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

+ + + + +

CARBORUNDUM WORK GROUP

+ + + + +

MONDAY

MARCH 13, 2017

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened via 

teleconference at 9:30 a.m. Eastern Time, 

Genevieve Roessler, Chair, presiding.

PRESENT:

GENEVIEVE S. ROESSLER, Chair

BRADLEY P. CLAWSON, Member

R. WILLIAM FIELD, Member
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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

BOB BARTON, SC&A

KARIN JESSEN, ORAU Team

ROBERT KIFER

JANICE KNAPP

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

JIM NETON, DCAS

JOHN STIVER, SC&A

TOM TOMES, DCAS
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

Contents 

WELCOME AND ROLL CALL............................. 4

USE OF SURROGATE DATA............................. 8

EXAMPLE OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTION................... 11

PATH FORWARD FOR ISSUE RESOLUTION OR PRESENTATION TO 

BOARD............................................ 71

PETITIONER COMMENTS.............................. 79

ADJOURN.......................................... 82
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 P R O C E E D I N G S

2 9:39 a.m.

3 WELCOME AND ROLL CALL 

4 MR. KATZ: Welcome, everyone, to the 

5 Advisory Board of Radiation and Worker Health, the 

6 Carborundum Work Group. And this is a preliminary 

7 call before the Board meeting which occurs next 

8 week, the 22nd and 23rd of March in Naperville, 

9 Illinois.

10 And the agenda for today is to wrap up 

11 some issues that the Board had addressed when we 

12 had the last Board meeting in November. The agenda 

13 for the meeting is posted on the NIOSH website and 

14 it is under Schedule of Meetings, today's date. 

15 You can find the agenda there and also, I believe, 

16 a White Paper from Tom Tomes from NIOSH following 

17 up on the issues that the Board had raised and the 

18 Work Group had raised previously.

19 There is an interim review by SC&A. It 

20 just came in because they didn't have much time to 

21 do it. It just came in this weekend. It will get 
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 posted to the NIOSH website. It's not posted yet. 

2 So you won't find it there.

3 And I'm certainly able to send it on to 

4 you, for example, members of the public who want 

5 it. I can email it to you right after this meeting.

6 (Roll call)

7 Okay. Then everyone please mute your 

8 phones. If you don't have a mute button, * and then 

9 6 to mute your phone. And that will improve the 

10 audio of the people who have to speak during this 

11 call.

12 If you want to take your phone off of 

13 mute, you press *6 again and it will take off of 

14 mute. And please don't put this call on hold at 

15 any point because that will cause real problems for 

16 the audio.

17 And with that, Gen, it's your meeting.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. I have a 

19 question first. What is our time limit today? I 

20 know Bob has another appointment.

21 MR. KATZ: Bob needs to leave around 

22 noon. We'll still have Mauro and Stiver from SC&A, 
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 if we need to go longer, that's fine. Bob said just 

2 before this call whether he might present both 

3 Tom's report and his together if that would save 

4 time. But let's hear from Tom whether he wants to 

5 present first or how you want to do that.

6 MR. TOMES: I'm fine with Bob going 

7 ahead and summarizing what we would present. That 

8 would work fine for me.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So, Tom, you 

10 won't be presenting then.

11 MR. TOMES: It's whatever you prefer. 

12 I can go through our responses or however you prefer 

13 to do it.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, it saves time 

15 and you and Bob are willing let's just let him go 

16 ahead with it then.

17 I did want to make a couple comments 

18 just so everybody is on the same page. I wanted 

19 to remind the Work Group that at our last meeting 

20 on November 17th, the Work Group had concluded that 

21 we had resolved all issues.

22 So I prepared a slide presentation for 
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 the November 30th Board meeting and I was unable 

2 to attend. John Stiver made the presentation. 

3 Thank you, John. Let me just read that final slide 

4 so that we're oriented as to where we're going.

5 The conclusion slide was: the Work 

6 Group concluded that with appropriate adjustments, 

7 NIOSH can reconstruct doses for the proposed SEC 

8 Class. And then the Work Group moved that the SEC 

9 Petition 00223 be denied.

10 I wasn't there, but I read the 40 pages 

11 of the transcript. From there, I realized that 

12 there were some concerns about some of the things, 

13 particularly Dr. Melius said that he felt that the 

14 Board needed to be assured that the dose 

15 reconstruction could be done with sufficient 

16 accuracy.

17 What had been left is that NIOSH said, 

18 "Yes, we'll do this," but there wasn't anything 

19 specific on several of the items. So the 

20 conclusion was that NIOSH should develop the 

21 responses which they have done, that SC&A should 

22 review and the Work Group would meet again. And 
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 we have done that.

2 With that, I think we're ready to go. 

3 And we'll let Bob lead off. Bob, are you going to 

4 be using slides?

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I don't have any 

6 slides.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. But we got 

8 your final report. Actually, I saw it this 

9 morning. It came through last night. So if 

10 people have that in front of them, they can just 

11 follow along.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. I had the 

13 preliminary one on Friday and then the one 

14 yesterday.

15 COURT REPORTER: Dr. Anigstein, can you 

16 get a little closer to your receiver?

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Is that good now?

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: That's much better.

19 USE OF SURROGATE DATA 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Let me start off 

21 my saying I did not do a complete top-to-bottom 
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 audit of the dose reconstructions because we 

2 certainly didn't have enough time. We got the 

3 report at the end of the work day on Thursday. That 

4 gave us basically one work week to work on it.

5 So I did find a number of -- I'll just 

6 go through them. Starting off with surrogate data 

7 issues. On the first AWE period, NIOSH accepted 

8 our suggestion that we use the uranium slug that 

9 had been previously modeled for TBD-6000. The 

10 results were published in the Journal of Health 

11 Physics. So the photon dose rates from those had 

12 been calculated. And we're fine with that.

13 However, what we didn't see until now 

14 was the beta doses from the same materials. Since 

15 this was an MCNP calculation in the first place --

16 this is a state-of-the-art radiation transport 

17 code -- it made sense to do the beta doses in the 

18 same manner.

19 So the beta doses were at contact and 

20 at one foot for purposes of skin, even though skin 

21 was not one of the organs in the example. But 

22 nevertheless the methodology needs to apply to 
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 skin. 

2 And we found that in fact the calculated 

3 beta dose was not significantly different than the 

4 one that was used. NIOSH just assumed that we 

5 would go 10 times the gamma dose. So it would go 

6 from 0.524 to 5.24 millirem per hour. And we got 

7 5.4 instead of 5.24 which is close enough. 

8 However, for the skin dose we find that 

9 NIOSH was using a generic number that was based on 

10 a publication from 1989 of 230 millirem per hour 

11 at the surface. And that was undoubtedly for a 

12 very large shape. And the same calculation they 

13 did it at one foot showed at contact only 77 

14 millirem per hour instead of 230.

15 So we suggest -- and we're not going to 

16 make that a finding. By the way, my whole 

17 presentation right now we should say is preliminary 

18 observations and preliminary conclusions. Given 

19 the very short time we did have the time to have 

20 a thorough, in-depth review that we would normally 

21 do. So we can't say, most likely these are 

22 correct, but we are just saying these would be the 
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 preliminary observations.

2 EXAMPLE OF DOSE RECONSTRUCTION

3 MR. KATZ: Bob, this is Ted. If I 

4 could just interject here. It might be helpful for 

5 you -- perhaps you've been so much involved in a 

6 lot of the SEC DR example cases. But the intent 

7 with reviewing dose reconstruction examples for 

8 SEC evaluations is really a proof of concept. It's 

9 not so much that everything be buttoned down to some 

10 sort of perfection. But it's proof of concept 

11 again so that the Board can feel confident that dose 

12 reconstructions can be done, but not necessarily 

13 that everything be perfect.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I see. Understood.

15 MR. KATZ: Yes.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: My impression from 

17 listening in to the Board meeting was they did want 

18 to know though what --

19 MR. KATZ: I just covered it for you, 

20 Bob, they want to know those dose reconstructions 

21 can in fact be done in reality. That's why they 
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 want to see a dose reconstruction example.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Alright. Well, 

3 there's no question that there is sufficient 

4 information out there particularly including what 

5 the analyses that were just performed and I can 

6 share these with NIOSH. We have precedent with 

7 that for General Steel Industries where NIOSH 

8 simply took -- we did MCNP runs and basically 

9 examined our files, said, "Yes they agree with the 

10 methodology. They agree with the results." So it 

11 became, sort of, jointly adopted numbers.

12 The fact is that the use of the hand 

13 uranium slugs during the first AWE period, which 

14 is 119 days in 1943, is acceptable for the photon 

15 doses. It's acceptable for the beta doses. We 

16 think there is an overestimate of the contact dose. 

