This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

TBD-6000 WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

TUESDAY

NOVEMBER 3, 2015

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 1:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Paul L. 

Ziemer, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chair

JOSIE BEACH, Member

JOHN W. POSTON, Member

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

DAVID ALLEN, DCAS

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

BOB BARTON, SC&A

DOUG FARVER, SC&A

JENNY LIN, HHS

DAN MCKEEL

JIM NETON, DCAS

JOHN RAMSPOTT

WILLIAM THURBER, SC&A
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

2

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S

Welcome and roll call 3

Issue Resolution for SC&A Findings on Appendix BB, 

Rev. 1, to TBD-6000

Finding 2

Bob Anigstein 8

David Allen 17

Dan McKeel 18

John Ramspott 46

Board discussion and recommendation 49

Finding 10

Bob Anigstein 50

David Allen 53

Dan McKeel comment 56

Board discussion and recommendation 70

John Ramspott comment 74

Finding 5

Bob Anigstein 83

David Allen 93

Dan McKeel comment 104

Board discussion and recommendation 118/148

John Ramspott comment 149

Finding 6

Bob Anigstein 152

David Allen 158

Dan McKeel comment 159/170

Board discussion and recommendation 169/174

Path forward/Plans for November Board 

meeting 175

Adjourn 178
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

3

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 1:03 p.m.

3 MR. KATZ: So let's get started. 

4 Welcome, everyone. This is the TBD-6000 Work 

5 Group, and we are addressing GSI today. 

6 There's an agenda on the website, on the 

7 NIOSH web page under the EEOICPA section, Board's 

8 scheduled meetings, today's date and some other 

9 materials as well, and Paul will address that when 

10 he begins the meeting.

11 Since we're talking about a specific 

12 site for agency-related people, please speak to 

13 conflict of interest and we'll do roll call now 

14 beginning with the Board Members, with the Chair.

15 (Roll call.)

16 MR. KATZ: Okay then. It's your 

17 meeting. Let me just remind everyone on the line 

18 to mute your phone except when you're addressing 

19 the group. Press *6 to mute your phone, *6 to come 

20 off of mute, and it's yours, Paul. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank you 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

4

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 very much. Thank you everyone for your presence 

2 with us today on the phone lines. I just want to 

3 start by quickly -- well our focus of course today 

4 is GSI. I want to quickly summarize the documents 

5 that should be available to you for this meeting.

6 First of all, the documents from NIOSH 

7 called Discussion of Remaining Issues for Sanford 

8 Cohen & Associates Review of Battelle-TBD-6000 

9 Appendix BB, and that was dated July 10th, 2015. 

10 We have -- from our contractor 

11 documents, this is SC&A, a document called Review 

12 of Responses to the Sanford Cohen & Associates 

13 Review of Battelle-TBD-6000 Appendix BB Response 

14 Paper. That's dated September 11th.

15 We also have from SC&A the issue 

16 resolution matrix which has been updated to 

17 September 25th, 2015. Also, we have from the 

18 co-petitioner, Dr. McKeel, the paper dated July 

19 10th, 2015 entitled, A Critique of the David 

20 Allen/DCAS/NIOSH Discussion of Remaining Issues to 

21 Sanford Cohen & Associates Review of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

5

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 Battelle-TBD-6000 Appendix BB.

2 Also, I have an additional paper I want 

3 to identify that although it's not included, I 

4 don't think on the website as a paper for this 

5 meeting. I believe all the folks have it. It 

6 actually is an email from John Ramspott dated July 

7 23rd, 2015 and it is entitled Subject Preview of 

8 New NIOSH White Paper GSI, July 10th, 2015.

9 I believe all of the Work Group Members 

10 received that document as well. I do want to get 

11 an approach -- you all have the agenda, which 

12 basically just identifies the documents that would 

13 be addressed that was on the agenda. This is one 

14 of the three public comments that I received from 

15 John Ramspott and Dr. McKeel.

16 My suggestion, is that rather than go 

17 through these documents on the agenda, I suggest 

18 that we actually go through the issues 

19 sequentially, and there are four issues that are 

20 dealt with by SC&A, by NIOSH and by the 

21 co-petitioner, Dr. McKeel and by Mr. Ramspott, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

6

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 these are Finding 2, Finding 5, Finding 6 and 

2 Finding 10.

3 My suggestion is that how we proceed is 

4 to begin with SC&A. We all have as the starting 

5 document the NIOSH document, and what they have 

6 proposed on each of these issues and so -- and I 

7 don't think we necessarily have to review that 

8 document to begin with --

9 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry Paul. I'm sorry 

10 one second. Is that traffic noise on your phone?

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, that's not here. 

12 I hear it.

13 MR. KATZ: Well then someone else 

14 doesn't have their phone muted. Would everyone 

15 else please mute your phone?

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. It sounded 

17 like a siren.

18 MR. KATZ: Yeah, it did. So press *6 

19 to mute your phone everyone else, thanks.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah. So if that 

21 would be agreeable, what we would do there and I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

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

1 would ask, unless Dave had some starting points, 

2 is ask Bob Anigstein to provide his critiques and 

3 conclusions. I would ask Dr. McKeel to add his 

4 comments and conclusions and questions beginning 

5 with Item 2, then likewise Mr. Ramspott.

6 Then can we do 5 and do the same thing, 

7 then 6 and 7? I wonder if that would be agreeable 

8 with the Work Group, to do it in that manner?

9 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is Josie. I 

10 think that sounds like a great plan forward, path 

11 forward.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

13 MEMBER POSTON: I agree Paul.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Then let's 

15 proceed on that basis and we'll deal initially with 

16 Item or Finding No. 2, and let me ask Dave Allen 

17 do you have any preliminary comments you want to 

18 make before we hear from SC&A?

19 MR. ALLEN: I don't really have any 

20 comments. Do you want me to give you any 

21 background on the finding or just let Bob jump in 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

8

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, if you have 

3 anything about the documents you might to add or 

4 anything you want to highlight before Bob takes off 

5 on his critique?

6 MR. ALLEN: I don't think I have 

7 anything to highlight, and I think as Bob discusses 

8 it, it will give you all the background on this 

9 particular finding.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, okay. Then 

11 Bob, you want to proceed then with Finding 2.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. Give me one 

13 second. Yeah. Let me put my slide show on, on the 

14 LiveMeeting. One second.

15 (Pause.)

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: While you're doing 

17 that, Ted I don't have access to LiveMeeting, 

18 probably because my computer is not able to link 

19 with NIOSH for the last couple of weeks, and 

20 probably the invitation --

21 MR. KATZ: Paul, I sent you that in that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

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

1 in an email to both of your addresses this whatever, 

2 around noon today.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh okay. So let me 

4 -- I was out all morning, as you know, and so I 

5 haven't seen that. Let me see if I can --

6 MR. KATZ: Let me know if you have 

7 trouble with it.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So does everyone see 

9 the --

10 MR. KATZ: Well, Paul is not on yet Bob.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me?

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That was this 

13 morning Ted?

14 MR. KATZ: Yeah. That was probably 

15 around noon even.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. I just sent --

17 I just sent a preliminary copy. I was working on 

18 it at the last moment, so I just sent a preliminary 

19 copy to Ted and to Paul in case you want to 

20 redistribute it. Then we'll have the usual 

21 distribution by Nancy Johnson, I guess, after the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

10

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 meeting.

2 MR. KATZ: Bob I don't -- it hasn't come 

3 in to me. 

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Ted, it hasn't?

5 MR. KATZ: No. I'm looking at my email 

6 right now and I don't have anything --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's funny thing, 

8 because I thought -- let's see.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't either.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What, shall I 

11 interrupt now and try to send it again?

12 MR. KATZ: Well, let's see if Paul 

13 can't get on --

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It definitely went 

15 out.

16 MR. KATZ: I believe you, but it's 

17 probably stuck in some server somewhere between you 

18 and me.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: So no worries, Bob. I don't 

21 think there's anything you can do about that. But 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

11

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 Paul, are you able to get online? Do you even have 

2 a computer --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Hold it. I can try to 

4 send it again from my regular email account. Maybe 

5 that will go faster.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Ted, the last thing 

7 I got from you was this forwarding the update of 

8 the DCAS website. It was sent out at 11:09. Did 

9 you send it to me?

10 MR. KATZ: Yeah. I sent it to both 

11 your addresses afterwards, so let me --

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Let's see now. Who is 

13 missing -- John Poston is missing it?

14 MR. KATZ: So everybody is missing it.

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, but I mean do you 

17 -- do you see the LiveMeeting?

18 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah. It's on 

19 LiveMeeting. You're on.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So it's the same thing.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah. I can't get 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it Bob, simply because I can't link into the --

2 MR. KATZ: Hold on. Let me just send 

3 it to you again Paul.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I can -- should I send 

6 it to -- was it John Poston who can't get it?

7 MR. KATZ: No, John has it, I think, 

8 doesn't he?

9 MEMBER POSTON: No, I don't. I'm 

10 trying to get it but --

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Should I just email it 

12 to you?

13 MEMBER POSTON: Yeah, that would be 

14 great.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, hold on. I'll 

16 put the phone down for a moment.

17 MR. KATZ: Paul, which computer are you 

18 on?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Comcast.

20 MR. KATZ: Okay. So I'll just send it 

21 to you and John Poston again, the link.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

2 MEMBER POSTON: Okay. I've got the 

3 link in my calendar and everything, and I'm just 

4 not having any -- I also went to --

5 MR. KATZ: Sometimes you have to click 

6 on it twice. The first time -- that's what I have 

7 to do. The first time I click it doesn't work, and 

8 then I just repeat the step and then it works. Why 

9 don't you try that?

10 MEMBER POSTON: Right click or left 

11 click?

12 MR. KATZ: Left click, yeah. On the 

13 link that says presenters. 

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Here, it just 

15 arrived Ted.

16 MR. KATZ: Okay. Okay. 

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Why don't you go 

18 ahead Bob? I'll open it while you're talking.

19 MR. KATZ: Yeah Bob. I don't know 

20 what's happened with your email, but maybe the same 

21 thing that's happened to my email, because mine 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

14

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 went out at 12:48 and never arrived. So okay. So 

2 Bob, are you going to bring up your presentation 

3 whenever? Bob, are you on the line?

4 MEMBER BEACH: It was up.

5 MR. KATZ: Yeah. Now it's an email 

6 folder. Bob, are you on the line?

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah.

8 MR. KATZ: So just you can bring up your 

9 presentation. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. I had turn it 

11 off to be able to send it.

12 MR. KATZ: Oh, I see.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Let me put it on again. 

14 Okay. I didn't want it disconnect, so everybody 

15 saw all my email mechanisms. Anyway, everyone 

16 okay now?

17 MR. KATZ: Yes.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Now is it okay? 

19 I just went through -- well, Dave's going to 

20 interrupt anytime. Let me just go through the 

21 issues. Okay. Finding No. 2, the betatron 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

15

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 operator beta doses. The occasion was this was 

2 originally done by SC&A several years ago, and we 

3 had occasion -- I had occasion now to review it, 

4 looking at Dave's analysis.

5 So made some updates, that made it more 

6 -- the original turned out to be an overestimate, 

7 so we made some more precise assumptions. The 

8 first thing we did we had used this continuous 

9 exposure of uranium for four shots during the day 

10 with no --

11 It was just easier to calculate. But 

12 Dave came with this intermittent exposure model, 

13 which we reviewed and actually it's a very good 

14 solution, a very clever solution to this problem. 

15 So I applied this now to uranium.

16 Now Dave used it for steel, but he did 

17 not apply it to the uranium analysis. I now 

18 applied it to the uranium analysis, so that 

19 resulted in somewhat lower doses which you have 

20 your buildup for 60 minutes, for 15 minutes during 

21 the set up time for the next shot, so it decays and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it builds up again.

2 So and then we also we did everywhere. 

3 We had the new capabilities, more computer power 

4 a new MCNPX version. So we did the photo 

5 activation using the actual size disk. The 

6 original one was a smaller disk to give you quicker 

7 results, but they were sort of on the high side.

8 So we used the realistic disk only 18 

9 inches in diameter to get the photoactivation, and 

10 made other -- some other corrections. So net 

11 result was that the doses are now somewhat lower, 

12 a few percent lower than we had previously 

13 calculated, which had been shared and I shared that 

14 -- I shared the new calculations and the 

15 spreadsheet with Dave so he knows where we're at.

16 Then for the skin doses from the 

17 irradiated steel, we verified the NIOSH model and 

18 basic -- this now to the betatron operator, and we 

19 agreed that this is a reasonable approach. It was 

20 again the intermittent irradiation and we got 

21 exactly the same results. It was a difference of 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

17

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 less than a percent because we calculated betatron 

2 beam intensity differently.

3 So the NIOSH estimates are 

4 claimant-favorable. I mean they're bounding, 

5 they are claimant-favorable. NIOSH, with no 

6 objection, if NIOSH wants to adopt a somewhat lower 

7 estimates, which I think are more realistic than 

8 we have adopted, that we have derived. So shall 

9 I just go on to the next finding?

10 MR. KATZ: I think Paul wanted to run 

11 through the findings sequentially, your comments 

12 on the finding and then Dr. McKeel's.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, we're going to go 

14 each finding at a time?

15 MR. KATZ: Well isn't that -- Paul, 

16 isn't that what you wanted?

17 MEMBER BEACH: That's what he said Ted.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah. I want to go 

19 through Finding 2, so let me first ask Dave Allen 

20 if he has any comments on the SC&A comments.

21 MR. ALLEN: No, I don't. Like Bob 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 said, I saw his calculations and what he did there, 

2 and we don't have a problem with any of that. Just 

3 a tiny bit of background there. Originally, it was 

4 the one meter -- one meter dose rates weren't 

5 accounted for and we agreed and said we would add 

6 those.

7 One other minor difference and then Bob 

8 found a couple of other issues, as he just 

9 discussed. So I think we're in agreement on all 

10 that.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let me go to 

12 Dr. McKeel's on Finding 2. Now some of those were 

13 questions for clarity.

14 MEMBER POSTON: Paul, Paul. This is 

15 John Poston. I hate to interrupt. I'm still 

16 having trouble. Ted, could you send me the email 

17 or --

18 MR. KATZ: Okay, John. So I'll send it 

19 to you again, yes.

20 MEMBER POSTON: Okay, thank you. 

21 Sorry Paul.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Anyway, Dr. McKeel 

2 are you on the line?

3 DR. McKEEL: Yes Paul, I am. Are you 

4 ready for Finding 2?

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, sure.

6 DR. McKEEL: Okay. Well, as a prelim 

7 let me mentioned that when you reviewed the 

8 documents that I had submitted, you said my paper 

9 was dated 7/10. That was the same day that Dave 

10 Allen's came. 

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The charts?

12 DR. McKEEL: Mine was dated 7/19.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, the title 

14 actually yeah.

15 DR. McKEEL: Mine is dated 7/19.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: 19th. That's --

17 DR. McKEEL: And then the other thing 

18 is yesterday, and I apologize for having gotten it 

19 in late but I do want to have it on the record that 

20 it was submitted. I submitted another paper to you 

21 and all the Members of the Work Group to be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 distributed to the whole Board by Ted Katz. It's 

2 my review of SC&A's response to Dave Allen's 7/10 

3 paper.

4 So in that, I go into my comments on how 

5 SC&A saw this problem and that paper, the 9/11 John 

6 Mauro/Bob Anigstein paper from SC&A. So for 

7 Finding 2, my comment is that as far as I can see, 

8 this issue has been discussed for several years.

9 But it was pretty clear from the SC&A 

10 paper that they were basing this on uranium slices, 

11 and my comment is that that is a -- that's really 

12 not an adequate way to look at betatron uranium beta 

13 dose because GSI, as documented in the purchase 

14 orders and by many workers there, states that there 

15 was a mix of ingots and dingots, which of course 

16 were much larger and the one sent by Mallinckrodt 

17 to GSI still have their rough coats of adherent slag 

18 on them.

19 So I don't think that slices capture the 

20 full spectrum of uranium form that was sent in. So 

21 that's the first thing.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The second comment is there are 

2 absolutely no records existing that anyone has that

3 shows the mix of slices, ingots and dingots that 

4 were sent to GSI by Mallinckrodt over the 13 year 

5 operational period.

6 The second thing is that I believe in 

7 those beta dose calculations, that all along NIOSH 

8 and SC&A have ignored the longer-lived activation 

9 products in both, particularly in the steel 

10 activation product and I know that there are two 

11 main fission products from uranium. But I'm not 

12 sure about all of the activation products of 

13 uranium.

14 I will mention that as far as the steel 

15 activation exposures, that not only have they 

16 confined that activation product half-life to two 

17 hours, which is unrealistic, and I think that's 

18 shown by Dr. Guo and Ziemer's paper in 2004, where 

19 they studied activation of surgical instruments by 

20 Linac.

21 They're also contradicted by Vincent 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

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

1 Kuttemperoor, Milwaukee School of Engineering,

2 data from 1974 and '75, where he showed that there 

3 many longer-lived than -- longer-lived products of 

4 steel activation, apart from --- that had 

5 half-lives longer than two hours.

6 A final comment is SC&A here is 

7 recommending that NIOSH adopt lower Table 3 values, 

8 commenting that their earlier estimate -- where 

9 earlier calculations were an overestimate. Well, 

10 this is a -- if NIOSH should decide to do that, then 

11 this would be a very claimant-adverse result 

12 because those lower doses would then probably be 

13 incorporated in a revised Appendix BB Version 2, 

14 and they would wind up in a new PER.

15 So the doses assigned to the 

16 radiographers actually in the -- since betatron 

17 radiographers are being assigned layout man doses 

18 anyway, then what it would mean is that everybody 

19 at GSI, except the admin people, would be assigned 

20 lower doses and that would be claimant-adverse and 

21 unfavorable.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So I'm very much opposed to accepting 

2 those lower doses. I guess that's my comment.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. I wonder 

4 if either Dave or Bob have any responses.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry. I didn't 

6 quite catch that.

7 MR. KATZ: Bob, he was just -- Paul's 

8 asking if you or Dave Allen have responses to Dr. 

9 McKeel's --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. Well I have a 

11 -- yeah, I do actually. I don't know if Dave wants 

12 to go first.

13 MR. ALLEN: No. Go ahead, Bob.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Well first of 

15 all, as far as the types of uranium metal, now we 

16 agree yes, there may have been dingots. However, 

17 this is claimant-unfavorable or would result in 

18 lower doses because the dingots do not exhibit the 

19 Putzier effect. The Putzier effect is only 

20 exhibited where you have uranium shapes such as 

21 derbies that were cast at Mallinckrodt, who first 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

24

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 sit around for a while.

