 

11 you know, the concern or at least, you know, 

12 one of the concerns. And I think John Mauro, 

13 at least, agreed with that. So I agreed 

14 during that that I would put together a White 

15 Paper, because it was going to be too 

16 complicated to just discuss on the telephone 

17 during a Work Group call.

18 So I put a White Paper together, 

19 essentially, with the mathematics that 

20 integrate the exposure as the airborne 

21 integrated over time. If you were to assume
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the airborne was instantaneously at its high 

2 level and instantaneously dropped off after 

3 the operation compared to the more realistic 

4 buildup versus decline afterwards.

5 And Attachment 3 -- or, I'm sorry, 

6 Attachment A of the White Paper was 

7 essentially the mathematics behind pointing 

8 out that that was mathematically equivalent. 

9 And the rest of the White Paper essentially 

10 just points out the -- what that means is what 

11 it amounts to, and various removal rates, et 

12 cetera, and what that would mean and showing 

13 that it's either accurate or conservative. 

14 It's accurate over infinity. It is 

15 conservative the longer the removal rate is. 

16 Did you want any more on that, or 

17 is that sufficient?

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For me, that is 

19 sufficient because I've read the paper and 

20 gone through it. Let me ask Josie if she has 

21 some questions on that at this point.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MEMBER BEACH: No. I just went 

2 back to the fundamentals of what sites did you 

3 use, because I know this is all surrogate 

4 data, what starting points. That paper didn't 

5 really address any of that. It was just the 

6 mathematical end of it.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Exactly. 

8 This is really the issue of: does this 

9 approach give a useable or realistic estimate 

10 of the situation where he has gone up as an 

11 instantaneous value of air concentration and 

12 then dropped back off instantaneously, versus 

13 what SC&A was talking about which was the 

14 buildup and then the depletion.

15 And I think the attempt here is to 

16 show that this square function actually ends 

17 up, if you go out, integrate to infinity, the 

18 area under the two curves are the same. 

19 But SC&A actually analyzed that, 

20 so let's get their responses.

21 Let's see, SC&A, do you want to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 first talk about the dose estimate to the 

2 admin, and then talk about the square 

3 function?

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. This is John 

5 Mauro, and I'll start it off.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, before you 

7 start, on your doses to the, quote, "employees 

8 not routinely working in the production area," 

9 is there an error on your equation in terms of 

10 the decimal point?

11 DR. MAURO: Yes. We discussed 

12 that, and that is correct. We did make an 

13 error originally when we looked at this thing. 

14 I guess if we take the first paper first, you 

15 know, we reviewed it and we agree there was an 

16 error.

17 And, Jim, do you remember the last 

18 time we had our conversation? You had pointed 

19 out that we made that tenfold error, and you 

20 were correct. And I think, right during the 

21 meeting, you know, we quickly checked it, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 you were actually right. There was an error 

2 there.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. It showed 

4 up in my copy of your June 4th memo.

5 DR. MAURO: Well, there is a --

6 well, right now I'm looking at, let's see --

7 I'm looking at the June 3rd memo. Hold on. 

8 Let me go to the June 4th memo.

9 All I really have now officially 

10 on the record is SC&A's June 3rd, which deals 

11 with this business of the duration that the 

12 administrative people might be there, so 

13 that's SC&A's position. And we also have 

14 what's called a June 11th memo. Those are 

15 SC&A's current positions regarding the two 

16 issues that we just heard from, the two White 

17 Papers.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, on that 

19 first one, the one that I got from you has a 

20 date of June 4th on it actually, but --

21 DR. MAURO: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- the hours 

2 times the amount of time per shift -- in other 

3 words, it's the 32.50 times the 0.25 times 

4 0.30 times the two mR per hour.

5 DR. MAURO: Right.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What are you 

7 showing for the final value of that?

8 DR. MAURO: 487.5 mR per year.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. You must 

10 have updated it.

11 DR. MAURO: Yes. Correct.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The memo I got 

13 had it as 4,875.5.

14 DR. NETON: Yes. Paul, I have --

15 DR. MAURO: Oh, son of a gun, I'm 

16 looking at it; I'm looking at it right now, 

17 and it's not --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It should be

19 487.5, shouldn't it?

20 DR. MAURO: Yep. Yep. I did it 

21 again. My apologies, guys.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Just 

2 wanted to make sure that -- so if we're all 

3 looking at that paper --

4 DR. MAURO: Let me do it right 

5 now.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I mean, if you 

7 take your numbers and multiply them, you get 

8 487.5.

9 DR. MAURO: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So your decimal 

11 point is in the wrong place.

12 DR. MAURO: Jeez. Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And in the next 

14 paragraph you have it correctly stated.

15 DR. MAURO: Yep.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob. If 

17 you look, however, on the -- immediately after 

18 that equation, if you look three lines down, 

19 it does cite the number correctly.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. That's 

21 what I just said. In the next paragraph, it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 --

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Certainly.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Just 

4 wanted to clear that up. Go ahead, John, with 

5 your --

6 DR. MAURO: Okay. In light of the 

7 -- we completely agree with this two-pronged 

8 approach for sorting the people between 

9 administrative and the non-administrative 

10 people, and the fundamental assumptions that 

11 are being used, the 25 percent and the 30 

12 percent.

13 So we're fine with it. We're fine 

14 with the number. And the conversation that 

15 you just had where David and Jim clarified a 

16 question that I had is, you know, when you do 

17 the sorting, you know, how is that -- you 

18 know, who goes into which box, it sounds like 

19 you are -- as I mentioned before, you are 

20 creating a relatively big tent for the people 

21 who are going to be at the -- what we will 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 call the radiographer category.

2 So we have no comment. We support 

3 it. We concur that this is the right solution 

4 to reconstructing the doses to workers, both 

5 administrative workers and what we'll call, 

6 quote, "radiographers."

7 So, I mean, we are okay with that.

8 And, quite frankly, I probably want to 

9 correct this error that's in the memo and get 

10 it out, because I don't like to have erroneous 

11 numbers in one of our reports. But as far as 

12 I'm concerned, SC&A's position is this issue 

13 has been resolved.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Then, go 

15 ahead with the next item, which is the square 

16 function.

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. Now, the square 

18 function, we had our mathematicians, had both 

19 Bob Anigstein -- and I'm sort of like speaking 

20 for the crew -- and Steve Marschke 

21 independently check the mathematics.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 And we concur -- in fact, if you 

2 folks have the report that we prepared and 

3 submitted, and it's dated -- my version is 

4 dated June 11th. That's the official version 

5 that I believe is also available to the 

6 public. And in effect the solution, which we 

7 actually call elegant, for treating what is 

8 the airborne dust loading expressed in terms 

9 of becquerel-seconds, the time-integrated 

10 exposure.

11 I think the mathematics and the 

12 approach to solving this problem is correct. 

13 We agree with it. The only -- now, there are 

14 two things that we probably want to bring to 

15 the attention of the Board, of the Work Group. 

16 The mathematics is perfect for this solution 

17 to this cycling issue that we have before us. 

18 So the square wave function is mathematically 

19 correct.

20 The difficulty that NIOSH will 

21 have, and perhaps should be talked about a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 little bit, is in the equation we believe that 

2 the peak -- you notice in that Figure 1 there 

3 is -- it is climbing to a peak and then it 

4 drops. 

5 This is the -- basically, the 

6 concentration as a function of time from first 

7 principles, going up, and then after the 

8 handling stops, it goes exponentially down, 

9 and then you integrate under the area of the 

10 curve, and then you get the becquerel-seconds 

11 that the workers are exposed to from each 

12 shot. I called it "campaign" in here, 

13 probably should have used the word "each 

14 shot."

15 And then you multiply by the 

16 number of shots, and you've got yourself what 

17 the time-integrated exposures are to the 

18 workers from the handling operations, while 

19 you are handling the ingots and slices.

20 The challenge that I think we 

21 still -- or the issue that -- regarding this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 model is now, what is the value -- and they 

2 referred to it as T1, and I believe they have 

3 selected -- NIOSH has selected 15 minutes as 

4 the correct value, which I believe the way you 

5 could look at it is a certain fraction of the 

6 time -- I think it's about -- the max hours is 

7 about 400 hours per year, is when these kinds 

8 of activities took place. And that is based 

9 on records that we have starting in around 

10 1958, I believe. And that, based on those 

11 records, 400 hours per year, I think, is the 

12 contract.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John?

14 DR. MAURO: Yes, please, Bob. 

15 Help me out, sure.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It varies year by 

17 year.

18 DR. MAURO: No, I understand.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Four hundred 

20 thirty-seven was the highest peak year, and 

21 then later on it goes down to a much smaller 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 number.

2 DR. MAURO: Okay. No, thanks for 

3 clarifying that. So we do have -- but that's 

4 the -- now, some fraction of that time in a 

5 given year is when the material is actually 

6 being handled. And as I understand -- and, 

7 Bob, please help me out if I misrepresent some 

8 of this information -- that 15 minutes --

9 effectively 15 minutes out of every hour is --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Out of every 75 

11 minutes.

12 DR. MAURO: Thank you. Out of 

13 every 75 minutes, the ingots and slices are 

14 being handled. So this term in the equation 

15 called T1 is 15 minutes.

16 Now, that is -- in principle, 

17 what's being said is that when you have your 

18 -- let's say we are dealing with an ingot, and 

19 it's brought into the radiography room. There 

20 is a certain amount of handling that is 

21 necessary to set it up for a shot, and then 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the shot is taken, and then you finish up and 

2 you move it out.

3 And the idea being that I guess 15 

4 minutes -- the whole -- out of the 75 minutes, 

5 15 minutes is the time of the handling. One 

6 of the things that we are concerned about is 

7 the very same thing that was brought up by Dr. 

8 McKeel. Does that 15 minutes out of the 75 

9 minutes, that fraction of the time, the T1 in 

10 the equation, capture any other handling?

11 See, the way I look at it is the 

12 time period while the ingot is being handled, 

13 for the purpose of radiography, is part of the 

14 time it's being handled. But it's also being 

15 handled when it arrives by truck or train or 

16 however it arrives and is offloaded, and then 

17 it is transported within the facility. I'm 

18 not sure if it's transported indoor or 

19 outdoors.

20 And then it might actually be 

21 placed in some staging area prior to it being 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 radiographed. Then, of course, it goes 

2 through the radiography, and then after the 

3 radiography, which might be an iterative 

4 process, it then, you know, leaves the 

5 radiography room, perhaps going to some 

6 holding area before it is returned to 

7 Mallinckrodt.

8 So in my mind, there is this 

9 uncertainty in the amount of time that the 

10 ingot or the slice is being handled, and 

11 whether the 15-minute number, as selected 

12 here, does capture the full -- appropriately, 

13 in a claimant-favorable way, the time period 

14 over which the dust is being generated from 

15 handling.

16 So that's a question we have, and 

17 we have one other issue, and then -- I just 

18 want to talk about that one first, because we 

19 have one more issue related to this approach, 

20 and it has to do with the time period when 

21 it's not being handled and there is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 resuspension going on.

2 So what we are really looking at 

3 with this curve, this is the dust loading, the 

4 time-integrated dust loading in the air as a 

5 result of the handling. But superimposed on 

6 this, in addition to this, is that there is a 

7 buildup and some level on surfaces as a result 

8 of this handling that settles on surfaces, 

9 which becomes a chronic source of airborne 

10 activity that is there virtually the rest of 

11 the time, you know, during this time period.

12 I'm going to talk a little bit 

13 about that. And we feel that the problem with 

14 that part, which is not discussed in our 

15 review here, but what you are really doing is 

16 you are superimposing this square function, as 

17 I understand it, on top of some baseline dust 

18 loading that one would call the baseline dust 

19 loading due to resuspension from the 

20 accumulation of the dust.

21 And it seems to me that that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 approach -- what we have here is an attempt to 

2 be mechanistic, which is good. In other 

3 words, this square function is a way to be 

4 mechanistically faithful to the handling. And 

5 we believe if you could pick the right T1, we 

6 have nailed it, and we've got the right way to 

7 predict the airborne exposures from the 

8 handling operations.

9 But now in addition to that, you 

10 have to add to that the additional exposures 

11 between the handling operations when any 

12 accumulated uranium on surfaces might become 

13 airborne.

14 Now, the approach that is used 

15 there is a simplistic approach that is 

16 bounding, in that you are assuming you achieve

17 some equilibrium level based on the upper 95th 

18 percentile surrogate data, and that that level 

19 just stays constant as I understand it, and 

20 you use a resuspension factor of 10 to the 

21 minus five.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 So you've got these two sources of 

2 exposure, the resuspension contribution and 

3 the handling contribution. I would argue that 

4 if we were confident that the T1 number 

5 representing the time that it is being handled 

6 is in fact claimant-favorable and does capture 

7 the full range of handling operations while 

8 the ingot or slice is onsite, you've got 

9 yourself the optimum model.

10 But given -- right now we are not 

11 quite sure whether you can nail down what that 

12 value is, that T1 value is, because of the 

13 kinds of questions that Dr. McKeel raised, so 

14 we are -- in our view, we are almost home in 

15 terms of solving this problem.

16 And all I can offer is that if for 

17 some reason the T1 number becomes a difficult 

18 number to track, and it might be much more 

19 than 15 minutes, we would argue -- and go back 

20 to Bob Anigstein's original strategy is that, 

21 well, once that T1 value becomes longer and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 longer, in effect you end up with Bob's model, 

2 which is -- just goes straight to the 

3 surrogate data. You pick the average 

4 concentrations out of the surrogate data and 

5 assume it's always at that level for everyone 

6 all the time.

7 And what that does is -- and we 

8 are arguing that if you do have trouble 

9 picking the T1, and if you do have concerns 

10 regarding what the exposures might have been 

11 pre-1958 when we don't have data on the number 

12 of hours that was in the contract, if you have 

13 trouble trying to come to grips with that, 

14 Bob's approach solves those problems. But it 

15 does end up with probably something that is 

16 fairly conservative, and the doses would be 

17 about 10 times higher than this approach.