17 And NIOSH may want to revise that downward. But 

18 in principle, it can be done.

19 The second AWE period is a little 

20 different in that there again NIOSH accepts our 

21 recommendation as adopting as a source term --

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Bob, I'm wondering --
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 this is Gen -- if we should stop and take each item 

2 as you present them.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Say again?

4 MR. KATZ: Right. Bob, give a pause 

5 and ask the Board Members if they have any questions 

6 on this first.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sorry. Go ahead.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: I guess my question 

9 would be on this one that you state we conclude that 

10 the surrogate data used by NIOSH, blah, blah, blah, 

11 are reasonable except for the skin dose. So I 

12 guess on this one and following what Ted said that 

13 we're really looking for proof of concept as we go 

14 through these, I'd like to make sure that the Work 

15 Group has a chance to discuss it and that we get 

16 SC&A's final word on it. I'd like to close the 

17 items, in other words, as we go along.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: So I wonder if anybody 

20 has any questions or concerns on this one.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Jim, I understand 

22 what you're doing. What I also thought now is --
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 I thought NIOSH was going to -- have they given us 

2 a test run and dose reconstruction? Is this Bob's 

3 --

4 MR. KATZ: Yes.

5 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. I just wanted 

6 to make sure. So this is what we were going off 

7 of. Okay, that's all I wanted to make sure on that 

8 and I'll just follow through.

9 MEMBER FIELD: Okay. This is Bill. 

10 I'm fine to sign off and close it out.

11 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Would this be 

12 SC&A's final word on this then that NIOSH has the 

13 concept and that you feel confident that they'll 

14 follow through.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: For the external 

16 exposure during the first AWE period, we're fine.

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: But we don't want to 

18 get into the same situation at the Board meeting 

19 that we did last time where there are still 

20 questions on it, I guess. I'm looking to hear what 

21 Stiver has to say on this.

22 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro --
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 DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I think 

2 that the issue before us back in November was 

3 basically looking at doing the dose reconstruction 

4 with a different configuration for source term. 

5 And as far as the modeling and all that goes, it's 

6 certainly tractable. Again, the issue was whether 

7 it's sufficiently accurate because the doses were 

8 so much higher. And I could understand why Dr. 

9 Melius wanted to run that to ground.

10 I think that what Bob has shown is that, 

11 yes, they are certainly tractable and within 

12 reasonable bounds. Now the skin contact dose 

13 rate, it's a bit different, a little lower, based 

14 on our calculations. But certainly, I don't think 

15 that's something that would hold up a decision on 

16 the part of the Board, though.

17 John, I know you wanted to say 

18 something. Do you want to jump in there?

19 DR. MAURO: You stole my thunder.

20 I second what you're saying. I spent 

21 a lot of time with Bob going through these. There 

22 are differences in the assumptions, but 
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 fundamentally -- you see, originally, the problem 

2 was we could not match the example problems. And 

3 as a result, Dr. Melius thought until we could do 

4 that, there really is no assurance that it can be 

5 done.

6 And spending time with Bob on the phone, 

7 it's clear that we can now match their numbers, 

8 except we don't agree with them. But that doesn't 

9 mean --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Let me interrupt you.

11 DR. MAURO: Yes.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Actually I was not able 

13 to do a top-to-bottom audit of the dose 

14 reconstruction. There just wasn't enough time. 

15 So I did not run all the internal doses. I have 

16 no reason to believe they can't be done. But it's 

17 simply that I could not do it in the time remaining.

18 I could continue, we could continue, 

19 this and hopefully have a complete or more or less 

20 complete report let's say within a week prior to 

21 the next Board meeting, certainly with the Work 

22 Group. Barring any major disagreements, we may be 
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 able to put it entirely -- formally put it to rest.

2 MR. KATZ: Bob, why don't we just keep 

3 going through these and see what it is that 

4 actually, if anything, there's discomfort with. 

5 But it seems like it's premature to already be 

6 abandoning ship here.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Let's do that.

8 DR. NETON: This is Jim. I'd just to 

9 point out on this first item the difference in the 

10 skin dose rate is really related not to any 

11 calculational differences but a geometry 

12 difference.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

14 DR. NETON: I mean we have assumed that 

15 there was a potential exposure to a somewhat 

16 distributed source and Bob and SC&A has indicated 

17 that a person could only hold one uranium slug or 

18 rod at a time. Therefore, the dose is equivalent 

19 to what was modeled by Anderson and Hertel.

20 I'm not sure that we agree with that 

21 assumption. I mean it's an assumption. I think 

22 we prefer to stick with the higher dose rate because 
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 we don't really know for certain. What Bob says 

2 has some merit, but again it's just an 

3 interpretation issue on our part. It's not a 

4 calculational issue here.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There is very good 

6 documentation which Tom or NIOSH found and we 

7 confirmed that they did, in fact -- I mean this is 

8 one time we have a source term even towards way back 

9 in 1943 that is very well defined. They said they 

10 did ship in what are called Clinton slugs and they 

11 weighed a total of 30 pounds. So you can say 

12 they're three pounds each. And three pounds is 

13 very close to the slugs that Jerry Anderson and 

14 Nolan Hertel did in the paper in the Health Physics 

15 paper.

16 So there apparently was not a large 

17 chunk of uranium that someone could put their hand 

18 on and get --

19 DR. NETON: But in reality, we're using 

20 a 10 slug value which is more of a distributive 

21 source.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Understood.
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 DR. NETON: And you can't certainly be 

2 near that source.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, that's for the 

4 noncontact. And the noncontact we come very 

5 close.

6 DR. NETON: I understand that, but --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But for the skin 

8 contact --

9 DR. NETON: Someone is going to be 

10 grabbing those slugs in a pile, right? I mean 

11 they're there.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

13 DR. NETON: I don't necessarily think 

14 that I agree that it's one slug at a time is the 

15 bound.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Understood and this is 

17 an observation, not an objection. I don't have a 

18 problem with that if that's what you wish to go 

19 with. I know that would make it consistent with 

20 the way you handle uranium in general using 

21 TBD-6000.

22 I just pointed this out. This was the 
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 result of our calculation. But we're not digging 

2 our heels in on this.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: So it appears that

4 NIOSH is proposing is certainly 

5 claimant-favorable. Is that what I'm hearing?

6 DR. NETON: We think so. That's true. 

7 This is Jim.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: You know we may get 

9 into more of this as we go on in the discussion where 

10 there are some disagreements in what I consider the 

11 details of the dose reconstruction. Maybe we 

12 should do as Ted suggests and continue on and see 

13 if we can come to a resolution on that.

14 And this, Bob, what you just said is 

15 that you agree with this. You would accept this, 

16 Neton's approach.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry. I'm not 

18 sure I understood your question.

19 MR. KATZ: Bob, Gen was saying that you 

20 had just said that you agree with Jim Neton's --

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, we can accept it. 

22 Yes, we can live with that.
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 MR. KATZ: Right. So this is one I 

2 guess that we can close.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Do the other 

4 Members of the Work Group agree with that?

5 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill, I'm in 

6 agreement.

7 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. Sorry. 

8 It took a little while to get off mute. I agree.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Then let's go 

10 on to the second AWE period, Bob.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. The second AWE 

12 period goes the other way. NIOSH accepts that the 

13 source term as being the flat plates, because 

14 that's again the one that seems to be closest. We 

15 don't know what their shapes were. We do know what 

16 the total amount, again the limit was 30 pounds in 

17 one place would be source documents.

18 Consequently, they accepted that this 

19 would be -- again the HP-10 rate was 0.23 millirem 

20 per hour to an operator which is the dose at one 

21 foot. We have no problem with that. That's 

22 straight out of the calculations that are shown in 
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 TBD-6000. 

2 But here the beta dose -- saying that 

3 the beta dose is 10 times the photon dose doesn't 

4 work for a shape like this because it's dependent 

5 -- the beta dose only depends on the surface area. 

6 The beta particles can't penetrate more than about 

7 a millimeter of uranium. So it's the top 

8 millimeter that counts.

9 However, the photons may be attenuated, 

10 but irrevocably they never go to zero. So a 

11 larger, a thicker shape gives you more. 

12 Therefore, the relatively low photon dose that 

13 comes out of this flat bar that's about four 

14 centimeters thick, I think, does not give you an 

15 adequate -- multiplying that by ten does not give 

16 you an adequate beta dose.

17 We got a very good dose by running the 

18 model that's four times as high. It's lower than 

19 the beta dose that NIOSH would have assumed from 

20 this very large ingot which is not representative 

21 of what they had. But it's higher than by simply 

22 taking the tenfold -- simply multiplying by ten. 
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 That may work for a large shape. It does not work 

2 for a relatively thin flat shape. That we find we 

3 have a problem with that.

