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

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

+ + + + +

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH

+ + + + +

TBD-6000 WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

MEETING

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

FEBRUARY 21, 2013

+ + + + +

The meeting convened in the Zurich 

Room of the Cincinnati Airport Marriott, 2395 

Progress Drive, Hebron, Kentucky at 9:00 a.m., 

Paul L. Ziemer, Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, SR., Member*
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

2

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A*

TERRIE BARRIE*

BOB BARTON, SC&A

PATRICIA JESKE*

JENNY LIN, HHS*

ARJUN MAKHIJANI, SC&A*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

DAN McKEEL*

JIM NETON, DCAS

JOHN RAMSPOTT*

LaVON RUTHERFORD, DCAS*

JOHN STIVER, SC&A*

TOM TOMES, DCAS

*Participating via telephone
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

3

T-A-B-L-E O-F C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Roll Call

by Mr. Ted Katz ...................... 4

Welcome

by Chairman Ziemer ................... 5

Summary of NIOSH Approaches for Final DR

Dose Estimates

by Mr. Dave Allen .................... 9

SC&A Comments

by Dr. Bob Anigstein ................ 38

Petitioner Comments

by Dr. Dan McKeel ................... 75

Matrix Issues and Actions

by Chairman Ziemer ................. 111

Baker Brothers by Dr. Mauro.............. 254

Simonds Saw and Steel

by Chairman Ziemer ................. 274

Next steps

by Chairman Ziemer ................. 277
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

4

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

2 9:00 a.m.

3 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone 

4 in the room and on the line. This is the 

5 Advisory Board of Radiation Worker Health, 

6 TBD-6000 Work Group. And we are going to get 

7 started. Let's begin with roll call, 

8 beginning with Board Members with folks in the 

9 room and let me remind everyone of agency10 related, to speak to conflict of interest too.

11 We're speaking about three sites 

12 today, GSI, Baker Brothers and Simonds Saw and 

13 Steel. Thank you.

14 (Roll Call)

15 MR. KATZ: Okay, then. There are 

16 materials, an agenda and materials for this 

17 meeting, posted on the NIOSH website under the 

18 Board section, under the schedules, meeting 

19 schedules section, for today's date. And let 

20 me just remind everyone on the line to please 

21 mute your phones except when you're addressing 

22 the group. If you don't have a mute button, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

5

1 please press *6 to mute your phone. And 

2 pressing *6 again will take your phone off of 

3 mute.

4 I can hear someone has a phone 

5 ringing in the background, so that phone 

6 should be muted. Thank you. And Paul, it's 

7 your agenda.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I will 

9 officially call the meeting to order. Welcome 

10 everyone. We're pleased that all of you are 

11 here in the room and on by phone. We have 

12 three main categories on our agenda today 

13 really, sites to address. General Steel 

14 Industries is the first, then Baker Brothers, 

15 then Simonds Saw and Steel.

16 And the GSI one is an ongoing 

17 activity. Right now we're focused on the 

18 final models for dose reconstruction since the 

19 Board took action at the last meeting on the 

20 petition. So we're now focused specifically 

21 on the modeling of the doses for both the 

22 active and the residual period.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

6

1 And then we have on Baker Brothers 

2 a carryover item that the Board assigned to us 

3 at the last meeting, that is to review the 

4 residual period and make a recommendation. 

5 And then finally, Simonds Saw and Steel, we 

6 have the issues matrix to deal with.

7 We're going to probably spend most 

8 of the morning, if not all of the morning, on 

9 General Steel Industries. And we'll plan for 

10 a lunch break at noon. We'll plan for a 

11 comfort break about midmorning as well.

12 Now on General Steel Industries 

13 there are two documents that we're dealing 

14 with today. One is the document prepared by 

15 NIOSH OCAS, DCAS by Dave Allen which 

16 summarizes the dose reconstruction results 

17 from the NIOSH models and also compares them 

18 with the SC&A models because really one of the 

19 jobs we have here today now is to take these 

20 models and look at the assumptions and come to 

21 some agreements on what assumptions should be 

22 best used to reach the final dose assignments 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

7

1 for each of these models.

2 And we also have a document from 

3 SC&A, which was distributed. And theirs is 

4 basically a response to the NIOSH report. So 

5 I thought it would be of value initially for 

6 Dave Allen to take a little time and highlight 

7 the items in his paper and any issues that he 

8 wants to raise with the Work Group. And then 

9 we'll have an opportunity for SC&A to give 

10 their take on it. Also we'll have opportunity 

11 for the petitioners to comment as well.

12 The SC&A material, I think there's 

13 a presentation that Bob Anigstein was going to 

14 make. Bob's been fighting some respiratory 

15 illness this week and hopefully will be on the 

16 phone. We have here in the room a projector 

17 with a copy of his presentation and Bob Barton 

18 is prepared to provide that for us. But is 

19 Bob Anigstein on the call yet?

20 DR. MAURO: Paul, this is John 

21 Mauro. I just called his home number and his 

22 office number and no one's picking up.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

8

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, I was on 

2 mute. I didn't answer.

3 DR. MAURO: Okay.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There's Bob. 

5 Okay, Bob, thank you.

6 DR. MAURO: Thanks, Bob.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So the 

8 record will show Bob now has joined the call 

9 as well.

10 MR. KATZ: Yes and for the record 

11 Bob has no conflict with GSI. And Bob it's 

12 correct, right, you have no conflict with 

13 Baker Brothers or Simonds Saw as well?

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No conflict.

15 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So let's 

17 begin. Dave, if you'll kick it off and make 

18 whatever comments you wish to on your GSI dose 

19 estimate comparison paper.

20 MR. ALLEN: Okay. When I started 

21 writing this I just note that there was a lot 

22 of models and a lot of tweaking that has gone 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

9

1 on in the last several years. So I tried to 

2 summarize or actually look up and find and 

3 summarize where we stood the last iteration 

4 of models, SC&A and ours.

5 And I just tried to put this in a 

6 summary form where you can see I just made 

7 four tables for the photon dose and divided it 

8 between radium era and the cobalt-60 era and 

9 also between radiographers and non10 radiographers just to try to make a clear 

11 picture of where these models all stand.

12 I think that the last thing to do 

13 was see what the differences are in these 

14 models, see what the assumptions are, where 

15 there is disagreement and hopefully reach some 

16 sort of consensus on what assumptions we 

17 should use so we can then move forward, revise 

18 the Appendix and move on.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And as 

20 you get underway just for clarity, as I 

21 understand it would be NIOSH's intention to 

22 assign everybody into one of the categories, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

10

1 either radiographers or what are we calling 

2 the others, others.

3 Everybody on the site would be in 

4 one of those two categories because we haven't 

5 separated out where people were working other 

6 than on those, we know who radiographers are 

7 but the others would be in the other category 

8 then.

9 MR. ALLEN: Yes and then as it 

10 turned out in the cobalt era it didn't matter. 

11 They all ended up with that layout worker 

12 dose would be applicable to either category.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Go ahead.

14 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I'm not going 

15 to read the whole thing. You have it here. 

16 But you can see the numbers category by 

17 category. Once I got through that I tried to 

18 summarize what we had to sort out. So I 

19 listed what I thought were the issues where we 

20 agreed or models where we agreed and then 

21 unresolved issues. And I discussed those.

22 As it turned out I thought we were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

11

1 to a point where it was essentially the radium 

2 source scenario and the layout man were the 

3 two models where there was any disagreements 

4 on the assumptions, et cetera. I think Bob 

5 pointed out in his reply that I think we're 

6 going to have to toss time line in there also 

7 as far as there is the 1962 era where it's not 

8 a nice clean break in the era there.

9 Essentially we have, I think, 

10 three areas where we need to discuss what the 

11 assumptions are and what we should use to 

12 proceed with revising the Appendix. Do you 

13 want me just --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead and 

15 highlight those for the record. I think we 

16 want to have that on the record.

17 MR. ALLEN: Okay. The radium era 

18 is essentially, you know, the era from the 

19 beginning to that time frame in the 1962 type 

20 of era. And what we have right now is that 

21 for the radiographers NIOSH had an estimate 

22 that used parameters that we were told for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

12

1 fishing pole technique. And we used the 

2 middle.

3 We had, there was a range of four 

4 to six foot pole and 12 to 15 seconds to move 

5 the source. We used the middle at 13.5 

6 seconds for an average and five feet for an 

7 average on the distance. SC&A used the one 

8 maximizing the short distance, the longer time 

9 frame to come up with their estimate.

10 And then probably the biggest 

11 difference is in our estimate we assumed that 

12 this wasn't all done by one person. There are 

13 a couple people doing radiography that would 

14 have traded off actually doing that. I think 

15 I am more than willing to pull back that 

16 assumption because it does look like, 

17 especially in these early years, it was maybe 

18 not a radiographer helper with the sources 

19 every time. Whereas we've been told something 

20 about radiographer helpers.

21 But there's really no information 

22 that was always the case or frequent or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

13

1 anything else. So that particular assumption 

2 I'm more than willing to pull back. I don't 

3 have the number handy here but it raises our 

4 estimate to some five rem a year, five point 

5 something as I recall. I'm trying to find it.

6 In any case, it raises it to 

7 somewhere around there. Meanwhile we have Bob 

8 Anigstein at SC&A did a model estimate that 

9 resulted in a dose of 9.69 rem per year to the 

10 radiographers. That dose primarily from 

11 placing the source and removing the source 

12 from the fishing pole technique.

13 Bob also, I'm trying to get this 

14 right, he used a summary of a dose record we 

15 had from a radiographer and a telephone 

16 conversation with him that gave ranges of how 

17 often he did radiography. And he was part18 time on the weekend doing radiography. So Bob 

19 prorated it based on those ranges, you know, 

20 to get a bound, essentially a minimum and 

21 maximum which came out to. I can't find this.

22 MEMBER MUNN: 9.39?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

14

1 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I think it was 

2 9.1 rem per year to 20.5 rem per year. And 

3 lastly, there was a, one of the statements in 

4 the application for an AEC license indicated 

5 that while they were doing this technique they 

6 had averaged less than 25 percent of the limit 

7 and had always been below the limit. All of 

8 the radiographers have always been below the 

9 limit.

10 The limit was essentially 15 rem 

11 for the first couple years, the first few 

12 years through I think 1954, 55. And after 

13 that it was essentially 12 rem a year. In 

14 reality it's three rem per quarter and there's 

15 a lifetime limit. But as long as they weren't 

16 close to the quarterly the lifetime limit 

17 didn't, usually wasn't the limiting factor.

18 So anyway, that's where we stand 

19 on that. My opinion on the 12 and 15 rem per 

20 year based on the limit, it's not really an 

21 estimate so much as we have a statement from 

22 GSI saying it was less than these numbers. So 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

15

1 I was looking at those as a less than 15 and a 

2 less than 12 rem per year.

3 The range, prorated range of 9.1 

4 to 20.5 rem is an estimate. And then the 9.69 

5 rem is for the model based on parameters given 

6 by, I believe, the same person, the same 

7 radiographer. And I think Bob had stated a 

8 couple of times that was convincing to him 

9 that, you know, three different methods all 

10 came up in a similar range.

11 For actually revising the TBD, 

12 like I said the 15 and the 12 rem I think are 

13 less than numbers and I can't really use those 

14 for doses that I put into an Appendix. The 

15 range, the 9.1 to 20.5, I can't so much put 

16 that in an Appendix either. But both of 

17 those, all those values are something that the 

18 estimate should fall somewhere in that range 

19 or that vicinity.

20 The 9.69 I consider to be a real 

21 estimate or a model. It is a maximizing like 

22 I said versus an average type of thing. But 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

16

1 it does fall into those ranges whereas ours 

2 does not fall the range of the 9.1 to 20.5 

3 prorated that Bob calculated from the summary 

4 dose record.

5 So I'm not sure, this is one thing 

6 I wanted to get the feel of the Work Group on 

7 was where they felt comfortable with, we could 

8 use the maximizing parameters that SC&A used, 

9 they used the 9.69 model dose. Like I said I 

10 would not recommend using those prorated 

11 values other than to, as a, similar to what 

12 Bob did, to say this shows that these numbers 

13 are reasonable or another piece of information 

14 shows they're reasonable along with the less 

15 than 12 and less than 15.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, let me 

17 make a comment here because this is a subset 

18 of a larger question that comes up under the 

19 issue of sufficient accuracy. And that is if 

20 one takes every assumption and uses the 

21 extreme value, not just here but in general, 

22 you end up with something that, surely it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

17

1 bounds but it becomes non plausible.

2 I mean the SEC Work Group is 

3 dealing with this right now on the sufficient 

4 accuracy question because we have these cases 

5 where you have a whole series of assumptions 

6 and the claimant-favorable thing really comes 

7 in once you've made reasonable assumptions. 

8 And then you're taking the tail end of the 

9 distribution. You build in the claimant10 favorability there.

11 Sometimes if you maximize each of 

12 these you come up with a bounding number that 

13 really isn't plausible. So I don't know that 

14 you can necessarily justify taking that 

15 maximum in every one of these assumption 

16 cases. Like you're maximizing the dose from 

17 the distance, you're maximizing it from the 

18 time factors, you're doing all of those little 

19 subsets and then you end up with this really 

20 high number that is not plausible.

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and that is a 

22 concern I had too. I'm well aware of, you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

18

1 know, 95th and 95th and 95th and you end up 

2 with an unrealistic estimate. But in this 

3 particular case we were actually talking about 

4 two parameters.

5 It's the amount of time and the 

6 distance the person was. And the part I can't 

7 get over is the lower limit of the prorated 

8 dose from the summary that he had came out to 

9 be 9.1 rem. Putting those two together, you 

10 know, I'm willing to go with that estimate 

11 that Bob had with the 9.69.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's just two 

13 factors you mean.

14 MR. ALLEN: Yes, it's just the two 

15 factors. But maybe we should, you know, hear 

16 from Bob --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're not going 

18 to decide that this minute. It's sort of an 

19 open question. Let me ask another one here 

20 while we have this chart here. So if you're a 

21 radiographer in the radium era under the NIOSH 

22 scheme as it stands here, you would assign 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

19

1 that person three and a half, 3.573 for the 

2 radium work, plus you would assign the 2.6 for 

3 possible exposure to the St. Louis sources 

4 also?

5 MR. ALLEN: No, and that gets into 

6 the time frame is the --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: One of the three 

8 things. Well all right. Well let me do it a 

9 different way. The betatron operator 

10 sometimes serves as the layout man, right?

11 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You would give 

13 him both of those numbers or not?

14 MR. ALLEN: We would not.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob. 

16 These are mutually exclusive.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well but we have 

18 layout man --

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Because he can't 

20 spend all of his shifts as a layout man and 

21 all of his shifts operating the betatron.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

20

1 understand that but we have a layout man on 

2 the radiographer chart. So --

3 MR. ALLEN: Yes, what I tried to 

4 do with this chart was to say that somebody 

5 that is a radiographer in his early years, he 

6 could have been doing radiography.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You're going to 

8 parse it out like 50/50 or something.

9 MR. ALLEN: He could have done 

10 radiography there. He could have done 

11 radiography out in the plant. He could been 

12 working on the betatron. He could not be 

13 doing them all at the same time.

14 And since we can't really place 

15 him in one or the other it was list all these 

16 scenarios, estimate the dose and then pick the 

17 highest one, you know, what would be the worst 

18 case.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Whatever 

20 the highest one is for him we give him that 

21 100 percent of the time versus parsing it.

22 MR. ALLEN: Yes, so all of these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

21

1 doses you see here are assuming full-time 

2 doing that job.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Doing that job, 

4 okay. If a person was a radiographer you 

5 would still call him a layout man if he was, 

6 if that number came out higher for him.

7 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that layout job 

8 was done by radiographers.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I know 

10 that. Okay. These are just the numbers your 

11 model came up with and then --

12 MR. ALLEN: Right.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I got 

14 you. Other questions or comments for, do you 

15 want to go on to the next one or just --

16 MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. I 

17 was just wondering under the Ra-226 source 

18 you've said that you didn't develop an 

19 estimate in the radiograph room. Where was 

20 that?

21 MR. ALLEN: At that time we 

22 thought that the dose outside of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

22

1 radiography room would be limiting and it 

2 wasn't clear that room existed in those early 

3 years. We knew it was either built or 

4 modified in '62. It's turned out we got 

5 better information now that it was modified, 

6 the shielding was modified in '62 and it 

7 actually did exist the whole time.

8 And I think Bob Anigstein, after 

9 talking to several of the former 

10 radiographers, came to the conclusion it was 

11 99 percent of the time or more the radiography 

12 was in the radiography room. So essentially 

13 that's the estimate we probably should be 

14 using.

15 For the radiographers themselves, 

16 the vast majority of the dose comes from 

17 placing the source using the fishing pole 

18 technique. And that part of it ends up being 

19 the same whether it's in the radiography room 

20 or out. So there is a minor differences based 

21 on the area where they're actually doing it.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We talked about 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

23

1 the radiography room. At this point we're 

2 talking about that concrete block structure in 

3 the Number 6 Building.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Building 6, 

5 right.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Not the betatron -

7 -

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We understand.

9 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and it's probably 

10 good to point out.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, other 

12 questions? Are we on to the other tables or 

13 just general questions? No questions, Josie?

14 MEMBER BEACH: No.

15 MR. ALLEN: Okay, move on. Like I 

16 said that was one of the issues is the 

17 parameters for the radiography source 

18 scenario. Another one is the parameters for 

19 the layout man scenario and this is actually 

20 associated with the new betatron attached to 

21 Building 10 through a, what I call an 

22 equipment tunnel.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

24

1 And that's where the bulk of the 

2 dose for this scenario comes from scattered 

3 radiation coming down that equipment tunnel. 

4 If they're working in Building 10 near the 

5 opening for that tunnel. It's called layout 

6 man scenario and it's based on the layout man, 

7 which is essentially just marking the castings 

8 for where to place film, et cetera for the 

9 next shots on a casting.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. Not to 

11 be a nit picker, what he's marking is the 

12 repair not for the next project. He's marking 

13 up the casting to tell the chippers and 

14 grinders and welders where there's a defect 

15 and where they should dig it out and repair. 

16 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I was under the 

17 impression it was both and actually laying out 

18 a lot of those shots too. But either way it's 

19 essentially --

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The betatron 

21 operator in the betatron room laid out the 

22 shots.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

25

1 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I thought we were 

2 told that sometimes they set those up ahead of 

3 time while they were shooting other castings 

4 to try to keep the betatron going. But in 

5 either case --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Actually you may 

7 be right there.

8 MR. ALLEN: But in either case we 

9 are, you know, talking about a person that is 

10 working near that equipment door and there's a 

11 lot of this dose of scattered radiation coming 

12 down that equipment tunnel in some 

13 configurations of the betatron.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The reason that's 

15 significant is if this was a fresh casting he 

16 would not be getting beta dose from the 

17 casting. And if it's been irradiated and he's 

18 marking it up for repair. My understanding is 

19 he held the film in one hand and a piece of 

20 chalk in the other hand and said here is a 

21 defect, let me mark it.

22 And therefore he was getting a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

26

1 very high exposure with any activation of 

2 steel you would be getting a lot of beta 

3 exposure from the steel, which of course would 

4 not be the case if this was a casting that 

5 hadn't been irradiated yet.

6 MR. ALLEN: Yes, he'd be getting 

7 beta exposure and some photon exposure. And 

8 in either case I think both SC&A and our model 

9 assumed it's a freshly irradiated casting that 

10 he was working on.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, good.

12 MR. ALLEN: I think there is some 

13 marking up for the next shot even after the 

14 repair. Whether we call it the actual repair, 

15 or finding the repair, or marking for the shot 

16 after, it's very credible they're working on a 

17 freshly x-rayed casting. And so both models 

18 assume that and --

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I agree. If it's 

20 had already been repaired they would need to 

21 confirm the repair so it would have to be 

22 marked. Okay, I'm just being technical now.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

27

1 MR. ALLEN: And, I lost my train 

2 of thought. Yes, I wanted to, we're talking 

3 about the layout man here doing this work on a 

4 casting but in reality, as Bob mentioned, it's 

5 also repair, et cetera. And those are not 

6 radiographers grinding out the defects of weld 

7 repairing or whatever.

8 So there is plenty of other non9 radiographers that are in that same vicinity 

10 working in close proximity to the casting. So 

11 even though this is called layout man, it's 

12 really a scenario for radiographers and non13 radiographers, which is --

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, I specified 

15 this was the layout man in the original report 

16 back in 2008. The layout man gets to the 

17 casting first so he gets the most of the 

18 activation product. By the time it gets to 

19 the grinders and chippers, it's already 

20 decayed a bit.

21 So he would be the most, the 

22 highest exposure would be to the layout man 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

28

1 because he has the freshest casting after the 

2 radiography and the others are ready maybe an 

3 hour later. That's the reason for that.

4 But that's not, the purpose was 

5 not to make light of the exposure to the other 

6 workers, it's just that the, if you take the 

7 layout man, his exposure will be bounding.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, go ahead.

9 MR. ALLEN: Okay. The difference 

10 that we need to discuss here is in the NIOSH 

11 model we developed several shooting scenarios 

12 for the betatron if you are shooting near the, 

13 where the equipment is brought in on a 

14 railroad track type of, there's essentially 

15 some railroad tracks on a cart.

16 If it is shot while still sitting 

17 on that you get a considerable more amount of 

18 photon scatter down the equipment tunnel into 

19 where this layout man could be working. If it 

20 is put into the shooting room, casting is put 

21 further into the shooting room and shot there 

22 these numbers change quite a bit.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

29

1 What we did in our model was to 

2 come up with a number of different scenarios, 

3 various angles and various locations in the 

4 shooting room and estimated the dose at a 

5 number of locations for each shot including, I 

6 think there was three spots in the control 

7 room and 10 Building where this layout man 

8 would be and several other places we explored.

9 And we used the work schedules 

10 that we had gotten from or actually SC&A had 

11 gotten from the workers and developed a shot 

12 scenario for the typical work environment. 

13 And we used a solver in Excel to come up with 

14 a combination of these scenarios that would 

15 give us 10 millirem in the control room and 

16 maximize the exposure in the Number 10 

17 Building where this layout man would be.

18 And that's where we developed our 

19 model. And Bob can confirm that SC&A used a, 

20 they disagreed that all those shot scenarios 

21 were realistic and they used one that they 

22 considered to be realistic that maximized the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

30

1 dose in the Number 10 Building.

2 And I still say that would end up 

3 resulting in more than 10 millirem each week 

4 on the film badges. And I think Bob had a 

5 disagreement based on what he has written in 

6 his response here recently. But I think that 

7 is explaining the issue or the layout man 

8 exposure model.

9 And then there's the one last 

10 issue I think or major category of issue here 

11 that I think we have to discuss. I did not 

12 discuss in this paper, my intentions and it is 

13 not written in there, by any means. My 

14 intentions when I wrote this paper were that 

15 the dates, the exact dates when they shifted 

16 from radium to cobalt and when they started up 

17 the new betatron we knew the year and 

18 approximately when it happened but not hard 

19 and fast dates.

20 So my intentions were to use the 

21 radium radiography as limiting through the end 

22 of 1962 and then the new betatron as limiting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

31

1 starting in the beginning of '63 on. Bob in 

2 his reply, pointed out some other dates in 

3 there and broke it up into several, 1962 and 

4 in the 1963 time frame into several different 

5 categories.

6 And some of that I think he's got 

7 a good estimate there. I think there's, I 

8 take a little bit of issue with some of those 

9 dates. And I don't know if you want to start 

10 discussing the details on those at this point 

11 or?

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well we'll hear 

13 from Bob and also from the petitioners and 

14 then we can try to come to agreement on some 

15 of these issues. Just want to get the issues

16 out here, see what they are. So those are 

17 your main issues then, anything else that?

18 MR. ALLEN: No, I think everything 

19 else the neutron dose, et cetera falls into 

20 that, the scenarios that are used for the 

21 layout man. And I think we have agreement on 

22 the, how we go about the beta dose. It's just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

32

1 got to be reran based on scenarios, et cetera.

2 I think those three categories 

3 we've settled on what assumptions we use for 

4 those. I think we can go ahead and calculate 

5 all the doses.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any other 

7 questions from the, okay, let's hear from Bob 

8 Anigstein then. And we have the slide 

9 presentation here. And can we email that out? 

10 It hasn't been cleared yet.

11 MR. KATZ: It hasn't been cleared 

12 yet because I just got it.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is based 

14 entirely on cleared material. So we usually 

15 don't bother getting the presentation cleared 

16 because it's taken out of the cleared reports.

17 MS. LIN: Ted?

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Jenny, go ahead.

19 MS. LIN: This is Jenny with ODC. 

20 We just cleared that without PA redaction.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, great. I'm not 

22 on my email so.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

33

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So can we 

2 email that out to Dr. McKeel and to Mr. 

3 Ramspott?

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, I don't know if I 

5 have everybody's. I certainly know I have 

6 Dan's email.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have John 

8 Ramspott's also.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I can email it 

10 myself if you like.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, if you have Dan 

12 and John's emails and you do that, that's 

13 fine. Thank you.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And also --

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Should I do it 

16 right this moment?

17 MR. KATZ: Yes, please.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, then just --

19 MR. RAMSPOTT: Could you send it 

20 to me too because I don't have it?

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Who are you?

22 (Simultaneous speaking.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

34

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, sorry. Give 

2 me one minute. I'm going to put the phone 

3 down.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Does he have Ms. 

5 Jeske's email also because she's on the --

6 MR. KATZ: Let me see if I can, 

7 while he's doing that let me see if I have --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We're 

9 going to try to get it out to you Dan and John 

10 and Ms. Jeske.

11 MR. KATZ: I'll know in a second.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Terrie Barrie, 

13 do you want a copy of this also?

14 MS. BARRIE: If it's not too much 

15 trouble. If not I can try to follow along. 

16 Thank you for asking.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Terrie Barrie's 

18 --

19 MR. KATZ: I probably have 

20 Terrie's. I do have Terrie's so that's easy. 

21 I don't have Patricia's, I don't think. But 

22 Dan will have it and Dan can forward it on.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

35

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I have John 

2 Ramspott's.

3 MR. KATZ: No, I know. And Dan 

4 has Patricia's. So Dan can forward it on.

5 DR. MCKEEL: Josh Kinman has 

6 Patricia's.

7 MR. KATZ: Yes, but Josh isn't on 

8 this call.

9 DR. MCKEEL: Well then maybe you 

10 can just get him to do that little task. 

11 Thank you.

12 MR. KATZ: Well I mean he's not, I 

13 can't reach him right now is what I'm saying. 

14 So you can forward it if you want her to have 

15 it now.

16 DR. MCKEEL: I'm really not at a 

17 computer where I can do that.

18 MR. KATZ: Okay. Well if you 

19 can't view it then there's no rush to get it 

20 anyone.

21 DR. MCKEEL: No, there's a rush to 

22 get it to us. I just can't view it. It's too 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

36

1 late.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, why don't 

3 you go ahead.

4 Bob, you can go ahead and start 

5 and as we proceed here. Bob Barton can 

6 advance it as he accepts cues from you.

7 MR. KATZ: And Terrie, I'll 

8 forward this to you.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sorry about that. 

10 Okay. So, Bob, you want to put on the, well 

11 put on the second slide. The first was just 

12 the title.

13 MEMBER MUNN: It's up.

14 MR. BARTON: All set, Bob, go 

15 ahead.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You have the slide 

17 two up?

