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

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON TBD-6000

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

DECEMBER 19, 2013

+ + + + +

The Work Group convened 

telephonically, at 10:00 a.m., Eastern 

Standard Time, Paul L. Ziemer, Chairman, 

presiding.

PRESENT:

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, Member

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

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

NANCY ADAMS, NIOSH contractor

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

BOB ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

BOB BARTON, SC&A

SAM GLOVER, DCAS

DEKEELY HARTSFIELD, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A

DAN McKEEL

JIM NETON, DCAS

JOHN RAMSPOTT

JOHN STIVER, SC&A
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

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

Call to Order and Welcome 5

 Ted Katz

 Designated Federal Official

Opening Remarks 6

 Paul L. Ziemer

 Chairman

SC&A Review of Skin Dose Calculations 6

(12/5/13 Memorandum)

and

SC&A Review of MCNPX Calculations

for Betatron Exposures (Oral Report

 Paul L. Ziemer 6

 Chairman

 Bob Anigstein 8

 SC&A

 Questions and Comments 30

DCAS Review of Resuspension Factor 40

- Residual period (12/10 White Paper)

 Paul L. Ziemer 40

 Chairman

 Jim Neton 41

 DCAS

 Questions and Comments 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

C-O-N-T-E-N-T-S (CONTINUED)

DCAS Review of the AEC NYO 4699 Report 47

(11/1/13 J. Neton Email)

 Paul L. Ziemer 47

 Chairman

 Jim Neton 48

 DCAS

 Dan McKeel 51

 Questions and Comments 58

How Film Badges and Control Badges 121

Were Used

 Jim Neton 122

 DCAS

 Questions and Comments 122

Resolution of Remaining Appendix BB 128

Issues (Updated Matrix)

 Paul L. Ziemer 129

 Chairman

 Questions and Comments 130

Public Comments and Submissions 141

 Dan McKeel 141

Meeting Wrap Uup 149
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

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

10:01 a.m.

MR. KATZ: Welcome, everybody, to 

the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker 

Health, TBD-6000 Work Group. We're going to 

be discussing GSI today.

Let's start with roll call. 

Since we are speaking about a specific site, 

please also, for all agency-related 

personnel, speak to conflict of interest.

(Roll call.)

Let's, then, go to this last note 

I'll make. We have a number of documents, I 

think three documents posted. More will get 

posted at some point today. We have a 

longer delay in getting things posted these 

days due to the processes we have to do on 

that.

And, Paul, it's your agenda.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

you very much. And good morning, everyone. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

I believe everybody has a copy of the 

agenda. We will go through it just as it is 

listed.

I do want to mention that if we 

have not completed the agenda by 1:00 p.m., 

we will take a break at that point. It is a 

little hard for me to predict exactly how 

long this will take. But if we aren't 

completed by 1:00, we will take 

approximately an hour break at one o'clock, 

a lunch break for some, maybe a mid-morning 

break for the West Coast people.

But, in any event, let's proceed 

with the agenda. As you know, the complete 

agenda today is on General Steel Industries, 

and we are going to begin with the skin dose 

calculation issue.

You may recall that there was a 

White Paper in October that Dave Allen 

produced dealing with evaluation of the data 

beta doses and the differences in the 

estimates between NIOSH and SC&A. And then, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

more recently, SC&A and NIOSH have been 

looking at their use of MCNP code and 

determining their inputs. We have a paper 

now dated December 5th by Bob Anigstein that 

appears to, I think, indicate that they have 

resolved the issues.

Bob, I don't know that we 

necessarily need to step through all the 

details on your paper, but I do note in the 

conclusions -- I'm hearing some kind of 

whistling. Are others hearing that?

MR. KATZ: Yeah. It seems to 

have gone away, though.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. In any 

event, the bottom line from SC&A was that 

the outstanding differences in the 

calculation of the beta doses to the

betatron operators have been resolved, or he 

says, "appear to have been resolved". And 

there's complete agreement on the 

methodology of calculating the doses.

And then Bob shows Table 4 and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Table 5, and I think Table 5 is his bottomline table for those.

So, Bob, do you have any 

additional comments? And then I'm going to 

ask Dave Allen to comment.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I was going to 

present a summary of the report.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that's 

fine. That's fine. I know everybody has 

read it. I don't want to take too much time 

on it because there's a lot of detail in 

there. But go ahead with your summary, Bob. 

That's fine.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Right. 

Well, I was going to present something on 

Live Meeting. I don't know if everybody's -

- I mean, I have a little briefing that I 

prepared for Live Meeting.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's fine. 

Go ahead.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Let me 

just open it up right here.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: While you're 

pulling that up, Bob, I assume that 

everything you say -- Live Meeting is not 

available to members of the public for Work 

Group meetings, I don't believe. Am I 

correct, Ted?

MR. KATZ: You are correct, it is 

not available.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. But 

everything you're presenting is in your 

report?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Everything 

you're going to present is also in your 

report, I assume.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: That is correct. 

That is correct. These are just some 

tables, summary tables. I simplified some 

of them to make them easier. And let me 

just show -- oh, dear.

MR. KATZ: So, it is sideways, 

but otherwise --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I just realized 

that. I don't know how that happened 

because it's not that way on my screen.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, it's 

sideways on mine.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Live Meeting has 

a mind of its own. I was just doing this 

last night with John Mauro and everything 

was fine.

Let's see, sharing my desktop. 

Okay. There we go. Is this better?

(No response.)

Hello?

MR. KATZ: Yes, that's good. 

That's good, Bob, if you could just shrink 

it.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. I think I 

have to go to 50 percent. There we go. 

Okay.

MR. KATZ: Bob, if you just move 

the slide device at the bottom -- oh, maybe 

everybody can do that themselves. They can, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

actually.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't have 

that.

MR. KATZ: Yes. Okay. So, 

everybody --

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You can do that 

yourself, Ted.

MR. KATZ: That's right. Thanks. 

Sorry.

MEMBER POSTON: Ted, I'm on. 

This is John Poston. Sorry.

MR. KATZ: Thanks, John. Thanks 

for registering. And just for the record, 

you have no conflict of interest at GSI.

MEMBER POSTON: Great. Thank 

you.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

MR. STIVER: This is John Stiver.

Could somebody please send me the link to 

the Live Meeting connection?

MR. KATZ: I'll take care of 

that, John.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. STIVER: Okay. Thanks. Bye.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. So, this 

is how we went about -- we redid some of the 

calculations. Once we became aware that 

NIOSH was going to be using our model, we 

took another look at it. Before, it was 

just a sort of check-on-NIOSH thing. Well, 

okay, let's see what we get. But then we 

realized the fact that we had another sort 

of a higher-level responsibility.

And then, also, there are 

constant developments in this MCNPX code. 

So, the public version was released a while 

back. The final frozen version; there would 

be no more development. So, we just took 

another look at it.

And in the last round we found 

that when -- the skin dose comes from 

irradiated steel and irradiated uranium. 

The layout man, that's one of our critical 

paths, the most highly-exposed individual, 

limiting for this scenario, I should say, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

only comes in contact with the steel. 

There's no layout on the uranium.

So, our runs showed that there 

were 37 -- the MCNP nomenclature is residual 

nuclei or residual nuclides thirty-seven 

atomic species get created when you 

irradiate this typical steel alloy that we 

found that was made at GSI. We actually had 

a former metallurgist send us the formula 

for that steel. So, we included many small 

-- mostly it’s iron, but there are many 

smaller constituents.

And so we found, of these, there 

were 37 nuclides. Of those, 27 are capable 

of giving skin dose that had significant 

fraction of their decay through beta decay. 

And we ranked them in the order of the timeintegrated activity, the activity integrated 

over the exposure duration of this layout 

man, and we were able to narrow it to 6/90 

now. Out of the 27, six of them accounted 

for 99.5 percent of the total. So, we went 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

with that for our purpose of analysis.

And of these, actually, three 

were very significant. Three of those six 

were about 98 percent. So, we had an 

earlier analysis for the other three, and we 

kept those because there was no point in 

redoing them because they were such a tiny 

contribution.

And here are the nuclides. I 

believe -- no, they're not in order of 

importance. The important ones are the 

iron-53, the molybdenum-91, and the 

manganese-56.

And so these are the specific 

activities. The reason they're different 

for the long and the short shots it the long 

shots were taken at a distance of 6 feet and 

the short shots were a distance of 9 feet. 

So, we have less intense radiation and, 

also, a shorter period of radiation. So, 

you get somewhat lower activities.

And this is already adjusted 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

because you get sort of an exponential 

profile. But the purpose of doing the 

radiograph, of course, is to penetrate the 

steel, to darken the film behind it. And so 

the front surface gets the most intense 

radiation and the back gets much less. And 

MCNP gives you the average, but we're able 

to back-calculate/-extrapolate what would be 

the activity on the very surface. So, we 

get that for the higher activity and that's 

what the worker gets exposed to.

So, then we do the time 

integration over a period of time that the 

operator -- this is for the operator -- is 

exposed to it. It takes at least, fairly 

optimistically, five seconds for him to get 

out after the betatron is shut off. In 

reality it would be longer, but we said at a 

minimum of five seconds. And then he 

spends, with the long shots, he spends about 

15 minutes in the proximity of the steel 

readjusting the betatron. His assistant 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

adjusts the film, setting up for the next 

shot. And for the short shots, it's five 

seconds, again, but maybe only 11 minutes.

So, these are the time-integrated 

activity, the activity of this over this 

period of time. So, if you have a longlived one, like this molybdenum-99, 66 

hours, it doesn't really matter. You simply 

multiply by the time. But something that is 

decaying during -- you know, iron-53, which 

was the most important constituent, 8.5 

minutes half-life. Well, it's busily 

decaying during this 15 minutes. So, then 

you do have to take account of the decay 

curve.

Then, here are the results where 

we have taken all six of these and 

calculated the dose from each one in 

proportion to its specific activity over 

this period of time. And we found the 

following doses per shift, per eight-hour 

shift.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

I'm not going to read the 

numbers. Again, this is straight out of the 

report. I believe it's Table 3 in the 

report, or Table 2. The first one is Table 

1.

So, this time, something that 

wasn't done before, we just sort of figured 

that, okay, the bare skin, the hands and 

forearms, will be in contact with the steel. 

The rest of the skin will be covered with 

clothing, and we very conservatively say it 

is just the thickness of a thin T-shirt. We 

don't know what, obviously. A person's 

body, there must be clothing on it, but we 

use the least.

And then earlier we sort of 

figured, well, this is the dose rate at one 

foot. And NIOSH assumes that half the time 

they spend it at a distance of one foot and 

half the time they spend it at a distance of 

one meter. I think earlier we ignored the 

meter and just simply took the one foot, or 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the contact, and divided it by two.

But we took another look at it 

and said, no, it turns out that the dose 

rate at one meter is still significant. And 

so we calculated that. That was another 

reason for the new calculation. And we used 

the average of the two, where they received 

the contact for the bare skin at one meter, 

and for the other parts of the body, one 

foot and one meter.

The contact through the clothing 

is there. We didn't really use it in the 

calculation, just showed the effect of it, 

how much of the absorption there is with 

that thin T-shirt.

And then we did something similar 

for uranium, a uranium slab. And it turns 

out, as it turned out before, that really 

the only activation product of importance is 

U-239, which you take uranium-238 and 

actually a neutron is knocked out of another 

atom and it gets captured by the U-238 and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

forms U-239.

This is by far the highest 

specific activity. We looked at uranium237. It’s very small. And there are some 

others, minor contributors. And we are 

only, again, looking at beta emitters.

And then this is the final 

calculation from the uranium slice for the 

dose rates to the skin. So, here we take 

into account, we assume that here was a 

cylindrical ingot. And we know from our 

studies of the Mallinckrodt site that these 

were sawed like slicing, just like you were 

slicing a salami. They saw it and take a 

slice, and they called it a betatron slice. 

This was a destructive testing.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, let me 

just interrupt quickly. For those who don't 

have access to your slides, we are looking 

at what is essentially Table 4 from your 

report.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Okay. So, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

here we have -- so, this has been remelted, 

and we assume that the size of it, the size 

of the cylinder, will be subject to what we 

call the Putzier effect. So, that all the 

beta emitters, the short-lived, relatively 

short-lived with 24 days half-life, have 

migrated, or there is a concentration to the 

side. And Mr. Putzier's report said that it 

is from 10 to 15 percent -- sorry -- a 

factor of 10 to 15 higher than what you 

would normally expect from uranium. So, we 

took the average of 12.5 and we enhanced the 

beta activity on the side. And then we 

assumed that the worker spent -- half the 

time that he is handling uranium, his skin 

is exposed to the side of it, and the other 

half of the time to the front.

And the front, because this has 

been sliced, it would not have the Putzier 

effect. That's only on the surface of the 

cast shape. But it would have the 

enhancement from the irradiation, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

betatron irradiation. So, nevertheless, the 

side is by far the greater activity, the 

greater beta activity.