18 So what we're saying is that I 

19 think that your model is great, if you could 

20 pick the right T1 that we could defend. 

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And if we -- John, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 and we have to fill in the dark years.

2 DR. MAURO: And fill in the dark 

3 years, with the dark years being '52 to '58.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks, 

6 John. Actually, I had a similar question on 

7 the T1 value, particularly stimulated by the 

8 issue of unloading of the rail cars, which 

9 were mentioned in the Adley report. I don't 

10 know that it would require the same number of 

11 people, because they may have had a much 

12 heavier load of material in the Hanford case.

13 But in any event, are we 

14 accounting for the other handling that -- and, 

15 John, you have raised that question, and it 

16 raised a question in my mind after revisiting 

17 the Adley material.

18 So I have -- Dave or Jim, could 

19 you at least initially speak to this issue?

20 DR. NETON: Yes. This is Jim. 

21 I've thought about this quite a bit as well, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 and, you know, in listening to the various 

2 arguments against the 15 minutes. And I agree 

3 that we don't know that number with sufficient 

4 accuracy, I think, to nail it down at the 15-

5 minute level.

6 And it seems to me -- I was 

7 willing to actually propose -- and I'm not 

8 sure this would fly, but that we would use 

9 just the total number of work hours in a year 

10 as the total exposure, to cover the scenario 

11 such as the unloading and the movement 

12 throughout the plant.

13 But I'm hearing now, though, that 

14 that -- you know, that the so-called "dark 

15 years" now is not really agreed upon, when in 

16 fact we have been going on that assumption 

17 from the very beginning, that we could 

18 estimate the number of work hours in a year.

19 So I would be happy to compromise 

20 between, you know, Bob Anigstein's 3,250 hours 

21 per year, whatever it was, and say it would be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the 95th percentile for the number of 

2 contractual hours in that year.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Let's see, 

4 just doing it in my head, the approach that we 

5 proposed -- I hate to sound like I'm the lone 

6 wolf with the SC&A approach, and that was the 

7 -- something like 22, 24 was the average, and 

8 69 was -- 68 was the 95th percentile. So 

9 we're talking, roughly speaking, a factor of 

10 three.

11 So my approach goes down a factor 

12 of three on the concentration, and then it 

13 goes up on the hours, and so that's -- yes, 

14 you know, we could probably live with --

15 speaking for myself, and I think John will 

16 agree, we could probably live with that. What 

17 do you think, John?

18 DR. MAURO: Yes. I like the idea 

19 of conversion, because T1 is going to be a 

20 struggle. And if there is a way around --

21 DR. NETON: Yes. There is no good 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 way to nail it. I mean --

2 DR. MAURO: Right.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And then, if we go 

4 with the maximum year, which I think was '61, 

5 from June '60 to June '61, if we go with the 

6 maximum year, and assign that to the years --

7 the plant years, you can say that, look, we've 

8 got data from '58 through '66, so we've got 

9 something like eight years’ worth of data, and 

10 then we use the worst of those -- but this is 

11 sort of like a co-worker approach, a cohort 

12 approach, where you say if you don't have data 

13 for a given worker, but if you assign him the 

14 worst of the badged workers, chances are he's 

15 not going to be any higher.

16 And, particularly, if the years 

17 are a smaller -- in other words, less than 

18 half, so if you assigned the highest year to 

19 those dark years, chances are it's pretty 

20 good. Maybe it's -- there is no reason to 

21 believe that they would have had a higher 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 level, because, actually, if you look at the 

2 purchase orders, the very first one in '58 is 

3 slightly lower, and then it comes to a peak.

4 If we had a constant decrease, I 

5 could say they were higher before. But since 

6 you have a hump there, then it goes down, I 

7 would be comfortable with assigning that, you 

8 know, I think a reasonable -- is that -- would 

9 you agree, John?

10 DR. MAURO: Yes.

11 DR. NETON: Well, I think that 

12 actually ends up solving the residual, the 

13 resuspension --

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. The 

15 resuspension now -- oh, yes. And then we will 

16 leave the resuspension. 

17 DR. MAURO: Yes. 

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. We'll leave 

19 that.

20 DR. NETON: You can just assume 

21 the work occurred in the first 400 hours of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the year. This is -- you know, you drop it 

2 down --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure.

4 DR. NETON: -- and then you 

5 resuspend it the rest of the year.

6 DR. MAURO: Okay. Okay. We're 

7 okay with that.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What I'm going 

9 to suggest here is that we get something 

10 formalized by NIOSH as -- sort of along the 

11 lines of what we've heard, and then SC&A can 

12 respond to that formally.

13 But before we commit to that 

14 fully, we do want to hear the input from Dr. 

15 McKeel and others representing the site as 

16 well in terms of the concerns they have about 

17 both the models and the input of values and 

18 that sort of thing.

19 So now I'm wondering if we need a 

20 break first. We're in different time zones, 

21 so for some it's maybe lunch hour, for others 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 not. But do you want a brief break at this 

2 point, or should we just continue? How is 

3 everybody doing? Any need for breaks, or are 

4 you in locations where you can take breaks as 

5 you need them?

6 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I'm 

7 fine.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Maybe 

9 we'll just keep going, then.

10 I'm going to ask Dr. McKeel if you 

11 want to go ahead now and speak. You can, Dan, 

12 speak to both the White Papers and the 

13 responses and the related issues as we have 

14 discussed here.

15 DR. McKEEL: Okay. That would be 

16 good. Thank you very much. Maybe I'll talk 

17 about the administrative dose paper first. Is 

18 that all right?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

20 DR. McKEEL: Okay. So I really 

21 have two items to mention about that. The 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 first is that I had written to the Work Group 

2 and Dr. Ziemer earlier in June and asked some 

3 questions, including some statistics that 

4 might be provided by NIOSH on trying to 

5 establish whether Dave Allen's comments to the 

6 Board before the final vote on December 11, 

7 2012, in Augusta were actually accurate, that 

8 almost everybody at GSI under Appendix BB, Rev 

9 0, had been assigned the higher dose scenario, 

10 which would have been for that document the 

11 radiographer dose.

12 Stuart Hinnefeld did write me back 

13 yesterday, which I appreciated, and he gave me 

14 the following statistics, which I have put 

15 into the record. I find them quite odd, to be 

16 honest with you, but at least it's a start.

17 So my question -- my original 

18 questions were, what percentage -- what was 

19 the number and percentage of the total dose 

20 reconstruction assignments that had been given 

21 to radiographers that got the highest dose, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 and what was the number and percentage of non2 radiographers that got the same highest dose?

3 Actually, so a pretty 

4 straightforward question. So the answer I got 

5 back was that he analyzed 252 total claims 

6 from GSI, and these were from the operational 

7 period only, not the residual period, because 

8 radiographer, Stuart said, didn't apply to 

9 that period.

10 So there were 166 radiographers 

11 was the way he listed it, 82 other, and four 

12 with no external estimate, and, in 

13 parentheses, partial dose reconstructions.

14 So I assume those four people, 

15 since GSI doesn't have an SEC, must have been 

16 people who were employed both at GSI and a 

17 site that does have an SEC and they were 

18 pulled for that reason and underwent partial 

19 dose reconstruction.

20 So if you add the 186 -- I mean, 

21 the 166 radiographers, the 82 others, that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 comes to 252 total claims, of which 65.9 

2 percent, or about two-thirds exactly, were 

3 assigned the highest radiographer dose.

4 Now, the thing that is interesting 

5 about those numbers is that in the Landauer 

6 GSI 2084 program there were badges in the 

7 NIOSH and the SC&A data sets, the weekly ones. 

8 There were only 89 known badged radiographers 

9 that even were at GSI at all during the 

10 operational period.

11 And the seniority list that I have 

12 from Terry Dutko, who is a deceased betatron 

13 operator, that he and another supervisor 

14 there, [identifying information redacted], had 

15 filled out, they came up with approximately 61 

16 people that were badged in 1964 and '65. 

17 And Terry separately had generated 

18 for me, and shared with the Work Group, that 

19 he was aware from the polling he had done 

20 among the living workers that they could only 

21 come up with 11 certified betatron isotope 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 radiographers that had filed claims with 

2 Department of Labor.

3 So that's -- so, you know, 

4 depending on which of the -- so if we said, 

5 let's say, 11 -- and I think Dave Allen in his 

6 earlier paper where he estimated the number of 

7 people who might be called radiographers, he 

8 turned up 23, and of those he was pretty sure 

9 that 12 of them were radiographers.

10 So let's use that conservative 12 

11 number. So that means 154 people who are not 

12 radiographers were assigned the highest 

13 radiographer dose, and 82 others were assigned 

14 the lower dose level specified in Appendix BB, 

15 Rev 0.

16 My question of course is: how was 

17 it decided in all of those claims, among the 

18 non-radiographers, who was to get that highest 

19 dose and who was to get the lowest dose? 

20 And so if I were a non21 radiographer that got the highest dose, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 might say, "Well, I got a favorable reading 

2 and that's good." And the 82 others might 

3 say, "Gee, I work side by side."

4 Now, what we don't know is: among 

5 those non-radiographers who got the highest 

6 dose, what jobs did they hold, and what jobs 

7 did the 82 others hold. And Stuart Hinnefeld 

8 mentioned in his reply to me yesterday that 

9 NIOSH had gotten the list of 163 union jobs at 

10 GSI that John Ramspott had sent to them many 

11 years ago.

12 So I guess I would say that it 

13 sounds like -- number one, I would comment we 

14 need more breakdown on those particular 

15 people. The 166 radiographers included 

16 radiographers and a whole bunch of other job 

17 categories, and it would be important to find 

18 out what exactly they were. And that would 

19 also go for the 82 others that got the lower 

20 dose assignments.

21 The other comment I wanted to make 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 was about Dave Allen's paper on the 

2 administrative dose itself. And just to be 

3 clear for the record, that was a three-page 

4 paper in May 2013 called "Dose Estimates from 

5 Radium Radiographers to Employees Not 

6 Routinely Working in Production Areas."

7 I was happy to hear this morning 

8 that NIOSH agrees that it will be very, very 

9 difficult -- to me probably impossible -- to 

10 determine the people who stayed in the 

11 administration building, in the office, 

12 weren't located in the plant, and basically 

13 rarely, if ever, made trips through the 

14 production areas of the GSI plant.

15 I just don't think there are data 

16 to be able to do that. I noticed Dave Allen 

17 said that they would operate from the CATI 

18 interviews, and then he goes on to describe 

19 how he actually -- to ferret out the 

20 radiographers, and so forth, he actually used 

21 the claims database. And that triggered to me 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 something that came up in 2006 at a NIOSH2 sponsored workshop on dose reconstruction that 

3 I was invited to.

4 Now, I asked the question back 

5 then, which was, is there a systematic 

6 database that extracts key data from CATI 

7 interview fields and puts them into the 

8 database, so that that total database can be 

9 queried for CATI-related information?

10 And I think that is very important 

11 because on the CATI documents that are now 

12 posted on the DCAS website you can see that 

13 one of the CATI interviews, the longer one for 

14 the workers, has a question in there about 

15 whether in fact the person was a radiographer 

16 or worked in radiography. So that would be a 

17 much more targeted question.

18 And, you know, presumably, if 

19 people had not worked at that, they would 

20 answer no to that question. And if they had 

21 worked as a radiographer, they would answer 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 yes.

2 So I didn't understand why Dave 

3 didn't just go on and use the CATI interview, 

4 unless it is very difficult to pull out that 

5 data for some reason that I'm not aware of.

6 So, then, if I may, I would like 

7 to turn to the next paper. I would make a 

8 comment about the final paper, about the 

9 assumptions in the Allen administrative dose 

10 paper. And that is, it's clear that the goal 

11 is to assign a lower dose to the 

12 administrative people than to the production 

13 area people. And everybody seems to think 

14 that that 25 percent occupancy rate is fine or 

15 good or something.

16 My opinion is it's totally 

17 arbitrary. It doesn't -- it is not supported 

18 by any facts. It is not something that can be 

19 determined for individuals. It is a 

20 guesstimate, and so I don't think guesstimates 

21 are really fine anywhere. So I don't think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 that's a good -- a particularly good number.

2 And I think Dr. Neton's comment 

3 was quite true, that of the people we know 

4 that had an office, a small office, sometimes 

5 in the administrative building some of them 

6 also had offices out in the plant. 

7 And those people, for instance the 

8 clerks who would go to follow a job, they 

9 would -- some of the clerks would make many 

10 forays into the plants to follow up on which 

11 castings were being worked on and they would 

12 go back to check on how the work was 

13 progressing, two or three or more times per 

14 day. So making realistic assumptions about 

15 those sort of things is fraught with problems.

16 Anyway, so I'd like to turn then 

17 to the McKeel critique of the Allen square 

18 function approximation paper. And the first 

19 comment is in John Mauro's comments he 

20 mentioned an SC&A paper dated 6/11/13. And 

21 maybe one of the reasons for my confusion is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 that there is no SC&A paper with such a date 

2 that is marked on the DCAS website under the 

3 discussion papers and I just took off the list 

4 today. So that paper is simply not on there. 

5 There is a paper by myself on June 

6 13th, and there is an earlier paper by Dave 

7 Allen that is just marked June 2013 on the 

8 square function approximation to estimating 

9 inhalation intakes. But somehow, the SC&A 

10 paper on the same subject wasn't posted on the 

11 DCAS website under this meeting, nor was it 

12 sent to me by anybody, nor was it mentioned to 

13 me by anybody as having been written or turned 

14 out.

15 And I find that very distressing. 

16 You know, I'm sure the content of my paper 

17 would be quite different, had I had that 

18 paper, which I think I should have had. So 

19 that's one comment.

20 The other comment is when we say 

21 -- when Dr. Ziemer says that this was not a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 new function at all, that that had been 

2 discussed before, I wonder if somebody, maybe 

3 offline after the meeting, could send me the 

4 pages in the April 26th transcript of this 

5 Work Group that highlighted what exactly you 

6 are talking about.

7 I don't think it was referred to 

8 as a square function approximation, and my 

9 question is, what was it called back at those 

10 other meetings?

