1 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

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 

+ + + + + 

WEDNESDAY 

NOVEMBER 2, 2011 

+ + + + + 

The Work Group convened in the 

Zurich Room of the Cincinnati Airport

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron,

Kentucky, at 9:00 a.m., Paul L. Ziemer,

Chairman, presiding. 

PRESENT: 

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member

WANDA I. MUNN, 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
 

 2 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

ALSO PRESENT: 

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

ROBERT ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

LEROY DELL* 

JOHN DUTKO* 

JENNY LIN, HHS*

GEORGE LUBER* 

GREG MACIEVIC, DCAS*

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

DAN McKEEL* 

JAMES NETON, DCAS

JOHN RAMSPOTT* 

*Participating via telephone 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 3

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

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

Report by Dr. Anigstein ..................... 8 

Discussion of film badge data ............. 110 

Topic: NIOSH will bound doses ............ 154 

with sufficient accuracy in the early years 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 P-R-O-C-E-E-D-I-N-G-S 4


2 
 (9:00 a.m.) 

3 
 MR. KATZ: Good morning, everyone 

4 
 in the room, and on the line. This is the 

5 
 Advisory Board on Worker Health TBD-6000 Work 

6 
 Group. We're going to be discussing GSI 

7 
 today. Welcome everyone. Let me begin with 

8 
 roll call with Board Members. And since we're 

9 
 speaking about a specific site, please speak 

10 
 the conflict of interest too for all the 

11 agency related personnel. 

12 (Roll call.) 

13 
 All right, we have an agenda for 

14 
 the meeting. It is posted on the NIOSH 

15 
 website. I would just ask everyone on the 

16 
 line, except when you're addressing the group, 

17 
 please mute your phone. If you don't have a 

18 
 mute button, if you press * and then 6, 

19 
 that'll mute your phone then for this 

20 
 conference line. Then to come off of mute, 

21 
 you just press *, and then 6 again. Please, 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 do not put the call on hold at any point. If5
 

2 
 you need to leave for a bit, hang up and dial 

3 
 back in. Thank you, and Dr. Ziemer it is your 

4 
 agenda? 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, Ted. 

6 
 I'll officially call the meeting to order. All 

7 
 of you here in the room have copies of the 

8 
 agenda. It has been posted on the website. I 

9 
 believe it has been distributed also. 

10 
 If you're on the phone and didn't 

11 
 get the agenda, you can pull it up on the 

12 
 NIOSH OCAS website. The -- I'll just take a 

13 
 minute and review our agenda and schedule for 

14 
 today. We're focusing primarily on, but not 

15 
 exclusively on the early time period at GSI, 

16 
 relative really to the petition itself, the 

17 
 SEC petition. And by early, we're talking 

18 about 1953 to perhaps '62 or '63. 

19 
 Right now, I'm not making a sharp 

20 
 division, although at some point, we would 

21 
 need to. Then -- and that delineation relates 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 mainly to the period prior to the AEC license6


2 
 activity. So, that was part of our focus to 

3 
 get a better feel for the radiation protection 

4 
 program in the early years, but there are some 

5 
 related issues that carry over into the AEC 

6 
 period as well. 

7 
 So, on the agenda, we're -- the 

8 
 first issue that we're considering are those 

9 
 questions that relate to the radiation safety 

10 practices in the early years. 

11 
 Then we'll be looking at some 

12 
 specific things relating to film badges, and 

13 
 the film badge data that we have really is 

14 
 related at the moment to the AEC period, 

15 
 although there may be some issues that we can 

16 
 discuss about the presence of film badges 

17 prior to the AEC licensing period. 

18 
 Then we want to also consider the 

19 
 overall question, if we're at that point 

20 
 today, as to whether or not we believe the 

21 
 NIOSH model can bound dose with sufficient 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 accuracy for the early years. 7
 

2 
 We have a break scheduled at noon 

3 
 for lunch, a one-hour break. We'll probably 

4 
 take a brief comfort break mid-morning. We 

5 
 are committed to adjourning no later than 

6 
 3:00, and I will adjourn us at 3:00, whether 

7 
 or not we finish this agenda because of other 

8 
 commitments not only of the chair, but of 

9 
 others in this room. 

10 
 So, we will -- and actually 

11 
 originally we didn't believe it would take 

12 
 that long for this agenda in any event, but I 

13 
 just wanted to let everyone know that we must 

14 conclude by 3:00. 

15 
 So, that's the agenda. We're going 

16 
 to begin with the issue of questions regarding 

17 
 what sources were used and what radiation 

18 
 safety practices were used in the early years, 

19 
 and we'll kick that off with a summary of the 

20 SC&A interviews that were done recently. 

21 
 Bob did those and prepared 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 report. I believe the Work Group Members have8
 

2 
 the full report. There's a redacted version 

3 
 that's available to the -- to the petitioner 

4 
 and others, and I believe although it is 

5 
 redacted, I suspect that most of the names of 

6 
 the folks who worked at GSI probably know who 

7 
 they are, but we cannot specifically name them 

8 
 here ourselves today in this group. 

9 
 So, I'm going to ask Bob to go 

10 
 ahead and give his report, and then we'll have 

11 
 a chance to ask questions and discuss that, 

12 
 and then Board Members and petitioners as 

13 well. Now, Bob? 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Thank you, Paul. 

15 
 Okay, the first interview that we had 

16 
 recently, and we had many before, was a former 

17 
 radiographer, who was actually suggested by 

18 
 the co-petitioner on the phone or the other --

19 can I name names, Ted? 

20 
 MR. KATZ: What? 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Can I name people 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 on the phone? 9
 

2 
 MR. KATZ: I mean people can name 

3 
 themselves, but --

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I mean can I 

5 
 name names --

6 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. Just 

7 
 suggested by one of the --

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. So, we --

9 
 he was interviewed, and to summarize his 

10 
 interview, he had a weekday job that did not 

11 
 involve any radiation exposure. This is 

12 
 somebody going back into the '50s, and he 

13 worked as a radiographer on weekends. 

14 
 First he worked -- on and off, he 

15 
 worked somewhere in 1953. He apparently did 

16 
 the work. He worked for a while. He was laid 

17 
 off. He came back. Then he came back 

18 
 continuously employed starting some time in 

19 
 '56 or after '56. So, '56 or '57 he started 

20 
 permanent employment, and he performed 

21 radiography only on weekends. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 So, his radiation exposures: during10


2 
 the week, he did not wear a film badge, and 

3 
 his radiation exposures were just from the 

4 
 weekend work. He said he worked whenever it 

5 
 was available, anxious to get the overtime. 

6 
 He estimated that it was 80 to 90 

7 
 percent of the weekends that he worked, and he 

8 
 worked one or two days per weekend. 

9 
 Just parenthetically, I did some 

10 
 research and I found that Illinois actually 

11 
 has a law that requires one day off in seven. 

12 
 Now, we could not find out when that law was 

13 
 passed. The last I -- with revision of the 

14 
 general statutes I think in the -- somewhere 

15 
 in the 1970's, but that doesn't mean there 

16 
 wasn't an earlier law. This is when they 

17 revised their whole code. 

18 
 So, whether that law was in effect 

19 
 in the '50's, we don't know. And even if it 

20 
 were in effect, with the current law, if the 

21 
 worker volunteers to work, he can be exempted 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 from it. But just as a point that seven days11
 

2 
 a week seems a little much, but I could be 

3 
 wrong. 

4 
 At any rate, he -- and according to 

5 
 his testimony, he always wore a film badge 

6 
 during this radiography work. According to 

7 
 this gentleman who I interviewed several 

8 
 times, and he seemed to give a very 

9 
 consistent, clear account of his work - he 

10 
 seemed to have a clear memory - he said the 

11 
 radium radiography -- we're talking about the 

12 
 radium now, because this is the major issue, 

13 
 was performed in this radiographic facility in 

14 the number 6 building. 

15 
 Initially, I for one was not aware. 

16 
 I thought that this facility was built only 

17 
 when they got the cobalt sources and applied 

18 
 for the AEC license. But apparently, it had 

19 been there all along. 

20 
 At least according to this 

21 
 radiographer, it was definitely there when 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 came back to work around '56. It may have12
 

2 
 been there earlier. He wasn't -- he wasn't 

3 
 certain because he didn't work in that area. 

4 
 He said the radium sources were 

5 
 kept in a lead shielded cabinet in the middle 

6 
 of the radiography room, and he did hear the 

7 
 story. Now, this is a second hand account 

8 
 that while he was away in the '54 to '56 

9 
 period, he heard that someone had gotten into 

10 the room and taken the radium source home. 

11 
 But when he came back in 1956, the 

12 
 door was locked and kept locked. So, he said 

13 
 whenever -- whenever anyone had to leave, and 

14 
 this is a sketch from the AEC licensing 

15 
 document of the radiography room. There were 

16 
 several drawings like this one, because it had 

17 
 the right dimensions. There were other 

18 
 drawings that had just distortion. The room 

19 
 was 22 -- in the licensing text, it would be 

20 
 corresponding. It was 22 by 60 feet, not 

21 quite to scale. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 This was used later with the cobalt13


2 
 sources. So, when they applied for the cobalt 

3 
 license or started using the cobalt source, 

4 
 they put it in steel plates. That was an 

5 
 addition. These weren't there when they were 

6 
 doing the radium radiography. 

7 
 The rest of the structure was 

8 
 there. There was the operations room, which 

9 
 also was an office, and it provided some 

10 
 shielding, and the radium sources were kept in 

11 the middle. 

12 
 Talking to this gentleman later 

13 
 when I called the -- I needed a follow up 

14 
 call. Didn't go through the routine of 

15 
 bringing in Dave Allen and the co-petitioner, 

16 
 who was included in the first call. And he --

17 
 and I asked him about specifically was there 

18 
 radiography done, radium radiography done, 

19 outside this room. And he said very little. 

20 
 He said he remembered once there 

21 
 was railroad undercarriage. Backtrack said 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 the way they would -- this room had no roof.14


2 
 So, they way they would get a casting into the 

3 
 room, there was overhead cranes that traversed 

4 
 the whole complex of buildings. Several 

5 
 buildings. They're called separate buildings, 

6 
 but they're really just columns separating 

7 
 them. 

8 
 They're separate roofs, but there 

9 
 are really no walls between them. And so, the 

10 
 cranes traverse from one end of the plant to 

11 
 the other. At least a good portion of the 

12 
 plant. And so, they would bring in a casting, 

13 
 and they would simply deposit it wherever the 

14 
 radiographer wanted it, as well as he could 

15 communicate with the crane operator. 