2 They sit around for a few weeks, so that 

3 the progeny builds up. So you start off with 

4 uranium separated from the progeny. So the 

5 progeny builds up, you know, the main progeny being 

6 thorium-234 with a 24 day half-life. So that 

7 builds up over a period of time, and we assume 100 

8 percent buildup for Putzier effect, a conservative 

9 overestimate.

10 Then during the recasting, they tend to 

11 migrate to the surface and you get this increased 

12 beta activity on the surface from these 

13 beta-emitting radionuclides, daughter products. 

14 Now with the dingots, that doesn't 

15 happen because you start off with the uranium, with 

16 the uranium tetrafluoride putting into this bomb 

17 with magnesium, and you end up with the magnesium 

18 taking up -- you get magnesium fluoride and uranium 

19 metal.

20 It never goes through that stage where 

21 there is a buildup and you have a Putzier effect. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

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

1 So by not considering the dingots, we're making a 

2 higher estimate of the doses. 

3 And then as far as the ingots, if the 

4 ingots come not slices but as higher ingots and if 

5 by any chance again they were made from the derbies 

6 and they sat around for a time and built up and then 

7 you have the Putzier, which would not -- now not 

8 be limited to the edge, I still believe that the 

9 -- ours is more claimant-favorable because first 

10 of all the dingots have the rough surface, not a 

11 smooth metal surface, then there are some 

12 impurities like slag that would actually not 

13 contain uranium primarily, and they would absorb 

14 the beta radiation from the uranium metal.

15 So by assuming that it's pure finished 

16 uranium, we get a higher beta dose and also with 

17 the slices, we assume there would be some 

18 positioning and some handling, and we are making

19 a very, very claimant-favorable assumption that 

20 half the time the -- during half of the 15 minute 

21 setup time, the operator has his bare skin, his 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

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

1 hands and forearms in physical contact with the 

2 uranium, and that's probably, you know, way 

3 overstating it but it's a safe assumption.

4 So with the dingots that weigh tons, 

5 they wouldn't be handling it with their hands. 

6 They will be -- the entire thing would be handled 

7 by a crane and the one thing we know about the ingots 

8 that they were -- they had these corner shots, and 

9 this is one worker whom I interviewed and actually 

10 corresponded with by mail to make sure that he 

11 agreed with my interpretation on the phone, simply 

12 says he came in.

13 He was on the day shift. He came in one 

14 morning and the weekend night shift had been doing 

15 the corner shots and he just noticed that they had 

16 done these four corners, which was most likely to 

17 determine how much of the end should be sawed off, 

18 because of the end of the ingot tends to be kind 

19 of crappy. 

20 It has the slag mixed into it. It's not 

21 a good metal. So they typically saw it off, take 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the middle part of the ingot, that's the good part, 

2 and the other goes back for remelting with the next 

3 batch. So this was the one time that this 

4 happened, and again it would not require.

5 So even though it may have happened, it 

6 may have been done more than once. The skin doses 

7 would be lower, because they would have very little 

8 reason for keeping their hands on that ingot which 

9 weighs several tons and would be handled by a crane. 

10 So that's basically --

11 And then the other comments Dr. McKeel 

12 made --

13 DR. McKEEL: Can I reply to that? You 

14 said a lot, and I need to reply while I still 

15 remember what you said.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Wait a minute. Let me 

17 finish. Excuse me. But why don't I just finish? 

18 I have my list.

19 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And then the last one 

21 which is short, speaking about the assumption about 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the activation products only are done in two hours. 

2 You're referring to Appendix BB Rev 0 from June, 

3 I think it was or July 2007. 

4 The current calculations, both done by 

5 NIOSH and by SC&A, give about six primary daughter 

6 products. They account for over 99 percent of the 

7 activation of the steel, and we carry them out for 

8 as long as they are.

9 So there's no two hour cutoff. Some of 

10 them -- the primary one is iron-57, which is I 

11 forget now, but I remember it was in the order of 

12 minutes and others such as molybdenum-99 I think 

13 and another one quite long, manganese are quite 

14 long-lived and go into -- they go out for days, the 

15 half-life is into days, and all of those are 

16 accurately accounted for.

17 In some of the analyses by NIOSH is 

18 actually over-accounted for because they just 

19 assume that it's irradiated long enough to achieve 

20 equilibrium. So that's a very conservative 

21 assumption. Okay. I'm done.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. McKEEL: Right. Well I have 

2 several comments to that. Number one, I disagree 

3 with your comment that since an ingot had to be 

4 handled by a crane that there was no hands on 

5 touching of that and that is absolutely different 

6 from what the workers testified, because once the 

7 crane was put --

8 Actually what happens here is there's 

9 a chain man that has to put the chain around the 

10 dingot and then the crane lifts it up, and then the 

11 workers who are dealing with that whole thing 

12 somebody, either the chain man or the betatron 

13 operator, the people who are assisting, have to put 

14 their hands to move and swing the ingot around. 

15 So they definitely are touching it. 

16 It's not all done with a hands-off crane operation, 

17 to place it right in the place where the betatrons 

18 can hit it.

19 I guess the other comment is I think 

20 some of your comments about the buildup, I 

21 understand the beta dose might be absorbed by the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

30

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 slag and I agree with that. However, what I'm not 

2 certain about is that I've ever seen any data dose 

3 measurements on ingots or dingot unsliced.

4 So I think this is -- these are modeling 

5 results you must be talking about. So I can't 

6 comment further about that. 

7 But I would say that -- oh, and I guess 

8 the final question is you could answer quickly 

9 hopefully is the information about the activation 

10 daughters, and giving credit for the entire -- for 

11 the entire spectrum of activation products, that 

12 is covered well in Appendix BB Rev 1 I think?

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I believe it is.

14 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Also in the review, 

16 because it's always where we have some comments on 

17 their comments. So I believe it's all in the 

18 review that came out December 10th, 2014. I know 

19 I'm just thumbing through it right now. 

20 DR. McKEEL: Well, shouldn't that 

21 information be in Appendix BB because really and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

31

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 truly, no matter who writes a White Paper, the only 

2 documents that really figure in dose 

3 reconstructions and Probability of Causation are 

4 the two revisions of Appendix BB, Rev 0 in 2007 and 

5 Rev 1 in 2014.

6 So that's why whether that's in 

7 Appendix BB Rev 1, which I don't remember seeing 

8 and of course I may have missed a lot of things.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I just finished 

10 thumbing through it and Dave, correct me if I'm 

11 wrong. But no, the activities are not listed. 

12 The radionuclides, the steel activation products 

13 I don't believe are listed on the --

14 DR. McKEEL: Then I will leave my 

15 statement as it stands. My understanding is that 

16 if it's not changed, then it would be the same as 

17 in Rev 0, which is a two hour cutoff and --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The results have been 

19 -- the specific information, the detail of the 

20 calculations does not seem to have been listed. 

21 But the results are definitely incorporated. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I can attest to that, because we have 

2 reviewed in detail the NIOSH calculations and I can 

3 attest to the fact that they did use six 

4 radionuclides.

5 DR. McKEEL: That's fine. May I ask 

6 you to please after the meeting see that that paper 

7 and that reference is sent to me. I'd appreciate 

8 it very much. 

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: David Allen, do you 

10 have any other comments on Bob's comments?

11 MR. ALLEN: No, I don't.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You're okay with 

13 what he said?

14 MR. ALLEN: Yeah. 

15 DR. McKEEL: I have one other comment 

16 about this, and that is the interview that Dr. 

17 Anigstein mentions about cutting off the corners 

18 of the betatron slices, that is absolutely brand 

19 new to me, and I don't think it's fair to bring up 

20 interview comments that haven't necessarily been 

21 published.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now if that has been published, that's 

2 a different matter. But I never have heard that 

3 information and I know, as a matter of fact, the 

4 gentleman that has the four corner uranium NDT 

5 scenario at GSI drew that four corner shot scenario 

6 on a napkin, and I digitized that and put that in 

7 one of my White Papers.

8 So maybe the same man was doing the same 

9 thing. That man never to me mentioned anything 

10 about cutting off the corners of that, and he said 

11 he cut most of his uranium work on the night shift. 

12 So that's just a comment.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

14 Bob, I think you had raised that before though. 

15 Maybe you can --

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure, two comments. 

17 One is I think you, Dr. McKeel, referred to this 

18 betatron operator by his initials. That's not the 

19 same one I'm referring to. I can't speak his name, 

20 but that's not the person that I interviewed.

21 DR. McKEEL: Is that --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And second of all -- as 

2 far as the cutting -- let me continue.

3 DR. McKEEL: Is that interview 

4 published?

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me?

6 DR. McKEEL: Is the interview you're 

7 referring to published?

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The interview with the 

9 name redacted was part of a report I believe in late 

10 2011.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Maybe you can 

12 offline send that reference to Dr. McKeel.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's a little -- I can 

14 -- I wonder if I can send it afterwards. It's a 

15 little hard for me to be doing this now when I'm 

16 on the phone.

17 DR. McKEEL: I understand that.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So I'll put that down 

19 as an action item to -- just a second. Okay, just 

20 a second. Let me just say I'll pass it on to Ted.

21 MR. KATZ: That's fine Bob.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, to send 

2 reference to --

3 MR. KATZ: John Ramspott, I don't know 

4 if you could understand Paul. You know, Paul, your 

5 voice is kind of garbled. Your phone is not the 

6 greatest, but John Ramspott, Paul's just asking if 

7 you have --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I had it on speaker 

9 phone. Is this better now?

10 MR. KATZ: Much better.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, okay.

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: That is definitely much 

13 better now. This is Jim Ramspott.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Probably giving some 

15 reverberation or something, yeah. I was just 

16 asking if John Ramspott has some additional 

17 comments on Item 2. I know that some of the 

18 revisions have been handled by SC&A. There 

19 definitely was an issue on the six short business

20 that was corrected, I believe.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. Now I just want 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to add one more response to Dr. McKeel, about the 

2 cutting off of the ingots. I never suggested that 

3 GSI personnel would not know about that because it 

4 was not done at GSI. This was something that would 

5 have been requested by Mallinckrodt or Weldon 

6 Spring, where the operations later took place, to 

7 give them an idea of how much bad metal there was 

8 at the very end of the ingot. This is standard 

9 practice.

10 DR. McKEEL: I've never seen that

11 information. I've never seen that information, 

12 and I've never seen it --

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. That's why we 

14 have Bill Thurber, who actually started off as a 

15 metallurgist and he started off his career with 

16 uranium casting. Am I correct Bill? Bill 

17 Thurber.

18 MR. THURBER: That's right.

19 DR. McKEEL: With all due respect, I 

20 don't think Bill Thurber is as strong a reference 

21 as information directly from Mallinckrodt and/or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

37

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 GSI. 

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, wait a second. 

3 We don't have information -- GSI would not have the 

4 information as to the cutting of the ingots. 

5 That's not there --

6 DR. McKEEL: Well, you said something 

7 about GSI told you that they had cut off the 

8 corners.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Say again?

10 DR. McKEEL: I believe you said that 

11 somebody at GSI told you in an interview that they 

12 had cut off the corners of the uranium --

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. I never 

14 claimed that.

15 DR. McKEEL: So what did you say?

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I simply said they were 

17 making -- they were shooting the corners. That's 

18 all he told me. There were four corners.

19 DR. McKEEL: We know that, yes.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. That's the only 

21 thing and Bill --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. McKEEL: Different 

2 interpretations.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. We interpreted 

4 that as being the only reasonable reason they would 

5 be doing that.

6 DR. McKEEL: Well, we think it's 

7 because Harold Thayer, who was the president of 

8 Mallinckrodt, wrote in his definitive work on 

9 uranium handling at Mallinckrodt, that it was done 

10 to define the borderline between the slag and the 

11 underlying pure uranium.

12 We brought that up many times. I know 

13 we're not going to settle it today, but that's 

14 another plausible explanation for why --

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It really doesn't 

16 affect the model.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, let's proceed 

18 here. Again, I'll ask John Ramspott if he has any 

19 comments on this issue.

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yeah, I appreciate it 

21 Paul. This is John Ramspott. Actually looking at 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

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

1 Dave Allen's White Paper dated September of 2010, 

2 Dave did a great job of explaining exactly what 

3 happened at GSI and Mallinckrodt, and Dave, you got 

4 100 percent correct.

5 It clearly states in this document that 

6 the data that first went over to GSI and hopefully 

7 everybody realizes, I mean there were ingots -- no, 

8 there were derbies and then there were ingots and 

9 then there were dingots. So there's different 

10 time lines that probably need to be addressed with 

11 this, what happened when and how.

12 It clearly states in here Dave, and 

13 maybe you can look at it again, but the whole 

14 process or the whole reason for sending that over 

15 to GSI, the process itself left a lot of slag on 

16 there. GSI was going to -- the purpose for GSI to 

17 take a look at the metal is to determine how big 

18 the slag is. Everybody seems to be disagreeing 

19 were they clean or weren't they. 

20 I think we need to go and Bob, if you're 

21 saying a clean one gives a worker more, I guess beta 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

40

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 dose, then that's probably what they should get. 

2 But if you're going to do that with a slice, I think 

3 cutting out a whole ingot or the dingot didn't go 

4 over there clean too.

5 You don't know that and that's the 

6 problem. But the workers should get the benefit 

7 of the doubt. Dave, you quoted your information 

8 from Fleshman and Hilliard 1967. So they were in 

9 fact out at Mallinckrodt. 

10 So we're not talking about anybody, and 

11 I don't mean to impugn anybody else's metallurgical 

12 background or what have you, but you got it from 

13 guys that were down at Mallinckrodt, Dave. I think 

14 you have it correct.

15 And it does say here after separation 

16 the dingot, they're using the term dingot now 

17 because it's later on time, was scalped by machine 

18 all surfaces. Not just the top, but we're talking 

19 about all surfaces. That's exactly what your 

20 document says.

21 So when we start to mix these products 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

41

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 up and no one knows what went over there, dingots, 

2 derbies, ingots. I mean the most you can do is go 

3 with the time line. 

4 I think you have to give the workers not 

5 less but more, and you know, your document actually 

6 said this concentration being produced, higher 

7 than normal beta dose rates and then decayed to a 

8 normal dose rate with a half-life of 24.1 days.

9 So I think you already wrote a good 

10 paper on it Dave, and I wish everybody else would 

11 maybe read it and use it, because the fact that 

12 these guys were dealing -- they were shooting 

13 corners, and I never heard anybody ever say 

14 anything about cutting off corners. They shot 

15 corners because that was the easiest route to do, 

16 to see how thick whatever was on there was. Nobody 

17 knows how thick that slag was anyway.

18 So that's another fact that I hope gets 

19 brought out. So I just hope this paper gets 

20 reviewed and the workers get the highest dose, not 

21 less. Appreciate a chance to comment on it and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we'll get into shooting distances. That's a whole 

2 different thing. Are they shooting it from six or 

3 from six feet, nine feet? That's a whole different 

4 topic. I appreciate the opportunity. Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks John. I'd 

6 like to ask a question, Dave. Now SC&A suggesting 

7 use of a more conservative value. On that one 

8 issue, what is NIOSH's intent there?

9 MR. ALLEN: Well, this whole issue is 

10 betatron operator beta dose, and we had a model. 

11 It was reviewed. Like I said before, we had left 

12 off the one meter dose rate. Bob had noticed and 

13 we added that in. We changed the exposure time to 

14 eight hours instead of seven and a half hours per 

15 shift, and then Bob noticed that the --

16 I think it was the beta spectrum was not 

17 quite right for the model and changed that we agree 

18 it's not, you know, what was there before is 

19 probably not as accurate as what he's got now. So 

20 we're essentially intending on using the numbers 

21 that Bob has got in his latest reply.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I just wanted to respond slightly to 

2 some of these issues, and that was that -- I just 

3 want to say that this whole issue is beta dose. The 

4 amount of beta radiation coming out of the uranium 

5 slab has got almost no range. It's a very small 

6 range.

7 So the only active part that you 

8 actually get beta dose is right at the surface of 

9 it. So the size, the thickness of a uranium ingot, 

10 dingot, et cetera doesn't change much as far as what 

11 the beta dose would be coming out of it. 

12 As far as what John Ramspott was saying, 

13 it's true. I think he's referring to a White Paper 

14 for TBD-6000, but I'm not sure. However, we did 

15 give the workers the benefit of the doubt by not 

16 assuming that's what they got because this puts the 

17 A effect, as we've called it all along, that 

18 concentrates the beta sources on the surface of the 

19 uranium.

20 That's the assumption we're making. 

21 They got something over at GSI that had the beta 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

44

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 daughters all concentrated on the surface. If 

2 they actually machined the surface like they 

3 normally did with the dingot, then those would be 

4 stripped off before they got to GSI.

5 If they sent dingots over, they didn't 

6 build up that Putzier effect and they wouldn't have 

7 this high of a dose rate. If they sliced it up, 

8 it would just be the outside edges and not the fresh 

9 cut part that had this.

10 So essentially what we did was say yeah, 

11 they got lots of shapes and sizes. I think the 

12 worst case assumption and that's all the beta 

13 nuclides are concentrated on the surface and that's 

14 the model we used.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Okay, 

16 thanks, Dave. Let me ask Board Members if they 

17 have any questions on any of the items that were 

18 discussed. Also, has Wanda come aboard? I guess 

19 not, okay.

20 MR. KATZ: No, and I have no reply from 

21 her by email either. Okay. I'll ask John or 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

45

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 Josie, any questions or issues on Item 2? What I'd 

2 like to do is just, on this particular one it 

3 appears that SC&A and NIOSH are in agreement or 

4 would you call that agreement?

5 I think SC&A was comfortable with what 

6 NIOSH was proposing; isn't that correct?

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Absolutely. They 

8 wish to verify with their current, we have no 

9 objection to that.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: They're slightly 

11 more claimant-favorable.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, slightly more 

13 claimant-favorable. So if they wish to go with 

14 that rather than refining it and chopping it up. 

15 So either way is fine.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

17 MR. ALLEN: I think we already said 

18 we'd go with the SC&A refinements, since they 

19 pointed out the old one has a bit of an error.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But it doesn't 

21 change the bottom line very much is what you're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

46

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 saying, right?

2 MR. ALLEN: Not big, no.

3 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. But 

4 it does lower the dose assigned, and that's a 

5 backwards, you know. You had four years to decide 

6 this, and now it's last. You're changing it lower 

7 because it's, quote, a better number. I guess you 

8 could argue another ten years and make it better 

9 than that.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think they're 

11 saying that it was a calculational error; is that 

12 correct?

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. There were some 

14 erroneous assumptions that we caught on reviewing, 

15 you know, Dave sending his spreadsheet and 

16 reconciling it with mine and I saw there was a 

17 discrepancy that was corrected.

