TO: Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, Work Group on TBD-6000 

FROM: Robert Anigstein and John Mauro, SC&A 

SUBJECT: Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 

DATE: Friday, January 30, 2015 

Review of “General Steel Industries Layout man Beta Skin Dose,” Response Paper 

On January 8, 2015, David Allen (NIOSH/DCAS) issued two “Response Papers” responding to 

our review of Revision 1 of Appendix BB to TBD-6000 (Anigstein and Mauro 2014b). The 

present memo is our reply to the second of these Response Papers (Allen 2015a). We first 

comment on the individual sections of the Response Paper in the order in which they are 

presented. The subsection headings in this section of our memo are taken from the Response 

Paper. 

1 Comments on “General Steel Industries Layout man Beta Skin Dose,” Response Paper 

1.1 Background Summary 

According to Allen (2015a): 

NIOSH and SC&A exchanged e-mails and files to understand SC&A’s revised 

position on the agreed-upon parameter and exposure scenarios for beta dose 

calculations to the Layout man. . . . SC&A appears to have modified the agreedupon approach for beta-dose calculations, which caused a dose over-estimate. 

(italics added) 

Allen (2015a) is incorrect in stating that our memo of December 10, 2014 (Anigstein and Mauro 

2014b), represents a revision of SC&A’s position on ß skin doses to the layout man. The 

calculations of these doses closely paralleled the calculation of ß skin doses to the betatron 

operator from irradiated steel. Both sets of analyses assumed that the steel had been irradiated 

for 30 h. As stated by SC&A (2008, pp. 25–26) and reiterated in our memo of December 5, 

2013: 

In calculating the concentrations of residual nuclides, we note that the same 

portion of a steel plate could be exposed to the betatron beam several times, both 

because of overlapping shots and because repeated radiographs were performed as 

flaws were repaired and checked. . . . The casting could be returned to the 

betatron room 5–10 times before leaving the plant. Given the possibility of four 

overlapping shots irradiating the same area and an average of 71⁄2 examinations, 

we assumed that the HY-80 steel had been exposed for 30 h (4 × 7.5 × 1 h = 

30 h). (Anigstein and Mauro 2013) 

Furthermore, as stated in our later memo: 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 -1- SC&A – January 30, 2015
 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 
 

 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 -2- SC&A – January 30, 2015
 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

We retained the exposure scenario described by SC&A (2008, p. 42): “To 

calculate the exposure of the layout man, we simplified the [photon exposure] 

scenario described in Section 2.2.4 and made the claimant-favorable assumption 

that he would be exposed to the steel 15 min after the last irradiation and would 

be in contact with the casting 90% of the time for 75 min.” (Anigstein and Mauro 

2014b) 

Our only modification of these previously stated assumptions was to explicitly account for the 

remaining 10% of the shift by calculating the dose rate at a distance of 1 m and adding 10% of 

that rate to the total ß skin doses. This is again consistent with the betatron operator’s ß skin 

dose calculations, in which the operator was assumed to be at a distance of 1 m during 50% of 

the time. Thus, the layout man’s ß skin dose calculations are consistent with the corresponding 

calculations for the betatron operator that were agreed to by NIOSH, SC&A, and the Work 

Group on TBD-6000 during the December 19, 2013, meeting. 

1.2 Agreed-Upon Scenario 

Allen (2015a) outlined the scenario for calculating the layout man’s exposure to photon radiation 

from irradiated steel, first described by SC&A (2008, Section 2.1.4). At that time, our intent was 

to describe and calculate a set of scenarios, based on available information, to present examples 

of calculations of doses from irradiated steel. The scenario outlined by Allen was based on a 

single interview of a former GSI /betatron . The day after the interview, 

and again the following day, the sent emails to the senior author of this memo, 

explaining that the scenario that he had described was the exception rather than the rule. 

Additional information was provided in emails from a former betatron operator, cosigned by 

some of his former colleagues. This material, which is reproduced in the Attachment to the 

present memo, was transmitted by email to the then-Work Group on Procedures Review on May 

28–29, 2008, with copies to NIOSH staff members. 

These emails and memos indicate much more complex and nuanced scenarios. Since the 

exposures of the layout man to direct penetrating radiation from irradiated steel were trivial 

compared to direct exposure to the penumbra of the betatron x-ray beam and radiation scattered 

from the casting being radiographed in the New Betatron Building, we did not attempt to refine 

this calculation. 

Unlike the case for γ rays, the β radiation from irradiated steel made a potentially significant 

contribution to the dose to the skin of the layout man. This is why the calculation of ß skin doses 

was based on a bounding scenario, since no one set of realistic scenarios could capture the 

complexity of the operation and calculate the skin doses in a claimant-favorable manner. In 

subsequent assessments, we took care to avoid changing the scenario first expounded in 2008. 