16 
 I'm just filling in my own 

17 
 understanding of it -- some were in the middle 

18 
 of the room. Now, the railroad undercarriage 

19 
 may very well have been longer than this room, 

20 or at least the available space in it. 

21 
 So, in this instance, he said 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
 

 

 

 

 

-- 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 source was taken by either wheelbarrow or - he15


2 
 wasn't sure - to either the number 9 building 

3 
 or the number 10 building. Number 10 building 

4 
 is the last building before you get to new 

5 
 betatron building. 

6 
 So, they go in order: 6, 7, 8, 9, 

7 
 10. And he said that it was -- his phrase 

8 
 was, "This is something that happened once in 

9 
 a blue moon," meaning the source taken out of 

10 the radiography room. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, what was his 

12 
 -- how long did he work there? What was his -

13 -

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, as I said, he 

15 


16 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: He worked into 

17 
 the cobalt era? 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. He --

19 
 according to the film badge data, he worked 

20 
 there. And according to the film badge 

21 
 records, he was there right through 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 covered period. 16
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. I just 

3 
 wanted to clarify that. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Because you're 

6 
 talking initially about the radium, but --

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But on the 

9 
 presentation that you're showing us, you 

10 
 indicate that the cobalt sources were removed 

11 for this. Was that also true of the radium? 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. He said he --

13 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Your slide says 

14 
 it was the cobalt sources removed, but what 

15 
 about the radium? 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, no. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: See your last 

18 bullet, "Cobalt sources were either" --

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, that was a 

20 
 second -- that was an additional comment. 

21 
 First, I specifically -- the main reason we 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 talked to him was because he was the only one17


2 
 at that time that I knew that had first-hand 

3 
 experience with the radium. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, he said the 

6 
 radium -- his comment covered both. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Just 

8 
 wanted to clarify this includes the radium. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, this should've 

12 
 been a separate bullet. The cobalt source, 

13 
 that's a little confusing the way I wrote it. 

14 
 Everything up here is about the radium. Then 

15 just by the way, cobalt also. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Got it. 

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay? 

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: All right. So, 

20 
 then we talked again. We had talked to both 

21 
 of these gentlemen about a year ago, 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 included their initial interviews in my18
 

2 
 reports at the time. So, this time -- at that 

3 
 time, I spoke to them alone. This time we had 

4 
 Dave Allen and the petitioner on the line. 

5 
 And the second one was the -- he 

6 
 describes -- for some reason, he describes 

7 
 himself as an administrator. I think at one 

8 
 point, he was at Saint Louis Testing 

9 
 Laboratories. It's a family business. His 

10 son is now the president. 

11 
 They did the radiography. The --

12 
 they -primarily -- they use a -- they had a 10 

13 
 curie cobalt source, which they used on a rail 

14 
 spur on the GSI site. It was off to the -- I 

15 
 don't have the plan with me. I have it at 

16 
 home. It's a big area, and there are rail 

17 
 tracks. I guess there's a spur on the side 

18 for whatever purpose. 

19 
 So, it's well away from the 

20 
 buildings, and this is the area they chose, 

21 
 understandably so as to not disrupt 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 operations and the normal traffic on the site.19


2 
 And they also had a 50-curie iridium source, 

3 
 which they used inside the plant. 

4 
 The difference was the cobalt 

5 
 source was used apparently for the initial 

6 
 radiography, and then when they started 

7 
 repairing the castings, they kept taking more 

8 
 shots. "Well, let's see; did we get all the 

9 
 defects?" They would grind out -- from my 

10 
 understanding of this, it's as if they did a 

11 
 lot of dental work. It's very much like 

12 
 filling a cavity. They drill out the bad 

13 
 part, and they fill it in with new material, 

14 
 and that's exactly how they did the steel. And 

15 there's X-rays just like a dentist uses. 

16 
 So, then -- except they did it more 

17 
 than once, and then they would use the --

18 
 they'd bring in the 50-curie iridium source. 

19 
 Where they didn't want to bother taking the 

20 
 casting out of the plants that were being 

21 
 worked on, so wherever it was being worked 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 they would put in that source and take the20


2 
 radiograph. 

3 
 They eventually stopped using it 

4 
 because it was too good. It showed more 

5 
 defects than they wanted to see. So, they 

6 
 went to using the betatron, which was not 

7 
 quite as fussy, and they -- they had to 

8 
 produce -- but they chipped off the casting. 

9 
 They had to produce the film, saying, "Here, 

10 we radiographed it, and it's good." 

11 
 So, this cobalt radiation source 

12 
 was used for a while. And then when they did 

13 
 do that, it was very good practice. The same 

14 
 practice you would use today. Went around 

15 
 with a survey meter, and marked off the 2 mR 

16 per hour boundary. 

17 
 Now, most of these castings were 

18 
 hollow shapes. Not always, but many of them. 

19 
 And so, you didn't have to get that far away 

20 
 to get down to the 2 mR per hour because the 

21 
 steel itself would absorb the radiation, 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 acting as a shield. 21
 

2 
 Nevertheless, they would do the 

3 
 survey, mark it off as these yellow/magenta 

4 
 rope things they use today, radiation warning 

5 
 signs, and they kept it under constant 

6 
 surveillance. I mean before I was skeptical 

7 
 of it. I said, "Well, you guys got to take a 

8 
 break." 

9 
 The SLTL guy said, "No. If he had 

10 
 to take a break, he basically turned off the 

11 
 machine." Meaning in this case, he retracted 

12 
 the source back into its shield, locked it so 

13 
 it couldn't be removed and went and did his 

14 
 business and came back. 

15 
 And they -- he couldn't remember 

16 
 exactly. He came in in late '64, and I used 

17 
 that by the names he -- he wasn't quite sure. 

18 
 By the names he mentioned and the fact that 

19 
 they had just been working at the Saint Louis 

20 
 Arch at the same time -- I looked up when that 

21 
 was built. So, this seemed to be the best 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 estimate. 22
 

2 
 He also performed -- because they 

3 
 were required by the AEC license to have 

4 
 periodic calibration of their survey meters. 

5 
 So, before there was the Nuclear Consultants 

6 
 Corporation that did that for them, and at 

7 
 this point, Saint Louis Testing took over. 

8 
 So, apparently, they took over all 

9 
 the functions. Well, not all the functions, 

10 
 but these functions. They didn't take over 

11 
 radiation safety functions. They didn't 

12 
 supply film badges, and they didn't -- they 

13 
 weren't really -- they didn't perform any 

14 
 radiation surveys, except of course when they 

15 
 were on site themselves for their own 

16 
 purposes. 

17 When I asked him about was there 

18 
 80-curie source, he said, "Well, no." He knew 

19 
 of no large source for the whole time he was 

20 
 there. He said there was a small source, what 

21 
 he called a millicurie source, because he 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 once called in -- actually, they called him in23


2 
 and said, "Something is wrong with this meter. 

3 
 It's not showing any reading." 

4 
 The reason it wasn't showing any 

5 
 reading is that it was saturated because they 

6 
 had an exposed source that had come out. He 

7 
 said it was one of the, what he called, 

8 
 millicurie sources. Initially 260-280 

9 
 millicurie sources. That was the only thing 

10 he knew about. 

11 
 Finally, we were talking to his 

12 
 former GSI supervisor. We talked to -- the 

13 
 third call, a former GSI supervisor, who also 

14 
 confirmed that the radiographic facility in 

15 
 number 6 building was there when he started 

16 work. 

17 
 At the time if his initial 

18 
 interview, he could not tell me what year that 

19 
 was. He did say that during radium 

20 
 radiography, the area was roped off or taped 

21 
 off, and posted with radiation danger signs. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 No one was allowed inside. 24
 

2 
 However, he was critical of the 

3 
 management of the -- because he said unlike 

4 
 the practice at St. Louis Testing, if the 

5 
 radiographer -- according to this gentleman, 

6 
 if the radiographer had to leave to get film 

7 
 for the next exposure, the area was left 

8 
 unmonitored. 

9 
 He said that when necessary, the 

10 
 cobalt-60 cameras were transported by overhead 

11 
 crane to another location. And this is not 

12 
 completely in conflict. The only difference 

13 
 between this and the first radiographer that 

14 we interviewed was how often this happened. 

15 
 Neither of them -- he did not deny 

16 
 that it happened. He just said it was not a 

17 
 common practice. I was talking about the 

18 first radiographer. 

19 
 Asking and -- he also said, when I 

20 
 asked him about other sources, then the small 

21 
 cobalt -- then the radium initially, then 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 small cobalt sources, he said the iridium25


2 
 source was used only by St. Louis Testing; 

3 
 that they didn't have one. 

4 
 He said he heard -- he heard 

5 
 something about an 80-curie source, but he 

6 
 does not remember it, and he heard it 

7 
 presumably in recent years. 

8 
 When I called him a second time, he 

9 
 said he got his -- he said he started thinking 

10 
 about when he started when other people were 

11 
 there, and he says he thinks it was most 

12 
 likely around 1955 that he started. So, he 

13 
 was there just before the other gentleman had 

14 
 returned to work and started doing 

15 radiography. 

16 
 He said he did not actually do 

17 
 radium radiography, but he -- he helped. He 

18 
 helped out. He did perform cobalt-60 

19 radiography later. 

20 
 Then finally, we did get a hold of 

21 
 the former official of Nuclear Consultants 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Corporation, and we said that the radiation26


2 
 safety was really a sideline. Their main 

3 
 business was supplying radio isotopes for 

4 
 medicine. 

5 
 He said he did supply the film 

6 
 badges because we have one report. It's 

7 
 called -- it was called AEC Form 4, which was 

8 
 discussed before here, which is a summary of 

9 
 radiation exposure, which happened to be the 

10 
 same as the first radiographer that I 

11 
 interviewed in this current round. And it 

12 
 said -- at the bottom of it, it said, "NCC." 

13 
 So, it was prepared by the Nuclear 

14 
 Consulting Corporation in -- in -- somewhere 

15 
 around the spring of 1962. April, I think. 

16 
 March-April. So, at the time, they were 

17 
 apparently getting their act together while 

18 
 they -- when they applied for the first AEC 

19 
 license. And part of that was giving this --

20 
 what they should've been doing is giving this 

21 
 man his radiation exposure record, going way 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 back to the beginning of his employment. 27
 

2 
 This becomes important. So, it 

3 
 said, "NCC," on it. So, that doesn't mean 

4 
 they were supplying film badges all along. It 

5 
 just means they went over the records, and 

6 
 prepared a summary of his exposures. And then 

7 
 they did later supply the film badges, and we 

8 
 -- he said -- I said, "Where did you get your" 

9 
 -- he said he got his film badges from 

10 
 Landauer. He didn't say he made them himself. 

11 
 He didn't have any dosimetry record, which 

12 didn't surprise me. 