18 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. My 

19 final comment on this if you all, and I'm talking 

20 about the Board, several Board Members, SC&A and 

21 NIOSH assured the full Board on December the 11th 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

47

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 before they voted to deny the GSI SEC that all of 

2 these -- those reconstruction issues were settled, 

3 that NIOSH could do it and that, you know.

4 I understand that routinely you all 

5 make -- allow such a statement to be made and then 

6 take several years to actually work out the 

7 numbers. So you know, and you can basically do as 

8 you feel you must. But I certainly disagree with 

9 what you're doing. Thank you.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, I understand 

11 that. That has been the practice, but if it's 

12 agreed that the dose can be reconstructed, that 

13 does not always mean that they have achieved that. 

14 In fact, there could be cases where that was found 

15 not to be the case, in which case you'd go the other 

16 way. But anyway, I understand your point.

17 MR. RAMSPOTT: This is John Ramspott. 

18 Can I make one quick comment?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead, John.

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: For you to change 

21 something now and to call it fact and mathematical, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it's actually guessing on an unknown. No one knows 

2 how many slices were there, how many ingots were 

3 there, how many dingots were there. 

4 To change something now based on 

5 unsolid, unconfirmed information, that does move 

6 you backwards.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, John. We 

8 changed things from Rev 0 to Rev 1 also. So and 

9 also keep in mind, this does not --

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This will not affect 

12 people whose cases have already been adjudicated. 

13 The ones who have gone forward under Rev 1, a fair 

14 number of people, that doesn't affect them. It 

15 will only affect the cases if it changes, if it 

16 would change their results in a positive way.

17 MR. RAMSPOTT: The going forward with 

18 a change based on unknown is still in my opinion 

19 not the right thing to do. We don't know. There's 

20 a lot of things we don't know.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, this is the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

49

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 nature of dose reconstruction. 

2 MR. RAMSPOTT: Guess and go forward, 

3 even though you don't know?

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. It's not guess 

5 and go forward. It's the process that has been 

6 defined by the law as how we proceed if there's 

7 information missing. But this is part of the 

8 larger picture of how -- as you know, on almost 

9 every site there are unknowns and you have to handle 

10 them in some way. 

11 Right now, we have on this particular 

12 item between SC&A and NIOSH, there was an 

13 assumption, an incorrect assumption observed and 

14 that correction when made slightly will reduce the 

15 doses for some folks.

16 But that doesn't mean it shouldn't be 

17 done. Claimant-favorable doesn't mean that if you 

18 make an error it shouldn't be corrected. So that's 

19 the process. 

20 This still would have to go to the 

21 Board, but let me ask Subcommittee or Work Group 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

50

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 Members, does anyone wish to take an action at this 

2 time as far as a recommendation to the full Board? 

3 Again, I'm asking if anyone wishes to take a motion? 

4 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is Josie. 

5 Based on the discussion here today, I think that 

6 I agree that we should move forward on this and 

7 accept NIOSH's and SC&A's -- the calculation that's 

8 been put forth and close this item. 

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay John?

10 MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, and I agree 

12 with that. So the Work Group recommends that we 

13 close Issue 2 and recommend that that can be handled 

14 as described. Okay. Let's go on to, let's see, 

15 SC&A, you took them in an order of -- I think you 

16 took them in the order of what you felt was 

17 importance. Was that --

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I took them in the 

19 order of Dave's report. 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh yeah, right, 

21 Dave's report, which was Finding 10 was given 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

51

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 second, right?

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah. So 

4 let's proceed with that. Let's go with Finding 10. 

5 So Dave, any preliminary comments on Finding 10?

6 MR. ALLEN: I'm trying to refresh my 

7 mind. You jumped on there before I was ready.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh okay. Finding 10 

9 and Betatron Operator Gamma Dose. 

10 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, and I think Bob's got 

11 a presentation there. I think -- I don't think I 

12 need any preliminary.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. You want to 

14 proceed then?

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Shall I go 

16 ahead?

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. It's on the 

19 screen. So I just summarized here. I took the 

20 liberty of summarizing the NIOSH response and then 

21 going with our reply, and the NIOSH said that the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

52

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 betatron operator gamma dose, because this is a 

2 full photon, we don't even know -- I would actually 

3 relabel it just photon dose, because we don't know 

4 whether it's gamma, X-rays or what it is. We just 

5 know it's, you know, electromagnetic radiation and 

6 that the -- it only comes into play for the skin 

7 of the hands and forearms of the betatron operator 

8 because others, like for the layout man, other 

9 operations are more bounding. So this would not 

10 come into play.

11 So it's only for the skin of the hands 

12 and arms and NIOSH maintains that it should only 

13 be half of the time, because they would be -- the 

14 hands and the forearms would be in front of the body 

15 at least half the time and therefore the body would 

16 shield it.

17 I disagree with that, and here's an 

18 example of the betatron operator and clearly his 

19 hands are -- one hand is high up and likewise the 

20 forearm. The other hand is -- perhaps is about at 

21 the side of the body. It's a little hard to see
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

53

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 with it shielded. The betatron itself at this 

2 moment is up here shooting forward at this casting. 

3 It's probably unusual that the casting 

4 would be so far overhead of the betatron because 

5 this is -- I believe we were told this is the largest 

6 casting GSI ever made. But clearly, in this case, 

7 there would not be a safe assumption that his hand 

8 would be normally in front of his body.

9 If you just -- I was just thinking about 

10 it sitting at my desk. Unless you tuck your elbows 

11 in touching each other and hold your -- clasp your 

12 forearms together, your hands are at the side of 

13 the body not necessarily in front. So we 

14 considered that not -- I mean it could happen some 

15 of the time, but the more conservative assumption 

16 is to say that it would be exposed all the time, 

17 not just half the time.

18 Therefore the dose would end up -- we 

19 both agree, both NIOSH and SC&A agreed on the air 

20 kerma dose coming from the betatron. It will be 

21 210.225 rads per year, and then this is the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

54

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 conversion factor taken from OCAS-001, OCAS-IG-001 

2 I guess it is, of .654 rem per rad for low energy 

3 air kerma, and so we end up with the dose.

4 Our recommended dose from this scenario 

5 is 6.687 rem per year. That's all I have to say 

6 on Finding 10.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, yeah. So 

8 there's a substantial change there and both of you 

9 have agreed that that would be the case. That's 

10 my understanding. Let me -- Dave, did you have any 

11 other comments on that?

12 MR. ALLEN: Yeah. I'm not sure what 

13 you meant right there when you said both of us. We 

14 agreed to use the air kerma and we proposed a 50 

15 percent factor and that's what SC&A disagreed. 

16 That's one point of disagreement today I think 

17 we're going to have.

18 Bob, could you put that picture back up 

19 by chance?

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Say again?

21 MR. ALLEN: Could you put your picture 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

55

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 back up that you had a moment ago?

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure.

3 MR. ALLEN: Thank you. I think my 

4 point, part of my point is, I mean you've got to 

5 remember this entire scenario is based on the idea 

6 that you had this low energy photon source at 

7 somebody's back the whole time, so that their body 

8 shielded the film badge.

9 But if you look in this picture, you see 

10 at least two out of these three guys do not have 

11 their back to the cone of the betatron. I think 

12 that 100 percent is already very favorable to come 

13 up with this number, and generally if their back 

14 -- just like the guy working on the axle there, if 

15 his back is to that cone, his hands are going to 

16 be at least somewhat out front, somewhat shielded 

17 most of the time. I still think that using that 

18 100 percent PA, you know, to come up with this whole 

19 scenario and a 50 percent factor for the hand use 

20 is very favorable.

21 MEMBER BEACH: So this is Josie. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

56

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 have a question. SC&A says they should have their 

2 -- the dose would be at 100 percent of the time hands 

3 and arms. NIOSH should say in 50 percent; is that 

4 correct?

5 MR. ALLEN: Yeah. We both said 100 

6 percent. We'd estimate it by saying 100 percent 

7 of the time their back was to the betatron cone, 

8 and then NIOSH says 50 percent of the time their 

9 hands were shielded with their bodies, and SC&A is 

10 saying it's potentially never shielded with the 

11 body. Does that make sense Josie?

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, it makes perfect 

13 sense, thanks.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So the bottom line, 

15 which I didn't know here is that the dose proposed 

16 by NIOSH would be to take that, our 6.687, divide 

17 by 2 but then add the -- I guess would it would be 

18 this 500 millirem per year that is not -- that is 

19 at the threshold of the film badge reading for the 

20 other half. So maybe 250.

21 So I'm just speculating. They would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

57

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 come out around -- you know, I'm just doing it 

2 quickly in my head, they would come out around 3.5, 

3 3.6 rem per year somewhere around there. A little 

4 more than half of ours. Do you agree with that 

5 Dave?

6 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, roughly half. 

7 That's true.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: A little over half, 

9 because you're adding in a little --

10 MR. ALLEN: Accounting for the small 

11 amount of dose they get with their hands in front 

12 of the body. 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's go 

15 ahead and get back to McKeel's comments.

16 DR. McKEEL: Dan McKeel. I'm 

17 commenting on the Finding 10. I guess here's my 

18 comment. In the SC&A paper, they showed one very 

19 atypical casting, one image. There are many, 

20 many, many images that have been put into the record 

21 on GSI betatron operators interacting with the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 castings at the head of the betatron machines.

2 My comment is that all of these 

3 assumptions, including the one that the back was 

4 always towards the cone, are absolutely refuted by 

5 other photographs. If you think about it, a lot 

6 of the castings were much smaller. The person in 

7 between the beam cone and the target, they were 

8 rotating their body in a 360 degree arc, and their 

9 arms the same thing.

10 They were in -- you know, the range of 

11 motion of an arm is 180 degrees, from straight down 

12 to straight up, and I'm sure in lifting and in 

13 pulling down and so forth they used all those 

14 positions. The hand can not only flex and dorsal 

15 flex, but it can move sideways and the fingers can 

16 move and so forth.

17 So I am absolutely certain that the best 

18 model would be 360 degree rotation of the torso, 

19 the arms and the hands, and I understand the dose 

20 we're talking relates to forearms and hands. But 

21 I would say, even more so, these are the most 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

59

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 flexible parts of the body. They'll rotate in all 

2 directions, particularly given the combination of 

3 the two.

4 So I think that these -- this 50 percent 

5 factor that NIOSH proposes is, I don't know how to 

6 put it, but it's not scientific. It is not 

7 claimant-favorable; it's claimant-unfavorable, 

8 and I think it's a factor of convenience.

9 It sounds good; it sounds halfway in 

10 between zero and 100. But actually, it's not a 

11 good factor and I think it should be abandoned and 

12 I guess that's kind of what I have to say.

13 The other comment that the real dose 

14 that's delivered also depends, as Dr. Anigstein 

15 said, he's assuming what we're talking about is 

16 photons. But you know, I have given this Work 

17 Group numerous papers which show that chronically 

18 -- that the components in particle accelerators 

19 acting at this high MeV voltage are chronically 

20 activated, and chronically give off whatever this 

21 radiation is, even after 15 minutes that Jack 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

60

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 Schutz said he could measure it.

2 Another radiographer at GSI said he had 

3 been able to measure the off beam current with a 

4 survey meter. But in any case, the literature 

5 clearly shows you should be able to measure some 

6 off beam current in all sorts of accelerators.

7 So that particular part of this 

8 modeling is off target as far as I'm concerned. 

9 That's it. Thank you.

10 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen. I just 

11 wanted to point out that I think Dr. McKeel made 

12 my point there, that certainly -- it's almost 

13 certain they're rotating around, they're moving 

14 around. There's no way the badge was always 

15 shielded by the body.

16 The starting point for this analysis 

17 was the badge readings of about 500 millirem a year. 

18 This analysis that we're using results in that 

19 being caused by ten rad per year to the back. If 

20 they're rotating around pretty evenly, then we're 

21 looking at more like 1,000 rather than 10,000 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

61

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 millirem.

2 DR. McKEEL: The point I'm trying to 

3 make here is one that -- Paul said that you have 

4 to make assumptions in doing dose reconstructions. 

5 I understand that. But unfortunately John Mauro 

6 is not here today, because one of the points he's 

7 made repeatedly is, yes, you may have to make 

8 assumptions, but the assumptions can -- have to 

9 pass the test of plausibility.

10 What I'm saying is that you all seem to 

11 focus on whether the overall result is 

12 claimant-favorable, and I would agree that that's 

13 a good thing and that's certainly compliant with 

14 the law. However, you know, the sufficient 

15 accuracy term which to be quite honest, the Board 

16 Chairman and Dr. Neton have had a very difficult 

17 time actually defining what that means.

18 That certainly encompasses to me the 

19 concept of plausibility. So sufficient 

20 accuracy/plausibility all go together and yes, I 

21 agree with Dave. You know, but you have to also 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

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

1 go on what's written in papers and what's said in 

2 a meeting, and what's said in the meeting was by 

3 one Board Member and by Dave Allen and by Bob 

4 Anigstein, that everybody agrees that the 

5 assumption that the worker's back is always to the 

6 cone of the betatron is perfectly acceptable.

7 Well, it's not acceptable to me and I 

8 don't think scientifically it's acceptable either. 

9 So I guess that's -- I'll let it go at that.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sorry, I was on mute. 

11 So then Dave, is one of these assumptions --

12 MR. KATZ: Paul, you might want to use 

13 your hand phone function.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, is this better?

15 MR. KATZ: Yes, yes. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is one of these 

17 assumptions bounding in your mind Dave?

18 MR. ALLEN: One meaning what? I'm 

19 sorry, Paul.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, now for 

21 example, the 100 percent back to the material 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

63

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 versus 50 percent versus some other --

2 MR. ALLEN: I think the highest, the 

3 absolute highest would be what Bob is suggesting, 

4 which is 100 percent with you back to the cone and 

5 your hands are always at your side or behind you. 

6 I was just trying to get a little more 

7 reasonableness in here in pointing out that we're 

8 being -- and I think Dr. McKeel did a good job 

9 pointing it out.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well the issue -- the 

11 problem with that is plausibility. It's 

12 claimant-favorable but probably not plausible, is 

13 what I hear you saying I think, right?

14 MR. ALLEN: Well, I think we are 

15 getting beyond the realm of plausible.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In what sense?

17 MR. ALLEN: With your -- the men in 

18 there the whole time with their back always to the 

19 machine and their hands always exposed --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah. So you're 

21 saying that's not plausible, right?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: It's getting to that point. 

2 I don't know if I can go as far as to say it's 

3 implausible, but it's certainly --

4 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is Josie. I 

5 suspect that somewhere between 50 and 100 percent. 

6 I don't think it's as low as 50 and maybe not as 

7 high as 100 percent. But I tend to agree with SC&A 

8 to the higher level.

9 DR. NETON: This is Jim. Dave, is it 

10 possible to ascribe a distribution to this exposure 

11 mode?

12 MR. ALLEN: Anything's possible, but I 

13 don't want to -- in all honesty, I don't want to 

14 belabor this too much, because as Bob said, it's 

15 just going to affect the hands and forearms.

16 DR. NETON: Yeah. It's not a big 

17 issue, I mean as far as --

18 MR. ALLEN: As far as the number of 

19 claimants it affects now.

20 DR. NETON: Yeah, and given that I'd be 

21 inclined to acknowledge that 50 is probably at a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

65

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 lower bound. Not a lower bound, but it could be 

2 higher than 50 without -- now it's possible it could 

3 be higher than 50. 

4 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. May 

5 I please make a comment?

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure Dan, go ahead.

7 DR. McKEEL: You know, everybody talks 

8 about it's not going to increase the dose very much. 

9 But it actually turns out that among all the 

10 compensable cancers that are available and are 

11 broken down by NIOSH in its IREP kind of 

12 consolidated data, it turns out that basal cell 

13 carcinoma of the skin, 56 percent of those cancers 

14 are compensated.

15 So skin dose is highly determinative on 

16 who's going to get paid and who's not going to get 

17 paid. And it turns out that in PER-057, there are 

18 actually 196 cases that were examined. While 100 

19 of them were -- had PER POCs greater than 50 percent 

20 and they hopefully will get paid, that still leaves 

21 half the group that were denied and will not get 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

66

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 paid.

2 It's quite fascinating actually that I 

3 obtained all those dose reconstruction development 

4 reports with a FOIA request. I got just the 

5 summary reports. There were lots of it that was 

6 deleted. 

7 But what I did get were the pre- and post 

8 PER total doses and the pre- and post PER POCs and 

9 a case, who Mr. Ramspott and I know who that is, 

10 who had the very highest dose of all 194 claims that 

11 were sent to me, to the PER.

12 It was a gentleman who had the highest 

13 total dose of all other people by a factor of 

14 twofold amazingly. His POC jumped from 42 percent 

15 to 48 percent, and the reason why -- and he had skin 

16 cancer, and when we investigated what type of skin 

17 cancer, it turns out he had squamous cell skin 

18 cancer, which is compensated at the rate of 1.8 

19 percent.

20 Now biologically in 2015 terms, that is 

21 a terrible mistake that those compensation rates 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

67

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 are so wildly different, because in the last five 

2 years there have been many examples of skin cancers 

3 which have been dissected, DNA determined and so 

4 forth and histologically, using 

5 immunohistochemistry, have features of both 

6 squamous and basal cell carcinoma.

7 The point I'm trying to make is skin 

8 dose is one of the most important compensable 

9 cancers in all of the EEOICPA. So the -- whether 

10 these doses are high, low, intermediate, getting 

11 this as right as possible, as correct as possible 

12 is really, really important.

13 So I would say that it's Dr. Neton's 

14 idea that maybe a distribution should be 

15 calculated. It seems to me you could calculate a 

16 distribution if you assumes 360 degrees rotation 

17 of the torso and arms and trunk and so forth and 

18 so on.

19 You all are brilliant at doing that sort 

20 of thing. Maybe you could come up with a more 

21 accurate dose. The point I'm trying to make is it 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is very, very important for skin dose. That's why 

2 I'm spending so much time and I think you all are 

3 too, on determining and getting these skin doses 

4 as correct as possible. Thank you.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thanks for 

6 that comment. Jim, when you were talking about a 

7 distribution, you were talking about a 

8 distribution around a 360 degree type of thing, a 

9 fairly complex distribution.

10 DR. NETON: Oh, I wasn't sure. I just 

11 threw it out there for discussion purposes. I mean 

12 a distribution between 50 and 100, I mean a uniform 

13 distribution. It gets complicated when you start 

14 adding these distributions in those separately. 

15 This of course would only affect skin cancers of 

16 the forearms and hands.