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, the slides 

19 are up, Bob. Go ahead.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. So this is 

21 getting to the dates. Now I have to confess 

22 initially I thought we were just going to go 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

37

1 by calendar year. But I had the impression as 

2 it was developing this that NIOSH was 

3 subdividing into data.

4 And particularly the Work Group 

5 specified the date, I remember at the meeting 

6 back in November, they specified the date of 

7 the beginning of the radium operation. I'm 

8 sorry the end of the radium operation, the 

9 beginning of the cobalt. So I just put it 

10 down that the January 1st was the beginning of 

11 the cobalt operations.

12 There's a possibility now it's 

13 going to get moved back into '52. And 

14 according to the records, May 21st is when 

15 they acquired the cobalt sources. So 

16 presumably, that's the date on which they 

17 started to use them because they were under 

18 pressure to get rid of the radium.

19 And then sometime in '63, we don't 

20 know when so I just arbitrarily just to be on 

21 the conservative side, assumed it to be 

22 January 1st '63 was when St. Louis Testing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

38

1 began radiography at GSI. The administrator 

2 that we talked to simply said he couldn't 

3 remember the dates but he remembers it's when 

4 they were working, they were simultaneously 

5 working on the Gateway Arch in St. Louis. And 

6 that began, construction on that began in '63.

7 Again, we don't know exactly when 

8 the new betatron went into operation. But we 

9 do have a photograph in the, one of the 

10 issues, the September issue of the magazine 

11 that John Ramspott very kindly furnished to 

12 me, which showed a photograph of this building 

13 being sort of like halfway built. The 

14 foundation was laid, the walls were going up.

15 So it would not have been before 

16 October 1st if they published this in 

17 September, the half-finished building. So 

18 it's just an estimate. Again, a conservative 

19 estimate because that's where the higher doses 

20 started. And then of course June 30 of '66 is 

21 the end of the AEC-covered period.

22 And then just summarizing them 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

39

1 going onto slide three, summarizing the 

2 sources of exposure, the direct penetrating 

3 radiation, photon radiation would be stray 

4 radiation during betatron operation and 

5 delayed radiation from activated metal. This 

6 means that the, so called, the technical term 

7 that comes out of the MCNP program, they call 

8 it delayed neutrons and delayed gammas.

9 Then the second category is the 

10 exposure to the sealed sources. So you have 

11 the two 500-millicurie radium sources starting 

12 from way back when, until presumably May 21, 

13 1962. The two cobalt-60 sources were assayed 

14 some time in the spring at 260 and they 

15 requested 300 millicurie sources and they got 

16 slightly less. They got 260 and 280.

17 And these were used again until 

18 the end of operations. Of course they decayed 

19 a little bit during this time. Then you have 

20 this 10-curie cobalt-60 source employed by St. 

21 Louis Testing, presumably starting in January 

22 '63. And then there was a 50 curie iridium 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

40

1 source that they used occasionally.

2 They didn't use it too often 

3 because it, the radiographs were too good. 

4 They showed defects that they would just as 

5 soon not highlight. So they didn't use it 

6 very much. Then there was the exposure of 

7 skin to non-penetrating beta radiation. And 

8 this would be from the natural uranium, from 

9 handling the uranium.

10 And it turns out there were two 

11 short-lived isotopes of uranium which were 

12 created through photoactivation which were 

13 very strong beta emitters. They have half14 lives only for a few minutes. But if they 

15 were handled immediately after radiography 

16 there would be some significant skin dose.

17 And then there was activated steel 

18 with a whole bunch of nuclides some of which 

19 are long-lived, some of them are very short20 lived. The thing with activation is the 

21 stronger the intensity, it sort of works 

22 inversely. The stronger the intensity of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

41

1 radiation, the shorter the half-life.

2 So if someone comes out of the 

3 wash he could be exposed for a long time to a 

4 low activity or a short time to a high 

5 activity, depending on the isotope. But the

6 doses tend to balance out in that respect.

7 And then getting down to where the 

8 rubber hits the road, pardon that expression. 

9 SC&A's position, I would disagree with Dave 

10 Allen. SC&A's position is that these 12 and 

11 15 rem units are actually hard numbers. These 

12 men were badged, even though we don't have the 

13 badge records any longer.

14 They were badged, we know they 

15 were badged. We have good evidence they were 

16 badged as early as '53 and probably before 

17 both according to a photograph, which I know 

18 was called into question, I think most likely 

19 it's a photograph of a film badge and the 

20 testimony.

21 The one radiographer who goes back 

22 to '57 says he always wore a film badge and we 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

42

1 have his exposure records, which indicate that 

2 he was monitored or how else could they have 

3 assigned him an exposure of 9.2 rem over a 

4 period of 18 quarters. That was a part-time 

5 radiographer. A full-time employee but a 

6 part-time radiographer.

7 So we considered that these were 

8 records that they reported to the AEC that no 

9 one ever exceeded the dose. And it would seem 

10 reasonable to think well if no one ever 

11 exceeded half the dose they would say so. We 

12 are here with the limit. But, you know, the 

13 limit is 15, but nobody got more than 10 or 

14 nobody got more than five.

15 They didn't say that. And they 

16 didn't say that, probably it wouldn't have 

17 been true. So they did say no one exceeded 

18 the dose. Yes, it's true that the average was 

19 25 percent. But we're not interested in 

20 compensating the average worker, we're just 

21 compensating the real worker who may have 

22 gotten that maximum dose. Since you don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

43

1 know who it is, somebody got that dose and you 

2 don't know who.

3 So our opinion is you assign this 

4 to everyone. And it's a number that you can 

5 nail down. It's not based on assumptions. It 

6 is limiting. It is on the high side. And 

7 furthermore, my impression and this is from 

8 being at the meeting in Knoxville and going 

9 over the transcripts of the meeting, this is 

10 what some of the Board Members assumed was 

11 going to be assigned to everyone.

12 Because they were talking about 

13 these are very high doses. I believe that 

14 they assumed and actually at that meeting Dave 

15 did not present this. His presentation was 

16 limited to the uranium dust scenarios. And 

17 this seemed to be the basis, the comments that 

18 I was asked to get up and make, seemed to be 

19 the basis of the Board's actions.

20 So I know that doesn't make it 

21 binding. But that's the impression that I 

22 had. Whereas the other, the model which I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

44

1 don't agree that the model is necessarily bad. 

2 This is just based on this one person's 

3 recollections 50 years later, we have to 

4 remember. These are, this is a 50-year old 

5 memory and not many of us remember distinctly 

6 after 50 years or even five years.

7 And I think this gentleman was, 

8 did his best to give me an accurate 

9 recollection. But I would put more credence 

10 to the exposure limits or the dose limits in 

11 this case, the doses, then to the model. And 

12 my purpose, our purpose, SC&A purpose was to 

13 approach it from three different standpoints, 

14 the three things that we could find.

15 One was the actual recorded doses 

16 for a four and a half year period through this 

17 one part-time, this one man who did the 

18 radiography on weekends. And I was not like, 

19 I mean he said the 9.2 lower limit is simply, 

20 that's assuming that he worked the maximum 

21 number of shifts.

22 According to his recollection, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

45

1 asked him if he was there. He said, yes, he 

2 worked whenever he could. He needed the 

3 money. But he worked on most weekends 80 to 

4 90 percent of the time, 80 to 90 percent of 

5 the weekends. But I said is it Saturday and 

6 Sunday or just one day? And he was not clear 

7 about that. He wasn't certain. Could have 

8 been both days, could have been one day.

9 So that nine point, that prorated 

10 9.2 would mean that he worked 90 percent. So 

11 that he worked 45 weekends, full days, so 90 

12 days, that's an extreme upper end. And the 20 

13 rem would be that he worked the minimum.

14 He only worked 80 percent of the 

15 weekends or 40 weekends and only one day. So 

16 he works, so the range is he worked from 90, 

17 from 40 days to 90 days and that's how those 

18 got prorated.

19 So these are just, these are 

20 useful numbers. I wouldn't call them good 

21 numbers. They are useful numbers. And 

22 they're useful because they show the range. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

46

1 The 9.2 to 20 exactly brackets this 12 rem and 

2 15 rem.

3 And the 15 rem of course was 

4 earlier then this man's employment with the 

5 '53 to '54 period and he didn't start doing 

6 radiography until '57, in the middle of '57 

7 according to my back, you know, counting his 

8 exposure records.

9 So and we also believe and that's 

10 a, it came as a little bit of a surprise to me 

11 because it was my impression and perhaps it 

12 was an incorrect one, incorrect conclusion, 

13 that based on the discussion of the betatron 

14 operator and the layout man, it was my 

15 impression that NIOSH had decided to give the 

16 highest doses to all workers.

17 Just like they did there I assumed 

18 that their position would be the same would 

19 apply to the radiographers during the radium 

20 period. And I was a little surprised to 

21 discover, no, that's not what they had in 

22 mind.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

47

1 So again, these 12 and 15 rem are 

2 limiting, are bounding and given that you 

3 don't know who the radiographers were, for 

4 instance if this, if somebody like the person 

5 who I interviewed did radiography on weekends 

6 or did it part-time or did it who knows when 

7 he may have had another job this person was a 

8 laboratory technician or laboratory worker in 

9 his normal Monday through Friday shift.

10 I could very well see a claim 

11 coming in for a deceased worker or the family 

12 members, yes, Grandpa was, had such and such a 

13 job and they didn't know that he also did 

14 radiography. And I would say therefore it 

15 makes, it's reasonable, it's claimant16 favorable to give them the maximum. Again, 

17 that's a decision I would assume the Work 

18 Group would have to intervene at this point.

19 Then the scenarios that are lesser 

20 issues the neutron and beta exposures are, the 

21 layout here by which my scheme is to first 

22 give you the overview and then a deeper 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

48

1 discussion of some of the detail, that we have 

2 the neutron dose, the limiting dose as to the 

3 betatron operator during all periods even 

4 though given that the betatron in the earlier 

5 days was slightly less energetic.

6 We had a 24 MeV betatron. Then is 

7 '63 they got the 25 MeV betatron that's, the 

8 so-called new betatron actually was older than 

9 the old betatron. That's a minor point. And 

10 then the old betatron was at the same time 

11 upgraded to 25 MeVs. So we ended up with two 

12 25 MeV betatrons for this period.

13 And so we had the same without 

14 making allowances for this difference in 

15 energy, 480 millirem per year of neutron dose. 

16 Whereas NIOSH had the limiting dose to the 

17 layout man and so only a third as much. And 

18 similarly the beta dose, ours is higher. I 

19 think we were using, I think the difference 

20 was we were using a newer version of MCNP.

21 This was a new capability they had 

22 introduced into MCNP being able to do these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

49

1 activation projects. And then over a period 

2 of several years from 2007 when we first 

3 started using it to 2012, the capabilities 

4 have gotten much more refined. So the newer 

5 model is a more precise implementation of the, 

6 the science hasn't changed but the programmers 

7 implemented it.

8 So that's the reason for the 

9 difference in the beta dose in SC&A and NIOSH. 

10 Then the, I kind of stole my own thunder 

11 because going on to the radiographers.

12 The 18 quarters for what we have 

13 that would be his record, Form 4. And so 18 

14 quarters total, there's no breakdown because 

15 this was, this form was prepared when this new 

16 company, I mean new, by new meaning new to the 

17 GSI site, Nuclear Consulting Corporation was 

18 brought in to assist them in getting in the 

19 AEC license.

20 So they did a survey and they 

21 started furnishing the film batches. We never 

22 did find out, we could never find out, they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

50

1 didn't manufacture the film badges. We could 

2 never find out where they procured them. It 

3 wasn't Landauer as far as we could tell. So 

4 that's why there were no records of those film 

5 badges.

6 But based on supplying the film 

7 badges in May, you know, April, May through 

8 1962, and they simply gave each worker a 

9 record of his prior exposure. And the basis 

10 was simply said records. They don't say how 

11 the measurement was made. They just say 

12 records. And they just recorded total dose 

13 for 18 quarters at 9.1 rem.

14 So that's the basis of that 

15 prorated over, you know, depending on how many 

16 days a year he actually spent doing the 

17 radiography. And I list it here on, we should 

18 be on slide 6, is that correct?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So that is listed 

21 here. And then there is the exposure rate 

22 analysis. And I would just say that's a mix 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

51

1 actually. We, the R, most of that I simply 

2 calculated by simply taking the distance and 

3 using the gamma factor, it was 8.25 or for 

4 radium-226.

5 And the exposure rate and the 

6 particular point where, the nearest point on 

7 the worker's body. But this is not really a 

8 dose of the whole body. This is from a point 

9 source. That's why it's not really an 

10 accurate determination. The one where he's 

11 sitting in the office in between shots, that 

12 was done with MCNP and that's reasonably 

13 accurate.

14 But that's a very small component 

15 of the dose. Then the betatron operator, I 

16 won't go into all the details of this, we 

17 assumed that it would be, on Slide 7, the 

18 maximum dose would be 26 millirem per week. 

19 That's because it is theoretically possible 

20 that there was 30 keV of radiation coming from 

21 the betatron aimed at the back the workers.

22 This is residual radiation which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

52

1 was reported by this former Allis-Chalmers 

2 engineer. And we've never been able to 

3 explain this. But just saying for the, giving 

4 the workers the benefit of the doubt, let's 

5 say there was 30 keV.

6 Then this would amount to a dose 

7 of, for 10, you could be getting 26 millirem 

8 and only 10 millirem would register on the 

9 film badge because the radiation was coming 

10 from behind. So this is limiting, again, I'm 

11 not saying it's accurate but it's limiting.

12 It doesn't really matter because 

13 the layout man is a limiting scenario. So 

14 this is not actually used. Then the exposure 

15 to the, I put it here because the time 

16 sequence, because this is from the beginning. 

17 There was always the betatron, depending on 

18 whether it was one betatron or two betatron.

19 The exposure to the St. Louis 

20 Testing sources, SLTL, the St. Louis Testing 

21 Laboratories, was based on the fact that they 

22 reported that the longest shot was 180 hours. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

53

1 I believe they put it was one week and a half 

2 a day. And they said there were 10 shots 

3 during a six month period.

4 So the maximum fraction at the 

5 time they had been shooting over would be 41 

6 percent. Interesting enough that's the same 

7 as the duty cycle for the betatron, based on 

8 the workers' accounts. And so if you go with 

9 the accounts as I said we had an exclusion 

10 area boundary of two mR per hour.

11 The first thing they do is they 

12 set up the shot and then the St. Louis Testing 

13 radiographer, not a GSI employee, so he's not 

14 covered, he's not a covered employee, would 

15 come out and lay out this rope. It's a 

16 familiar yellow/magenta rope marking off this 

17 two mR per hour. And contrary to an earlier 

18 assumption whether the guy takes a break, it 

19 says, he doesn't take breaks.

20 If he has to go, he retracts his 

21 source and stops the exposure and the source 

22 is retracted, like a lead shield so that he 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

54

1 said the exposed source was never left 

2 unattended. That's why he could have only one 

3 worker instead of having to have two workers 

4 that would of course double his labor costs.

5 So we assume that there is no 

6 reason to distinguish between GSI 

7 radiographers because GSI radiographers 

8 probably have no reason to be involved with 

9 this. If anybody it would be people in 

10 production who would say this is the casting 

11 we need to be radiographed, here's where I'd 

12 like you to take the shot. And they might be 

13 the ones who will be standing around waiting 

14 for the shots and waiting for the films to 

15 come back.

16 So this limiting dose would be to 

17 some GSI worker not clearly identified, not, 

18 most likely not a radiographer. So again 

19 during this short period of time of say early 

20 '63, January '63 until the time the new 

21 betatron came in, this would be the limiting 

22 dose would be the 2.67 R per year limiting 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

55

1 exposure.

2 And then finally I want to get 

3 into the modeling of the layout man. We're on 

4 Slide 8 now. And this is a drawing that's 

5 taken from the AEC records. And right in the 

6 center you see, the center of the slide you 

7 see the control room. There was a desk, 

8 presumably that's where the radiographer would 

9 sit some of the time.

10 Now the reason that there is not a 

11 10 millirem limit for the control room is not 

12 viable because initially there was an 

13 assumption made by NIOSH that this was the 

14 total dose through the film and also that 

15 there was a control batch. We don't, we 

16 really have no information for part of the 

17 time, not all the time, but for part of the 

18 time the Landauer records have a badge that's 

19 called betatron control one.

20 The serial number of the badge is 

21 one, and it's abbreviated betatron CTL. We 

22 really don't know anything about that. One 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

56

1 former worker that was, I got second hand 

2 information, I didn't speak to him directly, 

3 but got second hand information was, who said 

4 he handled the badges at one time, he 

5 distributed them. He doesn't remember 

6 anything about such a batch.

7 So I'm not saying it didn't exist, 

8 but I'm saying you cannot use that as a 

9 source. And then, as explained in my report, 

10 the doses reported were not the absolute 

11 readings on the film badge. They were 

12 differential readings.

13 You would first have an unnumbered 

14 badge that was stored in the same rack where 

15 all the other badges were, so whether it was 

16 near the shooting area or far from the 

17 shooting area, it really did not matter 

18 because the first thing they would do when 

19 Landauer would get the badges they would 

20 develop them all in a single batch so there 

21 would be no variation like the developer 

22 changes strength from day to day, which it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

57

1 does, temperature changes.

2 And they would take the betatron, 

3 the control badge, not the betatron control, 

4 but the real control, their control badge and 

5 they would measure the density. Everything 

6 has some density or some, the film was never 

7 totally clear. There was some background 

8 fogging. And they would measure the density.

9 And they would take that number 

10 and subtract it from all the other badge 

11 readings. It's analogous like if you took a 

12 urine sample that would have a blank. And

13 they would subtract whatever came up off the 

14 blank from all the other readings. So you 

15 could actually sometimes end up with a 

16 negative reading because for some reason the 

17 real badge has a lower density then the 

18 control badge, but it's just variation.

19 So the fact that no, and then 

20 secondly, as it's shown where it says A in a 

21 circle in the center, there is a doorway from 

22 the control room back into the processing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

58

1 area. The radiographer may have been going 

2 out, he had a one-hour shot. Once he sees 

3 that the betatron is steady and operating, 

4 there's really no real need that he has to 

5 just sit there for an hour and stare at the 

6 dials.

7 He may take a rest room break. He 

8 may go out into the processing area and help 

9 with the film development or do many other 

10 things. So it's not necessarily true that he 

11 was always in the control room when the 

12 betatron was operating. We can't make that 

13 assumption. It may be the case, may not be 

14 the case.

15 So I don't consider that to be the 

16 limit. And furthermore that aside, by our 

17 MCNP model we ran, we looked at this and we 

18 tracked the results. The same exposures, 

19 several exposure scenarios that give 9.2 to 

20 the layout man, the 9.2 is combined betatron 

21 radiation and radiation from the casting. But 

22 it's almost all betatron. It's about 8.9 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

59

1 something from the betatron.

2 Actually corresponds to 9.4 

3 millirem per week at the control room desk. 

4 So it is within that limit, within that 10 mR 

5 ever if you wanted to argue that the worker 

6 did stay there the whole time. So that's 

7 basically it.

8 The next slide, the last slide, 

9 Number 9, is simply the same picture as the 

10 previous one. But here is the actual, here's 

11 how we coded it into MCNP. It doesn't show 

12 the control room. It just shows, but it does 

13 show the position of the layout man who --

14 he's obviously in the center. If you flip 

15 back, Bob, if you can flip back to the 

16 previous one you see the railroad track going 

17 into the Number 10 Building.

18 Obviously he's not going to be 

19 spending his time on the railroad track 

20 because you can't get the casting cars in and 

21 out. So this is assuming that, the two models 

22 and it had the casting like a few feet to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

60

1 either, the way this is oriented above or 

2 below the railroad track. And it turns out 

3 here with the limiting exposure scenario.

4 At this point, actually within 

5 line of sight of the betatron, so it's not 

6 actually scattered radiation, he's getting the 

7 penumbra of the betatron beam. It's very 

8 strongly focused forward. There isn't much 

9 going off at such a steep angle, but there 

10 still is some.

11 So that's the source of this 

12 radiation. And again, I'm not saying that 

13 this particular scenario was 100 percent of 

14 the time. But we don't know, so rather than 

15 having this assortment based on a number of 

16 exposure scenarios which were not consistent 

17 that NIOSH did, a number of those are simply 

18 not consistent with radiography shooting.

19 Shooting the casting at an angle, 

20 the purpose of it is to get through the 

21 casting at the thinnest point and not to put 

22 in more material and have it at an angle it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

61

1 would take longer to shoot. So these are just 

2 not real. I don't think that those are valid. 

3 I mean, it's an ingenious approach. But I 

4 don't think it works in this instance. So 

5 that's basically our position.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

7 you, Bob. We'll have some questions here. 

8 And let me start. 

9 It appears to me now that your 

10 argument or approach, which I didn't gather 

11 from your initial paper, but now from your 

12 presentation, is that, since your model values 

13 are all below those existing limits of 15 and 

14 then 12 rem per year for the early years, that 

15 you're advocating that those upper limits, 

16 those sort of regulatory limits be used in 

17 assigning the --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: One of the model 

19 values is actually higher --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- bounding 

21 values.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. One of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

62

1 the model values is actually higher. You can 

2 call it a model, not the MCNP model but the 

3 extrapolation from the badge readings, it 

4 could be as high as 20.

5 But we're settling -- but that's 

6 an extreme and therefore the way, I think the 

7 most telling is that the nine -- just rounding 

8 off the numbers -- the range of nine to 20 

9 brackets the range of 12 to 15, and therefore 

10 confirms the 12 to 15 as a plausible upper 

11 bound.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You are arguing, 

13 rather than use for example the 9.2 for the 

14 layout man, you would --

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, that's a 

16 different period. This is during the radium 

17 era from '53 to May '62. The layout man 

18 scenario could not have happened until they 

19 installed the new betatron late in 1963.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's say the 

21 radium value of 9.39 during the radium era, 

22 you would say instead of using that, which 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

63

1 comes out of your calculation you would 

2 recommend using either the 12 or the --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's right, 

4 that's right.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- or the 15?

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm actually more 

7 comfortable with that.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. 

9 I didn't gather that from your write-up. But 

10 that's what you appear to be saying in your 

11 presentation.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And this is, by 

13 the way, this presentation is similar to the 

14 one from the Santa Fe meeting, if we can 

15 remember that far back.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me see if 

17 there are some other questions here, Wanda?

18 MEMBER MUNN: No, I don't, I 

19 haven't been able to formulate a real 

20 question. I guess I am a little skeptical 

21 about using those upper regulatory limits 

22 based on the information that we have with 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

64

1 respect to actual exposure.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Wanda, I am having 

3 trouble hearing you. Could you speak into the 

4 microphone?

5 MEMBER MUNN: I guess I'm a little 

6 segregated from a microphone.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's better.

8 MEMBER MUNN: We are looking for 

9 the right microphone. Bob, I just said that 

10 although I haven't been able to articulate 

11 very well why I'm uncomfortable with it, I 

12 remain a little uncomfortable about using the 

13 regulatory limits, the upper regulatory limits 

14 as a reasonable bounding dose. It just seems 

15 to me the information that I believe I've read 

16 consistently says nobody came close to those 

17 limits.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's not 

19 correct. It simply said nobody exceeded the 

20 limit.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

22 DR. NETON: Bob, this is Jim. I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

65

1 reading from your bullet on Slide 6 that says, 

2 part of the quote from the facility in their 

3 license applications. They were never 

4 exceeding an average under 25 percent.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They were never 

6 exceeded, right. So that nobody exceeded --

7 DR. NETON: Right, but they 

8 averaged under 25 percent.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's right. But 

10 again, my, our position is we're not 

11 compensating the average worker. We're making 

12 a compensation decision on an individual 

13 worker who might have been at the high end.

14 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen. 

15 And I took that, I am not trying to compensate 

16 the average worker or whatever at about the 

17 same. But the document itself says the 

18 average is less than 25 percent, which to me 

19 implies someone may have exceeded 25 percent. 

20 It says no one ever exceeded the maximum.

21 So I'm really looking at that 

22 entire statement as a range. And the range is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

66

1 three to 12.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I disagree with 

3 that. I mean, that's a matter of 

4 interpretation. It says, let's just look at 

5 the whole, the previous sentence. The 

6 exposure limits published by AEC were 

7 followed. Limits mean that you can't get more 

8 than 12 or 15. Those are the limits that were 

9 followed. They were never exceeded, period.

10 And then this is a second 

11 statement and by the way, I'm throwing that 

12 in, they averaged under 25 percent. But that 

13 doesn't mean that everyone got 25 percent or 

14 less.

15 MR. ALLEN: Right, so I think that 

16 means the maximum exposed guy you could say 

17 got more than 25 percent, but less than 100 

18 percent.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, never 

20 exceeded means they could have equaled. 

21 That's the way I interpret this. 

22 Mathematically that's how I interpret it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

67

1 MR. ALLEN: Okay. So three to 12 

2 rem inclusive.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I say that never 

4 exceeded means it could have been as high as 

5 12 or 15.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dave was asking 

7 you if the range then is three to 12.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, there's a 

9 range.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But again, it's 

12 the, I mean our position is that it should be 

13 the maximum.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, 

15 understood. Other questions here or comments? 

16 Now, so on the radium era where your 

17 calculational value, the 9.69 --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- you would say 

20 well, rather than that you would use either 12 

21 or 15 depending on which year it was?

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Correct.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

68

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm just trying 

2 to understand this. And then for the cobalt 

3 era you would actually use the model values.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Because that's all 

5 we have, yes. That's --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And so in the 

7 cobalt era your maximum is a 9.2 for the 

8 layout man. Is that right?

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's the layout 

12 man era. So there was a slight -- I don't 

13 know. I have no problem if NIOSH wants to keep 

14 it simple.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I 

16 understand. I just wanted to see what your 

17 bottom line was here. And then for example, 

18 if it were a skin cancer, then you would 

19 assign the whole body dose value to the skin 

20 and you add in the beta, I guess, right?

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

69

1 in all of these you would add in the neutron, 

2 although it's pretty small, but technically 

3 would be added in, I think, right?

4 MEMBER MUNN: But it's essentially 

5 non-existent.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, they have 

7 some numbers.

8 MEMBER MUNN: It's there. Yes, I 

9 know.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: NIOSH would add 

11 it in.

12 MR. ALLEN: It's in the three 

13 digits to millirem.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, but it 

15 still gets added in.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, the neutron 

17 -- well, you don't just add the highest 

18 neutron. It was, if the betatron, if for some 

19 reason the dose reconstruction was such that 

20 the neutron dose was important, and I can't 

21 imagine that would be the case. But then 

22 again, I'm not deeply involved in that, there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

70

1 should be added a dose of the betatron 

2 operator.

3 However, there is a different 

4 neutron dose to the betatron operator and to 

5 the layout man. So whichever, again, is the 

6 more limiting for an individual dose 

7 reconstruction should be used. My guess is it 

8 would be the layout man. Even though the 

9 neutron dose is lower, the photon dose is much 

10 higher.

11 MEMBER POSTON: Paul?

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

13 MEMBER POSTON: This is John 

14 Poston.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Hi, John.

16 MEMBER POSTON: I was waiting for 

17 a time to break in. Just got back from class.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, welcome.