13 
 When he -- I said said, "Were there 

14 
 any other sources besides radium?" So, he 

15 
 said, "There was no radium." By the time he 

16 
 came, they discontinued using radium. He 

17 didn't -- no mention of any other sources. 

18 
 Frankly, it was very hard for me to 

19 
 hear him. Voice was very, very faint. Even 

20 
 though I had an amplifier on my telephone, I 

21 
 couldn't keep telling him. And so -- but 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 did say something about they seemed to know28


2 
 what they were doing. They seemed to have 

3 
 their act together. 

4 
 He said there were no incidents 

5 
 leading to overdose that he can recall that he 

6 
 would've seen the -- you know, he handled the 

7 
 film badge directly. So, this is some of the 

8 
 interviews. 

9 
 So, new issues as to how this 

10 
 affects the current picture. So, what we 

11 
 learned was about film badge dosimetry use of 

12 
 radium sources and then the possible 

13 
 unlicensed sources, meaning that's a question 

14 mark. 

15 
 So, here is a photograph from the 

16 
 magazine that was published by -- I think it 

17 
 was a monthly magazine covered by GSI, 

18 
 supplied to its workers. It was used for 

19 
 public relations, which I'm sure was sent to 

20 
 local officials -- and one of the gentlemen on 

21 
 the phone now very kindly supplied me a copy 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 of that magazine. 29
 

2 
 He saw a picture earlier, but I 

3 
 wanted to -- I wanted to try to get the best 

4 
 possible reproduction of it. The purpose of 

5 
 this was the man was wearing a film badge, or 

6 
 what appears to be a film badge. 

7 
 First, I saw a picture of it but it 

8 
 wasn't that clear, so I asked for the original 

9 
 and it's pretty -- you can make a good 

10 
 argument that that's a film badge. And if you 

11 
 notice, it has the white open window. The 

12 
 frame is wider on top than on the bottom, 

13 
 unlike some of the badges where the window is 

14 near the top. 

15 
 And going on the ORAU website, they 

16 
 have this museum maintained by somebody at 

17 
 ORAU, and I just looked at everything, and it 

18 
 looked very much like this one. Same shape. 

19 
 Doesn't mean it was the same one, but it was 

20 corresponding to the same time period. 

21 
 So, then since the man who started 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 doing radiography in '56 or '57 said he wore a30


2 
 film badge, and here's a '53 picture, I think 

3 
 we can pretty much say they had film badges. 

4 
 They had film badges all along, which is new 

5 
 information. 

6 
 Because before that, I was 

7 
 skeptical that they had film badges. I 

8 
 thought maybe they only got film badges when 

9 
 they got the AEC license, and it would be one 

10 of the license requirements. 

11 
 So now, then we did look. We tried 

12 
 to find the Nuclear Consultants, and the --

13 
 actually, Jim first looked for it. Then he --

14 
 I asked him just if I could get this Landauer 

15 
 -- NIOSH had paid Landauer to create an index, 

16 
 and what they did was they started -- the 

17 
 index only started in '61, and we found out 

18 why. 

19 
 We used to work Landauer --

20 
 associate talked to one of his colleagues, a 

21 
 senior official at Landauer, and was told 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 before '61, they did not keep totals and they31


2 
 did not really identify the clients or their 

3 
 records would not have been very useful for --

4 
 for future use, but it was starting in '61. 

5 
 I mean they didn't identify names. 

6 
 They didn't identify names and they didn't 

7 
 accumulate totals. He didn't think there was 

8 
 any point in indexing those years. It started 

9 
 -- the company started in business in the mid10 '50s. 

11 
 But starting with '61, and going 

12 
 through '64, they did index them. I forget 

13 
 how many thousand there were. There were 

14 
 several thousand. I know because I actually 

15 
 read them line by line just to be on the safe 

16 
 side to see if there's anything that this 

17 
 search -- the text search might not show up, 

18 
 and even though in alphabetical order -- it 

19 
 was in Excel files, we can sort it any way we 

20 
 want. 

21 Jim and I both agreed there's 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 nothing. Nuclear Consultants isn't there.32
 

2 
 Konnecker was the head of Nuclear Consultants. 

3 
 His name doesn't show up. And we even said, 

4 
 we speculated -- maybe there was another 

5 
 middle man that he bought -- had an account 

6 
 with Landauer, and he got his film badges 

7 
 through still another party. And we couldn't 

8 
 find any Landauer customer in the St. Louis 

9 
 area, other than big corporations, government 

10 
 agencies. Obviously would not have been a 

11 supplier. 

12 
 So, he must've just been mistaken. 

13 
 I'm just thinking that. I also asked him, "Do 

14 
 you have any idea who they got their film 

15 
 badges from before you came on board in '62?" 

16 
 And he said he assumed Landauer because 

17 Landauer was the biggest supplier. 

18 
 So, I think it's sort of like a 

19 
 little word association game. I say, "film 

20 badge." You say, "Landauer." 

21 
 So, okay, knowing something now 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 about the radiography practices: that they33


2 
 were mostly done inside that room, the 

3 
 radiography room with a radium source, we just 

4 
 ran an MCNP analysis, simple geometry, in two 

5 
 locations. 

6 
 One was in the middle of the office 

7 
 because that's where the radiographer would 

8 
 set up. They would put the source -- the 

9 
 source was kept in the middle of the room in a 

10 
 cabinet. So, they would have the casting 

11 
 brought in, as he said, in the middle of the 

12 
 room, as far away from the office as 

13 
 practical. Didn't want to have it right next 

14 to them. 

15 
 They would drop position the radium 

16 
 source, and scurry back to the office, and 

17 
 wait there until the exposure was over. Most 

18 of the shots were short. 

19 
 So, here -- so, I asked -- so, we 

20 
 did an analysis of this exposure position. 

21 
 Then he said there was a door that was kept 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 locked. No one was allowed in other than the34
 

2 
 radiographers. If they had to take a break, 

3 
 or if they had to go and get more film, they 

4 
 would simply leave and lock the door behind 

5 
 them. 

6 
 So, I did an exposure position 

7 
 here. Some worker happened to be idly hanging 

8 
 around, smoking a cigarette there, and what 

9 
 his rate would be. And NCC, Konneker, who is 

10 
 in the records, who had done the radiation 

11 
 survey, he said of the -- not necessarily at 

12 
 this point, but he actually went around with 

13 
 the cobalt sources exposed; went around and 

14 did a survey in the office and outside. 

15 
 And he said, well, he would assume 

16 
 a 25 percent occupancy; that nobody is going 

17 
 to be there all the time, but that's likely it 

18 
 would be 25 percent of the time as an upper 

19 
 bound for the outside the room, the 

20 radiographer. 

21 
 So, we came up with three ways 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 assessing radiation exposures to radium. First35


2 
 was the -- based on the MCNP analysis, the 

3 
 radiation exposure in the office, assuming 30 

4 
 percent because it was in the AEC licensing 

5 
 applications as well, we do radiography at 30 

6 
 percent of each shift, isotope radiography. 

7 
 So, we said, "Okay." So, the 

8 
 radiation exposure is 30 percent. The 

9 
 occupancy was 100 percent during that time, 

10 
 and here we have an exposure of -- assuming 

11 
 this large number, 406, 30 to 50 work hours, 

12 
 we get an exposure of 296 millirem for a year. 

13 That was in the office. 

14 
 Then, what would be his exposure, 

15 
 the real exposure, would be while he was 

16 
 handling the sources. He was carrying them, 

17 
 dangling them at the end of the spring on a 

18 
 fish pole, and I took the most conservative, 

19 
 which is a distance of four feet. And we just 

20 
 used the -- we didn't do the MCNP for this 

21 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 We just used -- this doesn't36
 

2 
 translate well for this one. This should be a 

3 
 capital gamma, but this particular Acrobat 

4 
 Reader doesn't produce it. It did on my home 

5 
 computer. This is -- the factor for radium is 

6 
 8.25 R square centimeter per hour per 

7 
 millicurie. So, we take 500 millicuries at a 

8 
 distance of this many centimeters -- 406.25, 

9 
 and you will shift 30 seconds per exposure, 15 

10 
 seconds to place the source, 15 seconds to 

11 remove it and put it back in the shield. 

12 
 Ten exposures per shift, and you 

13 
 get 9.69 R per year. So, that would be added 

14 
 to this relatively small 269 millirem. Again, 

15 
 I apologize for this. It didn't -- the 

16 
 trouble when you change computers. It looked 

17 good on my own computer. 

18 
 Then the final thing is for the 

19 
 same gentleman, as I said, we have his 

20 
 exposure records. So, we know he got about --

21 
 over a period of four-and-a-half years, 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that's spread out and you get a good average.37


2 
 The more years you have, the more meaningful 

3 
 it is. So, you had a good average. 

4 
 So, he got 2 rem a year. However, 

5 
 he only worked weekends, and he got the 2 rem 

6 
 a year during those weekends. So, we could 

7 
 make two assumptions, two extreme assumptions. 

8 
 One is he worked the minimum amount 

9 
 of time. He worked only one shift, and he 

10 
 worked, and it was 80 percent of the time. So, 

11 
 that's the lowest that that's consistent with 

12 
 his account. That translates, if you pro-rate 

13 
 this then to a full-time radiographer working 

14 
 406 shifts, that prorates to 20.5 rem per 

15 year. That's the high end. 

16 
 Then you take the low end. He 

17 
 worked every Saturday and Sunday, 90 percent 

18 
 of the time, except for two weeks off for 

19 
 vacation. And that would translate to 9 rem a 

20 
 year, which is remarkably close to this 

21 
 amount, this model amount, when this -- 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 this 9.69. I'm sorry; I misstated. That38
 

2 
 includes this already. 

3 
 So, it's remarkably close to this 

4 
 number. I surprise myself when you get real 

5 
 life data that confirms your model. My guess 

6 
 is that -- well, I'm not going to say what my 

7 
 guess is. If -- I think the numbers speak for 

8 
 themselves. 

9 
 Then finally we have the statement 

10 
 on the AEC application on how good the 

11 
 Radiation Safety Program was before. They 

12 
 didn't even talk about the program. They 

13 talked about the training. 

14 
 Now we have a formal training 

15 
 program. We used to have a more informal 

16 
 training program, but it was very successful 

17 
 and we know that because nobody ever exceeded 

18 
 the then applicable AEC limits. It was aware 

19 
 that they changed, and most people only got 25 

20 
 percent. The average was 25, but nobody 

21 exceeded 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 So, if nobody exceeded it, the39
 

2 
 limits were -- they changed some time in 1954. 