11 And then, the other issue is, as I 

12 wrote in my paper about this paper of Dave 

13 Allen's, is as far as I can see this is purely 

14 theoretical qualitative modeling. There are 

15 no actual numbers attached to the results. 

16 And so let's say that we have this theoretical 

17 model, which shows that if you integrate the 

18 values out to infinity, the two curves 

19 intersect.

20 You know, if you don't do that, 

21 the curves do not intersect, and they really 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 don't approximate each other very well at all. 

2 So that's another thing you can see out of 

3 this modeling. So I guess I don't quite 

4 understand what the point of this paper is. 

5 It seems to me at this very late 

6 stage of the Work Group that what we need is 

7 an exposure matrix for the different classes 

8 of people who are going to be assigned a dose 

9 -- the radiographers, non-radiographers, 

10 administrative personnel, for all the 

11 different kinds of radiation, and integrated 

12 for all of the different kinds of sources for 

13 internal and external doses.

14 And I am having a very difficult 

15 time integrating all of that information. And 

16 I just wanted to mention that it seems to me a 

17 qualitative paper doesn't really advance the 

18 cause very much. What we need are those 

19 exposure matrices with the numbers that 

20 everybody agrees to filled in. And if there 

21 are numbers that we don't agree with, then 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 they need to be flagged as well.

2 And I will just point out that in 

3 this Work Group, when John Ramspott and I came 

4 and addressed the Work Group in person March 

5 15th of 2012, one of my last slides that I 

6 showed that day was an attempt to show the 

7 different doses that NIOSH and SC&A had come 

8 up with for radiographers and other workers in 

9 2008 when they were first modeled, and in 2012 

10 when they were remodeled after the film badges 

11 had been obtained. 

12 And I found that very difficult to 

13 do. There was no such summary slide available 

14 March a year ago. And it seems to me right 

15 now that's exactly what we need in some paper 

16 right now, and it seems like that just 

17 absolutely needs to get done very quickly, so 

18 we all know and have in one place a nice table 

19 which says here are numbers that we all agree 

20 to, here are numbers that haven't been 

21 finalized, and then we can work on getting 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 those numbers.

2 So I guess that is my comment, and 

3 I assume that Dr. Ziemer wants me to save 

4 comments about Adley and so forth, and TIB-70 

5 for later on, which I am happy to do.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. We'll come 

7 to that in a little bit. Thanks, Dan, for 

8 those comments.

9 Let me just follow up here a 

10 moment on the discussion of the -- what we are 

11 now calling the square function. In the 

12 transcript, that discussion -- this is the 

13 transcript of 4/26, the discussion is between 

14 pages 138 and 158. And that -- the word 

15 "square function" is not used there. The 

16 terminology I think arose during the technical 

17 call, but the function, as we're looking at it 

18 now, was described in that section of the 

19 transcript.

20 DR. McKEEL: All right. Thank 

21 you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And then 

2 the other thing I did, I pulled up the 

3 website, and you're quite correct. I don't 

4 see that SC&A three-pager listed there on the 

5 documents discussion papers for this meeting. 

6 I wasn't aware that it -- I guess 

7 I didn't notice that it wasn't there, and had 

8 assumed everything was there, so I apologize 

9 for missing that myself.

10 DR. MAURO: Hello? This is John. 

11 When I pulled up that file, I noticed that 

12 it's labeled "Not PA-Cleared." So I suspect 

13 it's possible that this particular report, 

14 which is dated June 11th, in my file right 

15 now, which was delivered but it was --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, I have the 

17 report. I just didn't notice that --

18 DR. MAURO: Yes. It's possible 

19 that it hasn't been PA-cleared yet to make it 

20 to the public, you know, website.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Which is a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 little surprising because there is no use of 

2 names in that document. It is all 

3 mathematical stuff. It's --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob. I 

5 think what happens here is just a little 

6 administrative glitch where, you know, the 

7 report that is sent out by our secretary, 

8 production manager I think it, or document 

9 manager, whatever her title is, Nancy Johnson. 

10 And it is not automatic that everything is 

11 PA-cleared. I think it's on request, because 

12 we don't want to burden OGC with everything 

13 that doesn't need to be PA-cleared.

14 And I think this was probably a --

15 it just slipped through the cracks that she 

16 probably was not informed, because she is very 

17 diligent about doing that. She usually -- and 

18 Jenny is very diligent about responding, so 

19 usually we get that within a day. If it's 

20 late in the day, we get it the next day. If 

21 it's early in the day, we get it the same day. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 So --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we need to 

3 get that distributed.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean, I'm sure 

5 it's going to be something that can be done, 

6 you know, today or tomorrow.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

8 DR. McKEEL: That would be very 

9 good. Thank you.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes. This is Ted. I'm 

11 not sure what they're -- I mean, Nancy doesn't 

12 -- our standing policy is to PA-clear 

13 everything except for documents that can't be 

14 PA-cleared because they -- by PA-clearing them 

15 you sort of remove all of the substantive 

16 meaning of the document. So I'm not sure this 

17 is up to Nancy.

18 The other thing I know that is 

19 going on is that, you know, I was just 

20 informed of this, you know, yesterday or the 

21 day before is that they have been having 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 issues. This is just bureaucratic, but it has 

2 to do with which parties are responsible for 

3 actually posting things on the NIOSH website, 

4 and that process has become a little bit messy 

5 currently. 

6 So some things haven't gotten 

7 posted. Either they have been sent to be 

8 posted in a timely fashion, so I don't know 

9 whether that's an issue, too. But all of 

10 these things, once they are PA-cleared they 

11 are also -- they are forwarded to the SEC 

12 Petitioner -- Dr. Kinman. I don't remember

13 his title, I'm sorry, but he is the one who 

14 provides stuff to interested parties and that 

15 would been done automatically. I can't find 

16 it in my records right now quickly.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob. In 

18 addition to having it PA-cleared, it also has 

19 to be made -- before it can be posted, it has 

20 to be made 508-compliant. So, again, these 

21 are --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MR. KATZ: Right.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- two processes, 

3 and we always assume the -- I believe the 

4 policy at this end -- and I think our 

5 instructions are no matter how obvious it is, 

6 everything is suspect until it has been proven 

7 innocent. 

8 So everything goes through --

9 everything that is -- if we call it PA10 cleared, everything goes through OGC. And 

11 then, once it is okayed by OGC, which, you 

12 know, usually in a case like that it just 

13 comes back saying, you know, no problem, then 

14 it gets -- becomes 508-compliant. And even 

15 something as simple as a memo, it has the SC&A 

16 logo on it, that has to have alternate text 

17 because the Acrobat reader can't read it. So 

18 there is an extra step involved in making 

19 something that is postable.

20 DR. McKEEL: Right. So, anyway --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we can get 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 it taken care of. 

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean, it's easy 

3 to be done, but I'm just explaining, you know, 

4 what the glitch was.

5 DR. McKEEL: I can read almost any 

6 kind of file if it has been PA-cleared. So 

7 anything would be fine, if you could just send 

8 it to me directly, please.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

10 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

11 John Ramspott. May I make a comment?

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. You 

13 certainly may, John.

14 MR. RAMSPOTT: It's regarding Dr. 

15 McKeel's comments and I think John Mauro's, 

16 and Dr. Anigstein's, and I believe Josie's. 

17 We've got a real problem with the time, the 

18 T1. And I'm looking at the exact purchase 

19 order that Dr. Anigstein mentioned from 1965, 

20 and it clearly states on there, Item C -- and 

21 everybody has been using these purchase orders 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 to figure out ours -- that money that was paid 

2 to GSI was for betatron labor charges, 

3 including operation and maintenance and all 

4 overhead, and it is to be billed at such-and5 such an hour.

6 And having worked in plants when I 

7 was going to school and what have you and 

8 being in business, we start to talk about 

9 overhead, and I, just to doublecheck myself 

10 looked up the definition of it. Overhead is 

11 heating, lighting, cooling, nothing to do with 

12 labor, and it's clear here because it says 

13 "betatron labor charges," quote/unquote.

14 So all of the handling of the 

15 uranium before it got into the betatron has 

16 not been accounted for, or it would state on 

17 there: plant handling, plant labor charges, 

18 transportation, whatever, but it's not. So we 

19 are missing a very big piece of the handling 

20 of that uranium.

21 And knowing how the uranium got 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 into the plant, having talked with workers 

2 that actually did the handling coming in, they 

3 came over in a Mallinckrodt railroad car or a 

4 -- it wouldn't be a Mallinckrodt car, it would 

5 be Terminal Railroad Association. Those cars 

6 never came in the plant.

7 The uranium would have been 

8 unloaded, handled, onto a GSI car, truck, 

9 forklift, something with a wheel, as 

10 [identifying information redacted], a 

11 supervisor of the Yard Department, explained 

12 to me. So we are missing a lot of handling by 

13 trying to use these purchase orders to 

14 determine anything. So I think we've got a 

15 real problem there.

16 Now, there is another time issue 

17 that is maybe even bigger than this. The fact 

18 -- the three people I think, and I've double

19 checked the transcripts, but if I'm missing 

20 something or somebody interviewed somebody 

21 else, the three people that are being used, I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 guess, to kind of factor the handling of a 

2 uranium ingot or a slice at GSI, those three 

3 people all started after the radium era.

4 I looked up their start dates. I 

5 have some records that show those. One man 

6 who -- well, [identifying information 

7 redacted] talked about the ingots and dingots 

8 and rotating and shooting corner. 

9 [Identifying information redacted] started in 

10 1965. 

11 [Identifying information 

12 redacted], who talked about slices, started in 

13 '63, September, so almost '64. Mr. Dutko

14 started November '63, almost '64. So none of 

15 these people that are being referenced for 

16 what went over -- what went on with the ingots 

17 or slices or dingots, at GSI had anything to 

18 do with the radium era, the early era. We've 

19 got a bigger -- we've got a missing timeframe 

20 there.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: If I can ask a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 question, this is Bob.

2 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, I agree with 

4 you completely about the timeframe of these 

5 people. I have noted that myself. But when 

6 we are talking about the uranium handling --

7 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- it makes no 

9 difference which era it's in. The only 

10 difference there is for the radiography of --

11 you know, for the incidental exposure, for the 

12 exposure of the radiographers to isotope 

13 sources. That makes a difference. Whether 

14 it's radium or cobalt, these are done very 

15 differently. 

16 But the betatron was the betatron, 

17 and the only difference was, are we talking 

18 about the old betatron building, which didn't 

19 -- which was from '52 or on to the end, or the 

20 new betatron building, which was completed 

21 sometime around the end of '63?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 But whether it's the radium era or 

2 not, it doesn't matter for the uranium 

3 handling.

4 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, Bob, you 

5 know, I'm not questioning that part of it. 

6 The part I was getting ready to question is no 

7 one knows what uranium was actually being 

8 examined in any quantities. And it does take 

9 different times and handling to do different 

10 types of uranium.

11 The slices, they take longer if 

12 you are shooting through, you know, the four 

13 inches. The ingots and dingots, we all 

14 referenced [identifying information redacted]

15 shooting the corners and getting oblique shots 

16 in order to get on the film. That's the only 

17 way you can do it. Everybody agreed they 

18 weren't trying to go through the ingot because 

19 they couldn't.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. But that 

21 only -- John, that only affects the fraction 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 of time that the radiography -- you know, they 

2 will be setting up as opposed to the time they 

3 are in the control room. And now that Jim 

4 Neton has agreed that we are not going to 

5 divide the time, like 15 minutes in the 

6 shooting room and 60 minutes in the control 

7 room, so we are not doing that anymore, then 

8 the type of uranium shape really doesn't 

9 matter. 

10 We are assuming that people are 

11 going to be -- you know, the dust is going to 

12 be generated during the entire -- all of the 

13 hours. That's the compromise we just 

14 achieved. So that really falls out of the 

15 picture.

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: But doesn't it 

17 affect how much time the radiographer actually 

18 spends in the shooting area?

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But we have 

20 already -- we have just agreed that we will 

21 assume, to be on the conservative side, that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 if they are given -- let's say, if the 

2 Mallinckrodt purchase order says 400 hours, 

3 that means that 400 hours was spent handling 

4 the uranium and generating dust.

5 But this is only a question of the 

6 dust inhalation. The radiographer dose is 

7 determined, you know, by the film badges, we 

8 are just assuming, and that going back the 

9 same procedures were followed in radiography. 

10 So this -- it doesn't matter. We are not 

11 calculating the radiographer dose based on 

12 which uranium shape was being radiographed.

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: You're assuming --

14 I guess what I'm trying to do is --

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. I had 

16 -- because the vast majority of the 

17 radiographer's time is not spent on uranium; 

18 it's spent on steel.

19 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes. But the 

20 conversation that everybody is having today is 

21 about uranium.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Uranium 

2 dust.

3 MR. RAMSPOTT: And the uranium --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Not about uranium 

5 -- not about the external exposures to the 

6 betatron beam during uranium radiography. 

7 That's not what we're talking about today.

8 MR. RAMSPOTT: If you're in with 

9 the dust four times as much --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But when you are 

11 already giving the credit of maximum --

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: Are you giving --

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- it can't be 

14 more than 100 percent.

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: -- because I 

16 thought I heard 15 minutes.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. We just 

18 got rid of -- perhaps you weren't following, 

19 and, you know, it's not a criticism because 

20 it's --

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: I appreciate it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 being pointed out, because it --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me interrupt 

3 here. We are going to see from NIOSH in 

4 writing what the revised proposal will be in 

5 terms of handling that, what we are calling T1 

6 factor and the time beyond just the setup. So 

7 there is going to be a revision to that model 

8 that will hopefully take care of that.

9 And I think probably what will be 

10 helpful -- and I believe Dr. McKeel mentioned 

11 this, it will help people sort things out, is 

12 to maybe chart it out so people can see 

13 exactly what the different pieces are for this 

14 -- well, for what we're calling the radium 

15 era, the cobalt era, and the residual era, and 

16 then those different pieces of the doses for 

17 radiographers and the different pieces of 

18 that.