Allen (2015a), however, has recommended an entirely new approach that has never been 

considered by the present work group or by SC&A. His scenarios presume detailed knowledge 

of the procedures involving the betatron radiography of steel castings and their subsequent 

examination and marking by the layout man. As can be seen from the correspondence included 
 

 

 

 

in the Attachment, the former GSI employees, meeting and sharing their collective memories, 

could not agree with certainty on a single representative scenario—it would be presumptuous for 

analysts working 50 years later to claim possession of such knowledge. 

As shown in Table 1, the new NIOSH approach leads to annual doses that are less than one-third 

of those in the revised Appendix BB (Allen 2014). 

Table 1. Annual Doses to Skin of Layout Man from Beta Rays Emitted by Irradiated Steel 

Dose (rad/y) 

Skin on: 

SC&Aa NIOSH 

2014b

 2015c 

Hands and feet 1.89 0.807 0.264 

Rest of body 1.14 0.463 0.147 

a

 Anigstein and Mauro (2014b) 

b Allen (2014) 

c

 Allen (2015a) 

1.3 Fraction of Short/Long Shot 

Allen (2015a) stated: 

In the original SC&A report (SCA 2008), referenced and quoted in its January 12, 

2014, memo ([Anigstein and Mauro 2014a]), the scenario used was that of a 

single large-casting created 100% short shots and the interrupting casting created 

by 100% long shots. Then, in its latest calculations, SC&A provided a mixture of 

short and long shots for the interrupting casting and eliminated the single large 

casting scenario. 

As he did earlier in the Response Paper, Allen (2015a) disregarded the stated difference in our 

calculations of photon and ß skin doses from irradiated steel, and claimed we have changed our 

methodology, which is not the case. The reason we chose to use a more precise exposure 

scenario for the photon dose assessment is that MCNPX reports delayed gammas, and the 

resulting doses, as a function of time following instantaneous irradiation. We subjected these 

results to a double integration, first calculating the cumulative dose as a function of the duration 

of the irradiation of the metal, including interruptions between successive radiographic 

exposures, and then calculating the dose or exposure of the operator over a given time following 

the last irradiation. Such a method did not appear to be practical for the ß dose calculations, 

since these had to be performed in two separate steps. We first had to compute the specific 

activity of each radionuclide produced by the photoactivation of the steel. We next performed 

six separate MCNPX simulations of the dose rates from a unit activity of each nuclide. We then 

combined the results of both sets of analyses to integrate the ß skin dose over the duration of the 

exposure of the worker in question, accounting for the radioactive decay of each radionuclide. 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 -3- SC&A – January 30, 2015 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 
 

 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 -4- SC&A – January 30, 2015
 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

At that time, it appeared to be cumbersome to separately account for the buildup and decay of 

each of the six radionuclides addressed by our analyses due to intermittent irradiations and 

worker exposures. Our intent was to produce a bounding, claimant-favorable analysis that would 

be unlikely to understate the actual doses. 

Allen (2015a) further states: 

The Layout man would be marking the locations for a shot or for a defect found in 

a shot. The time necessary to do this work would be unaffected by how long the 

x-ray exposure occurred for that shot. That means it would take just as long to 

mark a location for a short shot as it would to mark a location for a long shot. The 

appropriate ratio should be 10% long shots and 90% short shots. 

As described in the emails and memos reproduced in the Attachment, the job of the layout man 

supporting the betatron operation was to examine the film from previous radiographic exposures 

of the same casting, identify defects, and mark their locations. These defects would then be 

repaired by grinders, chippers, and welders. After the repairs, the casting would be sent back to 

the betatron to confirm that the defects were removed. Furthermore, the same casting was often 

subjected to both short and long shots. Thus the concept that different-length shots represented 

different castings is an oversimplification. The castings, or portions of the castings, subject to 

long shots were much thicker, given that they were exposed for 1 h vs. 3 min for the short shots, 

and at a distance of 6 ft vs. 9 ft. They were thus far more likely to have casting defects, which 

would take much more time to locate and mark. Although we cannot quantify with certainty the 

relative amount of time the layout man would spend on each type of casting, a 64:36 ratio is 

much more likely than 9:1. 