19 MR. KATZ: Welcome back, John.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Did you have 

21 some comments at this point? I don't know 

22 when you came in on this, John.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

71

1 MEMBER POSTON: No, I've only 

2 heard the last five minutes. I just got out 

3 of class. And I wanted to let you know I was 

4 on the line.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

6 Okay.

7 DR. MAKHIJANI: Hi, this is Arjun. 

8 Since Dr. Poston introduced himself, I 

9 remembered that I am conflicted for Simonds 

10 Saw, and I'll be signing off at that time.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, thank you. 

12 Okay. Any other comments here or questions 

13 in the room? Okay. I want to give the 

14 petitioners a chance to comment and ask 

15 questions as well. Dan, let me ask you if you 

16 wanted to start with any comments or questions 

17 at this point. And I'm not -- you may be on 

18 mute. I'm not hearing any.

19 DR. MCKEEL: Can you hear me now?

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, there you 

21 go.

22 DR. MCKEEL: Okay. Well, I thank 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

72

1 you very much for giving me an opportunity to 

2 comment this morning. I'm going to try to 

3 cover a few things that were just said during 

4 the meeting. My general comment is that in my 

5 opinion, the full Board needed to have both of 

6 these papers by Allen and SC&A which were 

7 delivered in February before they voted on 

8 December the 11th to deny the GSI SEC.

9 It seems to me that these two 

10 papers show that both DCAS and SC&A are still 

11 far apart in their dose estimates and the dose 

12 estimates that they give in the tables differ 

13 by two to tenfold. And it seems to me that 

14 although there has been some attempt at 

15 resolving those differences, that really 

16 hasn't happened so far in the meeting.

17 The SEC 105 deliberations are 

18 over, except for the administrative appeal and 

19 now the main Work Group task is to resolve all 

20 the TBD-6000 Appendix BB remaining issues. 

21 And I guess that ought to be related back to 

22 the latest Appendix BB issues matrix which --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

73

1 the one I have is from November the 26th. And 

2 on that basis then, and this discussion I 

3 presume, Rev 0 of Appendix BB from June of 

4 2007 can be revised.

5 One thing that has never been 

6 mentioned in this Work Group or by the full 

7 Board, by anybody, and is very important 

8 apropos today's Appendix B revision 

9 discussion, is that NIOSH needs to acknowledge 

10 that the GSI operational period has now been 

11 extended by both DOE and DOL to include the 

12 October 1 through December 31, 1952, period. 

13 And that has happened.

14 I don't know exactly when it 

15 happened. But I believe it happened some time 

16 during January because the DOE facilities 

17 database is so modified to indicate that fact. 

18 I will say about the two papers that we're 

19 talking about today, neither one of them 

20 directly address the assigned doses in 

21 Appendix B, Rev 0.

22 And neither one of them really 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

74

1 mention anything about the SC&A 2008 

2 calculations and compare them with the 2012, 

3 2013 doses. And it seems to me this is a huge 

4 oversight and really is irresponsible. The 

5 two latest 2013 papers do not reflect the fact 

6 that earlier estimates gave radiographers a 

7 tenfold higher dose then other workers, 

8 whereas the reverse ratio was a result of 

9 calculations four years later.

10 That's what we're talking about 

11 today. The layout men, the layout workers, 

12 all other workers in the plant are now 

13 assigned a higher dose then the betatron, the 

14 radiographers. The full Board on 12/11 was 

15 not told how this magical reversal of betatron 

16 non radiographer doses ratio took place 

17 between Appendix BB and the 2008 computer 

18 models and the 2012/2013 dose calculations and 

19 models.

20 Mr. Allen's 12/11 assertion that 

21 GSI non radiographers routinely got credit for 

22 the highest dose scenario was inaccurate. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

75

1 Under Appendix BB, Rev 0, which all but four 

2 early GSI dose reconstructions have relied 

3 upon, radiographers got the highest dose 

4 whereas now both NIOSH and SC&A have flip 

5 flopped and conclude the reverse is true.

6 So layout men are assigned a much 

7 higher dose and betatron isotope radiographers 

8 using exactly the same computer models, but 

9 this time they factored in an occult film 

10 badge normalization process that really 

11 neither Dave Allen nor SC&A has described 

12 adequately enough to be properly evaluated by 

13 anyone, including me.

14 What precisely was the process of 

15 film badge normalization? I hope that could 

16 be discussed. We know that non-radiographers 

17 often get assigned the Appendix BB, Rev 0 

18 lower dose level, contradicting what Mr. Allen 

19 told the full Board in December.

20 Anyway, Dave Allen points out in 

21 his latest paper that NIOSH did not estimate 

22 the radium-226 doses in the radiography room 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

76

1 in Building 6, relying instead on SC&A's dose 

2 estimates. And he explained why. And we have 

3 said all along that the block building used 

4 for radiography in Building 6 had existed well 

5 before 1962.

6 And I think we finally convinced 

7 the Work Group that was true. My problem when 

8 only SC&A calculates a dose in the radiography 

9 room, then who will perform the validity check 

10 on SC&A's methods? Would DCAS be evaluating 

11 SC&A science? Conversely, SC&A did not 

12 estimate doses for radium-226 and check DCAS' 

13 dose estimates outside the Building 6 

14 radiography facility.

15 Both cobalt-60, radium-226 

16 sources, both the cobalt-60 and the radium-226 

17 sources, were used outside the Building 6 

18 block building used for radiography according 

19 to one worker, [identifying information 

20 redacted]. And sometimes those exposures were 

21 unattended, according to the same GSI worker 

22 supervisor.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

77

1 I believe that it was very 

2 misleading of Mr. Allen to imply on 12/11 to 

3 the Board that being awarded an SEC would be a 

4 bad thing for GSI claimants. That statement 

5 is false. And I will transmit after this 

6 meeting to the Board a brief analysis that 

7 I've done comparing 11 sites that shows quite 

8 clearly that if you have an SEC, these are all 

9 AWE sites, and that if you have an SEC you get 

10 paid higher percentages under Part B.

11 My analysis shows that at the SEC 

12 sites, 52.43 percent of the claims were paid. 

13 Those other than SEC, 26.43 percent of the 

14 claims were paid, that is, compensated. And 

15 even when you look at the completed dose 

16 reconstructions for the non-SEC sites they 

17 were lower, 26.2 percent then were the 

18 percentage of dose reconstructions paid at the 

19 SEC sites, which were 39.3 percent.

20 I also want to comment that there 

21 has been much made of tying the present dose 

22 bounds to the AEC regulatory limits in 1954 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

78

1 and 1955. But I have not seen the source 

2 citation for that information. And I think 

3 that ought to be put into the record. And it 

4 certainly ought to be documented clearly in 

5 Appendix BB, Rev 1.

6 Early in the process of getting 

7 GSI film badges, the folks at Landauer kindly 

8 sent me, Emily Quirke and Chris Passmore, 

9 kindly sent me their version of what the 

10 regulatory limits were during the period that 

11 Landauer was issuing their film badges to GSI. 

12 And as I remember that data it was somewhat 

13 different from the regulatory limits we're 

14 mentioning right now. So I think that point 

15 ought to be made very, very clear in the 

16 revised Appendix BB.

17 Also although Paul mentioned that 

18 there would be discussion about the residual 

19 period doses, there was absolutely no 

20 discussion, has been no discussion in the two 

21 latest papers or today that TIB-70 does not 

22 include the cyclical pattern of usage that GSI 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

79

1 buildings in the uranium path got because 

2 there was numerous resurfacing of those 

3 facilities by multiple commercial entities 

4 during the residual period from mid-1966 

5 through 1992.

6 So I think that NIOSH plans to use 

7 TIB-70. But the exact intake model that NIOSH 

8 will use for dose reconstructions has not been 

9 spelled out clearly. Also, doses in neither 

10 of these papers, bounding doses I'm talking 

11 about, have been assigned for the two GSI 250 

12 kVp portable X-ray machines or for the GSI13 owned iridium-192 source that six workers say 

14 that GSI owned in either of the latest two 

15 papers.

16 Then I wanted to mention that two 

17 emails, which I will soon put into the record 

18 in the administrative appeal, that are very 

19 disturbing to me. And they've both been 

20 posted in recent ANWAG blogs on the ECAP Board 

21 website.

22 One of those was an email exchange 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

80

1 in 2010, in which, at DCAS' request, the DFO 

2 rank-ordered various sites with pending SECs 

3 based on the degree of -- the term used was, 

4 "political heat" that might be brought to bear 

5 on SEC decisions. And for example, in that 

6 email, both Los Alamos and Linde Ceramics 

7 received high political heat ratings, whereas 

8 GSI received a low rating.

9 And another SEC that I've been 

10 involved with, Texas City Chemicals, and 

11 several other sites received a quote, "never 

12 mind" political heat rating by the DFO. I 

13 personally believe this is one reason that GSI 

14 SEC 105 has taken so long to adjudicate.

15 The other email thread was even 

16 more disturbing. It was related to the issue 

17 of using surrogate data at the Hooker 

18 Electrochemical site and occurred during late 

19 2009. In that email Dave Allen outlined his 

20 quote, "throw them a bone" strategy this way. 

21 I quote from his e-mail dated 12/19/09, found 

22 on Page 4 of the FOIA file that was obtained 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

81

1 by the Hooker petitioner and forwarded to 

2 ANWAG to be distributed to me.

3 The email is to Timothy Adler. 

4 It's from David Allen. The subject is good 

5 Hooker reading. And the body of the message 

6 is as follows. Quote: "The truth is", this is 

7 Dave Allen speaking. "The truth is my intent 

8 is to, quote, 'throw-them-a-bone strategy.' 

9 Basically give SC&A an obvious point to pick 

10 on, so they will. Often they stop once they 

11 find one. At that point I walk into a Work 

12 Group meeting and agree 100 percent with all 

13 their hits and let Work Group Members try to 

14 figure out how they're going to make it an SEC 

15 when there is total agreement." End quote. 

16 I certainly plan to include this 

17 information in my SEC 105 appeal. For I 

18 believe the same deplorable tactic has been 

19 used repeatedly during the deliberations on 

20 GSI Appendix BB, the TBD-6000 and during the 

21 decision process on SEC 105.

22 Finally, I need to make two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

82

1 comments about things said today, which are: 

2 Dr. Anigstein described correctly that St. 

3 Louis Testing used two sources, one cobalt and 

4 one iridium-192. And yet, in the Allen paper 

5 the dose assigned for St. Louis Testing is 

6 just a single dose.

7 They're not separately bounded in 

8 Allen or by St. Louis Testing. I don't think 

9 we have good separate doses for the St. Louis 

10 Testing cobalt and iridium sources. And they 

11 need to be entered as separate doses and 

12 decided upon actually.

13 And then the final comment is 

14 about an illogical set of assumptions that 

15 apparently the Work Group, SC&A and Mr. Allen 

16 are ready to accept. And that is as follows. 

17 A lot of credence has been placed on a 

18 statement in a GSI license application to the 

19 SEC. This is not a statement by the AEC. 

20 This is a statement by GSI management.

21 And it was made in 1963, actually 

22 by Gordon McMillan who was the vice president 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

83

1 and general manager at GSI. And it was Gordon 

2 McMillan's application to the AEC that said 

3 that people had always been badged for the 

4 preceding 20 years and that the dose limits 

5 were never exceeded and that the average was 

6 around 25 percent.

7 But I need to put on the record 

8 again, I think it's ridiculous to accept such 

9 a statement, despite what Dr. Anigstein has 

10 said about why would GSI management lie. The 

11 reason they would lie is because, in fact, 

12 there's voluminous testimony that there was 

13 essentially no radiation safety program that 

14 was effective at GSI up until 1963. It really 

15 didn't exist.

16 But here's the illogic that you 

17 all seem to accept. Dr. Anigstein says that 

18 Nuclear Consulting Corporation, Dr. Connaker's 

19 organization, who came in and helped GSI 

20 prepare their license exam in 1962, Dr. 

21 Anigstein says that in May of 1962, NCC 

22 furnished film badges to GSI.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

84

1 Now why would they have to do that 

2 if in fact, as Gordon McMillan said, people 

3 had always been badged at GSI for the last 20 

4 years? The other illogic that I think you all 

5 have really, I don't know a better word but 

6 accepted sort of uncritically, is the fact 

7 that nobody has ever produced the actual film 

8 badge records. Nobody has ever produced whose 

9 badges they actually were.

10 Dr. Anigstein admitted this 

11 morning, I think he's correct, that nobody's 

12 ever actually identified where NCC badges 

13 presumably given to GSI workers, where they 

14 came from. So I'm suggesting that unless and 

15 until those actual film badge records are 

16 obtained, that you have nothing in that but a 

17 statement from a GSI management person who has 

18 a clear-cut financial interest and business 

19 interest in having this license approved, who 

20 had essentially no safety program that anyone 

21 has documented, radiation safety program.

22 Now GSI had safety programs for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

85

1 other aspects, like who got hit in the eye by 

2 hot particles from the molten steel and so 

3 forth. But I'm talking about a radiation 

4 safety program. It really didn't exist 

5 effectively before 1963.

6 And I think that information on 

7 which a lot has been based is really too bad. 

8 And the final comment I have is: I want to 

9 underscore what Dr. Anigstein said. Not only 

10 he, but the petitioners were strongly under 

11 the impression that David Allen was saying to 

12 the Board on December 11, 2012, that all 

13 workers at GSI would be assigned the high 

14 doses of, you know, 15 rem per year.

15 And I didn't think that was true 

16 that day. I don't think it's true now. And I 

17 think that's a very, very serious thing that's 

18 happened. And the final comment is: this will 

19 be a major element of my appeal. I think that 

20 was a mistake for the Board to allow that sort 

21 of a statement to be made knowing that it was 

22 inaccurate.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

86

1 And I think it was very wrong of 

2 Mr. Allen to even imply that to the full 

3 Board. I think it was very misleading. So 

4 that's my comment for today. Thank you very 

5 much. 

6 And I hope the Appendix BB matrix 

7 issues are not glossed through but are 

8 considered in detail apart from this 

9 discussion and resolved and closed. And I 

10 hope it happens today. Thank you very much.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, 

12 Dan, for those comments. I want to give also 

13 Ms. Jeske an opportunity to comment or add to 

14 this discussion if she wishes.

15 MS. JESKE: Yes, I agree with Dan 

16 on -- the voters were looking for a 

17 clarification that day, and Mr. Allen 

18 misleading them with the 12 to 15 rem was 

19 crucial, I would think, in the vote. I may be 

20 wrong, but I think it may have swayed some of 

21 them, the Board Members, and of course that 

22 will be part of our appeal when that time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

87

1 comes.

2 I would like some clarification on 

3 this. And I'm a little concerned too, I 

4 guess, about so much emphasis being put on one 

5 part-time radiographer, how accurate maybe 

6 that would be for the Appendix BB revision. 

7 Just concerns that I have and of course we'll 

8 attach those to the appeal when the time 

9 comes.

10 And the overtime for the part-time 

11 radiographer, just a little clarification 

12 there. Is that supposed to be in the revision 

13 given to all the employees, that assumption 

14 that they all worked that same amount of 

15 overtime or is -- I mean, how is that going to 

16 apply?

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'll answer that 

18 in part, and maybe Dr. Anigstein can add to 

19 it. But I think he was using that to estimate 

20 his number for that particular worker, which I 

21 think he ended up saying he used something 

22 like 80 percent of that. But we already have 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

88

1 a change in Appendix BB which has to show up 

2 yet, which will affect everybody, and that is 

3 that rather than the 40-hour work week there 

4 is a higher number, which -- I forget what it 

5 is right off the top of my head.

6 That was agreed to some time ago, 

7 but it hasn't shown up because Appendix B's 

8 revision has not yet occurred. But all past 

9 dose reconstructions will include that, as far 

10 as I know, a higher work week value.

11 MR. ALLEN: Sixty-five hours a 

12 week.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sixty-five hours 

14 a week. So everyone, I believe, will get that 

15 benefit. That will be the value that will be 

16 in Appendix BB.

17 MS. JESKE: Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 

19 very much. I think we're going to take a 

20 comfort break right now for 15 minutes and 

21 then we'll return.

22 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

89

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

2 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Hi, John.

4 MR. RAMSPOTT: Could I make a 

5 comment after your comfort break?

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, you bet.

7 MR. RAMSPOTT: Thank you.

8 MR. KATZ: Okay. So 15 minutes. 

9 Five of we'll resume.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

11 matter went off the record at 10:41 a.m. and 

12 resumed at 10:56 a.m.)

13 MR. KATZ: Okay, we are ready to 

14 reconvene.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're back in 

16 session. We're going to hear from Mr. 

17 Ramspott next.

18 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, can you 

19 hear me clearly?

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead, 

21 John.

22 MR. RAMSPOTT: I appreciate the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

90

1 opportunity as well. And Dr. McKeel has 

2 touched on a number of the items I was going 

3 to talk about, so I won't beat a dead horse. 

4 But I'd like to bring to attention just a 

5 couple things here.

6 First off, I wanted to thank the 

7 entire Board for taking the vote and making 

8 the vote as close as it was. And I thank 

9 those who I feel did the right thing. But I 

10 too, one of the first things I looked at were 

11 these two reports from SC&A and NIOSH. And 

12 it's really, really unexplainable why the full 

13 Board was not given privy to these two reports 

14 before they took a vote because, like others, 

15 I also felt very misled.

16 And I can't speak for the Board 

17 Members as the information that Dave Allen had 

18 given to the Board about the doses that were 

19 going to be granted. I thought maybe it was 

20 just my own personal opinion.

21 But I went back and I've reread 

22 the transcript of the meeting about ten times 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

91

1 now. And I clearly see exactly what was 

2 trying to be sold at the time to the Board and 

3 it's not what's in the current White Paper.

4 I'm going to come to something 

5 everybody seems to be basing a lot of 

6 information on today. And a lot of the SEC 

7 issues really are dose reconstruction issues, 

8 they're the same thing.

9 And one of them is there appears, 

10 and maybe you guys can tell me I'm wrong, but 

11 it appears the layout man is the one that got 

12 the highest dose according to everybody's 

13 current models. Is that correct?

14 MR. ALLEN: I think what it is, is 

15 the layout man is the limiting case once the 

16 new betatron building is built.

17 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. Thanks, 

18 Dave, because that's one of the things I 

19 wanted to point out. Everybody seems to be 

20 missing the point. There were a lot of 

21 workers outside that old betatron building. I 

22 mean, we've had workers tell you that, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

92

1 railroad guys, chainmen, yard guys.

2 That old betatron had activity 

3 outside it too, inspectors, people had to go 

4 there, wait to get in when the shots were done 

5 and there was just current, everyday activity. 

6 There were people replacing railroad ties. 

7 We've presented pictures that clearly show 

8 that old betatron is not way out by itself. 

9 If you look you see all kinds of activity 

10 going right outside that door.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, you 

12 understand that although they're labeled 

13 layout men here that those doses would be 

14 assigned to everybody.

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: You know, I do and 

16 that's the next fault. Thank you, because 

17 that's my next point. We're basing, we're 

18 saying a layout guy apparently got the 

19 greatest dose and we've got a GSI letter to 

20 the Atomic Energy Commission with their 

21 application and Dr. McKeel's totally correct, 

22 that's not from the AEC saying they never 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

93

1 exceeded.

2 It's GSI management saying they 

3 never exceeded, actually from an individual 

4 that was there for a pretty short period of 

5 time. He's not one of the guys that was right 

6 on the betatrons all those years. But I think 

7 everybody's missing the point.

8 If those people -- now everybody 

9 agrees the layout people got the most dose and 

10 no one ever exceeded, those layout people 

11 never wore a badge in their entire time. So 

12 how can anybody at GSI know whether those 

13 people ever exceeded an AEC limit? They 

14 can't. That whole theory is fallacious.

15 You're basing something on a GSI 

16 letter on something that's totally implausible 

17 and unscientific. They never took a badge 

18 reading from a layout man ever. The only 

19 readings they got over that whole period of 

20 time, the 13 years of the contract, were from 

21 a few betatron people.

22 And yet you're using that "never 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

94

1 exceeded" as your guideline. How can you say 

2 they never exceeded when you don't know what 

3 the layout guy ever got? There never was a 

4 badge. There never was a control badge. 

5 Everything, all the badges were held in the 

6 betatron buildings. They were never worn out 

7 there.

8 We've heard that testimony from 

9 people over and over and over. That whole 

10 theory which it seems like both these reports 

11 are based on, doesn't work. It's not valid. 

12 Now, you know, somebody could correct me on 

13 that and say, well, the guy out there wore a 

14 badge.

15 I may have missed the boat, but I 

16 don't think so. I've talked to too many 

17 people. I mean, is there a comment on that, 

18 because I seem to say things, but I never get 

19 comments back?

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, here is a 

21 comment. Here's Dave Allen with a comment.

22 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

95

1 MR. ALLEN: John, this is Dave 

2 Allen. That whole statement about the AEC 

3 limits was only used as a check or, well, I'd 

4 call it a debate. But I think Bob wants to 

5 use that as our dose estimate and we want to 

6 use that as a check on the model.

7 But it's only for the 

8 radiographers in the radium era. It wasn't, 

9 it didn't affect the layout man dose at all. 

10 It wasn't part of that argument or that 

11 discussion.

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, but the whole 

13 thing, it sounds like the whole thing -- no, 

14 Dave, I disagree. It sounds like the entire 

15 program is being based on never going over 

16 that limit.

17 MR. ALLEN: No, that was just a 

18 statement in the application for the license 

19 in 1962 that the radiographers used radium 

20 prior to that and none of them ever exceeded 

21 the limit.

22 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well how can you 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

96

1 say that?

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The radium -- this 

3 is Bob. The radium, all of the radiographers 

4 wore badges whether they were in the betatron 

5 room or whether they were the so-called 

6 isotope, what they called isotope operators 

7 who might have been in Building 6, they still 

8 wore badges.

9 I agree that the layout man did 

10 not wear a badge. The workers in the 

11 finishing buildings didn't wear badges because 

12 they were doing repair work on the castings 

13 and there were -- the management was afraid 

14 that the badges might get damaged with the 

15 sparks flying from the steel.

16 However, there is consensus that 

17 the worker whom I interviewed said he always, 

18 with the radium radiography said he always 

19 wore a badge.

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: The radiographer 

21 may have worn a badge. But you're also 

22 ignoring the fact that the radiographer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

97

1 everybody seems to want to talk about is the 

2 guy that's in the little 6 Building. 

3 Everybody seems to ignore [identifying 

4 information redacted] who did both radium, 

5 cobalt and betatron work from time to time.

6 He said those sources and both 

7 sources, not just cobalt but radium, were used 

8 out in the plant. If everybody recalls, a 

9 plumb-bob which contained radium was stolen in 

10 10 Building, which brings me to another point.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I hate to say that 

12 there is no consistency on that plumb-bob. 

13 The stories including the gentleman whom you 

14 just mentioned, his story is completely 

15 inconsistent with that of other people that I 

16 interviewed.

17 MR. RAMSPOTT: I've talked to ten 

18 different guys that maybe they weren't there, 

19 but they've heard that exact story, one of 

20 them being the manager of the betatron 

21 building who said they thought the source 

22 actually got ground up and went into the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

98

1 silica sand.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I was there when 

3 he said that.

4 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. So there's 

5 another source.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was, I'm just 

7 saying [identifying information redacted] 

8 account was at variance with the others. He 

9 told me that somebody walked off with the 

10 source, threw it in the back of his car, threw 

11 it over by the railroad tracks, completely 

12 different story.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Look, guys, I am 

14 going to interrupt this discussion. We've 

15 talked about that incident over and over 

16 again. And we've agreed that if somebody 

17 made, if a claimant says I was the one who 

18 took that, that would be reconstructed 

19 specifically for that individual. We've done 

20 this before on incidents. That's not part of 

21 this dose reconstruction.

22 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay, Paul, I'll 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

99

1 back off of that. I guess I'll go back to my 

2 main subject.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, if there 

4 was a person who said you know what, when I 

5 was there, I'm the guy that took the source 

6 that would be handled differently. So that's 

7 not part of this.

8 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. My main 

9 point is: we're basing everything on people 

10 who never wore badges. And I find that kind 

11 of unusual. The other topic that I think was 

12 being missed for dose reconstruction, which is 

13 what we're after today, let's talk about the 

14 layout man.

15 He's working on an activated 

16 casting. He's also getting hit with what's 

17 coming down that tunnel from the betatron and 

18 we know radiography was done in 10 Building 

19 from other people, you know, with the --

20 whether it was a plumb-bob or it was a cobalt 

21 device camera, there's three sources that 

22 layout man really should be subject to.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

100

1 At the same time, everybody says 

2 he can't get -- actually I heard Bob say this 

3 morning correctly, he had an activated casting 

4 and he was catching something coming down the 

5 tracks. But there was also a radioactive 

6 source out there besides those two, according 

7 to all other accounts.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We are already, 

9 John, already doing the absolute maximum 

10 exposure he could have had. To say that he 

11 was in the worst possible position, I'll admit 

12 this is highly limiting to say that he was in 

13 the worst possible position with the betatron 

14 being operated in the worst possible position, 

15 this is already an extreme limit.

16 To say then, oh, and by the way 

17 someone was right next to him using radium. 

18 That's just not plausible. That's just too 

19 much, you know, I mean, you can just pile one 

20 implausible scenario on top of another 

21 implausible scenario and it gets to the point 

22 where it just, it passes the credulity.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

101

1 MR. RAMSPOTT: If you say all 

2 three add up to that, I take your word, sir.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean, he may 

4 have had one or the other. To say all at once 

5 is just too unlikely.

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: At least two anyway 

7 are very likely.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any other 

9 comments, John?

10 MR. RAMSPOTT: No, I think for 

11 right now that's it. I appreciate your time.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

13 you. Okay.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And I would like 

15 to make a couple of responses.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Go ahead, 

17 Bob.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: As far as John's 

19 comment --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Speak into your 

21 phone, or your mic.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The presentation 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

102

1 that was just done on my behalf by Bob Barton 

2 was basically, I took -- that briefing was 

3 essentially copied, not exactly because I made 

4 some changes, from the briefing that was 

5 presented to the Board at the meeting in Santa 

6 Fe back in June. So the Board had certainly 

7 gotten this information.

8 From the SC&A standpoint, this 

9 last report is just -- there's nothing really 

10 new. It just confirms and affirms our 

11 position and what we did before. But all of 

12 this had been presented to the Work Group and 

13 was presumably available to the Board at 

14 earlier times. So it's not, this is not brand 

15 new information that is just being brought out 

16 now after the SEC vote. That's one thing.

17 And I also have some rather strong 

18 objections to comments made by Dr. McKeel. I 

19 don't think Dr. McKeel, I don't think it's 

20 appropriate him for to be using the term 

21 irresponsible. That's completely out of line. 

22 And I don't want to get into who's being 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

103

1 irresponsible here.

2 As far as saying it's 

3 irresponsible that we did not explain the 

4 difference, yes, in 2008, we did the initial 

5 analysis. We had limited information on the 

6 betatron building. The only information that 

7 we had was from the FUSRAP report, which was 

8 not designed to give you an accurate drawing 

9 of it. Their only interest was looking for 

10 uranium contamination. And they gave an 

11 outline drawing to show where they sampled for 

12 uranium.

13 The most important thing is why 

14 did the dose to the betatron operator change 

15 drastically? Because we got the film badges 

16 since then, thanks to Dr. McKeel who helped 

17 track them down. As he knows very well, he 

18 got, we got the film badges subsequent to that 

19 2008 analysis, whether it was started in 2007, 

20 our report came out in 2008.

21 We got that, those film badges 

22 subsequent to that. He knows perfectly well 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

104

1 that that happened. And it's totally reckless 

2 to say we were irresponsible for not 

3 explaining the difference. I take great 

4 offense at that.