17 Dr. McKeel is right. Basal cell is a 

18 very highly compensated cancer, but the cancer 

19 would have to appear on the forearms or hands for 

20 this dose.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: That's sort of not really 

2 relevant though. I mean if it is true, you have 

3 to get the dose right.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.

5 DR. NETON: I don't know. I mean --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We don't know a 

7 priori, yeah --

8 (Simultaneous speaking.)

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Speaking for SC&A, it 

10 seems like a reasonable compromise. 

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: To go with what, a 

12 distribution?

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: A distribution from 

14 between 50 and 100 percent. 

15 MR. ALLEN: Well, this is Dave, I think 

16 Jim or somebody said something about what, a 

17 uniform distribution?

18 DR. NETON: Yeah. That's what I was 

19 talking about. 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. I would go with 

21 that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: So I mean a uniform 

2 distribution between 50 and 100 will give you 

3 exactly a 75, and I would -- for ease of dose 

4 reconstruction --

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, if I can point 

6 out something about the nature of these 

7 distributions, it's not that simple. That would 

8 be -- if the compensation was based on the average, 

9 I would agree that it would be the same as a 75. 

10 But seeing that IREP takes the 99th 

11 percentile and pulls all the distributions 

12 together, without actually running IREP it's not 

13 possible to determine what -- you know, you would 

14 have to do it experimentally. You have to do it 

15 once with a distribution and then try it several 

16 times with a fixed value, different fixed values 

17 to see what the -- where it comes in. I suspect 

18 it will be over 75.

19 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I'll withdraw that 

20 comment. I would be very interested in the 

21 opinions of the Work Group on this issue right now.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think what 

2 we're trying to get a feel for is to say okay, it's 

3 unlikely that it's 100 percent. That's awfully 

4 close to implausible, even though 

5 claimant-favorable, that maybe 50 percent is -- I 

6 think we're trying to find something that seems to 

7 be more fair and yet plausible.

8 I think I would be comfortable with 75 

9 percent being more plausible or a distribution type 

10 of thing which would -- could still be -- would 

11 intuitively seem claimant-favorable but yet 

12 plausible. John, what are your feelings on this, 

13 Poston?

14 MEMBER POSTON: I've been trying to 

15 speak for a while. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have to take it off 

17 of mute, John.

18 MEMBER POSTON: Well, that was one of 

19 the problems, that I couldn't get a word in 

20 edgewise. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER POSTON: I certainly agree with 

2 Josie that it has to be between 50 and 100. Whether 

3 it's going to be 75 or 80, I'm not sure. But these 

4 calculations are easy to do. I mean we did these 

5 a long time ago back in Oak Ridge for photons, you 

6 know. We had a rotational exposure scenario and 

7 you can do it all however you want. It's not that 

8 difficult to do.

9 The question about exposure to the 

10 hands is a little difficult, because then you have 

11 to make some assumptions. But of course most of 

12 the phantoms we have don't have hands. But we 

13 ought to be able to figure that out. 

14 I think it's a fair way to go about it, 

15 to get it done and be as realistic and as 

16 claimant-favorable as possible.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I'm trying to 

18 see where we're at. I'm looking for a 

19 recommendation.

20 MEMBER BEACH: My recommendation is 

21 that we accept SC&A's proposal, unless they're 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to do another calculation on this.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This proposal being 

3 100 percent?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes, because I'm not 

5 hearing NIOSH -- well, if we're going to go another 

6 route.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well I think NIOSH --

8 I don't know if Jim was suggesting the distribution 

9 from 50 to 100. 

10 MEMBER POSTON: Well there's one thing 

11 about 100 percent. It can't be any bigger than 

12 that, that's for sure.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I agree that 

14 would be bounding on that, whether it is plausible.

15 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I think we all 

16 agree it's not necessarily plausible, that they're 

17 going to be facing --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, let me -- I 

19 want to ask Jim Neton this question again though. 

20 On bounding, Jim, we do want plausibility as well 

21 as -- I mean, yeah, it can be bounding, but not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

74

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 plausible.

2 DR. NETON: Right. I just don't know 

3 how easy this is to integrate a distribution into 

4 the input file for IREP. It gets a little bit --

5 I think that's what Dave might be hinting at. I 

6 don't know. 

7 I would prefer to go with a fixed number 

8 to be honest, but I don't think 100 is right. 

9 MEMBER POSTON: I don't either.

10 DR. NETON: But then you know is 75 

11 acceptable? I mean it seems like 75 would be a 

12 reasonable number, but then you know there's no 

13 real fundamental basis for that other than it seems 

14 claimant-favorable.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, in the absence 

16 of anything that we can hang our hat on, we may have 

17 to go with the 100 as being --

18 DR. NETON: I guess I wouldn't be 

19 averse to that. I'm just -- maybe in the absence 

20 of any information that we could use to get more 

21 specific with the number, I wouldn't be against 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

75

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 using the 100 and just being very certain that we're 

2 claimant-favorable.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Josie, I think you 

4 were supporting that. John, what's your feeling 

5 on that?

6 MEMBER POSTON: Well, I'd be willing to 

7 go there because if for no reason there can't be 

8 any more than that. Certainly that's the upper 

9 bound.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, I guess 

11 I'll go ahead and support that and we'll make that 

12 our recommendation, that that's 100 percent of the 

13 time the back is to the material and that maximizes 

14 the dose to the patient, to the worker.

15 MEMBER POSTON: Yep.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That will be 

17 our recommendation on Issue 10, and that will close 

18 that; correct?

19 MEMBER BEACH: That's correct.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, I didn't -- hang 

21 on just a second. I just -- I omitted John 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

76

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 Ramspott. John, did you have any items on 10 that 

2 you were concerned about or have you we taken care 

3 of your concerns with this action?

4 MR. RAMSPOTT: I definitely agree with 

5 that approach and the one item that, you know, 

6 obviously you guys are the experts. But the 

7 distance, I'd make some -- it might help this even 

8 seem more realistic, that email I sent you --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, that had --

10 yeah, I was going to ask you about this.

11 MR. RAMSPOTT: Can we go through this 

12 right now because the betatron --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah. Is that the 

14 issue of the thickness of the material to be --

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yeah, that's my point. 

17 Yeah.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah. I was going 

19 to ask Dave about that. Did you read John's email 

20 on that and does that affect your model?

21 MR. ALLEN: I don't believe I got 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

77

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 John's email. 

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This goes back to 

3 July. Didn't this go to NIOSH?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, it sure did.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Paul, if I can 

6 interject, I think I could speak to that.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, go ahead.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, because I 

9 interviewed -- I had one or two conversations with 

10 [identifying information redacted] on this matter, 

11 and one of the workers, a radiographer now 

12 deceased, was under the impression that she used 

13 a string, which was you could actually see it. 

14 There was a photograph, which is attached through 

15 the casing of the -- the outer case of the betatron, 

16 right next to this aluminum collimator cone.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And that is used to 

19 mark off the distance. He was under the impression 

20 that well, if it's six foot distance, so then that 

21 string of six was wrong. No, that's not correct 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 because I asked [identifying information redacted]

2 about that.

3 That string is already taken -- the 

4 length of the string takes into account the 

5 distance to the internal target, the little tiny 

6 platinum target that's inside the vacuum of the 

7 betatron, of the donut, evacuated donut, which 

8 makes perfect good sense because the radiation 

9 emerges from that by the inverse square law 

10 and -- well not quite, it's forward-scattered. And 

11 therefore that's the distance you want to know how 

12 far you are from that, not from the outer shell.

13 So by using that distance, which is 

14 actually way back in 2008, earlier or even 2007, 

15 we were using -- the workers were calculating the 

16 distance to the metal from that point on the outer 

17 surface of the betatron, and we got lower, as you 

18 might imagine, because now there's another 20-odd 

19 inches going back into the machine to get to the 

20 target.

21 So we ended up -- first we compensated 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for it by the inverse square law but since we're 

2 redoing it anyway, we redid the MCNPX calculations 

3 to go back and the distance -- for the distance that 

4 we're using is actually much more conservative than 

5 the one John Ramspott is proposing, where you take 

6 the distance from the betatron shielding and then 

7 subtract the thickness of the metal.

8 So it's already a fairly conservative 

9 calculation that's done. So there would be no 

10 reason -- if we adjusted it, we would end up with 

11 a lower intensity and lower doses. 

12 Is that --

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: Paul, this is John 

14 Ramspott. Can I make a comment on this?

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure.

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: Since it's my topic that 

17 I brought up and the reason -- and I heard what Bob 

18 said. But I also know that [identifying 

19 information redacted] is also the same guy that 

20 said you never flip a betatron head. We all know 

21 now that that happened.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, wait a minute. 

2 We're talking about two different things.

3 MR. RAMSPOTT: No. We're talking 

4 about principle and accuracy of an individual 

5 giving a statement, when he wasn't there doing it, 

6 and that's [identifying information redacted].

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But he was the one who 

8 -- but the string was not created by the operator. 

9 The string was furnished by Allis-Chalmers.

10 MR. RAMSPOTT: A string? Bob, they 

11 told me they replaced those strings too because 

12 they got broken. 

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

14 MR. RAMSPOTT: I've got no fewer than 

15 six living betatron experts. One of them happens 

16 to be [identifying information redacted], who's 

17 not on the phone today. He had a medical 

18 appointment, who confirmed for me this principle 

19 that they would -- and if you recall, [identifying 

20 information redacted] the guy that actually helped 

21 with the shot records.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

81

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 He's the guy that really convinced me, 

2 and all these other gentlemen had good 

3 recollections, they definitely measured the 

4 thickness of the casting. They knew that. They 

5 had that on their shot logs, and they would bring 

6 a camera in whatever that distance was, because the 

7 film is on the other side of the casting.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Understood.

9 MR. RAMSPOTT: And I'm talking about 

10 Terry Dutko and I'm talking about [identifying 

11 information redacted] and I'm talking -- I mean, 

12 I'm talking about guys that did this stuff. They 

13 definitely measured it and in the dying man's 

14 affidavit that I attached with my email, 

15 [identifying information redacted] was considered 

16 to be the premier betatron operator at GSI, the 

17 best.

18 In his dying affidavit, which his son 

19 shared with -- I believe with DOL when he filed a 

20 claim, said that. This was a long time ago; this 

21 was before we ever even brought up this topic. So 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that tells me that he was telling it right the first 

2 time, before he ever knew it would become a topic.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, the point is the 

4 calculation that we and NIOSH have shared is more 

5 claimant-favorable because it takes away. Yes, we 

6 don't account for the thickness of the metal, but 

7 we must -- it's way overcompensated by the 20-odd 

8 inches, I think it's 21-22 inches.

9 So we're saying that the betatron, the 

10 platinum target inside the betatron, deep inside 

11 that ceramic donut, is six feet from the surface 

12 of the metal. Now you're saying we should take the 

13 six feet from the outer casing of the betatron, 

14 which is about 20 inches further closer to the 

15 metal.

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm talking about the 

17 body of the individual in front of that betatron.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh no. That's not --

19 that's not part of the model. We're talking about 

20 --

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: Wait a minute, I thought 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we were talking about a man's arm and legs and 

2 forearms and hands.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, and that is not 

4 based on the distance. That calculation is based 

5 entirely on the fact that the film badge reading, 

6 99.9 -- over 99.9 percent of the readings are ten 

7 millirem or less.

8 So the -- I know, this is a little 

9 complicated point. It's a little hard to get, 

10 because the discussion about Issue 10 is about how 

11 is it possible, how much dose can you get to the 

12 hands, assuming the man has his back to the betatron 

13 and his body shielding the film? 

14 So we're just saying under the worst 

15 possible conditions. The worst possible 

16 condition is that you have low energy photons 

17 coming off this betatron and we just say 30 

18 kiloelectron volts because below that there is no 

19 dose. Now we've got these calculations.

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: I know this is a 

21 complicated issue. If everybody's agreeable to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the 100 percent, I don't have a problem. I just 

2 wanted to know --

3 (Simultaneous speaking.)

4 MR. RAMSPOTT: If you're convinced 

5 it's not, if everybody's still recommending the 100 

6 percent, I'm totally happy with that decision.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The distance does not 

8 -- has nothing to do -- in this particular 

9 calculation, the distance does not factor into it.

10 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. I guess the main 

11 thing right now is the 100 percent, and if that's 

12 what everybody is agreeable to, I certainly am. I 

13 was just curious, you know. You guys are the 

14 experts. I have to rely on your expertise on 

15 something like this. I just asked a question, does 

16 it come into play and --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No.

18 MR. RAMSPOTT: Since we're giving them 

19 100 percent, if you're going to give them 100 

20 percent like it sounds like, it's a moot issue for 

21 me. So I appreciate a chance just to comment on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it. I was always curious, what big difference 

2 would it make? But it sounds like it's being taken 

3 care of with 100 percent, so thank you.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I had my mute on, 

5 sorry. We're ready to go on to the next issue, 

6 which is 5. 

7 Bob, are you ready to go on 5?

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. 

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. So Issue 5 is 

11 I'll just restate the scenario for everyone's 

12 recollection, including mine. We already agreed, 

13 NIOSH and the Work Group and SC&A agreed that during 

14 the radium era, which is from 19 -- late 1952 when 

15 we start coverage for GSI to the end, NIOSH decided 

16 to extend it to the end for simplicity reasons, to 

17 the end of 1962, even though the radium was probably 

18 gone around May of '62.

19 But during the radium era, we decided 

20 on this triangular -- and that's already been 

21 accepted by everyone. The triangular 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

86

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 distribution with three points, the highest being 

2 the AEC limits on exposure, which were either 12 

3 rem or 15 rem depending on the year and the midpoint 

4 of the triangle was based on calculated exposures 

5 later using -- that's another issue that's been 

6 resolved -- later using MCNP model for the exposure 

7 of the operator inside this enclosure in No. 6 

8 building, and then the lower end would be assuming 

9 these are one and a half times to two millirem 

10 distance would be out in the open, for exposure out 

11 in the open.

12 Okay. So that's settled, and then the 

13 question came up, yes, but he can also -- and I 

14 brought up this, and I noticed when I saw the 

15 calculations done by the final results in Appendix 

16 BB Rev 1, I said wait a second, during this period 

17 of time, there is zero neutron dose and zero beta 

18 dose.

19 I said but if the same operator who 

20 works with the radium is also going to be spending 

21 time in the betatron building, then he would be 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

87

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 picking up neutron and beta dose. His photon dose 

2 remained the same because the AEC limits were 

3 observed according to the GSI supervisor who 

4 testified about the GSI letters, corresponded with 

5 GSI.

6 So that 12 and 15 rem, he doesn't pick 

7 up anything more of the type of radiation that would 

8 be picked up on the film badges, which are primarily 

9 medium to high-energy photons. But he could also 

10 be getting neutron dose, and there was no measure 

11 -- there was no monitoring of neutron dose and he 

12 will be getting beta dose from handling uranium and 

13 handling irradiated steel. Plus after -- during 

14 the betatron radiography.

15 So the question remains, and this was 

16 discussed at the last Work Group meeting and the 

17 Work Group recommended that some credit be given 

18 for time spent in the betatron building during the 

19 same shifts or alternate shifts of the radium 

20 radiography.

21 So now we're just discussing what 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

88

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 fraction of the time is reasonable to account for? 

2 So I summarized the NIOSH calculation. NIOSH says 

3 that there should be 15 minutes between each shot, 

4 each radiographic exposure using radium, because 

5 that was the agreed upon value for the betatron 

6 radiography for the large castings.

7 For the thinner casting, they actually 

8 used 12 minutes and therefore reproducing the 

9 implicit calculation there. So they do 15 minutes 

10 a shot and there are ten shots per shift.

11 That means 150 minutes or two and a half 

12 hours per shift are in between -- this is the set-up 

13 time, and then the radiographic exposures 

14 themselves take 30 percent of a shift at 2.4 hours 

15 and you take these two, 2.4 and 2.8, 2.5, subtract 

16 it from eight hours.

17 There's only 31, sorry 3.1 hours left 

18 over and you divide by eight, and that adds up to 

19 38.75 percent of the shift. However, our estimate 

20 is based on the fact that the one and only 

21 radiographer from the radium era that was available 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to be interviewed said in an interview, which I was 

2 -- not an interview which anyone else had 

3 participated in, but I did document it in a report 

4 in late 2011 or early 2012.

5 It was -- it took place on September 

6 27th, 2011 and he said he spent -- this man now 

7 worked in a chemistry lab during the weekdays, but 

8 he moonlighted as a radiographer. He had 

9 radiography experience outside of GSI. So they 

10 hired him to do radiography on the weekends, and 

11 he said he spent 50 to 60 percent of his time in 

12 the betatron building, and the rest presumably 

13 working with radium.

14 And his film dosimetry records -- and 

15 that does not reduce his exposure because his film 

16 dosimetry records that he furnished us, it's AEC 

17 Form 4, are consistent with that. You could say 

18 well he worked -- he said he worked 80 to 90 percent 

19 of the weekends and one or two shifts.

20 So he could either have 40 weeks with 

21 one shift or 90 times 2 would be 180 shifts a year, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and assigning the film badge records that were 

2 reported for him and extrapolating this, what would 

3 be a full time radiographer, it falls right into 

4 this distribution that's been agreed on.

5 So this does not reduce his overall 

6 dose, but it would allow him to get the beta and 

7 neutron dose that we already agreed on that the 

8 betatron operator gets. Then the further 

9 argument, this is what -- one argument is -- this 

10 man's testimony I think is the strongest argument, 

11 and also is this plausible. I mean could the man 

12 have been mistaken?

13 Well, how long does it really take? It 

14 took him 12 -- according to the same gentleman, it 

15 took him 12 to 15 seconds to transport the radium 

16 source from the lead pig and position it for the 

17 exposure, then another 12 to 15 seconds to remove 

18 it, because you don't move the film while the radium 

19 is exposed. It would give you a blurred image.

20 And so the radium, the pig, the lead pig 

21 containing the radium was right there in that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 little building in the No. 6 building, the little 

2 open roofless structure. The film was probably 

3 stored nearby. Probably had the film in his 

4 radiographer's office and I checked the exposure 

5 rate, the dose rate in that office. 

6 Would that be enough to fog the film and 

7 no, it was a very low dose rate. The films would 

8 probably be stored there as needed. In other 

9 words, you bring in a few films for that day's 

10 shooting.

11 And then there was no reason to run out 

12 after each shot and develop the film. It can wait 

13 until they accumulate if some of the shots are long. 

14 The average shot is 14 minutes and the longest shot 

15 will be 70 minutes. That's what the GSI officials 

16 told the AEC inspector.

17 So he could easily have waited for --

18 get a few shots, waited for a longer shot and got 

19 out and did that. So the 60 percent still allows 

20 ten percent of each shift. So it's like 45-50 

21 minutes for all this in between. We think that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this is a plausible upper bound, 

2 claimant-favorable.