And so we take an average of the 

two, assuming that he spent half of his 

time, half the contact is from the front, 

half the contact is from the side. And 

then, similarly with the others, the other 

part of the body is at one foot from the 

front or the side, other than the skin and 

the skin of the hands and forearms. And 

then, finally, we do one meter the same way. 

And then we take an average of the averages. 

So, for the bare skin, it is the 

average of the one meter and the contact, 

and for the rest of the skin, it is the 

average of the one foot and the one meter.

So, finally, these are our annual 

doses. As before, we used the Mallinckrodt 

purchase orders to determine how many hours 

per year. This was initially an area of 

difference between us and NIOSH where ours 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

were assigned differently, but my 

understanding is that NIOSH has agreed now 

to use these same hours, the most claimantfavorable, the maximum hours.

So, based on these hours, these 

are the number that the -- we assumed that 

during each year -- this is a very 

conservative assumption -- that a single 

worker will have been assigned to the team, 

the radiography of the uranium. And it's 

not implausible because the contract 

actually said it will be done Monday through 

Friday during the hours of 7:30 to 3:30, 

something like that. So, they don't have to 

pay for the shift differential.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: This is Table 

5, by the way.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Table 5 is what 

we're looking at.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Okay. And 

then -- so the remainder of the shift was 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

spent on the normal work on steel. So, 

then, using the previous tables, we simply 

calculate, multiplying the exposure per 

shift times the number of shifts. So, we 

calculate the exposure to the hands and the 

forearms and the other skin from the uranium 

and the steel. And it’s highest -- since 

uranium is by far the bigger contributor --

it's highest during the years when you had 

the most uranium. And then it goes down 

year by year up until -- oops, there is a 

glitch on the slide in the way -- all of my 

sudden, my program decided that the year 

1966 was a number, and it shows it as 1,966. 

That is 1966. The last year is 1966. 

Sometimes this software gets a mind of its 

own. So, that's really the end of the 

discussion of the skin dose.

And then, just to say a few more 

words -- I've already said something about, 

as I said, we redid some of the MCNP 

calculations. Actually, in the process of 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

reviewing this, I was able, we were, 

fortunately, able to get Dr. John Hendricks, 

who is actually one of the developers. He 

is the senior author of some of the reports 

issued by Los Alamos on MCNPX. And he 

recently retired and is available as a 

consultant. He actually still works for Los 

Alamos as a contractor, but he is also able 

to take other outside clients.

So, he is probably the foremost, 

of the people who are -- I don't want to 

compare his skills to other people who are 

still working at Los Alamos on this code. 

But, of the ones who are available to 

outsiders, to us, he's probably the foremost 

authority.

He originally was engaged just to 

help explain some of the new features that 

were incorporated in an analysis done a year 

ago. But I, myself, wasn't quite clear 

about what it did. I just wanted to be able 

to understand it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

In the process, he reviewed and 

he pointed out a problem with some of the 

analyses. And that was that -- this is 

getting sort of rather technical -- but, 

basically, MCNP, like any Monte Carlo code, 

just as you repeat, you know, it's like 

rolling the dice. So, it is called Monte 

Carlo. It's like spinning the roulette 

wheel. And each time it comes up with a new 

set of parameters from within the things 

that the physics predicts, but the physics 

can't tell you in which direction a photon 

is going to come from a radioactive atom. 

It can go in any direction.

But they call it histories. It 

does this thing over and over again, records 

the results from each one, and at the end 

presents you an average, a standard 

deviation, and other statistics.

Well, it has a limitation, and 

that is, in the ordinary -- there are some 

special versions of the code, but publically 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

released version of the code, which is 

available to most people, the limitation is 

a little over two billion, and this has to 

do with the fact that it is represented as a 

32-bit number. And the most you can 

represent is two to the 31st power minus 

one. So, it comes out to a little over two 

billion.

And I consider that as something 

that the developers never thought of. If 

you run over two billion, you don't get any 

valid results because it's a bigger number 

than it can handle and it does not give you 

an error message. It doesn't give you any 

indication. It looks like, at the bottom 

line, if you look at the results, oh, yes, 

these look fine. Only when you look back --

and the output file is about a thousand 

lines, so you don't normally read the whole 

output file, it can be several thousand 

lines -- and you look at the end, there is a 

summary table. And the summary table looks 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

fine.

And then you go back in and say, 

wait a second, it went past 2 billion 

numbers, and then it just started doing 

things that were no longer valid. So, it 

turns out that the results weren't 

drastically different, but they were not 

accurate. So, we redid several of them.

And in the process of looking at 

that, I asked him to examine other runs. 

Being a perfectionist, he said, "Well, this 

could be improved, that could be improved." 

So, we took some of his suggestions, and it 

turned out the differences were not great, 

except for the ones that were definitely an 

error. We're talking about 10-percent 

differences. So, we took the best. We did 

use the best techniques, but there were no 

drastic changes.

Right now, there is one more. We 

have done the skin dose, but the other 

exposure, the direct exposures to the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

betatron of the layout man, there is a minor 

change. I have not transmitted that to 

NIOSH yet. We are just going to work up the 

numbers.

And then there's one last run I 

want to redo, and that's for the uranium 

activation. We do these activations twice 

because there are two different types of 

results. One is the residual nuclides, 

which I just talked about, that gives you 

the beta dose. And the other is the direct 

radiation, what is called the delayed gammas 

and delayed neutrons that come out of the 

metal, because of these different 

radioisotopes that get created, they come 

out of the metal immediately after the 

betatron is shut off. So, the worker, 

again, approaching the metal a few seconds 

later will be exposed to these.

There are two different ways of 

calculating the two. We have very good 

calculations for the beta emitters. And for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the delayed neutrons from the uranium I want 

to rerun. And it is a run that will take a 

short while to set up, but it will take a 

couple of weeks to run, just to get good 

statistics on it. So, I will be passing all 

of that on.

All the beta-emitting data dose, 

skin dose calculations, have been shared 

with NIOSH already, and they will surely 

comment on it. But we had some 

communication where he agreed with the 

methodology of taking, once you get the MCNP 

results, you still have to do a calculation, 

doing it over time and doing it according to 

the length of the exposure, during the 

examination, the number of shifts. And I 

believe we are in substantial agreement. He 

was able to reproduce the calculations very, 

very closely, is my understanding.

The external exposure of the 

layout man, we still need to come to closure 

on. And, unfortunately, there was a slip-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

up, and I never saw, until a couple of days 

ago -- Jim Neton wrote an email, very 

detailed, about the information that was 

obtained by Stu Hinnefeld from Dr. Craig 

Yoder, vice president at Landauer, about how 

the film badges were reported during this 

period of time by Landauer.

And, therefore, Jim stated in his

email that NIOSH would be using the SC&A 

model for those exposures. And I actually 

wasn't aware of that. I only saw this email 

a couple of days ago.

So, that's why we did not include 

this and pass it on to NIOSH. We didn't 

realize it. We weren't sure they were in 

agreement with us. But this will be 

concluded very shortly.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

you, Bob. Let me ask Dave Allen --

MEMBER POSTON: Bob, this is John 

Poston.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER POSTON: I've been trying 

to follow what you did. Looking at the last 

table where you have the total beta 

radiation in units of rad --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

MEMBER POSTON: I'm a little 

confused by the steel results, because what 

you showed on one of the previous slides was 

somewhere in the range of 1 to 2 millirads 

per shift. And if I multiply one, just 

taking the 1950 --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. I'm just 

going to go back to the previous slide.

MEMBER POSTON: If I multiply by 

54 shifts, that figure, that only gets me 

108 or 54 millirads, not rads.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just a second. I 

just went back to the previous slide. So, 

we are talking about, just looking at --

we're just looking -- you're looking at 

uranium?

MEMBER POSTON: No, I'm looking 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

at steel.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, steel? Okay.

MEMBER POSTON: I want to go back 

-- if you're going to go back, go back to --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: The third slide.

MEMBER POSTON: -- the fifth 

slide.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?

MEMBER POSTON: Notice at the 

bottom, at one meter, you have doses between 

1.15, say --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but 

remember, okay, yes, that's at one meter.

MEMBER POSTON: But you don't 

even let me finish the question.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon me?

MEMBER POSTON: How can I ask you 

a question if you're not going to let me 

finish?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Say again?

MEMBER POSTON: I said, how can 

you answer my question --
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry. I 

thought you were --

MEMBER POSTON: No, I'm not 

through.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry. I'm 

sorry. I'm sorry, John. Go ahead, please.

MEMBER POSTON: At one meter, 

either for the short or the long or the 

composite, the doses per shift, according to 

your calculation, are two millirads or less.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Correct.

MEMBER POSTON: Now, if I 

multiply that by 54 shifts per year, I don't 

get something in the order of rads. I get 

something in the order of millirads.

And so, looking at this table and 

then going to the last table you showed, 

there is a disconnect for me. I just don't 

understand it.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

MEMBER POSTON: Now I'm through.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. The one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

meter is there for reference. But, for the 

purpose of bare skin, you take the average 

of the contact and the one meter. Half the 

time they're touching the steel; half the 

time it’s at one meter.

MEMBER POSTON: Okay.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, you would 

take the average of the two, and just 

eyeballing it, that actually looks pretty 

easy because I think it's 74 and -- all 

right. Let's just round off the numbers and 

say the average is a little bit below 5. 

So, it’s below 5 millirads per shift for 

bare skin.

Do you agree with that, that it's 

a little bit less than 5?

MEMBER POSTON: Okay. Yes, I 

think so.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. So, then 

we go to 350, for the years 1952 to '57, we

go to 350 shifts, and we end up -- so, you 

take 5 times 350.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER POSTON: Oh, oh, yes, I 

see. Okay. I see what I did wrong.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay?

MEMBER POSTON: Yes.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Very good.

MEMBER POSTON: I was looking at 

the 54, and that's the uranium value, right?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

MEMBER POSTON: Okay. Thank you 

for explaining that. I was really confused, 

but it was my own misunderstanding.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: No problem.

MEMBER POSTON: Thank you.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

Questions for Bob before I ask Dave to 

comment?

(No response.)

Okay, Dave, what's NIOSH's take 

on this? First of all, on the data now, do 

you agree that you're agreement or do you 

still lack some information?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. ALLEN: We're in agreement on 

the beta dose. We were able to get Bob's 

MCNP runs, and I was able to reproduce these 

numbers, at least within round-off error. 

And the round-off, most of them were exact 

and some of them one-digit difference on the 

last digit.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: We can live with 

that.

MR. ALLEN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you're both 

in agreement on the skin dose issue. And 

these numbers that we see on the final table 

for SC&A, are these the numbers that NIOSH 

is planning to use, then?

MR. ALLEN: Like I said, they 

were just a single-digit difference on the 

last decimal point. It's insignificant.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yeah, gotcha. 

Basically, that's the skin dose part.

And then so we still have some 

open issues on the direct radiation and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

relative to the neutron component, it sounds 

like, is that correct?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yeah, that's 

still in the final stages of being revised. 

And I think it is even going to be a tossup.

There are a couple of issues. 

One of them is going to be, in our opinion -

- well, this is actually a policy call. 

There's no question that the layout man --

the layout man scenario, I should say; it’s 

not really a distinct individual -- gives 

you by far the higher photon dose.

Now, does that mean that you 

should adopt the neutron dose that he gets, 

which is much smaller than the photon dose, 

but it is still a separate item in the IREP 

entry, to that individual? Or should you 

combine that with the neutron dose to the 

betatron operator, which may be higher. He 

will have a much smaller photon dose, but he 

may have a higher neutron dose.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think 

we are going to have to let NIOSH, as you 

say, that's going to be a call that they 

will have to make once we get the final 

numbers.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm thinking 

out loud here, though, but I'm going to pose 

a question here to Ted.

Ted, we have another Work Group 

meeting in January. It's a teleconference 

meeting which we said would focus on Joslyn. 

But we also heard from the meeting earlier 

this week, from LaVon, that Joslyn may be 

clearly straightforward.

And I'm wondering if we could 

consider including some GSI issues in that 

meeting as well since there are clearly 

going to be some open things, such as this 

neutron dose issue.

MR. KATZ: Oh, right. I mean, 

certainly, we can. I mean, it's just a 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

matter of we're going to have to balance 

that because we really need to get through 

the Joslyn material as well for the Board 

meeting. But, yeah.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, but if 

that Joslyn issue is pretty straightforward, 

we may well have time to pick up some 

carryover from the GSI. I really don't want 

some of these things to drag on. If they 

can get this external value completed by 

mid-January, then we could perhaps take that 

up there as well.

MR. KATZ: No, I completely 

agree. But I also thought I understood from 

Bob that, I mean, there's agreement on all 

the inputs and so on. It's really just 

cranking out the actual values that Bob 

needs to do after this meeting from MCNP 

runs.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's my 

understanding.

MR. KATZ: Isn't that correct, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Bob?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, that's my 

understanding. My guess would be, honestly, 

we could probably wind this up in -- I mean, 

I would virtually guarantee it won't take an 

hour, and my guess is it would probably take 

more like half an hour, just a quick 

presentation. Because we will be in touch. 