5 And as far as the normalization to 

6 the film badges, that was something that was 

7 done by NIOSH. This is not something that was 

8 done by SC&A. We don't accept that. So I 

9 don't have to explain that because we didn't 

10 do that.

11 As far as the -- minor points --

12 as far as the sources, the fact that St. Louis 

13 Testing used both cobalt-60 and iridium-192, 

14 first of all they used the iridium-192 rather 

15 infrequently. And second of all, it makes no 

16 difference what the source is because the 

17 exposure assessment, the exposure estimate was 

18 simply based on someone standing at the 

19 boundary which was laid out at 2 mR per hour.

20 So 2 mR is 2mR whether it's from 

21 cobalt or from iridium. The conversion from 

22 the photon flux and the exposure to actual 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

105

1 dose is slightly different. But we weren't 

2 talking about it. We were just talking about 

3 the exposure rate. So that is not a valid 

4 point whatsoever.

5 And as far as the film badges 

6 being supplied by the Nuclear Consulting 

7 Corporation, I believe it is, there's nothing 

8 illogical about that. They were brought in as 

9 their radiation safety consultant. Here was a 

10 highly reputable, highly recognized, unusual 

11 credentials at that time certainly, of 

12 somebody with a PhD in nuclear physics who was 

13 also a certified health physicist. And he was 

14 brought in.

15 And so it's not illogical that he 

16 would be asked to supply the film badges as 

17 opposed to whoever had supplied the film 

18 badges before. Previously, they had film 

19 badges. It seems to be quite clear. They 

20 would simply be sent in by some outside vendor 

21 and distributed among the workers.

22 And here Dr. Connaker became the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

106

1 middle man and handled the badges and reviewed 

2 the results. So that was simply, I'm sure 

3 he's probably a package deal where he did, 

4 they did the radiation protection survey to 

5 see whether there was adequate shielding. 

6 They handled the film badges.

7 They calibrated, they even 

8 calibrated the sources, those 260, 280 

9 millicurie cobalt-60 sources were purchased 

10 from a purveyor of the sources. But they were 

11 calibrated and certified by Dr. Connaker, who 

12 also --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm going to 

14 interrupt, Bob. I think we're rehashing old 

15 ground that we've gone over many times.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: All right.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What we need now 

18 is to focus on these two, we have the NIOSH 

19 summaries where they've compared what they did 

20 and what SC&A did and tried to identify some 

21 areas where we haven't come to total agreement 

22 on what assumptions should be made. I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

107

1 what we'd like to do now is try to close some 

2 of these uncertainties to the extent that it's 

3 possible.

4 And so let me go back, Dave, I'd 

5 like -- Dave Allen, I'd like you to kind of 

6 take the lead on this and let's go through the 

7 issues individually that we need to, where 

8 there's a difference in what you are 

9 recommending versus what SC&A is recommending. 

10 And let's see if we can get some consensus 

11 with the Work Group here on those so.

12 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I've got it in 

13 essentially three categories here. And the 

14 first one is not on that White Paper, it came 

15 up after. And that is the time line. And I'm 

16 gathering Bob doesn't have much difficulty 

17 with what I was proposing earlier in the 

18 meeting.

19 And I'd like to get the Work 

20 Group's take on that. But my opinion the 

21 cobalt-60 sources were purchased in May 21, 

22 1962, and that was what Bob was using as a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

108

1 start of a different era when cobalt sources 

2 were used. I think they were -- the time line 

3 I had they were purchased in. But I don't 

4 think I can actually guarantee they were put 

5 into service at that point.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Actually, I 

7 think we found a purchase order dated May 5th 

8 in the original documents that Dr. McKeel had. 

9 But I think the 21st was possibly a shipping 

10 date. I don't recall. Maybe Bob Anigstein --

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I believe that 

12 there was a statement in one of the AEC 

13 documents that said that's when they were 

14 acquired. I mean that's when they actually --

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Actually came on 

16 site.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- came, you know, 

18 arrived on site. So whether -- now I have by 

19 the way, I meant to, I didn't get a chance to 

20 break in with this comment earlier. I had no 

21 problem if NIOSH wants to use round numbers 

22 and say, okay, all of '62 is the radium era 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

109

1 and '63 on is the new betatron era. That's 

2 fine.

3 Earlier, I had assumed they were 

4 doing that and then later on I got the 

5 impression they were going to get down to 

6 precise dates. So either way is fine. If 

7 they want to just make it simple and make it a 

8 whole year, everybody working there gets a 

9 limiting dose for that year, I have no 

10 problems with that. It's simple, it's somewhat 

11 claimant-favorable. It's not terribly 

12 exaggerated. So either way is fine.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's a little 

14 more claimant-favorable to assume that the 

15 radium continued through the end of the year 

16 even though --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- a little 

19 transition period.

20 MR. ALLEN: I mean, the other 

21 piece of information there was the radiography 

22 room with the cobalt sources exposed was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

110

1 surveyed June 24th of '62. But then in June 

2 and July, they modified the shielding and 

3 resurveyed it again August 1st. There's a 

4 real chance they were modifying things, 

5 getting everything in position before they 

6 actually started utilizing them routinely.

7 So I would like, as Bob said, 

8 round it off to the end of '62 for the radium 

9 era. That is slightly favorable and I don't 

10 know if we have a really good, solid date on 

11 exactly when they started using.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The stop and 

13 start. Other Members of the Work Group, can 

14 we agree to identify the radium period as 

15 going through to the end of '62?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, if you give the 

17 situation a little reality check. What do we 

18 really know about how things really operate in 

19 production facilities? To my knowledge, 

20 nothing just comes in and is immediately done.

21 So there's always an enormous and 

22 usually fairly long changeover period. It 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

111

1 appears to me that from May to the end of the 

2 year for 1962 would be a reasonable time to 

3 assume that you still had the original 

4 exposure.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. John 

6 Poston, are you on the line?

7 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, I'm here.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are you okay 

9 with that also?

10 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, sir.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Then 

12 we'll agree that would be the transition date 

13 then that you would, in terms of your dose 

14 reconstruction, you would continue the radium 

15 assignments through the end of the year, 1962.

16 MR. ALLEN: And I was going to 

17 pick up the limiting of the later years, 

18 January 1st of '63, which would end up being 

19 the layout man. Again, we know that's a 

20 little early on that. But as Bob called it 

21 rounding off to the full year. As long as 

22 nobody has any objection to that, that's the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

112

1 way I would like to do it.

2 MEMBER MUNN: None here.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me just 

4 raise this question. I wasn't aware until the 

5 petitioner identified, I guess the Department 

6 of Labor has added the early year to this 

7 whole thing. That has apparently occurred in 

8 the last few weeks, I gather.

9 DR. NETON: I don't recall when.

10 MR. ALLEN: It's been more than 

11 that. It's been the last few months I think.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Does that 

13 automatically get added in and does that get 

14 added to the --

15 MR. ALLEN: Yes, they extended the 

16 start date from the beginning, from January 

17 1st '53 to October 1st of '52.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Has that wording 

19 automatically been put into the --

20 MEMBER MUNN: Petition?

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- petition?

22 MR. ALLEN: The petition, I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

113

1 know. But it's going to go into the Appendix. 

2 The revision of the Appendix will --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But there's a 

4 petition that because of -- the petition 

5 originally started in --

6 DR. NETON: At the start of the 

7 covered period.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. And does 

9 that get changed? The material, I assume, is 

10 somewhere --

11 DR. NETON: Well, the petition has 

12 already been dealt with on the definition that 

13 was in place at the time.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, but we 

15 acted in December, and I assume by the time it 

16 got to the Secretary the change might have 

17 occurred. Well, we can't handle anything like 

18 that here.

19 DR. NETON: We will certainly add 

20 that extra time frame for the three months or 

21 so at the beginning of -- prior to '53.

22 MR. ALLEN: It's certainly going 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

114

1 to be added to dose reconstruction, et cetera.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So the starting 

3 period here is --

4 DR. NETON: The main difference is 

5 Department of Labor can start sending cases 

6 for people that have employment prior to '53.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Right, earlier.

8 DR. NETON: That's the main 

9 difference. And we will reconstruct the doses, 

10 because we'll have to go back and look at the 

11 dose reconstructions.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And there are 

13 some that will get some additional assignment.

14 MR. ALLEN: But I think in those 

15 situations, if DOL goes back and looks to 

16 verify -- because sometimes they will verify 

17 employment only from the start of the covered 

18 period when there's actually reason to verify 

19 earlier.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

21 you. We have agreement on that point. Let's 

22 go to the next one.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

115

1 MR. ALLEN: Okay. The next one is 

2 the radium era, then, as far as radiographers. 

3 Again, I don't think we have agreement with 

4 SC&A on this. But I'm looking at the letter 

5 or the statement to the AEC from GSI, the 25 

6 percent versus 100 percent, saying the maximum 

7 person was exposed to between 3 and 12 rem.

8 Then looking at Bob's prorated 

9 full year estimate for the part-time 

10 radiographer falling between 9 and 20 rem. 

11 And then the SC&A model of the radiographer 

12 was 9.69 rem. And I know in his statements, I 

13 think he made the same statement during the 

14 Board meeting. I know he has during the Work 

15 Group more than once, that these three 

16 independent analyses all kind of point to the 

17 same range. And that's been convincing some 

18 people for sure. And I don't believe we ought 

19 to be using the 12 or the 15 as Bob is 

20 recommending. I'm thinking more that 9.69 

21 seems to fall right there and be consistent 

22 with all three of these.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

116

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You previously 

2 had the 3.573 as your -- or no.

3 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, 3.573 as 

5 your maximum based on a longer distance, or a 

6 longer fish pole, and what else?

7 MR. ALLEN: It was the median 

8 point of the range that he said the fish pole 

9 -- he would be four to six feet, we used five.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: He was using 

11 four.

12 MR. ALLEN: Bob used four. And it 

13 was a --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And you used 

15 five?

16 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: My objection to 

18 that is that I thought of that model based on 

19 the radiographer's recollection as sort of a 

20 reality check. Once again, we're dealing 

21 with, I was talking to one person, a 50-year 

22 old recollection. And also perhaps, I'm just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

117

1 saying, when you said 12 to 15 seconds, that 

2 was his recollection. It could have been 

3 longer.

4 Maybe he was very spry and really, 

5 you know, was trying to minimize his radiation 

6 exposure. Other workers might have been a 

7 little less efficient. Maybe they spent, you 

8 know, maybe they weren't quite as quick at 

9 moving the sources.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, understood.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's why I think 

12 this is just a single point, a single data 

13 point as a reality check. But I would not 

14 rest the dose limit on that. And I know I'm 

15 beginning to sound redundant. Whereas the 12 

16 and 15, again, these were records which we 

17 don't have today. But they did exist at the 

18 time.

19 The AEC inspectors could have very 

20 easily said, let me see those records that 

21 you've been maintaining. They went to the 

22 site. This was based -- the statement was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

118

1 based -- it was made a couple of times.

2 It was also made by the radiation 

3 -- not by the vice president, but by the 

4 radiation safety supervisor who had been there 

5 as it happened. He started at GSI just about 

6 the beginning of the period of covered AEC 

7 operations.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, we 

9 understand that --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: More or less, 

11 given a year --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, we've gone 

13 through this. We don't have to repeat this.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: All right. It 

15 seems like it's not --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's the issue 

17 of whether or not to use the model that --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm saying there's 

19 more than one place that this statement was 

20 made. And, okay. I'm sorry if I'm beating a 

21 dead horse.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, but the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

119

1 issue, it's kind of a conceptual issue of 

2 whether to use the --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The maximum.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- the dose 

5 limits, which I don't think we've done before 

6 ever.

7 DR. NETON: I don't recall --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- versus a 

9 model, I mean every place, a lot of places 

10 that had dose limits, but we don't necessarily 

11 use those as the bounds.

12 MEMBER MUNN: No, there is no 

13 evidence to support using those as the bounds.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, but these 

15 numbers are very close to that. You're 

16 talking about something that's close to 10 R 

17 per year versus 12 in some cases.

18 MEMBER BEACH: I have a question 

19 for Dave. Dave, are you talking about using 

20 that 9.69 for the entire period, the '52 

21 through end of '62?

22 MR. ALLEN: Through end of '62, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

120

1 yes.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Because SCA 

3 has thought the dose would be higher in the 

4 early couple of years versus --

5 MR. ALLEN: They were basing that 

6 on the limit being higher. So the AEC 

7 statement was really, when it said no one 

8 exceeded a limit, it could have been as high 

9 as 15 rem up and through 54 --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Through 54. They 

11 changed it to 55.

12 MR. ALLEN: Through 54, and then 

13 the limit was three rem per quarter after 

14 that, so they changed it to 12 rem per year 

15 was the maximum. But there's no information 

16 or evidence that anything actually changed as 

17 far as procedures or processes or anything 

18 like that. So I was -- this is kind of a less 

19 than limit is how I was looking it, hitting 

20 the twelve.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I thought it was 

22 significant that this statement was made, that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

121

1 they said, specifically didn't say, well we've 

2 never exceeded the current AEC limit. That 

3 would have been slightly more favorable.

4 He very carefully hedged it by 

5 saying we never exceeded the then-applicable, 

6 the limits applicable for each period. So 

7 they were aware that the limits changed. And 

8 they very carefully hedged their statement.

9 DR. NETON: Well Bob, that's sort 

10 of a general statement. I mean the guy, you 

11 know, he didn't maybe have the numbers at his 

12 fingertips. He wasn't going to say we've 

13 never exceeded nine rem or 10 rem or --

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I know. But it 

15 seems to me --

16 DR. NETON: You're reading more 

17 into it, I think, than is there, to be honest 

18 with you.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I know, again, 

20 there's more than one way of interpreting it. 

21 But it seems like he was very carefully 

22 hedging and saying we never exceeded the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

122

1 limits applicable at that time.

2 So it would seem to me like they 

3 were taking advantage of the more permissive 

4 limit at the time and then said, whoops, now 

5 we're going down because if they were sending 

6 their film badges in to be read the, again, we 

7 don't have those records.

8 But the film badge company, such 

9 as the equivalent to Landauer in its time, 

10 would be keeping the cumulative records and 

11 would be sending back a report saying, hey, 

12 this guy is close to the limit. But, you 

13 know, and they would have warned them. So it 

14 seems to be that there would have been some 

15 logic behind that, okay. I'm probably going 

16 on --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, well, I 

18 guess we need, I think we need input now from 

19 the Work Group as to what direction you want 

20 to go on this and what made this, hear what 

21 are your feelings on this. John Poston, let 

22 me start with you. Since you're not here, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

123

1 I'll pick on you.

2 We're talking about using the, 

3 what was then the legal limit versus the 

4 number that we come up with calculationally. 

5 And if you're responding, you're probably on

6 mute. I'm not hearing --

7 MR. KATZ: John Poston, are you on 

8 the line?

9 (No response.)

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, Josie.

11 MEMBER BEACH: I'm going to have 

12 to agree with SC&A on this one and go with the 

13 higher limit since we don't know for sure. 

14 That's my opinion.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You are more 

16 comfortable with the 12, the 15 and the 12?

17 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wanda?

19 MEMBER MUNN: No, as I stated 

20 earlier, I can see no justification. There is 

21 no evidence to support the assumption that a 

22 limit that was established by regulation was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

124

1 actually the highest, was anywhere near the 

2 dosage that was actually being received by any 

3 of the people.

4 We have evidence to the contrary. 

5 We have evidence showing what some of the 

6 doses were and we know what the source terms 

7 were. Therefore, it seems to me that the 

8 model has a basis in rational science.

9 And I'm not sure that one can say 

10 that for accepting a regulatory boundary as 

11 being a justification for assigning dose. 

12 That doesn't meet the criterion that we often 

13 talk about with respect to the science, in my 

14 view.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Don't we also have 

16 evidence in one case that was higher, up to 

17 20?

18 MR. ALLEN: It's a range of values 

19 that Bob calculated from a summary --

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, it's not an 

22 actual exposure. Remind me of the distances, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

125

1 no, not the distances, the amount of time that 

2 you used for --

3 MR. ALLEN: The individuals, that 

4 was the fishing pole technique it took them 12 

5 to 15 seconds to place the source and the same 

6 amount to remove it.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And Bob used --

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I used the 15.

9 MR. ALLEN: He used --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And you used.

11 MR. ALLEN: I used 13 and a half, 

12 the midpoint.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thirteen and a 

14 half.

15 MR. ALLEN: And the same story 

16 with the distances. It was four to six feet. 

17 I used five and Bob used four.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The biggest 

19 difference comes from the distance thing than 

20 the few seconds.

21 MR. ALLEN: I think so, yes.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Four feet is not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

126

1 much of a pole. Those of us who've used 

2 poles.

3 DR. NETON: I might propose 

4 something here that might help. I don't know 

5 if it will or not. But we've got some 

6 differences of opinions about what the range 

7 of the doses are and Dave's original analysis 

8 was around three. SC&A, using the same 

9 scenario, being more conservative, came up 

10 with around nine.

11 There is no possibility that the 

12 person could have been exposed at the 

13 regulatory limit. So perhaps maybe a 

14 distribution could be used of these doses as 

15 input in the program.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then you 

17 would take the tail end?

18 DR. NETON: No, it would sample. 

19 But I'm just, I'm not saying this would be the 

20 ultimate one. But say a triangular 

21 distribution with three as the low, nine as 

22 the central estimate and upper regulatory 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

127

1 limit as the high end. And that would be the 

2 input term as the person's dose for that year.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then what 

4 would happen? The computer would --

5 DR. NETON: Sample it.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- come up with 

7 a, is this a Monte Carlo type sampling?

8 MR. ALLEN: We can, I mean we can 

9 put a triangular distribution into IREP and 

10 then IREP does a Monte Carlo type of --

11 DR. NETON: Because that allows 

12 for all possibilities. It allows for, I 

13 personally don't believe that it's appropriate 

14 to assign everybody that ever worked at that 

15 plant the regulatory limit for every year they 

16 worked there. That just seems to be, this 

17 allows for that possibility at the upper 

18 limit.

19 IREP, you know, is picked, the PoC 

20 is picked at the 95 percentile. How much that 

21 contributes overall is hard to determine 

22 because the uncertainty and all the other 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

128

1 parameters are factored in there.

2 But at least they would sample a 

3 certain percentage of the time the fact that 

4 it could have been as high as the regulatory 

5 limit. Just an option.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

7 MEMBER MUNN: It's a good option.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I agree. I'd 

9 like to see what that would look like.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If you do that -

11 -

12 DR. NETON: It would not be the 

13 same as assigning everybody the maximum.

14 MEMBER MUNN: No.

15 DR. NETON: I'm not saying that 

16 because it would --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For a given 

18 individual, you would get a little different 

19 value for each of the years of work. How does 

20 that --

21 DR. NETON: No, each input year 

22 would be the distribution --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

129

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You input the 

2 year.

3 DR. NETON: That year, each year 

4 would have that input distribution and the 

5 upper limit would either be 12 or 15 depending 

6 on the year. The lower and the middle values 

7 would be the same. And it would sample that 

8 distribution --

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What would be your 

10 mode in the triangular distribution?

11 DR. NETON: I think it would be 9, 

12 9.6, whatever the one, the model dose that 

13 Dave was agreeing to earlier in the day. And 

14 three would be a lower value, which would be 

15 the lower end of the estimate based on the 

16 fishing pole, you know, technique.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I can't, wait a 

18 second. The lower value would be three?

19 DR. NETON: Yes or whatever --

20 MR. ALLEN: Well it's, the value 

21 in the White Paper I put out was three point -

22 -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

130

1 MEMBER MUNN: 3.5.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But that's based 

3 on two radiographers.

4 MR. ALLEN: That's based on two 

5 radiographers and I was going to --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And that's not 

7 consistent with the --

8 MR. ALLEN: I think it comes out 

9 around five and half or so.

10 DR. NETON: I'm just proposing, 

11 I'm not suggesting the final distribution 

12 here. But I think --

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I can't agree with 

14 that lower bound.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think it's his 

16 footnote D is 5.411, if you said it's a single 

17 radiographer which --

18 DR. NETON: If it's a single, then 

19 it's five.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you've got 

21 five, nine and 12.

22 DR. NETON: Twelve or 15 depending 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

131

1 on the year.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Twelve or 15.

3 MR. ALLEN: The lower end would be 

4 modeled with the --

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But this is 

6 inconsistent with the range of nine to 20 

7 which is based on a real person and his real 

8 records extrapolated to a full-time worker.

9 DR. NETON: But I thought you just 

10 agreed that no one had exceeded the limit, 

11 though.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I know, but 

13 the point is the lower limit should be no 

14 lower than about nine.

15 DR. NETON: Why?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Why?

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Because that's 

18 the, that is taking the 18 quarters of records 

19 --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But of one 

21 worker.

22 DR. NETON: Bob, they said 25 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

132

1 percent, no one, most of the workers didn't 

2 exceed 25 percent of the limit in their own 

3 statement.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

5 DR. NETON: So I don't know why 

6 the low should be nine then.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well that's just 

8 based on this one worker.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, that was my 

10 point.

11 DR. NETON: But I am saying that 

12 in statements, AEC said --

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, right. So 

14 somebody, I mean some workers got nothing.

15 MEMBER MUNN: Absolutely.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And you know, you 

17 can go, you can say some people got zero 

18 because they were never near the sources. 

19 They had other jobs. The whole point is --

20 DR. NETON: Three, I don't think 

21 zero is an appropriate level --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I didn't say it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

133

1 is. But I'm simply saying, by the same logic, 

2 the three I don't think should be included. I 

3 think it should be somewhere between nine and 

4 12, I wouldn't disagree strongly.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, we're 

6 talking about 5.4 as the lower part of this, 

7 which in itself is still above the 25 percent 

8 average.

9 MEMBER MUNN: And 3 R is not 

10 negligible. If you're talking 3 mR that's one 

11 thing. But 3 R is not negligible, for 

12 goodness' sake. That's a dose.

13 DR. NETON: I don't know if we can 

14 flesh out the exact details here. But is 

15 there, I think --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I 

17 certainly would be comfortable in principle 

18 with using the triangular distribution that 

19 included the 5.4, whatever that turns out to 

20 be or exactly with the 9.69 as the central.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry. Where 

22 did the 5.4 come from?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

134

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's by having 

2 one radiographer instead of two. Remember the 

3 3.5 --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But if you had, 

5 right here, I see the two radiographers -- you 

6 had, I'm just looking at Dave's chart. It's, 

7 I see, no, 5.4 is the fishing pole --

8 according to the footnote D as in dog, 5.4 is 

9 for the fishing pole technique divided between 

10 two radiographers plus 8.68, .868 at the 

11 boundary.

12 (Simultaneous speaking.)

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's still 

14 assuming that the work was divided and I don't 

15 think we can --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's what the 

18 5.4 is.

19 MR. ALLEN: No, it's a footnote to 

20 the 3.573 in the table.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's exactly 

22 what I'm looking at.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

135

1 MR. ALLEN: Yes, so the footnote 

2 says that 3.573 came from 5.411 divided by two 

3 radiographers plus the .868.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sorry, thank you. 

5 Thank you. I got it the other way around. 

6 So 5.4 is what you modeled. But you did not 

7 include the, anything at the -- at the 

8 boundary.

9 MR. ALLEN: That is true. It's 

10 actually 5.41 plus the .868 is what the low 

11 limit would be.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So it should be 

13 about 6.3?

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, so it's 6.3 

15 and then --

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. If that's 

17 the lower bound, sure I can go along with, I 

18 think that's reasonable.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then a nine, 

20 and then a 12 or 15. Josie, are you okay on 

21 that?

22 MEMBER BEACH: I am comfortable. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

136

1 I'd like to see that.

2 MR. STIVER: Okay. Triangular 

3 distribution method?

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wanda?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 DR. NETON: You can't do anything 

7 other than triangular, I don't think.

8 MR. ALLEN: Not with that. I 

9 don't think you could.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That 

11 certainly seems -- and I don't know if John 

12 Poston got back on the line yet or not. John, 

13 if you did, you can weigh in on this.

14 MEMBER MUNN: That is very 

15 favorable.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So that would be 

17 assigned to all.

18 MR. KATZ: John, are you on the 

19 line, John Poston?

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This would be 

21 assigned to whom?

22 MR. ALLEN: Well, that's the next 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

137

1 question on this one.

2 DR. NETON: If it was six point, 

3 the lower bound was --

4 MEMBER BEACH: Five point --

5 MR. ALLEN: It's 5.411 plus .868. 

6 Footnote D to my right.

7 DR. NETON: Like 6.3 or something 

8 like that.

9 MR. ALLEN: Yes, 6.2, almost 6.3.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We don't need it 

11 exactly.

12 MR. ALLEN: Almost 6.3.

13 MEMBER MUNN: At the millirem 

14 levels.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Who is this 

16 assigned to?

17 MR. ALLEN: Okay, that's the next 

18 question on there. And the model I had and 

19 what's in the White Paper here would be that 

20 would be, there's no doubt that's for the 

21 radiographers in the radium era.

22 Then the question is for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

138

1 others whether they should be assigned the 

2 radiographer dose or whether they should be 

3 assigned a different dose. And my opinion was 

4 with this era, it should be a different dose 

5 for non-radiographers because the vast 

6 majority of this dose from all models comes 

7 from the fishing pole technique and placing 

8 the source.

9 And that's not from working near 

10 the area or something that other workers would 

11 get. And currently SC&A had an argument or a 

12 model showing 2.087 for others from 

13 radiography in the building, in the 

14 radiography room of Building 6 and a blower 

15 outside.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was based on 

17 a very arbitrary -- it was just like sort of 

18 in -- perhaps I didn't make it clear at the 

19 time, it was sort of an arbitrary, it was like 

20 an illustration with here's how we could model 

21 this.

22 And this was based on an 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

139

1 assumption made in the Nuclear Consulting 

2 Corporation's report saying if -- they didn't 

3 even make the statement like we believe -- if 

4 we assume there is a 25 percent occupancy 

5 factor, it just said if we assume that, then 

6 this is the dose rate that would be given at 

7 this location.

8 That was based on the cobalt. So 

9 I just said well if we assume the 25 percent 

10 occupancy factor we get two, two point 

11 something. But if we assume a 100 percent 

12 occupancy factor then you get close to nine. 

13 So I don't know how well based that occupancy 

14 factor is.

15 It certainly was not based, I mean 

16 as someone who had done a limited amount of 

17 radiation surveys a very long time ago, it 

18 certainly was not based on someone staying

19 there and taking a census of how many workers 

20 spent how much time there. It was just some 

21 kind of, it was just an off-the-cuff estimate. 

22 So I don't think that's a very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

140

1 strong number. And also there seems to be an 

2 inconsistency that if we're going to give the 

3 highest dose regardless of occupation in the 

4 betatron era, for the betatron exposures, then 

5 it would seem that the same and I think this 

6 is what the Board assumed based on a couple of 

7 comments of, gee, we're assigning some very 

8 high doses.

9 I don't think they were thinking 

10 just of radiographers because I don't know if 

11 this appropriate or not, but just out of 

12 curiosity, Bob Barton at John Mauro's request 

13 actually looked at all the pending, all the 

14 claims that had up to now, under the initial, 

15 there were a 100, whatever number there were 

16 that were that had a PoC of below 50 percent. 