3 
 So, let's say for the covered year, from '53 

4 
 to '54, it would be 15 rem a year. Now, 

5 
 starting in -- I'm sorry, there's an error on 

6 
 my part. Not sure how I got this. It 

7 
 should've been 12 and not 12.5. 

8 
 Because starting with '55, they 

9 
 were allowed to get 3 rem quarter, and then 18 

10 
 -- no, n - 18 rule. Now you get somebody who 

11 
 is, let's say, 30 years -- 40 years old and 

12 
 not done previous radiography and radiation 

13 
 exposure. So, he's got a credit -- let's say 

14 he's 38 years old and make it real simple. 

15 
 So, he's already got 100 rem in the 

16 
 bank that he can draw on. So, he could 

17 
 continue getting 12 rem a year, and then you 

18 
 subtract -- then for every year, you subtract 

19 5 or 7 from that 100. 

20 
 So, you could continue getting 12 

21 
 rem a year for quite a while before he exceeds 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 the lifetime limit. 40
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's correct. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, therefore, as a 

4 
 practical limit, you could -- people could be 

5 
 getting 12 rem a year after '55. And that 

6 
 falls very neatly into this range of 9 to 20, 

7 
 and falls very close to the modeled exposure 

8 
 of about 9.69. 

9 
 So, I would say if we needed to 

10 
 have a plausible upper bound, and initially, I 

11 
 was -- when we saw those -- you know we had 

12 
 those FOIA records, AEC records, back in 2000. 

13 We started looking at them over a year ago. 

14 
 I was skeptical. I was saying, 

15 
 "Well, that's an easy thing to say, 'we never 

16 
 exceeded the AEC record.' But where's the 

17 
 proof?" Apparently, they had these records, 

18 
 and the AEC are not going to make a false 

19 
 statement. But the AEC can say, "Well, let me 

20 inspect your film badge records." 

21 
 So, it seems like this would be 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 truthful -- they didn't make an extravagant41


2 
 claim where nobody got more than 10 millirem a 

3 
 week, or some nonsense like that. But this 

4 
 seems believable, and this seems to be a 

5 
 plausible upper bound for those years. 

6 
 Now, we'll get -- I think the 

7 
 question will be answered a little later. 

8 
 Finally -- by the other sealed sources. So, 

9 
 the iridium-192 is not listed by AEC. 

10 
 Now, we just saw this License 

11 
 Amendment number 8, and we saw a little part 

12 
 of it that was forwarded by the petitioner. 

13 
 And that is well after the covered period. I 

14 
 haven't been able to find number 8, but I 

15 
 found number 7. I remember seeing number 7, 

16 
 and number 7 was already well into the late 

17 '60s and the early '70s. 

18 
 So, this one -- I think this one 

19 
 was 1972. So, they may have had license to 

20 
 use iridium later, but that has nothing to do 

21 
 with the activities during the covered period. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 So, during the early years, it was42


2 
 not listed on the AEC license. The GSI 

3 
 supervisor, whom I specifically called back 

4 
 and asked, and he said no. He said St. Louis 

5 
 testing had the iridium source. GSI did not 

6 
 have one. 

7 
 Another I looked up later because 

8 
 of still another supervisor who is now 

9 
 deceased, recently deceased. I specifically 

10 
 asked him during this meeting I had with the 

11 
 workers in Collinsville in 2007 about the 

12 
 iridium source, and he said the same thing. He 

13 
 said iridium was owned by St. Louis Testing, 

14 and GSI never had an iridium source. 

15 
 So, it would be unlikely they would 

16 
 have an unlicensed source because this is '74. 

17 
 They have -- every few months has to be sent 

18 
 back, and re-irradiated at the reactor. And 

19 again, it' implausible to have had one. 

20 
 So, then finally the question of 

21 
 the large -- was there a large cobalt-60 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 source? Now, number one, it's not listed on43
 

2 
 the AEC license until 1968. Again, the 

3 
 supervisor said he had no recollection of this 

4 
 source. The other -- now I -- the other 

5 
 supervisor, the betatron supervisor, passed 

6 
 away about a year ago. He said he does not 

7 
 believe they ever had such a source. 

8 
 However, he left the company in 

9 
 1966. So, he said he was definitely involved 

10 
 in the non-destructive testing department 

11 
 until late '64, but later on he was in the 

12 
 department that would've handled the -- he 

13 
 would've regularly met with the people in the 

14 
 testing department, and he said they would 

15 
 have known about it. And also, the official 

16 
 from St. Louis Testing said he knew of no 

17 large such source. 

18 
 Now, the final thing he tracked 

19 
 down, and I'm just reiterating this as before, 

20 
 was we went back to the NRC and said, "What 

21 
 about Pennsylvania?" The General Steel, 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 was then called General Steel Castings, have44


2 
 any records from the Eddystone facility, which 

3 
 is the only other big casting -- it's like the 

4 
 sister plant to the Granite City plant. 

5 
 And finally, what came out was 

6 
 while there was nothing -- there was nothing 

7 
 at Eddystone, but there was in Avonmore which 

8 
 is a former National Roll and Foundry company, 

9 
 which was acquired by General Steel Castings. 

10 
 They had a 10 curie source, but they got rid 

11 
 of it in 1959. In addition 10 curies assayed 

12 in something in '57. 

13 
 They did say at one point, and it 

14 
 was a little suspicious, because at one point 

15 
 they say, "Well, we're not going to use it." 

16 
 But they had all kinds of deficiencies. "You 

17 
 didn't do this right. You didn't do that to 

18 
 earn the license." And their response was, 

19 
 "We're not going to bother responding because 

20 
 we're -- we've mothballed the source, we're 

21 
 going to be discontinuing the use of it, 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 we're going to perhaps sell it to another GSI45


2 
 facility," or General Steel Castings facility. 

3 
 So, they said, "Oh, maybe they sold 

4 
 this through Granite City?" But it doesn't 

5 
 make any sense. But then the final 

6 
 disposition was assigned, saying it was 

7 
 disposed of according to 10 CFR 20. No 

8 
 details of how it -- of -- no other detail, 

9 
 but it was a signed statement. 

10 
 So, this obviously would not have 

11 
 been in accordance with 10 CFR 20 if it passed 

12 
 it onto a facility with no license for it. But 

13 
 even if saying, "Okay, so, maybe they were a 

14 
 little sloppy and careless, or naive." And 

15 
 that would have -- then you would've said, 

16 
 "They would've gotten this source in 1959. Why 

17 
 would they suddenly go, in 1962, and say, 'We 

18 
 urgently need a license for 300 millicurie 

19 
 source because Illinois won't allow us to use 

20 
 radium,' if they already had a much bigger 

21 source all along? 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 So, that's implausible. And how46
 

2 
 would -- and the State of Illinois, which knew 

3 
 about the radium sources and disapproved of 

4 
 their use, they would've had to pull the wool 

5 
 over their eyes. There's just too many 

6 
 implausibilities there. 

7 
 So, finally, the explanation is why 

8 
 would some worker have thought that they had a 

9 
 large source? And I was surprised to find, 

10 
 looking over close to a thousand pages of 

11 
 literature, many of them are redundant. But 

12 
 anyway, repeat copies of the same thing. Even 

13 
 though they ordered 300 millicurie sources, 

14 
 and getting a 260 and a 280, the camera was 

15 good for a 10 curie source. 

16 
 Why? Maybe that's what they 

17 
 happened to have available, or maybe they 

18 
 thought in the future they might want to use 

19 
 more powerful sources. So, this is a very 

20 
 hefty unit. It would weigh anything between 

21 400 and 750 pounds. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 It was also the -- the -- let me47


2 
 just go back very quickly to this sketch. 

3 
 Okay, this sketch shows the sources. So, 

4 
 clearly, these look like two wheels. If you 

5 
 don't know what they are, maybe you don't 

6 
 know. But now we know they're on wheels, they 

7 
 clearly look like two big shields between two 

8 
 wheels. 

9 
 In fact, here is the Radionics 

10 
 source. This is the one that was licensed in 

11 
 1968, and this is the only one we've been able 

12 
 to get a photograph of. And here it is, 

13 
 sitting on two wheels, very much like that 

14 
 little crude sketch of something sitting on 

15 two wheels. 

16 
 And here, they have different --

17 
 so, you can have a -- if you can read that. Is 

18 that big enough to read? 

19 MEMBER BEACH: It's in the report. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We have a copy of 

21 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. I can make48
 

2 
 it bigger. I'm just using -- so, here we go. 

3 
 I like it full screen. Okay, should be 

4 
 better. So, a 10 curie source, I mean a 

5 
 shield for a 10 curie source, already weighs 

6 
 750 pounds. They called it shipping weight, 

7 
 but that really includes the wheel, the 

8 
 assembly. Basically, the shipping weight is 

9 
 the weight because it includes the wheels and 

10 the assembly. 

11 
 The shield itself is 600 pounds, 

12 
 whereas the 100 curie, and that's the one they 

13 
 got. Even though they got 80 curies, the 

14 
 model number is -- they go by is a 60-100. So, 

15 its capacity is 100. 

16 
 And so, that one weighs 1,300 

17 
 pounds. Okay, it is obviously bigger than 750 

18 
 pounds. But both of them are pretty damn big. 

19 
 So, it could easily be that someone who is not 

20 
 actually doing the radiography and therefore 

21 
 doesn't have to sit down and calculate, "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
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 I've got so many curies, and this is so much49


2 
 thickness of steel. So, I need so many 

3 
 minutes or hours to do the exposure." 

4 
 But someone who is helping with the 

5 
 radiography doesn't have to know that. He is 

6 
 helping setting up the shots, and it looks 

7 
 like a pretty big source, even though it's a 

8 
 small, little, puny source inside. So, that's 

9 
 basically -- and then now I'm going onto the 

10 next topic. So, I'll go back to that later. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, 

12 
 Bob. Let me ask the Work Group Members if you 

13 
 have any questions on this issue. Well, on 

14 
 any of the worker interviews or on the 

15 information Bob has provided here. 

16 MR. DELL: I have a statement. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Hang on. We're 

18 
 asking the Board Members here first. Okay, 

19 Wanda, did you have a question on that? 

20 
 MEMBER MUNN: No, but I did want to 

21 
 thank Bob for the illustrative material 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 he provided. It was very helpful for me to50
 

2 
 get a better idea of the overall concept of 

3 
 where these problems originally may have --

4 
 where the questions may have come from. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, Bob, SC&A now 

6 
 is of the position that there was a film badge 

7 
 program. 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Although we don't 

10 
 have the records, that there apparently was a 

11 film badge program? 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. We have 

13 record of one worker. 