I mean, I will be.

MR. KATZ: Okay.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm not going to 

wait until the day before. I'm going to 

send Dave and Jim our files as soon as 

they're ready and presentable, and they can 

have a chance to go through and comment and 

check the spreadsheet, because there's this 

calculation that takes place after the MCNP 

run. And we will do ours; they will do 

theirs, just like with the skin dose. And 

if there is a discrepancy, and they did find 

a discrepancy once during the skin dose 

exchange, a discrepancy in one of my 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

spreadsheets, which we corrected. So, we 

expect to sort of come in in pretty good 

shape, I think.

MR. KATZ: Right. Thanks, Bob. 

So, that sounds like it will work.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

you.

I think maybe for the record we 

need to take Work Group action on the skin 

dose issue, as to whether or not we accept 

this agreement that has been arrived at 

between NIOSH and SC&A on the methodology 

for calculating the skin dose.

I guess, Ted, I need to ask you, 

do we need official Work Group action on 

this kind of matter?

MR. KATZ: Yeah, I mean, Paul, 

you can do it whichever way you want. You 

can do it piece-by-piece like this. You can 

do it in a more general fashion once you're 

through the materials. It's completely up 

to you.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we don't 

really have the final information on the 

external part -- I mean on what will really 

be whole body for the neutron. So, I don't 

feel like we should take action until 

everybody is in agreement on that. I 

understand they have agreed to the 

methodology, but we haven't seen the final 

numbers.

MR. KATZ: Right.

MEMBER MUNN: I agree with that 

assessment, Paul.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, just for 

the record, if anyone on the Work Group 

wishes to make a motion concerning the skin 

dose approach.

MEMBER MUNN: As you mentioned, I 

prefer to remain silent on it until we have 

actually seen the results of the runs.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we have 

the results for the skin dose.

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, I understand, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

but we're awaiting the neutrons.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, you prefer 

to wait until we have the whole thing? Is 

that what you're saying?

MEMBER MUNN: Yes, that's my 

preference.

MEMBER BEACH: Yeah. This is 

Josie. I agree with that waiting, also.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

MEMBER POSTON: It seems to make 

sense. This is John.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So, 

we'll just hold this until we have the final 

bottom line on the whole thing, then.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob. My 

understanding from the agenda is that we 

will be, once we finish this, we will be 

going through the issues matrix.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: And, of course, 

that's listed as one of the items on the 

issues matrix. So, at that point, I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

we need to make -- I would assume we're 

going to make a decision on each item in the 

issues matrix as we go through it.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We would take 

those one-by-one, that's correct.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Okay. So, 

there will be an opportunity shortly for the 

Board to take a position on the skin dose?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or the Work 

Group, rather.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. I meant -

- I'm sorry -- the Work Group.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right. 

Okay. Thank you.

Let's go ahead with the 

resuspension factor issue. Now, there we 

had earlier a paper, I think, back in 

October, by NIOSH -- or by SC&A --

indicating some alternate ideas on the 

resuspension factor. And then, more 

recently, I think on December 10th, we had 

the memo from Dr. Neton, from NIOSH, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

indicating that the resuspension factor had 

been reviewed by NIOSH and that they now 

believe it is appropriate to use the 10 to 

the minus 5th value, which was what SC&A had 

recommended.

Jim Neton, do you have some 

additional comments on that?

DR. NETON: Maybe just a few. As 

you pointed out, there was a discrepancy or 

difference between NIOSH's resuspension 

factor during the residual contamination 

period. We agreed on 10 to the minus 5 

during the operational period, but SC&A had 

some concerns about the abrupt change of the 

resuspension factor immediately after 

operations ceased from 10 to the minus 5 to 

10 to the minus 6.

We thought about that some, and, 

in fact, the default value in TIB-70, which 

is the calculation of doses during residual 

periods, the default value is 10 to the 

minus 6, but it does allow for us to look at 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the appropriateness of that value based on 

site-specific circumstances.

So, we went back and did that. 

And there were three reasons, three factors 

that entered our mind as to why we thought 

10 to the minus 5th would be more 

appropriate.

Part of it is the fact that the 

initial starting contamination value was a 

modeled value based on deposition velocity 

and such. And the final value was also 

based on some empirical data in TIB-70. We 

didn't have an ending point because the 

facility had been cleaned. We couldn't use 

those data.

And the resuspension factor and 

the depletion rates are sort of intertwined, 

as SC&A has pointed out. So, we're a little 

uncomfortable with knowing that exactly. 

But, more importantly, we believe that the 

facility was so actively involved in steelprocessing activities resulting in a very 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

good potential for resuspension particulate, 

which would be more appropriately modeled by 

10 to the minus 5th. So, we have decided to 

use 10 to the minus 5th over the entire 

covered period, including the operational 

and the residual period. And I think that 

is the only difference, that was the only 

difference between SC&A and NIOSH on the 

internal dose estimation.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, I believe, 

then, we have agreement on that aspect.

SC&A, is that your understanding 

as well? Are we in agreement there?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob. 

Yes.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Work 

Group, any questions on that issue?

MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie. 

None from me, Paul.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you.

MEMBER POSTON: I don't have any 

problem. This is John.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER MUNN: No, I'm relieved to 

see an agreement on it.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

you.

Then we can move on to the next 

issue, which is the AEC New York Operations 

4699 Report. That was a report that was 

brought to our attention by Dr. McKeel. We 

did ask at our last meeting that NIOSH 

review that report in terms of the potential 

for using some or any of those facilities as 

surrogates for GSI.

We got the report from Dr. Neton. 

I'm trying to look for the date on that. I 

think it was, yes, the 1st of November, I 

believe, that report was distributed to us.

And then, also, I believe Dr. 

McKeel provided a critique of Dr. Neton's 

report, and that was dated -- well, let's 

see. Maybe it was the 2nd of November.

So, I'm looking at both of those. 

What I'll do here is I'm going to ask Dr. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Neton to make any summary comments he wants. 

We all already have the report.

And then, Dr. McKeel, I think, 

since we're discussing this, I'll ask you to 

make your comments as well because I know 

you had some concerns as well.

Jim, do you want to kick this 

off, then?

DR. NETON: Sure. This was an 

email that was issued on November 1st, as 

Dr. Ziemer indicated. And we looked at the 

two reports that Dr. McKeel asked us to look 

at for applicability or appropriateness to 

validate the MCNP model that we're using for 

GSI.

There were two reports. One, NYO 

4699, issued in '53 and '54. Or NYO 4699 

looked at 15 accelerators between '53 and 

'54 for stray radiation around these 

particle accelerators. And then, to 

supplement the NYO 4699, did additional 

surveys between '54 and '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

We looked at the original 4699 

report between '53 and '54, and none of 

those accelerators were betatrons. So, we 

didn't believe that they were useful for our 

situation.

Supplement 1, however, looked at 

23 different surveys at 14 different 

facilities, and three of those were actually 

betatrons that operated in the 20 MeV range. 

So, they did appear to be applicable or 

appropriate surrogates for the one in use at 

GSI.

But there are a number of factors 

to consider when you want to do a validation 

study, and I listed these in the report: you 

know, the size and composition of the target 

to the front of the beam, the orientation of 

the beam, the distance of that point from 

the beam, the difference of shielding in the 

beam path, and the composition of the 

shielding.

Even though the survey results 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

were reported, the various sketches and 

diagrams that were available did not, in our 

opinion, provide enough information to 

answer those five criteria, or the five 

issues that you need to look at to do some 

sort of validation study.

In particular, there was no 

indication about what was in front of the 

scattering beam. It makes a big difference 

in whether you put a patient, nothing, or a 

piece of steel or uranium in front of the 

beam.

Some of them were not to scale. 

The ones that were to scale, the composition 

material wasn't known. So, the bottom line 

is we just didn't feel that there was enough 

information available to make it useful in 

validating the MCNP model.

That's it in a nutshell.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

you.

Dr. McKeel, are you still on the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

line?

DR. McKEEL: Can you hear me, Dr. 

Ziemer?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Go ahead. 

I know you have concerns about that report, 

and this would be an appropriate time for 

you to get those on the record.

DR. McKEEL: Okay. Well, I guess 

I would have to summarize my feeling that I 

think that Dr. Neton has really 

mischaracterized not only what I requested, 

but what was the important information in 

that NYO 4699 Supplement 1.

One of the things I pointed out 

was that this was the only measured neutron 

data for betatrons in existence. And I 

pointed out in my paper, the first one, and 

in the reply, that I called on this Work 

Group back in March of 2012 to please cite 

for me any paper published that they knew of 

that had measured betatron, photon, neutron 

data, and they could mention no papers. I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

called for that specifically, for that 

purpose, to put it on the record. Could not 

find it.

Well, here is such a paper. And 

I would say, just on that basis, this is 

real, measured data for three betatron sites 

for neutrons, for photons.

And the second point is Dr. Neton 

didn't mention the fact that the NYO 4699 

Supplement gave matching film badge data for 

those betatron operators, the same three 

sites.

I also was upset, and continue to 

be, that Dr. Neton's report doesn't really 

mention anything about my original paper, 

which was sent in plenty of time before he 

replied on NYO 4699. I did a rather 

elaborate exposition of what I thought was 

important in those papers, and he totally 

ignored that.

This is pattern on the part of 

NIOSH, and I don't think it's fair. I don't 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

think it's scientifically correct to ignore 

petitioner information that's sent in good 

faith. And, actually, it's information that 

either NIOSH or Members of the Board or SC&A 

could have turned up long ago. These papers 

are old papers.

And, I guess, maybe the most 

serious thing I object to is that I believe 

NIOSH's decisions that, for instance, the 

sketches and the drawings were not precise 

enough to serve as surrogate data to match 

those sites, those three sites, with General 

Steel.

Now, I agree that General Steel 

was a steel company and the three sites were 

universities and university hospitals. And 

I certainly agree that there is a difference 

in the shielding and so forth between 

industrial betatrons and clinical betatrons.

However, when you look at what 

information NIOSH and SC&A have used at GSI, 

and the Board voted on last December, they
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

are similar-type drawings that are in the 

NYO 4699 reports. And these are drawings 

that are in no way -- they're not 

engineering drawings. They're sketches. 

They're cartoons. They show some 

thicknesses of walls. They show some 

details of what the walls were composed of 

in both documents, NYO 4699 Supplement 1 and 

in the various drawings that are used in the 

GSI Technical Reports.

And I pointed out in my paper 

that, actually, some of the NYO 4699 site 

drawings are certainly as detailed as the 

ones from GSI. They do show where the 

betatrons were located. They do show wall 

thicknesses. They do show wall composition.

You know how a betatron is 

constructed, and you know where the head is, 

and there are limits to how that head can 

travel. So, you pretty much know where the 

target was.

We're not talking about are these 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

data useful to calculate steel activation 

factors or uranium activation factors. 

We're talking about, are they useful to show 

what kind of doses were delivered by the 

betatron?

And Jim Neton's paper completely 

ignores the true value of the fact that 

these are not just inferred or calculated 

neutron data. The Health and Safety 

Laboratory were the experts at the time. 

And they, in this study of accelerators 

throughout the United States, they went to 

elaborate lengths to transport measuring 

devices, often using several at one site, to 

determine the neutron doses and use those to 

cross-corroborate each other, which I think 

is fantastic. And that was all completely 

ignored.

So, in my mind, I would have to 

say that Dr. Neton's analysis of this paper 

is superficial. It's not thorough. It's 

not scientifically correct. And I think 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that that that data should be used.

And the final thing I'll point 

out, it really is -- I'm trying to be 

polite, but I've got to say it's very 

annoying to me. Because we had long 

discussions on the appropriateness of 

surrogate sites used for GSI about the 

handling of uranium.

And I pointed out, and I think 

everybody knows, at GSI they handled several 

different types of uranium metal forms. 

They handled betatron slices, but they also 

handled ingots and dingots, which are 

larger, and they handled some billets. What 

they did not handle were slugs.

Nevertheless, some of the 

surrogate sites that were used to compare to 

GSI, a steel plant, were not steel plants at 

all. They were places like Fernald, Weldon 

Springs, which were feed materials plants 

for nuclear weapons. Yes, they had some of 

the same machinery as a steel plant, but 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

they weren't steel plants.

So, in one case, let's just take 

the surrogate data used at GSI for betatrons 

and for the uranium work that the betatrons 

were hired to do, the non-destructive 

testing. Here we have a situation at GSI 

where surrogate data was used from other 

sites, which were different in their design, 

in their sources, and so forth. And that 

was all acceptable to NIOSH.

On the other hand, SC&A, the 

first time they went through the surrogate 

data criteria, said, no, that none of those 

sites fulfill the surrogate criteria. In 

fact, four of the five failed.

The second time SC&A looked at 

the data, with nothing new being added that 

I'm aware of, they turned around and said, 

oh, yes, now we agree, we think they do pass 

the surrogate data criteria.