1.4 New SC&A Scenario 

According to Allen (2015a): “In December 2014, memorandum, SC&A revised its position that 

the beta-dose calculations used will vary significantly from a gamma-dose approach.” As 

discussed in Section 1.1 of this memo, we have explicitly not changed the fundamental 

assumptions used to calculate the ß skin doses to the layout man. These doses, expressed as 

mrad/shift, were first presented by SC&A (2008, Table 18). Our most recent calculation of the ß 

doses utilized MCNPX analyses of the buildup of radionuclides in irradiated steel that were 

repeated in 2013, using the latest publicly released version of the code and some improved 

MCNPX modeling parameters. We also modeled the short and long shots in greater detail, 

explicitly accounting for different source-to-target distances. We likewise repeated the MCNPX 

simulations of skin dose rates from each of the six ß-emitting radionuclides in 2013 and 2014 to 

obtain more accurate results, including the dose rates at 1 m, which had implicitly been set to 

zero in earlier analyses. (This had been done to avoid lengthy calculations with our then-limited 

computer resources.) Since these calculated dose rates constitute a small fraction of the total 

skin doses, adding this component is a refinement to our calculation, not a change in our 

position. All these refinements improved the accuracy of our analyses, but do not constitute 

changes to the underlying scenario. 
 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 -5- SC&A – January 30, 2015
 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

1.5 Impossible Scenario 

We acknowledge that the 30-h continuous irradiation discussed in Section 1.1 of this memo 

represents a bounding scenario. However, the scenario proposed by Allen (2015a) is likewise 

unrealistic: “A scenario that would result in the highest yet physically possible dose is one in 

which [two] castings are alternated repeatedly.” The same casting would not have been shuttled 

back and forth between the betatron and the layout man: The layout man marked the castings for 

repair, not to re-expose the same casting. Furthermore, this scenario assumes that the casting 

was removed from the betatron building following each exposure. The point of our scenario was 

to account for successive, overlapping shots of the same portion of the casting. The casting 

would stay in the betatron building until all the shots have been completed. Also overlooked by 

Allen (2015a) is the fact that two betatrons could have been operating simultaneously during the 

period of intense activity described in the Attachment. It is not impossible for the same layout 

man to have been working on castings radiographed by the two machines. 

1.6 Results of the Proposed Approach 

We have confirmed that the mathematical model presented by Allen (2015a, Appendix) correctly 

embodies the scenarios described by the author, and that the results presented by Allen (2015a, 

Tables 1 and 2) are the output of that model. However, we observed that the derivation of the 

equations used in the model would benefit from a clearer explanation. We present our comments 

in the Appendix to this memo. 

We note the misalignment of the columns in Allen (2015a, Table 1): the column headed 

“mrad/casting” should be under the top-level heading “Interrupting Castings” rather than under 

“Single Casting,” as reported by Allen (2015b). 

2 Summary and Conclusions 

We find that the scenarios intended to represent the exposures of the skin of the layout man to β

radiation proposed by Allen (2015a) do not represent the operations at GSI. 

• The assumption that the same casting would be repeatedly exposed to betatron radiation 

until the activity concentrations of each of the six β-emitting radionuclides used in the 

skin dose calculations reached equilibrium is unrealistic. 

• The assumption that the amount of time spent on long- and short-shot castings is 

proportional to the number of long and short shots is not based on any available 

information. The heavy castings requiring long shots may have required more time to 

locate and mark casting defects. 

• Actual castings required both long and short shots, as well exposures of intermediate 

durations. 
 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 -6- SC&A – January 30, 2015
 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

• Given the variability and uncertainty about the layout man’s exposures to β rays from 

irradiated steel, the simple bounding scenario previously proposed by SC&A and agreed 

upon by NIOSH and the Work Group on TBD-6000 provides a claimant-favorable 

assessment that leads to plausible doses to the skin. 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 -7- SC&A – January 30, 2015
 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

Appendix
 

Comments on Allen (2015a, Appendix)
 

Equations 1 and 2, presented by Allen (2015a, Appendix) and reproduced below in a slightly 

altered form, correctly describe the continuous buildup and decay of radionuclides created during 

the betatron radiography of steel castings. 

C = the number of atoms of a particular nuclide 

P = the production rate of that nuclide (atoms/s) 

λ = the decay constant for that nuclide (s-1) 

The solution to Equation 1 is correctly expressed as 

Allen (2015a) then presented Equations 3 and 4 to define a new quantity, Peff, to describe the 

buildup and decay due to intermittent irradiations: 

Peff = the effective production rate 

t1 = the shot1 time (amount of time the actual x-ray beam is turned on) 

tc = cycle time (amount of time from the end of one shot to the end of the next shot) 

Solving Equation 3 for Peff yields 

Allen (2015a) proposed substituting Peff for P in Equation 2 to evaluate the peak concentration at 

the end of an integral number of cyles, which would yield 

1

 The term “shot,” in the parlance of GSI radiographers, is synonymous with “irradiation” in the present discussion. 
 

 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 -8- SC&A – January 30, 2015
 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

In order to determine the validity of Equation 5, we performed a detailed derivation of the 

interrupted buildup, which corresponds to Allen’s (2015a) single casting scenario. 