3 We originally said 70 percent but we 

4 agreed with NIOSH. Okay, that is the actual 

5 exposure time not total time. So adding another 

6 ten percent of the time to the radium radiographer 

7 is plausible, and giving him -- leaving him 60 

8 percent.

9 Then again, the difference is now does 

10 it need to -- do they need to reposition the casting 

11 with the crane and the answer is no, because you 

12 have a big chunk, large plates say. You'll be 

13 moving the film. The casting would stay and you 

14 simply move the little stand that the radium sits 

15 on and you move the film appropriate -- to the 

16 appropriate location. 

17 And so you don't need very much time. 

18 Only when the casting has to be removed and a new 

19 casting put in, then you need another -- there will 

20 be more time spent on that. So it's a reasonable 

21 argument. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The other objection raised was, well, 

2 should he, during his time, the 60 percent of his 

3 time that he spent in the betatron, is that bias? 

4 Is that a bias to assume he did all the radium 

5 radiography? And my response is that it's not, 

6 that it's perfectly reasonable, because the 

7 maximum amount of time, the maximum hours of 

8 radiography based on the purchase records, is 

9 437-1/2 hours per year.

10 So that ends up to be 13.5 percent of 

11 a full-time worker, assuming, you know, we had 

12 3,250 hours per year is what we assumed. So, 

13 consequently, he could easily have been assigned 

14 all the radium, uranium radiography. If you say, 

15 well, that should be pro-rated, well, then the 

16 argument that a single radiographer was involved 

17 in all the uranium radiography is equally plausible 

18 or implausible, because you could say, well, he 

19 doesn't work all the time. Maybe others were doing 

20 it. 

21 But that's delimiting. We don't know 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

94

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 who did the reviewing in radiography. So we assume 

2 that however many hours of uranium radiography 

3 there were in a given year, any worker working there 

4 during that time would have been exposed to that.

5 So it's just as plausible to say that 

6 this one -- this 60 percent of his shift spent in 

7 the betatron building encompassed -- I mean, it 

8 wasn't uranium all the time, but it wasn't that much 

9 uranium radiography. But it would encompass the 

10 uranium done during that year.

11 So that's our proposal, is the 60 

12 percent, which would give you -- 60 percent would 

13 take the distribution of the photon doses that we 

14 already agreed on and add to that 60 percent of the 

15 -- no, add to it all of the beta and neutron dose 

16 from uranium handling for a given year, depending 

17 on the hours of uranium allotted for that year, and 

18 then the remaining of that 60 percent would be 

19 steel, which is lower. I mean, there are no 

20 neutrons given off by steel, and activated, whether 

21 it's activated or not. There is some neutrons. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

95

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 There is some neutron dose in the control room of 

2 the betatron, and also the beta dose from handling 

3 steel or uranium. 

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thanks. Dave 

5 has comments on that.

6 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, this is Dave. Quite 

7 possibly we discussed this last time and the Work 

8 Group weighed in and said they just thought that 

9 we should add some amount of time in the betatron 

10 to the radium radiography. And I think SC&A had 

11 agreed that 70 percent is probably too high, since 

12 that was based purely on the exposure time.

13 My task was to come up with a number and 

14 I came up with one in every part with the 38.75 

15 percent based on the 15 minutes in between. I 

16 thought it was reasonable and something we had to 

17 -- we could at least hang our hat on some 

18 information.

19 That comes out to be almost 40 percent. 

20 Bob now is talking about 60 percent. So we're in 

21 the right -- we're pretty close, you know, too close 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not to come to some agreement on some number today. 

2 Like before, I'd just like to get an opinion out 

3 of the Work Group on that.

4 But the bigger issue on this one is that 

5 uranium biasing. I can't find -- I mean, Bob's 

6 saying that's a small percentage of its time, I 

7 think is what he implied there. But it's still 

8 400-some hours a year. If it were a task that took 

9 ten minutes or an hour or something a year, then 

10 anything's possible and you go with the worst case.

11 But when you're talking about a bigger 

12 percentage of the year, we would normally go with 

13 the norm or the averages or whatever, what usually 

14 happens. That's essentially what we want to do, 

15 is go with whatever percentage of the betatron 

16 operator dose and not bias it towards all uranium 

17 with enough steel to make up the difference.

18 That just doesn't seem like it's 

19 plausible at all that one guy did all the radium 

20 radiography and in his spare time went over and did 

21 all the uranium radiography and then worked on 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

97

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 steel for the rest of his year.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: My comment on that is, 

3 during these earlier years, the betatron was not 

4 that busy. The very, very heavy use of the 

5 betatron came after the new betatron building was 

6 put in. Because at that time, remember, some of 

7 the Eddystone facility was still working, was 

8 operating.

9 By coincidence, the Eddystone facility 

10 shut down in the year after the radium era ended. 

11 So the betatron was very heavily used in '64, '65, 

12 '66. But it's not implausible to say maybe the 

13 same person shuttled back and forth. Okay, now 

14 he's doing radium. He's finished with the radium 

15 work for the day and now he walks over to the 

16 betatron, which is in a separate building outside 

17 there, and does -- and all we have from uranium, 

18 H.O. -- I'm just making up a name -- you do the 

19 uranium work. 

20 So it's not like you have full-time 

21 crews in both places. And the uranium work, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

98

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 apparently, according to the gentleman I 

2 interviewed, was done by one person at first and 

3 later they decided to speed it up and to put on two 

4 or three people.

5 And since we don't know who did what, 

6 we're always assigning -- I agree with you; as Dave 

7 pointed out, one person can't be in two places at 

8 the same time. He can't be 100 percent in the 

9 betatron, 100 percent in the radium or 100 percent 

10 on layout. But once we divide up his time, we 

11 should assume that he was doing the work that would 

12 give him the highest dose. 

13 That's part of his job assignment and 

14 it's, you know, logistically plausible that you can 

15 be in that room. And since, again, the highest 

16 uranium, the highest uranium work in the betatron 

17 is 13.5 percent, and most of it is probably more 

18 like ten percent or less, and he's in there 60 

19 percent of the time. That's not unreasonable.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And are you saying 

21 that that distribution will be the same each year 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for each person?

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. It would be based 

3 on whatever is the uranium work for that year. You 

4 know, the uranium hours differ year by year.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And then 

6 you're proposing that the other part be, what is 

7 it, 40 percent? No.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. I would say, 

9 yeah, 40 percent. Forty percent of your time is 

10 spent with radium; 30 percent doing the exposures 

11 and then ten percent setup and overhead work. 

12 Setup and development and so forth.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So the spread of that 

14 would change each year, depending on the uranium 

15 value?

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly, just like it 

17 is in the current model for the betatron operators. 

18 Their dose changes year by year.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

20 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, Paul, this is Dave. 

21 I think the difference is that right now we have 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a betatron operator estimate based on the kind of 

2 work that was going on in the betatron, whereas what 

3 SC&A is recommending at this point is one person 

4 doing all the radium radiography and all the 

5 uranium radiography and filling in the rest of his 

6 time with steel radiography in the betatron.

7 And there's really no reason to believe 

8 that one person did, you know, all that stuff. 

9 Otherwise, we wouldn't have the estimate we had for 

10 the betatron operator.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But we wouldn't -- but 

12 it's not impossible, and as long as one person could 

13 have done it, it's not even implausible.

14 (Simultaneous speaking.)

15 MR. ALLEN: -- if it's even possible. 

16 Credibility and plausibility kind of goes out the 

17 door and we're just talking physically possible.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let's have 

19 others weigh in on this.

20 MR. ALLEN: But you would have to have 

21 somebody that's supervising and coordinating to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

101

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 get this one person on all these highest exposure 

2 jobs.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. They had a 

4 supervisor. You had a resident supervisor in the 

5 betatron building. This is the deceased gentleman 

6 who was a metallurgist and also a supervisor, and 

7 he had his office in the old betatron building.

8 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, but --

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So he presumably was in 

10 charge, and then someone else, there would be some 

11 roving supervisor that would be involved in the 

12 radium work. As a matter of fact, there was one 

13 -- I take it back. That was it. The one who's on 

14 record, who had talked to the AEC, was the overall 

15 supervisor for all the radiography. And his name 

16 appears on some of the reports, even some of the 

17 dosimetry reports as who it was mailed to.

18 So he had attended some schools. He 

19 had some special training. All of that is in the 

20 FOIA that GSI submitted to AEC to support their 

21 application, you know, support their 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

102

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 qualifications for the cobalt. Remember, they 

2 were only asking for AEC approval for the cobalt 

3 work. They did not need anyone's approval for the 

4 betatron. 

5 But so you had one supervisor overall, 

6 a senior person in the company, who -- I mean, you 

7 were using experienced radiographers. They did 

8 not need someone supervising, watching over their 

9 shoulder everything they did. They simply said, 

10 here's your duties for today. 

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So I can sort of see 

12 a person doing all that on a given day, but on an 

13 extended basis, it would be a little hard to 

14 imagine, like for a year. It seems like it's got 

15 to be distributed over multiple people. Do you see 

16 what I'm saying?

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, and my point is 

18 I'm not even sure if the betatron was necessarily 

19 operating during the time that the radium 

20 radiography was going on, because that old 

21 betatron, in those early years, apparently was not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that busy. 

2 I don't know that, but it's not that --

3 later, in the later years, those last three years, 

4 when GSI, the Granite City foundry, got all the work 

5 that had previously been done at Eddystone, then 

6 it was very, very busy. That's where all of the 

7 overtime came in, even though we're assigning the 

8 overtime to the earlier years by consensus.

9 But that overtime of 50 -- the range was 

10 50 to 80 hours; we settled on 65 as the consensus 

11 number -- really applied to the new betatron era. 

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So we've got 

13 two issues here. One is the 60 percent versus 40 

14 percent issue. The other is this 400 -- is it 400 

15 hours a year? 

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think there's only 

17 one issue. Oh, I'm sorry. You're right. 

18 Forgive me, Paul. You're right. 

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I mean, on the first 

20 issue, you know, you're adding in the additional 

21 -- the Work Group had recommended that NIOSH come 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

104

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 up with a value for that. That's where, Dave, you 

2 came up with the 38.5 percent, right?

3 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, that's right.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then NIOSH -- or 

5 SC&A, in their review, said that perhaps it should 

6 be as high as 60 percent. Is that correct? This 

7 is the beta from steel, I think, right?

8 MR. ALLEN: This is the percentage of 

9 the time that somebody was working -- that a radium 

10 worker was also working in the betatron.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay. 

12 Percentage of time that they were working in the 

13 betatron.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, we're close to 40 

16 percent or 60 percent or somewhere in between. 

17 That's one issue. The other issue -- is it the 

18 specific number of hours per year on the other 

19 issue? 

20 MR. ALLEN: The other issue is the 

21 uranium radiography and the hours per year varied 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

105

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 by year.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, per year, 

3 right. So the --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's agreed on. 

5 Where we don't agree is, if the worker spent an X 

6 percentage of his time in the betatron building, 

7 is it plausible that, during that time, he did all 

8 the radium, if he was involved in all the uranium 

9 radiography over the course of a year, or only a 

10 fraction of that uranium radiography. 

11 In other words, the solution that Dave 

12 is proposing would assume that the betatron was 

13 operating all the time and the uranium radiography 

14 was just interspersed among the steel radiography 

15 at random. And then the radium worker walks into 

16 the betatron building and some of the uranium 

17 radiography would be done during the time that he 

18 was in the betatron building, and some of the 

19 uranium radiography will be done during the time 

20 he was in the No. 6 building working with the 

21 radium.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So I understand Dave's position and our 

2 position is it's not unreasonable that the uranium 

3 radiography was only on the order of a maximum of 

4 13.5 percent -- sometimes it's a much smaller 

5 percentage of that time -- that it's not 

6 unreasonable that during the 60 percent of his 

7 shifts that he spent in the radiography, in the 

8 betatron building, he could have done all the 

9 uranium that happened to have come in during that 

10 period of time.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. While we're 

12 pondering this, let me get Dr. McKeel's comments.

13 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. Can 

14 you hear me?

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

16 DR. McKEEL: Okay. These are my 

17 comments on Finding 5. I think the Work Group 

18 needs to understand that that lone radiographer 

19 that Dr. Anigstein mentioned, who gave him his 

20 interview about the radium work, entrusted me to 

21 be his personal representative, which I still am, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for his film badge records, which we had to obtain 

2 through the FOIA process.

3 And Dr. Anigstein asked himself a 

4 question earlier on. He said, one thing that has 

5 to be considered is can you actually trust 

6 everything that that particular worker had to say? 

7 I think you can. I think he's a very honest person.

8 However, what I want you all to consider 

9 is, how well can you trust the data that really has 

10 been collected about that person? For example, we 

11 asked for his complete R.S. Landauer Program 208-4 

12 film badge records. 

13 What we first got back was pretty 

14 complete data for 1964 through 1973, with the 

15 exception of '64 and '66. The 1965 data was very 

16 legible. Subsequently, we got the 1964 data; that 

17 was way less legible, but at least it seemed to be 

18 fairly complete. And I'm talking about now the 

19 weekly film badge records from GSI that NIOSH 

20 obtained under contract with Landauer in January 

21 of 2008.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But, interestingly, that second time 

2 around there was no, zero, 1966 data for this 

3 gentleman. And so I went through several 

4 communications and finally the DCAS Director, I 

5 believe, it wasn't quite clear who sent it, but I 

6 got a one-page record for one week in 1966, and 

7 that's all the data we could get for that gentleman.

8 So, I tell that story because his 

9 regular film badge data was not complete, at least 

10 what was supplied to me. Also, I'd like to comment 

11 that that individual is very well-known to both Mr. 

12 Ramspott and I. We have interviewed him, between 

13 us and individually, I wrote him a series of 

14 questions about his film badge records, 

15 particularly that 1966 one.

16 So we've corresponded and talked and 

17 met in person extensively. And my take on that is, 

18 I have asked whether this gentleman, what he 

19 remembered about his betatron experience at GSI. 

20 How long he worked, which buildings he worked in, 

21 and in particular did he have anything at all to 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do with the uranium NDT work from Mallinckrodt 

2 while he was employed at GSI.

3 And we could never get a positive 

4 reaction about that. So when I hear from Dr. 

5 Anigstein, which of course I believe, that back in 

6 2011, in September, this same person said that he 

7 split his time 60 percent in the betatron area and 

8 the rest of the time doing radium NDT work.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: 50 to 60.

10 DR. McKEEL: Well, 50 to 60, fine. 

11 That's more specificity than we ever listed. Now, 

12 it certainly could be this was different times and 

13 Dr. Anigstein is an expert interviewer. 

14 But the other comment is that that gentleman 

15 is not the only gentleman that we all know that 

16 worked at GSI during the radium era who was a 

17 radiographer. And let's just say that 

18 [identifying information redacted] is the person's 

19 initial. I'm sure that will be redacted as well. 

20 But that person is well-known to us, and he was a 

21 supervisor. But he also made regular trips down 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to the radium radiography building in Building 6. 

2 So he had a lot to say about what the activities 

3 were down there, and he also didn't know very much 

4 about the betatron activity versus the radium 

5 activity and who did what when. 

6 And as a matter of fact, it's almost a 

7 total black box, except for a few deceased workers, 

8 who actually worked -- what was the size of the 

9 radiographer group at GSI between 1952 and 1962? 

10 Or really in '63, actually, when the radium sources 

11 were stopped using in 1962. They started using 

12 cobalt, and then the radium -- and then the Landauer 

13 film badge records started to come in on a weekly 

14 basis in 1964.

15 So we really don't know very much about 

16 who did what in that case. This gentleman that 

17 we're talking about, his earlier film badge record 

18 really was a one-page summary. There were never 

19 any film badge records found. The vendor was not 

20 identified clearly. So, all we have is a 

21 18-quarter summary of film badge data. We don't 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

111

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 have any data on any betatron radiographer between 

2 1958 and 1952. So, you know, some of the things 

3 we're talking about today was critical actually to 

4 both issues.

5 One thing we can say, I think, 

6 unequivocally, and that is that one individual did 

7 not do all of the radium radiography and all of the 

8 betatron uranium radiography during the radium era 

9 that lasted ten years. And there is no positive 

10 evidence, I don't believe, from any interview I've 

11 ever seen or any conversation I've had with 

12 [identifying information redacted], that he in 

13 fact did any, a single uranium shot while he was 

14 a betatron operator at GSI.

15 Finally, there's comment that Dr. 

16 Anigstein made twice during this presentation, 

17 that during the early years the old betatron 

18 building was not very busy. And I want to say that 

19 I think that is -- not only is that not 

20 substantiated, but I think it's really not helpful 

21 to make those kind of comments.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 You know, "not very busy" is not what 

2 I have heard. Now, not very busy perhaps compared 

3 to the peak year after the Eddystone Castings 

4 Division moved its operations down to Granite City. 

5 That may be true. But I just want to put on the 

6 record again, there is zero, Z-E-R-O, no extant 

7 data on the quantity of castings that were shot at 

8 GSI with the betatrons or with the radium for any 

9 year.

10 We have no -- just there is no 

11 information about that, and there really is no way. 

12 We have 109 film badge records from mostly GSI 

13 radiographers, but that includes some GSI 

14 supervisors who really probably never operated the 

15 betatron machines themselves and so forth. But 

16 that's out of a workforce that varied between three 

17 and five thousand people over 13 years that GSI held 

18 its contract with Mallinckrodt.

19 So, what we're talking about here is 

20 really and truly guesses. And then we get into 

21 plausibility and so forth and so on. So, here's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what I would say. The most plausible -- let's put 

2 it this way. The highest dose, most 

3 claimant-favorable assumption that you could make 

4 was that betatron radiographers spent -- during the 

5 radium era -- spent one percent of their time doing 

6 betatron work. Because the betatron values have 

7 now been demoted tenfold from what they were back 

8 in 2008.

9 So, now you would think, based on the 

10 latest models, that betatron operators got very low 

11 doses but the radium other workers, the layout men, 

12 they got the highest doses, and that dose is being

13 assigned to the betatron people. So the 

14 assumption that would be the most favorable would 

15 be that they did betatron work one percent of the 

16 time; 99 percent of the time they did radium work.

17 Well, that's not plausible either. 

18 So, the truth of the matter is we're trying to 

19 assign a number which really cannot be ascertained. 

20 It is, at the very best, a guess. And another way 

21 to look at this that I've looked at it since 2005, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 is that it is time to use some assumptions as long 

2 as it doesn't go over into the area of 

3 implausibility.