4 We would suggest that NIOSH reconsider 

5 that, and our rate instead of 2.31 is 9.5 millirem 

6 per hour. And we'll be happy to share the MCNP ones 

7 so that NIOSH could inspect them and determine 

8 whether they're acceptable or not.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Tom or Jim, do 

10 you have any comments on that?

11 DR. NETON: Yes, this is Jim. I think 

12 first of all I'm not sure what dimensions were used. 

13 Bob mentioned something about four centimeters. 

14 So we really need to see those MCNP runs.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure. They were 

16 exactly the dimensions in the Anderson and Hertel 

17 paper in Health Physics.

18 DR. NETON: Right. Okay.

19 (Simultaneously speaking)

20 DR. NETON: The other issue is though we 

21 use exactly what is in TBD-6000 which is based on 

22 -- Bob is correct -- film badge measurements, the 
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 beta-to-gamma ratio as established on film badges 

2 which has been the default for quite some time in 

3 6000. That takes into account, at least in my 

4 opinion, the variability of the exposure geometry, 

5 the worker in relationship to the material itself.

6 Even if Bob's number is right which is 

7 9.5 millirem per hour, that's exactly a person's 

8 skin at exactly one foot for 1,000 hours. I forgot 

9 what we modeled.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, one foot 

11 exactly. One foot away.

12 DR. NETON: Exactly one foot. And I'm 

13 not sure that's the relevant dose to use. We've 

14 just seen this. We need to think about it. But 

15 I'm not sure that I necessarily agree.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: As I just said, this is 

17 still lower than the default dose used in TBD-6000 

18 which is from the large ingot, which has been used 

19 for other things. You would get, I believe it's 

20 2.08 millirem per hour photon.

21 DR. NETON: That's correct.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That would give you 
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 20.8 beta.

2 DR. NETON: Right.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So this, what we're 

4 suggesting is lower than that which is relevant to 

5 this particular shape. I say that's arbitrary. 

6 We have to adopt it. We really don't know what the 

7 shape of the metal was in doing the second AWE 

8 period.

9 So it was just chosen as a 

10 claimant-favorable because of the shapes that 

11 roughly correspond to the total mass. This has the 

12 highest surface area, which is along a flat bar and 

13 consequently it gives you the highest photon dose.

14 DR. NETON: Yes, I understand and I 

15 think though that it actually comes up as something 

16 like 40.1 beta-to-gamma ratio, which is something 

17 we've never seen on any film badges under any 

18 exposure geometry consideration. Not never, I 

19 guess, but it doesn't comport with what we know to 

20 be what's been measures in a lot of AWE facilities 

21 over many years.

22 We're not trying to model the highest 
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 dose at one foot. We're trying to model what the 

2 dose to the general skin is here. And I don't know 

3 that this --

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: One foot is what is 

5 being used. My understanding is that one foot is 

6 being used as a representative, whether it's 

7 realistic or not. But that seems to be the one 

8 that's used.

9 DR. NETON: Well, it's one foot from 

10 the surface. But then the beta-gamma ratio takes 

11 into account varying distances of the worker's 

12 whole body skin, not the hands and forearms, but 

13 the whole body skin dose. I don't see that the 

14 whole body skin is representative of 1,000 hours 

15 at one foot.

16 We need to look at it. I guess I can't 

17 comment any more on that other than we need to look 

18 at it. We need to see the calculation and then.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure. I'd be happy. 

20 If I get approval from Ted, I'll be happy to send 

21 them to you later on today.

22 MR. KATZ: Yes, you don't need 
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 approval, that's fine to send them.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Very good. Okay, it 

3 will be a little later this afternoon when I come 

4 back from my appointment. Okay. Other than that, 

5 we're okay on the external for the second AWE 

6 period. 

7 And the next issue is just the order 

8 that I have in this memo is, we went into 

9 considerable detail in the report that came out 

10 last January of 2016 on the modeling of the glove 

11 box for the plutonium or for the plutonium glove 

12 box --

13 MR. KATZ: Hey, Bob. Before you go 

14 onto that, I think the Work Group wanted to talk 

15 about this issue by issue.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes. Well, I was 

18 going to bring that up. But it seemed to me that 

19 we have to leave that one. And there may be others 

20 that will come up, too, that we can't answer right 

21 now. I don't know. Does the Work Group have any 

22 questions on the second AWE period presentation?
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 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. I don't 

2 have any questions, but I'm just trying to get an 

3 idea. Do we really need to leave it? It seems 

4 like it's just a matter of some recalculations.

5 DR. MAURO: This is John. I'd like to 

6 just mention that what we're discussing is 

7 judgments. The issue of can you reconstruct the 

8 doses is not at issue here as it would be with an 

9 SEC. What we're really talking about is what is 

10 the most reasonable, appropriate and 

11 claimant-favorable assumption to make to calculate 

12 the dose. And certainly there's a degree of 

13 discretion that anyone individually making this 

14 can use.

15 So the kind of differences we're 

16 talking about right now as Jim has brought up and 

17 Bob brought up, I think it's very important to keep 

18 this in mind.

19 At least with regard to the analyses 

20 that we looked at, Bob had mentioned he hadn't 

21 looked at the internal yet. But as far as the 

22 issues we're talking about today, you'll notice 
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 that we're really discussing differences in 

2 judgment on what reasonable people would assume to 

3 come at the problem.

4 I don't want anyone to lose sight of 

5 that. And we're really talking quite frankly in 

6 my mind Site Profile-type discussions on how best 

7 to go about doing the modeling. And I thought it 

8 important just to remind everyone of that.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: The thing, I think, 

10 though that we have to answer that Dr. Melius 

11 brought up at the Board meeting the main question 

12 which is can the dose reconstruction be done with 

13 sufficient accuracy. If SC&A agrees that it can

14 be done on this item, then I think you can discuss 

15 the details later.

16 DR. MAURO: I think that's where we are 

17 on this item.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: So I guess the Work 

19 Group is probably looking to SC&A to answer that 

20 question for us.

21 MR. KATZ: Right. So John said 

22 affirmatively. So it's up to you, Gen and Bill and 
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 Brad, to concur or not concur however you want.

2 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I'm 

3 sitting here listening to this and I'm hearing one 

4 side saying, yes, it can be done. But we've just 

5 got a judgment decision. So in my mind, we have 

6 taken care of the issue. It can be done. It's 

7 just we've got to allow these two to be able to work 

8 out what's the best possible organ, what is the best 

9 one.

10 To me, what I'm hearing SC&A telling us

11 is, yes, it can be done with accuracy.

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: That's what I'm 

13 hearing.

14 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, Bill. I agree. 

15 It's all a question of sufficient accuracy. It 

16 sounds like it has sufficient accuracy. It's just 

17 the method.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: And I agree with that. 

19 So I think since we're going through this item by 

20 item, I think we can close this one.

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: Yes, I can agree with 

22 you on that, Gen. The only thing that I would like 
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 to see is when NIOSH and SC&A come together on this 

2 and which way they decide. I'd just like to have 

3 a memorandum just letting us know how it went so 

4 I understand.

5 MR. KATZ: Yes, Brad. We'll have a 

6 follow-up Work Group meeting just to close out this 

7 sort of issue where there's a discussion that it 

8 hasn't been completely finished.

9 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay.

10 MR. KATZ: So we can have another 

11 teleconference and close these matters out for Site 

12 Profile purposes. Of course, it's very helpful to 

13 NIOSH to have this kind of review.

14 MEMBER CLAWSON: Okay. So I have no 

15 problem, Gen, closing it if you'd like to close it.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: Sure. Okay, and 

17 that's the common procedure to have another Work 

18 Group meeting afterwards to close out some of these 

19 Site Profile issues.

20 MEMBER CLAWSON: Sure.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So hearing 

22 no objections to that, then we'll close this one 
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 and we'll move onto the next one, Bob.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. The next one is 

3 the issue that was raised in our review back in 

4 January of last year about the MCNP analysis that 

5 was done on behalf of, or commissioned by NIOSH, 

6 on the plutonium glove box worker. We wrote it up 

7 and I won't go into every detail because there's 

8 a detailed appendix to the report of last January 

9 27, 2016, report. And they were using apparently 

10 -- the person I happen to know who did this named 

11 from the MCNP files. The analysis itself was done 

12 in a very professional manner.

13 But the assumptions, they were using a 

14 glove box design that had been proposed and then 

15 withdrawn by NIOSH during OTIB or TIB-10, which was 

16 about glove box workers.