We first used Equation 2 to express the incremental buildup of a radionuclide during a 

continuous irradiation of duration t1, but added a factor to account for its decay during a 

subsequent period, t – t1, following the initial exposure: 

δ1C(t) = incremental activity concentration of radionuclide at time t following a single 

irradiation beginning at t = 0, and a subsequent period of decay 

Let us assume that the kth irradiation begins at time ktc and ends at time ktc + t1. The incremental 

activity concentration at time t due to such an irradiation, which is subject to radioactive decay 

over the period t − t1 − k tc, is expressed as 

According to this scheme, the irradiation that begins at t = 0 has the sequence number k = 0. If 

there are n irradiations, the final one would be designated by k = n – 1. The total activity 

concentration after n irradiations, at time t = (n − 1) tc + t1, is expressed as 

The last term in the bottom equation is the sum of a power series, which has the form 
 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 -9- SC&A – January 30, 2015
 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

Substituting for r in Equation 8 and using the resulting expression to evaluate the 

summation in Equation 7 we obtain 

(Several intermediate steps were omitted in the interest of brevity). 

We note that in Allen’s (2015a) derivation, the first irradiation begins at tc – t1. Let us replace t 

with t′ in Equation 5 and note that t′ = t + tc – t1. After n irradiations, t′ = ntc. If we make this 

substitution in Equation 5 and rearrange terms, it becomes identical to Equation 9. 

Equation 5 in the present memo should not be confused with the Equation 5 used by Allen to 

model the “interrupting casting” scenario. In that scenario, the casting is intermittently irradiated 

over a 24-h period, allowed to decay for 24 h, and is then again irradiated, the cycle being 

repeated until the activities of all radionuclides reach equilibrium. Allen’s Equation 5 can be 

derived from our Equation 9 by carrying out a second summation, analogous to that shown 

above. 

The calculations used to evaluate the β skin doses do correctly express the model described by 

Allen (2015a). However, the discussion by Allen (2015a, Appendix) relies on intuitive 

arguments and illustrations—the present discussion represents a more rigorous mathematical 

derivation. 
 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 -10- SC&A – January 30, 2015
 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

References 

Allen, D. 2014. “Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers that Worked Uranium Metals: 

Appendix BB – General Steel Industries,” Battelle-TBD-6000, Appendix BB, Revision No. 1. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/tbd/b-6000-apbb-r1.pdf 

Allen, D. 2015a. “General Steel Industries Layout man Beta Skin Dose,” Response Paper. 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/dps/dc-gsilaybeta-010815.pdf 

Allen, D. 2015b. "RE: Request for Calculations" January 20, 2015, personal e-mail to Robert 

Anigstein (SC&A), CC: Ted Katz and Jim Neton (NIOSH), Paul Ziemer (ABRWH), and John 

Stiver and John Mauro (SC&A). 

Anigstein, R., and J. Mauro. 2013. “Review of Skin Dose Calculations for General Steel 

Industries.” Memo to Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health Work Group on TBD6000. http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-gsiskindose-120513.pdf 

Anigstein, R., and J. Mauro. 2014a. “Update of Doses from External Exposure at General Steel 

Industries.” Memo to Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health Work Group on TBD6000.” http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-gsiexdose-011214.pdf 

Anigstein, R., and J. Mauro. 2014b. “Review of ‘Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons Employers 

that Worked Uranium Metals Appendix BB – General Steel Industries,’ Revision 1.” 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-gsiapbbr1-121014.pdf 

S. Cohen & Associates (SC&A). 2008. “Review of ‘Site Profiles for Atomic Weapons 

Employers That Worked Uranium and Thorium Metals - Appendix BB: General Steel 

Industries,’ Battelle-TBD-6000, Appendix BB, Rev. 0.” 

http://www.cdc.gov/niosh/ocas/pdfs/abrwh/scarpts/sca-gsisp-r1.pdf 
 

 

 

ATTACHMENT
 

This attachment contains email messages and memos regarding betatron operations and procedures from former 

GSI employees. This material is reproduced exactly as received, unformatted and unedited, except for some 

elimination of extraneous line breaks and vertical spaces. 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-1 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Subj: large casting processing at GSI 

Date: 12/19/2007 10:29:58 AM Eastern Standard Time 

From: ) 

To: 

Dr. Bob, I misled both of us last evening 12-18-07 by starting with a "green casting" just finishing up being 

radiographed in the new betatron. Of course that could happen; but will try to explain the normal approach as I 

remember. 

The beginning of the month about ten of the people responsible for processing the castings chose the castings 

that might be shipped that month. Special emphasis was placed by everyone on these (perhaps) eight castings. 

These would have a small number of exposures not yet "cleared." These could come from and return to the new 

betatron more than once in a shift depending on the size of the weld. This would allow many more workers to 

be processing a casting recently radiographed in the last eight hours. These would include the betatron 

operators loading the casting on the transfer car, chainmen removing the casting to the floor, marking by layout 

men or (see note below) then removing the defect by burners, chipping & grinding the defect area to prepare 

for welding. welding, then grinding the weld and returning to the new betatron. 

note - the repair could now be clear - Grinders would go over the casting or magnaflux (two) operators would 

check for surface cracks. This depends on which grinders or magnaflux crews were "open" Cracks if any 

should be minimal. 