Here we have a situation where 

the data is absolutely unique. It's the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

only measured neutron/photon film badge data 

we can find for betatrons like the ones at 

GSI, and here NIOSH says that's basically 

useless.

So, I don't know what more to 

say. I have written a paper. I have 

written an objection to Dr. Neton. Here I 

have expressed the way I feel. I just 

couldn't disagree with him more. I think 

that's where I'll let my remarks stay.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

you. I just wanted to make sure that we had 

that on the record, Dr. McKeel. I know we 

have the written information.

Let me any of the Work Group 

Members if they have questions on your 

issues.

And I do want to ask a question 

about -- and maybe I'll ask Jim Neton. I 

don't know really the answer to this myself. 

Is there anything that you noted, Jim, in 

the personnel monitoring records in that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

report that would have been useful or given 

us better information on worker doses than 

we will get the modeling that we have now?

DR. NETON: This is Jim Neton. I 

don't think so. I mean, it's a measurement 

taken just like you would take with a survey 

instrument. I mean, again, it's not so much 

the fact that we have measured values. We 

know that betatrons generate photons and 

neutrons. I mean, that's what the code

does. It really is the magnitude of those 

doses. And without having some detailed 

descriptions of the conditions under which 

they were taken and the construction of the 

facility, I don't feel that they are of 

value for our purposes.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes?

DR. McKEEL: May I please just 

comment on that?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. McKEEL: I don't think that's 

the point. I think the point is right now 

you've got MCNPX modeling with no 

validation, no measured data. And I have 

said for years -- and by now I've sent you 

four excellent papers that used MCNPX to 

calculate radiation doses. They were all 

from peer-reviewed publications. I've said 

all along that to get such a model accepted 

in a peer-reviewed publication, which you 

and I, probably each of us have several 

hundred articles in our CVs, and the reason 

I pointed out those papers is that every 

single one of them requires measured data to 

validate the computer codes.

And I said, and those fit right 

within this guideline, that the maximum 

acceptable difference that those peerreviewed journals accept for accepting a 

computer model of something is plus or minus 

20 percent. And all four of those papers, 

the measured and the modeled MCNPX data were 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

within two to 20 percent, plus or minus two 

to 20 percent.

Whereas, when NIOSH used SC&A 

code to model the betatrons back in 2008, 

the closest they could come was within 200 

percent. SC&A modeled 12 rem per year. I 

mean, NIOSH modeled 5.6 rem per year. 

That's not close enough. And they were 

using the similar or the same input files, 

and they were sharing those.

So, I think that the value of the 

measured data is to say, are the MCNPX 

values that were determined by code, 

transport code, how do they agree with the 

actual real measured data in NYO 4699 at 

three different sites? I think that's 

important.

And NIOSH didn't even go through 

the minimal effort to compare the MCNPX 

results with the values stated in that 

paper. Certainly that can be done. 

Certainly that could be analyzed, but nobody 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

expended the effort to do that.

And I can tell you this: I can 

send you all the grants at NIH that I've 

been in. I can send you my CV. I can tell 

you how many program, projects, and things 

like that that I have participated in as a 

study group member on both sides of the 

aisle. And I am telling you that this sort 

of methodology would not be acceptable in 

that arena at all.

Again, I am so frustrated, so 

angry, and so upset by the way this is being 

treated in a really unacceptable scientific 

manner, that it's hard for me to comment 

anymore. I think I will let it rest at 

that.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

you.

DR. McKEEL: But I will say this, 

and I am going to say this to you, Dr. 

Ziemer, personally: I don't think it's okay 

for this Work Group to simply say, "Oh, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

thank you, Dan, for your comments," and then 

forget it.

I would like to hear from Wanda 

Munn, from Josie Beach, from John Poston, 

and from you, who I greatly respect. I 

would like to hear what you think about what 

I said in my White Paper, in my response to 

Jim Neton, and to what I have just said.

Is there anything that I have 

said that you would agree with? Do you 

totally disagree with it? I think, in the 

spirit of transparency and putting things on 

the record, you all need to do that.

So, I guess there I really will 

end.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, okay. 

Well, I'll certainly be glad to make some 

comments.

First of all, one of the issues 

that I would have -- and I understand where

you're coming from -- the papers that you 

are referring to are typically medical 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

papers where the issue has to do with how 

well patients can be treated. And the 

margin for using a model, because models are 

used to treat patients with radiation, and 

you have to be within probably less than two 

percent because you can't deliver more dose 

than the doctor calls for from a treatment 

point of view. So, those are extremely 

critical.

And those are the cases where the 

model and the actual numbers must agree very 

closely. That is certainly not the same as 

field measurements of radiation personnel. 

It’s typically, even for film badges and 

survey meters, in the range of plus or minus 

20 percent when you are actually there doing 

the data.

And then when you get to the 

kinds of things where we are bounding, we 

are not trying to bound within plus or minus 

two percent. So, philosophically, we're in 

a very different ballpark, I believe, than 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

what we are talking about in terms of those 

sort of validation issues.

DR. McKEEL: Paul, I will have to 

respond to that because I also sent you all 

a paper which I found interesting, in spite 

of the fact that SC&A does not seem to feel 

that the use of measured data is necessary 

to validate these GSI betatron data. I did 

come across a paper, a spectacular paper, by 

Dr. Anigstein and SC&A in 2005 where they 

were -- this was on another project -- but 

they were surveying, they asked the 

interesting question: could you use local 

hospital gamma imaging equipment to 

determine doses after a dirty bomb scenario?

And so they did a tremendous 

amount of work calculating how these 

instruments -- this was a contract. And 

under that contract, they had to prove their 

methodology.

I was interested to see that they 

went to some effort, great effort, actually, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to provide measured data to validate their 

model data. And there were fabulous, 

lengthy, exhaustive kind of calculations 

used in that paper.

So, basically, I don't agree with 

you. I don't think it has got to do with 

hospitals at all. I think it has got to do 

with the type of rigor that most scientists 

require if they are going to accept a 

computer code as being valid.

And again, in dose reconstruction 

you're supposed to determine dose with 

sufficient accuracy. Richard Miller pointed 

out to me many years ago bounding is a 

construct he believed was basically -- Dr. 

Neton for this program.

But that's not what the Act --

the Act doesn't call for bounding. It calls 

for determining each and every worker with 

each and every type of cancer with 

sufficient accuracy.

You guys, it's fascinating to me, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

after all these years, 13, you can't define 

sufficient accuracy quantitatively, you 

know. And where you all now are, you both 

are saying, well, why don't we just use it 

as a general thing and sort of a descriptive 

term?

But, anyway, I'm saying, you 

know, that's not something I can control. 

But to say that all you have to do is 

loosely bound it, you have to plausibly 

bound it with sufficient accuracy. And I 

think this data would help. I don't think 

it is at all related to just the fact that 

they are medical photon- and neutrongenerating machinery. I think it has got to 

do with the rigor that science requires 

these days.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I looked 

at those papers, and the rigor, certainly 

the 2 percent level, those were all --

(Chairman Ziemer's phone 

connection audio is lost.)
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. KATZ: Paul, we lost you. 

Paul, I don't know if you're talking and 

don't realize it, but we can't hear you.

I don't know; his line may have 

dropped. So, it's just hanging here.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sorry. Can you 

hear me now?

MR. KATZ: Yes. Yes, you're 

back. Okay. We didn't hear really a thing 

you said.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sorry. I may 

have still been on mute.

I was just saying that, you know, 

those papers that I read were focusing on 

treatment of patient, where it is very 

critical that you validate to about 2 

percent or less, very critical.

I don't know about Bob 

Anigstein's paper that you referred to, Dr. 

McKeel.

And another remark I will make is 

--
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. McKEEL: I sent it to you.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Richard Miller 

says the bounding is an issue that is part 

of this program. That's nothing to do with 

this Work Group per se. This is an accepted 

practice by NIOSH and by the program.

And the bounding was significant 

with sufficient accuracy. It is a 

philosophical construct which is not 

necessarily based on numbers. And I say 

that in the sense that it doesn't --

(Chairman Ziemer's phone 

connection audio is lost.)

MR. KATZ: Paul, I think we lost 

you again.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: My phone seems 

to have slipped onto mute again. I don't 

know how much you heard of that.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Paul, we heard 

you talking about the bounding issue.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was the end.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MEMBER MUNN: But we didn't hear 

much of it.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, for some 

reason, it –

MEMBER MUNN: We heard you say it 

was an acceptable practice.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Well, 

let me allow some others to talk.

Any of the other Work Group 

Members have comments they want to make on 

this?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is Bob. I 

would like to respond to one thing Dr. 

McKeel said, and I appreciate the compliment 

on my 2005 report. There have been some 

later ones on the same subject that I posted 

on the CDC website.

But there is a remarkable 

difference. That work, which we did on 

several different radiation-measuring 

instruments used in hospitals and now going 

for field instruments, I was able to obtain, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

having signed non-disclosure agreements, 

confidentiality agreements, I was able to 

obtain detailed engineering drawings from 

the manufacturers of those instruments right 

down to the dimensions, to the material 

composition. I contacted the manufacturers 

of some of the subcomponents, got the 

chemical composition.

I, then, went into the hospital. 

I was able to; I have access on weekends to 

their equipment, with their staff, of 

course, there. And I was able to set up an 

experiment where I had a known source, had a 

known location with a calibrated source that 

we obtained, with a traceable calibration of 

plus or minus 3 percent.

And we were able to do radiation 

measurement under exactly known conditions. 

We were, then, able to put those conditions 

exactly into the MCNP code, right down to a 

fraction of a millimeter. This is how far 

away it is. This is the dimension. This is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the material. And, yes, we got good 

agreement, typically, on the order of 10 

percent. Sometimes we nailed it right down 

to 1 percent.

And the purpose of that was not 

to check does MCNP work. MCNP has been in 

development for 50 years, and many millions 

of dollars have been poured into the 

development of the code and the validation 

of the code.

What I was doing was validating 

my model, saying: are we correctly 

representing this instrument, based on the 

information we have, because there are 

always some little gaps? Is the model of 

the instrument good enough to be used in a 

situation where you want to actually put a 

human being in front of this camera? And we 

got good agreement.

Now that kind of information is 

just not available to us. We don't have 

that detailed engineering drawings of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

betatron. Nobody has those. We got through 

the best we could from Jack Schuetz, who 

NIOSH brought in as a consultant. He 

submitted drawings of the betatron tube. 

The rest of the apparatus, the magnets 

around it were just very, very complex, and 

we did not have that.

And most important, we did not 

have any exposure -- we had nothing to 

compare it to. There were no measurements 

made. Well, if we had measurements, if 

there were measurements of GSI, then SC&A 

and NIOSH would have been using those 

measurements. We would not have been 

resorting to a code. Maybe we would have 

done the code for in between, where here's a 

measurement at position X. Now let's use 

the code to give us a measurement at 

position Y, first having validated that we 

get the result at X. Then, we can say why 

we do not measurement if we go 10 feet away, 

whatever it is. Those kinds of variations, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

those are beautiful. I would have loved to 

have had that.

As a matter of fact, when Mr. 

Ramspott put me in touch with -- well, I'm 

not supposed to mention names -- but a 

researcher, I believe it was in the 

Milwaukee School Engineering, if I remember 

correctly, who had done some studies, I was 

very eager to get in touch with that person.

I finally did speak to him, to 

find out did he actually have measurements 

under conditions that I could reproduce in 

MCNP. And the answer was he did not. He 

did not have any measurements. I looked; I 

was disappointed. He did not have any 

measurements that we could reproduce. I 

would have loved to have measurements. 

There were none.

And I was not, SC&A was not 

tasked with reviewing these reports that Dr. 

McKeel submitted, but I certainly trust that 

Dr. Neton and Dave Allen would have known 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

what is required for an MCNP analysis, and 

that the information was just not there.

DR. McKEEL: Dr. Anigstein, I do 

have to, I would like to comment that I 

requested at the outset that SC&A be tasked 

to do this. And basically, Dr. Ziemer 

refused to do that. So, I thought that was 

a great idea.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

DR. McKEEL: I think you should 

look at it, and that wasn't allowed.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: The resources, 

you know, there's only so many resources 

available.

DR. McKEEL: I understand. I 

understand.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: But the point is 

I believe -- and I did take a glance at 

them, anyway; I did look at them -- the kind 

of information that is necessary for 

validating the MCNP analysis, or any other 

comparable analysis, is just not something 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that is normally available. It is not going 

to be published. We are talking about 

measurements made 50 years ago. These 

things are just no one went around with a 

density gauge to measure the thickness of 

the walls and the composition of the walls. 

Those kinds of things, there was not the 

intention at the time.

DR. McKEEL: Right.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's just the 

validation, I completely agree it would have 

been nice to have a validation, not to 

validate the code, but to validate the way 

we are using the code, because --

DR. McKEEL: Correct. That's 

right, the model.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- the user has 

some discretion. But that data was simply 

not --

DR. McKEEL: But I'm telling you 

some relevant data did exist in NYO 4699 

that could be used as surrogate data.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I can't, 

again, I can't comment on that because I did 

not go over details.