17 And there were some objections to that. 

18 SC&A and I reviewed that. We had some concerns 

19 about the design of the glove box and the MCNP 

20 analysis that was done at that time. This goes 

21 back several years. And then NIOSH withdrew that. 

22 That was Rev 3 of TIB-10 and then we went on to Rev 
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 4 and did not utilize that.

2 That model had never been accepted. 

3 And there were some problems with it, the main 

4 problems being the distance from the source or the 

5 operator. It was assumed by NIOSH earlier and we 

6 agreed with that that the glove box worker would 

7 typically have the source out one foot from his 

8 body, at 30.5 centimeters. And in this one instead 

9 it was 35 centimeters. And the inverse square law, 

10 that distance significantly changes the dose rate.

11 And it's one foot in a horizontal 

12 direction and then the dose was calculated. Also 

13 five centimeter displacement, that makes it a 

14 little more than 35 centimeters. Sorry. It was 

15 35 centimeters -- I misspoke -- in a horizontal 

16 direction and then another five centimeters into 

17 the vertical. So you take the right triangle and 

18 you come with even more than 35 instead of the 30.5 

19 that was used earlier in the Attila calculation, 

20 which everyone agreed was a reasonable distance for 

21 an average height between average length they would 

22 be working with.
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 Second of all, the other issue was the 

2 characterization of the fuel. Now there were a 

3 number of different fuel mixtures used. But with 

4 plutonium fuel, the older it is the more time there 

5 is for the ingrowth or the decay of plutonium-241 

6 to americium-241 which is a much stronger gamma 

7 emitter than any of the plutonium isotopes.

8 Consequently, assuming that it's five 

9 years old which is an assumption that it's used by 

10 Hanford dose analyses or the default assumption, 

11 would make this again to increase the source term. 

12 And then also there are different configurations, 

13 different mixtures.

14 And there was -- sorry, I'm looking at 

15 this. Oh yeah. The fuel pellets were not just --

16 they were mixed up with plutonium and uranium. And 

17 there was a question of the uranium being enriched. 

18 And there was enriched uranium used at Carborundum. 

19 Literature says anything from 10 percent enriched 

20 uranium, 24 percent enriched uranium. 

21 So without going into the details of 

22 this, it's all in the report of January last year. 
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 We got photon dose rates of 50 percent higher. We 

2 believe that that is a more accurate, 

3 claimant-favorable model. We don't know exactly 

4 what the source terms were, but if you use 

5 documented -- we're not making these up. These 

6 were documented in the various reports and 

7 correspondence from Carborundum.

8 And using the most claimant-favorable 

9 assumptions, we get much higher. Fifty percent 

10 higher at the one foot distance that is assumed for 

11 the operator. At one meter for example, the 

12 general laborer, the difference is not as big.

13 And then there is actually the NIOSH 

14 analysis which is slightly more favorable to 

15 neutron dose. But the neutron dose is a very small 

16 constituent of total dose, so it does not offset 

17 it. So that's one.

18 And again, we've done a very 

19 comprehensive MCNP analysis. We can pass that on 

20 to NIOSH to see whether they would want to utilize 

21 that model and cut down on some of the labor costs 

22 of rerunning it. So I'll pause for any discussion 
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 or questions on that.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Do we hear any 

3 response from NIOSH?

4 MR. TOMES: This is Tom. I'd just like 

5 to point out that we have not seen our views of the 

6 comments on plutonium sources in preparation of the 

7 responses that we sent the Work Group, we focused 

8 on the findings. And it wasn't in with the 

9 findings.

10 But we included it along with other 

11 observations for completeness. But the comments 

12 from SC&A are still under review. And we would 

13 like to see the MCNP files from Dr. Anigstein.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: We have sort of the 

15 same question on this item as the other ones, I 

16 think. Is the concept accepted by SC&A? And it's 

17 a matter of looking at the exact approach. Or is 

18 this something that needs to be looked at before 

19 we can go any further on it?

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I would agree that 

21 we accept the concepts. In other words, we have 

22 a model. NIOSH has a model. NIOSH obviously is 
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 capable of running these models. So just a change 

2 of the source term and the configuration that we 

3 need to agree on.

4 But in principle, we completely agree 

5 that there is enough information available, 

6 perhaps more than enough which is more than one data 

7 source, that this analysis can be done. We don't 

8 dispute that.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: So you would agree 

10 that dose reconstruction here could be done with 

11 sufficient accuracy.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That, in principle, it 

13 can be done.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: It seems it's just in 

15 the same category then. It's an item that the Work 

16 Group -- I'm just throwing this out now -- could 

17 close, but it would come up then at the Work Group 

18 meeting that we would have, the next Work Group 

19 meeting.

20 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. I just 

21 have a question here. You said "in principle." 

22 Can you expand on that a little bit?
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. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I say in principle 

2 it is possible to model the dose to the glove box 

3 worker and other workers standing nearby. Using 

4 this general methodology would simply have some 

5 disagreement. We don't completely agree with the 

6 input data, but if you change input data, of course, 

7 you will change results.

8 It's not a question of that nobody knows 

9 how to do this. It's a question of we didn't make 

10 it a finding. Maybe we should have because we 

11 didn't have quite as strong an opinion as to the 

12 acceptability of the assumption that we're 

13 proposing.

14 MEMBER FIELD: I understand. I just 

15 wanted to clarify.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. I'm not quite 

17 sure yet where to go on this. The Board depends 

18 very much on SC&A's evaluation. That's why we have 

19 SC&A. So I'm looking for something from SC&A that 

20 can help our Work Group Members come to a conclusion 

21 on this.

22 MEMBER FIELD: From my understanding of 
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 what was just said -- that's why I wanted to clarify 

2 the in principle -- it sounds to me like what you're 

3 saying is agreement that this can be done with 

4 sufficient accuracy.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, Bob says yes. 

7 So then I think that this fits in that same 

8 category. We can close this item for the purposes 

9 of this discussion. And we'll follow through on 

10 this later. Am I correct on that?

11 MR. KATZ: Yes, yes. We'll follow 

12 through. This will be another Site Profile matter 

13 to button down.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. But I think we 

15 need to hear from the other Work Group Members on 

16 this.

17 MEMBER CLAWSON: Gen, this is Brad. 

18 I'm good with it. I'm like you. I just wanted to 

19 make sure that it could be done with significant 

20 accuracy. Seeing that, I'm good with this.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Bill?

22 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I'm good, too.
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 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Then unless 

2 there's something further from Bob or NIOSH, I 

3 think we can move onto the next item.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Now I'm going 

5 through the seven issues that were raised in the 

6 original review. Issue No. 1 is doses to skin. 

7 But they are actually using it for this. So maybe 

8 you should delete the word skin and just say doses 

9 from the x-ray diffraction apparatus because NIOSH 

10 is using that for the whole body also.

11 And I explained here in my memo there 

12 was a report that came out last June about the x-ray 

13 diffraction apparatus. And I did not do a detailed 

14 review of that because that report was attached to 

15 a second report by Tom Tomes who said XRD is not 

16 the limiting pathway. The uranium metal is. So 

17 I figured we don't have to really do a detailed 

18 examination because they've looked at it and then 

19 said it doesn't rise to the surface as the bounding 

20 pathway.

21 But now that we lowered the suggestion, 

22 the source term from the uranium, now XRD came up 
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 again to the fore. Now NIOSH found that the dose 

2 to the operator is limited by exposure to the 

3 uranium because he's up close and personal with it. 

4 But the dose to the other workers who were a little 

5 further away, the XRD becomes dominant.

6 I did a detailed examination because 

7 there was some question about the assumptions about 

8 how this was performed. I took the occasion on 

9 Saturday to telephone the worker who had furnished 

10 the information. This was sort of a chain 

11 referral. One of the claimants that had been 

12 interviewed -- I believe NIOSH interviewed six 

13 former workers and one survivor as part of their 

14 original SEC Evaluation Report -- and one of them 

15 struck my eye as being interesting because he 

16 claims he had worked with thorium which I will get 

17 to in a minute.

18 So I spoke with that gentleman. And I 

19 also asked him if he knew anything about XRD. And 

20 he said, no, he didn't, but he was in touch with 

21 a former colleague, a fellow worker from that era, 

22 who did, who was familiar with XRD.
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 So I called that gentleman. That was 

2 a year ago, over a year ago. And we spoke and he 

3 had some information. I included a report of that 

4 interview in our review of the ER.

5 And then subsequently, a member of the 

6 ORAU team -- I believe someone is on the phone now 

7 -- spoke with him to confirm the information. And 

8 the one factor that basically was consistent --

9 there were some differences in some slight details 

10 -- with the interview notes that I had made from 

11 both of the gentlemen.