Please call when you wish, as except for shower and lunch will be here. Normally go to lunch 

late if I go. 

Please remember this part of my life was a minimum of 42 years ago and my memory is not as perfect. 

Thank you for what you do - 11-19-07 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-2 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 
 

 

 

 

Subj: Re: Very important Procedure Information 

Date: 12/20/2007 3:00:50 PM Eastern Standard Time 

From: ) 

To: 

 your e-mail to Dr. Bob and John Mauro is excellent. Seems that each time we discuss among ourselves 

new information is revealed. You must remember that this all happened over 40 years ago and is quite 

complex. I would be willing to travel to N.Y. to discuss further; but might be best for Dr. Bob to come here. 

> wrote: 

Bob / John 

I had a chance to meet with and last night . We grabbed a Holiday hamburger! 

They were both concerned that you may have only been given "a part of" the very complex casting movement 

process from the Betatron Buillding to the Plant floor. 

The fact that a casting would be partially inspected with the Betatron, and re-inspected with the Betatron on an 

average of about 10 times per and is very important I would think, in any modeling. Re-inspections 

on welded/ repaired sections is part of this process as well. (special welding material being checked over and 

over as well). 

I know they both would like to discuss this with you. 

 said that a "GREEN" casting was one that came in for the first time, with plans to inspect it 100%. (large 

steam chest as an example with 350 shots needed). 

If they were allowed to work on it "non-disturbed " that would be the exception to the rule. There was always 

some "priority or RUSH"! Hot casting !!!!! 

's management perspective came into view : Bonuses were paid...... "based on what went out the door, 

because they could be billed !" 

 said he mentioned a 8 hr. timeline for some workers to start on the GREEN castings. "This appears to be 

RARE "! Because of the Production factors. 

Please allow him to explain this in detail. 

 and told me that the aprox. 10 return trips were far more common and that people (grinders, burners 

chippers inspectors, timekeepers chainmen labors, R.R. etc. etc.) handled and worked on these types of freshly 

betatron tested castings much more often. Please confirm with them, but they said this happened "in a matter of 

15 or so minutes"! There was no need for massive layout and heavy markup.... that had already been done on 

the GREEN PROCESS. (they could make you a list of the types of workers). 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-3 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 
 

 

 

Please keep in mind that no layout etc. took place in the betatron cell room.... they wanted that free and ready 

for the next shot ! 

These "HOT...URGENT-RUSH" castings meant production and money for GSI ! (Bonuses were paid...... 

"based on what went out the door, because they could be billed !" ) 

This much more common procedure, and faster interaction with the castings, should be considered in any 

models, should it not? 

Please discuss with the men, I was trying to follow the conversation as best I could. They really are interested 

and concerned that you get the exact and total picture of the time and motion part of the GSI Betatron / casting 

process . 

Thanks again, 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-4 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 
 

 

 

Begin forwarded message: 

> From: 

> Date: December 19, 2007 3:35:50 PM CST 

> To: 

> Cc: 

> <

> Subject: Procedure 

> 

> Bob: 

> 

> and are finalizing a GSI Betatron and Casting activity "written and verbal flowchart 

for you. 

> 

> is very concerned that he may have given you come > incomplete information last night. 

> 

> has taken the time to contact and some of the other key Betatron workers to verify the correct 

procedures. 

> 

> This is the information that he just sent me as well. 

> 

> Thanks, 

> 

> 

> is having some computer problems and having an issue sending 

> it to you directly. 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-5 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 
 

 

 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-6 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

 

 BETATRON WORKING PROCEDURES2

 In most cases in large casting work, betatron shots were laid out to be covered by a 14” x 17” metal cassette. 

Layout of a casting of normal curvature would normally be 11” x 13” of X’s. On a 11” x 13” layout width wise 

there would be a 1 1/2” overlap.Vertically there would be a 2” top and bottom overlap. 

 In a casting of a radical curvature where large blowout on film was to be expected, 10” x12” layout was 

used. On a 10” width layout there would be a 2” side by side overllalp and vertically a 2 1/2” overlap from top 

to bottom.In the center of each shot was a number and underneath the number a vertical arrow would be 

pointing toward the number. On the side of the number would be placed a pentrometer or penny indicating the 

thickness of the metal. 

 On the inside of the casting where the film placement took place, two lead arrows were placed horizontally 

facing each other. 

 The lead arrows were for the purpose of placement of film in tracing defects on castings. Film placement of 

a l4” x 17” cassette was held in place by powerful magnets along with a l4” x 17” solid piece of 3/8” thick lead 

sheet for a scatter shield behind the cassette. All lead X”s, numbers, arrows and pentrometers were held in place 

by double faced magnetic tape. 