DR. McKEEL: What I hoped to hear 

was not only from you. You know, I know 

your thoughts about MCNPX, and, basically, I 

agree with what you said. I think it is 

very well-validated code.

On the other hand, as you said 

this morning, you know, there are nuances to 

it. It changes a lot. So, I still think 

that the extant measured data, particularly 

that on neutrons, and it doesn't take a 

sophisticated comparison. You can look at 

the number, you know, the rems per year or 

the rems per week or the rems per month on 

the film badges and on the measurements of 

neutrons, and see what MCNPX and SC&A and 

NIOSH came up with, and compare those to 

what the Health and Safety Laboratory came 

up with for their National Accelerator 

Survey.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

You can do that. You know, it's 

a number. Compare the number, 25 compared 

to -- as long as the units are the same, you 

can do that, and I think it would be useful. 

And, in fact, nobody has done that.

So, that's really all I'm saying. 

It hasn't even taken that first simple step.

I would like to hear what the 

other Board Members have to say about it. 

And I wish, please, I'm requesting that not 

just Dr. Ziemer comment, but I would like to 

hear from the other three Members, please.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that's at 

their option. I don't think they're 

required, but go ahead.

Who wants to comment?

MEMBER MUNN: Dr. McKeel, this is 

Wanda.

And I hear your concerns with 

great interest, which we always have. It's 

always disturbing when I hear a person who 

has contributed so much to what we do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

express feelings as you have just expressed.

You seem to feel that your work 

and your information is not valued, and that 

we, as a group, are not paying attention to 

either your concerns or your information. 

And that's not a perspective that is held 

here.

My perspective personally is that 

you have contributed a great deal to what we 

do. I am disturbed that you do not feel 

that science is being served here because I 

prefer to think of myself as a strong 

advocate of good science and don't see any 

way that we could have approached the 

information that you have given us any more 

rigorously than we have.

So, I'm very sorry that you feel 

the way you do, but my personal view of what 

is transpiring here is that your information 

and your concerns are being given a great 

deal of weight and a great deal of effort. 

The fact that the outcome is not always 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

pleasing for you is understandable. That 

happens with all of us on many of our 

activities on a daily basis.

But I assure you, to the best of 

my knowledge, all of the parties involved 

here are making every effort to achieve a 

level of good science, which is admirable 

and served us as well as we can possibly 

serve in a situation of this kind.

So, my apologies for your 

feelings that you're not being properly 

acknowledged in what we are doing here, but 

that is not the perspective that can be had 

from where I sit. We very much appreciate 

your input, and it is certainly taken into 

consideration and certainly here is read 

with interest whenever it's seen. I don't 

believe you have ever sent us information 

that I have not made certain that I reviewed 

as well as I could.

So, if we have done anything to 

give you the impression that your work is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

not being valued or is not being taken into 

adequate consideration, I personally 

apologize for that, but that's not the 

perspective that I have here. That's all I 

can say.

DR. McKEEL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Any other Board 

Members want to comment?

MEMBER POSTON: I will take a 

couple of minutes.

First off, I have read all the 

papers that you have sent. Some of them I 

was familiar with before you sent them 

because I've been working in terrorism for a 

long time, and I was completely aware of the 

papers regarding using the equipment in a 

hospital and a dirty bomb situation.

I have also been working in Monte 

Carlo calculations for 30 years or more, and 

I'm familiar with some of the errors, and so 

forth.

I thought that the things that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Bob and others at SC&A have done make a 

whole lot of sense. In my belief, there is 

an error associated with calculations which 

can't be overcome because there are so many 

uncertainties in the statistical 

uncertainty, based on the number of 

histories. It is just one of those many 

things.

I have tended to agree with Jim 

about the medical accelerators versus the 

accelerators that we're considering at GSI. 

I believe there is a difference. I 

understand their problem in trying to do the 

very best they can to do the dose estimates. 

I do believe they're different, and I do 

believe that you need to use a different 

approach.

Other than, I don't have much to 

say. I have read all your papers. As I 

said, I was familiar with some of them 

before you sent them out because of my 

interest in other areas.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. McKEEL: Thank you.

MEMBER BEACH: And I'll just make 

a real brief comment here. This is Josie 

Beach.

Dan, I have always been a real 

strong supporter of you, as you know. But 

in this case it is a highly-technical 

matter, and I'm going to have to defer to 

the others that have a little bit more 

technical knowledge in this field than I do.

I really pushed to have NIOSH 

look at your paper, to review your paper, 

and I'm going to leave it at that and go 

with their recommendations, as well as the 

other Board Members.

DR. McKEEL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, let's 

see.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes?

MR. RAMSPOTT: This is John 

Ramspott. If I could, this is kind of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

chance to make a couple of comments. Could 

I make one, please?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead, 

John.

MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm addressing 

this to Dr. Anigstein and to John Mauro. 

It's regarding their report on the external 

exposures.

And I'm curious, looking at Table 

4, and I was trying to figure out Table 4 

and 5, just like Dr. Poston was, too.

I have a very basic question, 

though. I don't think it's real 

complicated. Why are you using a uranium 

slice rather than an ingot or a dingot for 

this calculation when it is one-fifth of the 

size, the physical size, of a dingot or an 

ingot?

I believe I have actually sent 

this Work Group kind of an amateuristic 

drawing of an ingot, cut it into slices the 

way the slices were described by 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Mallinckrodt documents, being about 3-inches 

thick or 4-inches thick. And it's real 

basic. There's five times the matter, the 

physical matter, there.

And the reason I'm asking this is 

that DOE more frequently -- I mean by 

tenfold -- references ingots and dingots. 

The earlier reference to slices, the only 

one I could find is a document in 1953 at 

Mallinckrodt, MCW.

It appears to me that these 

exposures should be five times what they are 

if you were using dingots or ingots. Why do 

you use the slices? That's my question. 

Again, I appreciate the Board or other Work 

Group Members kind of answering that same 

question. Why use the small piece when we 

know they were doing the other piece at GSI?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: All right. Can I 

answer this? This is Bob.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, Bob.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. No. 1 is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

at the meeting in Collinsville -- I had read 

about the slices -- I specifically asked the 

betatron operators there, one of our 

departed colleagues and another one who 

worked with him. I remember there were two, 

and I forget who the other who the chimedin.

And I described the slice the way 

it was described. I did not do the research 

on the Mallinckrodt Technical Basis 

Document. But I certainly pursued it, and 

it seemed, in my opinion -- and it is our 

job to critique NIOSH, not to be critical of 

NIOSH but to critique and review it -- and 

even though I was not tasked with reviewing 

the Mallinckrodt TBD, it looked to me like 

one of the extremely careful, extremely 

authoritative pieces of research.

And they described the slices. 

The cutting of the betatron slices --

MR. RAMSPOTT: What was the date 

on that document, though?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. ANIGSTEIN: The data?

MR. RAMSPOTT: The date?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: The date on our 

document?

MR. RAMSPOTT: Oh, on the 

Mallinckrodt document.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, excuse me. 

The Mallinckrodt Technical Basis Document 

was something put out by NIOSH. I don't 

offhand know what the date is.

MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm looking at the 

report; 1953 is when Mallinckrodt -- that's 

the maturation of Mallinckrodt --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. No, 

you don't understand.

MR. RAMSPOTT: -- and the slices.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just a moment. 

I'm referring to the NIOSH, the document 

that was done for NIOSH by their contractor, 

ORAU, that was prepared during the course of 

this program a few years ago.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Maybe Mallinckrodt 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

was more accurate than ORAU or NIOSH.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay John. I did 

not review that document. Okay? I'll be 

honest with you. It was not my job.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: But I simply 

said, based on that information, I 

questioned your workers, I mean the workers 

that you have very helpfully -- and I really 

appreciate that. Still, to this day, I am 

grateful to you for arranging that meeting. 

It was extremely useful, extremely 

informative.

And I asked them, "Is this 

representative of the shapes that you were 

dealing with?" And they said yes. I said 

something like 18 inches in diameter, 4 

inches thick. I calculated the 4 inches 

based on that's the maximum thickness that 

could be radiographed. With the 25 MeV xray beam, that was the most. Anything 

thicker just would not get through the film. 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

And they said, "Yes, this sounds in 

accordance with our memory."

And the only information I got 

about the -- now this is sort of my opinion. 

When DOE was referring in correspondence, 

they were simply approving -- it was not 

"DOE," of course; it was the Atomic Energy 

Commission then -- they were simply 

approving the invoices submitted by 

Mallinckrodt, which was paying GSI to do 

this work. They were simply being paid to 

do uranium shapes. They didn't issue a 

separate work order for each type of thing. 

They simply had a blanket agreement: we 

will send you uranium; you will do the 

radiographs and send those back to film.

So, to say, well, they didn't say 

"slices," the slices were cut from ingots or 

dingots. Ingots and dingots is the same 

thing; it is just a slightly different 

process of making it. They are big, 

cylindrical blocks of uranium. They cut 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

them up and they took out dose rates.

So, I think that that is a 

semantic argument that really is not very 

meaningful.

MR. RAMSPOTT: I disagree. I 

don't think it's semantic. I think it's a -

-

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just a moment, 

John. Let me finish. Please let me finish.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, please.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: They got the 

uranium. The only information I got from 

any of the workers that I later interviewed 

-- I followed up with telephone interviews -

- was one gentleman who worked on the day 

shift, and he came in and the night shift 

was telling him, "Oh, yes, we had this big 

shape, this big ingot." A dingot is simply 

-- there is a different chemical method of 

producing it. They're both ingots.

And they simply said, "Yes, we 

did these corner shots on this one." And he 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

showed me. I sent him --

MR. RAMSPOTT: That gentleman was 

a supervisor.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?

MR. RAMSPOTT: That was a 

supervisor that was giving you that 

information.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but, anyway, 

he said he just came in and happened to have 

talked to the worker going off the night 

shift. And there was one instance. The 

others were the slices.

However, regardless of that, this 

analysis -- you're very much mistaken --

this analysis talks about what comes off the 

surface of the metal. And the way the 

analysis was performed was two separate 

analyses. One is the side of that cylinder. 

All that really matters is how far away you 

are, because we did say, "This here is a 4-

inch thickness, and here we are touching 

it." So, when you put your hand on 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

something, it doesn't matter whether it's 

10-feet long. The radiation you're getting 

is from directly under your hand.

And I took a small area in the 

middle, just to make sure that we captured 

that. So, it would make very little 

difference. The exact shape would not 

change very much. And most of the radiation 

comes from that side, and the face of it was 

18-inches across. It might as well be 18-

feet across because it wouldn't make any 

difference. The radiation in the center --

the beta particles don't travel that far --

the radiation in the center will be 

approximately the same.

I stand behind this as being a 

representative shape. Yes, there were, I'm 

sure there were other shapes. There were 

other exposure geometries. We do this one 

as a representative, and I think it's 

limiting and I think that saying that 

somebody has their hand in constant contact 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

with it during half the setup period is 

probably overstating it. It is probably on 

the safe side.

It is the limiting exposure. I 

doubt seriously that you could get over the 

course of a year -- maybe at any one moment, 

any one single operation, you could get 

something different -- but over the course 

of a year or as many as 54 shifts that were 

employed during any one year, I don't think 

you would get anything that would be 

different, that would be significantly 

higher than this.

MR. RAMSPOTT: If I could 

comment?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's a 

representative shape. We don't have enough 

information to have done every shape. First 

of all, we don't have the resources. And 

even if we could have, we don't know enough 

detail. So, this is a good, representative 

shape. The workers agreed that this was, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the one I saw them face-to-face, they agreed 

that this was representative. And I don't 

think we could have done any better.

MR. RAMSPOTT: May I comment?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure.

MR. RAMSPOTT: The reason I'm 

having a little problem agreeing with that 

is a mass of uranium, like you said, it 

could be 18-feet wide, but we know it was 

about 24 to 30 inches tall --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Uh-hum.

MR. RAMSPOTT: -- and 18 inches, 

approximately in diameter.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Uh-hum.

MR. RAMSPOTT: That's five times 

the size of this.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

MR. RAMSPOTT: We both agree.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: The reason that's 

not of major significance is beta particles 

of the energies in uranium travel about 1 

millimeter through the metal. So, for 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

instance, when we do the MCNP analysis, we 

only consider the skin of the metal, simply 

because if we told MCNP give me the dose 

from the electrons in the sensor, those I 

could never get out. MCNP would spend a 

huge amount of time calculating things that 

never go anywhere. So, we just --

MR. RAMSPOTT: The reason this 

concerns me --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?