19 We have, you know, the direct 

20 radiation, the inhalation, the skin doses, and 

21 so on. I think an overall sort of summary 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 chart showing all of those will be helpful to 

2 everybody. So that if we're talking about one 

3 piece or another, everybody is on the same 

4 page, so we are not arguing external exposure 

5 versus internal and that kind of thing. So --

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, that's very 

7 helpful. I didn't hear that agreed to, so is 

8 it agreed to now I guess, that that is going 

9 to happen?

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: NIOSH has agreed 

11 that they are going to modify that model.

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: The real numbers.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, it will be 

14 the time numbers, and Jim Neton explained what 

15 his thoughts were on that. SC&A thought it 

16 made sense, but we want to see it in writing 

17 and make sure we all understand exactly what 

18 the implications of that are. And that will 

19 also determine what the assigned doses would 

20 be for the inhalation model. So we need all 

21 of that information to put this thing to bed.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, actually 

2 seeing this chart, then, that's very helpful. 

3 I didn't understand that to be the conclusion 

4 yet, that --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the chart 

6 -- this wasn't the conclusion, but I think I 

7 heard Dr. McKeel request that, and it seemed 

8 to me that it would make sense for all of us 

9 to sort of have that in a concise place, so we 

10 could all see what all of the pieces were, 

11 kind of in conglomerate.

12 And, Jim and Dave, I think as we 

13 come to closure on this, that would be 

14 helpful, to sort of chart that all out, if you 

15 can envision what I'm talking about here.

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: Oh, that would be 

17 very helpful because right now, the way I was 

18 looking at it, it was all very mathematical 

19 formula with no conclusion on it. So that's 

20 very helpful. I appreciate that.

21 May I make one more comment? And 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 I'll be brief.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure.

3 MR. RAMSPOTT: The other item with 

4 the settling, that really concerns me. And 

5 I've had some workers reconfirm this. And 

6 looking back at my photographs of the plant, 

7 when I actually visited and actually received 

8 some great photographs from Department of 

9 Energy on the cleanup, inside that betatron 

10 building there were two external fan sources 

11 that blew inside the building. They did not 

12 exhaust anything out.

13 There was no HEPA filters or 

14 hanging gas furnaces that during the winter 

15 and summer -- during the summer they ran them 

16 for ventilation only, no discharge outside or 

17 anywhere else, but simply to move air in the 

18 building. And I guess I'm concerned about how 

19 that would change all of the settling.

20 And I actually saw one of these 

21 hanging furnaces. It's at a car dealership 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 that I do business with. They blow air like a 

2 jet engine. These things -- nothing has 

3 changed. In the summer, these guys have those 

4 fans going, and that's stirring up all of that 

5 dust. I guess I'm trying to figure out how 

6 dust settles when it's being blown all the 

7 time. 

8 And I confirmed with the workers 

9 that is exactly what they did at GSI, 

10 essentially seven days a week, 24 hours, and 

11 by people that we all know – [identifying 

12 information redacted], all guys that the Work 

13 Group knows.

14 Are those fans a consideration?

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't know the 

16 answer to that. I don't know if NIOSH has any 

17 comment on that. Can you answer that?

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes. This is Dave 

19 Allen. I know the kind of fans he is talking 

20 about. I've seen them at Fernald. I have 

21 seen it in my dad's service station, actually, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 and in a number of other places. 

2 It's a fairly standard industrial 

3 type of event to have some sort of 

4 ventilation, whether it's circulated outside 

5 or just recirculated inside.

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: This is circulating 

7 inside only.

8 MR. ALLEN: Right. And that's not 

9 unusual. I know, from what I've seen at 

10 Fernald, a lot of them at Fernald had hot 

11 water line -- or steam actually, from the 

12 boiler plant, and you'd turn that on in the 

13 winter and it heats the building. And you 

14 turn the steam off in the summery and you get 

15 the fan to at least blow air around.

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: How is that being 

17 taken care of with this settling?

18 MR. ALLEN: Well, for most of the 

19 surrogate data, places we had, I mean, they 

20 are -- and not to mention all over, there is 

21 -- a lot of that stuff is in the northern 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 climates and you're going to have some kind of 

2 heat in the wintertime in these production 

3 buildings.

4 And normally you are going to have 

5 some sort of ventilation. It's pretty 

6 standard to have some kind of ventilation in 

7 the building.

8 MR. RAMSPOTT: How do you ever get 

9 settling when wind is blowing? That's my 

10 question.

11 MR. ALLEN: Well, if it actually 

12 is churning it up --

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes.

14 MR. ALLEN: -- it tends to -- you 

15 do get ventilation with the outside air, too, 

16 usually through fugitive emissions if nothing 

17 else. And the more it's churned up in the 

18 air, the more you tend to get --

19 MR. RAMSPOTT: Not with a 10-foot 

20 wall you wouldn't, a 10-foot thick wall. That 

21 place is like a tomb. I've been in it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I realize it 

2 looks like a tomb, or whatever. But you'd 

3 still get enough ventilation for people to 

4 have oxygen. I mean, you do actually get a 

5 decent amount of ventilation.

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: It's not going out, 

7 Dave, it's -- if anything, it's coming in.

8 MR. ALLEN: It's got vents in the 

9 roof, and it's got --

10 MR. RAMSPOTT: They didn't run the 

11 vents in the room during the winter. That was 

12 confirmed. They actually covered them.

13 MR. ALLEN: You still have some 

14 circulation or people would be suffocating, 

15 John.

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm just --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think 

18 John's question was, is there any settling if 

19 you have that --

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes. That's the 

21 question.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And actually you 

2 still have some settling. It's still based on 

3 particle weight, but the air concentration 

4 might be higher. I believe, Dave, what you're 

5 saying is in most of those industrial ones 

6 from which we get the data, including the 

7 settling data, they all have some kind of 

8 ventilation or fans or circulation that is 

9 along the same line.

10 Everybody has got air moving in 

11 these plants. You still get some settling and 

12 you still get some resuspension, just from the 

13 air movements. But that's -- I'm just saying 

14 that in a general sense. I think you'd have 

15 to look at specific data to confirm that.

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: Paul, that's what I 

17 was going to say, too, because this really is 

18 like a tomb. Doors were closed. It's not 

19 like a big general plant, you know.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Got you. Got 

21 you.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MR. RAMSPOTT: So it's just -- I 

2 wanted to raise that. I thought it was a 

3 valid point, and the workers brought it up and 

4 are concerned about it.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Got you.

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: I guess, more 

7 importantly, will it be looked at or 

8 addressed? Are there any thoughts from SC&A 

9 on it?

10 DR. MAURO: This is John. The 

11 only thing I would like to point out is that, 

12 since we are dealing with surrogate data, and, 

13 you know, there is some material already 

14 regarding how that data was selected, however, 

15 there is the four or five criteria that 

16 surrogate data is always put to, one of which 

17 of course is, is there anything about the 

18 design of the ventilation systems and the --

19 you know, that's one of the criteria.

20 So I guess I would offer that in 

21 supporting the surrogate data that this is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 certainly part of a process, and it needs to 

2 be part of the record, that, yes, we put the 

3 surrogate data to the test of the four or five 

4 criteria -- I forget how many there are -- but 

5 I do remember one of them is -- you know, is 

6 now -- is it comparable with respect to things 

7 like building design and ventilation.

8 So I would be helpful, you know, 

9 it sounds like that -- and correct me if I'm 

10 wrong -- you are close to the process of 

11 almost putting a preview out of what the 

12 Appendix BB revision will look like. I don't 

13 know if that's your next step or is it -- you 

14 know, or some type of material that would 

15 allow us to take a look at, okay, everything 

16 is now converged, it sounds like we've 

17 resolved all of our differences, and now this 

18 is what the matrix is going to look like.

19 And it would almost be a preview 

20 to Appendix BB, and it would be helpful if 

21 part and parcel of this includes, you know, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 surrogate data. Part of it -- it probably 

2 would be helpful to go through the surrogate 

3 data criteria and demonstrate that it meets 

4 those criteria.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob. 

6 There was one issue that has not been talked 

7 about and that has not been resolved, and that 

8 is: there is a major difference in the 

9 modeling of the dose to the layout man during 

10 the new betatron period, meaning from late '63 

11 on to the end. We are off by a factor of two. 

12 We have different assumptions, and we do not 

13 agree with the NIOSH approach.

14 And then there is also skin dose, 

15 which we -- is based on the technical issue 

16 based on which MCNP model you use -- which 

17 MCNP version was used, and that, again, we 

18 have some significant differences. So those 

19 are two things that have not been talked about 

20 recently, but they were talked about in the 

21 past. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 So these are not new issues, but 

2 they have -- you know, they have just -- we 

3 went on to other issues since then. So just 

4 -- I am not saying we should -- probably not 

5 profitable to discuss it now, but that needs 

6 to -- you know, before a new Appendix BB comes 

7 out and we are asked to review it, it would be 

8 helpful to resolve this, so we don't have to 

9 keep going back to the drawing board, or 

10 sending NIOSH back to the drawing board.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks. Any 

12 other comments or discussion on those?

13 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer?

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

15 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan.

17 DR. McKEEL: Just one very quick 

18 comment is, you know, I think the idea --

19 actually, John Mauro asked Dave Allen, "Are 

20 you close to putting out a preview Appendix 

21 BB?" And Dave Allen didn't get a chance to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 answer, the way I heard the discussion.

2 But a key point that I want to 

3 make about today's agenda is that the one 

4 thing that is glaringly missing from the 

5 agenda, and I put it in the one-page summary 

6 that I referred to as goals that I would like 

7 to see this Work Group accomplish soon, was to 

8 finish resolving all of the issues, all of the 

9 SC&A findings, in the Appendix BB issues 

10 matrix.

11 And I think the last one was 

12 November 26th of 2012. And I wrote you and 

13 Dr. Ziemer wrote me and said that definitely 

14 was still a matter to be discussed. And here 

15 we are talking about perhaps getting ready to 

16 have a preview of Appendix BB.

17 Well, you know, Stuart Hinnefeld 

18 has written me several times, and the latest 

19 being yesterday, that Appendix BB was not 

20 going to be revised until all of those 

21 outstanding issues in the issues matrix are 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 resolved. And I'm going to really expect that 

2 that be the case.

3 So I really am not clear is --

4 when are we going to get around to addressing 

5 Appendix BB, Rev 1, and the findings from --

6 of SC&A and have them all resolved? There 

7 certainly are open issues, as anybody can read 

8 in that 11/26/12 version of the issues matrix.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the simple 

10 answer is that the resolution of the issues 

11 matrix is very dependent upon what we are 

12 doing now, and that is, how do we model the 

13 various components of the exposures? But 

14 that's really what the issues matrix is all 

15 about. So --

16 DR. McKEEL: I'm just saying that 

17 it's a little premature to talk about a 

18 preview of Appendix BB until we've gotten 

19 through all of these models and --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

21 DR. McKEEL: -- the Appendix BB 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 issues have been resolved.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think my phone 

3 had probably cut out when somebody mentioned 

4 the preview of BB, because I just had to sign 

5 in again, but I hadn't heard that myself. I 

6 think what -- I guess what is being asked for 

7 -- who asked for the preview?

8 DR. McKEEL: John Mauro just 

9 simply suggested that --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh.

11 DR. McKEEL: He was --

12 DR. MAURO: This is John. I was 

13 just asking, because I think that there has 

14 been some conversation that it's time to put 

15 some matrices together of what, you know, this 

16 is starting to look like. And which sounded 

17 to me like a preview of Appendix BB, and 

18 that's of course -- and we took off from 

19 there, whether or not that is a good way to 

20 think about what the next product is, or is it 

21 premature.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, in a 

2 sense, the preview would be the summary of all 

3 of the components that are going to be revised 

4 as I think, for example, with the length of 

5 the work week, which was long ago settled and 

6 that would be in the appendix.

7 Also, you could have all of these 

8 issues we are talking about, how you handle 

9 the internal uranium uptakes in various eras 

10 and for the various workers, what the beta 

11 doses are going to be and all of those 

12 different components.

13 So, in essence, I think coming to 

14 closure on each of these individual pieces 

15 will lead us to coming to closure on the 

16 various parts, the various issues that were 

17 raised in the original findings.

18 Some of them, in a sense, have 

19 already been taken care of, but we haven't 

20 formally closed them. I mean, we have come to 

21 closure on how things are going to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 approached, but we haven't actually closed the 

2 matrix. But we need to get all of these 

3 pieces in place, is how I view it.

4 And I did think that the 

5 suggestion that Dr. McKeel had of having a 

6 chart so we could see the individual pieces, 

7 would be very helpful.

8 Now, I am looking here at my own 

9 clock. I think we do need to have a lunch 

10 break for people who are here, and it doesn't 

11 necessarily have to be a long one. I wanted 

12 to come back, and I have some questions myself 

13 on the issues raised by Dr. McKeel on the 

14 Adley report, and I would just like to get a 

15 little feedback perhaps both from NIOSH and 

16 from SC&A, if they have any feedback, on some 

17 of the questions there. And then I'd like to 

18 move on to Baker Brothers and Joslyn and 

19 Simonds, which I think we can handle fairly 

20 readily.

21 So I assume most folks are home or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 -- well, the NIOSH people, you may be at the 

2 office. But would a 30-minute break be 

3 sufficient for people to grab lunch?

4 DR. NETON: That's fine by me.

5 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, may I 

6 make -- this is Dan McKeel. Can I make one 

7 more comment?

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, yes.

9 DR. McKEEL: There was a -- there 

10 is an agenda item, which I would say D, public 

11 comments and submissions, under three --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

13 DR. McKEEL: -- and I do have a 

14 few more comments on the other papers and --

15 (Telephone ringing.)

16 DR. McKEEL: My comment was, I have 

17 about a half-page more of comments.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, that will be 

19 fine. You can --

20 DR. McKEEL: Can I make that after 

21 lunch, please?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, sure.

2 DR. McKEEL: Because I -- yes.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, we can do 

4 that, Dan.

5 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Not a problem. 