 On the outside of the casting X”s and numbers were metal stamped into the casting for future re-xray of 

casting. 

 I would have to confirm that in 100% of xrayed castings, overlapping of shots would dictate reactivation of 

frame or border area of shot. 

 In the case where defects were found in castings,casting would be sent to chipper and burning floor for 

removal of defects. 

 On return of casting to Betatron for xray work the same shots with defects would have to be reshot for film 

proof of defect removals. This process would repeat itself along with magniflux testing of ID and OD of 

casting until alldefects are removed. 

 As in the case of first time xraying of casting, the operator would shoot one shot at a time moving along side 

of casting. Neighboring shots on the top, bottom and sides would receive multiple doses and activate 

neighboring shot overlap. To my knowledge these layout procedures and elimination procedures were standerd 

operating procedure on atomic submarine work,Westinghouse GE and all industrial work and tank, hulls, and 

turrets. 

 These are commonly used operating procedures for complete removal of defects to be done efficiently. 

 In these procedures,casting,open cavity work of course took place from burning, chipping, grinding and 

removal of defects. All films were read and checked by film readers of company status. All defects were proven 

removed by film inspection or magniflux inspection. In the xraying process lead X’s, arrows, numbers and 

pentrometers were constantly rehandled and reused as needed. 

 In my opinion as open cavity removal of defects took place by burning, chipping and grinding.Profuse hot 

sparks and molten metal flew everywhere. This airborne molten metal and hot sparks would burn your arms, 

neck and scalp as magniflux crews worked along with chippers, burners and grinders. I feel it would be 

impossible for inhalation of this material not to take place under these conditions. Only someone experienced in 

working in this capacity could verify the accuracy of these statements. 

2 “Betatron,” attachment to , "Fwd: betatron work proceedues " October 20, 2007, personal e-mail to Robert Anigstein 

(SC&A), CC: 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

 

 

 

 Telephone 

 Operator 24 and 25 Mev Betatrons 

 Magniflux operator 

 General Steel Industries – 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-7 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-8 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

 

 11/26/07 

 SHOOTING PROCEEDURES OF STEAM CHEST3

 FOR SOME REASON THERE IS A MISUNDERSTANDING OF THE TIME WE OPERATORS 

SPENT IN THE SHOOTING ROOM. FOR SOME REASON IT IS THOUGHT THAT MORE OF OUR 

WORKING TIME WAS SPENT IN THE CONTROL ROOM. IN REALITY, THERE WAS,ON A LARGE 

STEAM CHEST, ABOUT 300 TO 400 SHOTS---WITH ABOUT 10% OF THE TOTAL SHOTS 

CONSIDERED AS LONG SHOTS! 

SET UP TIME TOOK AROUND 15 MINUTES OR UNDER, WITH A TOTAL OF ABOUT 32-40 NORMAL 

SHOTS BEING FIRED IN AN EIGHT HOUR PERIOD. A 3 INCH THICK SHOT WAS ABOUT 40-60 

ROENGTENS, AT 9 FEET WITH DOUBLE A FILM, TAKING ABOUT 30 SECONDS FOR THE SHOT 

TO RUN. A SIDE WALL OF A STEAM CHEST WAS ABOUT 4 TO 4 AND ONE HALF INCHES THICK. 

A FOUR INCH SHOT MIGHT BE 200 ROENGTENS, AT 9 FEET, DOUBLE A FILM, WITH A RUNNING 

TIME AROUND ONE AND ONE HALF MINUTE. 

THERE WAS OF COURSE THREE OR FOUR THICK RIBS IN THE STEAM CHEST AROUND 9 TO 10 

INCHES THICK. THIS LONG SHOT WAS FIRED AT 6 FEET, ABOUT , 4500 TO 5000 ROENGTENS , 

DOUBLE A FILM AND SLOWER FILM TO PICK UP THINNER THICKNESS OFF THE SIDE OF THE 

RIB.. RUNNING TIME ABOUT 32 MINUTES AT 160 R PER MINUTE. WHEN WE STARTED 

SHOOTING A STEAM CHEST WE STARTED AT THE BOTTOM ROW---SAY, LEFT TO RIGHT. 

OPERATOR WOULD SET UP THE OUTSIDE WITH PLACING LEAD X’S, NUMBERS, AND ARROW, 

PLUS PENTROMETER ON THE SHOT. LETS SAY THE THICKNESS WAS 4 AND ONE HALF INCHS 

THICK. THE 4.5 PENTROMETER WOULD BE PLACED ON THE SIDE OF THE SHOT NUMBER. ALL 

SHOTS 3 TO 5.5 INCHES THICK WAS SHOT AT 9 FEET, DOUBLE A FILM—ALL SHOTS 6 TO 18 

INCHES THICK SHOT AT 6 FEET DOUBLE A FILM. THE DIFFERENCE BEING, IN MOVING 

THE MACHINE FROM 9 FEET TO 6 FEET, WE INCREASE INTENSITY FOR THE THICKER 

METAL AND SHORTEN ROENTGEN RUNNING TIME PER THE THICK METAL.