4 And I think trying to assign a dose 

5 based on the testimony of a single person, who 

6 probably did not do any uranium radiography and who 

7 really, for us, can't remember very much about 

8 anything about his betatron work, but seems to 

9 remember an exquisite amount about his radium work, 

10 to put a whole scenario on that one person's 

11 testimony seems very scientifically questionable 

12 to me. And I would assert that it's not defensible 

13 and it's not plausible. 

14 So, I don't know how this will all come 

15 out. My feeling was that when you get to that point 

16 of implausibility, then you've also got to get to 

17 the point where we can't really calculate that dose 

18 with any sufficient accuracy. And that gets us 

19 into the area that I'm sure you all do not want to 

20 get into, which is that, at GSI, a lot of doses have 

21 been assigned in that way at GSI. And, you know, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's one of the reasons I continue to believe and 

2 fight for GSI should have been awarded an SEC ten 

3 years ago.

4 So, I'll let it go at that. The other 

5 thing I have to point out is that when you're 

6 talking about the uranium work and the peak loads, 

7 and in the old betatron years there wasn't very 

8 much, it wasn't very busy, I'd like to remind you 

9 that what the purchase orders actually show is that 

10 the peak year for uranium NDT at GSI was 1962, which 

11 actually is the year the radium era ended, and it 

12 is also before the work came in from Eddystone, 

13 which was primarily steel castings. There wasn't 

14 any uranium work that came in from Eddystone. 

15 So, the uranium work was actually 

16 diluted out as a percentage of the total in 1963 

17 to 1966. So, in 1963, '64, '65 and '66, the uranium 

18 hours actually were on the decline. And of course, 

19 in 1966 the AEC contract was over. So that's where 

20 I'd like to leave it. Thank you.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Dan, thank 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you. Let's see. Well, let me ask Dave or Bob if 

2 there are any responses or comments on those 

3 issues, or Board Members.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I have some comments, 

5 unless Dave wants to go first.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, go ahead.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Two things. 

8 One is, about the fact that this gentleman, the 

9 radium radiographer, we only had one that we knew, 

10 did not do any -- he does not recall doing uranium 

11 work. The contract from Mallinckrodt 

12 specifically said that the uranium work must be 

13 done Monday through Friday from 7:30 until 4:00, 

14 something like that.

15 They apparently would -- they wanted to 

16 avoid having their costs increase, or at least the 

17 productivity, the return of the money they assigned 

18 decrease by having workers who would be getting a 

19 shift differential. Presumably, because the 

20 workers in the evening and possibly the weekend 

21 workers would get a higher pay rate, and therefore 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for the same number of dollars they would do less 

2 work on the uranium. At least that's what in the 

3 -- I'm just speculating for the reason, but that 

4 was in the contract.

5 So if these gentleman only did the 

6 betatron work on the radiography on weekends, he 

7 most likely would not have been doing uranium work. 

8 But I'm just using him as a surrogate for the 

9 full-time radiographer that would work, you know, 

10 normal shifts and might very well have been doing 

11 uranium work.

12 So the fact that he does not recall the 

13 uranium work does not discredit that assumption. 

14 And that's one thing. And I think Dr. McKeel 

15 misunderstands what we're doing here. The time 

16 assigned to the radiographer that he would spend 

17 in the betatron does not decrease his exposure to 

18 the radium. We have already assigned his radium 

19 exposure with a triangular distribution. We are 

20 simply now adding neutron dose and skin dose to the 

21 photon dose, which there's no disagreement on. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 That's already been established. 

2 So, what Dr. McKeel is arguing is 

3 actually a reduction in the dose given to these 

4 workers. I don't think that's what he intends.

5 DR. McKEEL: Okay, well, let me --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And as far as -- let me 

7 just say one other thing. And as far as the 

8 plausibility of his film badge, the film badge 

9 records for those 18 quarters, this was done by this 

10 company, I think it was called Nuclear Consulting 

11 Company, Corporation. It was just one gentleman 

12 really. 

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no --

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Let me finish, please.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I'm not going 

16 to let you finish. We've gone over that issue many 

17 times.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, I'm sorry. I 

19 didn't realize it was you speaking.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We don't need to 

21 rehash that.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

119

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 (Simultaneous speaking.)

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The radium doses 

3 will be assigned a surface. So we're talking about 

4 some add-ons here for the neutrons and the betas. 

5 And I think we were close on the betas, right, 

6 between the two of you, between SC&A and NIOSH. 

7 Was that the 38 percent issue?

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. Right now, 

9 we're on the 60 -- we're on two things. We're on 

10 the 60-40, 60-30, round numbers, 60-40 issue. And 

11 whether during that 60-40 time, should all the 

12 uranium work over the course of the year be given 

13 to the same worker? Or should it only be a 

14 fractional part? That's the two things I was 

15 separating out.

16 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is Dan 

17 McKeel again. I'd say that, from our rosters, we 

18 do know that there were lots more than one 

19 radiographer present at GSI in those first ten 

20 years. So, to have one person assigned all of that 

21 dose --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that's what I 

2 saying, too, Dan. I can see a person on a given 

3 day rather than on an extended basis. It wouldn't 

4 make sense to me. But, anyway, can we -- I wonder 

5 if we can deal with these two pieces separately. 

6 Is that possible? How badly are they linked in 

7 your mind, Dave?

8 MR. ALLEN: I'm sorry, Paul. You were 

9 a little too garbled there. I couldn't understand 

10 what you said.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sorry, I've got to 

12 get that speaker thing. I wonder if we can 

13 separate these two issues. Do you think they're 

14 linked or can they do the -- can we deal with the 

15 60-40 issue and then the other?

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, they're not. 

17 They're complimentary, but they're not linked.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, that's what I'm 

19 thinking. I'm trying to get a feel, for example, 

20 would it make sense to both of you if we said, okay, 

21 why don't we go with something like 50 percent 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

121

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 instead of we're at 60 and 40 and it's an estimate 

2 anyway?

3 MR. ALLEN: This is Dave. I'm not 

4 going to have an objection to whatever the Work 

5 Group recommends on that particular parameter.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, I would go with the 

7 50, because that's within the range that this 

8 worker said. He said 50 to 60. So, 50 is okay.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: How about John? How 

10 about Josie?

11 MEMBER BEACH: I would agree with the 

12 50 percent.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, John? I 

14 wonder if John's on mute now.

15 (Pause.)

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Not hearing 

17 anything. John, are you there? Are the rest of you 

18 hearing me? Am I on mute?

19 MR. KATZ: No, I hear you. I don't 

20 have an email from John Poston saying "I'm signing 

21 off" or anything. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MEMBER BEACH: Well, he may have just 

2 grabbed a quick break.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, okay.

4 MR. KATZ: We've been going for a 

5 while.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I'm not 

7 really sure how to handle the next part, though. 

8 I mean, we've already got two of us that agreed on 

9 50 percent, so I think we go with that.

10 MEMBER BEACH: And Dave agreed with 

11 that also.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, and so did Bob. 

13 I mean in terms of the Work Group Members. What's 

14 our -- clarify for me now, Dave, what are you guys 

15 recommending for the other issue?

16 MR. ALLEN: Okay. Well, you know, 

17 assuming we're settled on this 50 percent thing, 

18 it's basically saying that the radium radiographer 

19 went to the betatron and worked half of his time. 

20 Our assumption is that means he gets half of the 

21 betatron operator doses.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, right.

2 MR. ALLEN: That simple.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So that fixes your 

4 other parameter?

5 MR. ALLEN: Now, Bob has a different 

6 opinion on that he gets half of the betatron 

7 operator doses.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. What's the 

9 implication for you, Bob?

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The implication for me 

11 is that this -- I'm saying that it's plausible that

12 during that 50 percent of -- if that matter is 

13 accepted at 50 percent -- that during that 50 

14 percent of the time on the betatron, he may have 

15 done all of the uranium work for that year, because 

16 the uranium work is at most 13.5 percent of the 

17 total time.

18 So it's not implausible that the 

19 uranium came in, or he was assigned that uranium 

20 work, during the time that he was absent from the 

21 radium. And, you know, I mean, I could invent 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

124

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 reasons which are --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no. I'm trying 

3 to get a feel for how far apart you are.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, it would be --

5 most of the neutron and beta dose received by the 

6 radiographers, the betatron operators, comes from 

7 the uranium. That's why in the years when they do 

8 less uranium and they do only -- the beta dose goes 

9 down significantly. 

10 So, in a slightly exaggerated sense, 

11 you will be cutting his beta dose by half. In 

12 reality, he'll get a little more than half, because 

13 you'll still be getting something from the steel. 

14 But you would be, in simple terms, saying you're 

15 cutting his neutron dose and his beta dose by half. 

16 In reality, it's a little less than -- he'll be 

17 getting a little more than half. 

18 And the handling of the uranium is by 

19 far the biggest contribution to the beta skin dose, 

20 at least to the hands and forearms.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I was on mute again. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So your 60 percent was from beta dose from the 

2 steel, right? So that's going to go to -- if that 

3 goes to 50 percent.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, what's the 

6 implication --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's a little more 

8 complicated. In other words, what he will be 

9 getting is, for the betatron operator that is 100 

10 percent in the betatron, his dose comes from all 

11 the uranium work for the year and then whatever 

12 shifts are left over, which is most of the time.

13 Most of the time is spent on steel, no 

14 matter how heavy the uranium work is. The uranium 

15 work is a maximum of 13.5 percent of the time. So, 

16 most of the dose comes -- most of the time is based 

17 from the steel. But by far the biggest dose during 

18 the years of heavy uranium radiography, and heavy 

19 means 13.5 percent, comes from the uranium. 

20 So, by saying, no, he only did half the 

21 uranium work, that means he only gets half the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

126

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 uranium dose, the field dose being much smaller 

2 except in the final years, when there was very 

3 little uranium work.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, no, but --

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And by the way, that 

6 doesn't count. I take it back.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no. The 50 

8 percent that we were talking about is using 50 

9 instead of 60.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, which is a 

11 compromise.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That was in the first 

13 part, yeah. Okay. Now, where does that leave you 

14 on the second issue? That's what I'm asking.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: My position doesn't 

16 change; it's just that it's a different number. 

17 But the position is -- and also what's important 

18 to remember is, as it happens -- and let me just 

19 flip through that -- the uranium -- there was far 

20 more uranium work. 

21 As it happened -- the radium era, okay. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The uranium work decreases steadily. '52 to '57 

2 is the highest. '58 is somewhat lower. '59 to '60 

3 is lower. '61 is actually higher than the previous 

4 three years. 

5 So, when you end, by coincidence, the 

6 number of shifts devoted to uranium between 1952 

7 and 1962 is 35. It varies between -- round numbers 

8 between 35 and 55 shifts a year. '63, when the 

9 radium era is over, it drops to ten, again I'm 

10 rounding off, and it steadily goes down.

11 So, the uranium work as a contribution 

12 to the dose is really important, by coincidence, 

13 during the radium era. So, by reducing the amount 

14 of uranium exposure during that time, you're 

15 reducing the doses significantly. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let me ask it 

17 in a different way. I'll ask both you and Dave. 

18 And Bob, on the -- I'm just going to refer here now 

19 to the -- to Dave Allen's paper, very end of the 

20 paper. And, Dave, it's Item 5 on the last page of 

21 your document. "Biasing of data trend dose 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

128

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 fraction toward uranium work," alright? 

2 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I'm following.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, okay. What I'm 

4 asking you and what I'm asking Bob is, how much is 

5 it biased in your model versus Bob's?

6 MR. ALLEN: Are you asking for what the 

7 difference would be in the numbers?

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think I'm asking 

9 what the difference is in the numbers and how far 

10 apart they are. 

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: For the dose to the 

12 hands and forearms, it's almost a factor of two. 

13 MR. ALLEN: No, no, no. For the hands 

14 and forearms?

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, because --

16 MR. ALLEN: Oh, okay, the whole 

17 overall. Yes, you're right.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, right. Because 

19 the steel does not make that much of a contribution 

20 to the hands and forearms. Whereas to the other 

21 skin, because the radiation is longer range, it's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

129

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 like 50-50 between the steel and the uranium. So 

2 it's not that drastic a difference. 

3 But to the hands and forearms, the vast 

4 majority of the -- for the '52 to '62 period, the 

5 vast majority of the dose to the hands and forearms 

6 is from uranium. So by cutting the uranium work 

7 in half, you cut the dose by maybe 40 percent, 

8 depending on the year.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: When you say you're 

10 cutting the uranium work in the half --

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: In other words, I'm 

12 saying that we should let the worker do -- the 

13 uranium worker -- assume the uranium worker, during 

14 that 50 percent of his time in the betatron, did 

15 all the uranium work that the betatron did that 

16 year. And by saying he only did half the uranium 

17 work, his dose goes down almost a factor of two. 

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Where does the half 

19 come from? Who's cut in half?

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Because his dose, the 

21 dose to his hands and forearms --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I'm saying where 

2 did you get the half to start with?

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, I'm saying 

4 that. It comes from the uranium. So if he only 

5 worked half -- in other words, there are -- let's 

6 see. There were -- for instance, in this first 

7 period, '52 to '57, there were 54.7 shifts of 

8 uranium work. Or we can do it in hours, which makes 

9 more sense.

10 So let's say, in round numbers, let's 

11 say they had 400 hours of uranium work done. 437, 

12 okay. Let's say there's 400 hours of uranium 

13 hours. Did he do 400 hours of uranium work during 

14 the time that he was in the betatron? Or did he only 

15 do 200 hours on a year to year, per year? That's 

16 where the half comes in.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Is that 

18 showing up in your table, Dave?

19 MR. ALLEN: No, these issues were 

20 related. I'm trying to think of what table I have 

21 here.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, trying to pick 

2 out where this difference is arising between your 

3 two

4 MR. ALLEN: This is why I had the order 

5 on my report. You know, the findings were out of 

6 order, it seemed like, because of the interrelation 

7 between these. You can't really come up with all 

8 the numbers for one issue without knowing what the 

9 numbers are going to be on another issue. That's 

10 why you don't see numbers in there.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

12 MR. ALLEN: So, I mean, Bob, I think 

13 it's a reasonable guesstimate right now that it 

14 would be around 40 percent. The numbers used in 

15 what I'm talking about would be, for hands and 

16 forearms, really about 40 percent lower than the 

17 numbers he would propose. 

18 They would both be considerably higher 

19 than what you would see today in Rev 1, or any of 

20 the numbers in any of our reports. Essentially, 

21 what it comes down to is Bob's would be very close 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to 100 percent of the betatron operator dose plus 

2 100 percent of the radium operator dose. Because 

3 as he said, hands and forearms, almost all the dose 

4 is from the uranium.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. But your 

7 percentage values are arising out of assumptions, 

8 then?

9 MR. ALLEN: I'm not sure what you mean 

10 by that, Paul.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the hours that 

12 you're assuming of exposure per year.

13 MR. ALLEN: Well, they came from our 

14 analysis of the purchase orders that we had. 

15 That's been well-established all along on what we 

16 did there.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah.

18 MR. ALLEN: I'm just saying, if we're 

19 saying he worked in the betatron half the time, you 

20 get half of the betatron operator dose. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: That's all I'm saying.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's an 

3 assumption, though.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, Dave is saying that 

5 it's half of a full-time betatron operator dose.

6 MR. ALLEN: Basically Bob's asking us 

7 to change what the assumptions are we've gone with 

8 before with the betatron operator dose. 

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's why I'm 

10 trying to pin that down. Where is that coming 

11 from?

12 MR. ALLEN: It originally came from 

13 purchase orders from Mallinckrodt. We have an 

14 estimate of these uranium work hours are per year. 

15 We estimated what the dose per shift of uranium work 

16 you would get, and the dose per shift for steel 

17 work. And then based on 3,250 a year minus the 

18 uranium work hours, that's the steel work. The 

19 uranium work hours was the uranium work hours, and 

20 putting that all together we came up with a betatron 

21 operator dose. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now, for hands and foot and for maybe 

2 some others, the uranium work is a higher dose.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah.

4 MR. ALLEN: And I'd say there's no 

5 reason to bias it. As you said, you can believe 

6 one person did all the radium and all the uranium 

7 on a particular day, but not on an extended basis. 

8 And I'm agreeing 100 percent with that, saying 

9 there should be no biasing. It's simply, if he 

10 worked in the betatron building half the time, he 

11 got half the full time betatron operator dose. 

12 That's all I'm saying.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Now, on 

14 average that would seem to make sense for the group.

15 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And, Bob, 

17 what you're proposing would basically say that 

18 every person -- you're sort of saying every person 

19 has that chance, but when you're working with the 

20 population, would you assign it to every person?

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. But I guess my 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

135

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 philosophy, my thoughts about dose reconstruction 

2 in general is, you know, we're not calculating 

3 doses to the average person. You're calculating 

4 doses to the highest plausible, highest reasonable 

5 doses. So, not knowing what person did what, you 

6 make the bounding assumption.

7 So, you know, when any particular 

8 person comes up for dose reconstruction, you don't 

9 know which one, whether he did all of the uranium 

10 work or none of it. 

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, understood.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So it's not 

13 implausible that since the uranium work that took, 

14 again, on the order of ten percent of the total work 

15 during --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the way I was 

17 viewing it, it's not implausible for a day but I 

18 think it's implausible for a year. 

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But there's only a 

20 limited number of days they did uranium work, 50 

21 days of the year max.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, you know, 

2 you'd still have to be saying that one person --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, it's --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Not knowing who it 

5 was, but that one person could have done that, they 

6 would be the only one doing that 50 days a year. 

7 Well, that's the issue, then. We need 

8 to get some feedback from the Work Group.

9 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah. Bob, this is 

10 Josie. It's a tough one, because I can see both 

11 sides of the issue. And I think, again, it's 

12 somewhere in the middle. But they're apart 40 

13 percent, so it's a tough one.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So I think, then, 

15 under the current NIOSH model, which was actually 

16 based on the earlier assumption that we made on 

17 that, was it not, that the Work Group made?

18 MR. ALLEN: The doses for the betatron 

19 operator, assuming somebody was 100 percent 

20 betatron operator, those assumptions have been 

21 hashed out, yes. Is that what you mean?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, yeah. Hadn't 

2 we agreed on a position that -- I'd have to go back 

3 into the notes and records, but hadn't we agreed 

4 on a position about how much time a typical worker 

5 would spend there?

6 MR. ALLEN: Well, we calculated for 100 

7 percent of the time working there, but it's 

8 percentage of time with uranium, with short shots, 

9 with long shots. We did all that based on 

10 essentially averages.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right. 

12 That's what yours is based on, right?

13 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, are you seeing 

15 that differently?

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm not sure. I think 

17 I lost what was being said just now. Can you 

18 restate that?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dave, do you want to 

20 restate that?