7 Not a problem.

8 DR. McKEEL: Thank you very much. 

9 Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So we'll take a 

11 30-minute break and then resume.

12 (Whereupon, at 12:55 p.m., the above-entitled 

13 matter went off the record and 

14 resumed at 1:28 p.m.)

15

16

17

18
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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

2 (1:28 p.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

4 MR. RAMSPOTT: This is John 

5 Ramspott. I'm on the line.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks, 

7 John.

8 Dan, you're on the line, right?

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

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. There 

11 were some items -- Dr. McKeel did a review of 

12 the Adley report and raised some issues, and 

13 also had some other comments. I don't know 

14 that we necessarily need to go through your 

15 full report page by page, but I had some 

16 questions I wanted to ask. And I don't know 

17 if we will be able to answer them.

18 But one of the -- I think one of 

19 the main issues was the fact that there was 

20 the reports of high uranium dust loadings from 

21 rod handling, and also from a couple of other 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 operations that seemed to be at variance with 

2 what we saw from the rod handling and other 

3 handling data that was being used as 

4 surrogates.

5 And I wanted to get some 

6 clarification, if I could, if somebody has the 

7 answer to it, on comparing this facility, 

8 which is Hanford Works facility, with others. 

9 It wasn't clear to me whether the dust 

10 loadings resulting from handling the rods were 

11 associated with the fact that the overall 

12 facility may have been at a higher sort of 

13 ambient contamination level to start with so 

14 that the handling of anything stirred up 

15 existing uranium. 

16 Does anybody have an idea on how 

17 to understand this information in the Adley 

18 report? Either NIOSH, SC&A?

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes, Dr. Ziemer, this 

20 is Dave Allen. I think I can shed some light 

21 on this maybe, if I understand the question 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 right.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, it 

3 appeared to me that -- it appeared that some 

4 of this information is at variance with what 

5 we had seen in the other surrogate data that 

6 we're using.

7 MR. ALLEN: Okay. To start with, 

8 I mean, we went through the surrogate data 

9 quite a bit, and I think I gave a couple of 

10 different presentations to the full Board. 

11 And all through that I kept discussing 

12 criteria on, you know, what would be 

13 considered good surrogate data for what we 

14 were looking for there. And one of the issues 

15 was the possibility of interference from 

16 nearby higher airborne-causing operations, 

17 which I think you alluded to a second ago.

18 In the Adley report, on Table 10, 

19 which is page 43 of the report, it's the third 

20 page of a three-page table, one of the jobs 

21 being mentioned there is rod receiving, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 it's got car unloaders and the airborne 

2 concentration is 142 times 10 to the minus 

3 fifth micrograms per cc, or about 1,420 

4 micrograms per cubic meter.

5 I think that might be one of them 

6 you're talking about. That particular job has 

7 an asterisk next to it with a note at the 

8 bottom of that table that says, "This 

9 procedure has recently been changed. Rods are 

10 unloaded with a hydrocrane by bundles and are 

11 weighed within the melt plant building." And 

12 the melt plant building is essentially the 

13 bulk of the building where, you know, lots of 

14 different evolutions occurred.

15 There is a map or a drawing of the 

16 building early on in the report, which I can 

17 point to here in a minute. On page 42 of the 

18 report, it mentions rod handlers. And, again, 

19 I think this might be -- if I'm not mistaken, 

20 this is what you're talking about with higher 

21 airborne levels, and the rod handlers, the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 jobs that they looked at, were straightening 

2 and loading table and storage bay stacking, 

3 sweeping, and then other duties.

4 Loading the table was the highest 

5 with 140, and that's the units in the report 

6 times 10 to the minus fifth micrograms per cc. 

7 The other jobs, the straightening was 35, the 

8 storage bay stacking was 81, and the sweeping 

9 was 39. 

10 If you go near the beginning of 

11 the report, there is a map of the building. 

12 And I'm trying to get to the page here. Page 

13 6 of the report, and you can see in the middle 

14 of the main bay of the building the rod 

15 straightener. 

16 It's near the south side of the 

17 building, relatively centered in the building, 

18 a little more towards the south side, next to 

19 the oxidizing furnace. It's got a feed table 

20 and an off-take. The rods were loaded into a 

21 straightener, straightened, and then offloaded 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 in the straightener.

2 I think it's -- between what those 

3 say, what the footnote says, and what this map 

4 points to, I think you can say there's --

5 there's no way you can say there was not 

6 interference from other operations. Very 

7 likely there was, certainly from the 

8 straightener, not to mention the oxidizing 

9 furnace.

10 So with all of that in mind, I 

11 don't think that is something we could have 

12 used for surrogate data to say that it's 

13 representative of handling cold uranium metal. 

14 There is just too much possibility of other 

15 operations in the area that are causing 

16 interference.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I sort of 

18 wondered if that wasn't the case, or at least 

19 that's your understanding of it. SC&A, do you 

20 have any comments on this issue?

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, this is Bob. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 We pointed out that that data was actually in 

2 a report that we prepared on August 31st of 

3 last year, and we excerpted the section with 

4 scenarios and we listed three operations: 

5 unloading rods from truck with forklift, 

6 receiving rods, unloading truck and stacking 

7 rods, sample readings of man operating 

8 forklift, and then loading straightened rods 

9 directly from table onto truck.

10 And the dpm -- it's in -- the data 

11 is listed in terms of micrograms, but to be 

12 consistent with our units in this report I 

13 converted it to dpm per cubic meter. And we 

14 had an extremely -- unloading rods from truck 

15 with forklift, extremely high, 3900 dpm per 

16 cubic meter.

17 We have to remember that the MAC, 

18 maximum allowable air concentration -- correct 

19 me if I'm wrong, John -- was 70 dpm per cubic 

20 meter. So we are going based on old health 

21 protection standards -- well, current at the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 time. So here we are going some, you know, a 

2 multiple of that, about -- what would it be --

3 10, 40, something like 50 times, a 50-time 

4 multiple of that. So that would really be 

5 clear.

6 So I think in the end we agreed 

7 when we came up -- this was the first SC&A's 

8 first objection to the surrogate data 

9 previously used by NIOSH. However, at the end 

10 when there was a survey of all of the sites, 

11 SC&A and NIOSH and the Work Group concurred on 

12 this value that gave us something like 68-

13 point-something, 95th percentile.

14 And for the reasons that Dave just 

15 stated, we agreed that this was unlikely. It 

16 was like an outlier and very different from 

17 other operations and unlikely that this was 

18 simply from the handling, rather than from the 

19 furnaces that were right nearby I think in the 

20 same building.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I just 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 wanted to get some input on that. But let's 

2 go ahead and let -- Dr. McKeel had some points 

3 to make, and perhaps other ones as well, on 

4 the Adley report. 

5 So, Dr. McKeel, why don't you go 

6 ahead and raise your issues on that, and then 

7 your other comments as well.

8 DR. McKEEL: Okay. Thank you very 

9 much, Dr. Ziemer. Well, I'm glad we talked 

10 about the forklifts and the handling. I guess 

11 the preface I've got to make is that my 

12 reading of what was important related to GSI 

13 in the Adley '52 report was really quite 

14 different than what either NIOSH or SC&A have 

15 been saying, except that, for example, the 

16 forklift number that was decided a year ago --

17 well, this last year by SC&A -- I don't see 

18 how you can just dismiss that.

19 The Adley report says quite 

20 clearly that they thought that there was 

21 cross-contamination from other areas of the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 plant, including areas where production was 

2 quiescent. And so, you know, the cross3 contamination was important. 

4 On the other hand, you know, we 

5 have just heard a rationale for why the gas 

6 furnaces blowing continuously shouldn't make a 

7 difference in the re-suspended uranium in the 

8 betatron building, and the rationale given was 

9 because every site had some of those furnaces.

10 Well, no, every site wasn't like 

11 GSI, and that certainly was not compared in 

12 the surrogate data criteria analysis by NIOSH. 

13 It just -- it wasn't in there. So I think 

14 that's a legitimate point that differentiates 

15 GSI. Now, you know -- so that's one point.

16 The second point is the rod 

17 handling, you know, was -- there were many 

18 different kinds of rod handling, but certainly 

19 the uranium metal forms received from 

20 Mallinckrodt at GSI underwent different kinds 

21 of handling. They were taken from the freight 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 cars and the truck beds. They were hooked up 

2 to chains. They were moved with forklifts. 

3 People have talked about that.

4 The other thing that Adley points 

5 out, very interesting little bit of data, was 

6 that there is extra dust kicked up by the 

7 forklift exhaust, and, you know, that is a 

8 powerful exhaust that further stirs things up. 

9 So that's another reason.

10 They use a lot of forklifts at 

11 GSI. And, remember, we do have testimony that 

12 the chainmen had to lift the uranium ingots, 

13 for example, to get them onto the railroad 

14 transfer cars. But there were other 

15 operations in getting them from the terminal 

16 railroad cars into the loading dock and so 

17 forth, where they were handled with forklifts. 

18 So they weren't handled full-time only by 

19 chains and cranes. So that's one point about 

20 that.

21 But, again, the Adley activities 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 that I think recapitulate what happened at 

2 GSI, that do qualify Cook for cold uranium 

3 handling, are some of those handling 

4 operations, the sweeping operations, and, as I 

5 mentioned this morning, cleaning uranium from 

6 the transport truck beds.

7 At Hanford they said they used 

8 filing, scraping, and grinding. [Identifying 

9 information redacted], who observed that 

10 activity taking place on the railcars and the 

11 rail transfer cars at GSI, said that those 

12 cars that transported the uranium, 

13 Mallinckrodt uranium, into both betatron 

14 facilities, that they were cleaned very 

15 infrequently, maybe twice a year. 

16 And they were taken outside to do 

17 that, they were scraped with the bucket of a 

18 backhoe turned upside down, so it could be 

19 used as a scraper. And that was done outside 

20 and they took the debris, including the 

21 uranium-containing dust, and dumped that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 outside.

2 Mr. Dutko, when he was alive, had 

3 told us that other cleaning of those railcars 

4 was done with an air hose, which, again, you 

5 know, would stir up the dust and certainly 

6 exposed those operators to high levels of 

7 airborne uranium.

8 So I completely agree that the 

9 Hanford melt plant in many ways was not 

10 exactly similar to GSI. But on the other 

11 hand, the surrogate data that everybody has 

12 chosen to use from Mallinckrodt and Fernald, 

13 they weren't like GSI either. You know, they 

14 were uranium feed materials plants, Department 

15 of Energy facilities, great, big, handling 

16 thousands of tons of uranium.

17 So they weren't strictly similar 

18 in many ways to GSI, and yet the passed muster 

19 the second time around as excellent surrogate 

20 data sources.

21 We are calling to everybody that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 SC&A, the first time around, found that four 

2 of the five surrogate data criteria designed 

3 by the Board were not met by the surrogate 

4 data that Dave Allen picked, and then there 

5 was some culling and rearranging and so forth, 

6 while yet leaving in the big DOE sites. And 

7 this time around, the second time, now, I 

8 thought, rather amazingly, all five Board 

9 criteria for surrogate data were met.

10 So, and then I also mentioned, you 

11 know, that in the report by Dr. Thurber, which 

12 he went over in detail today on TBD-6000 Rev 

13 1, that both he and Dr. Anigstein and Dr. 

14 Mauro have enthused about Adley 1952 data as 

15 being really excellent data. 

16 And, in one sense, it really is 

17 excellent data, in the sense that they 

18 numbered the samples, they actually performed 

19 the measurements, they often confirmed their 

20 measurements two different ways. Nothing like 

21 that was done at most of those surrogate 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 sites. You know, we don't have any data like 

2 that from Weldon Spring. We don't have any 

3 data like that from Fernald. We certainly 

4 don't have it from the AWE sites, and we 

5 surely don't have it from General Steel 

6 Industries.

7 So, you know, I'm just claiming 

8 that my view is that the rod handling, the 

9 sweeping, the freight car unloading, the 

10 cleaning of the transport vehicles, all that 

11 does have parallels to what happened at GSI. 

12 And I strongly believe that the 

13 uranium airborne dust levels measured in Adley 

14 '52 at the Hanford facility are way higher in 

15 some instances. I reproduced the relevant 

16 graphs to GSI, I thought, in my paper. And I 

17 strongly urge everybody to read it. We don't 

18 have facilities this morning to go through it, 

19 or the time, but I will ask you to do that. 

20 So I think that's the main thing that I have 

21 to say about that one. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 And then the final comment I want 

2 to make for the day is, I apologize in 

3 advance, but I wanted to put on the record my 

4 views of why ORAU OTIB-0070 is not an 

5 appropriate model to use at GSI. And I've 

6 said this before, but I really haven't spelled 

7 it out. In that paper that I sent this 

8 morning, I did try to spell it out, and there 

9 are really two main points that I'd like to 

10 make about that.

11 That is that what OTIB-70-01 

12 actually uses are two computer codes, RESRAD13 BUILD and DNB. RESRAD-BUILD, you know, is the 

14 more -- does the more complex modeling of the 

15 two, but you can see from the graphs that 

16 basically it's, you know, a resuspension and 

17 resolution curve, or a settling curve, that's 

18 modeled in that. And I don't think that those 

19 models can simulate the complex conditions 

20 that existed for airborne uranium at GSI 

21 during the residual period.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 The residual period was 26 years 

2 long. We have put on the record ample 

3 evidence that the two betatron facilities were 

4 power washed repeatedly. The new betatron 

5 facility was renovated for offices. And in 

6 Buildings 8, 9, 10, and 5 and 6, multiple 

7 companies moved in, leased the space, used it 

8 for other steel-making operations, and all of 

9 those operations involved disturbing the 

10 uranium along the transport path through those 

11 other buildings, as well as in the betatron 

12 facilities which were repurposed and reused 

13 for other purposes.

14 So, anyway, the basic models that 

15 are in OTIB-70 I don't think are appropriate 

16 to GSI.