 IF IN EFFECT 32-SHOTS, OF SHORT DURATION(0-3 MINUTES) ARE FIRED IN AN EIGHT HOUR 

SHIFT, APPROXIMATLEY 4 MINUTES PER SHOT IS SPENT IN THE CONTROL ROOM. THIS 

TOTALS 2 HOURS AND 8 MINUTES IN THE CONTROL ROOM LEAVING SET UP TIME AT 

APPROXIMATELY 5 HOURS AND 52 MINUTES WITH SET UP TIME AT 11 MINUTES PER SHOT. 

 THE OPERATOR, WHILE SETTING UP THE OUTSIDE OF THE SHOT----THE ASSISTANT IS 

PLACING TWO HORIZONTAL LEAD ARROWS ON THE INSIDE OF THE SHOT, PLACING THE 

BOTTOM MAGNET, PLACING THE 14 X 17 CASSETTE ON THE MAGNET, FOLLOWED BY 

PLACING A LEAD SCATTER SHIELD ON THE BACK OF THE CASSETTE, AND THEN PIN-IN THE 

CASSETTE WITH THE TOP MAGNET. THE ASSISSTANT THEN, TAKES AN ANGLE READING OF 

THE FILM BY A BUBBLE PROTRACTER AND TELLS THE OPERATOR THE ANGLE TO PLACE ON 

THE BETATRON CAMERA. THE ASSISTANT THEN GOES TO THE OUTSIDE OF THE SHOT— 

HOLDS THE DISTANCE STRING AT 9 FEET AND HELPS THE OPERATOR ADJUST CAMERA 

ALIGNMENT AND DISTANCE. 

 IT IS TO BE REMEMBERED THAT THE X’S AND NUMBERS OF THE SHOTS ARE METAL 

STAMPED INTO THE CASTING METAL FOR FUTURE REFERENCE AND POSITION. THE AIMING 

LIGHT OF THE BETATRON IS PLACED 6 INCHES TO RIGHT OF THE NUMBER-CENTERING THE 

BETATRON CONE ON THE SHOT. 

3 “STEAMCHESTS.doc,” attachment to , "Emailing: STEAM CHESTS" November 26, 2007, personal e-mail to Robert 

Anigstein (SC&A). 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

 

 

 

 MY PURPOSE IN WRITING THIS IS TO CLARIFY THAT MOST SHOTS ARE OF NORMAL 

DURATION AND VERY QUICK RUNNING TIME ON THE BETATRON AND THAT MOST OF 

OUR TIME IS SPENT NOT IN THE CONTROL ROOM---BUT THE SHOOTING ROOM! WE HAD 

THREE EIGHT HOUR SHIFTS, WITH A 20 MINUTE PAID LUNCH---WHICH MEANT---WE ATE 

ON THE RUN! LONG SHOTS WERE OF COURSE DESIRABLE---BUT AGAIN MADE UP 

GENERALLY 10 % OF THE TOTAL SHOTS ON MOST CASTINGS

BETATRON OPERATOR 

 MAGNAFLUX OPERATORBETATRON OPERATOR 

-FILM READER 

BETATRON OPERATOR -LAYOUT 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-9 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-10 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

 

 12/15/07 

Overlap4

 —Reply to your e-mail on overlap----- 

I contacted Mr. , of the GSI betatrons, on the subject of overlap of film. Mr. and 

I agreed in this---Using 14 X 17 cassettes--If we were shooting a steam chest, with a 11 X 13 layout of x’s, the 

end rows (around the end) and bottom rows of shots would be radiated a total of four times. The shot itself 

would be ONE, accompanied by three overlaps. For instance the end shot would be the shot itself- the top and 

bottom overlap shot—and one side overlap totaling four radiations of the end shot. The same would apply to the 

bottom row of shots- The exception would be the bottom row end shots(first shot on corner bottom row) that 

would have the main shot –ONE--- one side overlap shot---and one top overlap shot totaling THREE radiations 

of that zone. 

 In the case of all the rest of the shots—The main shot itself be fired—accompanied by the top and bottom 

overlap shots –accompanied by the each side overlap shots—Totaling 5 radiations of the same shot zones that 

were radiated// ( the main shot covering all four x’s is ONE—the top two x’s is TWO—The bottom two x’s is 

THREE –the left side x’s are Four---and the right sidetwo x’s are Five)-- One main shot , covering all four 

x’sand Four overlap shots—TOTALING FIVE RADIATIONS OF THE SHOT ZONE In most instances, each 

X is shot a total of four times, the main shot. Top or bottom shot, side shot, and diagonal shot of the X. 