12 Wrote it up and typed it up and mailed 

13 it to him. He didn't have email. So I mailed it 

14 to him with a stamped self-address return envelope. 

15 He very graciously wrote in comments in ink on this. 

16 So there was what appeared in the final review 

17 included with my initial notes with his comments.

18 Anyway, the issue/question that I had 

19 in my mind was how much time did he spend in the 

20 vicinity of the apparatus. My impression from the 

21 review from the report was that it was an 

22 assumption. He did not answer that question when 
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 asked that question.

2 He did say that he would set it up. 

3 Then once it was running, he would walk away because 

4 it didn't require his presence and he was aware of 

5 radiation exposure hazards. But as far as I could 

6 tell he didn't get the time. So it was assumed that 

7 it was two minutes which just intuitively sounded 

8 to me like a very short time. But mostly it was 

9 undocumented.

10 When I spoke to him and asked him how 

11 much time did he spend, he said, "Well, two or three 

12 minutes to change the sample." Then in the same 

13 vicinity he said there was a chart recorder that 

14 was his friend that was with the apparatus. So he 

15 would check the chart recorder, make a notation on 

16 it. He couldn't be precise.

17 But basically my takeaway was that he 

18 spent about five minutes, two or three minutes with 

19 the chart recorder, two or three minutes actually 

20 changing the sample. Perhaps somebody would come 

21 by and say something to him and he might linger near 

22 the apparatus while they have a conversation. 
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 Five minutes rather than two minutes sounded like 

2 a much more favorable and a more conservative 

3 assumption.

4 And then the other objection that I had 

5 to the analysis done by NIOSH was that we agreed 

6 to use a paper published by Joel Lubenau and his 

7 associates who were working for the State of 

8 Pennsylvania Department -- I'm not sure I'm getting 

9 the exact name right -- of Radiation Control. And 

10 they were concerned.

11 They had done a survey of a number of 

12 such instruments throughout the state. And they 

13 came away -- it was published in Health Physics --

14 and reported that the highest rate at the edge of 

15 the table, not on the table itself, was 2 mR per 

16 hour.

17 We don't know what the skin dose was to 

18 the hands. However, given the high skin dose rate 

19 -- 5230 millirem per hour of contact with the 

20 uranium metal, that would certainly bound this 

21 exposure. So I would not have a problem with that.

22 However, the 2 mR per hour was measured 
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 with one of two instruments, either a Victoreen 

2 440RF or Nuclear Chicago 2586. It so happens that 

3 there was this symposium or meeting sponsored by 

4 a predecessor of EPA. It was a government agency 

5 called Bureau of Electronic Products. They 

6 sponsored a meeting in about 1970 in Philadelphia. 

7 And Lubenau was one of the speakers and also a man 

8 by the name of Els, E-L-S. Els said that for the 

9 purposes of making measurements, radiation 

10 protection measurements of the XRD apparatus they 

11 assumed that it was a copper target which is what 

12 this worker at Carborundum confirmed that their 

13 apparatus used a copper target. 

14 And therefore the scattered radiation, it's 

15 not the primary. The primary beam is quite well 

16 contained or the beam catcher would stop the 

17 primary beam. The primary beam is a 50 KeV x-ray.

18 But the scatter beam is the selected --

19 that's why they use a copper target -- copper 

20 characteristic radiation. It's in the range of 

21 8.0 to 8.9 KeV. And Els' paper said that 90 percent 

22 of the photon slug of scattered radiation is in that 
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 range. And therefore the instrument under reports 

2 if that's calibrated for that low energy.

3 He calculated depending on the dose 

4 rate either 2.42 or 2.48 correction factor. You 

5 multiply that reading by this factor. And I 

6 actually corresponded with Mr. Lubenau by email and 

7 showed him what we're doing and asked him whether 

8 he thought that this Els' correction factor which 

9 he was a participant in the same meeting where this 

10 reported. He said, "Yes, he would agree that this 

11 should be adopted to be conservative."

12 So now we have two factors. We go from 

13 two minutes to five minutes. And we go from 2 mR 

14 per hour to twice, 2.48 or basically 5 mR per hour 

15 at the exposure rate. However, if we grant that 

16 this is around 8 to 9 KeV, then in calculating organ 

17 doses we should use the dose conversion factor MB 

18 OCAS-IG-001 for under 30 KeV rather than the 32 250 

19 KeV. And that brings it down to a factor of ten. 

20 So we're basically back to where we started. 

21 Different methodology, but the organ doses for the 

22 two organs under consideration, the kidney and the 
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 kidney which is represented by the liver and the 

2 lungs actually come out less even with these other 

3 assumptions from this component.

4 So we have a technical quarrel with the 

5 NIOSH's analysis. But in principle, we can 

6 establish limits. So in principle, it can be 

7 calculated with reasonable assumption that can be 

8 calculated. I'll take accuracy even to SC&A. 

9 It's not the one that makes that judgment. The 

10 Board makes that judgment.

11 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. The 

12 discussion you just had just came out. I think you 

13 just sent it out last night.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is correct.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: I don't know whether 

16 -- it sounds like you did a very thorough job and 

17 looked at everything here. But I'm wondering what 

18 NIOSH's approach is on this is.

19 DR. NETON: This is -- go ahead, Tom.

20 MR. TOMES: Go ahead, Jim. I was just 

21 going to say I hadn't had a chance to review this 

22 very thoroughly.
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 DR. NETON: I've looked at it and of 

2 course this is based on new information that Bob 

3 obtained by interviewing one of the people involved 

4 here. I have no doubt in what he's saying.

5 I will point out that Bob's correct that 

6 in a security sort of way we end up at the same 

7 point. And I'll point out that both exposures are 

8 in the 100 millirem range to the organs. So even 

9 though we got similar doses at the end of the day, 

10 I will point out that I think this is a Site Profile 

11 type issue and especially in light of the fact that 

12 these are pretty small doses altogether.

13 If you divide the 1.03 R by dose 

14 conversion factor which is about ten or 0.1.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: 0.1.

16 DR. NETON: What's that?

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The dose conversion 

18 factor that energy range is around 0.1.

19 DR. NETON: Right. So you multiply 1 

20 rem per year times 0.1 you get about 100 millirems 

21 to the organ.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Correct.
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 DR. NETON: And I checked some of the 

2 other ones outside of the two that Bob looked at 

3 and they're all similar. You can even have smaller 

4 doses because the further the more internal organs 

5 obviously you have less dose.

6 I don't know that we would 100 percent

7 agree with this. But I think we need to take into 

8 account this new information and we will. But 

9 again I think this is a matter of a problem that 

10 we can do something here. It's just how much we 

11 can tweak it.

12 MR. TOMES: This is Tom again. I think 

13 we'd like to see a copy of the additional 

14 information from the worker that Dr. Anigstein 

15 obtained for a reference for us. Let me look at 

16 this if we could get that.

17 MR. KATZ: Yes. Tom, we'll send you 

18 everything.

19 MR. TOMES: Okay.

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: Board Members. I'd 

21 make a comment on this. I've read through this 

22 quick thoroughly and I have studied this issue 
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 before. Certainly by using the references from 

2 Lubenau and others it's very authoritative people 

3 on this issue. And also I think by having the 

4 interview from the worker and using claimant's 

5 information, the times here you've got values for 

6 the exposure. You've got values for time. I'm 

7 convinced that you can do dose reconstruction with 

8 sufficient accuracy. I think it's the Site 

9 Profile issue. 

10 But I'd like to hear from the other 

11 Board Members, Work Group Members.

12 MEMBER FIELD: Sure. This is Bill 

13 again. I agree. I think it's a Site Profile 

14 issue.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. It's 

16 already been said that they can do it. It's just 

17 how it's done where there's a little bit of a 

18 problem there. But it comes down to a Site Profile 

19 issue. So I have no problems closing it.

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: Thank you. And any 

21 other comments?

22 (No verbal response)
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 Thank you, Bob, for all the research on 

2 this. I think we can close this item. Is that 

3 agreed upon?

4 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. Yes.

5 MEMBER FIELD: Yes.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. All right. 

7 Then let's go to thorium.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. The thorium was 

9 something we raised. Again, what worker for the 

10 same year that we found. But one of the workers 

11 that was initially interviewed as part of the SEC 

12 evaluation by NIOSH I then called and 

13 re-interviewed just to confirm and get more details 

14 reported working with thorium. And based on our 

15 experience with this project, thorium always 

16 raises a red flag because for some reason, I mean 

17 it's a higher dose conversion factor than the 

18 uranium which we typically encounter. And also 

19 there is data on it. So we said this guy worked 

20 with thorium.