17 There was only one radiographer there.

18 So we're talking about who is 

19 going to be affected by a new dose assignment, 

20 we're talking about one person. And it may be 

21 four or six, Bob, correct me if I'm wrong, 

22 that were, whose duties were unknown. So what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

141

1 do you, so basically there was 160-odd others 

2 who are not even being affected by any of 

3 this.

4 MR. ALLEN: Well that's not --

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And this dose of 

6 two point something is actually lower than the 

7 initial skyshine dose that was assigned of .7, 

8 if you take .72 mR, it's not clear whether it 

9 was mR or millirem. It's stated differently 

10 in different parts of Appendix B, Appendix BB.

11 But if you take the number of .72 

12 and multiply it by the new work hours of 3250 

13 a year, you end up with actually 2.3 R or rem, 

14 whichever the correct unit is, per year, which 

15 is actually, so the old numbers were actually 

16 higher than what is now being proposed.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well you have 

18 the possibility of, well you have betatron 

19 operators still in that early era, right?

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes, there is no 

21 agreement there either, I mean --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But we're talking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

142

1 and perhaps we should just restrict this to 

2 the radium era first.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well I'm talking 

4 about the radium era and we have, SC&A has or 

5 NIOSH has a table called radium era. And you 

6 have some values for betatron operators.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, that's in the 

8 old betatron.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, you have the 

11 betatron operator. But a radiographer can be 

12 either --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's my point.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- and as a matter 

15 of fact the gentleman doing my interview who 

16 worked on weekends said he spent time, some of 

17 the time he was in the betatron. Apparently 

18 he was qualified to operate a betatron. 

19 Sometimes he was in the betatron and some of 

20 the time he was in the Number 6 Building with 

21 the radium sources.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

143

1 you've got both those. And then you also have 

2 other people. I mean, so it's not clear to me 

3 how that's, how we're proposing to do that. I 

4 mean for example if you have the radiographer 

5 who is also a betatron operator, he can't be 

6 doing both at the same time.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: A betatron, excuse 

8 me, a betatron operator is a radiographer.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm saying 

10 though, he can't get 100 percent of the radium 

11 source dose plus a 100 percent of the betatron 

12 dose.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, that is 

14 correct. But we don't know who did what.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you either 

16 parse it out or you give him the highest of 

17 the two.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Later, in the 

19 later era, there actually were separate 

20 licenses.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I understand but 

22 --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

144

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You had to be 

2 licensed to be an isotope operator but not to 

3 be a betatron operator.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, so and 

5 then in addition we still have the rest of the 

6 population. So that's what I want to get 

7 clear. It's not clear to me what's being 

8 proposed for the folks, the multiple duty. 

9 For example, if the person's a betatron 

10 operator and we don't know that he wasn't a 

11 radiographer as well, are we going to give him 

12 the radiography dose as --

13 MR. ALLEN: For those early years 

14 he would get the triangular that we just

15 talked about.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. He would 

17 get the higher one. Okay. What about the 

18 rest of the folks there?

19 MR. ALLEN: That's the question 

20 we've been working on here. And I was 

21 proposing using SC&A's model at 2.087. Bob 

22 says that's based on a 25 percent occupancy 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

145

1 that he considered arbitrary.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's other 

3 people going into the source room.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That model was 

5 assuming that someone was standing one meter 

6 outside the thin, the hollow steel door.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Which value are 

8 you talking about, the source?

9 MR. ALLEN: The 2.087.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, that number, 

11 it assumes that somebody was standing outside 

12 the door with no connection necessarily with 

13 the radiographic operation, was standing 

14 outside the door. And while the, you could 

15 have two radium sources exposed at the same 

16 time because you could do it by putting a 

17 shield in between them. You could do two, you 

18 could radiograph two castings simultaneously.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: How did you end 

20 up with a higher value for that where they 

21 were outside the room versus those --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Higher value for?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

146

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Versus source 

2 outside the room. That was because you 

3 assumed a certain percent of the shots were 

4 inside versus outside?

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I assumed that 

6 all of the shots were in the center of the 

7 radiography room.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. But what 

9 about the second line, sources outside the 

10 room?

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I did not believe 

12 that was a credible scenario so we didn't 

13 bother with that. It wouldn't have made any 

14 difference.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have a 

16 number.

17 MR. ALLEN: I put that in and said 

18 I inferred it from --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I got you.

20 MR. ALLEN: But no, they did not 

21 state that number.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I got you, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

147

1 because your footnote said inferred from that. 

2 Okay. So NIOSH is proposing that everybody 

3 else in the plant would be given the number 

4 for standing outside the source room.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Again, the 25 

6 percent is just an assumption without firm, 

7 without any firm information.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's see, is it 

9 any different if the source is out, if it's 

10 out you have the two mR per hour mark off plus 

11 walking through the thing.

12 MR. ALLEN: NIOSH's last model on 

13 outside the radiography room is over and down 

14 one. It's 1.353 --

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That includes 

16 people walking through it?

17 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So it's more 

19 claimant-favorable to assume that, if the 

20 source is inside then they're standing 

21 adjacent --

22 MR. ALLEN: Near the door, yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

148

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- near the 

2 door. Did that, what was the dose rate at the 

3 door? Was that above two mR, Bob?

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry, say 

5 this again.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well why would 

7 the radiography outside, for the source being 

8 in the room end up higher then when you had an 

9 outside --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry. I 

11 don't understand the question because --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. If they 

13 take the radium source --

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We did not model, 

15 we did not model radiography outside the --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well I'm asking 

17 what the dose rate was at the wall, then, 

18 where the source is inside? What was it?

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The dose rate at 

20 the wall?

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes or where a 

22 person was standing to get the 2.087?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

149

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was based on 

2 our MCNP model. It was, we actually modeled 

3 the radiographic facility using MCNP.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, the 

5 implication is that they're getting more dose 

6 then if the source was out and roped off at 

7 two mR per hour.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It may very well 

9 have been more than two mR per hour.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That's 

11 what I was asking.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, it may have 

13 been. Let's see, what I would have to do is -

14 -

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's all 

16 right, okay. I just --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just a second. 

18 Take 2.08 --

19 MR. ALLEN: Okay, I got it. It's 

20 in, it says exposure mR per hour 8.56 outside 

21 the door. That's in the October 2011 SC&A 

22 write up, Page 7.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

150

1 MEMBER MUNN: 8.56 mR?

2 MR. ALLEN: 8.56 mR per hour while 

3 the sources were exposed, which is not 100 

4 percent of the time, et cetera.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. It's based 

6 on the ten exposures.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's actually 

8 worse than having the source out and roped 

9 off. It doesn't sound right.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think there was 

11 a 30 percent duty cycle, was cited by the 

12 supervisor and confirmed by the AEC inspector.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well this is 

14 radium. This is radium.

15 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that was still --

16 MEMBER MUNN: That sure seems 

17 high.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That is a little 

19 puzzling. So the proposal then is that 

20 everybody gets assigned that value that's not 

21 a radiographer or a betatron operator.

22 MR. ALLEN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

151

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Work 

2 Group?

3 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So which 

4 value are we going to go with?

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: He's talking 

6 about 2.087. Did you double check?

7 MR. ALLEN: I did not check the 

8 MCNP run. I checked the math from there and 

9 then starting with that 8.56.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, you would 

11 have to confirm that because that's SC&A's 

12 value.

13 MR. ALLEN: I would have to --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If there was a 

15 question why the petitioner is, you would 

16 check their value and then you certainly 

17 wouldn't -- do that. But assuming that comes 

18 out, let me hear input. Wanda?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Well that's 

20 certainly more claimant-favorable than I would 

21 expect real life to be.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well sure, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

152

1 because you have, you know, the likelihood of 

2 everybody in the plant spending that much time 

3 at this location is so small.

4 MEMBER MUNN: It's vanishingly 

5 small.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, it's 

7 extremely claimant-favorable. Josie, you're 

8 okay?

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, I'm fine with 

10 that.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I certainly 

12 agree it's very claimant-favorable. John, are 

13 you on the line?

14 MR. KATZ: John, are you trying to 

15 speak and just low volume, or?

16 MEMBER POSTON: I guess. I also 

17 have a cold. Can you hear me?

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, we can hear you 

19 fine now.

20 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. I got 

21 closer to the phone. I was on mute so every 

22 time you would call my name, I have to unmute.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

153

1 MR. KATZ: So did you hear all of 

2 that discussion?

3 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, I did.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So are you okay 

5 with going ahead with this for the radium era 

6 for the rest of the population in the plant 

7 who are not radiographers or betatron people?

8 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, I am. I 

9 think it's very claimant-favorable. It 

10 appears to be.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

12 you.

13 MEMBER POSTON: Paul, I'm going 

14 to, I have another class coming in 15 minutes.

15 So I will disappear here soon.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're going to 

17 break in a couple minutes anyway for lunch. 

18 Okay.

19 MEMBER POSTON: I'll be back on 

20 the line after I get out of class.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: SC&A, are you 

22 okay with this then?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

154

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm not.

2 DR. MAURO: And this is John 

3 Mauro. I am. So, Bob, you and I disagree.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is a good 

5 time to come --

6 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, we're using 

8 your value.

9 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro 

10 again. I've been listening carefully. First 

11 I want to compliment Jim on, Jim Neton on 

12 coming up with a solution to a very difficult 

13 problem. He should work in Congress.

14 (Laughter.)

15 DR. MAURO: So I know that Bob and 

16 I do not always agree. And you're watching 

17 the sausage being made. But I think this 

18 compromise is elegant.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're talking 

20 about the radium --

21 DR. MAURO: The radium period 

22 range with the, that was just described 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

155

1 applied to all workers. And I think if that's 

2 the way I understood --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're not 

4 talking about the triangular distribution now. 

5 We're talking about the, yes, just the, it 

6 would be Bob's second table --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The sticking point 

8 is the 25 percent occupancy. That is just an 

9 assumption. That's the problem, that's the 

10 place I have a problem with.

11 MEMBER MUNN: But it's a generous 

12 enough assumption for goodness' sake.

13 DR. MAURO: Remember we are 

14 applying this to a person that's working there 

15 all the time, year in and year out. Not in a

16 given moment in time, not in a given month. 

17 So when you think in terms of the aggregate, 

18 it falls in a place that gives me comfort, the 

19 whole idea --

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And it's also 

21 averaged over the exposure. In other words, 

22 if for some reason he was more likely to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

156

1 there during the exposure, it's a 25 percent 

2 multiplied by a 30 percent. Thirty percent is 

3 the time spent on, that the radiography was 

4 actually taking place during any one shift. 

5 And then you're throwing in 

6 another factor of 25 percent to say, well, the 

7 occupancy factor for that location. So we're 

8 actually talking about seven and a half 

9 percent of the time that he's being exposed to 

10 that radiation coming through the door.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Bob, I missed your 

12 mathematics there somewhere.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well if the, this 

14 is the table and Dave correctly cited --

15 MEMBER MUNN: I'm looking at the 

16 table.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, if you're 

18 seeing the, this is a report entitled Update 

19 Sources Two. Unfortunately this is probably a 

20 slightly longer one when Nancy Johnson sent 

21 these out. She adds on PA-cleared not PA22 cleared. But this was a report which was not, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

157

1 you know, it's not something that was given, 

2 it's not something that's in today's report.

3 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, so I don't have 

4 it.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well you do have 

6 it somewhere. But not probably handy.

7 MEMBER BEACH: Was it in your 

8 slides, Bob?

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?

10 MEMBER BEACH: Was that one of 

11 your tables in the slides that you presented 

12 earlier?

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, no. We 

14 didn't present it because we're no longer, I 

15 was no longer standing behind this.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, Bob, the 

17 value --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't think 

19 there's any quick way, unfortunately if I were 

20 there, I could put it on the screen. But I 

21 can't.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, the value 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

158

1 of 2.087 for sources in the radiography room 

2 exposure to someone outside the room.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I understand the 

5 25 percent occupancy.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is calculated 

7 by saying there's a 25 percent occupancy 

8 factor, so you multiply by 25 percent and then 

9 there's also a 30 percent duty cycle, let's 

10 call it, I call it here exposure duration, 

11 that there is only 30 percent of the time are 

12 they using the radiography.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I 

14 understood.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So during any 

16 eight-hour shift. So you're taking a 25 

17 percent, multiplying by 30 percent, 

18 multiplying by the exposure rate at that 

19 location.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So what you're 

22 really getting is the exposure rate of .856 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

159

1 but only assigned seven and a half percent 

2 total.

3 DR. NETON: Well what you're 

4 saying, Bob, is that 25 percent of the time 

5 the source is open, people could have been 

6 standing there.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: In other words, 

8 30, right.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It doesn't 

10 matter if they're there the rest of the time 

11 because the source is not out.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry. I 

13 didn't follow that.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well you're only 

15 concerned with the time when the source is 

16 out.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is correct. 

18 But you know --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You're saying --

20 DR. NETON: You're suggesting that 

21 it would be --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- a correlation -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

160

1 -

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well it sounds 

3 like you're arguing against your own number.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I am. I gave 

5 this as an example a year and a half ago.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are you thinking 

7 that the occupancy should be greater?

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm not sure what 

9 the occupancy should be. The 25 percent was 

10 just not even a number that was used by the 

11 people making this assessment.

12 They just said if it's 25 percent 

13 here this is for cobalt so it's the same 

14 facility, if the occupancy is 25 percent, this 

15 is what the dose would be outside the 

16 radiography room. They didn't say, they 

17 didn't give any justification of why it should 

18 be 25 percent. It was just a hypothesis.

19 MEMBER MUNN: What did you say 

20 about cobalt? We're talking about the radium 

21 source, right?

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

161

1 assigning it, there was no survey done that we 

2 know of, of the radium facility during the 

3 period of radium usage. So I got that 25 

4 percent from the survey done for the cobalt-60 

5 sources which were brought in later in that 

6 same room.

7 MEMBER MUNN: There would be no 

8 reason to assume that the source exposures 

9 were significantly --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I can't hear that.

11 MEMBER MUNN: That's okay. I was 

12 just muttering to myself.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well the real 

14 question is whether or not really then is the 

15 25 percent occupancy reasonable, unreasonable? 

16 Is it way high, way low? It's sort of what 

17 is the probability that someone in the plant 

18 is standing there for a year, more than 25 

19 percent of the time when the source is out.

20 MEMBER MUNN: It's a reasonable 

21 assertion.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It seems like a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

162

1 high number to me. I mean we're making 

2 judgments here.

3 MEMBER MUNN: But it's certainly 

4 claimant-favorable in my view.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I mean you could 

6 say 100 percent is claimant-favorable. But to 

7 me it's not plausible.

8 MEMBER MUNN: But it's 

9 unreasonable.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Other workers 

11 can't be standing there 100 percent of the 

12 time.

13 MEMBER MUNN: No. No one is 

14 standing there 100 percent of the time. 

15 Twenty-five percent is reasonable.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I would think 25 

17 percent is pretty generous. But it's a 

18 judgment. I don't know.

19 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John.

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: May I just add one 

22 thing. I will be very brief.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

163

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

2 MR. RAMSPOTT: Where they were 

3 doing the radiography work in 6 Building was 

4 at the time one of the main finishing 

5 buildings. And there were workers in there 

6 100 percent of the time. They actually have 

7 photographs of that room.

8 It's a very big building. And 

9 there definitely were and the workers have 

10 said they were, you know, right near that 

11 building and they've looked over the top of 

12 it. But that definitely was a very heavily 

13 occupied building.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I think the 

15 question is we're using a dose rate right at 

16 the wall.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: He's using a dose 

18 rate one meter from the door.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: One meter from 

20 the wall. What would be the probability of 

21 somebody spending 25 percent of their time 

22 that close?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

164

1 MR. RAMSPOTT: Very likely. They 

2 were working there. That was the finishing 

3 building. And due to factors, you just don't 

4 know who was right there next to that wall, 

5 you know.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I 

7 understand. Were there workstations right at 

8 the, by the wall there?

9 MR. RAMSPOTT: Absolutely, sir.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Got you.

11 MR. RAMSPOTT: And we've got 

12 workers that will definitely attest to that.

13 DR. NETON: Well, was there a 

14 difference of the door and the wall? I mean 

15 the door was less shielding.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I used the door 

17 because that would be higher. The walls we 

18 found were thick and fairly --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So it's only at 

20 the door.

21 DR. NETON: They would have to be 

22 standing a meter from the door the entire time 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

165

1 or 25 percent of the time.

2 MEMBER MUNN: And that's the 

3 point. It's not the level of occupancy of the 

4 room. We're talking about an individual here. 

5 And how long an individual would be there.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: At that door.

7 MEMBER MUNN: At that door, yes. 

8 And they're not going to be there 100 percent 

9 of the time. No one is.

10 MEMBER BEACH: Well what's the 

11 difference between the door and the wall 

12 because if there's work stations at the wall 

13 they could be there 100 percent of --

14 MEMBER MUNN: The wall shields.

15 MEMBER BEACH: Right, I understand 

16 that.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The wall was much 

18 thicker than the door. It provided much more 

19 shielding.

20 DR. NETON: Standing right at the, 

21 a meter from the door was higher --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The door is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

166

1 essentially, the way we modeled it, 

2 essentially two sheets of steel an eighth of 

3 an inch thick, a hollow door. So there was 

4 very little --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Very little 

6 shielding.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- very little 

8 shielding whereas the walls are 16 to 24 

9 inches thick and they're filled. They're 

10 solid, they're not hollow.

11 MEMBER MUNN: So to sum, as I 

12 understand it, the individual who has given us 

13 the 2.087 R figure says he doesn't think it's 

14 applicable in this case. And his boss says 

15 he's, well, that we should accept it. Is that 

16 essentially the bottom line here?

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think that Dr. 

18 Anigstein was saying that he was using it more 

19 as an example than a firm assumption. But 

20 it's moved from that point to us saying is 

21 that a reasonable assumption, 25 percent, and 

22 is it claimant-favorable also? And John 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

167

1 Mauro, were you speaking to that point or were 

2 you speaking to the previous point about the 

3 triangular distribution?

4 DR. MAURO: Yes, let me --

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Wait a minute, can 

6 I just, before John answers, I'd make this one 

7 point. As I said before this 2.08 is lower 

8 than the current Appendix BB default value for 

9 non-radiographers, which if you escalate the 

10 work hours -- don't change anything else --

11 just escalate the work hours to 30 to 55 hours 

12 a week, you end up with about 2.3 instead of 

13 2.08. So you're already reducing it by about 

14 15 percent.

15 DR. MAURO: And let me help out a 

16 little. What I'm hearing, I don't operate at 

17 that level of granularity. What I'm saying is 

18 a strategy has been put forth that I think is 

19 bringing us to home plate.

20 One is that we could list the 15 

21 at the upper end or 12, the nine as a mode --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, we're not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

168

1 talking about that right now.

2 DR. MAURO: Then I have to say I 

3 lost track of where we are. I thought we were 

4 talking about pegging the lower end of the 

5 distribution.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no.

7 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're on a 

9 different subject.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, we're 

11 talking about going back and having a 

12 different dose reconstruction for non13 radiographers and for radiographers.

14 DR. MAURO: Let me, then let me. 

15 I didn't hear that. I have to apologize. I'm 

16 -- a member of this group having a Working 

17 Group where we're airing things out.

18 So you have to understand where I 

19 am right now is all workers, triangular 

20 distribution, and what I'm saying, what I 

21 heard and I guess my take-away is a place that 

22 I'm at right now is not parsed between 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

169

1 different categories of workers. All workers 

2 would be getting this low end, which might be 

3 two, 2.8 or 3.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's not at all 

5 what they were talking about, John. You're 

6 mistaken.

7 DR. MAURO: Not just parse it 

8 between different workers.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's not at all 

10 what they were talking about.

11 DR. MAURO: All right. Then my 

12 apologies. I might have just misspoke. Get 

13 me aligned please so I can get back into this. 

14 I thought that's where we were.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We had been 

16 talking about radiographers before when we 

17 talked about radiographers and betatron 

18 operators and so on. That was that triangular 

19 distribution issue.

20 MEMBER MUNN: We're in a different 

21 era now.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, well, we're 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

170

1 still in the radium era. But now we're 

2 talking about others in the plant and their 

3 exposures to the radium source if they are 

4 outside of the radiography room when the 

5 source is out.

6 And SC&A had a value which turns 

7 out to be 2.087 R per year and NIOSH has said 

8 that they would accept that. And it is based 

9 on people spending 25 percent of the time that 

10 the source is out near the doorway to the 

11 source room. It's nothing to do with the 

12 triangular distribution. It's a different set 

13 of information.

14 DR. MAURO: Are we still talking 

15 though, there's a time period where we're 

16 calling it the radiographer time period, that 

17 from 19, October 1952, up to the, I guess the 

18 end of October '52 up through --

19 (Simultaneous speaking.)

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We're going by 

21 whole years now.

22 DR. MAURO: That's what I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

171

1 getting at. I understand that.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, it's the 

3 radium era, John. The radium era, so we're 

4 still in the radium era. But we're not 

5 talking about the radiographers anymore. That 

6 was the triangular distribution.

7 DR. MAURO: Yes, that's where I do 

8 have a problem. Where we are parsing, when 

9 the dose reconstruction is done, some judgment 

10 is going to be made whether a person is a 

11 radiographer and gets this distribution or 

12 dose and if he's or he's some other category 

13 of worker which would be something different.

14 Based on everything that I've been 

15 looking at, listening to and working with Bob 

16 on, making that distinction during the 

17 radiographer era should not be done.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, the main 

19 reason it's done in this case is that the high 

20 dose comes from the fish pole technique. And 

21 you know who does the fish pole part. That's 

22 what, that's the controlling dose on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

172

1 radium sources for radiographers. It's the 

2 controlling dose whether they're a betatron 

3 operator or a radium source radiographer.

4 But the rest of the plant people, 

5 presumably, are not holding the fish pole. 

6 But they may be near the source. And that's 

7 the difference.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: In that case, 

9 which we also have to include what John 

10 Ramspott pointed out, is the old betatron 

11 building: we really don't have any detailed 

12 information of what was going on outside that 

13 building, whether there was any significant 

14 exposure or not, I cannot say. And it was not 

15 this 2.08, was not meant to be bounding for 

16 all other non-radiographer exposures in GSI 

17 during that time period.

18 We simply did not look at them 

19 because we didn't have enough information. 

20 And also were not motivated to look at it 

21 because we assumed eventually that the 

22 radiographer dose would be assigned to all 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

173

1 workers and therefore, why bother looking at 

2 all these other scenarios where we don't have 

3 very detailed information.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that 

5 wasn't clear to me from your report.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, the report 

7 in October 2011, was entitled "Update on 

8 Sealed Sources." We did not talk about this 

9 specifically, because NIOSH had prepared a 

10 report that summer on sealed sources. And we 

11 responded with two reports, one in September 

12 and a second one in October, dealing with 

13 sealed sources alone.

14 No mention was made of the 

15 betatron. NIOSH did not produce a report on 

16 the betatron until the following January. And 

17 at that time, we discussed the betatron. So 

18 we were not at that point, we were doing just 

19 some scientific studies, some mathematical 

20 calculations, computer modeling of what if, 

21 what about this position, what about this 

22 location, without making a final 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

174

1 recommendation as to what should be the 

2 bounding dose.

3 And again, we keep going back and 

4 I think John is in agreement with me -- there 

5 was a misunderstanding about what we were 

6 talking about -- that it's very difficult, I 

7 mean it's inconsistent, Dave Allen in the 

8 report on the betatron said, we really don't 

9 know what the various duties were. We assign 

10 everyone the highest dose.

11 And suddenly we go back years 

12 earlier and now we do know, NIOSH presumes to 

13 know, what the duties are and is going to 

14 assign different doses to different people. 

15 And it seems to me to be inconsistent. And 

16 without a really firm basis --

17 MR. ALLEN: Well, the difference -

18 -

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- the firm basis 

20 that the radiographer dose was not likely --

21 for several reasons, the radiographer dose was 

22 not likely to have been exceeded. One, only 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

175

1 one of the reasons is the fish pole model.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So I'm 

3 understanding you to be saying then that SC&A 

4 would propose that the triangular distribution 

5 apply to others as well.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Correct.

7 DR. MAURO: Correct.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Now I 

9 understand. Dave, do you have a response to 

10 that?

11 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I mean, it's not 

12 inconsistent, even though Bob says that. The 

13 question is the credibility of exposure 

14 scenario for someone that's not a 

15 radiographer.

16 And as far as the layout man with 

17 the new betatron building near the tunnel 

18 there, it's very credible that somebody's 

19 doing a weld repair or doing some other kind 

20 of work with a casting right in that vicinity 

21 that's not a radiographer, has nothing to do 

22 with radiography.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

176

1 On the other hand, the vast 

2 majority of the dose to the radiographer 

3 during the radium era is from handling the 

4 source and placing it next to the casting for 

5 a few seconds every shot. And that's where 

6 the vast majority of his dose comes from, and 

7 it's not credible that other people, a welder 

8 or an electrician or somebody else is going to 

9 be doing that on a routine basis. That's why 

10 there's a difference in the radium era versus 

11 the betatron era.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Actually, I agree 

13 in one part. In one sense, I agree with what 

14 Dave is saying. On the other hand, the 

15 problem there is: this is a limiting dose. 

16 And we can be very comfortable saying it's 

17 highly unlikely that anyone else would have 

18 exceeded it.

19 When you start getting down to 

20 what is the limiting exposure scenario for the 

21 non-radiographer, it's very hard to define 

22 that because it could be the person standing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

177

1 outside the door. It could be the -- there 

2 were several accidental exposures.

3 There was a case of someone being 

4 inside the Army tank that was being 

5 radiographed by the betatron, and he went 

6 inside to take measurements and was oblivious 

7 to the alarm, and stayed inside the tank while 

8 the betatron was on. And you won't know who 

9 that is. I mean, in that particular setting, 

10 we have a name. But basically, you won't know 

11 who that is because the dose --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're not 

13 modeling accidents in this.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're not 

16 modeling accidents in these things. If 

17 someone has that in their claim --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But the point is 

19 the accidents happened.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And there is not 

22 necessarily any record. Not every one of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

178

1 these things has been documented. And these 

2 are only a couple of anecdotal accounts that 

3 we heard, whereas there could be others. And 

4 again, the person, the dose reconstructor 

5 would say, "Well, this is an engineer, a 

6 design engineer, so what on earth is he doing 

7 in the betatron room?" Well, he happened to 

8 have been there. But the dose reconstructor 

9 won't know that.

10 DR. MAURO: Yes, let me add, all 

11 along for the past five years I have been 

12 struggling, and everyone knows, with this idea 

13 of unmonitored workers working with these 

14 sources. And so much work went into looking 

15 at these scenarios and off-normal conditions.

16 I have to say that this is what 

17 when I started out, the idea that there could 

18 be off-normal conditions that occur, you know, 

19 quite often. And we looked at that. And Bob 

20 and David both came up with different 

21 approaches where people are walking by some 

22 type of on-site mishandling, some perhaps 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

179

1 short periods of a lack of adequate control 

2 over the source and training.

3 All of this is a collective 

4 picture that emerged, which brought me to a 

5 place that said that, you know, we don't, it's 

6 very difficult to assign exposures to real 

7 people. But it is possible now.

8 And that's why we walked away with 

9 our recommendation that you could place a 

10 plausible upper bound. And after a great deal 

11 of soul-searching we did come, Bob and I, to a 

12 place where we were comfortable with the 15 

13 and the 12 as being the place to peg it as 

14 being a plausible upper bound.

15 And so that's why we supported our 

16 position, as articulated related to the SEC 

17 decision. Now we're at another place. We're 

18 saying, okay, we agreed that we are able to 

19 place a plausible upper bound on the limiting 

20 individuals, whoever they may be.