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And we have the 

16 statement about not exceeding the limits. 

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And also the 

19 
 general usage in that room, but occasional 

20 
 usage outside. What about the issue we talked 

21 
 about before of the possibility of people 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 traversing the area where a radium source51


2 
 might've been roped off? 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I didn't really 

5 
 address that here, but is that still a 

6 
 possibility? 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but the 

8 
 analysis that I showed at that last meeting is 

9 
 for each such intrusion, you get on the order 

10 of a millirem. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, it's fairly 

12 low, number one. And number two --

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean I did a 

14 
 detailed calculation for the 10 curie source 

15 
 before we realized that it was really 

16 
 enforced, and there if you assume that 

17 
 somebody didn't necessarily walk straight past 

18 
 the room, they decided, "Here's a short cut. 

19 
 I'm going to take a short cut in some random 

20 direction." 

21 
 On average, per intrusion, you got 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 on the order of a millirem. 52
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. But the 

3 
 other thing was I think in the previous 

4 
 scenario, we assume that every shot had that 

5 
 possibility --

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- whereas, if 

8 
 like 90 percent or more were in the enclosed 

9 
 room, then that changes that scenario a great 

10 deal. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It does, but I 

12 think that it's a non-issue. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's still a 

14 
 trivial amount. 

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, right. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But in terms of 

17 conceptually --

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. Particularly 

19 
 if we assign a dose of 2 rem just from 

20 
 standing outside that door on a 25 percent 

21 
 basis, this other scenario is not going to 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 change. Because obviously, you can't do --53
 

2 
 you can't have simultaneously exposures inside 

3 
 the room, and outside the room. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, well, I guess 

6 
 you could if you -- and that was assuming, by 

7 
 the way, the analysis of the radiography room 

8 
 assumed that both radium sources were exposed. 

9 
 So, we had a total of 1 curie. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, okay. I 

11 
 wanted to ask Dave or Jim as far as NIOSH is 

12 
 concerned, do you have any either questions or 

13 
 issues with the analysis that we've heard from 

14 SC&A on this? 

15 
 MR. ALLEN: No. Definitely no 

16 
 questions. The analysis Bob did in this 

17 
 latest thing had several possibilities in 

18 there. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. The 

20 
 bounding numbers could be a little different 

21 
 depending on the four foot versus six foot. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 54 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

But in terms of sort of -- okay, I want to ask 

the petitioner now if there are questions or 

comments that he or his colleagues wish to 

make. 

DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

Dan McKeel. Can you hear me? 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I can, Dan. 

DR. MCKEEL: Okay, good. Yes, I 

have actually a number of comments. I guess I 

sort of have to start and go through them. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure. 

DR. MCKEEL: The first thing that 

I'd like to say is there was information 

presented this morning by SC&A, Dr. Anigstein, 

that I don't believe is in the report that we 

are -- at least I received on October the 31st. 

And particularly, the information about the 

interview with Dr. Wilfred Konneker. 

Our agreement last meeting was that 

I would be allowed to be a silent observer to 

those interviews, and I have written 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Dr. Ziemer, several times, asking what is the55


2 
 status with that interview. 

3 
 Ted Katz has written back and said 

4 
 that he thought Dr. Anigstein had made contact 

5 
 with Dr. Konneker, and that Dr. Anigstein had 

6 
 decided not to conduct a group interview 

7 
 because Dr. Konneker was not well. 

8 
 Interestingly, that wasn't 

9 
 mentioned this morning. What was mentioned 

10 
 was that Dr. Konneker was sort of quiet on the 

11 
 phone. Well, you know, he's an elderly 

12 
 gentleman, and so he may be quiet. There are 

13 
 other people who are in this Work Group who 

14 
 are hard to hear from time to time. So, I 

15 
 understand that. 

16 
 But the point I am distressed 

17 
 about, to say the very least, is we had a 

18 
 bargain. Dr. Anigstein relayed a lot of 

19 
 information that he attributes to Dr. Konneker 

20 
 by way of his own personal interview, to which 

21 Dave Allen and myself were not privy. 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 56 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

And I simply need to say that our 

bargain in that situation, as far as I'm 

concerned, was broken. 

The other comment I have, or that I 

did listen to three of the first interviews, 

the ones described as 1, 2 and 3, and all I 

can say is that there are discrepancies 

between what I heard during the interview and 

what was said this morning and reported, and 

what's written in the review paper received 

October 31st. 

Now, one other gentleman that was 

interviewed is on the phone, and wants to make 

a statement, and I hope he will do that after 

I finish. But I want to skip over to him, and 

say the following. 

During that interview, and in 

interviews that we've had with the same 

gentleman, and by we I mean John Ramspott had 

had, and relayed to me, it was very clear that 

this gentleman's main concern was with safety 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 issues at GSI. 57
 

2 
 And his testimony to us was that 

3 
 the small source, cobalt-60, was used 

4 
 extensively outside of the small radiography 

5 
 building in Building 6, and that his main 

6 
 concern was that many of those sessions, not 

7 
 once in a blue moon or things like that, were 

8 
 unattended. And that in fact he relays the 

9 
 story when he first came there in the first 

10 
 shot, that they set it up and both the primary 

11 
 radiographer and himself left the scene and 

12 went back to do their jobs. 

13 
 So, that's a very substantial 

14 
 thing. Then I want to -- then I want to go 

15 
 back to what I feel is -- I don't know of a 

16 
 polite word to say this, but there's a lot of 

17 
 indication that GSI had owned and used an 

18 
 iridium-192 source that was different from the 

19 one by St. Louis Testing. 

20 
 And in this recitation that we just 

21 
 heard from Dr. Anigstein, during which I made 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 notes, I note that he carefully left out the58


2 
 testimony, which I had sent to you all to the 

3 
 Work Group, and to SC&A and to NIOSH, from at 

4 
 least three former workers, including people 

5 
 that had been mentioned this morning. 

6 
 One was an interview that Dr. 

7 
 Ziemer conducted with a former radiation 

8 
 safety officer at GSI back in November, and 

9 
 there was more correspondence and a 

10 
 reinterview in November and December, and 

11 
 another report in February of these 

12 interviews. 

13 
 The final report was in a report 

14 
 that SC&A prepared, and in the December 10th
 

15 
 interview, which this gentleman was nice 

16 
 enough to share directly with us, and so we 

17 
 didn't need to depend on just what's written 

18 down, I have it in front of me. 

19 
 It's titled, "Draft Advisory Board 

20 
 on Radiation and Worker Health. Summary of a 

21 
 former General Steel Industries Worker 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Conducted by Paul L. Ziemer." Report Date is59
 

2 
 December 10th, 2009. On page 2 -- on page 1, 

3 
 there's a section called, "Information 

4 
 provided by ‘ identifying information 

5 
 redacted’." And there's a section in there 

6 
 that cobalt-60 sources, and Mr. Wheeler there 

7 
 says it's hollow. 

8 
 The source was always referred to 

9 
 as an 80 curie source. He was unsure of any 

10 
 independent documentation or certification of 

11 
 that amount, but stated that it was always 

12 
 identified and referred to by that 

13 nomenclature. 

14 
 Then on page 2 -- so, also 

15 
 carefully left out this morning, and I thought 

16 
 not explained, that the cobalt -- the large 

17 
 source of cobalt-60, the 80 curie source, was 

18 
 that at least five workers had given 

19 
 affidavits that they used that source during 

20 1963, 4 and 5. 

21 
 One of those workers that signed 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that 2008 affidavit, and I'm going to mention60


2 
 his name because all of these men have given 

3 
 me permission to do so, and I'm going to put 

4 
 it on the record, even though it'll be 

5 
 redacted, his name is George Luber, L-U-B-E-R. 

6 
 He's -- George has spoken directly 

7 
 to the Advisory Board several times. George 

8 
 was one of the people who signed that 2008 

9 
 affidavit, and Mr. Dutko reinterviewed George 

10 
 recently, and George reconfirmed what he had 

11 
 said before: that the large cobalt source he 

12 
 was talking about was easily distinguished 

13 
 from the small cobalt-60 sources by its size 

14 and weight. 

15 
 Now, it is true, as Dr. Anigstein 

16 
 pointed out, that even the quote small source, 

17 
 that is small in curies compared to the large 

18 
 source, was contained in a heavy housing, a 

19 
 Unitron model 110A, or model 110B, depending 

20 
 on the period of the time that is reported in 

21 the AEC license material. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 George Luber said that it was quite61


2 
 easy to distinguish the two types of cobalt 

3 
 sources based on their size and their weight. 

4 
 So, the big source had larger wheels, and it 

5 
 weighed a lot more. It was harder to push 

6 
 around. 

7 
 And what's most telling about that 

8 
 is the photograph that Dr. Anigstein reports 

9 
 and shows of the radionic model that was --

10 
 housed the large source is exactly what the 

11 
 men described as being the large source. That 

12 is a spherical container. 

13 
 Now, on the other hand, the small 

14 
 source was described by at least one person as 

15 
 having a funnel shaped container. Now, I 

16 
 heard that; I thought, "Gee, that's an odd 

17 
 shape for a container." But anyway, that's 

18 
 what was on -- put on record. I believe it 

19 
 was either in the October 2010 meeting, or the 

20 September 20th meeting of this year. 

21 
 But in any case, at the September 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 20th meeting, a GSI worker was on the phone,62
 

2 
 and he mentioned that he had some material 

3 
 that he wanted to give to John Ramspott, and 

4 
 Dr. Anigstein -- someone had said, "Well, Bob 

5 
 Anigstein, are you going to get a copy of 

6 
 that?" And Bob says, "Oh, I'm sure that John 

7 
 Ramspott will send me those like he always 

8 
 does." 

9 
 So, that was on the record that 

10 
 there was a material that was important that 

11 
 should have wound up in Dr. Anigstein's 

12 
 possession. And anyway, what that material 

13 
 was was a brochure about the Unitron Model 

14 
 110AB, and it showed a very nice picture of a 

15 Unitron Model 110AB. 

16 
 Now, this was a brochure from 1972, 

17 
 and what it showed was an all stainless steel 

18 
 cart and container. It was quite striking. 

19 
 And my comment, when I first saw it was, 

20 
 "Well, gee whiz. Let's show that to the men 

21 
 because if you were wheeling around 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 beautiful bright, shiny cart like that,63
 

2 
 anybody, particularly a steel worker, would 

3 
 remember that particular fact about the 

4 
 machine." 