17 Now, yesterday, in his reply to 

18 me, DCAS Director Hinnefeld wrote and said he 

19 thought, in general, he realized that those 

20 models couldn't exactly reproduce this 

21 cyclical uranium dispersion in the air, but he 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 said. on the average, over a long period of 

2 time. NIOSH felt that this was a good 

3 approximation of what happened at GSI.

4 So I would just say that that's 

5 two markedly different opinions. I would say 

6 this; I would say the model that I am talking 

7 about of uneven, intermittent, varying amounts 

8 of resuspension settling rates, and so forth, 

9 more faithfully recapitulates what happened 

10 throughout the Hanford melt plant, where the 

11 magnitude of the bars representing uranium air 

12 intake are often high, often above the 

13 acceptable limits for the time, but they vary 

14 greatly between different kinds of operations, 

15 whether the metal was heated and so forth, but 

16 they're high for a lot of operations where the 

17 metal was basically cold. So that's my point 

18 about that.

19 The second point about OTIB-70 

20 that nobody has mentioned is that the 

21 Procedures Review Subcommittee, chaired by 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 Wanda Munn, examined OTIB-70 as part of their 

2 procedures review at least three times in 

3 Subcommittee meetings in 2010 and in 2012.

4 And at the March 12, 2013, Augusta 

5 Board Meeting, Wanda Munn presented the PRS 

6 findings on OTIB-70. And the paper that I did 

7 on that includes some of the slides that she 

8 presented that caused me a lot of concern. 

9 But the main one in just picking that out was 

10 that those slides were arranged so that there 

11 was a finding from Rev 00, and that was 

12 compared to what was done in Rev 1 of OTIB-70.

13 And so you can sort of compare 

14 what was the initial situation and then what 

15 was done as the remedy. And what struck me 

16 was the slide that showed the resuspension 

17 factor.

18 And as we've heard this morning, 

19 everybody seems to be quite comfortable -- by 

20 "everybody," I'm talking about the Board, 

21 SC&A, and NIOSH -- with a resuspension factor 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 of 10 to the minus fifth to use at GSI.

2 Well, the slides that I'm talking 

3 about that Wanda showed were that the 

4 resuspension factor at many other sites could 

5 be as high as 10 to the minus three, or 10 to 

6 the minus four. And I found other references 

7 to resuspension factors that were as high as 

8 10 to the minus two.

9 So, you know, I think that 

10 everybody seems to be sanguine that 10 to the 

11 minus five is a nice number, a comfortable 

12 number, but I don't think it's a realistic 

13 number. I think that the resuspension factors 

14 were higher at GSI for the reasons that I have 

15 just mentioned and more like the ones you 

16 would see at the Hanford melt plant.

17 So what I think is unfortunate is 

18 that in the SC&A papers, and in the NIOSH 

19 papers, there is not the recognition that I 

20 think there should be that the literature 

21 supports higher resuspension fractions and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 functions than do the final reports and the 

2 number that everybody has finally settled 

3 upon.

4 I think, for practicing good 

5 science, I think the range of resuspension 

6 factor values that's in the literature should 

7 be presented first, and then a selection for 

8 10 to the minus five should be stringently 

9 supported. And I think except everybody 

10 saying basically, gee, we like that, or we 

11 think that's good, or something like that, I 

12 don't think that's sufficient support for that 

13 idea. 

14 So, anyway, that's the main thing 

15 I wanted to bring up about that, and I think 

16 the other thing that I would just like to 

17 remind everybody about one more time is that 

18 it has been seven months since the Board voted 

19 on SEC-105, and we still don't have good, 

20 solid numbers that are going to be assigned 

21 for internal and external doses for the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 various classes of workers.

2 And I'd also remind everybody that 

3 it is June 20th, and that's six full years 

4 since Appendix BB Rev 0 was released. And I 

5 was extremely happy to hear about the summary 

6 chart of values, but I must say it is going to 

7 be at least two more months before we get 

8 around to considering the Appendix BB matrix. 

9 And I just urge everybody -- I 

10 know that there are budget constraints, but, 

11 if necessary, we ought to have two meetings a 

12 month until we resolve those Appendix BB 

13 issues, like happened in March of 2012 when 

14 there were two Work Group meetings two weeks 

15 apart to resolve issues.

16 And, anyway, I thank you very

17 much, Dr. Ziemer, for letting me comment. 

18 That's really all I have to say for today.

19 Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks, 

21 Dan, for your input on these issues. And let 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 me ask if any of the Work Group Members or any 

2 of the staff have any questions to ask Dan at 

3 this point on his comments. Josie or John?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Paul, this is Wanda. 

5 I wanted to let you know I --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, Wanda. 

7 You're on. Welcome.

8 MEMBER MUNN: -- that I had joined 

9 the call and heard most of Dr. McKeel's 

10 comments. But, no, I don't have any questions 

11 for him.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, thank you 

13 for joining us, Wanda.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I'm sorry about 

15 that.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. John or 

17 Josie?

18 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is 

19 Josie. I think he covered it well in his 

20 papers, and I don't have any questions of him.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MEMBER POSTON: No questions, 

2 Paul.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. What I 

4 want to do here to sort of wind up the GSI 

5 discussion today is quickly review the 

6 immediate deliverables and then what the Work 

7 Group report to the Board will be. I have 

8 NIOSH is going to provide some input on TBD9 6001 Rev 0 on that bullet point dealing with 

10 the equilibrium time rationale. Is that 

11 correct, NIOSH?

12 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that's correct, 

13 Dr. Ziemer.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And, 

15 secondly, on the square function, NIOSH is 

16 going to detail how they will revise the 

17 handling time of the T1 issue, and then SC&A 

18 would review that. Is that correct?

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes. I have that down 

20 as basically just updating the intake 

21 estimate.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And 

2 then, we didn't go into detail, but I think I 

3 want to ask NIOSH to develop a chart -- I'm 

4 calling it a chart -- on the components of the 

5 dose reconstructions for all of the eras, so 

6 we can see what the specific sort of numbers 

7 are going to look like, for example, for the 

8 radiographers in the radium era, for external 

9 dose, and for all of the other components. 

10 And, likewise, the same kind of a cross-chart 

11 of all of the pieces. Can you develop that 

12 for us for our next meeting?

13 MR. ALLEN: Yes. And my thought 

14 was the simpler the better. It was going to 

15 be --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

17 MR. ALLEN: -- a table with a lot 

18 of footnotes or something.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. A table, 

20 yes. That's what I'm thinking about.

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes. Nothing like 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 what John Mauro mentioned about a preview of a 

2 --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no. No, I 

4 think we're talking about a table, so we can 

5 -- and, again, Dr. Anigstein reminded us that 

6 there is a couple of pieces where we don't 

7 have agreement yet, and we need to make sure 

8 we identify those, where we have to resolve 

9 things yet.

10 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And I 

12 think at the upcoming Board meeting I will 

13 just report where we are on these issues, and 

14 what we are planning to do to come to closure 

15 on getting the revision of BB in place.

16 Ted, do you have some additional 

17 thoughts on that?

18 MR. KATZ: No, Paul. I'm glad you 

19 raised this, though, because I wanted to ask 

20 before we wrapped up about this issue. I've 

21 probably put aside more time than you need, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 because I was uncertain -- I was thinking it 

2 was possible we would be actually reporting 

3 out, and we won't be. So I think you probably 

4 only need about 15 minutes for this. Is that 

5 not --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That should be 

7 fine.

8 MR. KATZ: Yes. Okay. Very good.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is 

10 Josie. And I just wanted to touch base a 

11 little bit on the surrogate data. And I know 

12 John had mentioned looking at the surrogate 

13 data based on the criteria the Board has set 

14 forth. I don't know if this is the 

15 appropriate time to look at that or to have 

16 SC&A look at that, because that hasn't been 

17 done yet for --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob 

19 Anigstein. I was under the impression that we 

20 had a meeting -- we had a meeting I believe 

21 November 28th, and I was under the impression 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 that there was unanimous acceptance of the 

2 surrogate data for dust load, uranium dust 

3 loading during uranium handling. 

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, there was. 

5 I think maybe, Josie, are you raising the 

6 question about the air flows and the --

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, the Adley 

8 report.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, the Adley 

10 report.

11 MEMBER BEACH: And, yes, the ones 

12 we're using.

13 DR. NETON: This is Jim. We've 

14 already been through that, though. I mean --

15 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

16 DR. NETON: -- I don't know 

17 whether we want to revisit that all again. I 

18 mean, you know, we close these issues, and 

19 then we bring them up again for the same 

20 reasons. 

21 DR. MAURO: Yes. Let me -- this 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 is John. First of all, the reason I mentioned 

2 that is -- and certainly correct me if my 

3 recollection is off -- but the search we were 

4 on when we went through this process to find 

5 surrogate data was to try to find facilities 

6 that appeared to be doing things, or aspects 

7 of activities at different facilities like 

8 Adley, that, yes, that looks like it has 

9 analogy in terms of the kind of things they 

10 were doing by way of handling uranium that are 

11 a lot like what our understanding is of how 

12 things were being handled at GSI.

13 But I do not recall that -- on 

14 many occasions when surrogate data has been 

15 used in the past -- oh, I could think of a 

16 number of places, where we actually put 

17 together -- or SC&A did -- as part of our 

18 review, whenever surrogate data was used, we 

19 usually had an appendix which identified each 

20 of the five criteria, what they are -- I think 

21 there are five -- actually restating them, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 then a little paragraph describing the degree 

2 to which and why we believe that the surrogate 

3 data that has been chosen does in fact meet 

4 that criteria.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, we did that. 

6 We did that last fall. We did it last fall. 

7 We reviewed the -- well, first, we had the 

8 critiques going back to August. Then, 

9 sometime before November, or before the 

10 November 28th meeting, NIOSH followed our 

11 recommendation which was to look at a large 

12 number of AWE sites, or just sites where 

13 uranium was being handled.

14 They did that. They came up with 

15 a number of sites. We reviewed that. We 

16 critiqued some of the data, and we ended up 

17 with a consensus set of data, which was -- the 

18 two sides were not far apart to begin with, 

19 and then we ended up with a consensus that was 

20 an agreement. And so SC&A signed off on that 

21 and the Board signed off on that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 DR. MAURO: Okay. So we do have 

2 someplace on the record --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, we do.

4 DR. MAURO: -- Criteria 1, 

5 Criteria 2, Criteria 3.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Actually, 

7 we did that initially on the --

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We did it several 

9 times.

10 DR. MAURO: Okay.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. We did it 

12 first on the original data that was being 

13 used, and that's what led us to move to 

14 looking at other data, because the first set 

15 you said did not meet the criteria.

16 DR. MAURO: Yes. I remember that. 

17 And, my apologies, I did not remember that we 

18 also did it when the final set of data was 

19 selected.

20 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And for my 

21 part -- this is Josie again -- I just wanted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 to make sure that all of the surrogate data 

2 we're using has been identified and has been 

3 looked at against the criteria. So if that 

4 has been done, then that's great.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. SC&A, 

6 myself, we not only examined the NIOSH reports 

7 -- that's done as a matter of course -- but we 

8 went back and looked at all of the source 

9 documents that NIOSH has used. 

10 Not every -- I mean, they looked 

11 at something like, I don't know how many 

12 sites, but all of the source documents that 

13 they cited are -- all the sites that they 

14 cited, we looked at the source documents, even 

15 other source documents that they did not cite 

16 for the same sites, and we came up with our 

17 conclusions, which were not all that different 

18 from NIOSH's.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. And then, 

20 Paul, one more thing.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MEMBER BEACH: Dan McKeel brought 

2 up a lot of different information in his paper 

3 that came out on the 19th about -- he asked 

4 for someone to take a look at and come to some 

5 kind of conclusion or give him some feedback 

6 on that, and that wasn't mentioned either as 

7 something that would be tasked.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Which one are 

9 you referring to?

10 MEMBER BEACH: The one that came 

11 out on the 19th. Well, wait a minute. Maybe 

12 it was the June 6th. There has been so many. 

13 I've got piles of them here.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: June 6th, I 

15 think, is the Adley review.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right. And 

18 June 19th was some comments on the Board 

19 minutes or the transcript. Are you talking 

20 about the transcript item?

21 MEMBER BEACH: No. I believe it's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the June 6th one that he brings up a lot of 

2 different points.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That's 

4 the Adley review, right?

5 MEMBER BEACH: Correct. Yes.

6 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, that was 

7 my point. The SC&A review that Bob Anigstein 

8 is referring to was strictly confined to those 

9 surrogate data sites that Dave Allen had first 

10 identified and then SC&A had come up with an 

11 alternate data set. But Adley was not part of 

12 that review.

13 So I don't -- here's the way I put 

14 it. I do not think that -- now, you can say 

15 that Adley is not involved with GSI as 

16 surrogate data, but it is, because Dave Allen 

17 -- and that was the point of that transcript 

18 excerpt recitation that I made in the 6/19 

19 paper. Dave Allen clearly says that NIOSH is 

20 going to use OTIB-0070 Rev 1, Sharfi 2012, to 

21 calculate the uranium intake values for GSI.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 So, you know, and that is going to 

2 be highly dependent on the data in Adley. So 

3 I think that Adley should be justified --

4 actually, I think the -- the overall --

5 THE COURT REPORTER: This is the 

6 Court Reporter. There is a terrible echo 

7 effect. Just started.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I was getting a 

9 lot of noise also. Go ahead, Dan. I think 

10 the noise is gone again.

11 DR. McKEEL: I'm sorry. Yes. I 

12 was just saying that I think, I wish, that the 

13 use of Adley in conjunction with OTIB-0070 as 

14 surrogate data for GSI, that residual period 

15 in particular, should be used. And then I 

16 think, as was said now in many ways, the Adley 

17 data is also applicable to GSI operations for 

18 handling cold uranium actually all through the 

19 operational period as well.

20 So I think that's two areas that 

21 just have not been looked at adequately by 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 SC&A or by anybody. So that's what I would 

2 say needs to be looked at. I don't think all 

3 of the surrogate data at GSI has been 

4 subjected to the Board criteria.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So I guess that

6 question is -- is Adley -- does TBD's OTIB7 0070 use Adley as a way in which you -- that 

8 somebody, the Board, needs to justify Adley as 

9 a surrogate? That's one way of looking at 

10 this. Or the other way is, is -- if one were 

11 to include the Adley values for, let's say, 

12 rod handling, you would have to go through a 

13 justification that Adley is somehow like GSI 

14 and use it as a surrogate. 