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I think Paul 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

138

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 asked about the assumptions that went into the 

2 betatron operator dose, the current estimate for 

3 betatron operator dose. And I said, yeah, you 

4 know, the parameters had been hashed out as far as 

5 how much time was uranium work versus steel work, 

6 how much steel work was long shots versus shorts 

7 shots, et cetera.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. But I don't 

9 think there's any disagreement on that now.

10 MR. ALLEN: Right. Well, I think it 

11 was a question from Paul, and I've tried to answer 

12 it and that's how I answered it.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, okay. Okay. 

14 No, the only remaining issue is --

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Those were 

16 parameters agreed to, but are you saying that this 

17 is an additional?

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, let's see. We

19 just settled Issue 2, which was how to calculate 

20 the skin --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I'm talking 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about previously. Not today. Previously, we 

2 agreed on parameters for betatron operators.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think the only thing 

4 that we agreed on previously was the photon dose, 

5 the triangular distribution for the radium 

6 workers. That's the only thing, I believe, there 

7 was firm agreement. 

8 MR. ALLEN: No, wait, wait, wait. I 

9 think Paul's talking about betatron operator now.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, betatron.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, okay. I don't 

12 think we had firm agreement on the betatron 

13 operators dose. I think all of that is being 

14 settled today.

15 MR. ALLEN: We had firm agreement on a 

16 whole lot of parameters.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. We did on the 

18 work hours.

19 MR. ALLEN: We passed files back and 

20 forth, I don't know how many times, trying to make 

21 sure our math was all right.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

2 MR. ALLEN: And you found an error or 

3 two that we had to correct.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, for the skin 

5 dose.

6 MR. ALLEN: For the skin dose.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, right. No, no, 

8 that's fine.

9 MR. ALLEN: But, I mean, are you trying 

10 to say there was not firm agreement with how many 

11 short shots, long shots?

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, yeah, no, no. 

13 That wasn't an issue. I misspoke. No, certainly 

14 there was. Certainly there was. 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I'm still 

16 trying to get a feel for how to handle this 

17 particular issue, as to whether or not this is a 

18 new assignment that has to be made on the work hours 

19 assigned to these folks or is it a change from what 

20 we had previously agreed on?

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I don't think 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

141

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 there's any -- anything that was previously agreed 

2 on still stands. This is just one last wrinkle 

3 that has not been worked out.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So it boils down to 

5 whether or not we want to assign everybody that dose 

6 as if they were doing what you described all the 

7 time.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's see. I guess 

10 I need to get Jim Neton's expertise on the bounding 

11 issue. Is that what we would really mean by 

12 bounding in this case?

13 DR. NETON: Well, I mean, I agree with 

14 Dave on this. It's a real stretch to assume that 

15 the radiographer did all of the uranium work all 

16 the time. That's what we're saying. Every piece 

17 of uranium work that was done at GSI was done by 

18 a radiographer. That's what Bob is saying, and I 

19 don't buy that.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, if we forget

21 about the radium work for the moment, we've already 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

142

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 agreed that all the uranium work that came into GSI 

2 was done, for any given betatron operator, he was 

3 on duty and participating in that work, because we 

4 just take -- the total number of uranium hours 

5 determined from the work orders. That's how long 

6 the uranium was being handled. And we've already 

7 decided to give the maximum dose to a betatron 

8 operator, that he did all of those shifts. So 

9 that's already been -- that's established. That's 

10 already agreed on.

11 DR. NETON: Right. But that's --

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And now I'm saying --

13 DR. NETON: It's for an operator, not 

14 radiographer.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah. But now I'm 

16 saying --

17 DR. NETON: He's saying there's no 

18 class -- the betatron operators did none of the

19 uranium work, is what you're saying.

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

21 saying --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. NETON: Who did it, then?

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon? No, I didn't 

3 say that. I'm saying it was agreed on that, if 

4 we're considering the betatron exposure scenario, 

5 we're saying he did all of the uranium work for that 

6 year. Participated. There was more than one 

7 person doing it.

8 DR. NETON: Right. But he was a 

9 betatron operator by job function.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, right. And now 

11 --

12 DR. NETON: And now you're saying none 

13 of the betatron operators by job function did 

14 uranium work.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Wait a second, yes. 

16 I'm in agreement. I agree.

17 DR. NETON: That seems very unlikely to 

18 me, Bob.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Hold it. Let me -- no, 

20 you're not allowing me to clarify. We agreed that 

21 the betatron operator would do all of the uranium 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

144

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 work that came in that year. But what I'm saying 

2 is, suppose that betatron operator divided his time 

3 between the betatron and the radium radiography. 

4 And my argument is there is still plenty 

5 of time, over the time that he was assigned to the 

6 betatron, there's plenty of time to have done that 

7 radium radiography that was only 50, 60 a year.

8 DR. NETON: But I think it's unlikely, 

9 if he's doing it 50 percent of the time, that that's 

10 true.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I'm saying it's 

12 not implausible.

13 DR. NETON: And I say it's a stretch.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. But I was 

15 trying to clarify the issue.

16 DR. NETON: I understand. But you're 

17 saying that none of the betatron operators did 

18 uranium work, and I find that to be totally 

19 implausible.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Say again?

21 DR. NETON: None of the uranium 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

145

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 betatron operators who were assigned to do that job 

2 did any uranium shots, none.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, no. Just the 

4 opposite. I'm simply saying that -- the point is 

5 a radiographer -- my understanding is 

6 radiographers did both radium, both isotope work 

7 and betatron work.

8 DR. NETON: Was there any betatron 

9 operators who did not do radiography?

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They did not do -- they 

11 both did radiography. That's what a betatron 

12 does.

13 DR. NETON: No, but I mean just operate 

14 the betatron only.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, no. A 

16 betatron operator was by definition a 

17 radiographer. That's how they were referred to. 

18 They didn't simply sit at the controls of the 

19 betatron. The radiography men, they set up --

20 there was generally a three-man team, and they 

21 would set up -- they would position the betatron, 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

146

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 position the film, markup where the exposures were 

2 being taken, then, of course, everybody would 

3 retreat to the -- they would either leave room or 

4 retreat to the operator's office, with the ten-foot 

5 shielding, with ten-foot walls during the actual 

6 shot.

7 So they were considered radiographers. 

8 The radiography can be done with the betatron, or 

9 radiography can be done with the isotope source. 

10 And they did both, and it required the same sort 

11 of skill. I mean, the betatron operator had to 

12 have the additional skill of knowing how to set the 

13 controls, but the main skill and judgment was, how 

14 do you position the shot, how do you mark it, where 

15 do you put the film? And that's what the 

16 radiographer was.

17 DR. NETON: But I thought I heard Dr. 

18 McKeel commenting that they talked to people who 

19 did source radiography and they didn't recall doing 

20 the betatron work.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, the one 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

147

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 gentleman that I spoke with said he did half and 

2 half; 50 to 60 percent of the time in the betatron, 

3 and the other time they worked with radioactive 

4 sources. And all of the people that I spoke with, 

5 including the meeting in Collinsville back in 2007 

6 and later discussions, they were all -- because 

7 they were all called radiographers and they seemed 

8 to be mostly -- they did the betatron work 

9 primarily.

10 That's what we talked about it. The 

11 whole focus was on the betatron during those early 

12 times. We thought that was -- we didn't even know 

13 they had radium until we got the AEC records. 

14 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. May 

15 I make a comment to Dr. Neton's comment, please?

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Certainly, go ahead. 

17 DR. McKEEL: Yeah. I mean, no. The 

18 gentleman that I was referring to, [identifying 

19 information redacted], said he definitely did 

20 something with the betatron. He was a betatron 

21 radiographer. He was a betatron operator. What 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I was trying to say is that when we tried to pin 

2 down exactly what he did -- in other words, did you 

3 shoot turbine blades, did you shoot -- what exact 

4 kind of casting did you shoot, and in particular 

5 did you shoot any uranium? He really didn't 

6 remember any of the betatron work that he did.

7 But he was certain that he was a 

8 betatron operator. And as a matter of fact, Terry 

9 Dutko, who is deceased, wrote this Work Group many 

10 notices that explained that in the department that 

11 did radiography at GSI, you know, there were 

12 betatron operators who also did isotope 

13 radiography. There was an ultrasound department. 

14 There was a Magnaflux component. There are lots 

15 of different kinds, as everybody knows, of 

16 non-destructive testing work that goes on at big 

17 steel factories, and GSI was like everybody else. 

18 They used a lot of them.

19 The ultrasound people did a lot of the 

20 layout location work and so forth. But what I 

21 think we're arguing about is nobody, zero, not 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

149

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 anybody -- for instance, the one person that gave 

2 the best descriptions of the corner shots, let's 

3 call him [identifying information redacted], said, 

4 number one, contrary to what the paper work said 

5 in the Mallinckrodt purchase orders, that he shot 

6 all of his uranium on weekends and night shifts.

7 And so that information, that the 

8 uranium was shot during the daytime, clearly it's 

9 there on paper, but clearly it wasn't done that way. 

10 We've tried to make that point over and over and 

11 over again. The idea of accepting what's written 

12 on paper in a procedures manual and weighing that 

13 against what is actually said by the workers, you 

14 need to come down on the side of the workers, 

15 recognizing that their recollections are not 

16 perfect after 50 years and so forth.

17 But, anyway, that's my comment to Dr. 

18 Neton. This man was a betatron radiography 

19 operator. He just doesn't remember what 

20 particular betatron work he did.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

150

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 Jim, any more clarification needed? I'm trying to 

2 get a feel for whether or not what SC&A is proposing 

3 is true bounding.

4 DR. NETON: Well, it's certainly a 

5 higher dose. I mean, there's no doubt about that. 

6 But I just don't see, if a person spent half his 

7 time in the betatron area, that 100 percent of that 

8 -- he did 100 percent of the shots, of the uranium 

9 shots. It just seems --

10 MR. ALLEN: Jim, just to clarify, I 

11 mean, we've already said that one person in the 

12 betatron 100 percent of the time did 100 percent 

13 of the uranium shots.

14 DR. NETON: That's true.

15 MR. ALLEN: All we're saying now is we 

16 don't believe you did 100 percent of the uranium 

17 shots and 100 percent of the radium shots.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, right, right. 

19 MR. ALLEN: That's where we have a 

20 difference.

21 DR. NETON: Right. That's a better 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 way of putting it.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I'm 

3 wondering if we're at a point where we can come to 

4 closure on this. I'll just voice where I am on it. 

5 And Josie. I don't know if, John Poston, you're back 

6 or not. We lost you for a while.

7 MEMBER POSTON: Yeah, I've been here.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh. We had a vote 

9 and we couldn't get you to vote.

10 MEMBER POSTON: Oh. I haven't left 

11 the room. I guess I was asleep. I didn't think 

12 I was asleep, but I guess I was.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So, I guess 

14 at the moment I'm personally coming down with 

15 NIOSH's position on this. I don't see any reason 

16 not to, at the moment. Josie, where are you on 

17 this?

18 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, I think I'm going 

19 to agree with that also, Paul.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, how about you?

21 MEMBER POSTON: I agree.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So, Dave, 

2 we're going to recommend that the NIOSH position 

3 on this be where the Work Group will make the 

4 recommendation. 

5 Now, let me ask folks how they're doing 

6 here. We have one item left to discuss. What's 

7 the number here? We've got number six, right? 

8 So, Bob, do you want to --

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Everybody okay to go 

11 a while longer?

12 MEMBER BEACH: Sure.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I've assumed you've 

14 taken breaks as needed.

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer?

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

17 MR. RAMSPOTT: This is John Ramspott. 

18 Could I make one real quick comment?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John.

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: Regarding the betatron 

21 and betatron operators and the isotope operators. 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The FOIA material that everybody has, Dr. McKeel 

2 found, 1,000 pages. 

3 In their licensing information, 

4 General Steel, an officer, actually claims and is 

5 explaining to the Atomic Energy Commission why they 

6 should get isotopes, and clearly states the 

7 background of a number of the people that will be 

8 working with it, with the isotopes, and clearly 

9 state they have betatron background, and that's why 

10 they should be considered for this isotope work.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: That's in the FOIA 

13 information, been there, documented, proof on 

14 paper. So there's no doubt that these guys did 

15 both of it. What we're arguing is, how much? 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right, 

17 exactly.

18 MR. RAMSPOTT: So these are union jobs, 

19 so they didn't send -- they're telling the AEC, 

20 they're not going to just give us anybody. So 

21 these guys -- that's why they had to do it all, and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they could easily do it in between the betatron 

2 shooting, because it took time.

3 Some of those shots, do you think they'd 

4 let a radiographer sit there for two hours while 

5 they did one of those big, long casting shots? Not 

6 the GSI I know. They'd have had them down in 6 

7 Building or out in 10 Building in a heartbeat.

8 I mean, we have isotope supervisors 

9 that clearly stated that they did it in 10 Building. 

10 I've got workers saying they used isotopes out 

11 there. They roped it off. They didn't do all the 

12 isotope work down in 6 Building by any means, you 

13 know, especially the radium. That was a small 

14 source. 

15 The cobalt-60, 80 curie we can't prove 

16 where they did that, because we can't find the 

17 licensing. But the radium, they just did it 

18 everywhere in that plant. They would not let a 

19 radiographer just sit there and read the newspaper 

20 for two hours while they're shooting a big old 

21 turbine.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, and we're not 

2 assuming that at all.

3 MR. RAMSPOTT: So it's very plausible. 

4 Bob is 100 percent correct. There's a two-hour 

5 window of them going to do something else. There's 

6 no doubt about it. To me, it's very clear. Bob's 

7 100 percent correct. That's all I have to say 

8 right now. Thank you.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

10 Okay. Let's go ahead with Item 6. 

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Item 6, we're 

12 close to agreement, that the NIOSH, this is now the 

13 layout man's beta dose. So, the NIOSH model is 

14 that they developed this intermittent exposure 

15 model, where the steel was, there would setup time, 

16 exposure time, setup time for the next time, 

17 exposure time again. 

18 We just assumed the shots were somewhat 

19 overlapping, both NIOSH and SC&A take the limiting 

20 assumption they were all in the same spot on the 

21 same piece of metal. They're also in agreement 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that the layout man would do one casting, spent much 

2 of his shift on casting. We got that very clearly 

3 from this deceased supervisor that was there.

4 He explained that he sometimes would --

5 however, he wouldn't do it all day long because they 

6 would say, "Hey, here's a rush job. Mark up this 

7 casting." And he will get this freshly irradiated 

8 casting out of the betatron, and he would walk over 

9 to the other casting and mark that one out. And 

10 that took like a total of ten percent of his shift. 

11 So we're in agreement on that. 

12 However, we were not in agreement -- NIOSH

13 maintains that whether it's a short shot or a long 

14 shot -- meaning, whether it's a thin piece of metal 

15 or a heavy piece of metal -- it took the same amount 

16 of time to mark it up. Therefore, it should be 

17 -- because 90 percent of the shots were short shots, 

18 therefore 90 percent of the time was spent marking 

19 up short shots. Okay. 

20 So our position is that we accept the 

21 model. I won't go into detail as to why we accepted 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the model, but we don't agree with part of the long 

2 shot time, because the thicker steel, the long 

3 shots were thicker steel.

4 In other words, you're laying out the 

5 surface, but what's behind that surface? Is it 

6 thin pieces -- is it thin steel or thick steel? 

7 Thick steel would have more defects. The workers 

8 that participated in the last meeting specifically 

9 said, and I'm just excerpting from the transcript 

10 of their testimony, "the bigger the casting, the 

11 more defects." 

12 Now, he did say the missile tubes for 

13 Polaris submarines were high quality and fewer 

14 defects, and in Dave Allen's report he erroneously 

15 assumed that these had to be heavy castings. Now, 

16 they were thin tubes, because they were used to 

17 guide the missile with compressed air while it was 

18 being launched. It was not like a cannon, which 

19 had to have thick walls because you have explosive 

20 powder inside. 

21 And it just so happened that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

158

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 [identifying information redacted] (phonetic), 

2 who was a former -- actually he used to be a 

3 full-time SC&A employee, and now he's an associate, 

4 was a [identifying information redacted] --

5 [identifying information redacted] was his rank. 

6 He was an engineering officer on [identifying 

7 information redacted], and he couldn't give me an 

8 exact number, but when I said, well, the range of 

9 casting was -- five inches was considered a thin 

10 casting and 12 inches was a thick one. He said they 

11 were definitely less than five inches. So 

12 therefore the fact that [identifying information 

13 redacted] missile tubes had fewer defects does not 

14 mean that thick castings had fewer defects. 

15 Then finally there was something that 

16 my colleague Bill Thurber found and passed on to 

17 me from the American Foundry Society, the 

18 informational website, and they referred to cavity 

19 defects. Basically, he said you -- the full quote 

20 is, "You see on the X-ray a defect which is due to 

21 a cavity, and the cavity defect is partially a 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

159

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 function of the section thickness." In other 

2 words, the thicker it was the more, in Mr. Thurber's 

3 opinion, is the larger, the more complex the 

4 casting, the more likely there are defects.

5 So, our position is, well, the maximum 

6 likely would be to say that you had divided up the 

7 way we divide up the shots. In other words, the 

8 long shots took 75 minutes or 60 minutes for the 

9 actual shooting, 15 minutes to set up. So there 

10 was the production time of 75 minutes. For the 

11 short shots, we settled for 12 minutes of setup time 

12 and three minutes of shooting, so it was 15 minutes. 

13 So there would be five to one. The least would be 

14 what NIOSH is proposing, one to one, which is --

15 let's come to a compromise. 

16 Let's say it's three to one was -- a long 

17 shot takes three times -- a single long shot takes 

18 three times as much time to mark up as a single short 

19 shot. So if you had N long shots and 9N short 

20 shots, you know, then the actual fraction of time 

21 would be three times as long for the -- so it would 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

160

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 be 3N, whatever N is, for the long shots versus a 

2 total of 3N plus 9N. And so you end up with 25 

3 percent spent on the -- 25 percent of the total time 

4 of the layout man's time spent on the long shot. 

5 And that that -- and then the results, and here's 

6 where we did the history of this.

7 Our original calculation of dose to the 

8 layout man was 1.89 rads per year to the hands and 

9 forearms, 1.14 to whole body. Then we were looking 

10 -- after the last Work Group meeting, I said, well, 

11 let's see -- let's keep our scenario, which was 

12 considered to be implausible because it involved, 

13 you know, a constant supply of fresh shots, which 

14 was beyond the capacity of the betatron.

15 But let's employ the intermittent 

16 model, which we accepted, intermittent exposure 

17 model proposed by NIOSH, but let's apply it to our 

18 scenario. Now we get much lower than the original, 

19 because the intermittent scenario, the 

20 intermittent exposure, which is scientifically 

21 correct, results in much lower doses.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Then we compared this now to the Rev 1, 

2 Appendix BB, Rev 1. Here, the numbers, 807, 463, 

3 that is copied from there, and here are the numbers 

4 that are now being proposed by NIOSH, and here is 

5 what we suggest now.