 The interesting observation is if we were shooting at 9 feet distance, the sides, top, and bottom radiation 

flare out would be wider at surface causing more radiated surface (beam not limited to a 14 x 17 size.). 

If we were shooting a NUCLEAR CHANNEL HEAD—(looks like an upside down bowl) there is no 

end of the casting because it is completely circular.. 

 This shooting procedure is common throughout industry and applied to all our shooting. 

 

 OPERATOR 24 & 25 MEV BETATRONS 

 NAVY QUALIFED IN MAGNAFLUX 

 

 OF GSI BETATRONS 

 

4 “Overlap,” attachment to , "Fwd: Emailing: overlap of shots" December 18, 2007, personal e-mail to Robert Anigstein 

(SC&A), CC: . 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

 

 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-11 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

 

 

 

 12/19/07 

Casting Processing at GSI5 

DR. BOB-

 As the casting leaves the Betatrons, the Betatron operators load up the casting on the rail or transfer car. 

THE casting leaves the BETATRON as quickly as shooting is completed and layout markup is done, on the 

floor of either 9 or 8 building, not in the betatron building..The casting heads quickly for set up.The 

chainmen take the transfer car outside the new betatron to either 9 or 8 Building. The chainmen hook up the 

casting to the crane and the casting is set up on the floor of either 9 or 8 building.Repair work of GE— 

Westinghouse and Navy castings was done in 9 building. Layout and markup of the same type of castings, was 

done in 8 building. Repair of tanks, turrets, underframes, rotoblasting and heat treating was done in 10 building. 

Film readers are reading and marking film. Immediatley, upon set up of the casting,layout men from the 

betatron department mark up defects on the casting. The defects are traced on the outside of the casting by 

laying the film over the 4 x’s—shot number—and vertical arrow pointing to the number. The defect on the 

inside is traced on the casting by placing the film over the two horizontal arrows and marking the film on the 

inside of the casting. INSPECTORS are generally present for the location of defects, size, etc, etc. AS quick as 

the outside of a casting is marked up, grinder workers may be placed, on the casting,to smooth defect areas for 

sonics crews as the layout team mark up the INSIDE of the casting. AS grinders finish all defect areas being 

ground smooth, sonic crews locate defect placement laying nearest to inside or outside surface. AS defects are 

located by sonic crews, burners, chippers, grinders may be used for defect removal. Of course if burning is 

done, preheat of the casting may be done by gas torch as the same done along with welding. Timekeepers are 

checking with repair crews as to time needed for repair.The closer the shipping time of the casting, the more 

attention is given to timely work done to the casting and quick handling. 

 Of course the fewer defects left on a casting, this casting may a lot of times be labled “HOT” and the aim 

of course is to ship out as soon as possible. A GREEN casting ,of course, will have more defects, but in all 

cases, these same people are in play for the necessary removal of defects.

 As MR. points out—“THE same casting might be back and forth to the betatron a number 

of times, depending on when it must be shipped” By back and forth to the betatron, I mean that the casting 

has to be re-radiographed a number of times to prove removal of defects.This is always done in a timely 

manner and as quickly as possible.THE inspectors, grinders burners, welders, chippers, chainmen, cranemen, 

magnaflux crews and betatron crews, timekeepers, all performing their tasks as needed! Also magnaflux crews 

will be checking the surface of the defects along with welding passes laid in the defects, as the defects are 

brought to surface. Secondary follow up repairs required this whole process to be repeated with the 

exception of layout. 

 Generally magnaflux crews work with grinders, chippers, and burners in removal of defects, while inspectors 

will check for size and location of defects, or any defects that may have occurred by faulty process. The least 

amount of defect left on the casting the quicker handling of casting by all workmen. I hope this clarifies the 

complex procedures and we are always willing to discuss.Our concern is to provide enough detail for a 

much clearer explanation. 

5 “Casting,” attachment to , "Procedure " December 19, 2007, personal e-mail to Robert Anigstein (SC&A), CC: 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.
 

 

 

THESE THOUGHTS AND EXPERIENCES WERE COMPILED BY----------- 

—operator 24 & 25 MEV betatrons—Qualified by NAVY in MAGNAFLUX—

MR. - BETATRONS and NDT—GSI 

 –BETATRONS---FILM READER—

 BETATRONS—FILM READER—

 operator 24 & 25 MEV Betatrons- LAYOUT__NAVY IN MAGNAFLUX—

. 

.. 

Review of NIOSH Response Paper No. 2 Att-12 SC&A – January 30, 2015 

NOTICE: This report has been reviewed for Privacy Act information and has been cleared for distribution. 

However, this report is pre-decisional and has not been reviewed by the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker
 

Health for factual accuracy or applicability within the requirements of 42 CFR 82.