15 And you're saying in one case we 

16 are using it as surrogate, in OTIB-0070, and 

17 in another case we're not using it as a 

18 surrogate.

19 DR. McKEEL: That's right. So I 

20 think that ought to be clarified. Is it okay 

21 to use it or not? And I was trying to draw 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the distinction that I understand that there 

2 was total agreement, except with me, that 

3 using surrogate data from Weldon Spring and 

4 surrogate data from Fernald was okay because 

5 those sites are similar to GSI. I mean, I 

6 think on the face of it that was an incorrect 

7 conclusion to draw. I don't think they are at 

8 all comparable.

9 But what I'm saying is, as far as 

10 Adley, I think both of the things that Dr. 

11 Ziemer just said are true. It is -- Adley '52 

12 is an integral part of OTIB-0070 Rev 1, and it 

13 is being used as surrogate data at GSI for the 

14 residual period in particular.

15 But also, the SC&A analysis of 

16 surrogate data selected by NIOSH didn't 

17 include Adley '52, and I think NIOSH should 

18 have included Adley, and I think that should 

19 have been looked at, because it gives you a 

20 completely different picture of the airborne 

21 uranium levels, depending on which of those 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 surrogate data sites you used. Anyway --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, yes. I 

3 mean, I'll just comment -- and we won't 

4 prolong this -- but I think in the latter case 

5 NIOSH eventually tried to eliminate sites 

6 where it appeared that there would be 

7 interference on the handling by other nearby 

8 processes. So there was a rationale for 

9 saying we are not going to include it. In 

10 other words, not every site that is handled 

11 would necessarily be included.

12 But the other part of it is, what 

13 about the OTIB-0070 thing, which is not our 

14 document as far as GSI or TBD-6000 is 

15 concerned, but we are using it in terms of the 

16 Board's --

17 DR. McKEEL: You are using it to 

18 bound the doses at GSI for --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Yes. Yes. 

20 I understand what you're saying, and a 

21 related question is whether or not it has been 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 appropriately vented in terms of its own 

2 review.

3 DR. MAURO: This is John. I think 

4 I see what the dilemma is with OTIB-0070. The 

5 aspect of OTIB-0070 that has applicability 

6 here is that deposition velocity. In other 

7 words, Adley is where we -- the source work 

8 was done by David Allen to show that that 

9 .00075 meters per second is a good way to 

10 predictively model the rate at which material 

11 falls, dust falls and builds up. It is not in 

12 itself -- as best I recall, that's the only 

13 aspect of OTIB-0070 that uses Adley 

14 information. 

15 And, of course, in that regard, 

16 that deposition velocity was of course used as 

17 part of predicting what the exposures might be 

18 during the residual period at GSI, but I do 

19 not believe there is anything by way of 

20 airborne measurement data that has -- at Adley 

21 that has any relevance to OTIB-0070, just the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 velocity, how they derive that velocity.

2 So I think that that might be a 

3 little bit a source of confusion. I hope this 

4 helps.

5 DR. McKEEL: I still think it has 

6 to be looked at, even if that is the --

7 DR. MAURO: It has been looked at. 

8 In other words, OTIB-0070 and the deposition 

9 -- in fact, the deposition velocity that was 

10 talked about at length by -- which is also 

11 part of TBD-6000, that deposition process has 

12 been thoroughly reviewed as to whether or not 

13 that's a good number to predict the rate at 

14 which uranium settles out.

15 DR. McKEEL: I understand that, 

16 but I'm still saying -- Adley 1952 and the 

17 Hanford melt plant, we know where the site 

18 was. Has that been vetted with the five Board 

19 surrogate data criteria at GSI? In other 

20 words, have those sites stringently been 

21 justified to be shown to be comparable?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen. I 

2 think if you were to vet the Adley -- either 

3 the Hanford melt plant against GSI and the 

4 surrogate data criteria you would find that 

5 the air sample data at the melt plant would 

6 not be a comparable process. It would fail 

7 the surrogate data. That's why it was not --

8 DR. McKEEL: You must not have 

9 listened to me, because I -- I mean, I -- the 

10 operations were similar, but the stringent 

11 justification of the two facilities being the 

12 same and having the same kind of operations, 

13 it clearly would fail on that basis, but I'm 

14 also saying that when you all -- I'm talking 

15 about SC&A and NIOSH -- looked at surrogate 

16 data, and the Work Group looked at surrogate 

17 data at GSI for the Dave Allen surrogate data 

18 sites, you know, it was finally blessed that 

19 big sites like Weldon Spring and Fernald were 

20 in fact similar to GSI.

21 And the paper I wrote about that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 shows a very nice comparison. Even the AWE 

2 sites were not like GSI. Most of them are 

3 small, had very few claims. They didn't have 

4 betatrons. They didn't have the same source 

5 mix. 

6 And so, you know, I just think 

7 it's an example of selectively using something 

8 that is convenient to use deposition velocity, 

9 and that, you know, you all have said many 

10 times surrogate data ought to be investigated, 

11 ought to be verified as passing the five 

12 surrogate data criteria of the Board. Thus,

13 why were they constructed in the first place? 

14 And I'm just saying that a key 

15 critical element in OTIB-0070 depends on Adley 

16 '52 and Adley '52 and the Hanford melt plant. 

17 Use of surrogate data at GSI has not been 

18 subjected to those five surrogate data 

19 criteria.

20 I agree with Dr. Mauro, of course, 

21 that the velocity -- the deposition velocity, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 once again, everybody thinks that's a good 

2 number. I'm sure that's why it was plugged 

3 into OTIB-0070, but that still doesn't get you 

4 around the surrogate data criteria issue.

5 DR. NETON: Dr. McKeel, but by 

6 that argument we would have to just look at 

7 every single set of monitoring data we have in 

8 our possession, and selectively then just pick 

9 Adley and test that -- we should test 

10 everything.

11 DR. McKEEL: Yes. You should just 

12 --

13 DR. NETON: That's not practical. 

14 You'd have to --

15 DR. McKEEL: That's exactly what 

16 --

17 DR. NETON: -- you think meets the 

18 criteria and then test them, which we did. We 

19 found multiple representations and we vetted 

20 them. You can't possibly look at the universe 

21 of all possibilities and selectively deny 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 them. It's just not practical.

2 DR. McKEEL: I think you are being 

3 very selective in what you do look at.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob. I 

5 would like to break in. First of all, I would 

6 like to correct Dr. McKeel. Adley is not even 

7 mentioned in OTIB-0070. It's not in the list 

8 of references. It's not mentioned anywhere in 

9 the document. It is mentioned in TBD-6000 

10 where the deposition velocity is used, as well 

11 as the deposition velocity based on other 

12 reports and scientific studies, which is 

13 mentioned in OTIB-0070.

14 And the fact that some 

15 information, such as in TBD-6000, is used in 

16 Adley, all that's simply saying is here are 

17 places where uranium dust was generated, and 

18 there were collection plates set out to see 

19 how fast it falls. 

20 That does not mean that the 

21 concentrations were similar. It just means 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the uranium dust is -- was similar because it 

2 was generated from aerosol and it generally 

3 behaved in a very similar manner. So just 

4 because one parameter is applicable doesn't 

5 mean that everything in Adley is applicable 

6 here.

7 And we did look -- SC&A did -- we 

8 first brought up the Adley data. I was doing 

9 the review of surrogate data with my 

10 colleague, Bill Thurber -- I don't know if he 

11 is still on the line -- pointed that out, 

12 those three criteria. I mean, those three 

13 measurements of the loading of the rods.

14 And we looked at that. We brought 

15 it up. I mentioned that earlier today. And 

16 then NIOSH said, no, this is not consistent 

17 with so many other places, and we agreed that 

18 uranium handling, plain ordinary uranium 

19 handling is unlikely to have produced that 

20 high a concentration, and there had to be 

21 contributions from the melting -- uranium 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 melting furnaces nearby.

2 And so this has been very, very 

3 thoroughly vetted. You can always find a 

4 reason why it should -- why it is not -- you 

5 know, there can always be something where it's 

6 higher, but we believe -- and as everybody 

7 very well knows, we do not always agree with 

8 NIOSH. Perhaps more often than not we do not. 

9 But here we did find consistency that this 

10 was a well-researched, well-evaluated set of 

11 data.

12 It doesn't meet -- and, again, it 

13 doesn't mean that Fernald or Weldon Spring is 

14 like GSI. It simply meant that the individual 

15 handler, you know, whether you have a 100-acre 

16 site or a one-acre site doesn't change the 

17 nature of the uranium handling on a local 

18 basis, which is measured at the worker's 

19 breathing zone. So it's just -- these 

20 objections are simply not relevant to the 

21 validity of these data.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 DR. McKEEL: Well, I take offense 

2 at that comment. I think they are highly 

3 relevant, and all I'd say is I'll stand on 

4 what I wrote in my papers. I think that 

5 analysis you just gave is -- you know, I just 

6 -- I don't think it's worth taking up any more 

7 time. I just disagree with you.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, we 

9 have dealt with these issues a lot before as 

10 well, so the views are on the record and we 

11 know where we are on that.

12 DR. McKEEL: Right.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't see any 

14 deliverables on this at the moment. I think 

15 we may agree to disagree on how to interpret 

16 these at this point.

17 Josie, did you have further 

18 comments or questions on that? I'm not 

19 hearing her.

20 MEMBER BEACH: No, Paul. This is 

21 Josie. I just wanted to make sure that it was 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 clear and that we had covered it. So I'm 

2 good.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. 

4 Yes. Ted?

5 MR. KATZ: Just a quick 

6 clarification. I mean, given that we are 

7 really just giving a Work Group update on GSI 

8 at this next meeting, versus the -- do you 

9 want just to do that during the normal Work 

10 Group updates? Or do you want separate 

11 additional time in effect?

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I can do it 

13 during the normal updates, whichever works out 

14 best for the schedule, Ted.

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. That's fine. I 

16 think that will probably work nicely.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Very 

18 good.

19 MR. KATZ: Okay. Thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We'll move on 

21 now to Baker Brothers. And I'll just remind 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 you that at our last Work Group meeting on 

2 April 26th, the Work Group voted to recommend 

3 that an SEC not be approved for the residual 

4 period. So, and as we agreed -- there was 

5 agreement by NIOSH and SC&A on including the 

6 issue of the generation of fires, that the 

7 doses could be bounded.

8 So I think that's -- I think 

9 that's where we're at on that, in terms of 

10 Baker. Tom, or Bill Thurber, do either of you 

11 have any comments on Baker Brothers?

12 MR. TOMES: This is Tom. What you 

13 just summarized is where I understand we're at 

14 on that.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So I think on 

16 Baker we simply recommend to the Board that 

17 they approve the NIOSH position that doses can 

18 be bounded for the residual period.

19 MR. KATZ: Right. Paul, this is 

20 Ted.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And that the SEC 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 Class not be granted. Yes, Ted?

2 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. And the 

3 reason I just put this on the agenda is I just 

4 wanted to make sure we address whether you 

5 want -- I don't know whether you want help 

6 with either -- from SC&A drafting up, or NIOSH 

7 drafting up a presentation, so that you can 

8 cover what was considered and resolved in 

9 getting --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think 

11 maybe what we'll do, I can do a very brief 

12 presentation of what the recommendation is. 

13 And I guess if the Board wants to have any 

14 additional information on the issue of the 

15 fires maybe Tom could summarize that very 

16 briefly.

17 MR. KATZ: Okay. That's fine.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or at least be 

19 prepared to.

20 MR. TOMES: At which meeting?

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or should we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 just go ahead and plan to do that?

2 MR. KATZ: Well, that's what I'm 

3 -- I mean, I can certainly circulate the 

4 paper. I think, Tom, there has been a memo 

5 addressing this. I can certainly circulate 

6 that, but I think the Board generally would 

7 like to have -- to hear what the substance was 

8 that was addressed and put to bed before to 

9 support the recommendation.

10 So either from Tom or SC&A either 

11 way, whichever can do it most readily, it 

12 would be good I think to just have the 

13 substance presented and addressed.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Maybe Bill 

15 Thurber cold be available, then, also to sort 

16 of confirm SC&A's position on that.

17 DR. MAURO: I'm not sure if Bill 

18 is on the line. Bill, are you there?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wasn't Bill 

20 Thurber the one involved with this one?

21 DR. MAURO: Yes, he is. I wasn't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 sure whether he was --

2 MR. THURBER: I'm back on the 

3 line, John.

4 DR. MAURO: Yes. We did -- Bill 

5 certainly could go ahead and summarize it or 

6 be prepared to answer any questions. We agree 

7 that the doses could be reconstructed. The 

8 original issues that we raised had to do with 

9 fires.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And that's 

11 why I say we could have a brief --

12 DR. MAURO: And that has been 

13 resolved.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

15 DR. MAURO: The only thing left 

16 now, and that is in one of our reports that we 

17 sent out, is I guess there is one -- I'm 

18 sorry, what I would call a Site Profile issue, 

19 and that has to do with whether in fact there 

20 was cleanup at the end of the operation or 

21 not.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 NIOSH has made its arguments that, 

2 yes, there was some cleanup by drawing analogy 

3 to other sites that were I guess run or owned 

4 -- I'm not sure exactly the relationship --

5 under contract, that did the same kinds of 

6 things where there was cleanup after the fires 

7 and after the operations.

8 And the assumption is that would 

9 probably happen here also, and we agree 

10 there's a good chance that there was this 

11 cleanup. And that affects what assumption you 

12 would use during the residual period regarding 

13 the resuspension factor.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. But 

15 that's not -- that's not a site --

16 DR. MAURO: That is not an SEC 

17 issue at all. It is only, I think, a readily 

18 resolvable Site Profile issue.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Right.