5 
 It is interesting to note that in 

6 
 the earlier license applications from GSI to 

7 
 the AEC, where Nuclear Consulting Corporation 

8 
 is referred to as the manufacturer actually of 

9 
 the small source, what's mentioned there is a 

10 
 Unitron model 110A -- no, B, which might be, I 

11 would think, an earlier model. 

12 
 So, it is certainly possible that 

13 
 earlier in the course, Unitron offered a non14 
 stainless steel model, and that's what the men 

15 
 might've seen. But what was striking about 

16 
 the picture of the Model 110AB was the funnel17 shaped container for the source. 

18 
 To me, it looked like a funnel 

19 
 turned on its side. That's the way I --

20 
 because if you just laid it on its side on the 

21 
 ground so the small end was pointing 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 left, as I remember, and the -- as you looked64


2 
 at it from the front, and the large end was 

3 
 pointing to the right if you looked at it from 

4 
 the front. 

5 
 So, anyway, it was my understanding 

6 
 that that was the whole point of what we were 

7 
 getting at at the September 20th meeting that 

8 
 we were going to assemble pictures of both 

9 
 units, the small and the large cobalt-60 

10 
 sources, and then they were going to be shown 

11 
 to the workers, and let the workers say, "Oh, 

12 
 yes. This is the one I saw the large source," 

13 and so forth. 

14 
 So, that hadn't been done. And in 

15 
 fact Dr. Anigstein reports that he doesn't 

16 
 have a picture of the Unitron Model 110AB. 

17 
 Well, I would say that all he had to do was to 

18 
 call either the person that spoke up on the 

19 
 phone, or call Mr. Ramspott, whom he knows 

20 very well, to get that picture. 

21 
 Now I want to come back 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 iridium-192, and I digress because in the same65


2 
 interview that Dr. Ziemer, I was just 

3 
 describing what was on page 1. But on page 2, 

4 
 there's another paragraph called, "Iridium 

5 
 192." And the iridium is spelled I-R-R-I-D-I6 
 U-M 192. And it says -- there are two points. 

7 
 Point 1 says, "Mr. Wheeler stated that the 

8 
 iridium-192 source was nominally identified as 

9 
 initially being a 0.25 curie, in parenthesis, 

10 250 millicurie, end parenthesis, source." 

11 
 He further identified it as an old 

12 
 source that had gone through a large number of 

13 
 half lives, so that he believed the activity 

14 
 could be much lower than 0.25 curies when he 

15 
 was using it. And then point two says the 

16 
 iridium source was only used to radiograph 

17 
 items in a separate small building, whose 

18 
 number he could not recall. He indicated that 

19 
 the area was not roped off for these 

20 exposures. 

21 
 Then on the copy I have 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 draft, which was sent to me by Mr. Dutko, who66


2 
 obtained it directly from this gentleman, the 

3 
 part of 1.1, which says, "Mr. Wheeler stated 

4 
 that the iridium-192 source," the iridium-192 

5 
 is crossed out, and there is 0.25, and there 

6 
 are five letters that look to me like they are 

7 
 C-U-B-U-L, but they could be C-O-B-O-L, Cobol 

8 
 60. And that zero is also a U. So, maybe 

9 
 some have that deleted. 

10 
 So, when I saw that, I said, "Well, 

11 
 this was an early draft, and the point is that 

12 
 in the final versions that emerged of this 

13 
 interview, that iridium-192 paragraph was 

14 completely gone, eliminated. It disappeared. 

15 
 So, my thought was, "Well, maybe" -

16 
 - which I don't have the response that Mr. --

17 
 why don't we call him Mr. W? So, Terry Dutko 

18 
 called Mr. W back, and said, "Do you remember 

19 
 if you crossed off the iridium-192? Did you 

20 
 mean to do that and to substitute 0.25 cobalt21 60?" 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 67 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

And Mr. Wheeler said no. He didn't 

do that, and he didn't intend to do that. So, 

I don't know what to say about -- further 

about Mr. W, except that Dr. Ziemer talked to 

him, and I assume that Paul must've heard 

iridium-192, and must've written it down in 

his draft report. I don't believe that can be 

a typo of cobalt-60. 

The second thing is about one of 

the supervisors who is deceased. And since 

deceased people are not covered by the Privacy 

Act of 1974, I'm talking about ‘ identifying 

information redacted’, ‘ identifying 

information redacted’. 

I sent you all an email that Mr. 

Burgess sent to John Ramspott in 2006, and in 

that email, Mr. Burgess -- this was before all 

this controversy about whether there was an 

iridium-192 source or not. But Jim confirmed 

that there was in fact a GSI 192 iridium 

source, and you all have that material. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Now, I don't know why that wasn't68


2 
 brought up by Dr. Anigstein. I don't know 

3 
 whether, to be honest with you, the Work Group 

4 
 shares things with SC&A, but obviously they 

5 
 should be doing that all along. They should 

6 
 be doing that all along. 

7 
 The third thing is there is another 

8 
 gentleman who is alive, and has been 

9 
 interviewed, and Dr. Anigstein -- I'll call 

10 
 him Mr. P. Mr. P was the radiographer who was 

11 
 at GSI in 1956, confirmed that the small 

12 
 building used for radiography in Building 6 

13 was there when he came. 

14 
 That gentleman confirmed that there 

15 
 was a GSI iridium-192 source on several 

16 
 occasions. So, not only is there the 2008 

17 
 affidavit signed by five radiographers, but 

18 
 some of those same gentlemen had before and 

19 
 after that 2008 affidavit had indicated 

20 
 independently that there was an iridium-192 

21 source. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 So, I want to say this morning that69


2 
 I do not believe that it -- the iridium-192 

3 
 source should've been written off. I don't 

4 
 believe the evidence against it being there is 

5 
 persuasive. I think that NIOSH should have 

6 
 calculated a bounding dose for it, and they've 

7 
 not done so. 

8 
 So, that brings me to the final 

9 
 point that I want to make. And to me, this is 

10 
 huge and overriding. We've brought it up 

11 
 before. We've talked about it, and I just 

12 
 heard another great example of it this 

13 morning. 

14 
 Dr. Ziemer has said over and over 

15 
 that SC&A is not supposed to be doing NIOSH's 

16 
 work. And we're going to hear two examples 

17 
 today of places where, as far as I'm 

18 
 concerned, SC&A clearly was doing NIOSH's 

19 work. 

20 
 It is NIOSH's job, NIOSH's job, to 

21 
 investigate the portable sources at GSI. 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 is NIOSH's job to calculate a bounding dose.70


2 
 And here, what we have heard, in my opinion, 

3 
 it is also NIOSH's job to interview people. 

4 
 I can attest to you that during 

5 
 these interviews, the three that I heard, Mr. 

6 
 Allen asked one question that I'm aware of. 

7 
 Just one, and the rest of the interview was 

8 
 conducted by Dr. Anigstein. 

9 
 But in what you heard this morning 

10 
 about the modeling for the radium sources, you 

11 
 didn't hear anything from NIOSH. And when 

12 
 NIOSH was given a chance to respond or make 

13 
 comments, there weren't any. But what you did 

14 
 hear was that -- that SC&A, on its own, 

15 
 undertook an independent study to create a 

16 bounding dose for radium-226 at GSI. 

17 
 I don't even think -- I hope we 

18 
 don't take up their valuable time even trying 

19 
 to address this today. I just think it's an 

20 
 egregious error. If this were trial, I'd make 

21 
 a motion to strike that entire testimony from 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

the record. And I don't think it is valid. I71
 

think that we need a model or a bounding dose 

calculated by NIOSH using NIOSH methods, and 

done by NIOSH personnel. 

So, I guess that's the way I feel 

about it. And I'm going to end it at that 

point. But just to say that I think again 

there are so many distortions, omissions, and 

well, I would say analyses in the SC&A review 

that I strongly disagree with, and I've 

registered my disagreement. 

I got it on October the 31st. I 

couldn't possibly respond to that fully in one 

day. And so, I'm not even going to -- that's 

the extent that I'm going to even try. 

So, I do hope you'll listen to the 

gentleman on the phone. He can say what he 

wants to say, but I just think this is a 

serious misrepresentation of all the facts 

that we have given about the portable 

radiography sources at GSI not mentioned today 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 of the 250 kVp machines, for which a dose was72


2 
 not calculated. 

3 
 That is inexcusable in my opinion. 

4 
 OCAS IG-003 mandates that all sources must be 

5 
 considered, and that a dose has to be 

6 
 calculated. And then after you calculated the 

7 
 dose, then you can talk about other doses 

8 
 being bounding. But you have to do that work 

9 
 first, and it hasn't been done for the kVp 

10 
 sources, and it hasn't been done for the 

11 
 iridium-192 source, and it hasn't been done 

12 for the cobalt-60 source. 

13 
 So, I consider this is all 

14 
 unfinished NIOSH business, and I just hope and 

15 
 feel strongly that this should be considered 

16 
 by the Work Group. With that I'll end. I do 

17 
 have a couple of comments to make about the 

18 
 report by Greg Macievic, but I'll save that 

19 for that time. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks, Dan. I 

21 
 do want to respond to the interview with Mr. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 W, and clarify some issues there that you73


2 
 raised. In fact, the initial interview on my 

3 
 part was based on an assumption that there was 

4 
 a cobalt and iridium source. 

5 
 In December of 2009, we weren't 

6 
 actually trying to determine that issue, and I 

7 
 called Mr. W, based on my assumption that 

8 
 there were both sources present. What we were 

9 
 trying to determine was the practice of roping 

10 
 off areas at 1.5 times the limit distance, and 

11 whether he could confirm that practice. 

12 
 And so, there were two sections to 

13 
 the report, which I established with him, 

14 
 based on my assumption that they were both a 

15 
 cobalt and an iridium source. And we talked 

16 
 about the cobalt, and you saw those. And then 

17 
 we talked about iridium at my suggestion, and 

18 got his information. 

19 
 Then I sent him a form, with that 

20 
 report, which you obviously saw the original 

21 
 draft, and asked him to agree that that report 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 74 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

was correct. That included the iridium. 

Shortly after that, I got an urgent 

email from -- I'm looking at the email here. 

I can -- I think I can say it because -- hang 

on. Well, it's a person that's on the phone 

right now. But anyway, the email said -- and 

this was shortly after the draft was issued. 

"‘ identifying information 

redacted’ called me and asked that you call 

him on the phone. He has computer problems. 

So, he would like to talk to you on the 

phone." And he gave me the first -- Mr. W's 

phone number again, and I called him, and he 

said to me on the phone that I was incorrect; 

that what you said was an iridium source was 

not. 