21 But we don't know who those 

22 individuals are. And the idea that we could 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

180

1 operate at this next level of granularity 

2 where we could place a plausible upper bound 

3 on different categories of individuals, to 

4 think that we actually could identify who 

5 those people are that fall into those 

6 categories and what their plausible upper 

7 bound is, I think that's carrying our ability 

8 to reconstruct doses here at a level of 

9 granularity that we cannot achieve.

10 And so SC&A's position -- and I'm 

11 sure Bob -- and we're working this out all of 

12 us together at this time -- feels that we're 

13 having conversations about different jobs, 

14 different concepts of where a person might 

15 have been and how long. We cannot operate at 

16 that granularity.

17 And Jim came up with a strategy 

18 that -- and this is something that you 

19 individually have to become comfortable with -

20 - that for any given worker we're going to 

21 have one hard time saying we could place a 

22 plausible upper bound on different categories 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

181

1 of workers.

2 We're going to have a hard time 

3 just identifying different categories, what 

4 they did and their potential for exposure from 

5 all of these variations that we've been 

6 talking about. The people up in the rafters, 

7 and people might have been over here or there 

8 or doing this or in the bathroom.

9 I mean, it goes on and on and on. 

10 Why I became comfortable with the position 

11 we're in is the idea that we would assign to 

12 all of the claimants this idea of this 

13 distribution is the solution. And the idea 

14 that you would have different distributions or 

15 doses for different categories of people that 

16 you feel you can do that -- when it's time to 

17 do the dose reconstruction, I don't think that 

18 you could do that.

19 You know, this almost becomes an 

20 implementation question. You know, when you 

21 get a particular claimant, what I'm hearing 

22 is: well, we have different ways of dealing 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

182

1 with -- we're going to drop that claimant in a 

2 box. We're going to call them this, a layout 

3 man, we're going to call -- whatever it is you 

4 want to call them --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, I'm going 

6 to interrupt you at this point. I understand 

7 your point. I think one of the things, one of 

8 the assumptions I was operating at was that we 

9 could in fact identify worker categories. If 

10 we can't do that at this site, then exactly 

11 what you say is true.

12 But I think I heard someone, maybe 

13 it was Bob earlier, say that you went back to 

14 the dose reconstructions that had been done 

15 and you separated out the radiographers from 

16 the others for some purpose. But if we can't 

17 tell who's the radiographer, I agree with you.

18 This is what we do at other sites. 

19 Am I wrong in the assumption that we can or 

20 can't? Can we separate out? See, if we don't 

21 know who is a radiographer you're exactly 

22 right. If we do know, then there's the next 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

183

1 level. This is what we had at many sites, 

2 remember?

3 And we've had this at Savannah 

4 River, you know, we had all these different 

5 coded jobs and so on. And it became a 

6 question of: do we really know where workers 

7 were or were they not based on their jobs? 

8 And many of these sites we don't.

9 And so the job category -- or we 

10 don't even know the job categories. So I know 

11 we know who had badges.

12 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that's a very 

13 small number of people.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The rest of the 

15 people, if we don't know whether they're 

16 radiographers or if we don't know whether 

17 they're betatron operators, then what you say 

18 is exactly right. What do we know on this?

19 MEMBER MUNN: Well, I've heard that 

20 also, that we knew who were radiographers.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I thought we 

22 did.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

184

1 MR. ALLEN: Here's -- maybe this 

2 will -- this is my quote, transcript from the 

3 December Board meeting. It says, "If we don't 

4 know, we go through the possible scenarios. 

5 If we do not know for all the radiographers --

6 we do not know who all the radiographers were 

7 in the early years. So we had no choice but to 

8 assume the worst, unless we know something 

9 else. A lot of times survivors don't know 

10 exactly what their loved one did, but they 

11 might know that he was a lawyer or accountant 

12 or something. And generally, we won't give 

13 the really high doses to someone like that."

14 That's from the Board meeting. 

15 That was the last discussion on whether we're 

16 separating or not separating before the vote 

17 came down.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I am 

19 going to ask you all to ponder this. We need 

20 to take our lunch break. And we'll reconvene 

21 at 1:25, okay?

22 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

185

1 matter went off the record at 12:23 p.m. and 

2 resumed at 1:26 p.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

4 We're ready to resume. I want to check and 

5 see if Dr. Poston is on the line. I know he 

6 had a class. He may not be back from that 

7 yet. John, if you're on the line just let us 

8 know.

9 MR. KATZ: John Poston, are you on 

10 the line, maybe on mute?

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, I 

12 understand we got an email from Dr. McKeel; he 

13 wants to make a comment. Dr. McKeel, are you 

14 on the line?

15 DR. MAKHIJANI: The line is open. 

16 This is Arjun.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Dan 

18 McKeel, are you back from lunch?

19 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, I'm back from 

20 lunch.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, Dan, you 

22 indicated you wanted to make a two-minute 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

186

1 statement. Should I start my stopwatch? Just 

2 kidding. Go ahead.

3 DR. MCKEEL: I'll hurry up.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's fine. Go 

5 ahead.

6 DR. MCKEEL: All right. I just 

7 wanted to make two small but important points, 

8 I think, and that is: we were talking about 

9 the GSI radiographers.

10 And just to remind us all, there 

11 were Landauer film badges only for 89 

12 individuals from 1963 to mid-1966 of the 

13 operation period.

14 So there was no Landauer film 

15 badge monitoring data for anyone at the GSI 

16 plant from October the 1st, 1952, through 

17 1962, and that included radiographers and non18 radiographers. There was that summary report 

19 for 18 months from one radiographer.

20 So I've made this point many 

21 times, but that means that at least 97 percent 

22 of the GSI workforce was never badged, and in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

187

1 our opinion, although obviously some badge 

2 information is valid and important, the film 

3 badge data we have doesn't span but a small 

4 portion of the operational period.

5 The second point I needed to make 

6 was that even though film badge data was 

7 available, that in no way invalidates the fact 

8 that when MCNPx and ATTILA were used to model 

9 the betatron doses in Appendix BB and in 2008 

10 by SC&A, the external doses for both codes 

11 were far higher than in 2012/2013.

12 And the point is that they were 

13 10- to 12-fold higher than the readings the 

14 film badges show.

15 And it seems to me that this 

16 discrepancy between the model data, when you 

17 use model data for the betatrons in the 2012 

18 and 2013 doses, is a major problem that just 

19 can't be solved by simply ignoring the 

20 betatron early computing models.

21 So in other words, another way to 

22 look at it is the 2007/2008 MCNPx and Attila 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

188

1 codes, those doses that were calculated were 

2 not validated by the actual measured data from 

3 the film badges, and that's my comment. Thank 

4 you very much.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thanks, 

6 Dan. Just before lunch we were talking about 

7 the assignment of doses to individuals who 

8 were other than radiographers and we had the 

9 discussion about whether or not one could 

10 actually make that distinction.

11 Let me give a few more thoughts 

12 and then ask for others to comment. One thing 

13 that we have here that's a little different 

14 from an SEC, in an SEC, Labor has to be able 

15 to put people in different places.

16 Here we're dealing with Appendix 

17 BB, which will have set forth some principles 

18 of how dose is to be calculated.

19 And although it's entirely 

20 possible that a given claim we wouldn't be 

21 able to distinguish what the work was, in 

22 which case that person would be assigned the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

189

1 maximum. I think it would be the radiography 

2 dose or the layout depending on the years, but 

3 if, in the claim itself it were established 

4 that this person were an administrator who was 

5 not a foreman or not working in the production 

6 area -- I'm talking sort of in general terms 

7 here, not specifically GSI -- but if it could 

8 be well established that it was, say, a 

9 secretary or a budget person or somebody who 

10 would rarely frequent, I'm not saying would 

11 never, but would rarely frequent the 

12 production area, it seems to me that it would 

13 still be appropriate to have in Appendix BB a 

14 method that could be used in those cases, 

15 again recognizing that if you could not 

16 clearly establish that as a fact you would 

17 default to the higher dose.

18 I think we've done this in other 

19 cases. I've had a two, what did I call it, 

20 maybe a two-level sort of reconstruction where 

21 we had the sort of nuclear workers and then, 

22 say, the office workers, if I can make that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

190

1 kind of a distinction or that may not be a 

2 good description.

3 But my thinking now is, and I want 

4 to hear from SC&A on this, John, I understand 

5 the argument for saying sort of let's handle 

6 everybody the same because we can't establish, 

7 you know, specific work locations.

8 But it seems to me that it might 

9 be possible in specific cases to establish 

10 that they were not individuals who worked in 

11 the area where the sources were.

12 And I'd like to ask Jim Neton if 

13 he could sort of elaborate on what's been done 

14 in other situations and then get some feedback 

15 maybe from SC&A on this as well.

16 DR. NETON: Well, yes. This is 

17 Jim. I can think of a few examples. The one 

18 that comes to mind first is our coworker model 

19 approach where we use the 50th or 95th 

20 percentile doses to assign to workers who were 

21 not monitored based on the determination of 

22 whether they were really production workers in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

191

1 there, chemical operators, or people who sort 

2 of infrequently went to the plant and security 

3 guards, that type of scenario.

4 The other one that comes to mind 

5 is the TBD-6000. I think we have several 

6 different job categories in there for --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Already.

8 DR. NETON: -- already for 

9 supervisors and main process workers, that 

10 sort of thing, so the precedent is certainly 

11 there so it's not something that we haven't 

12 done in the past. This is frequently done.

13 I think the question here, though, 

14 and what I hear John say and maybe Bob too, 

15 that it'd be difficult to come up with an 

16 alternative bounding scenario.

17 We are very comfortable, I think, 

18 with the bounding scenario that we've 

19 established now, maybe using a triangular 

20 distribution.

21 But then what's the second cut 

22 point? And here we're only talking about two 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

192

1 different classes of workers, you know, the 

2 radiographers and then everyone else. We're 

3 not talking about teasing it out into four or 

4 five different categories.

5 So the question is, you know, 

6 we've done a lot of work on all the radiation 

7 sources and exposures at the plant and is 

8 there one that is less than a radiographer 

9 dose that we believe could cap doses to the 

10 other workers that pretty clearly weren't 

11 working with radiography or betatron?

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or not in the 

13 production area, yes.

14 DR. NETON: Or outside the 

15 production area.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, outside of 

17 these areas. John?

18 DR. MAURO: Paul and Jim, I agree 

19 with what you just said. My trouble was that 

20 there will be workers who were in and around 

21 the radiography area doing various jobs.

22 And maybe they're not actually 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

193

1 formally designated as radiographers but they 

2 certainly were in locations where they had a 

3 potential for significant exposure. That's 

4 where I was coming from.

5 Now, what you just described, 

6 Paul, is that what we have really is two 

7 categories of people, those people who had a 

8 potential for radiological exposures because 

9 the types of jobs they had, where they 

10 physically were located throughout their work 

11 history, and then these other people that were 

12 more like, as you pointed out, office workers 

13 that maybe on some rare occasion they may have 

14 gone into a radiological situation. I'm okay 

15 with that distinction.

16 The problem I had was that it's 

17 very possible that there may have only been a 

18 limited number of people who were formally 

19 designated as radiographers but there may have 

20 been a large number of other people that 

21 worked in and around in various functions, 

22 whether it's maintenance or related 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

194

1 activities, in and around the facility. I 

2 don't think you can make the departure there.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, may I 

4 interject?

5 DR. MAURO: Yes, please.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We have literally 

7 one identified, literally one person out of 

8 169 or 100 something -- Bob Barton, you can 

9 correct me on that information -- 100-odd 

10 workers who were there during the radium era 

11 who had dose reconstructions of less than 50 

12 percent and only one is identified as a 

13 radiographer, so we're talking about a 

14 minuscule number of identified radiographers.

15 And the question, the issue that 

16 John and I have, I suppose that we agree on, 

17 is: how do you assign doses to those people? 

18 How do you parse out all the situations?

19 We have only the analysis of the 

20 dose standing one meter outside the door of 

21 the radiographic facility, used for the 

22 radium.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

195

1 It's only one scenario, the people 

2 who may have been in and out of the old 

3 betatron building -- new betatron didn't exist 

4 yet -- the people who may have been working on 

5 the roof servicing the fan. There are so many 

6 different possible scenarios.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, let me make 

8 it clear, Bob, that I was not using 

9 radiographer as a category.

10 DR. MAURO: Ah, okay.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I was using --

12 if I can call the plant where the work is done 

13 the production area. In other words, yes, 

14 radiographers, layout men, all of those. I 

15 think we're including all of those in the 

16 first category. We're talking here about in 

17 the admin building maybe.

18 MR. KATZ: Was there an admin 

19 building?

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's not the 

21 impression I got from Jim and Dave in 

22 discussing triangular.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

196

1 They said the triangular 

2 distribution that we have consensus on applies 

3 only to known radiographers or to people who 

4 are not known not to be radiographers. That's 

5 what I understood from this morning.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, if they're 

7 known not to be is another question. I guess 

8 we may have morphed a little bit.

9 I think, in our early part of this 

10 discussion, some of us were thinking about 

11 others in the plant area who were not in the 

12 category of either radiographers, betatron 

13 operators or -- well, I guess we were calling 

14 everybody else layout men if we couldn't 

15 distinguish otherwise, weren't we?

16 MR. ALLEN: In the later time 

17 frame?

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In the later 

19 category.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but the 

21 layout men only applied to '63, I thought.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, but in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

197

1 the earlier era we were, I think, including 

2 betatron operators and radiographers together, 

3 isn't that correct, and then everybody else?

4 DR. NETON: I've always considered 

5 betatron --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Can I just make an 

7 observation?

8 MR. KATZ: Wait, before you do, 

9 Bob --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Can I be a 

11 stickler for detail? Betatron operators were 

12 radiographers, so what we mean is the 

13 isotopes. They would have been called isotope 

14 operators to distinguish them from the 

15 betatron operators.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, all right.

17 MR. KATZ: Bob, I don't think you 

18 could hear Dave on the line because Wanda 

19 coughed at the same moment Dave was speaking.

20 But Dave was saying the category 

21 of people not known not to be radiographers is 

22 the big category actually. There are a lot of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

198

1 --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Known not to be.

3 MR. KATZ: In other words there 

4 are probably a lot of people, claimants, this 

5 is what I understood they're saying, a lot of 

6 claimants who may not be specified as 

7 radiographers but you can't rule them out as 

8 if they might have been radiographers because 

9 you don't have that much information for a lot 

10 of people.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you would put 

12 them in that category.

13 MR. KATZ: So that you would put 

14 them in the radiographer category. So despite 

15 Bob Barton having looked and seen who is 

16 actually specified as a radiographer, a lot of 

17 other individuals may fall in that basket.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just for this 

19 purpose, let me read to you. I have this list 

20 right in front of me. Let me just go through 

21 it very quickly.

22 Switchman fast conductor; laborer; 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

199

1 mill laborer; pipefitter; grinder, inspector; 

2 office manager; maintenance welder; clerk; 

3 weigher and checker; crane operator; laborer, 

4 millwright; laborer millwright helper 

5 millwright; laborer; unknown; maintenance 

6 welder; ironworker; timekeeper; core room 

7 hydraulic presses; industrial 

8 engineer/superintendent/accounting department; 

9 furnace worker, truck driver; laborer, roller; 

10 control specialist -- I won't read every one. 

11 This is just in random order, just giving a 

12 sample.

13 I mean, I would not want to be in 

14 the position of a dose reconstructor, 

15 particularly a dose reconstructor who didn't 

16 spend five years studying GSI as I have, 

17 having to make that decision based on this 

18 cursory description. How do you know what 

19 this guy really did?

20 The one worker for whom we have 

21 this detailed information because he submitted 

22 his AEC exposure record, he happens to be 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

200

1 alive and well and is not a claimant.

2 But suppose this is somebody --

3 you know, just find another person who had 

4 passed away and for whom his survivors are 

5 filing a claim. They would have said, well, 

6 what did your father or grandfather do?

7 Oh, he was a lab technician. 

8 Well, that's not a radiographer, not knowing 

9 he did radiography on weekends. I mean, 

10 that's a perfect example where the distinction 

11 is so blurred.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, I 

13 understand the point. I think we need to ask 

14 NIOSH what they think is actually workable in 

15 these cases.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Even this one 

17 category, which I just think is funny. This 

18 applies to one person, maybe from a different 

19 one of his survivors. Maybe he had children. 

20 That strikes me as odd. Industrial 

21 engineer/superintendent/accounting department. 

22 To my knowledge, industrial engineers don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

201

1 work in accounting departments.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: My point was 

3 that if you could establish --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but the point 

5 is "if." That's the biggest thing, if. Is 

6 NIOSH going to, is Dave Allen's Appendix BB, 

7 whoever writes the workbooks for the dose 

8 reconstructors, are they going to be able, to 

9 use John Mauro's phrase, parse the category? 

10 Are they going to be able to give unmistakable 

11 instructions to --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't know. I 

13 think that's what I'm asking NIOSH, whether 

14 they can do that or not, okay?

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, sorry. I 

16 misunderstood.

17 MR. ALLEN: All right, this is 

18 something that I did want to have some 

19 conversation about so might as well get it 

20 going here. We're just talking about the 

21 radium era here first of all, right?

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, and years.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

202

1 MR. ALLEN: Those years. And the 

2 bulk of the dose for the radiographer himself 

3 from every model comes out to be from placing 

4 the source and pulling the source back out 

5 using the fishing pole technique.

6 I drafted up over lunch here just 

7 a paragraph or something for at least 

8 discussion.

9 Something along those lines is 

10 what I'd like to put in the Appendix as a 

11 guideline, not a prescriptive, you know, 

12 definitive thing for dose reconstructors, just 

13 some guidelines on who to assign radiographer 

14 versus non-radiographer and, at least like to 

15 hear everybody's comments on it.

16 So I'll just read it off here. 

17 It's about a paragraph and I was going to say 

18 something like, "In general, radiographer dose 

19 should be assigned to anyone who may have 

20 handled sources to initiate or end the 

21 radiographic examination.

22 "A complete list of radiographers 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

203

1 in this time frame is not available so the 

2 dose reconstructor should consider anyone 

3 whose job includes inspections to have been a 

4 radiographer.

5 "This would include but is not 

6 limited to those known as radiographers, 

7 quality control, nondestructive testing or 

8 inspectors. It would not normally include 

9 those in administrative jobs.

10 "Claims with other job titles 

11 should be reviewed carefully to attempt to 

12 determine if they may have been involved in 

13 radiography.

14 "However, it should be noted that 

15 at least one individual working in a chemistry 

16 lab also performed radiography on the 

17 weekends, so dose reconstructors should review 

18 telephone interviews and any other available 

19 information to determine if the individual 

20 energy employee may have been involved with 

21 radiography."

22 I also included after that, "Also, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

204

1 the models do not include dose associated with 

2 incidents or unusual events.

3 "So if there is indication of such 

4 an event, such an event could have affected 

5 the energy employee's radiation dose. The 

6 dose reconstructor should account for that 

7 dose separately." That's kind of a separate 

8 issue.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Now, if 

10 you had something like that, if the dose 

11 reconstructor can't establish specifically 

12 that the person didn't fit in the category, 

13 for example, maybe it's a claimant, the son or 

14 daughter of a deceased claimant --

15 MR. KATZ: Right, a survivor.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: A survivor. In 

17 the absence of specific knowledge, then you go 

18 ahead and assume, right? Because if they say 

19 "I don't know," then you assume.

20 MR. ALLEN: Well, I think one of 

21 the job titles or whatever that Bob read off 

22 there was "unknown."
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

205

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, yes.

2 MR. ALLEN: You're stuck.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There's only a few 

4 of those.

5 MR. ALLEN: Yes, there's not a 

6 lot. Usually survivors know something. They 

7 know their husband was a welder or electrician 

8 or, you know, lawyer or something.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And a welder could 

10 be someone repairing the castings right after 

11 being radiographed and waiting for the next 

12 radiograph.

13 MR. ALLEN: Right, but over the 

14 radium era --

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The real problem 

16 that SC&A, John Mauro and I have with this is: 

17 granted, there are some people who are 

18 unlikely to have been radiographers. How do 

19 you assign them a dose?

20 If you use this limiting approach 

21 and say, well, no one is any worse than that, 

22 we're on fairly firm ground. We have good 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

206

1 justification. We have models. We have the 

2 evidentiary, the testimony. We have this one 

3 film badge, one exposure record.

4 And otherwise you're on very 

5 unfirm ground. We don't know. Yes, okay, 

6 let's say we all agree that it's not likely 

7 this man was a radiographer. What do you give 

8 him?

9 Do you assume that he was outside 

10 the door? Somebody could say no, no. He 

11 wasn't outside that door. He was actually 

12 working on the roof of the old betatron 

13 building some of the time. He was outside the 

14 door of the old betatron building.

15 Question whether there would have 

16 really been very much exposure outside the old 

17 betatron building if they didn't do that 

18 technique of shooting down the corridor.

19 On the other hand, they did have a 

20 sign that said, "Stay 100 feet," "Radiation 

21 danger," which I believe Mr. Ramspott or Dr. 

22 McKeel furnished a photograph saying, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

207

1 "Radiation danger," "Stay away 100 feet." 

2 Now, that could have just been a --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, your point 

4 is if we don't assign the triangular 

5 distribution, what do you use for the --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly, exactly.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- for the 

8 alternative.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And NIOSH is --

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We could spend the 

12 next ten years working up those scenarios.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think NIOSH 

14 was proposing using your value for the source 

15 in the radiography room, but you indicated 

16 that was only there as an example, not for a 

17 specific recommendation.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So we're sort of 

20 back to what is it that's going to be used if 

21 we use anything, you know?

22 MR. ALLEN: And I think that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

208

1 going to affect how that decision's made from 

2 like that paragraph I just read.

3 If we come up with an estimate 

4 that's based on the worst, you know, what some 

5 non-radiographer could have done, you know, 

6 such as standing outside the radiography room 

7 100 percent of the time, you know, working 

8 right next to it or whatever, that should 

9 cover a large number of the people in the 

10 plant.

11 If we come up with an estimate 

12 that's the shine, you know, 100 feet away from 

13 the old betatron building, it's going to be a 

14 fairly low number and that estimate should not 

15 cover, you know, much more than 

16 administrative.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, but if you 

18 go from the 25 percent occupancy to the 100, 

19 which in my mind is really not plausible, but 

20 if you do that, you go from 2 R per year 

21 basically to 8 and you're right back in the 

22 other distribution anyway.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

209

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, other 

3 comments? Jim, give us some wisdom here. Got 

4 any left?

5 DR. NETON: I used up my wisdom.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You used it up 

7 in the morning, yes.

8 (Laughter.)

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

10 feel that if there are people at a minimum 

11 that are clearly in administrative classes of 

12 work, I mean, to assign them 9 rem as a 

13 central estimate just seems to be not 

14 appropriate.

15 I think we've looked at all these 

16 potential sources of exposures that we could 

17 bound, at least in administrative Class work. 

18 That's just my opinion. I think most of 

19 those stand out pretty clearly. It's 

20 something that we do routinely at all the 

21 other sites.

22 I'm not sure why, in this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

210

1 particular instance, SC&A has decided to draw 

2 a line in the sand and say, well, you have no 

3 idea what these workers did.

4 We do this all the time. 

5 Judgments have to be made at certain points. 

6 Otherwise, why don't we have one model for 

7 everybody?

8 DR. MAURO: Jim, I would say, if 

9 you would apply that philosophy liberally, 

10 what I mean by that, there's going to be this 

11 blurry line. We heard a whole list of names, 

12 of categories of workers, industrial 

13 hygienists.

14 I think the instructions that go 

15 to your dose reconstructor are going to be, 

16 really, the burden of proof is going to be on 

17 them, that they're confident that this person 

18 did not work anywhere near a radiological area 

19 most of the time.

20 And, you know, if that argument 

21 can be made based on the person's records, 

22 whatever you have, interviews --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

211

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But there are 

2 none, John. There are no records.

3 DR. MAURO: Oh, well, I'm sorry.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Interviews only.

5 DR. MAURO: Based on whatever 

6 information you have regarding a particular 

7 worker.

8 I think the burden of proof would 

9 be on NIOSH to say, listen, we could say with 

10 confidence that there was little likelihood 

11 that this guy spent a substantial amount of 

12 time in what we would call this radiological 

13 envelope, whatever that might be.

14 MR. ALLEN: Well, again, that 

15 would depend on how we estimate that non16 radiographer dose. If it's only going to 

17 apply to administrative workers, it shouldn't 

18 be the 25 percent of the time next to the 

19 radiography building. It should be something 

20 considerably lower.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: How could you come 

22 up with it? Do a dose estimate for the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

212

1 office?

2 MR. ALLEN: If that's the only 

3 people it would apply to, I would think yes.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, here's a 

5 category of "office manager," another one of 

6 "clerk."

7 My concern is that the outcome 

8 would be sort of a toss. The outcome will 

9 depend on which particular dose reconstructor 

10 does it. They may have different approaches. 

11 It's a very, very nebulous, vague standard.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, wait. 

13 You're going to have that at every site. If 

14 the instructions are so vague that that makes 

15 a difference, then the instructions are not 

16 right, because, you know, to some extent one 

17 of the reasons we review dose reconstructions 

18 is for consistency in applying those things.

19 So, yes, you'd have to have a 

20 fairly clear approach, and if the dose 

21 reconstructor can't firmly establish that the 

22 person was outside the radiological area, then 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

213

1 he's got to give them the benefit of the doubt 

2 in the other area. Philosophically, I mean, I 

3 don't think we can use the argument --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I would assert 

5 that this is a very significant -- one dose 

6 reconstructor might be easily convinced and 

7 another one might be more skeptical. Then it 

8 becomes very subjective.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, but you 

10 have that at every site. I don't think that -

11 -

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I guess I'm not 

13 that familiar with the other sites.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I mean, 

15 you know, no site has one dose reconstructor 

16 doing them all. They have many dose 

17 reconstructors.

18 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'm 

19 philosophically in agreement with what was 

20 just described, you know, and because in 

21 effect, as Jim pointed out, they do have 

22 coworker models and they do parse.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

214

1 However, I would like to say, 

2 though, in those circumstances where very 

3 often that's at a DOE facility that has an 

4 established health physics oversight program, 

5 there's a lot more richness to the records and 

6 the information regarding the workers and what 

7 they did, where they were, that sort of thing.

8 And so you could say with some 

9 degree of confidence whether we're going to 

10 say this person, you know, whether he's going 

11 to be at the 50th percentile, the 95th 

12 percentile or at what they call the 

13 environmental level.

14 You have enough information 

15 regarding these people, when you look at 

16 primarily DOE. That's where you find the 

17 application of these coworker models.

18 This is not like the other sites. 

19 This is a very unusual circumstance. It's 

20 different than any of the AWE facilities I 

21 worked on where it was always uranium that was 

22 being milled or machined.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

215

1 This is a very different 

2 situation. We had this external exposure 

3 situation and depending on where you placed 

4 the person, when and for how long, you know, 

5 will affect what the doses are without film 

6 badge data and this troubled me from the 

7 beginning.

8 So, I mean, I would argue that 

9 philosophically I agree. If you can parse and 

10 say with confidence, I like to use the term 

11 "the radiological envelope," where people were 

12 really outside that envelope, that that 

13 envelope could be defined, you know, great.

14 Then you have these two 

15 categories. One category gets the full 

16 distribution -- and this is only during what I 

17 would call the radium era now. I understand 

18 we're only talking about that right now.