MR. RAMSPOTT: The reason this 

concerns me, earlier in this meeting there 

was mention of the Putzier effect.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

MR. RAMSPOTT: A dingot would 

definitely have more of the Putzier effect 

material on its surface because a dingot, 

when it went to GSI, according to the 

photographs, according to worker 

recognitions, the identifications, it was a 

crusty, big dingot or ingot.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Uh-hum.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. RAMSPOTT: And it wasn't 

cropped. They quit doing the cropping 

because they used the x-rays to figure out 

how -- and this is from a Mallinckrodt 

document. They actually did this to look at 

the crust on there to see how thick it was, 

so they could, then, do the next steps back 

at Mallinckrodt. So, the workers would have 

been subject to much more Putzier effect 

material on a dingot than it would an ingot.

Now, until you really lay your 

hands on it, if the size doesn't matter, 

well, then, you know, you guys are the 

experts. But my point is we spoke with the 

supervisor. I think you interviewed him. 

He actually told everybody exactly how the 

dingots were done --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Uh-hum.

MR. RAMSPOTT: -- how they were 

rotated, flipped --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

MR. RAMSPOTT: -- turned. But 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the big difference is the shots only took 

about 10 minutes. On slices they took two 

hours.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I 

understand.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Two hours in a 

control room is a safer position. But when 

you're out there flipping it and turning it, 

and actually turning it upside-down, the 

size does directly affect how much the 

workers handled/touched that material.

So, if you only touch a slice 

every two hours, but you touch a dingot 

every -- let's be conservative -- 15 

minutes, there's a big difference, four or 

five times a difference.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I believe we 

assumed a one-hour shot --

MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay, one hour. 

Okay.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- and 15 minutes

of handling in between shots.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. But, if you 

are only doing a shot at 10 minutes, you can 

go in and handle a whole lot more of these, 

and your personal exposure in touching, 

handling, flipping, turning the dingot or 

ingot, that's a real problem. That's a 

major difference. I mean, you guys need to 

consider that.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I hear you. All 

I can say is this came out rather late. We 

started off with the slices. We did not get 

any contradiction early in the first --

MR. RAMSPOTT: Oh, yes, you did. 

You guys definitely did. I have documents 

that will prove that.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I got one report 

that was one case, one instance. This 

gentleman said he came in in the morning and 

he saw this from the night shift. It 

sounded to me like it was the exception 

rather than the rule.

The workers at the plant, the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

workers I interviewed, the two people -- you 

know who I'm speaking about -- agreed, when 

I said, "Is this a representative shape," 

they said yes.

MR. RAMSPOTT: But that was one 

meeting. There's transcripts from other 

meetings that will definitely verify the 

fact that dingots and ingots were known 

about.

I might be wrong, but if we take 

a real close look at those purchase orders, 

I think even the purchase orders give some -

-

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't consider 

that to be -- I don't consider that a person 

writing the purchase order needs to know the 

exact shape of the uranium. He needs to 

know that it's radiographic uranium and 

they're paying for it.

MR. RAMSPOTT: I think they told 

the production schedule, Bob. I think in 

that same information, that IL-28 document 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that was provided, there's actually about 

six -- or, no, there's probably 10-12 

slides. And part of that whole document, 

they actually tell the production of what 

went over to GSI.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. What 

is that document?

MR. RAMSPOTT: I know IL-28. 

I'll find out exactly what it is and send it 

to the Work Group and yourself. There's 

about 10 -- or, oh, there's probably more 

than that.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I believe I 

looked at everything. I mean, I know I 

looked at every single document.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Oh, it definitely 

mentions billets, recasts. It goes on and 

on.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: And also, I would 

like to make another point.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Not just the 

purchase orders.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I would like 

to make another point about the Putzier 

effect. What we did, we considered the 

extreme possibility. Here's a situation: 

you get the Putzier effect. You have to 

first have uranium that has been purified 

and aged for 100 days or more for all this 

activity, all of these short-lived nuclides 

to grow in. Because when uranium is 

separated, you don't have -- this is 

primarily an isotope, protactinium-234m, 

that gives you the beta. It's not there; 

it's separated out.

So, it grows in over a period. 

Like in 24 days, it's 50-percent grown-in. 

In 96 days, it will be about 95 percent 

grown-in, and so forth. So, you need about 

100 days to get this degree of in-growth.

Then, it has to be melted. The 

activity migrates to the surface. And then, 

immediately afterwards, you have to be in 

contact with it. Because, again, if you do 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the remelting, and then, you wait a while, 

you wait a month, then the stuff on the 

surface has decayed, the stuff in the middle 

has grown-in, and you're back to your normal 

mix of uranium in the starters.

So, we took the two extreme 

cases, the combination of it's got about 100 

days of uranium just sitting around in 

metallic form before it was remelted. And 

then, it was remelted and, then, immediately 

sent over to GSI.

MR. RAMSPOTT: And I disagree. 

The ingot process was remelted; the dingot 

process was not.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: In that case, 

there is no Putzier effect.

MR. RAMSPOTT: No, they said the 

dingot process is where it came from.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. The Putzier 

effect only takes place because you melt the 

metal. Once the metal is melted, because of 

the different chemical properties of the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

uranium and the daughter product, the 

daughter product migrates to the surface.

MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm not --

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Look, John, I'm 

going to interrupt you. We've gone through 

this Putzier effect over and over again. 

We're just rehashing old ground.

I think, if I understand the 

question that John Ramspott is raising, it 

has to do with how many samples are handled. 

In a sense --

(Chairman Ziemer's phone 

connection audio is lost.)

MR. RAMSPOTT: That's probably 

more accurate, Paul.

MEMBER MUNN: We have lost Paul 

again.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, we did. He 

was making a very valid point, though.

MEMBER MUNN: That's true.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Maybe we can get 

him back on there. Because it's the mass 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

and the handling that I'm really worried 

about rather than the --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, it's the 

surface that matters, not the mass.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, the surface 

--

MEMBER MUNN: Paul, can you hear 

us? We can't hear you.

(No response.)

MR. KATZ: Yes, I assume he's 

fighting with his mute function.

(Laughter.)

MEMBER MUNN: That's a shame.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, I don't 

mean to sound belittling, but if I can --

MR. RAMSPOTT: No, not at all. 

That's why I'm asking the question.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: If I can use a 

very crude -- it just came to me -- but I 

think a very good example. If you put your 

hand on a hot stove --

MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- and burn 

yourself, it doesn't matter whether the 

stove is a foot across or 20-feet across. 

You know, what only matters is you're 

touching the stove and you're getting burnt 

at a certain temperature. This is about the 

analogy I can think of.

MR. RAMSPOTT: If I've got my 

hand within a quarter-inch of it, I'm still 

getting burned.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. Right. 

This is the best analogy I can think of. 

The size is a second-order effect.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, but if I 

touch that stove 20 times, I'm going to get 

a worse --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I agree with 

that, and all I know is, unless --

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, I got cut 

off there.

MR. RAMSPOTT: You were making a 

very good point.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well --

MR. RAMSPOTT: I am worried about 

the size and the --

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm trying to 

understand. The beta doses are not 

dependent on the size so much unless the 

size is affecting the sequence of handling.

MR. RAMSPOTT: The handling I am 

worried about.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well --

MR. RAMSPOTT: It could be --

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is it the 

frequency of handling that you're talking 

about?

MR. RAMSPOTT: The way that 

workers described an ingot, they would shoot 

it, which only took about, according to 

them, I mean, it could be 5 to 10 minutes at 

the most.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Well, 

Bob and NIOSH have used, have made some 

assumptions about the sequence of that. So, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

are you challenging that sequencing? It's 

only dependent on size insofar as you're 

saying that they could handle more of them 

in a certain period of time.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Right.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's not the 

fact that there's more radiation because of 

the size. Because on the betas you're very 

restricted to the actual part that they're 

touching.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Oh, you're dead 

right; it's more frequency and it's more 

handling.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I thought we 

were agreed on the frequency.

MR. RAMSPOTT: I disagree. 

Slices is every hour.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, is this 

new information? I'm a little startled here 

because we have discussed this in the past, 

and I thought everyone was in agreement.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Definitely not new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

information.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I'm going 

to ask both Dave Allen and Bob Anigstein. I 

thought we had agreed on the frequency of 

handling for these as representative of the 

different types of handling.

MR. ALLEN: This is Dave Allen.

Yes, I thought we had all agreed 

on that as a representative model, too.

But just one last question that 

I'm not understanding on this whole thing is 

we know it took a good hour to get a decent 

exposure through 4 inches of uranium. Are 

you trying to say, John, they used a much 

bigger thing and shot them quicker?

MR. RAMSPOTT: No, not at all. 

Bob was actually talking about it going 

through it. My guys, the workers, the 

people who did it, said they shot the 

corners, Dave, and the corners are where the 

crust was. According to Mallinckrodt's own 

description that I found and presented, they 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

would shoot the corners. They weren't 

shooting the uranium. They were shooting 

the crust.

MR. ALLEN: Right. Now that was 

with the dingots, correct? That was to see 

where --

MR. RAMSPOTT: That's correct. 

Now nobody really knows what they were doing 

with the slices. I mean, I don't know. I 

don't think anybody really knows for sure 

what they were doing with the slices. I 

mean, I've never seen a write-up of it. 

Were they trying to go through it? I think 

that was a best guess because nobody had 

ever seen the Mallinckrodt document that 

told what they actually did. And that was 

to look at the crust, so they could figure 

out the thickness, so they could take it 

back, glaze off the oxide.

MR. ALLEN: Okay.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Magnesium oxide I 

think it was.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, our 

metallurgist, Bill Thurber --

MR. RAMSPOTT: He wasn't there, 

Bob.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just a moment. 

Bill Thurber, who is a metallurgist, who 

worked with uranium in those days -- his 

first job was at Oak Ridge working with 

uranium alloys. So, he's about as expert as 

we can find.

MR. RAMSPOTT: He never worked at 

Mallinckrodt.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just a moment. 

No, he did not work at Mallinckrodt, but he 

worked with uranium during that time period.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm sorry to be 

losing patience, but these little, tiny 

arguments -- you know, we were not in this 

particular place, and every place is 

different.

We have an expert here, and he 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

said the idea that they would use a 

radiograph to decide how much crust of this 

magnesium fluoride to take off is simply not 

plausible. And we go with that.

MR. RAMSPOTT: The Mallinckrodt 

document --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is not 

plausible.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: What you are 

mistaking, what is mistaken in these 

documents is what is plausible and is a 

perfectly reasonable practice is that, when 

you have -- not the dingot -- the ingot, 

when it is melted in the oven an in 

induction furnace, and the same thing is 

comparable to the Putzier effect, what you 

get on top, you get slag and you get these 

sorts of nuclides. They're called hot-tops.

Because I interviewed somebody 

working in one of those facilities at Rocky 

Flats for a different project. There, it 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

looks like metal, but you can't tell. There 

is like a foamy consistency on top. And 

there, a radiograph would be useful, so that 

you would cut the end off with a bandsaw. 

And it would tell them how thick is that 

end, not the side crust, the end. And that 

is only for an ingot because that only 

happens when you melt it in a vertical 

position and this stuff rises to the top. 

And that is where it would have been useful. 

And that's why a corner shot makes sense, 

because it tells you how long, how big the 

end is, how much to slice off the end. But 

that is one of the things that does make 

sense.

The reports that I got from this 

person who said, he said there was one 

instance, he told me. Now, later on, maybe 

people started getting information and they 

said, "Oh, yes, maybe that did happen."

The original information I got, I 

repeat, was on slices. And I got one 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

interview or there was one instance where he 

said he came in in the morning and they had 

been doing that in the evening.

MR. KATZ: Bob, this is Ted. I'm 

sorry. I'm just going to interject here and 

ask Paul --

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I just said we 

rehashed all of this before.

MR. KATZ: This has been 

discussed.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm only 

asking, do we not have agreement on the --

obviously, the frequency is --

(Chairman Ziemer's phone 

connection audio is lost.)

MR. KATZ: We've lost you again, 

Paul.

But if you can hear, I mean, we 

have gone over this turf. There was 

agreement about all of these parameters 

before, and this is a complete repeat of 

discussions that the Work Group has had.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

Can you hear me now?

MR. KATZ: Yes. You're back.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't know 

why this thing keeps slipping onto the mute.

But, in any event, we have 

rehashed all that part. I was asking if 

there's any reason to think that the 

estimated frequencies, which are based on a 

combination of these, are somehow different 

today than we had agreed to in the past. I 

don't understand why this has come up now, 

because we have had these discussions in the 

past, and the frequency and all of that. I 

thought we had agreed to the combination of 

handling of different things for different 

times.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Apparently, what 

the workers said is being overruled by 

someone who was never at GSI or 

Mallinckrodt. That's as simple as I can put 

it. And the worker who described this is 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

still alive.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we have 

tried to have a model which applies to all 

workers over time, based on the orders that 

were handled and the estimates of the time 

that it took to handle these different 

shots. So, is there something different now 

that wasn't discussed before?

MR. RAMSPOTT: I was discussed; 

it was just ignored. That's plain and 

simple.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I don't 

think it was.

MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, somebody 

overruled it, Paul.

MR. KATZ: John, this is Ted.