21 Also the manager or supervising 

22 engineer -- I won't mention him because he was an 
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 official. There is no need to enter his name --

2 in a biographical sketch of his, he reported that 

3 one of his duties or accomplishments at Carborundum 

4 is setting up a facility for handling plutonium and 

5 a second facility for handling uranium and thorium. 

6 So that's clearly indicated. Uranium and thorium 

7 are handled and there was some thorium handled. 

8 And they were handled in the same facility.

9 So the issue came up of this was in 

10 between the AWE periods. So the thorium at the 

11 time was handled would not be a source term that 

12 would have to be considered. But if there was 

13 thorium contamination in that facility and that 

14 workers were later exposed to it. And since we 

15 have data HASL Laboratory of the Atomic Energy 

16 Commission had come in and made measurements. 

17 They simply measured gross alpha. It was assumed 

18 to be uranium because at that time only the uranium 

19 was being handled.

20 We said wait a second. If there was 

21 thorium from past contamination and it was 

22 resuspended. And without going in more detailed 
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 analysis which they didn't do, some of those gross 

2 alphas could be thorium.

3 Our find was simply that since NIOSH 

4 made no mention of this they should address it. 

5 That was basically our conclusion in the original 

6 review.

7 Now looking at it NIOSH responded that 

8 they looked into it further. They agreed that 

9 thorium was handled in this in-between period. It 

10 was handled, but uranium work was also being done 

11 at this same period. So any residual 

12 contamination would be uranium and thorium.

13 Since uranium was correctly modeled, I 

14 did what I would call a back-of-the-envelope 

15 calculation. My envelope is an Excel spreadsheet, 

16 but anyway it was just using some general 

17 assumptions saying "Let's say that thorium was 

18 deposited in 1955." But that's a period that that 

19 worker mentioned.

20 And let's say that a deposition rate of 

21 -- but granted NIOSH said that also uranium was 

22 being handled. So let's say equal amounts of 
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 thorium and uranium were deposited. And the total 

2 amount of deposition was comparable to what was 

3 deposited later during the AWE period.

4 But also we looked at this to OTIB-70 

5 that has the depletion year by year. But what 

6 happened to the deposits. Well, there's no real 

7 rigorous cleanup. It nevertheless just in 

8 sweeping the floor and just normal attrition it 

9 goes down.

10 So let's say using 1961 which is when 

11 we had the majority of the air samples were taken 

12 by that time any original activity done in '55 would 

13 be defeated to 29 percent of its original value. 

14 So we say there was some deposited then. Half of 

15 it was thorium. It went down to 29 percent.

16 And then by 1961 it's now mixed with the 

17 stuff, with the new material that's not depleted. 

18 Then if you consider the fact that it has an 88 

19 percent higher dose conversion factor for the 

20 lungs, nevertheless with these it would make a 

21 difference of 10 percent. But that's only if you 

22 assume that everything is re-suspended. And 
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 forgetting that some of the activity that was 

2 measured by HASL might have come from ongoing. 

3 That would be operations.

4 The original dust that was being 

5 generated just making these bounding estimates we 

6 said the worst it could be at 10 percent and even 

7 that is not a realistic number. So the chances are 

8 it's going to be smaller.

9 We agree with NIOSH that this source 

10 term can be neglected. So we considered that NIOSH 

11 did in fact address this because they did fail to 

12 address. Now they have remedied that. They did 

13 address it and we consider it to be a satisfactory 

14 matter.

15 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So your 

16 conclusion in your paper then is that this item is 

17 closed.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: Good. Okay. Any 

20 questions by the Work Group or anyone else?

21 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I have 

22 no problems with it.
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 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. I'm fine 

2 with it.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Then let's 

4 move onto the next one.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Issue three 

6 we're skipping because I was told that has been 

7 closed already. And then Issues four and five 

8 NIOSH has failed to assign doses from medical 

9 x-rays. In the original SEC Evaluation Report and 

10 the example of dose reconstruction that was done 

11 way back in July 2015, there was inconsistency. In 

12 one case, they said they would use medical x-rays. 

13 The dose reconstruction did not assign medical 

14 x-rays. It was not consistent with general NIOSH 

15 policy.

16 NIOSH responded to that. In the latest 

17 dose reconstruction, they did assign medical 

18 x-rays in the two cases for every year of employment 

19 during the AWE period. We confirmed it. In that 

20 respect, it was done.

21 However, we did find some discrepancies 

22 in the actual doses that were assigned. In the 
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 first case for the lung, they used this OTIB-006 

2 which prescribed the doses for radiographic 

3 examination of the chest. They prescribed the 

4 doses for each organ. And for the lung, they 

5 prescribed a dose of 83.8 millirem. That in fact 

6 is what was entered into the spreadsheet.

7 However, the same document should have 

8 assigned an uncertainty of 30 percent. The 

9 discussion of the uncertainty was the recommended 

10 prescribed uncertainty of 30 percent. And this I 

11 think was probably just a calculational error 

12 because the spreadsheet, the IREP input, does list 

13 an uncertainty of 16.75 millirem which comes out 

14 to be exactly 20 percent.

15 So I would suspect it was a slip in the 

16 calculation. But the fact is that if the 

17 uncertainty is lower given that IREP takes the 99 

18 percentile, it would slightly lower the 

19 contribution to the overall dose. That unless 

20 there's a reason for it needs to be corrected.

21 Then the other organ for the kidney 

22 there is another document of OTIB-5 which gives 
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 substitute or the kidney is not one of the target 

2 organs in the ICRP model. So they use the closest 

3 organ for which there is external dose 

4 calculations. They use the closest organ.

5 And the substitute organ that is 

6 prescribed is the liver which is in fact what was 

7 done for all the others, uranium, and all the other 

8 external radiation sources. To calculate the dose 

9 of the kidney, they actually take the dose of the 

10 liver and assign it to the kidney which is 

11 appropriate.

12 However, in this case, it wasn't done. 

13 And the dose to the liver would have been 90.2 

14 millirem. But instead the dose that is entered for 

15 the medical x-rays is 25 millirem. And I'm just 

16 speculating. I just looked on the table in the 

17 OTIB-6 to see what organ could they be using. My 

18 guess was that they were using the urinary bladder 

19 because that is one of the organs that had that 

20 particular dose.

21 We believe -- my background is in 

22 physics even though I have quite a bit of experience 
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 in the medical field. John Mauro has his degree 

2 in biology. So I can consult with him as an expert. 

3 He agreed that the bladder -- the actual anatomical 

4 diagram probably from a textbook presented in 

5 OTIB-006 would show that the bladder is way down 

6 in the body quite far away from the lung on the 

7 radiation field that would be imposed on the lungs 

8 and therefore is not an appropriate substitute for 

9 the kidney lying just under the liver. So the 

10 liver is in fact appropriate, not that it's already 

11 been decided but particularly for this field. 

12 So I believe again that we disagree with 

13 the dose. We agree the idea that they did assign 

14 doses. They did assign doses for each year of 

15 employment. And in this case incidentally the 

16 uncertainty based on this 25 millirem was 

17 calculated of 30 percent of the dose which 

18 indicates again that the other one that was 20 

19 percent was probably just a calculational error.

20 In principle, they did respond. They 

21 did assign medical x-ray. But we believe that 

22 there's a discrepancy with the dose that was 
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 assigned.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Does NIOSH 

3 have any response to that?

4 MR. TOMES: This is Tom Tomes. Yes, I 

5 take Dr. Anigstein's suggestion that I made an 

6 error in using 20 percent uncertainty for the lung 

7 activity and should have used 30 percent 

8 uncertainty. I do want to point out that when I 

9 forwarded those examples I indicated they were 

10 draft and had not been thoroughly reviewed 

11 sufficiently. That error was not caught by me when 

12 I was preparing those.

13 On the other discrepancy on the dose to 

14 the kidneys, I would have to concur that the wrong 

15 category was selected. So I basically agree with 

16 Dr. Anigstein's comments that the x-ray dose would 

17 be as specified by Dr. Anigstein.

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. What 

19 I'm hearing is that they can do it. It's not an 

20 SEC issue. It's a Site Profile issue again.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. And that's my 

22 conclusion, too. Bill.
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 MEMBER FIELD: Yes, I agree.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So thank you, 

3 Bob, for catching that and I think we can proceed 

4 on then unless there are other questions to the next 

5 item.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. The next issue 

7 was that in the original calculations back in July 

8 2015 NIOSH had calculated the external dose both 

9 from photons and electrons from submersion in a 

10 cloud of radioactive dust and from exposure to 

11 contaminated surface. They used an old EPA report 

12 called Federal Guidance Report No. 12 -- it came 

13 out I think in 1998 -- which is not consistent with 

14 the way NIOSH does it.