6 So our suggested, using the NIOSH 

7 scenario, is actually higher than if we had kept 

8 our original assumption but employed the NIOSH 

9 model, the NIOSH intermittent exposure algorithm. 

10 So we think that this is a plausible, reasonable 

11 value. 

12 And then we point out also, what is the 

13 net effect of this? Well, this is the rads per year 

14 skin dose, and here is the total exposure, 9R per 

15 year photon exposure, which would be added to the 

16 skin dose with appropriate factor. But it's a 

17 little less than one, not much less than one.

18 So we're talking about a small 

19 fraction. We're talking about effects on the 

20 hands and forearms, for which it wouldn't be used 

21 anyway because the betatron operator will be the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

162

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 limiting exposure. 

2 So we're talking about 224 millirem 

3 compared to 9R external exposure. So it's a small 

4 difference. The difference between NIOSH and us 

5 is not that far apart. But it's a small, I should 

6 say -- what I meant to say is it's a small 

7 contribution.

8 So I just wanted to get the idea of the 

9 size of this, of exactly what we're talking about.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Dave, any 

11 response here?

12 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, I was just going to 

13 say, I think when SC&A originally reviewed this 

14 they -- well, when we originally came up with this, 

15 we had the ratio based on the number of shots rather 

16 than the exposure time. 

17 SC&A had a ratio based on the exposure 

18 time, which didn't make any sense to me because the 

19 amount of time it takes to mark it up and then to 

20 do it, how long it takes to shot through that steel. 

21 They have built a reasonable case to believe that 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the thicker steel might have more defects and 

2 therefore will require more markup. Therefore, I 

3 think what Bob's got here is reasonable and I'm more 

4 than willing to go with it. Did I lose everybody?

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Let me go 

6 ahead and get some other comments at this point. 

7 Again, I'll ask for Dr. McKeel and John to comment.

8 DR. McKEEL: Yeah. This is Dr. 

9 McKeel, Dan McKeel. Can you all hear me?

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan.

11 DR. McKEEL: Okay. I'm commenting on 

12 Finding No. 6. I do want to comment that, you know, 

13 sometimes in these discussions it's amazing to me 

14 that the discussion has a different tenor than the 

15 written papers that we're discussing. For 

16 instance, in their most recent paper, 9/11/15, 

17 where SC&A is commenting on Dave Allen's 7/10 

18 paper, they say this about Finding No. 6:

19 "Perhaps the most complex of the 

20 remaining dose construction issues for GSI," 

21 which, you know, and now we're late in the day and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

164

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 everybody's tired, and now we get down to, well, 

2 I think we're in substantial agreement and 

3 basically we've had no discussion.

4 So I'll try to make my comment extremely 

5 brief. I want to get down to the bottom line. The 

6 bottom line on this finding is that SC&A is 

7 suggesting that perhaps NIOSH would like to use its 

8 new data in Table No. 4. 

9 So I would ask you all, I don't know --

10 I don't have LiveMeeting up, but if you all could 

11 put Table 4 of Finding No. 6 up on the screen, that 

12 would be very helpful. It's titled "Annual Doses 

13 to Skin of Layout Man from Beta Rays Emitted by 

14 Irradiated Steel." And Dr. Anigstein was just 

15 talking about some of the data in that table.

16 Anyway, I'll describe it. It's got 

17 these columns. It's describing the skin on the 

18 hands and forearms and the rest of the body in two 

19 rows. And it's comparing those between SC&A 1 and 

20 2, which is kind of interesting. SC&A 1 is a 

21 scenario described by SC&A in 2014. And the 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

165

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 comment is made further that SC&A recalculated 

2 using intermittent exposure algorithm. So I 

3 understand that it's what Dave Allen had proposed.

4 So what I want to focus on is, when 

5 everybody is talking about reasonably close, to me, 

6 in my background, I look at the data that's being 

7 presented. And just like I looked at the data 

8 between the betatron and the other worker doses 

9 that were modeled in 2008 versus those in 2012, I 

10 was struck by the fact that the agreement was 

11 extremely poor. And it was poor from 2008 to 2012 

12 and extremely poor between NIOSH and SC&A. 

13 This table strikes me the same way. 

14 So, for instance, let's say SC&A 1 and SC&A 2, you 

15 know, for the hands and the forearms, 1.89, 0.278. 

16 Wow, that's a sixfold difference. Rest of the 

17 body, 1.14 and 0.178. Again, fivefold 

18 differences. 

19 Let's look at NIOSH 1 and NIOSH 2 for 

20 hands and forearms, .807, .264. And for the rest 

21 of the body, .463 versus .147. The absolute 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

166

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 magnitude of differences there is 400 percent and 

2 300 percent, fourfold and threefold.

3 Those are tremendous variations. And 

4 then the requirement is -- or the suggestion for 

5 this finding is -- well, NIOSH could consider using 

6 the data in the new column, which apparently SC&A 

7 -- it says, "NIOSH 2, Recalculated by SC&A using 

8 betatron beam intensity based on MCNPX simulation 

9 and assuming 25 percent marking up long shots."

10 Well, wow. There are some more new 

11 assumptions, and so forth. What disturbs me 

12 tremendously is that every time there's a new 

13 recalculation, it's way away from the previous 

14 calculations. 

15 These numbers have been all over the 

16 map. And I'm going to be honest with you. In the 

17 world of biology, where I think there's more 

18 variation and variability inherent than there 

19 surely is in a radiation dose, for goodness' sake, 

20 the data that's come up with in these calculations 

21 based on assumptions that I think are extremely 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

167

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 weak and challengeable, it just blows me away.

2 But the overall bottom line is that 

3 what's being proposed by SC&A is that they lower 

4 the NIOSH 1 doses by a factor of two. And again, 

5 I think that's claimant-unfavorable -- or a small 

6 contribution to the overall dose. Once again, 

7 it's skin dose and these skin doses really should 

8 apply not just to the arms and the forehands.

9 I mean, it's naive to think that a 

10 betatron operator doesn't bend over and have his 

11 face close to that target from time to time. So 

12 this really -- these doses should apply to all of 

13 the exposed skin. 

14 But in any case, the hands and forearm, 

15 you can get skin cancers. You commonly get skin 

16 cancers there. Back of the hands is one of those 

17 common locations. Forearm, people work out in the 

18 sun and they work in their workplace with their 

19 sleeves rolled up. So they get big doses to the 

20 hands and the forearms. So, cutting the dose by 

21 50 percent, that's a bad thing for workers. It's 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not claimant-favorable, and I don't think it's any 

2 more plausible than accepting what NIOSH has in the 

3 NIOSH 1 column. 

4 So I'm strongly encouraging that the 

5 highest dose here is SC&A 1, which is a scenario 

6 described by Anigstein and Mauro, recalculating 

7 using intermittent exposure algorithm.

8 So what I'm not hearing is SC&A 

9 endorsing and championing its own dose 

10 reconstructions. I mean, I would like to hear some

11 discussion of Table 4 from both SC&A and NIOSH and 

12 why your new column at the end of the table should 

13 be accepted. Thank you.

14 (Pause.)

15 MR. KATZ: Paul, you might be on mute. 

16 Paul, do we still have you?

17 MEMBER BEACH: Doesn't appear to be so.

18 MR. KATZ: Well --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sorry, I got offline 

20 for a minute. I pressed the end call button instead 

21 of the mute button.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. KATZ: I thought so.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I cancelled myself 

3 out. I did hear the end of Dr. McKeel's comments 

4 and he's challenging SC&A to explain the change in 

5 their numbers. So maybe you can do that, Bob.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure. The change is 

7 entirely due to the intermittents -- what we did 

8 early in the game, we were trying to keep it simple. 

9 There was a lot of calculations to do, so we just 

10 assumed that the steel was continuously exposed, 

11 with no downtime. 

12 Actually, in the activation with the 

13 delayed gammas, what we did is we did a fairly 

14 elaborate calculation of the intermittent 

15 exposures, because that was a way of handling that. 

16 With the electron, with the beta, we did not. We 

17 just did a labor-saving simplification. 

18 Couldn't think of any quick, accurate way of doing 

19 it. 

20 And Dave and his colleagues came up with 

21 this algorithm, this saw-toothed curve which very 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

170

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 accurately takes into account the fact that the 

2 exposures are intermittent; there's exposure time, 

3 there's the setup time. And I see no reason for 

4 disregarding that. 

5 So I took Dave's algorithm, which I even 

6 wrote up a mathematical derivation of that as an 

7 appendix because Dave previously gave a sort of 

8 heuristic explanation of it, and I wasn't -- for 

9 my own benefit I had to derive it. I thought it 

10 was correct and I thought it was perhaps a 

11 different, alternate way of proving it or 

12 presenting it, but the results are the same.

13 And therefore I saw no reason. I said 

14 -- first, I was trying to hang onto my original. 

15 I said, well, let's see -- I agree that there was 

16 intermittent and let me see what would happen if 

17 I took my original model and then applied the 

18 intermittent algorithm to it, and it went way down.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Which you would 

20 expect.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Because it was now a much 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

171

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 more realistic, more scientifically accurate. 

2 The same assumptions, all the same parameters 

3 except instead of being continuously irradiated, 

4 we explicitly accounted for the fact that, you 

5 know, that there were setup time in between the 

6 shots.

7 And so that's what the SC&A 2 is. And 

8 the NIOSH 1 is more like SC&A 1, only somewhat 

9 different because they, again, they used the same 

10 exposure scenario, the 30-hours continuous 

11 irradiation that was in the original -- that was 

12 in Rev 1, only they made some other assumptions. 

13 They left out the one meter, other things that made 

14 it lower.

15 So then NIOSH 2 is the latest, which 

16 takes into account the intermittent exposure and 

17 also this alternating casting scenario, which it 

18 turns out to give you a higher dose than our model. 

19 And the only difference would be -- the reason it 

20 appears lower here is that we differ on the, you 

21 know, 90 and 10. Originally, we had the 36-64 mix 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of time, exposure to the long shots and the short 

2 shots. And the NIOSH 2 was the 10 and 90. 

3 And now the new one, which it now has 

4 been -- I heard Dave saying that's reasonable, is 

5 the 25 percent. So instead of 10 to 90, it was 

6 25-75. So this seems like -- because it turns out 

7 that those long shots account for most of the dose. 

8 So more long shots gives you a higher dose. So it's 

9 not inconsistent with what we did before, because 

10 if anything I would say the thing to compare would 

11 be the SC&A 2, which is actually in one way more 

12 conservative because it assumes 36 percent on long 

13 shots instead of 25 percent, and yet that gives you 

14 less than using the NIOSH scenario.

15 And I was very surprised by this 

16 outcome, by the way. Using the NIOSH scenario and 

17 the -- both cases the intermittent radiation, and 

18 now we agree to the somewhat higher time spent on 

19 the long shot. So we're just getting 

20 scientifically more accurate.

21 One was a bounding overestimate and 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH found a way of refining it, and I think 

2 everybody's doing their job the best they can and 

3 we're coming up with a -- it seems to be a very 

4 reasonable solution.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, Dave, any 

6 other comments on that?

7 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, I don't think I have 

8 anything to add.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Board 

10 Members, questions or comments? 

11 MEMBER POSTON: None for me. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: No, Paul. This is 

13 Josie. I have no questions.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: These numbers, the 

15 current two numbers in the last column, basically 

16 differ by 100 percent, or one's double the other. 

17 I think what I was understanding when you were 

18 talking about them being small -- or I don't know 

19 if you said small difference -- that's my clock 

20 ringing in the background, sorry. The difference, 

21 the absolute difference in the two is about .2 --
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what is it, are you in rems there?

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Rads.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or rads, okay. Or 

4 .2 rads per year. The beta is a small fraction. 

5 Basically it's a small fraction of the total dose 

6 being assigned, is what you were saying, I guess. 

7 It's around five percent or -- no, less than that. 

8 Two percent?

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Correct. 

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Other 

11 comments on this or any recommendations?

12 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah.

14 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel again. 

15 For clarity, would someone please explain what is 

16 the rationale for suggesting that the new column 

17 data, .405 rads per year and .0224 rads per year, 

18 is more correct than, say, NIOSH 1, which is twice 

19 as high, .807 for hands and forearms versus .405, 

20 and rest of body .0463 versus .224? I mean, you 

21 know, for most scientists, it does not make sense 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I guess I'll have to 

3 ask Dave to comment on that.

4 DR. McKEEL: -- is that two 

5 calculations one year apart, 2014 and 2015, differ 

6 by, you know, NIOSH 2, .0264 and .0147? This 

7 differs by four and three hundred percent.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

9 DR. McKEEL: I don't understand that.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah. I'm saying, 

11 Dave, maybe you can comment on what is different 

12 there.

13 MR. ALLEN: Yeah, I think I can comment 

14 on that. If you look at NIOSH 1 and SC&A 1 on there, 

15 both of those were using that 30-hour continuous 

16 irradiation approximation. Essentially, that is an 

17 approximation that, I think, SC&A came up with 

18 originally and thought it was definitely a 

19 simplifying approximation. And thought it was --

20 knew it was bounding. 

21 I don't think any of us realized how 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

176

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 bounding it was. After those two numbers came up, 

2 I came up with this intermittent exposure algorithm 

3 and ran that through the numbers to see just what 

4 the effect of an exposure for so long followed by 

5 changing film, et cetera, then followed by 

6 exposure, this intermittent exposure.

7 And the results you see from that are 

8 SC&A 2 and NIOSH 2. That essentially shows you 

9 that that simplifying approximation actually ends 

10 up being quite a large overestimate that I don't 

11 think any of us realized just how much we were 

12 overestimating using that.

13 DR. McKEEL: Well, Dave, I understand 

14 that. This is Dan McKeel again. I do understand 

15 that and I do understand what I wrote to myself as 

16 I was reading a 30-hour continuous exposure, that 

17 I would say that that was a totally implausible 

18 thing to assume from the outset.

19 But, in any case, what I'm still asking 

20 you is, in the finding that SC&A, Finding 6, SC&A's 

21 proposing that you adopt the new data in the sixth 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

177

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 column of that table, .405 and .224. And I guess 

2 what I'm trying to figure out is just do you -- I 

3 mean, the bottom line is, do you accept that as the 

4 most accurate among all those numbers they have?

5 MR. ALLEN: Among all those numbers, 

6 yes I do. The lower numbers were based on assuming 

7 that ten percent of the marked up castings were for 

8 long shots. I think they've made a reasonable case 

9 as to more defects occurring in the long shots. 

10 Therefore, it should be a bigger number than ten 

11 percent.

12 And I think he came up with a reasonable 

13 reason it should be closer to 25 percent. 

14 Especially, the new column versus the SC&A 2 and 

15 NIOSH 2.

16 DR. McKEEL: So do I understand the 

17 NIOSH is recommending that new data be used?

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

19 DR. McKEEL: Okay, thank you.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Any further 

21 comments? Board Members, any recommendations? 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

178

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 John.

2 MEMBER POSTON: Oh, I'm not sure what 

3 to recommend.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, one 

5 possibility would be to recommend accepting this 

6 recommendation, which I think both SC&A and NIOSH 

7 have agreed that they're satisfied with, which 

8 would be the values in the last column.

9 MEMBER BEACH: The new values, the .405 

10 and .224?

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Mm-hm. 

12 MEMBER BEACH: Yeah, Paul. This is 

13 Josie. I would agree with that and recommend that.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, are you 

15 agreeable?

16 MEMBER POSTON: Yes, I'm okay with it.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And I would 

18 support that as well, and we will make that our 

19 recommendation. 

20 I want to ask Dave and Bob, are there 

21 any other issues that you're aware of? With these 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

179

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 four, I believe that completes the issue resolution 

2 for the matrix.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. And I also have 

4 -- I prepared a quick summary of the matrix.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah. We all 

6 received that. I don't think we need to go through 

7 it, because everything else would be either closed 

8 or in abeyance. And with these issues, and we 

9 would take them to the Board, but we are 

10 recommending closure on these issues, then, with 

11 those agreements.

12 MR. ALLEN: I'm not sure who you're 

13 asking, Paul. This is Dave. That's the way I 

14 understand it.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that will be 

16 our recommendation. Ted, we would bring this to 

17 the full Board at the next meeting, I believe, 

18 right?

19 MR. KATZ: Right, Paul. Do you need 

20 assistance from either Dave or Bob in preparing any 

21 material for that session?
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'll let them know if 

2 I do. I'll go ahead and summarize our 

3 recommendations. And I guess we'll need to 

4 determine, and we can do this offline, whether you 

5 want any preliminary presentations by NIOSH and 

6 SC&A.

7 MR. KATZ: Right. That's my question 

8 to you, whether you will require that.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I probably will.

10 MR. KATZ: So, I mean, I think 

11 generally what we've done is have SC&A draft that 

12 in a situation like this, where we're already long 

13 in the tooth in the issue resolution, generally 

14 speaking. NIOSH doesn't have to present unless 

15 there's -- normally NIOSH presents only if there's 

16 still some open issues. There aren't here.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

18 MR. KATZ: So certainly, Bob, John 

19 Mauro, can work with you and prepare an SC&A 

20 presentation to cover sort of the details, and you 

21 could cover the Subcommittees.
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So it also then open or 

2 allow proceeding on a revision of the document.

3 MR. KATZ: Right, right. And I guess 

4 it would be good for you to hear whatever you can 

5 from Dave and Jim about their plans for that. You 

6 can make that part of your presentation.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.

8 (Phone interruption.)

9 MR. KATZ: Somebody's phone is 

10 impossible. Bob?

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Say it again?

12 MR. KATZ: I think Bob's phone was --

13 MEMBER BEACH: It might have lost a 

14 battery or something.

15 MR. KATZ: Something went wrong. So, 

16 Bob, anyway we can talk to Bob offline. We don't 

17 really have to do this online with Bob to help him 

18 understand what needs to be prepared to support 

19 your presentation, Paul.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, okay. With 

21 that, then I think we'll adjourn the meeting. I 
This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Idaho National Laboratory (INL) 

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

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

and certified by the Chair of the INL Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be cautioned 

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

182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 want to thank everybody: SC&A, NIOSH and Dr. McKeel 

2 and Mr. Ramspott for their input on this. I know 

3 the petitioners still have concerns and I'm aware 

4 of that. But hopefully we can move ahead and get 

5 some additional cases dealt with and try to bring 

6 things to closure.

7 MR. KATZ: Right.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, 

9 everybody. And we're adjourned.

10 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter 

11 was concluded at 4:42 p.m.)