19 So during the radium era, I think 

20 that there should be a big tent, that is, most 

21 of the people you're going to find, you're 

22 going to have a hard time saying they're not 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

216

1 in the envelope. But if you can say that, 

2 sure. Use the other approach. But right now 

3 it's not apparent to me, you know --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But what is the 

5 other approach?

6 DR. MAURO: Right, we don't know 

7 that, no. But right now what I'm saying is 

8 that I am not averse to the philosophy that 

9 was just described.

10 I'm only concerned that it be 

11 applied in a consistent way and one that does 

12 give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant.

13 We haven't heard what that 

14 approach is, but what I was reacting to 

15 earlier was in effect parsing into three 

16 categories, you know, in the classic sense, 

17 you know, the high-exposed group and then 

18 there's this other group and then of course 

19 the people who really received very little or 

20 no exposure.

21 I think what we really have here 

22 is two groups and I think that's where this 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

217

1 site is different than other facilities, where 

2 we try to create these three categories where 

3 the coworker model would apply.

4 And so I think, Jim, I'm 

5 philosophically in agreement with you. 

6 However, I don't think right now we have a 

7 good picture of how you're going to make that 

8 distinction and what you're going to assign to 

9 this other group that you're going to consider 

10 to be virtually unexposed.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, I think in 

12 reality, in my mind, we actually do have three 

13 groups. We may not be able to distinguish 

14 between the two --

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, I agree with 

16 that. I agree with that.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- but, 

18 remember, this dose distribution that we're 

19 talking about is really based on the fishpole 

20 technique and that's a limited number of 

21 people actually doing that.

22 The bystanders, which is what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

218

1 we're sort of talking about here, yes, 

2 certainly the dose for the handlers, there's 

3 certainly an upper limit over others. 

4 Excuse me, my phone's here ringing 

5 and I've got to turn it off.

6 In any event, that other group, we 

7 may not be able to distinguish who they are, 

8 so they get thrown in with the radiographers 

9 but --

10 DR. MAURO: Remember, though, also 

11 that the 15, which is where we came in at and 

12 the 12 number, the philosophy there was we 

13 could say with confidence that no individual 

14 got more than that in a given year.

15 The way we came out of this was: 

16 that's what we could say with confidence and, 

17 in fact, I believe that's the reason why the 

18 SEC ended up being denied. That does 

19 represent this roof.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In the radium 

21 era, all of that's still based on those people 

22 using a fishpole technique. All I'm saying 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

219

1 is, philosophically, in my mind we have that 

2 group.

3 We have the others who are around 

4 there and we were trying to originally, I 

5 think, capture them with this standing outside 

6 the door, standing near the source and apply 

7 that.

8 And then you have the office 

9 workers who I don't think we talked about 

10 originally but are another group.

11 It's certainly true that the 

12 bounding value for the radiographers bounds 

13 everybody. The question is: is it appropriate 

14 to bound the office workers with that?

15 DR. NETON: Well, see, that's my 

16 problem, I think, is that the bounding dose 

17 that's been established was really for 

18 radiographers.

19 I mean, that's what we talked 

20 about, that's what we decided was the highest 

21 exposed worker and now we're saying that, 

22 well, everybody's a radiographer. We don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

220

1 know who wasn't a radiographer.

2 The fact is, we do know for the 

3 most part who was a radiographer -- or not who 

4 was a radiographer, but who potentially was 

5 doing radiography work.

6 DR. MAURO: Jim, the reason I came 

7 around to where I came in supporting the 

8 recommended denial of the SEC was: I've always 

9 been troubled by the fact that we're dealing 

10 with sources.

11 And we all know if we go back to 

12 this using radioactive sources and 

13 nondestructive testing is notoriously 

14 problematic where there's a lot of mishandling 

15 going on.

16 However, through a great deal of 

17 hard work by both Dave and Bob in modeling 

18 what I consider to be a relatively small 

19 source -- I think it's a 500-millicurie source 

20 of radium.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, two of 

22 them.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

221

1 DR. MAURO: There were two of 

2 them. I felt that I wasn't thinking in terms 

3 of radiographers.

4 I was thinking in terms of the 

5 possible mishandling of sources, the lack of 

6 controls -- on site, now, not someone taking 

7 it home, putting in their pocket -- but just 

8 the fact that we've got this situation.

9 We've got these sources and 

10 there's some question regarding the degree to 

11 which we could understand and model what might 

12 have happened to any given person who may have 

13 entered into these areas whatever his purpose, 

14 especially maintenance and that sort of thing, 

15 pipefitters, all these different types of 

16 people.

17 So my degree of comfort came from 

18 the fact that, yes, I feel confident that the 

19 calculations that were done and the arguments 

20 that were made, which included the statement 

21 about "did not exceed the regulatory limits," 

22 went a long way toward my, you know, coming 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

222

1 out of this where I did and where SC&A came 

2 out on this.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And we had this --

4 if I could throw something in.

5 DR. MAURO: Sure, sure.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There was this 

7 incident which now we've nailed down or 

8 limited that was not during the radium era, 

9 probably was with the cobalt sources, where 

10 the cobalt sources that should have been safer 

11 because they were inside a lead shield and 

12 they would be remotely extended outside the 

13 shield through a mechanical cable that pushed 

14 them out when the radiographer was safely 

15 behind the steel shield operating that, there 

16 was at least one instance when it got left 

17 out, either negligence or malfunction. The 

18 radiographer thought it had been pulled back 

19 into the shield and it wasn't.

20 And the interesting thing is: the 

21 supervisor came in and said there's something 

22 wrong with my meter. My meter is pegged. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

223

1 There's something wrong with the reading.

2 And they called in the 

3 administrator from St. Louis Testing, not to 

4 check and see what's wrong with the source, 

5 but what's wrong with the meter?

6 And of course what he found was 

7 there was nothing wrong with the meter. The 

8 source had been left out.

9 DR. MAURO: Bob, that's one good 

10 example. Jim, I think I've found the essence 

11 of where I'm, you know, I'm trying to 

12 crystalize my thinking.

13 I think the 15 and the 12 as the 

14 upper bound peg on this triangular captures my 

15 concern regarding mishandling and that applies 

16 to anyone who might have somehow got caught up 

17 in this situation where they were -- the type 

18 you just heard from Bob is one example.

19 So I would think of it like this. 

20 The 15 places the bound to make sure that we 

21 don't miss anybody who may have come into 

22 contact or come close to a situation of some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

224

1 kind of mishandling which is commonplace in 

2 these kind of facilities.

3 I think the mode is the number 

4 that is like what you would consider to be a 

5 reasonable upper bound for the radiographers 

6 and, you know, I think that's where we're 

7 coming in.

8 And then you got this other low9 end number that was selected for the reasons 

10 described earlier.

11 So I would argue that the 15 is 

12 the one that establishes this assurance that 

13 we're not going to be missing some exposures 

14 that may have occurred due to -- I'm not going 

15 to call it accidents. It would be 

16 inappropriate to call it that.

17 But the large number of 

18 mishandling things that often happened, 

19 especially in the early years when people were 

20 working with these sources.

21 MR. ALLEN: Hey, John, this is 

22 Dave. What are you basing the idea that that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

225

1 number captures things you don't know about?

2 DR. MAURO: Because of the 

3 statement made that no one ever got more than 

4 15 rem in a year, you know, the limit that was 

5 in the application. That was --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I have to 

7 say -- now I'm arguing against myself -- that, 

8 of course, only applies to badged workers. I 

9 mean, they cannot say that for an unbadged 

10 worker.

11 So you cannot say that somebody 

12 who was inadvertently exposed by a source 

13 being left out or something would have been 

14 covered by that.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we're kind 

16 of --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But then I would 

18 go on to say --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, I'm going 

20 to stop you. Bob, we're rehashing -- we've 

21 agreed to the triangular distribution, okay?

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

226

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's not re2 debate it.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, fine.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The question was 

5 --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You misunderstood 

7 me. I was not reopening that.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the 

9 question really is: is there another group? 

10 I'll limit it to one. I'm thinking in my mind 

11 there's two other groups.

12 I don't know if we can distinguish 

13 between that middle group that, during the 

14 radium period, that's not handling the sources 

15 but they are around, number one. I mean, it's 

16 clear that the bounding from the other group 

17 bounds them. It bounds all the workers.

18 The question in my mind is: is 

19 that plausible? Is that a plausible bound for 

20 those who are, say, office workers or is there 

21 another value?

22 If there's another value, we don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

227

1 know what it would be because we haven't had a 

2 separate calculation of that. We do have a 

3 proposed one for the middle group but we may

4 not be able to distinguish them.

5 It seems to me that we're not 

6 going to be able to close that part of the 

7 loop right now.

8 I mean, we're talking about some 

9 ideas but I think I'm going to have to put the 

10 burden onto NIOSH to come back to us and say, 

11 do you propose a way to bound the -- I'll call 

12 them office workers right now -- separately 

13 and, if so, how will you do that?

14 And maybe you know the answer to 

15 that right now because it is kind of like the 

16 background exposure and maybe some skyshine 

17 and some other stuff contributing so that's 

18 one.

19 And then the other is: if or 

20 should we even consider this other group? Is 

21 there a way to truly distinguish them when you 

22 do a dose reconstruction? And, if so, some 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

228

1 modification of this thing that was originally 

2 given as an example might work.

3 But it seems to me that we're not 

4 at a point where we can address that. I mean, 

5 we could say, yes, the one bounding covers 

6 everybody and be done with it.

7 MR. ALLEN: Honestly that's where 

8 I'm at.

9 DR. NETON: My concern is if you 

10 have a --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, NIOSH may 

12 want to say that's what we want to do.

13 MR. ALLEN: The more you parse 

14 people, the more you're going to be wrong, you 

15 know, so parsing it into three groups is not, 

16 you know, too difficult, especially if one is 

17 an admin group or whatever. You can come up 

18 with some sort of estimate.

19 But you always have someone that 

20 is an office worker that says and, you know, 

21 honestly says I was in there every day 

22 collecting time cards, delivering mail, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

229

1 routinely going --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, but if you 

3 get that information, then you put them in the 

4 other category. I mean, I don't know. I'm 

5 just --

6 DR. NETON: Or you establish a 

7 higher bound for office workers than you would 

8 think, based on the fact that they could have 

9 frequented the plant since access controls 

10 were not met.

11 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and this was the 

12 '50s, this radium era, primarily, and that 

13 kind of information is not something survivors 

14 often know as far as they worked in an office 

15 but they were routinely walking through the 

16 plant.

17 MEMBER BEACH: But then if it's an 

18 unknown, it goes up into a higher category 

19 anyway.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

21 MR. ALLEN: If it's a complete 

22 unknown, it goes even higher. Yes, that's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

230

1 right.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I guess the 

3 question is: does NIOSH wish to parse it more 

4 than the one bound?

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There are some 

6 categories, again, I'm going over this list, 

7 that can be very confusing.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we know 

9 that, Bob. You don't have to go through that.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, no. I 

11 know, but I'm just saying --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think NIOSH 

13 has to decide --

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- how they want 

16 to approach it and if --

17 MR. ALLEN: My preference, and I 

18 wanted to get the feel of the Work Group here, 

19 but my preference would be this, what's turned 

20 out now to be a triangular for the 

21 radiographers, based primarily on placing the 

22 source, which is not something done by most 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

231

1 people in the plant.

2 Then one other bounding dose 

3 estimate based on somebody routinely, you 

4 know, not 100 percent of the time but 

5 routinely, working right next to that 

6 radiography room. That 25 percent seems like 

7 a reasonable professional judgment to me.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What about the 

9 betatron, the old betatron that was operating 

10 at the same time?

11 MR. ALLEN: We've gone through a 

12 lot of estimates, Bob, and I think we ended up 

13 where this would still be a limiting factor.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't know at 

15 any time we actually compared the two, but 

16 those are treated separately. It may be, but 

17 I don't know what that exposure would be.

18 MR. ALLEN: Well, let's put it 

19 this way. We got the radiographer film badges 

20 in the later years from the higher --

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. We have 

22 to -- yes, we can assume, right. But I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

232

1 saying we just don't know about the unbadged 

2 non-radiographers who would have been in the 

3 vicinity, again, maintaining the fans on the 

4 roof. We could probably do an exposure 

5 analysis of that.

6 MR. ALLEN: We did do that, Bob.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: NIOSH has a 

8 value for the betatron operators and --

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, okay, that 

10 one.

11 MR. ALLEN: The estimates went 

12 through somebody repairing the fans on top of 

13 the betatron building, somebody working on top 

14 of the Number 6 Building above the radiography 

15 room, the crane operator above the radiography 

16 room --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I remember 

18 that.

19 MR. ALLEN: -- walking through the 

20 area outside, if there was radiography going 

21 on outside the radiography room. We've gone 

22 through about every scenario that anybody's 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

233

1 come up with, and it's come down to these are 

2 the bounding scenarios here.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, I got it.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Jim, you got any 

5 comments or --

6 DR. NETON: I feel at least one 

7 additional category needs to be there, and I'm 

8 open to the second one Dave talked about, but 

9 I think we need to go back and maybe look at 

10 it and get a more firm proposal of how we 

11 parse that.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The second 

13 category being the office workers?

14 DR. NETON: Well, office workers 

15 and non-radiographers.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Outside John 

17 Mauro's envelope.

18 DR. NETON: Yes, yes. I know for 

19 sure that I feel like we would need to have an 

20 administrator category of some type, because 

21 what bothers me with job titles is we often 

22 have CATIs on these workers which go into a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

234

1 lot more detail.

2 And if you have a full CATI on a 

3 person that says, I was a clerk and I only 

4 went in the plant once or twice a year and I 

5 walked through, I just don't feel right 

6 providing that person with 9 rem exposure. I 

7 mean, because clearly the record indicates it 

8 wasn't there.

9 And by just this one-size-fits-all 

10 model, it leaves us no recourse and flies in 

11 the face of logic, I mean, if I'm your dose 

12 reconstructor.

13 MR. ALLEN: I agree it shouldn't 

14 be one. I was just saying two rather than 

15 three, but --

16 DR. NETON: Okay, okay. Then I 

17 was vague, but one additional category beyond 

18 the radiography, is that what you're saying?

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

20 DR. MAURO: I'm very comfortable 

21 with the idea of two categories so, I mean, I 

22 don't want to say that we're holding on to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

235

1 this one category.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But we just talked 

3 about three.

4 DR. MAURO: I'm hearing that 

5 there's a --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're changing 

7 it to two.

8 DR. MAURO: -- re-thinking, maybe 

9 only two categories or, Jim, are you still 

10 thinking maybe you can do three?

11 DR. NETON: No, no. I said I was 

12 comfortable with one more. I thought Dave had 

13 an idea that he might want to explore a second 

14 one or a third one and he's saying no, so I'm 

15 okay with having two categories.

16 DR. MAURO: I think we have come 

17 to agreement.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is that 

19 agreeable with the Work Group? We would ask 

20 NIOSH to then tell us how they would bound 

21 that --

22 MR. ALLEN: Second category.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

236

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- second 

2 category.

3 DR. NETON: And provide some 

4 examples of how that would play out, yes. 

5 This is something that happens a lot and, like 

6 I say, you want to have some options when you 

7 start doing dose reconstructions to use the 

8 facts that you have available to you, and when 

9 you do this one-size-fits-all, then I don't 

10 know why we bother doing CATIs and all that 

11 sort of stuff.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Yes, you 

13 don't need that information.

14 DR. NETON: You don't need any of 

15 that information. I think we should be able 

16 to use the information we have at hand, 

17 acknowledging, though, that we'll always err 

18 on the side of higher dose when it's uncertain 

19 when we look at it. That's the way we 

20 operate.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Now, I 

22 think, Dave, you had one additional issue now. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

237

1 We've covered the timeline issue. We've 

2 covered now the triangular distribution. 

3 We've covered the idea of having another 

4 category during the radium era for office 

5 workers. And now there was one other area 

6 that we needed to define. That was what?

7 MR. ALLEN: The layout man dose 

8 estimate. SC&A's estimate is --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This is during 

10 the cobalt era?

11 MR. ALLEN: Yes, this is the later 

12 years.

13 MEMBER BEACH: SC&A's is 9.2?

14 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and ours is 4 --

15 MEMBER BEACH: 4.483.

16 MR. ALLEN: Yes. And that's the 

17 last thing is the assumptions that went into 

18 those models and how we would, you know, 

19 basically get a feel from the Work Group which 

20 way we should go or if there's something in 

21 between.

22 To summarize what it was, I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

238

1 I roughly, quickly did earlier, we estimated a 

2 number of shots, various angles, various 

3 locations in the betatron building and then 

4 used Excel Solver to come up with the dose or 

5 with the scenario that would give us 10 

6 millirem per week in the control room and 

7 maximize the dose in the Number 10 Building.

8 SC&A decided some of those 

9 exposure -- or shot scenarios were not 

10 realistic and they went back to just a few of 

11 those and the one that gave a highest dose in 

12 the Number 10 Building and in this latest 

13 reply from SC&A they said it was still less 

14 than 10 millirem in the control room.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me, less 

16 than 10 millirem to the worker, to the 

17 betatron operator in the control room during 

18 the shots.

19 Dave's analysis, as I understand 

20 it, assumed that -- his limit is 10 millirem 

21 for 168 hours a week and we categorically 

22 disagree with that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

239

1 MR. ALLEN: Okay, and the reason 

2 stated in your paper that you disagree with 

3 that, if I can get it, the first was that 

4 there would be control badges where dose was 

5 subtracted from the -- doggone it -- from the 

6 film badges, therefore there may have been 

7 more reading on there.

8 And my reply to that is, that's 

9 true. Landauer and most companies will have a 

10 control badge that goes with the whole batch 

11 of badges. That is developed along with the 

12 other badges and any dose on that is 

13 subtracted from the other badges.

14 But Landauer always included the 

15 dose in the dose report from the control 

16 badge.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There is this 

18 betatron control.

19 MR. ALLEN: I'm not talking about 

20 the betatron control room. That's Badge 

21 Number 1. Badge Number 0 is the control badge 

22 and it's --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

240

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That apparently 

2 must have been subtracted from itself because, 

3 according to Joseph Zlotnicki, former vice 

4 president of Landauer, he said every dose 

5 report included with the densitometer readings 

6 were subtracted. The density was always a 

7 difference between the 0 badge, the unnumbered 

8 badge and the worker badge.

9 MR. ALLEN: Yes, but it normally 

10 wasn't the densitometer reading that was 

11 subtracted. It was the dose.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is not the 

13 information I have straight from the horse's 

14 mouth. It was the densitometer reading that 

15 was subtracted.

16 MR. ALLEN: Actually --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, excuse me, the 

18 dose that was reported was the difference 

19 between the unnumbered control badge and the 

20 actual badge issued to the worker.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: On a dose basis.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

241

1 report.

2 MR. ALLEN: On a dose basis.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon me?

4 MR. ALLEN: On a dose basis, the 

5 difference. I mean, what you wrote in one of 

6 your --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I mean --

8 MR. ALLEN: What you wrote in one 

9 of your reports was a number derived from the 

10 density, which there's only one number derived 

11 from the density and that's the dose.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, let's see 

13 now. I believe I quoted -- this was a direct 

14 quote. I would have to --

15 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and the direct 

16 quote said "derived."

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Derived, okay. 

18 Then that's what it is.

19 MR. ALLEN: But in any case --

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But at any rate, I 

21 mean, I think we're quibbling about a 

22 technicality. The idea that you can say the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

242

1 control room, not the betatron operator in the 

2 control room, to say that the control room 

3 never got more than 10 mR per week, I don't 

4 believe that's defensible.

5 MR. ALLEN: Well, I think it is, 

6 because the control badges are recorded on all 

7 of the badge reports. Every one of them in 

8 the covered period is zero. The only two that 

9 were not --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, now, there 

11 were two betatrons operating and there was 

12 only one control badge. How do we even know 

13 which building it was in?

14 MR. ALLEN: These would be with 

15 the badges, wherever they are.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The one that said 

17 the Number 1 Badge, which said betatron 

18 control, we don't know where it was. To make 

19 a statement that we can base everything on 

20 that one badge, absent the specific 

21 information, specific documentation, I don't 

22 think we can do that.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

243

1 MR. ALLEN: Actually, that's 

2 irrelevant for your argument because your 

3 argument was: there was something subtracted 

4 from these badges, and it wasn't, because we 

5 have the control badge and that's the dose 

6 that would be subtracted.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, not the 

8 betatron control, the other one.

9 MR. ALLEN: Exactly. We have them 

10 both, Bob.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. The other --

12 MR. ALLEN: Bob, Badge Number 0 is 

13 control. Badge Number 1 is betatron control 

14 room.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

16 MR. ALLEN: Badge Number 0 --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Now, that was 

18 subtracted. Okay, I have to say you have a 

19 point. I cannot answer that at this moment. 

20 I don't want to go past where I'm comfortable. 

21 I can't answer that. That's a question that 

22 I don't have the answer to. I would have to 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

244

1 find out, and I don't think I can do it right 

2 this instant.

3 MR. ALLEN: Okay, well, my take of 

4 the situation is the control badge was 

5 recorded in every report. It was zero every 

6 time except for two occasions, both in 1971, 

7 where there was a recorded dose on them. So 

8 there was nothing subtracted from the film 

9 badges --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Zero just means 

11 below the MDL. It does not mean there was no 

12 density. Everything has a density reading. 

13 The densities were subtracted. 

14 I would request that we defer this 

15 until I can get more information. I'd like to 

16 be able to address this.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me ask, 

18 though, I'm trying to account for the 

19 difference between the two numbers, between 

20 the NIOSH number and the SC&A number.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The NIOSH number -

22 -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

245

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The NIOSH number 

2 is 4.483?

3 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the SC&A 

5 number is 9.2?

6 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So it's roughly 

8 double, and does this account for that?

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What accounts for 

10 the difference is using the Excel Solver to 

11 include shots done in the opposite direction, 

12 to include shots -- there were like 15 very 

13 arbitrarily chosen shooting geometries, and 

14 using Excel Solver to see which of the 

15 shooting geometries is consistent with this 10 

16 mR per 168 hours in the control room, not to 

17 exceed that, and still maximize the dose to 

18 the layout worker.

19 And our position -- my position is 

20 that this was not valid and, you know, I have 

21 to say I have to answer Jim's comment, but I 

22 can't do it this moment. I'll confer with my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

246

1 source and will write a memo shortly after 

2 this meeting, but I can't answer that now.

3 MEMBER BEACH: Your dose, 4.483, 

4 except for half the value of 1966, how much 

5 does that account for, that 1966, half that 

6 value?

7 MR. ALLEN: I'm not sure. The 

8 1966, the contract period or whatever with the 

9 AEC ended in June, is twice -- half that value 

10 for the annual dose.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, so it's a 

12 small percentage of -- it would be lower 

13 because of the small percentage? I guess I 

14 was trying to understand what you meant by 

15 that comment earlier today.

16 MR. ALLEN: We just meant that 

17 dose is an annual dose that's -- from what we 

18 decided today, would be 1/1/1963 through June 

19 30 --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So half a year.

21 MEMBER BEACH: So it's a small --

22 MR. ALLEN: It's a half a year.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

247

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, it's a half 

2 a year, yes. It's half of your value, but --

3 MR. ALLEN: The difference 

4 essentially in --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The difference 

6 is really including some shots that were -- is 

7 it a weighted average or just an average, that 

8 number?

9 MR. ALLEN: It ends up being two 

10 shot scenarios in ours to get the utilization 

11 time, et cetera. The difference is primarily 

12 we normalize to 10 millirem per 168 hours in 

13 the control room, and Bob didn't on his.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, but that 

15 normalization factor is enough to account for 

16 this difference? That's what I'm asking.

17 MR. ALLEN: Yes, because if you 

18 take the shot that Bob used and you put a 

19 badge in the control room for 168 hours, you 

20 will get 20-some millirem on that badge.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, and that 

22 basically doubles --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

248

1 MR. ALLEN: Right.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- what you 

3 calculate then. Yes, I see what you're 

4 saying. So what we need to do is have SC&A go 

5 back and either confirm their number or at 

6 least explain their number more definitively, 

7 and then, what do we need to do? I guess --

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I would just like 

9 to get more information and submit a memo 

10 explaining this normalization.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, right. I 

12 guess you'll either end up saying, yes, we 

13 stand by our number or, no, we think NIOSH is 

14 okay, right? I guess that's the way it'll 

15 come out.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Something like 

17 that.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But either way, 

19 if you're apart, we may have to have further 

20 discussions on that issue. It looks like it 

21 revolves around, in part, whether or not that 

22 001 badge -- is that the control room badge?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

249

1 MR. ALLEN: Zero badge.

2 MEMBER BEACH: Zero.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The zero badge. 

4 Well, now, the one in the control room's 01, 

5 isn't it?

6 MR. ALLEN: That's the control 

7 room badge that was there for some of the 

8 time.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.

10 MR. ALLEN: But there was --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The others, the

12 --

13 MR. ALLEN: Control badge itself.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Control badge 

15 itself, okay. So we'll have to close that one 

16 then. Well, Bob, you'll let us know what --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I will.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You can 

19 distribute your findings on that so that we 

20 can reach final agreement. Does that cover 

21 all the open issues?

22 MR. ALLEN: That covers everything 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

250

1 that I think we need to reach some sort of 

2 agreement on in order to come up with the 

3 whole --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

5 MEMBER BEACH: One question I 

6 have, I know you've discussed it, but the 

7 triangle. The high number is going to start 

8 with --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The high number 

10 is still the limits, 12 and 15.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Well, okay, so --

12 MR. ALLEN: It'll be slightly 

13 different for different years.

14 MEMBER BEACH: It's not going to 

15 be 9. Okay, perfect.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. The 9, I 

17 think, is the median.

18 MEMBER BEACH: And then the 5 --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The low was the 

20 5 or something like that.

21 DR. NETON: It's not really the 

22 median. It's the central value.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

251

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The central

2 value, right, right. Well, once we have 

3 clarification on that and have an agreement on 

4 what the approaches will be on bounding, 

5 because you have the other question on the 

6 second group as well, then we need to go back 

7 specifically to the matrix and go through all 

8 the matrix issues and see if there's -- I 

9 mean, in principle, the matrix issues deal 

10 with what we've been talking about.

11 MEMBER BEACH: So do we need an 

12 update to the matrix? The last one we have 

13 was in --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The last 

15 distribution is the matrix.

16 MEMBER BEACH: It's the most 

17 correct. November 26th.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. We 

19 haven't done any matrix issues since then, 

20 because we focused on the SEC which was acted 

21 on at the last meeting and now we're pretty 

22 close to closing the issues on the approaches 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

252

1 here.

2 Well, we agreed on the timeline. 

3 We've agreed on the use of the triangular 

4 distribution. We need a little more from 

5 NIOSH on how they will do the second sort of -

6 -

7 MR. KATZ: Category.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The second 

9 category, the outside-the-envelope category. 

10 And then we need an update from SC&A on this 

11 issue of the layout man value, is what it 

12 turned out to be for the cobalt era. And I 

13 think it was pointed out here in this, but was 

14 not discussed, was the handling of the uranium 

15 in the residual period, although you pretty 

16 well outlined that before, but we need --

17 DR. NETON: Well, I think there 

18 are still some differences of opinion between 

19 us and SC&A, though, on how that goes. I 

20 believe we agreed it wasn't an SEC issue but I 

21 think there were still some differences on --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. I'd like 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

253

1 to have you go back on that and make sure --

2 MR. ALLEN: Open it up or 

3 whatever.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go back and 

5 check yours against the SC&A comments. We 

6 agreed that it could be done. Remember, we 

7 eliminated the use of that vacuum cleaner 

8 value --

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What issue are we 

10 on?