It was discussed. It was 

resolved before. I mean, now you've 

forgotten what the discussion was before and 

we're burning up the day with this at this 

point.

DR. McKEEL: Ted, this is Dan
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

McKeel.

I do have to quickly interject 

one comment about everything being old. And 

that is that I gave you all new interview 

information we had with another supervisor, 

[identifying information redacted]. And 

this was back in 2012, I believe.

We interviewed him in extenso and 

asked him like 20 questions about the 

uranium operations that he had personally 

observed. And he described in that -- and I 

sent this to the Work Group. Everybody says 

they read every one of my papers, so it 

ought to be easy to come across this. But 

[identifying information redacted] said that 

he observed that some Mallinckrodt dingots 

and ingots, regardless of what the 

Mallinckrodt TBD says, came over in trucks 

to the old betatron building, and that they 

were aligned on pallets in groups of six to 

eight per truck. And that truck went up to 

the old betatron building and was apparently 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

directly unloaded from there. And he also 

can confirm the corner shots.

And the final comment is that 

everybody keeps on ignoring the fact that --

and John didn't mention this this time --

but the information that Bill Thurber says 

is ridiculous and bizarre, and we sent you 

this quote often, came from the President of 

Mallinckrodt Chemical Works in St. Louis, 

Harold Thayer.

The company did an exhaustive 

report on Mallinckrodt operations, and he 

clearly says in there that x-rays were used 

to define the boundary between the uranium 

and the crust, no matter what Bill Thurber 

says, no matter what he says his experience 

was.

And I would mention this: Bob 

Anigstein keeps on putting on the record 

things, discussions that he had with Bill 

Thurber. If Bill Thurber wants to weigh-in 

on this, let him write a White Paper. Let 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

him put this information on the record.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I believe he 

participated in one of the Work Group 

meetings.

DR. McKEEL: He did participate 

in it, but I'm saying that --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just a second. 

You're giving verbal testimony. He gave 

verbal testimony during the Work Group 

meeting. He specifically was asked to 

participate for that reason.

DR. McKEEL: No, we had sent you 

all the clipping from Harold Thayer, the 

hard copy of that, that you can read for 

yourself and decided. I think it's called 

"Fuel for an Atomic Age," is the 

publication. But, anyway, we can send that 

again.

So, I don't want to get into an 

argument about it. I'm saying that the 

information we're telling you is from eye 

witness observers at GSI in the betatron 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

facilities. And, to me, that ought to 

outweigh eye witness testimony at Oak Ridge 

by another person who's never been to 

General Steel Industries.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, it is still 

not clear to me how this changes the 

handling times that are assumed in this 

approach.

DR. McKEEL: Well, Paul, if I can 

just clarify, I think what john is trying to 

say is that newer testimony obtained after 

2007 from GSI betatron operators and 

supervisors indicates that, for corner shots 

which were common, that the exposure times 

were very short between those. And so, the 

frequency of the shot was less than was 

agreed on.

You know, I think, again, Dr. 

Anigstein harps back to two betatron 

operators from an October 2007 meeting. And 

there's been subsequent testimony on that 

that is part of the record.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Of 

course, if the shots were shorter, the 

activation is lower as well. So, I'm still 

waiting to be convinced that the combination 

that we used is not appropriate.

DR. McKEEL: Well, this is Dan 

McKeel again.

I guess what I would echo is my 

comments from earlier. I would say that, if 

you look back on the record, you will not 

find any acknowledgment by the Work Group 

that they are aware of [identifying 

information redacted] testimony and his 

answers to the 20 questions. In other 

words, the Work Group hasn't actually 

grappled with the new information.

So, that's why we sent you that 

information, is so that you can properly 

look at it, consider it, and factor that 

into what two other workers said years 

before in 2007.

So, anyway, I don't know what 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

else to say.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: This was a report 

of an interview -- as long as you mentioned 

his name, I can certainly repeat it -- the 

report of the interview which I had with 

[identifying information redacted] on July 

2nd, 2009. I interviewed him on the 

telephone, and I said that we talked about 

the ingot and he said that this operation 

took place on the weekend.

And I'm reading from my report. 

"The operation took place on the weekend. 

So, [identifying information redacted] 

wasn't aware of it until told by the workers 

who actually performed the task. What he 

was aware of was that, on Monday morning, 

there was a flatbed truck pulling out, 

carrying what he was told were Mallinckrodt 

ingots." This is what he told me on the 

telephone.

DR. McKEEL: Yes.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: He said -- I'm 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

just looking further -- he said there would 

be two shots.

So, this does not strike me as a 

very frequent occurrence. And this was 

reported to the Work Group. So, it's not 

true that he was ignored. This is not new 

information.

DR. McKEEL: Well, all I can say 

is that what we sent you was written 

questions by us to [identifying information 

redacted] and his written replies. He took 

the time to do that. And it was a couple of 

years after you had that, but, basically --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: I see. So, the 

information --

DR. McKEEL: No, he did confirm 

what you said, that he --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Information gets 

better. So, the longer we wait after GSI 

shuts down, the better the information gets, 

is what you're saying, that the later 

information is the better?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. McKEEL: No. No, that's a 

gross distortion of what I'm saying. You 

know that.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I am 

just going to cut that off.

DR. McKEEL: That's fine.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I still see 

nothing that changes this model. I think 

that SC&A and NIOSH had that information 

when they estimated the time. Unless one or 

the other can convince me that there's a 

significant change in how we assigned those 

times, I think we're going to go with what 

we had already agreed to.

And the other Board Members, if 

they want to weigh-in on this?

MEMBER MUNN: I certainly have 

nothing to add. I think we've covered this 

territory pretty thoroughly.

MEMBER POSTON: This is John.

I agree.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: And I would just 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

like to add to clarify -- and I know I'm 

being a little obstreperous here -- not only 

was there an interview, did I interview 

[identifying information redacted], I also 

sent him a letter summarizing: is my 

understanding correct of what you told me? 

Would you please tell me?

I didn't get a letter back from 

him, but I did call him again. And he said, 

yes, he read my letter and I represented it 

correctly.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Thank 

you.

Okay. We need to move on here. 

Let's see. Oh, before we do the Appendix BB

thing, also, just for the record, we had, on 

the matter of how film badges were used and 

the control badges, we had the contact that 

we asked Dr. Neton to make with Landauer.

And, Jim, we all received your 

report. Do you have any other comments on 

that?
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. NETON: No, I think it's 

pretty self-explanatory in the report. 

Actually, Stu Hinnefeld, who knows Craig 

Yoder at Landauer, made the contact.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, yes, right, 

it was Stu that made the --

DR. NETON: Essentially, what we 

received, what we learned is that SC&A's 

interpretation of how these badges were 

being used was correct, and that effectively 

invalidated our use of those control badges 

to bound the doses for the workers. And we 

had no other option, then, but to use the --

well, it made sense to us, then, that the 

model that SC&A had provided was the more 

appropriate one to use.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

And, SC&A, do you have any 

further comments on that?

DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, we're good. 

We're in agreement with the fact that Jim 

agrees with us.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, right.

DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this Dan 

McKeel.

Can somebody please tell me why 

it is that we were not supplied with a copy 

of that correspondence?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't know 

the answer to that.

DR. McKEEL: You can't possibly 

think that I'm not interested in that.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, and I 

wasn't aware that you weren't provided a 

copy.

DR. McKEEL: And I don't 

understand, also, you know, there are papers 

posted on Docket 140 and under this Work 

Group meeting on the DCAS website. And, you 

know, why was that paper not posted? Ted 

Katz wrote me that that was NIOSH's 

responsibility. So, I guess I would ask Dr. 

Neton that.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Could I answer 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

that?

DR. McKEEL: No. No. This is 

really something for --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no, but I 

have an answer. I would like to interject.

I prepared an update to the 

issues matrix which has been circulated to 

the Board, and I believe there is going to 

be a cleared copy that should be going out; 

it should have gone out already. And the 

body of Dr. Neton's email is copied right 

into the issues matrix. So, it is there for 

reference.

DR. McKEEL: I don't think that's 

sufficient. That's a separate communication 

from Dr. Neton. It wasn't to SC&A. It was 

a communication that went to the Work Group. 

Honestly, after all of this time and 50-plus 

papers, I think I should be considered a 

Member of the Work Group and get a copy of 

that.

Now the issues matrix, the PA-
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

cleared version, arrived in my email at 2:43 

yesterday afternoon. And we really haven't 

had a chance to go through that. I wrote 

that to Dr. Ziemer and to all of you, 

actually.

But I still would like to hear 

from Dr. Neton why that clear-cut White 

Paper that was assigned, and he agreed to 

supply, wasn't posted and PA-cleared, put on 

the DCAS website, and given to me.

I mean, I would answer this in 

response to Wanda Munn. This is the reason 

there is an item in the administrative 

review that's been under review for the GSI 

SEC since May 17th, 2013. There is an entry 

in there about just this sort of thing, of 

NIOSH neglecting to send things, of what I 

regard as censorship. And I think it's 

personal.

So, anyway, I should ask it --

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Apparently, Dr. 

Anigstein didn't get a copy of it, either, 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

from what I have learned earlier today.

DR. McKEEL: Was he shown the 

matrix.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I don't 

know the answer to that. I assumed it had 

been distributed to everyone, and I 

certainly don't know why it wasn't.

Has that been remedied? Do you 

not have a copy of it, Dan? Or did Ted get 

you a copy of it?

DR. McKEEL: Well, we keep on 

talking about "it". I got a copy of the 

revised December the 18th, 2013 --

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I meant Dr. 

Neton's one interview.

DR. McKEEL: No, I have not 

gotten it.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You never got 

that?

DR. McKEEL: I have not gotten 

anything from Dr. Neton, no.

DR. NETON: And this is Jim 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Neton.

I honestly don't know why you 

didn't get a copy. My normal practice, when 

I send out material like this, is to copy 

both Ted Katz and Josh Kinman, and it gets 

through the system. I may have 

inadvertently not copied John Kinman on 

this, and that would be my fault and I will 

take responsibility for that. It was an 

oversight on my part, if that's what 

happened.

DR. McKEEL: Could you please 

send me a copy or have Josh send me a copy?

DR. NETON: Sure. We'll 

absolutely do that.

DR. McKEEL: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So, 

based on what NIOSH found out in talking to 

Dr. Yoder at Landauer, they have now 

proposed to use the limiting value that was 

proposed by SC&A rather than to rely on the 

use of the film badge data, as they had 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

previously planned to do. So, that was the 

bottom line on that.

Again, any questions, Board 

Members, on that?

MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is 

Josie.

I don't have any.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

MEMBER MUNN: No, nothing here.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. 

Now I would like to move to the issue 

resolution matrix. And let me point out 

that not only did Dr. McKeel only get this 

yesterday, the rest of us didn't get it 

until yesterday, either, even the uncleared 

copy. We got both -- at least I didn't get 

either one until yesterday.

So, I don't know, Board Members, 

if you have had a chance to go through it or 

not. Let me ask that question.

MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is 

Josie.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

I did spend some time looking at 

it yesterday and was very pleased with Bob's 

update on the Appendix BB.

So, thank you, Bob, for that.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: My pleasure.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me point 

out a few things quickly. And then, I'll 

ask the Work Group to decide how they want 

to approach this.

Bob has added at the beginning of 

the document a timeline which covers all --

well, I don't know if it's all -- but many 

actions going back to 2007, including 

summaries of the various Work Group meetings 

and Board actions, and all of that relating 

to this. So, the first, let's see, the 

first seven-and-a-half or eight pages of 

this is that summary. And then, Bob also 

presented a kind of brief summary of the 

status of each of the issues.

I also want to point out to you, 

because there were 13 findings, that the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

other thing that is included here is that 

the transferred issues from the SEC petition 

and those items that were not closed and 

were transferred to Appendix BB, those also 

appear in here. And let me point them out 

to you.

Under Issue No. 1 -- no, I'm 

sorry -- under Issue No. 3, on page 15 of 

the document, three SEC issues have been put 

in here. In SC&A's estimation, these three 

issues -- they were SEC 2, SEC Issue 6, and 

SEC Issue 8 -- are all part of this issue 

from Appendix BB. So, those show up there.

And then, on page 18, under Issue 

No. 5, SEC Issue 3 has been inserted as 

being part or the same issue in SC&A's 

estimation.

And then, on page 19, Issue 6 now 

includes SEC Issue 9, which has to do with 

beta dose or skin dose.

So, those SEC carryovers I 

inserted there. The only thing, Bob, that I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

didn't see was what happened to SEC Issue 7.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: One second. One 

second.

(Pause.)

DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

Dan McKeel.

I have a note in the resolution 

of these issues that I sent that I said that 

SEC Issue 7 was --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Apparently, it's 

not in here. Let's see now. What is that 

issue? What was the title of that issue? I 

have to go back and look at my SEC matrix.

DR. McKEEL: "Scientific Errors 

in Appendix BB to be Addressed by NIOSH".

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That one we 

agreed to, and it is basically closed, 

except for it has to appear in the revision. 