What I, Ziemer, had said was an 

iridium source. He said it was not. It was 

a small cobalt source, and that I would have 

to change the report before he would agree 

that it was 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
 

 

 

 

 75 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

I changed the report, and if you 

compare the new one with the old one, you'll 

see that they are exactly the same, except 

that the word cobalt-60 replaces the word 

iridium. And then I -- and I have before me, 

and I sent him the revised copy, and I have it 

before me and am looking at it, the signed 

copy by Mr. W, dated February 24th. It says 

that the second revised report summarizes the 

information that he provided. 

So, all I can tell you -- and I did 

not -- I did not initiate that change. It was 

initiated by Mr. W at his request, and then I 

sent him the revised report, and he agreed 

that that was the correct one. 

I know that he had interactions 

with people there in between, and I said, 

"Well, they must've told him" -- I assume that 

someone had said, "You're mistaken." I don't 

know what occurred at his end. I'm just 

telling you that I'm reporting exactly what 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 was saying. 76
 

2 
 As far as the big source is 

3 
 concerned, at that point the issue was not 

4 
 when that source was in use. Mr. W's work 

5 
 time, I believe, went on into the '70s, and 

6 
 certainly the big source was there at that 

7 
 time. We were not trying to establish dates 

8 
 on those sources at that time, but rather 

9 
 practice of roping them off. 

10 
 So, that's the source. I did not 

11 
 remove iridium at my own volition. It was 

12 
 removed at the request of the individual. So, 

13 
 I just wanted to set the record straight on 

14 
 that, Dan, in case there's some implication 

15 
 that I was somehow trying to remove iridium 

16 
 from the scene. That wasn't even the issue 

17 
 with this at that time. 

18 
 We weren't -- I think all of us at 

19 
 that time, because we hadn't looked at the 

20 
 licenses or anything at that point, trying to 

21 
 establish radiological practices for 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 sources. 77
 

2 
 I think Dr. McKeel, you said one of 

3 
 the individuals there also had a statement 

4 
 they wanted to make? 

5 
 MR. DELL: Yes, I did. My name is 

6 
 Leroy Dell. I was employed with General Steel 

7 
 from 1956 to 1972, or late '71, and I think 

8 
 the doctors said that I did not do any 

9 
 radiographer work. Yes, I did. With the 

10 
 betatron, I did quite a bit. With the 

11 
 radiation, I did a -- I mean a minimum amount, 

12 but did help set up a lot of shots. 

13 
 The first shot I set up, helped set 

14 
 up, was about 40 feet from the main runway of 

15 
 the foundry in the number 6 building, right in 

16 
 the corner. And when we set the shot up, it 

17 
 was with a fishing pole, or we called it the 

18 
 fishing pole. It was a pole about eight feet 

19 
 long, and you reach over. You uncap the 

20 
 radiation, and it was like a plumb-bob. You 

21 
 took a hook on the end of the pole, picked 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 up, and set it in what looked like a little78


2 
 shot glass wherever you would -- had 

3 
 positioned it to shoot the casting, to X-ray 

4 
 the casting. 

5 
 We got it set up, and after we got 

6 
 it set up, we started to leave, and we didn't 

7 
 -- we did rope the area off one-and-a-half 

8 
 times what we were supposed to. But the 

9 
 minute we started off, some guy raised the 

10 tape and started walking through. 

11 
 I went to the laboratory. The 

12 
 regular radiographer went back to the betatron 

13 
 to take some film and get some more film. This 

14 
 was done -- I don't care what anyone says. It 

15 
 was done daily. If the man had a shot set --

16 
 now, most shots with the cobalt-60 were short 

17 
 shots. 

18 So, it -- it didn't -- I mean you 

19 
 had time to get to the laboratory and back, 

20 
 and the shot would be ready, or you'd have 

21 
 time to run over and get a sandwich, and come 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 back. And now that -- that was done very79
 

2 
 often. 

3 
 And as far as the shiny, pretty 

4 
 little cases for the cobalt-60, it wasn't 

5 
 there when I was. I didn't see it. What I 

6 
 saw was a big ball of steel between two 

7 
 wheels. And they had -- I used two of them. 

8 
 One was with the plumb-bob. The other was you 

9 
 cranked it out. 

10 
 Now, that was the two sources of 

11 
 cobalt I used, unless the one with the plumb12 
 bob could've been anything. I don't know what 

13 
 it was. And then I did use the betatron quite 

14 
 a bit. I had the betatron turned on when I 

15 
 was inside the betatron, inside the casting, 

16 by one of the men. 

17 
 I got out of the betatron, turned 

18 
 the safety key off, and went around. The man 

19 
 kept trying to turn the machine on, and right 

20 
 in front of him on the -- on the board, the 

21 
 control board, it showed that the key 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 outside was turned off. So, I say that struck80
 

2 
 me right then. These guys are very, very, 

3 
 very poorly trained. 

4 
 And I told John Ramspott. I said, 

5 
 I don't see anything that General Steel did 

6 
 wrong until I started thinking. Sure, they 

7 
 did everything wrong as far as training, and 

8 
 then when the one -- one man started signing 

9 
 your name to film and sending them out, and 

10 
 you were responsible, that's when I decided to 

11 quit. 

12 
 But that radiation, don't let 

13 
 anyone -- cobalt was used. Wherever they 

14 
 needed the cobalt, they would move it. If you 

15 
 look at the cameras, you'll get the right, 

16 
 true camera. One of them looked a little bit 

17 
 like it, but it would have a hook. Not a 

18 
 hook, a ring, like on top, and all they'd do 

19 
 is take a little chain, and hook there, and 

20 
 move it down the foundry or wherever they 

21 wanted 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 So, that radiation was used81
 

2 
 wherever they pleased. My main thing was 

3 
 very, very poor training. And then when they 

4 
 started signing name to film, that's when I 

5 
 decided, hey, I didn't want no part of General 

6 
 Steel. 

7 
 They'd tell me to sign the film 

8 
 off. It would be bad, and I wouldn't do it, 

9 
 and it would be a high pressure testing, which 

10 
 I would -- no doubt in my mind there's some in 

11 
 the submarines now with flaws in them, and 

12 
 there's some in high pressure generators, and 

13 
 big dams that there's flaws in. Because he 

14 
 would say, "Sign. Oh, that's not that bad." 

15 
 Well, he didn't have a license. He 

16 
 didn't know. I have a license. But he'd say, 

17 
 "That's not that bad." He wanted to send it 

18 
 on out, the casting on out, with as little of 

19 work on it as possible. 

20 
 Well, sure. I did too, but I 

21 
 wanted it to be right. And when it went out, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 82 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

if it had my name on it, I wanted it to be 

right, or I wouldn't sign it. But he would 

sign it anyway. He'd sign mine or ‘ 

identifying information redacted’ name to it. 

So, that was the point. And then 

on top of -- I went up into the top of the 

betatron one time with the man -- the betatron 

went down, so the man goes up in the top of 

the betatron there, and there's all kinds of 

big, electrical transformers and everything 

else. 

And he takes a chain and a pole 

with the chain on the end of it, and grounds 

everything out. But you had to wait about 30 

minutes before you went up. But he did that, 

and there wasn't supposed to be anyone up 

there in no way form or fashion. But I went 

up there. 

So, they were very, very lack and 

slack in safety. And if you -- if you'd say 

anything, you know, you were just a jerk. 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 I did the next best thing. I quit, and went83
 

2 
 to work somewhere else. And that's about all 

3 
 I have to say unless someone wanted to ask a 

4 
 question. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, 

6 
 Mr. Dell. We appreciate that input. We're 

7 
 going to take a 15-minute break at this point, 

8 
 a comfort break. 

9 
 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer? 

10 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, who is this? 

11 MR. DUTKO: John Dutko. 

12 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John Dutko. We 

13 
 need that for the court reporter here. Thank 

14 you, John. 

15 
 MR. DUTKO: I don't understand at 

16 
 all why there's a complete utter blatant 

17 
 disregard for our testimony. We have given 

18 
 mounds of testimony. It seemed like our 

19 
 testimony is cherry-picked at best. I don't 

20 
 understand why. It seems like at best you try 

21 to circumvent -- and I don't 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 But I do know this. It is not84
 

2 
 appreciated by the men who have gone out of 

3 
 their way to reconstruct this. Thank you. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

5 
 MR. DELL: One more statement, 

6 
 please. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

8 
 MR. DELL: I'm not asking for 

9 
 anything at all. John Ramspott just happened 

10 
 to call me, and said he had heard I work 

11 
 there. I don't want anything. I'm not asking 

12 anything. I don't have any axe to grind. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you 

14 very much. We're going to take our break. 

15 MR. DELL: All right. 

16 
 MR. KATZ: Wait one moment. Go 

17 
 ahead --

18 MR. LUBER: This is George Luber. 

19 Can I make a statement? 

20 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, George. 

21 
 We're getting ready to take a break, but if 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 you make it brief, we'll let you do it now.85


2 
 Otherwise, you'll have to come after the 

3 
 break. 

4 
 MR. LUBER: Okay. In my opinion 

5 
 strictly, I think some people are a bunch of 

6 
 ‘redacted profanity’. End of my statement. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, 

8 
 that statement is not very helpful, but it is 

9 
 in the record. We're going to take our break 

10 at this point. 

11 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer? 

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

13 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott. I'd 

14 like to speak when you return. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Thank you, 

16 John. 

17 MR. RAMSPOTT: Thank you. 

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I would just like 

20 
 to --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We got to stop 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 it's going to go on. 86
 

2 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

3 
 matter went off the record at 10:37 a.m., and 

4 
 resumed at 10:51 a.m.) 

5 
 MR. KATZ: Okay, this is the 

6 
 Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, 

7 
 TBD-6000 Work Group, we're back online. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, John 

9 
 Ramspott, are you ready to make a statement? 

10 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, sir. I am. 

11 
 It's John Ramspott, and I certainly appreciate 

12 
 the opportunity, having listened this morning 

13 
 to Dr. Anigstein's report, and guidelines that 

14 
 it be the early years. I'm going to direct 

15 some issues that way. 

16 
 I think we're looking at, maybe, 

17 
 you said '63 and earlier to '53. So, I'd 

18 
 first like to thank Mr. Dell for his time, and 

19 
 I'd like to make sure, so everybody is clear, 

20 Mr. Dell was the isotope supervisor at GSI. 

21 
 Mr. Dell, that's why he did not 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 a massive amount of radiography, because he87


2 
 was supervising all the other radiographers. 

3 
 Mr. E, who was referenced as an employee from 

4 
 '53, and some time off for the military, and 

5 
 then going into '56, actually reported to Mr. 