15 TBD-6000 is being used as a source 

16 document. TBD-6000 does in fact give calculated 

17 values of the dose rates per unit from both air 

18 submersion which is always insignificant and from 

19 the contaminated floor. I verified that 

20 in fact in the current calculation they did employ. 

21 They did remove any reference to Federal Guidance 

22 12 and did in fact correctly copy the values from 
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 Tables 3.9 and 3.10 in TBD-6000. Those were 

2 correctly copied into the spreadsheet.

3 I have to add though where I verified 

4 those -- I verified the formulas -- I did not 

5 finish. So I did not do a top to bottom audit to 

6 see whether the dose is calculated in such a manner 

7 were in fact transferred to the IREP input. I just 

8 ran out of time for doing that. I have no reason 

9 to question it one way or the other. I have no 

10 opinion on whether it was utilized. But the 

11 approach -- the intent was correct -- was correct.

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: By saying the 

13 approach was correct, you would believe that NIOSH 

14 can do an accurate dose reconstruction.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Absolutely.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Any questions 

17 or any comments by Work Group Members?

18 MEMBER CLAWSON: Gen, this is Brad. 

19 I'm good with it.

20 MEMBER FIELD: Yes. I am, too. Bill.

21 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Anything else 

22 on this item? We'll follow through on this later 
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 then. Okay.

2 MR. KATZ: Well, there's no follow-up 

3 needed, Gen, on this one.

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: Pardon?

5 MR. KATZ: There's no follow-up really 

6 needed on this one.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

8 MR. KATZ: He doesn't have to do the 

9 calculations. No.

10 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes, usually that's 

11 not a requirement to go through an example of dose 

12 reconstruction.

13 MR. KATZ: Right.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Issue seven.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, Issue seven, 

16 which was simply said we could not match the dose 

17 calculation in the original example DR. 

18 Unfortunately, we can't resolve that because we 

19 have not -- it was just not enough time to do a total 

20 dose -- look at individual components which I just 

21 discussed. But I could not do a total dose 

22 reconstruction just for lack of time.
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 So that one remains in my opinion in 

2 abeyance. Again, I have no reason to believe that 

3 there will be a problem, but we have not been able 

4 to verify that.

5 MR. KATZ: Bob, it's not necessary for 

6 you to audit it that way for this purpose. This 

7 isn't an individual dose reconstruction case.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was one of the 

9 things we did before and was not able to match the 

10 number.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So I can't say we've 

13 resolved it until we've resolved it.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: There's not enough 

15 information here for me to really evaluate this. 

16 But I'm thinking that this is something that we 

17 don't have to answer for our presentation to the 

18 Board. Am I right on that?

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What I would propose 

20 doing is I believe that since there's still 10 days 

21 before the Board meeting that now that we're way, 

22 way up the ladder finishing this that we started 
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 and then sending out a brief memo, maybe not a 

2 formal report but basically an extension of this 

3 memo filling in that seventh item. That's 

4 something that should be done. We could probably 

5 do it in a few days. Hopefully, we don't find any 

6 problems.

7 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think that's up to 

8 SC&A as to whether they feel that it should be done.

9 MR. KATZ: It's actually up to the Work 

10 Group as to whether that's necessary.

11 CHAIR ROESSLER: Well, I don't think 

12 that's necessary for our presentation to the Board. 

13 I guess it would just complete things if there's 

14 time to do it.

15 I guess I'd go ahead with getting our 

16 presentation ready. I guess we're not quite 

17 through with everything here, but if we close all 

18 the other items, I think we'd go back to the Board 

19 and come up with the same conclusion that we did 

20 before that doses can be reconstructed. Then if 

21 we have this confirmation by the time of the Board 

22 meeting, that would just add to it.
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 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I think we can 

2 have it.

3 MR. STIVER: Bob, this is John Stiver. 

4 You're pretty confident you can have the results 

5 in time for the meeting.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I'm reasonably 

7 confident.

8 MR. STIVER: Right. Let's bring this 

9 up because this is one of the issues of Dr. Melius 

10 last August.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, they were 

12 specifically concerned with the fact that it could 

13 not -- that the doses --

14 MR. STIVER: Yes.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think they will be 

16 happier.

17 MR. STIVER: Yes.

18 MR. KATZ: Let me clarify. There were 

19 issues that we've gone over in detail and the issue 

20 is not being able to then run through. We've 

21 already covered all of the substantive matters.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I believe so, but you 
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 know the expression that I like to use is the devil 

2 is in the details. And we just need to know. I 

3 would feel much more comfortable knowing that if 

4 I do an independent audit of reconstruction to see 

5 if there are any differences. And if there are 

6 differences which by the way does happen, they can 

7 be explained. Here is a little shortcut. Here's 

8 something. They could be explained away.

9 MR. STIVER: But, Bob, we're basically 

10 to the Site Profile space here now. I mean this 

11 is really verifying a sample of reconstruction that 

12 we've already agreed is being done according to 

13 reasonable efforts. So we're not really -- this 

14 is not an SEC issue. Let's make sure that's not 

15 conflated on the part of the other Board Members. 

16 We have to make sure that that's understood.

17 MR. KATZ: Right. Thank you, John. 

18 That's my main point. And it's fine to do that, 

19 Bob, just in case something was missed in your 

20 review.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly.

22 MR. KATZ: But again remember that this 
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 not an actual dose reconstruction for a 

2 claimant.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Of course.

4 MR. KATZ: This is just a proof of 

5 concept. So it's fine to do that to see if you've 

6 missed anything. But it's not holding the process 

7 up.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. We should be 

9 able to do that.

10 MR. KATZ: What I'm saying in my 

11 opinion it's not even necessary for Gen's purpose 

12 in proving the methods are there and viable and so 

13 on and generally can be done.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: And I think he agrees 

15 that it can be done.

16 MR. KATZ: Right.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. But if we can go 

18 ahead during this next week and put out a supplement 

19 to this I assume that would add some value.

20 CHAIR ROESSLER: But our criterion is 

21 can dose reconstruction be done. I think that's 

22 what you agreed that it can be.
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. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: You just want to check 

3 the details.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly.

5 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes. So then I think 

6 our purpose for today we have completed that item. 

7 But I think we should get Work Group comments on 

8 it.

9 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. It seems 

10 like it can be done with sufficient accuracy. It 

11 sounds like what's being purposed is to check to 

12 see as is the case. But I see no problems with 

13 doing this.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

15 MEMBER CLAWSON: This is Brad. I have 

16 no problems with it either.

17 CHAIR ROESSLER: All right.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And then this -- Sorry.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: Go ahead, Bob.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. The final 

21 observation which just happens -- again, I started 

22 on what I'm proposing to do, but didn't get that 
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 far. Didn't finish. Something that crossed my 

2 eye was simply a discrepancy that on one worksheet 

3 of the same workbook in the files that were 

4 transmitted by NIOSH for 1943 time period for AWE. 

5 The external doses assumed that the work that they 

6 worked 2400 hours per year which is simply a 48 work 

7 week which was common at that time. They worked 

8 six days a week, eight hours a day multiplied by 

9 50 weeks with a couple of weeks off. So that comes 

10 out to 2400 hours per year.

11 On the very next page, it calculates the 

12 intakes of inhaled dust. There they used 2500 

13 hours a year. And it would seem to me that the two 

14 calculations should be consistent.

15 MR. TOMES: This is Tom Tomes. I can 

16 take a look at that. I assume that Dr. Anigstein 

17 is correct in saying that. I haven't had a chance 

18 to verify that. But all these values we have are 

19 considered draft until we've gone through and 

20 discussed them. That change can be made. I agree 

21 with you that it should be 2400.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. I think that 
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 completes your presentation, Bob.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry. Say it 

3 again.

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: Does that complete 

5 your presentation?

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That completes what 

7 we've gotten as of last night.

8 PATH FORWARD FOR ISSUE RESOLUTION OR PRESENTATION TO 

9 BOARD 

10 CHAIR ROESSLER: At this point, I 

11 think we've crossed off everything on this list. 

12 It appears to me that we have done a thorough 

13 evaluation of this whole site with the Board 

14 comments particularly in mind. It also appears to 

15 me that we still have the same conclusion that we 

16 had in our presentation to Board. 

17 I think we have to go to the Board then 

18 next week and make a presentation along these 

19 lines. Do other Work Group Members agree with what 

20 I've just said?

21 MEMBER FIELD: This is Bill. Yes, I 

22 agree, Gen. I think we're unanimous in that.
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 CLAWSON: This is Brad. I 

2 agree with you, Gen.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: So then I think what 

4 we have to do in our approach is in order to actually 

5 have a slide presentation for the Board it has to 

6 be done, Ted, I think you said by the end of the 

7 day today.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh no. 

