TBD-6000 Work Grou

Report on

SEC Petition 00105 for

General Steel Industries

Paul L. Ziemer, WG Chair

December 11, 2012
Time Line for Sources at G

• Jan. 1, 1953: Beginning of Operatio

Period 

• Mar. 7, 1962: Original AEC license 

application (Co-60 Sources procured 21, 1962) 

• June 30, 1966: End of Operational • July 1, 1966 – December 31, 1992: 

Residual Period 

• Jan. 1, 1993 – Dec. 31, 1993: DOE 

up Period 
Action at September 2012

Board Meeting

• It was reported that both NIOSH and SC&

that it would make sense to review other sets involving uranium metal handling to ascertain whether there was “better” surrdata for the GSI situation. 

• The Board asked NIOSH to examine pos

alternate surrogate data sets (followed by review) for determination of the internal dcomponent for both the operational and rperiods. 

• The Board did not take action on SEC P

00105, but rather deferred action until the full Board meeting (December 2012) 
Work Group Meeting Nov. 28, 2

• WG reviewed NIOSH proposal for air sampling a

sites that represented the handling of uranium in forms. 

• WG reviewed SC&A evaluation of the NIOSH pr• WG received additional comments from site exp

the petitioner; also had written comments from cpetitioner. 

• NIOSH agreed to some modifications suggested 

SC&A. 

• WG acted on the proposed use of the air sampli

for the operational and residual periods. 

• WG voted on the overall NIOSH recommendati

SEC Petition 00105. 

• WG confirmed that all SC&A findings on Petition 

had either been closed or transferred to Appendnon-SEC issues. 
Recommendations from Work Gro

Meeting Nov. 28, 2012

• WG recommends that the Board accept the NIO

proposal that it can reconstruct internal dose for operation and residual periods and that the surrodata criteria have been met. (Vote: 4 Ayes, 0 Na

• WG recommends that the Board accept the NIO

proposal that it can reconstruct dose for the “earof the operational period, January 1, 1953 to Ap1962. (Vote: 3 Ayes, 1 Nay) 

• WG recommends that the Board accept the NIO

proposal that it can reconstruct dose for the “lateoperational period, April 19, 1962 to June 30, 19(Vote: 3 Ayes, 0 Nays, 1 Abstention) 

• WG recommends that the Board accept the NIO

proposal that it can reconstruct dose for the resiperiod, July 1, 1966 to December 31, 1992. (VotAyes, 0 Nays) 
Reminders from Presentatio

Santa Fe Meeting 

June 20, 2012
Background information o

SEC Petition 00105

• Submitted February 25, 2008 • Qualified for evaluation May 15, • Evaluation Report issued by NIO

on October 3, 2008 

• SC&A Review of NIOSH Evaluat

Report of SEC Petition 00105 isJuly 24, 2009 
Proposed and Evaluated SEC C

• Petitioner proposed class definition: 

“All individuals who worked in any location at the 

Steel Industries site, located at 1417 State StreGranite City, Illinois, from January 1, 1953 throuDecember 31, 1966, and/or during the residual from January 1, 1967, through December 31, 1

• Class evaluated by NIOSH: 

“All individuals who worked in any location at th

Steel Industries site, located at 1417 State StreGranite City, Illinois, from January 1, 1953 throu30, 1966, and/or during the residual period from 1966, through December 31, 1992.” 
Issues Resolution

• Issue 1: Lack of radiation monitoring dat

1953 – 1963 

– Concern about specific incidents – Concern about assumptions for reconstructing do

radium sources 

– Concern about training, monitoring, and other con

during the early period 

– NIOSH and SC&A agreed that doses could be 

based on source size information and reasonassumptions concerning work practices. 

– WG voted 2-1 not to recommend SEC status f

period on the basis of this issue. 
Issues Resolution

 Issue 2: Incomplete Monitoring o

Workers, 1964 -1966 

 Film badges provided only for betatro

workers and radiographers

 No FB’s used outside the betatron bu NIOSH developed model for bound

doses to individuals working outsidbetatron room. SC&A agreed that dcould be reconstructed during this 
Issues Resolution 

• Issue 3: Lack of Documentation 

– Original concern dealt with lack of information 

isotopic radiography sources, lack of informamonitoring data, and lack of evidence of an eradiation safety program 

After identification of sources and additio

information on practices, SC&A agreed wiNIOSH that bounding can be done 
Issues Resolution

• Issue 4: Film Badge Dosimetry Depen

on Photon Energy and Exposure Geom

– Concern that FBs under-respond for certain 

geometries and energies

The modeled doses for betatron workers e

the maximum FB values, even for the enerand geometries that produce the highest Freadings. SC&A concurred. The WG closeissue. 
Issues Resolution

• Issue 5: Lack of Validation of Models o

Radiation Exposure to Betatron Opera

– Concern that for period when FB reports wer

available, measured and modeled exposures agree 

Later models, normalized to the FB data, p

reasonable agreement. Both NIOSH and Sagreed that external doses could be bounsufficient accuracy through the use of MCsimulations. WG closed this issue. 
Issues Resolution

• Issue 6: Underestimate of Extern

Exposure to Unmonitored Worker

– Concern based on early models that fo

only on radiographers vs. “non-exposeand office personnel 

Current models assign exposures to 

workers and include exposures origfrom betatron and isotopic sources as support activities. 
Issues Resolution

• Issue 7: Dose Reconstructions N

Based on Best Available Science

– Concern was actually an error in calcu

plus a difference in model codes used NIOSH and SC&A 

Not an SEC issue. Resolved in later 

models used by NIOSH and SC&A
Issues Resolution

• Issue 8: Incomplete Model Used f

Exposure Assessments 

– Concern was similar to Issue 7 and inv

omission of neutron doses in the NIOSmodel 

Resolution similar to Issue 7 
Issues Resolution

• Issue 8: Incomplete Model Used f

Exposure Assessments 

– Concern was similar to Issue 7 and inv

omission of neutron doses in the NIOSmodel 

Resolution similar to Issue 7 
Issues Resolution

• Issue 9: Underestimate of Beta D

– Concern based on neglecting what is k

as the Putzier Effect as well as omitting dose to those who were not betatron operators. 

Putzier effect addressed and to be 

included in Appendix BB. Skin doseother workers addressed in most reNIOSH models 
Issues Resolution 

• Issue 10: Lack of consistency in 

Assigning External Exposures

– Concern focused on an error in NIOSH 

calculations in its early model. 

Not an SEC issue. This item was mo

by the WG to Appendix BB in 2010 asubsequently closed. 
Summary of SEC 00105 Iss

• Issue 1: Closed • Issue 2: Transferred 

to Appendix BB 

• Issue 3: Transferred 

to Appendix BB 

• Issue 4: Closed • Issue 5: Closed 

 Issue 6: Tran

to Appendix 

 Issue 7: Tran

to Appendix 

 Issue 8: Tran

to Appendix 

 Issue 9: Tran

to Appendix 

 Issue 10: Clo