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The inhalation 

12 of the uranium during the residual period.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's a small 

15 contribution as well to this period but it 

16 also --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. We simply 

18 agreed on the source term but we never agreed 

19 on the model.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right. I 

21 just want to get closure on that as well. 

22 Now, thank you, everybody. We have a half 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

254

1 hour left. We're not going to get through 

2 this full agenda. I do want to move into the 

3 Baker Brothers. Let's see --

4 DR. MAURO: Paul?

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, hang on.

6 DR. MAURO: If it helps any, I 

7 know we only have a half hour, we put together 

8 those talking points. There's a whole long 

9 list of them there.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, we have 

11 your talking points.

12 DR. MAURO: Right, but what I was 

13 going to say is there's only one that really 

14 matters and the rest of them are just what we 

15 would call standard Site Profile issues that 

16 we will resolve those.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. I want -

18 -

19 DR. MAURO: The only one that 

20 really is -- the one that is Number 7. So 

21 just to alert everyone there, the degree to 

22 which you want to get into Baker Brothers, I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

255

1 would recommend that the one that's by far the 

2 dominant, most important issue is Number 7 

3 because it has SEC implications in regard to 

4 where the boundaries were set for the SEC.

5 The others are just Site Profile 

6 type issues which, of course, I think are 

7 certainly solvable and, you know, don't impact 

8 the SEC boundary.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Well, 

10 you remember that at the last meeting of the 

11 Board, the Board took action on Baker Brothers 

12 for the --

13 DR. MAURO: Yes. The only reason 

14 I bring this up is that --

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But not on the 

16 residual period.

17 DR. MAURO: Right. The issue has 

18 to do with the residual period and, you know, 

19 the reality is the approach taken for the 

20 residual period, there's a fundamental 

21 assumption that was made. That is the rock 

22 they stand on, and there are certain 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

256

1 weaknesses in it.

2 And the reason I say it can be an 

3 SEC issue is that if you really can't assign a 

4 bounding number for the beginning of the 

5 residual period, you've got a serious problem.

6 And I'd raise the question -- and 

7 it may have an easy answer because, remember, 

8 we only looked at this for a day before 

9 yesterday and came up with this list.

10 And I realized we were going to 

11 run out of time and I gave some thought, if 

12 there's anything I wanted to point the Work 

13 Group to, it's Issue Number 7 because it's the 

14 rock upon which the whole residual period is 

15 standing on.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We all 

17 got your comments. I don't know that NIOSH 

18 has had a chance to even look at these because 

19 --

20 DR. NETON: We've looked at it.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- they've only 

22 been out a day or two, right?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

257

1 MEMBER BEACH: A day, yes.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

3 DR. NETON: We've looked at them. 

4 I mean, and we understand --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The concern on 

6 this one.

7 So are you comfortable that that's 

8 the main thing as well or did you --

9 DR. NETON: Well, I'm having 

10 trouble bringing up the report. What is Issue 

11 Number 6 then?

12 DR. MAURO: Number 7 is --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I gave him my 

14 copy here. Jim's looking at it.

15 DR. MAURO: It's a conceptually 

16 easy one to -- you've picked an airborne dust 

17 loading and we like that airborne dust loading 

18 as being a plausible upper bound for the dust 

19 loading that might have been experienced 

20 during the operations period.

21 And then you use that airborne 

22 dust loading, which is 5480 dpm per cubic 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

258

1 meter, to calculate the amount that settled 

2 out onto a surface and that became the 

3 starting point, that dpm per square meter.

4 Turn outs to be about a million 

5 dpm per meter squared of gross alpha on the 

6 surface at the beginning of the residual 

7 period which is January 1st, 1945.

8 Everything about that is fine, 

9 except there's one fly in the ointment. It 

10 has to do with the fact that apparently there 

11 were a large number of uranium fires that 

12 occurred in the building in 1943/44 perhaps. 

13 Not sure exactly. You know, there was a 

14 number of them.

15 And what that puts you in a 

16 situation is that if there wasn't cleanup 

17 after these fires, the residual activity that 

18 might be on surfaces might not be well 

19 represented by the model and assumptions you 

20 made.

21 I would fully agree that the way 

22 you approach the problem is perfectly fine if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

259

1 we didn't have all these fires.

2 But with these fires, it left me 

3 in a place where I was not comfortable that 

4 the 5480 -- I'm sorry, that the activity on 

5 the surface that you derived, which is a large 

6 number, don't get me wrong, which is 1 million 

7 dpm per meter squared, that's based on the 

8 mechanics of assuming there was a certain dust 

9 loading during operation.

10 I would like to see some evidence 

11 that there was some cleanup of the uranium 

12 during operations. Otherwise, that leaves you 

13 with a place where it's hard to defend the 

14 number that you use as your starting point.

15 DR. NETON: Right.

16 DR. MAURO: That's it. I mean, 

17 it's a simple concept and now I have to say we 

18 did not go back to the SRDB and review. We 

19 just didn't have the time.

20 There may be some information in 

21 there that says when the fires occurred and 

22 whether or not there was cleanup after the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

260

1 fires.

2 If that information is out there, 

3 this major issue, that I consider to be a 

4 major issue, goes away, because everything 

5 else about this, the rock you're standing on, 

6 as far as I'm concerned is solid.

7 DR. NETON: Yes. Well, Tom Tomes 

8 is our lead on this and I think he's looked 

9 into this fire issue a little bit. Maybe, 

10 Tom, you can comment a bit?

11 MR. TOMES: I haven't had time to 

12 go back and look at the specific issue since I 

13 got your talking points. But I have looked 

14 back at in general what their requirements 

15 were for closing out the contract and 

16 returning all the materials to the government.

17 They had a routine where they 

18 collected all their turnings and all their 

19 solid metal scrap that they generated as well 

20 as their fines and their sweeping. They 

21 specifically had a label, material sweeping.

22 So they did have a program of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

261

1 removing all bulk materials, sweeping the area 

2 and segregating it and drumming it and 

3 returning it to the AEC. As a matter of fact 

4 --

5 DR. MAURO: If those materials,

6 though, on occasion that caught fire that they 

7 were collecting -- and the main thing I'd like 

8 to see is some discussion about what was done 

9 after those fires because I'm picturing this 

10 smoke and fires and uranium becoming airborne 

11 and then settling out, which is a scenario 

12 that is not embraced anywhere in the Petition 

13 Evaluation Report.

14 But there may be material in the 

15 SRDB which says, yes, that's what they did. I 

16 didn't look for that.

17 If we can find that, if it turns 

18 out a case can be made that either the amount 

19 of dust settling from the fires was minimal, 

20 compared to the settling from operations, or 

21 that when there was a fire there was something 

22 done to clean it up, I think Number 7 goes 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

262

1 away.

2 MR. TOMES: There may be 

3 information to do that and posit one or more 

4 angles. We do have information that they had 

5 one large fire that consumed 100 pounds of 

6 uranium. Then there were several much smaller 

7 fires. So we do have an idea of what the 

8 maximum loss would have been at any one time 

9 and --

10 MEMBER BEACH: Well, this says 

11 from several pounds to several hundred pounds, 

12 in addition to the 100-pound one you were 

13 talking about.

14 MR. TOMES: I don't recall a 

15 several hundred. I recall the 100 but I have 

16 to go back and check that.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think it 

18 would be appropriate to ask NIOSH to go back 

19 and clarify that issue.

20 DR. NETON: Yes, we need to look 

21 at it. I would still say 5400 dpm per cubic 

22 meter is still a pretty high --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

263

1 DR. MAURO: Yes, I would say that, 

2 without the fires, the number that you use for 

3 the deposited activity, the 1 million dpm per 

4 square meter that's starting January 1st, 

5 1945, that's probably conservative by at least 

6 a factor of 5 to 10.

7 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, it's pretty 

8 high.

9 DR. MAURO: I agree with that 

10 completely.

11 MEMBER MUNN: Absolutely.

12 MEMBER BEACH: One of the 

13 questions I had too in reading through this 

14 is: what went on from '45 to '89 or when they 

15 first started doing this survey? I think the 

16 earliest one you have started in '81. But 

17 there's nothing in the ER that says what 

18 happened in those facilities --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In between.

20 MEMBER BEACH: -- in between. 

21 There's nothing. Was the area, you know, 

22 locked up and nobody was in it? Were there 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

264

1 people working another job? So that's 

2 something that I had a question on.

3 MR. TOMES: Well, Baker Brothers 

4 was dissolved and sold to another company. We 

5 don't really have details on what happened in 

6 this post-period.

7 MEMBER BEACH: So everybody from 

8 Baker was gone, because that's more 

9 information than I had earlier. That was this 

10 question.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So all you have 

12 is who would be exposed during this cleanup 

13 period then?

14 DR. NETON: Right. But on those 

15 fires, I don't recall. There weren't like 

16 dozens of fires, were there? I thought there 

17 were some fires, several fires, but not -- and 

18 when you start talking about several spot 

19 fires in the context of higher period, acute 

20 little injections when you deposit 5480 dpm 

21 per cubic meter 24 hours a day, 7 days a week 

22 for 30 days --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

265

1 MEMBER MUNN: That's a lot.

2 DR. MAURO: Jim, you show that and 

3 this problem goes away.

4 DR. NETON: We'll go back and look 

5 at it.

6 DR. MAURO: Yes, and you could see 

7 why once you have this number, this rock 

8 you're standing on, which is the dpm per meter 

9 squared on January 1st, 1945, if we agree with 

10 that number, you know, everything else that we 

11 talk about, well, just about everything else, 

12 goes toward, you know, how you model the 

13 resuspension factor and the rate at which it 

14 deposited out.

15 I mean, there's a whole bunch of 

16 other things that are brought up here. I 

17 don't know how many comments we have. You 

18 know, these weren't in order. We have a total 

19 of, I don't know, 16.

20 But I'm trying to keep it brief. 

21 You know, I know we have a little time. But I 

22 think that all those others are tractable, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

266

1 okay? This one, though, is the one that 

2 everything hangs on.

3 DR. NETON: Well, I could tell 

4 you, if it was 10 million dpm per square 

5 meter, I think you guys had a slight error in 

6 your calculation.

7 DR. MAURO: No, it's 1 million. 

8 It's your number. It's actually on Page 36 of 

9 the PER.

10 DR. NETON: It's 10 million, John. 

11 Your calculations said a million but it's 10 

12 million.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Maybe you have 

14 the wrong number in your report, John.

15 DR. NETON: Yes, I think you might 

16 have made a --

17 DR. MAURO: I may have made a 

18 mistake. I'm the first to admit. 

19 Notwithstanding what the number is --

20 DR. NETON: I know, but if you 

21 look at that, you end up with about 6.7 grams 

22 per square meter of uranium, which is --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

267

1 DR. MAURO: Now you're saying that 

2 your number in the --

3 DR. NETON: It's 10 million.

4 DR. MAURO: My calculation is wrong 

5 here.

6 DR. NETON: Yes.

7 DR. MAURO: Okay, I believe you.

8 DR. NETON: Yes, anyway, so it's 

9 10 million dpm per square meter which ends up 

10 being, I think, 6.7 grams of uranium per 

11 square meter. That's a pretty high number.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Pretty high 

13 loading. Let me make a suggestion here. Keep 

14 in mind that when the Board referred this 

15 residual period back to the Work Group to look 

16 at, they basically asked us to determine 

17 whether we were ready to make a recommendation 

18 on it or whether we wanted SC&A to further 

19 review it.

20 So SC&A didn't really do an in21 depth review. They weren't actually tasked to 

22 do anything, but we did suggest they read 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

268

1 through it and be prepared to discuss it, so 

2 this is based on a cursory read-through.

3 DR. NETON: I do agree that John's 

4 identified --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I think it's 

6 appropriate to ask NIOSH to go back and 

7 address this point. John, if you guys would 

8 go back and double-check your calculation --

9 DR. MAURO: Sure.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- to make sure 

11 you're okay there. You may say, you know, 

12 this loading is so high, we withdraw it all 

13 too.

14 Either way, yes, notwithstanding. 

15 And then I think at this point we would report 

16 to the Board that there's just one issue we're 

17 still looking at and we would not have a 

18 recommendation.

19 And I think we're all right on 

20 that for now with the Board. I don't think 

21 there's a demand that we come back this time 

22 with the specific recommendation.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

269

1 And the other part of it is: I 

2 think, and let me ask Josie and Wanda and John 

3 if you're on the phone, do you wish, outside 

4 of having John and the SC&A folks and Tom 

5 taking another look at that issue together 

6 with NIOSH, is there any need to ask SC&A to 

7 do any further in-depth work on this?

8 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I still have 

9 a question because our time period is through 

10 1996, so I guess I want it clear if anybody 

11 was still working in those facilities or if, 

12 at the end of the first period that we voted 

13 in the SEC that everybody was out of there 

14 until later on.

15 MR. TOMES: The facility was still 

16 occupied.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Okay, so who 

18 occupied it? Baker Brothers?

19 MR. TOMES: Baker Brothers 

20 continued to operate. They eventually -- I 

21 can't recall a year, I don't know if I even 

22 have information on the exact year, but it was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

270

1 eventually bought out by a property. It was 

2 actually bought by a different company. There 

3 were two companies who split the property.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, any 

5 presence of activity, though, during that 

6 period? Does it count or not?

7 DR. NETON: Yes, it's covered.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Covered.

9 DR. NETON: It's a residual 

10 period, so.

11 MEMBER BEACH: It's a covered time 

12 period.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

14 MR. TOMES: I mean, again, there 

15 was exposures during that period.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If they're still 

17 Baker Brothers?

18 MR. TOMES: No. They would have to 

19 have covered employment.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The contractor.

21 MR. ALLEN: The contractor or its 

22 successors, I think, is how it's written in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

271

1 the law or something. It's anybody that buys 

2 that property --

3 DR. NETON: It's the facility.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's everybody 

5 who was there after --

6 DR. NETON: It's the facility 

7 itself, not the owner of the facility.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So I think the 

9 question is: can we get clarification on that? 

10 Who can clarify that?

11 DR. NETON: I'm not sure what you 

12 --

13 MEMBER BEACH: Well, I guess I'm 

14 looking for what was happening in that 

15 facility during that. Were people working in 

16 there? Were they --

17 DR. NETON: So once DOE leaves, we 

18 don't really have much information.

19 MEMBER BEACH: But we're asked to 

20 look at those years, though.

21 MR. TOMES: We have a little bit 

22 of information in here on that. We have the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

272

1 name of the company that operated it. Some of 

2 the areas were used for storing electrical 

3 equipment and motors, and I'd have to --

4 DR. NETON: We could flesh that 

5 out a little bit, I guess. I don't think they 

6 were doing any radiological work, if that's 

7 what you're asking, and it doesn't sound like 

8 they were doing any real --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Basically, the 

10 source terms are gone, is what --

11 DR. NETON: The source terms are 

12 there. They're being depleted over time.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no, no. I 

14 mean --

15 DR. NETON: Oh, yes, the 

16 production.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The production 

18 source terms, not the residual activity.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

20 DR. NETON: So it's our standard 

21 TIB-70 model that we've used a number of 

22 different places.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

273

1 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any further 

3 questions on that? Okay, let me just comment 

4 before we close on Simonds Saw and Steel. We 

5 received NIOSH's draft responses a couple 

6 weeks ago on the matrix.

7 And then SC&A distributed, within 

8 the last couple days, what they called 

9 preliminary responses. I think I just got 

10 those yesterday, and I've not had a chance to 

11 look at them and I don't know that you folks 

12 have, but --

13 DR. NETON: I have not.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But I think 

15 we'll defer Simonds Steel and Saw until our 

16 next meeting and give us a chance to digest 

17 the materials, both the NIOSH responses and 

18 the preliminary responses. Let me ask who's 

19 SC&A's -- Bob Barton, are you?

20 MR. BARTON: Yes.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: These 

22 preliminary responses, are they pretty close 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

274

1 to the finals or are you guys still developing 

2 --

3 MR. BARTON: I think basically why 

4 we put those in there was to kind of 

5 facilitate discussion today if we could get 

6 into it.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, if we got 

8 into it. But you will have a more formalized, 

9 polished --

10 MR. BARTON: Most of them pretty 

11 much state what our original finding was, so I 

12 think we're in a position --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, if there 

14 are any changes --

15 MR. BARTON: Yes, I'll update it 

16 today.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Just distribute 

18 them, once you have those changes, so that we 

19 have the latest thing.

20 MR. BARTON: Sure.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Certainly before 

22 our next meeting.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

275

1 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. I thought 

2 when I read through them they were waiting for 

3 NIOSH's response or --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, they have 

5 NIOSH's response and then they have -- do you 

6 have the latest one?

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, and the 

8 preliminary -- most of those were waiting for 

9 more responses from NIOSH, or that's what I 

10 thought.

11 MR. BARTON: Well, many NIOSH 

12 responses were that they were going to 

13 continue to look at the bioassays to look at 

14 the issue if it was bounding.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

16 MR. BARTON: So essentially a lot 

17 of the preliminary responses are: we agree 

18 that -- you know.

19 MEMBER BEACH: They need more 

20 work.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Just keep looking.

22 DR. NETON: We'll keep working on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

276

1 our response.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

3 DR. MAURO: Paul, this is John.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John.

5 DR. MAURO: I made a mistake. 

6 That is not 1 million. It is 10 million in 

7 Number 7. The question still remains, but of 

8 course, this places the number a lot higher.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

10 DR. MAURO: But I just wanted to 

11 confirm for the record, yes, we made a mistake 

12 in that and the correct number is 10 million, 

13 not 1 million, dpm per square meter.

14 MEMBER MUNN: The big question 

15 still is what happens with and after the 

16 fires?

17 DR. MAURO: Yes but, you know, I 

18 think that the key point would be to 

19 demonstrate that the fires really were not 

20 that important in terms of, given the size of 

21 this number.

22 Perhaps that could be demonstrated 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

277

1 in terms of contributing to deposited activity 

2 or they may have cleaned up after each fire or 

3 the big fires. So, I mean, if that case could 

4 be made, then this what I would call a 

5 fundamental issue goes away.

6 MR. KATZ: Thanks, John.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you very 

8 much. Let me ask Ted, in terms of the 

9 upcoming Board meeting, do you just want to 

10 report on where we stand on these three --

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, updates. We have 

12 a session set aside for this, thinking that we 

13 might have had --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For what?

15 MR. KATZ: For Baker Brothers.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Baker Brothers.

17 MR. KATZ: That we might have had 

18 a report out, but at this point it's just an 

19 update.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Well, I 

21 think at this point, we can update all three 

22 as part of the Work Group reports, I suppose.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

278

1 MR. KATZ: Yes, right.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And don't set 

3 aside a session for Baker Brothers yet.

4 MR. KATZ: Yes, there's no reason 

5 to set aside a special session for Baker 

6 Brothers --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And with this 

8 report, there's one issue we're still looking 

9 at.

10 MR. KATZ: -- because there's not 

11 enough to say.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.

13 MR. KATZ: You don't have 30 

14 minutes to talk.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I can talk slow, 

16 right? Okay.

17 MR. KATZ: So the agenda will be 

18 revised accordingly.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Do you 

20 want to look at dates for next Work Group?

21 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think that's a 

22 good idea. We need a sense of what is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

279

1 adequate time to circle the wagons.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, again, 

3 probably -- I'm going to guess the Baker 

4 Brothers thing's not going to be a big time 

5 and effort thing.

6 MR. TOMES: I wouldn't expect it 

7 to be.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And probably 

9 Simonds Saw and Steel's not going to be --

10 well, you got some ongoing work there and I 

11 guess, Bob, you'll still work on that.

12 And so I think for GSI, we need to 

13 focus on getting closure on those models so 

14 that'll be our priority items for our next 

15 meeting. It'll still be GSI.

16 MR. BARTON: Dr. Ziemer, just a 

17 point of clarification. I think where we are 

18 with Simonds is that, you know, SC&A is kind 

19 of laying out their position. NIOSH has 

20 responded to that and I don't think that more 

21 work from our end necessarily would benefit at 

22 this point. I think we're in a position where 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

280

1 we just need to discuss the issues and come to 

2 some conclusions.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, okay. 

4 Okay, okay, that's good.

5 MR. KATZ: That's what I meant. 

6 You're off the hook.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, the only 

8 thing was: since this was sort of preliminary 

9 I thought maybe they had some final wording or 

10 something but the issues are scattered out.

11 That's fine, okay. So let's look 

12 at dates and let's see.

13 MR. KATZ: Let's get a sense of 

14 how much time we need, because the sooner the 

15 better, but that just depends on what's 

16 practical.

17 DR. NETON: Dave's schedule is 

18 sort of a limiting factor for us.

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I'm sitting here 

20 trying to think. This is something we would 

21 want to get out at least a few weeks before 

22 the meeting, wouldn't we?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

281

1 DR. NETON: Oh, yes.

2 MR. ALLEN: We're going to need at 

3 least a couple weeks.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Give us a window 

5 at least.

6 MR. ALLEN: Well, yes, at least a 

7 couple weeks. Let's say a month to do this 

8 and at least a couple weeks for somebody to 

9 see it after that or look at it, if not a 

10 month or a couple months.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you're 

12 talking about April? Let's see, we have a 

13 Board teleconference.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Not in April.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I don't 

16 think that's so critical. We'll meet when we 

17 meet.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes, yes. I think we 

19 just do it when it's --

20 MEMBER BEACH: So we have a 

21 Procedures meeting on the 25th. Since all 

22 three of us are on that group, I don't know if 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

282

1 that helps.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 25th of?

3 MR. KATZ: That's actually a 

4 terrible week because I have a NIOSH lead team 

5 meeting two days that week too in another 

6 location, so it would kill me to have another 

7 meeting.

8 MEMBER BEACH: I'm not available 

the 15th 9 , that whole week of the 15th.

10 MEMBER MUNN: What about the first 

11 week in April?

12 MR. KATZ: Well, the week of the 

13 8th, you mean?

14 MEMBER MUNN: No, right after 

15 Easter.

16 MR. TOMES: We're not leaving much 

17 time.

18 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that's a month 

19 and a week, five weeks, six weeks.

20 MR. TOMES: Yes, well, those first 

21 two weeks of April are both fine on my 

22 schedule. Again, it's what --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

283

1 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that would be 

2 six weeks out. Thursday the 4th would be six 

3 weeks.

4 MR. KATZ: How is everyone on --

5 MEMBER BEACH: I can do the 4th.

6 MR. KATZ: The 4th of April?

7 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

8 MR. KATZ: Does that work for you, 

9 Dave?

10 MR. ALLEN: The fourth of April?

11 MEMBER BEACH: Too soon?

12 MR. KATZ: Is that too soon?

13 MEMBER BEACH: That's six weeks 

14 from now.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's six weeks 

16 from now.

17 MR. ALLEN: I don't know if I can 

18 guarantee you you'd get it two weeks before 

19 then. We can try.

20 MEMBER BEACH: How about the first 

21 couple days in the next week, 8, 9, 10?

22 MEMBER MUNN: No, no. That's a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

284

1 rough one.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: How about week 

3 of the 15th?

4 MEMBER MUNN: Oh, yes.

5 MEMBER BEACH: I'm gone on that 

6 one week.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You're gone.

8 MEMBER MUNN: The whole week?

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the week of 

11 the 22nd is bad for you, Ted?

12 MR. KATZ: It's terrible for me, 

13 but, well, I'm going to just destroy my life. 

14 The 26th I could do it. It's just a bad week.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Who's out the 

16 week of the 29th?

17 MR. KATZ: The 29th is fine.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 29th, 30th?

19 MR. KATZ: The week of the 29th is 

20 fine for me.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 30th?

22 MEMBER BEACH: I'm tied up the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

285

1 29th and 30th, but we have a work call on the 

2 2nd.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What about the 

4 1st?

5 MEMBER MUNN: If we go on the 1st, 

6 then those of us who travel have a problem 

7 with the teleconference on this day.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, with the 

9 phone call, yes.

10 MR. KATZ: Well, what about the 

11 3rd?

12 MEMBER MUNN: The week of the 6th. 

13 MEMBER BEACH: The 3rd's good.

14 MR. KATZ: How about the 3rd? 

15 It's a Friday.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Third of what?

17 MR. KATZ: Of May.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Well, except for 

19 travel after the call.

20 MR. KATZ: Oh, does that not work?

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm out that 

22 whole week.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

286

1 MEMBER BEACH: How about the week 

2 of the 6th?

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Of May?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

5 MEMBER MUNN: That's way out 

6 there, though.

7 MR. KATZ: That's fine. I can deal 

8 with my misery on April 26, if that works for 

9 you guys.

10 MEMBER BEACH: That works for me.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We got the 

12 Procedures Review the day before.

13 MR. KATZ: So, I mean, at least 

14 it's efficient in terms of your travel, Paul 

15 and Wanda and --

16 MEMBER MUNN: Sure is.

17 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, absolutely.

18 MEMBER POSTON: Ted, you're 

19 talking about April 26th?

20 MR. KATZ: And you, Josie, too.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

22 MR. KATZ: April 26.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

287

1 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, I can do 

2 that.

3 MR. KATZ: Okay, it's a done deal, 

4 April 26.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Great.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you.

7 DR. MAURO: Paul, this is John. 

8 Does SC&A have any action items in regard to 

9 Baker Brothers?

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No.

11 MR. KATZ: No.

12 DR. MAURO: Okay.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, only in 

14 the idea that if that number --

15 DR. MAURO: Yes, it's wrong and 

16 Jim is correct.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. If you go 

18 back and look at what that means dust loading19 wise, and you decide that it's so great anyway 

20 it's --

21 DR. MAURO: Okay, no, no. That's 

22 a good idea. We'll just focus in on that. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

288

1 The other findings are what they are. 

2 Certainly NIOSH could look at them.

3 What we'll do is our own homework. 

4 We'll do the same thing NIOSH is doing, 

5 taking a look to see if there could be a 

6 situation where this number may have been 

7 underestimated.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you.

9 DR. MAURO: Very good.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any other 

11 comments?

12 MR. KATZ: Right, and just to be 

13 clear, John, I guess NIOSH will be looking at 

14 the question of what was done after fires and 

15 so on, so you don't need to go digging on that 

16 necessarily, right?

17 DR. MAURO: Oh, I misunderstood. 

18 I thought that's what we were going to do so 

19 that we may come to the same place.

20 MR. KATZ: No, no.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. Well, I was 

22 just saying if you look at, you know, you had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

289

1 miscalculated that one number.

2 DR. MAURO: I did miscalculate it.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So your air 

4 loading is ten times what you thought it was. 

5 You might --

6 DR. MAURO: Not the air loading. 

7 Just my arithmetic was wrong.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay.

9 DR. MAURO: No, the air loading is 

10 fine. It's whether the fires somehow 

11 undermine the ability to use this approach.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, got you.

13 DR. MAURO: Now, if you'd like us 

14 to look at it or not, let us know.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think the 

16 ball's in NIOSH's court on that.

17 DR. MAURO: That's fine.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, okay, thank 

19 you. Okay, everyone. Thank you very much. 

20 Thanks, folks on the phone. We're adjourned 

21 for the day.

22 (Whereupon, the meeting in the above-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

290

1 entitled matter was concluded at 2:57 p.m.)