Is that the one you're talking about, Dan?

DR. McKEEL: No, I've got "In 

progress, SEC Issue 7, Scientific Errors in 

Appendix BB to be Addressed by NIOSH." And 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

then, I've got a parentheses "(not 

explicitly transferred to the BB matrix).

The issue I have is Issue 10. It 

was not closed and it should be listed as 

transferred to the Appendix BB issues 

matrix. So, I don't know.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that 

doesn't agree with what I -- I show Issue 10 

as being closed previously, Issue 10 on the 

SEC findings.

DR. McKEEL: Uh-hum. Well, I 

took mine -- oh, I don't know. Okay. I 

think I took mine from the December the 5th, 

2012 SEC matrix document, which is the 

latest one.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Issue 7 is 

considered to be in progress by action of 

the Work Group.

DR. McKEEL: There you go.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: And I don't 

believe it was formally transferred.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, well, okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Only certain 

issues were transferred. Not every --

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: It was the Work 

Group that decided on transference.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Seven was NIOSH 

had already agreed to make the correction in 

Appendix BB. So, although we didn't 

officially show that as closed because they 

hadn't actually done it, that one is, for 

the Work Group, we're done with that one. 

Because in terms of the terminology that's 

used by the Procedures Group, that's in 

abeyance, which means that it's done, but we 

hadn't seen the actual correction yet in the 

revision because the revision has not 

appeared.

And my records showed that Issue 

10 from the SEC findings was previously 

closed.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Correct.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The ones that 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

were closed previously were 1, 4, 5, and 10.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Uh-hum.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, actually, 

3 was closed also; 1, 3, 4, 5, and 10 were 

closed.

DR. McKEEL: I have that Issue 3 

was there was lack of documentation and it 

was transferred as an SEC issue.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And then, 

it actually does appear -- actually, Bob has 

it incorporated here. But, if you notice 

what it says in the document on page 19, it 

says, "The Work Group voted that this issue 

should be closed and moved to the Appendix 

BB issue matrix."

MEMBER BEACH: Paul, this is 

Josie.

What is the date of the very last 

matrix for TBD-6000 that you have?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, TBD-6000?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Not Appendix 

BB?

MEMBER BEACH: No, not Appendix 

BB, the ones that we transferred over to BB.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me. Are 

you talking about the SEC matrix?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: The TBD-6000 

matrix has not been transferred.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, it's the 

SEC matrix? SEC? Or is this the TBD-6000 

matrix? Which are you --

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. So, the SEC 

is where we transferred those over to BB, 

correct?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

MEMBER BEACH: Okay. What is the 

latest date of that one that you --

DR. ANIGSTEIN: December 5th --

MEMBER BEACH: December 5th? 

Okay.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- 2012.

MEMBER BEACH: I think it might 

be helpful if we updated that matrix with 

all the transfers and the closeouts.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's been done. 

The December 5th --

MEMBER BEACH: December 5th, 

okay.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: The December 5th 

version, the December 5th, last December 

5th, lists, as Paul was reading, it lists on 

page, scrolling down, on pages 4 and 5, it 

lists every issue, and every issue is either 

closed or transferred. So, there is nothing 

more to be done with --

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the ones 

that are transferred show up in Bob's 

document that we all got yesterday.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But now what 

I'm asking, having identified those items 

as, in a sense, where those are, this new 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

document includes everything that has to be 

dealt with. What I want to find out is 

whether or not the Work Group is prepared to 

deal with this today or do you want to wait 

until the January meeting? And have you had 

time to look at these? That's what I'm 

asking.

Bob has entered new material. 

You will note that there are a number of 

items that SC&A recommends being closed, 

which means that they now agree that their 

issues have been resolved.

And Issue 2, 3, 5, and 7, 9, 11, 

and 12, they are recommending that those be 

closed. And then, Issue 4, 6, and 10 remain 

open pending some things.

Again, what I want to determine 

is whether or not you want to act on these 

today. And I know that the petitioners have 

not had time to look at these, either. I 

guess they have not had. I know Dan 

indicated to me that he just got his 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

yesterday, which, of course, we all got it 

yesterday. And I didn't even see them until 

late, late in the evening because we were 

away.

But, in any event, what's your 

pleasure on these?

MEMBER BEACH: This is Josie.

We should probably wait until the 

January meeting to have more adequate time 

to look at these.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wanda?

MEMBER MUNN: Excuse me. I took 

time to go through the ones that were shown 

as not closed. I haven't paid any attention 

to the ones that were listed as closed on 

the status summary. So, I haven't even 

reviewed those, but have taken a look at 

everything that was marked either "in 

progress" or "open". And that's a 

relatively-small number.

I guess the question is how 

thoroughly do we actually want to go through 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

this. If we are going to look at the items 

that are shown as open, then that's, from my 

perspective, a possibility for today. But, 

certainly, Josie's sentiment is echoed as 

well, especially since the petitioner hasn't 

had an opportunity to go through this to 

their satisfaction. It seems to be rushing 

it a little bit for us to spend too much 

time with it today if the petitioner is not 

going to be happy with the opportunity to 

review it.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, what 

about you?

I'm not hearing him.

MEMBER POSTON: Can you hear me 

now?

MEMBER MUNN: Now we are.

MEMBER POSTON: Yes. I was in 

meetings all day yesterday, didn't see this

until I came in the office this morning. 

So, I would like to defer it. I haven't had 

a chance to do anything with it.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. I think, 

based on that as well as the petitioners' 

concerns with having a chance to look at 

this, we will defer it.

And I'll ask Ted this. Ted, I 

think what we would like to do at the 

January meeting, we will have a chance to 

get the rest of the external dose 

information, the neutron runs, which SC&A is 

going to provide their figures for NIOSH, 

and they can cross-check those.

And then, we can focus on these, 

all of these. Well, the focus would be on 

the matrix then, assuming that we can get 

through Joslyn. We've got to do the Joslyn 

first. But I think, based on what LaVon 

said, we should be able to get that done 

within an hour, I would think.

MR. KATZ: Okay, Paul. So, 

anyway, I'll put Joslyn first on the agenda. 

So we can get through that. And this will 

be second up, and we'll do the best we can 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to get through this as well.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Is that 

agreed then? Everybody okay with that?

MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. The 

overwhelming deliverables now are for SC&A 

to provide the rest of that external dose 

information to NIOSH. So you guys can 

compare the numbers, right?

MR. KATZ: That's correct, Paul. 

And that shouldn't be a problem. I've 

already chatted with Bob about this.

DR. ANIGSTEIN: And at the same 

time, I'll make a final update to the matrix 

to incorporate that information.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. 

Very good.

Let's see. Now the other thing 

here, we have already had a fair amount of 

public comment, but we do have that on the 

agenda.

Dan, do you or John have any 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

additional comments you want to make at this 

time?

DR. McKEEL: This is Dan. Can 

you hear me, Dr. Ziemer?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I can.

DR. McKEEL: Oh, okay.

Well, I had some remarks that 

relate to things other than -- I've given my 

remarks about Dr. Neton's review of NYO 

4699. I did have a couple of other 

comments, if I may make them now, please?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Of course. 

Sure.

DR. McKEEL: Okay. I just want 

to comment that I understand that the Work 

Group is using Live Meeting, and I also 

understand that Live Meeting is available to 

the public and petitioners for regular Board 

meetings. And I wonder if it would be 

possible to request exploring the 

possibility of adding Live Meeting, being 

open to the petitioners who participate in 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

Work Group meetings. And that's just a 

comment. No answer required.

I appreciate deferring the 

Appendix BB update to January, and I concur. 

And I would feel much better. I would like 

to read it.

I think it is very important to 

go through the issues that SC&A recommends 

closing because they're not closed now. And 

that means there's been no discussion on 

that. I think we have got to go through 

each issue and discuss it and, then, close 

it or resolve it.

I just have a couple of comments 

about the three White Papers this morning. 

I know we have been through those in great 

detail.

But the two things are, really 

the main thing is I wanted to point out 

that, although the skin dose is calculated 

for one type of steel at GSI, we have 

testimony from [identifying information 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

redacted], who was their Chief Metallurgist, 

that they used many, many different types of 

steel at GSI, all of which had a distinct 

composition.

So, just so everybody 

understands, there certainly is no evidence 

that this model of steel is bounding to all 

the other types of steels. And, in 

particular, one component that is important 

is the high-nickel steels. And so, that's 

just an issue and a comment about that 

particular paper.

Probably the most important thing 

that I wanted to bring out is that I am 

assembling a new White Paper, trying to draw 

together all the information about the film 

badge issue at GSI because it seems to me 

that's going to be central for Appendix BB 

Revision 1, to see how that's handled.

And as I looked at it, there are 

at least 10 different sources of film badge 

data, including the Landauer dataset I 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

received. There are Landauer datasets that 

NIOSH and SC&A have reviewed. There are 

film badge records that GSI individual 

people have shared with us. I have seen 

data from five different people, and I want 

to review that in this paper.

But one of the themes that is 

common in all those papers, and looking back 

as far as the very important meetings that 

were held by this Work Group on November the 

10th, 2008 and October the 14th, 2009, those 

two meetings dealt heavily with the film 

badge issue.

And it's quite apparent that all 

of us had the same problem, which is, in 

particular, the 1964 GSI film badge records, 

which are pretty important for the 

operational period, were difficult to read. 

Bob Anigstein noted that he had much 

trouble. He had to get a better copy from 

NIOSH, and they supplied that to him. All 

of the film badge records that I have seen -
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

- and like I say, that includes the 30 

annual doses that I got from Landauer plus 

individual records from five people -- have 

problems with readability of the data. And 

so, I certainly we can address that.

As I looked through all those 

previous reports, even though there are 

details back in the 2008-2009 papers about 

the number of weekly badge reports, nobody 

clearly states the percentage of all those 

records that were not readable. There are 

some comments that you can make inferences 

on what some of the unreadable badges must 

have said, some assumptions, but I'm not 

sure, at least to me, that that's good 

enough.

But the main thing that I really 

want to bring to the attention of this group 

-- and I'll save it for the paper -- but in 

the records from [identifying information 

redacted], who is the gentleman who was kind 

enough to share his 1962 report that shows 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

the 18 quarters of data, of film badge data, 

that he received, that set of reports, he 

gave us eight different reports. That set 

of reports is on a different form than 

Landauer. They are not Landauer film badge 

reports. They are AEC film badge reports.

And if you look at that whole 

dataset, there are some glaring, glaring 

discrepancies between the Landauer reports 

on the same gentleman, who we have recently 

gotten through a Privacy Act request, and 

his GSI film badge reports. Mainly, that in 

the Landauer reports for years 1966 and 

later, [identifying information redacted]

got doses at least of M. And in the very 

late years, '72, '3, and so forth, some of 

his values were slightly elevated above the 

M level.

Whereas, in all his GSI reports 

for 1966 through '69, which are the ones he 

has, plus '64 and '63 and '62, he's missing 

'65 from his own personal data reports and 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

he's missing '64 and '66 from the Landauer 

badge reports that NIOSH sent to him.

But, anyway, for the years 1965 

through '69, his dose is listed as none --

none -- zero. And what that means is that, 

apparently, GSI was not counting his minimal 

detectable level dose of 10 millirem per 

week after 1964. It appears they were 

counting that dose up to 1964.

So, it just seems to me that that 

whole set of reports marked AEC -- one is 

for Nuclear Consulting Corp., and so forth -

- that that set of reports is so different 

from the Landauer reports that it really 

calls it into question as far as its 

validity.

And I'm not going to try to go 

into it today because there's not time, but 

I'm going to put that in a carefullyconstructed White Paper. And I really ask 

you all to please read that paper. And I 

would like to make that a focus. I wish the 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

paper could be responded to by both NIOSH 

and SC&A. I think that would save us a 

whole bunch of time because those issues 

still need to be clarified, and they will 

come up when the Appendix BB outstanding 

issues are resolved.

So, anyway, I would appreciate it 

if you all would stand by for that and read 

and act upon it when we get it. I guess 

that will be sufficient for me to say for 

today.

And I appreciate your all 

allowing us so much time to vent our 

concerns.

MR. KATZ: Paul, are you still 

with us?

DR. McKEEL: Hello?

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm sorry, I 

was still on mute.

(Laughter.)

Yes. So, I was just thanking Dan 

for his comments, and we will look forward 
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

to getting that paper from him.

DR. McKEEL: Thank you, sir.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's see. 

Well, we have already discussed what we need 

to do on different things.

And then, preparing for the 

January Board meeting, Ted, we can actually 

do that after our next, after the January 

teleconference, right?

MR. KATZ: Right. Exactly.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, we will 

defer that to our next meeting.

MR. KATZ: Right.

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, I think 

that concludes our agenda for today.

I thank you all for your 

participation and wish everybody happy 

holidays.

MR. KATZ: Yes, happy holidays to 

everyone.

And thank you all for your 

participation.
NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are 

adjourned.

(Whereupon, at 12:41 p.m., the 

meeting was adjourned.)