20 MR. KATZ: This is Ted. So, 

21 again, I'm just asking either -- if Bill will 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 do it, that's fine. I mean, you don't --

2 certainly no one needs to travel to make a 

3 presentation, but it would be good to have --

4 whether it's two or three slides, but that 

5 tells the rest of the Board substantively what 

6 issues were considered and then put to bed to 

7 allow the Work Group to reach its conclusions.

8 MR. THURBER: I can do that. This 

9 is Bill. I can do that if you want me to, or 

10 NIOSH can do it and I can look it over. 

11 Whatever you folks want.

12 MR. KATZ: Yes. So, Bill, that's 

13 fine. I don't hear NIOSH volunteering to do 

14 it, so that would be great if you would do it.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. I think 

16 Bill can do it, since it represents the 

17 Board's contractor and --

18 MR. KATZ: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- they can give 

20 their evaluation. I'll just kick it off, and 

21 I'll just give you a heads up that I won't be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 at the meeting in person myself, so --

2 MR. THURBER: What is the date we 

3 are going to need this by?

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the 

5 meeting, Ted, is July --

6 MR. KATZ: Yes. This is on the 

7 agenda for July 17, Bill.

8 MR. THURBER: Okay. All right.

9 MR. KATZ: And just a few slides, 

10 and we will need those slides the week before, 

11 so that they can be distributed --

12 MR. THURBER: Yes.

13 MR. KATZ: -- and posted, and so 

14 on.

15 MR. THURBER: I got you.

16 MR. KATZ: But it can be very 

17 brief.

18 MR. THURBER: I got you.

19 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

20 MR. THURBER: We'll take care of 

21 it.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. On 

2 Joslyn, let's go ahead to Joslyn. I think 

3 there we just need a status report from DCAS 

4 on Joslyn.

5 DR. NETON: Is Sam on the line?

6 DR. GLOVER: Yes, I am.

7 DR. NETON: Okay. Good.

8 DR. GLOVER: So we have been 

9 preparing responses, Paul, for all of those 

10 different parts, and we have bundled them to, 

11 you know, things that seem to be together. We 

12 try to make those, you know, like there were 

13 -- we agreed there were some handoff errors as 

14 people didn't convert between some units in 

15 some of the tables, and we have also realized 

16 that some of the figures were impacted by 

17 that. And so we are preparing to, obviously, 

18 make sure that those are all correct as a 

19 kickoff to our discussions.

20 We have been conducting a number 

21 of interviews and inviting SC&A and the Board 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 to attend as --

2 DR. NETON: Sam, this is Jim. We 

3 might want to just start by mentioning what we 

4 are trying to do here, and that is, is the 

5 1948 date a good start -- end date for the 

6 SEC, right?

7 DR. GLOVER: Right. That is true, 

8 Jim. Obviously, through 1948 -- through '47 

9 we have an SEC. In 1948, we concluded that we 

10 can do dose reconstruction through 1952. 

11 There is no residual period at Joslyn. And so 

12 we are basically responding to the concerns.

13 There was 11 findings listed in 

14 SC&A's report, and I think Bill Thurber was 

15 one of the authors of that.

16 MR. THURBER: Guilty.

17 DR. GLOVER: And so we are just 

18 making sure, you know, some of those were 

19 factual mistakes that were made, so those are 

20 fairly straightforward. Others, you know, we 

21 certainly are in the process of making sure 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 that we appropriately look through all of 

2 those.

3 And so the things that are 

4 straightforward we are fixing quickly, and 

5 others we are researching and including the 

6 Board regarding, one, energy use associated 

7 with the fires. And I think I may need Bill 

8 and SC&A to address whether their concerns --

9 if they answered their own question on our 

10 fires with their TBD-6000 report, if they want 

11 another response, because they sort of I think 

12 agreed that perhaps they are covered by TBD13 6000, the outside burning.

14 MR. THURBER: That is indeed what 

15 we concluded. Obviously, we did that work 

16 after we had reviewed and critiqued the Joslyn 

17 report. Obviously, if NIOSH has some 

18 additional information, and certainly the 

19 interview that you conducted with the guy that 

20 actually did the burning I think is extremely 

21 valuable information that needs to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 documented in support of the position that the 

2 fires are not that troublesome.

3 DR. GLOVER: And these were -- as 

4 mentioned earlier, they were an external --

5 they would collect these things in buckets and 

6 take them outside, and they would be picked up 

7 and -- if there was enough wind. And so we 

8 can -- we certainly will document that, Bill, 

9 and we will use your all's discussion, in 

10 addition to what we've found, to put that all 

11 in an official response so the Board can look 

12 at all of that at one shot.

13 MR. THURBER: Good.

14 DR. GLOVER: That's finding number 

15 eight was mostly this issue of fires. Finding 

16 three we still are certainly working on what 

17 Jim described as this 1948 start date. Why 

18 does HASL -- why do we believe that TBD-6000, 

19 based on basically the HASL approaches, HASL 

20 measurements, why is all of a sudden -- why do 

21 we stop the SEC and believe that Joslyn is 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 covered?

2 And so we are making sure that we 

3 have covered all of our bases. One of the 

4 interviews brought up that -- what I consider 

5 perhaps slightly unusual but we are verifying 

6 that is that the rolling mills at Joslyn were 

7 water-cooled bearings. 

8 And so there are some experience, 

9 and I believe in the summary report, I think 

10 it's Kingsley, the one that TBD-6000 is based 

11 on, they describe that being a major factor in 

12 affecting the air concentration data. And 

13 certainly they did it one time at Bethlehem 

14 Steel, and they said, don't ever do it again. 

15 It created a massive amount of steam and 

16 oxides and things. It certainly enhances the 

17 exposure rate.

18 We do have measurements of the 

19 1952 -- that were conducted in '52 of that 

20 rolling mill, and so those were bounded by 

21 TBD-6000. So it may be that we are just -- we 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 want to make sure that we properly vet that, 

2 if there is anything that might affect our use 

3 of TBD-6000.

4 So we are conducting interviews, 

5 and we will of course continue to keep the 

6 Advisory Board and SC&A apprised of those, and 

7 putting together our -- I believe we were 

8 thinking -- Monica, are we hoping to be done 

9 towards the end of July with our responses? I 

10 think is what we have -- she may not be 

11 willing to talk. She may not be on right now. 

12 But I think we are wanting to have some 

13 materials to you guys by the end of July, 

14 Paul.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That 

16 sounds good.

17 DR. GLOVER: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any questions, 

19 Board Members?

20 (No response.)

21 Okay. If not, let's move on to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 Simonds Saw and Steel. We have a number of 

2 items in the findings matrix that were in 

3 abeyance awaiting actual action. But let's 

4 get updates from DCAS on that. I think, Tom, 

5 you have some words for us here?

6 MR. TOMES: Yes, I do. On the 

7 12th of this month, I sent an email out to the 

8 Working Group, an additional response to two 

9 findings that were discussed at the last Work 

10 Group meeting. One of those is Finding 1 

11 concerning the external doses that were 

12 modeled in TBD, and we had some discussions 

13 regarding those doses compared to some limited 

14 film badge results.

15 And basically my -- the message 

16 that was sent out was that our model doses are 

17 favorable in relation to the extrapolated film 

18 badges, and that also provides us a means to 

19 estimate uncertainty. And I believe as far as 

20 in principle that -- SC&A has not responded to 

21 this particular spot, but I believe in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 principle at that last meeting they were 

2 somewhat in agreement with that approach.

3 MR. BARTON: Yes. Tom, this is 

4 Bob Barton with SC&A. I did see your 

5 response. And, yes, you're correct. I think 

6 we are in agreement in principle. At the last 

7 meeting we kind of had discussed these 

8 extrapolated film badges, and it was a very 

9 fruitful discussion, and eventually we all 

10 came out that, well, even though we have these 

11 film badge results, the method that has been 

12 adopted is actually more claimant-favorable 

13 and, like you said, it gives a method to 

14 actually estimate the uncertainty on the 

15 external dose.

16 So, yes, I think we're on the same 

17 page with regard to that one.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you are both 

19 in agreement on -- that's on Finding 1?

20 MR. TOMES: I believe so, yes.

21 MR. BARTON: Yes. That one had 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 been in progress I believe because we didn't 

2 have any sort of formal response at the last 

3 meeting about this whole issue. But I think, 

4 you know, this one should be in abeyance 

5 because, you know, we are in agreement, and 

6 then there will be some language put into the 

7 Site Profile revision that kind of discusses 

8 this whole -- the whole issue and why the 

9 model that has been adopted is in fact 

10 claimant-favorable. So --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, I 

12 think the latest matrix that we have shows 

13 that it is in abeyance.

14 DR. NETON: That's correct.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And so I guess 

16 we can just leave it there, then, which means 

17 we have agreed to the change, and it just has 

18 to occur.

19 DR. NETON: Yes. In fact, I think 

20 the first three findings, actually four --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Actually, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 Finding 2 is in abeyance, so is three.

2 DR. NETON: Four and five.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Four and five 

4 are all in abeyance, and then number six we 

5 have a response to today.

6 DR. NETON: Yes. And six -- Tom 

7 will probably talk about this, but we are 

8 still working on these. Tom, do you want to 

9 provide some update on that?

10 MR. TOMES: Yes. The topic we got 

11 into detail somewhat last time was -- that 

12 needed more work was the TBD for that contract 

13 period at Simonds Saw and Steel assumes a 

14 2,500-hour work-year. And then, the residual 

15 period drops at 2,000, and the TBD would 

16 provide a rationale or a reason for that 

17 change broadly.

18 And so SC&A commented on that, and 

19 we agreed to look at it, and we agreed that we 

20 should hold ours steady at 2,500 per year 

21 throughout the residual period, which would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 affect the doses in the TBD revision.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. But you 

3 are still reevaluating this, then, is that 

4 right?

5 MR. TOMES: Other parts of this 

6 finding -- it's under evaluation concerning 

7 the residual period. What is holding up 

8 getting some of these resolved is we are 

9 looking at -- we got into some discussion last 

10 time on the 1954 general area data site 

11 including the TBD. 

12 So that's what we are -- one of 

13 the things we are looking at right now is to 

14 come up with the appropriate value to use for 

15 an air concentration at the start of the 

16 residual period.

17 DR. NETON: Yes. There's a couple 

18 of different -- there's sort of a unique 

19 situation at Simonds where you -- you know, we 

20 agree that we should use the monitoring data 

21 that is close enough -- as close to the end of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the operational period as possible, which 

2 would be '54, and that's fine. 

3 But then you have a residual 

4 period that has a couple components. One, it 

5 goes through, what, '82, Tom, or something 

6 like that, and then the plant basically shut 

7 down and nothing was going on. And the 

8 question is, how do you really model that 

9 properly? And we are still in the process of 

10 trying to strategize on that.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. There is 

12 no action that we need to take today that --

13 DR. NETON: No.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- so this will 

15 remain in progress, and hopefully by our next 

16 meeting you will have --

17 DR. NETON: Yes. It shouldn't 

18 take too long. It's just a matter of coming 

19 to grips with the issue.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Any 

21 questions on any of these on -- that's the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 last one on Simonds, isn't it? Let's see.

2 DR. NETON: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Finding 7 is 

4 still in progress, too, right?

5 DR. NETON: Yes, that is tied into 

6 the same issue in the residual period.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

8 Okay. Any questions, anyone, on Simonds?

9 MEMBER MUNN: None here.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No action is 

11 required.

12 MEMBER MUNN: No.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I think 

14 that completes our agenda today. Ted, are 

15 there any other housekeeping issues that need 

16 to come before us?

17 MR. KATZ: No, I think we are all 

18 set, unless you want to just get a sense of 

19 when the Work Group could meet again, meaning 

20 when the action items that are on the table 

21 could be discussed. And I don't want to press 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 anyone. I know it's -- we can't do that on 

2 the fly. But if anyone has a general sense 

3 now, it would be good to have that sort of --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think 

5 probably the only things that are pending are 

6 the GSI things, really, that we need to push 

7 ahead on.

8 MR. KATZ: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I'm 

10 wondering if -- how people's schedules are. I 

11 think we are certainly going to be into the --

12 toward the end of August as far as I'm 

13 concerned. What does --

14 MR. KATZ: Right. Well, Jim or 

15 Dave, just -- are we thinking about that it 

16 would be sometime middle-to-late August, or do 

17 we need to wait?

18 DR. NETON: I don't like to speak 

19 for Dave much, but it seems like that's a 

20 reasonable time frame to get what we've got to 

21 get done. Dave?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 MR. ALLEN: Yes. Ted, are you 

2 talking about to get the three papers I owe to 

3 the Work Group? Because SC&A needs some time 

4 to look, I would think.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes. No, no. And I 

6 would -- certainly, I think the sense of how 

7 long it would take you to get them and then we 

8 would need to add time for the -- so that SC&A 

9 isn't under a crunch to be able to respond.

10 MR. ALLEN: I mean, I can 

11 guarantee them by the end of August, and I can 

12 shoot for much earlier than that. But there's 

13 no guarantee, because something else pops up 

14 every day, you know?

15 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well, then, I 

16 mean, let's -- maybe let's not schedule right 

17 now. And, Dave, I just would like to point 

18 out, once you have some feeling of surety 

19 about the time frame when you would be 

20 delivering these, please just let me know. 

21 And then, at that point, I will schedule with 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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 the Work Group for another meeting.

2 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay?

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, that will 

5 be fine.

6 MR. KATZ: Right.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We kind of have 

8 to play it by ear, then, until we see where --

9 because I know you have other things going, 

10 plus some limitations on things at the moment, 

11 too.

12 Okay. Any other items that need 

13 to come before us today?

14 MR. KATZ: No. I think that takes 

15 care of the meeting.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

17 you, everyone. Appreciate your time. We'll 

18 be talking to you at the Board meeting.

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

20 matter went off the record at 2:42 p.m.)

21
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

been reviewed for concerns under the Privacy Act (5 U.S.C. § 552a) and personally identifiable 

information has been redacted as necessary. The transcript, however, has not been reviewed and 

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

cautioned that this transcript is for information only and is subject to change.

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

2

3

4

5