9 MR. KATZ: Bob, wait. I'm not asking 

10 it for an SC&A presentation at this point. The 

11 deadline is today. I've warned them that today is 

12 not going to work for this one since we're meeting 

13 today.

14 But we are pressed to get it in. It's 

15 got to be posted in advance and it doesn't get 

16 posted in a day or two. So we need to get it done. 

17 I would say we probably could get away with this 

18 until maybe Wednesday at latest like midday 

19 Wednesday.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I can't commit to that.

21 (Simultaneous speaking)

22 MR. KATZ: So let's talk about it then 
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 who could do a presentation, who could prepare, how 

2 we can do this.

3 CHAIR ROESSLER: Fine.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The presentation. 

5 I'm sorry.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think it's up to the 

7 Work Group to make the presentation.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I'm sorry.

9 CHAIR ROESSLER: Unfortunately I'm a 

10 little bit tied up in the next couple days. But 

11 I think that we need somebody. I've got notes from 

12 what transpired today. But I'm wondering if Tom 

13 would be available to put something together and 

14 work with me on this.

15 MR. TOMES: Yes, I should be able to do 

16 that. I just need a little guidance on how much 

17 you want to include.

18 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think we have an 

19 hour at the meeting. If you do a good job on the 

20 slide presentation it probably won't take that 

21 long. But we want to make sure there's plenty of 

22 time for discussion.
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 MR. KATZ: Right, and we need to leave 

2 time for the Petitioners if they want to comment 

3 too. So really we're talking about an update here. 

4 And I don't think you need to rehash much. It's 

5 just to remind them where we left things off I 

6 think.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me, Bob. I 

8 misunderstood what we are talking about. I'm 

9 certainly available to help with the presentation. 

10 I thought you were talking about doing the dose 

11 reconstruction.

12 MR. KATZ: No, we weren't talking about 

13 that.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm definitely 

15 available.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: Bob, I think what we 

17 could do here is have Tom put together if he's 

18 willing to do this a brief slide presentation. 

19 Then you and I can go over it and make sure that 

20 we are all on the same page on it.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Ted, can Tom and I do 
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 this offline?

2 MR. KATZ: Yes, of course. 

3 Absolutely.

4 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Or if I may make 

6 another suggestion. Gen, would you want to work 

7 off of the presentation that was prepared for last 

8 November and just update it?

9 MR. KATZ: Yes, I think so.

10 CHAIR ROESSLER: We'll take a look at 

11 that. I can see several points in it of parts that 

12 we could use from the one that was used at the last 

13 Board meeting.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I helped prepare that 

15 one.

16 CHAIR ROESSLER: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: So Tom has that 

18 presentation.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure.

20 MR. KATZ: I think we sent some emails, 

21 Bob, offline about this before this meeting. I 

22 think if Tom just cannibalizes what is useful from 
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 that and then just goes forward to update on all 

2 this checking work that you've done, Bob, and the 

3 Work Groups' conclusions, that will work out. 

4 Then, Bob, Gen and Tom will share that draft with 

5 you.

6 CHAIR ROESSLER: We can get that done 

7 before -- Well, how soon do we have to have an actual 

8 presentation?

9 MR. KATZ: I think Wednesday midday is 

10 probably as far as we can get and get it posted in 

11 time for the meeting.

12 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. Tom, I'm 

13 available the rest of the day. I think we can work 

14 this out and then we'll get something to Bob.

15 MR. TOMES: I think I could get a draft 

16 relatively soon if I work off the former 

17 presentation with just editing it and up updating 

18 it.

19 CHAIR ROESSLER: Right. Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: Check me if you want. I've 

21 taken notes during this whole meeting too. If you 

22 guys are short on these items, I think I should have 
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 it.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: And I think from the 

3 former presentation we don't need those detail 

4 slides in my opinion on each finding. I think we 

5 can flush that out without all that detail.

6 MR. KATZ: I agree.

7 MR. STIVER: Hey Gen. One other 

8 thing. Bob Barton is also taking notes and he 

9 takes really good detailed notes. He could send 

10 you whatever he has, too.

11 MR. KATZ: Yes. So, Bob, go ahead and 

12 email that to Tom and Gen and copy me.

13 MR. BARTON: Will do.

14 CHAIR ROESSLER: Ted, I also don't know 

15 how we can get Poston's comments on this. 

16 Certainly I think we could get them before the Board 

17 meeting.

18 MR. KATZ: Yes. We don't always have 

19 all our Work Group Members present for the last 

20 meeting before a Board meeting. I think that's 

21 okay.

22 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay.
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 MR. KATZ: I think he's received all of 

2 Bob's reports. Then we can copy him on the 

3 presentation so he's up to date on what the Work 

4 Group did.

5 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. That sounds 

6 good.

7 MR. KATZ: I think that will work fine.

8 CHAIR ROESSLER: Okay. So I think we 

9 have completed everything unless someone from the 

10 Work Group or NIOSH or SC&A has any further 

11 comments. Oh, we didn't hear from the 

12 Petitioners.

13 MR. KATZ: We don't really have to --

14 I mean the Petitioners, we have some time if the 

15 Petitioners want to talk to us now. 

16 But we didn't have it on the agenda. But that's 

17 fine, Robert or Karen, is it?

18 MR. KIFER: Jan, did you want to say 

19 anything?

20 (No verbal response)

21 MR. KATZ: You're welcome to if you 

22 have something you want to say.
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 PETITIONER COMMENTS

2 MR. KIFER: I only had a couple from 

3 when the doctor was talking about cancer of the 

4 liver and the lungs. He didn't mention bone and 

5 that was included.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob Anigstein. 

7 The reason we didn't, NIOSH had simply chosen to 

8 use as an example a kidney and lung as the organs. 

9 There are something like 22 organs that are 

10 considered and NIOSH has a methodology for each of 

11 them.

12 MR. KATZ: Robert, are you 

13 understanding. NIOSH's example didn't involve 

14 bone cancer. But that's not to say that there 

15 isn't a method for bones.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly.

17 MR. KIFER: That's what I was 

18 wondering.

19 MR. KATZ: Yes, so there will be a 

20 method for bones. It just wasn't the example that 

21 they prepared so that we could see that the 

22 methodology is correct.
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 MR. KIFER: And could I ask you what 

2 year the person worked at Carborundum? What year 

3 you interviewed him about? What year was he there?

4 MR. KATZ: So, Bob, you can say the date 

5 range. But actually, Robert, he can't tell you the 

6 year.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I understand.

8 MR. KATZ: That's a privacy issue.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: He was there I believe 

10 in -- give me one second. He was definitely there 

11 in the 50s and 60s.

12 MR. KIFER: Fifties and 60s.

13 MR. KATZ: Yes.

14 MR. KIFER: Okay. I was just 

15 wondering. That's it on my side. I don't know if 

16 my sister has to say anything. Jan, are you still 

17 on?

18 (No response)

19 MR. KATZ: I guess not. But thank you, 

20 Robert, for that.

21 MR. KIFER: Okay. Thank you.

22 MR. KATZ: Thank you. So, Gen, I 
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 think we can adjourn.

2 CHAIR ROESSLER: I think so.

3 MR. KATZ: And I want to say thank you 

4 very much. I know on both sides --

5 MS. KNAPP: Hello.

6 MR. KATZ: Is that Jan?

7 MS. KNAPP: I'm sorry. I'm still on.

8 MR. KATZ: You're still there. So, 

9 Jan, your brother just asked if you had any comments 

10 you wanted to make or questions at this point.

11 MS. KNAPP: Right. My only question 

12 is are you doing the dose reconstruction based on 

13 these workers that you interviewed or is it just 

14 something that needs to be done?

15 MR. KATZ: Jan, the dose 

16 reconstructions that they were talking about today 

17 are just example dose reconstructions. They're 

18 not an actual claimant in these cases.

19 MS. KNAPP: Okay.

20 MR. KATZ: They're just examples to 

21 show how it would be done as opposed to the real 

22 dose reconstructions that they do when they receive 
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 a claim.

2 MS. KNAPP: Okay. Thank you.

3 MR. KATZ: You're welcome. So I was 

4 just saying a real special thanks on both sides. 

5 I know this is a lot of work to try to cover 

6 everything for NIOSH in this amount of time.

7 And it was especially difficult for 

8 Bob, SC&A. You had a week to grind through all this 

9 new ground. You had an incredible amount of 

10 material in this time and it's much appreciated. 

11 That's it. Thanks everyone for their hard work.

12 ADJOURN 

13 CHAIR ROESSLER: Then I think we can 

14 close.

15 (Whereupon, at 11:15 a.m., the 

16 above-entitled matter was concluded.)

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 
83 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

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