6 
 Dell. 

7 
 So, Mr. Dell has, I think, the 

8 
 clearest vision of what went on at GSI. We 

9 
 recently made contact with him. He stated 

10 
 very well. There was no priming, no trying to 

11 get him to say it was inaccurate. 

12 
 He just said it the way it was. 

13 
 There are things that -- I mean it has to be 

14 
 on the record. You heard what he said. The 

15 
 cobalt, radium, that was used in the plant, 

16 
 and his quote, "Daily." People need to 

17 
 understand that. That matches up with what 

18 all the other workers said as well. 

19 
 I want to address Bob's report with 

20 
 that a little bit, because blue moon, once in 

21 
 a blue moon, once in a while, what -- well, 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 when that's coming from people who are part-88


2 
 time radiographers, it may seem like once in a 

3 
 while, once in a blue moon. But coming from 

4 
 the supervisor, he knew better. He is the one 

5 
 that actually made it happen. 

6 
 Now, I want to address your 

7 
 attention. It appears there are a lot of 

8 
 reports being generated by everyone, SC&A. The 

9 
 Board I hope is reviewing the FOIA information 

10 
 to Dr. Dan McKeel. One year ago discovered, 

11 
 with the help of a FOIA individual, and as a 

12 
 result, all these things that we're looking at 

13 right now a year ago did not exist. 

14 
 One individual found that 

15 
 information. One individual was not lazy. One 

16 
 individual did better homework. I'm sorry. 

17 
 That's how it works. Dr. McKeel got the 

18 information. 

19 
 Now, a year ago everybody said, and 

20 
 Appendix BB will prove this, there's no 

21 
 mention of cobalt. There's no mention 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 iridium. There's no mention of radium. A89
 

2 
 year ago, none of it existed. So, for anybody 

3 
 to be aloof and say, "Well, an 80 curie source 

4 
 couldn't exist at GSI or iridium couldn't," 

5 
 they have to be blind. Look what we found as 

6 
 a result of someone doing a lot of homework. 

7 
 Now, there's no nice way of saying 

8 
 it. Someone is calling all these workers 

9 
 liars, or delusional. They sure didn't roll 

10 
 around 750-pound pigs with cobalt sources in 

11 it and not know what they were moving. 

12 
 Now, I'm going to address the FOIA 

13 
 again, because everybody seems to be hanging 

14 
 their hat on that FOIA. That FOIA is an 

15 
 organized -- in my opinion. I'm going to let 

16 
 you -- you have to decide this. That FOIA is 

17 
 a collection of information that GSI wanted 

18 
 the AEC to believe. That FOIA, if you look at 

19 
 it, Section 8, 9, 10, it says, "Those sources 

20 
 will be used exclusively in that small 

21 radiation block building." Exclusively. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Here we got people telling us90
 

2 
 they're used throughout the plant. This is a 

3 
 collection of lies. You can't just -- you 

4 
 turn that into the AEC. Well, AEC didn't come 

5 
 back for a reinspection apparently. They 

6 
 said, "There was no need for an inspection," I 

7 
 think is what I saw in there. 

8 
 It's like getting audited by the 

9 
 IRS. Hey, they're going to see -- they're 

10 
 going to want to see your paperwork. They're 

11 
 going to want to see your books. I'm sorry. 

12 Someone did a sloppy job. 

13 
 Now, I'm also kind of concerned 

14 
 with the FOIA -- you mentioned Dr. Konneker. 

15 
 Dr. Konneker is being looked at as the guru, 

16 
 the safety expert. He's a wonderful guy. 

17 
 We've tracked him and know exactly what he 

18 
 does in St. Louis. He's a benevolent 

19 
 individual. He's probably one of the best 

20 physicists around in his time. 

21 
 But you know what? He never walked 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 in GSI's door until December of '62. We're91


2 
 talking about all of the time before that, 

3 
 guys. We're talking about the early years. 

4 
 Konneker wasn't there. Any letter or promise 

5 
 of what he's going to do, what's going to 

6 
 happen, that's at the tail end of GSI killing 

7 
 all these guys. That's over with. We're a 

8 
 little late. 

9 
 We kind of missed the boat. As I 

10 
 mentioned Dr. Konneker, the guy you just heard 

11 
 on the phone, Mr. Leroy Dell, is the only 

12 
 person that took his test and passed. All his 

13 management flunked. 

14 
 He passed the test. Now, that kind 

15 
 of tells you who Mr. Leroy Dell is. He should 

16 
 be your expert. Not some other people who 

17 
 were part time. Now, there's a whole --

18 
 there's one big thing in the FOIA that I can't 

19 
 even believe was overlooked, not even 

20 
 mentioned. 

21 Take a look at the section --

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 again, I think it is Section 8. Maybe 9.92
 

2 
 Nobody mentioned it. It's about GSI's non3 
 compliance. The AEC slapped them on the 

4 
 wrist, scolded them. "Sorry, guys. You are 

5 
 non-compliant." And this was issues like leak 

6 
 testing, which Paul, you raised the question 

7 
 in one of the meetings. 

8 
 I didn't even know what it was, so 

9 
 I looked it up, and now when it -- it's one of 

10 
 the big problems in GSI. In 1962, they did 

11 
 not do leak tests. You'll see from the 

12 
 report, there's about four items they didn't 

13 do. 

14 
 They didn't do surveys of places 

15 
 they used the sources. I know they didn't 

16 
 because they were using it out in the plant. 

17 
 They did the first survey of that little block 

18 
 building in '62, folks. Not -- you know, not 

19 
 in '53 when all this started over at GSI. But 

20 
 we're a little -- we're a little late. 

21 
 Now, I hope you -- like Dan McKeel 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 said, if this were a trial, throw all that93


2 
 FOIA information, that fabrication and safety, 

3 
 safety, safety extensive training. That's not 

4 
 science. That's like science fiction. They 

5 
 wrote a book of what they thought they ought 

6 
 to do, what they wanted to do. 

7 
 I don't have a radiographer that I 

8 
 know, with the exception of Mr. Dell, that 

9 
 went to a good scheduled training class. None. 

10 
 Feel free to ask him. But those are some 

11 thoughts. 

12 
 You know, the surveys they talked 

13 
 about bring up a little point everybody seems 

14 
 to miss. How do you do an extensive survey on 

15 
 how safe a radiation non-destructive testing 

16 area is that's in the middle of a plant? 

17 
 Well, they did that survey. I 

18 
 don't care if they're three feet, four feet. 

19 
 No one did a survey. There's no mention in 

20 
 any of that FOIA. They didn't do any 

21 
 radiation survey in the betatrons where 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 said they were eventually going to use the94


2 
 sources occasionally. Occasionally. 

3 
 Their quote is exclusively. They 

4 
 used those sources everywhere, and their 

5 
 safety was terrible. There's no ifs ands or 

6 
 buts about it. If you can't see that -- you 

7 
 know, everybody brings up, OCAS IG-003. 

8 
 I'm going to bring it up for the 

9 
 last time in my closing. "All radiation must 

10 
 be used in dose reconstruction." Now, I've 

11 
 used the term, it's a law. Maybe it is not a 

12 
 law technically. I don't know. But if it's a 

13 
 guideline that everybody is supposed to use, 

14 
 and you don't take all this into 

15 
 consideration, then I think you're violating 

16 that guideline. 

17 
 So, hopefully that'll be talked 

18 
 about a little bit more. Thank you, 

19 appreciate your time. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you, 

21 
 John. Let's move onto -- well, let me see. 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 think Bob, you had something you wanted to95


2 
 add. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, regarding 

5 
 the discussion this morning. Just before the 

6 
 break, you wanted to --

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: There was just 

8 
 comments that -- I assume Dr. McKeel is on the 

9 
 line. 

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: As far as the 

12 
 interview with -- this is quoting Dr. -- NCC, 

13 
 Nuclear Consultant Corporation, the -- by the 

14 
 time we got the information that he might be 

15 
 available, it was extremely difficult to track 

16 
 him down. And with no answer on his 

17 
 telephone, there was one telephone that was 

18 
 listed on the internet directory pages, I 

19 
 finally ended up sending a letter to him by --

20 
 actually, I sent a letter to him by good old21 
 fashioned US Mail, because I had an address 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 for him, and then I made contact with Sheldon96


2 
 Art Gallery, Sheldon Art Center, because he 

3 
 had endowed one of their galleries. 

4 
 So, I spoke to the director there, 

5 
 and he offered -- he agreed to -- actually, 

6 
 first I contacted the St. Louis -- was it 

7 
 Washington University in St. Louis, because he 

8 
 was -- again, he had been a former trustee, 

9 
 and asked them if they could convey some 

10 information to him. They refused. 

11 
 The Sheldon Art Gallery did finally 

12 
 -- or Center did agree to send him 

13 
 information, and I was able to finally get 

14 
 through and talk to some young lady that 

15 
 worked and answered his phone. And she said 

16 she got the email from Sheldon Art Gallery. 

17 
 She put it in front of him, and 

18 
 suggested -- she gave me the private number, 

19 
 which is actually the similar one that Dr. 

20 
 McKeel furnished from several years earlier, 

21 and suggested that I call the next morning. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 I was under a deadline to get the97


2 
 report out. The meeting was approaching. It 

3 
 takes a little time for me to edit and 

4 
 formulate and format my reports. So, I can't 

5 
 be putting information in at the last moment. 

6 
 It doesn't make any sense. 

7 
 So, it was agreed, and I had 

8 
 checked with Dr. Ziemer and Ted Katz, that 

9 
 maybe I should just call him first and find 

10 
 out if he has any information to offer before 

11 
 we go through elaborate scheduling, and Dr. 

12 
 McKeel said he wanted many days notice before 

13 a group participates in a phone call. 

14 
 So, I was going to make an 

15 
 exploratory phone call and if it was anything 

16 
 really valuable, like look if there was really 

17 
 some information there, then we might schedule 

18 a conference call. 

19 
 And as I reported to Dr. Ziemer, 

20 
 Paul, and Ted Katz, we all agreed there really 

21 
 was minimal information. I'm not sure that 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 had ill health or simply just a very faint98


2 
 voice. And basically, he kept saying, "I'm 

3 
 sorry. I'm sorry I couldn't help you more. I 

4 
 really don't have any information." 

5 
 And the information that I did get 

6 
 is in the appendix through the report, which 

7 
 everybody saw. The name is -- his name is 

8 
 deleted, but the affiliation is there. So, 

9 
 it's obvious who I spoke with. So, I don't 

10 
 think it was in any way a violation of the 

11 agreement. 

12 
 Then the business about the sources 

13 
 being somewhat different, I'm sure there were 

14 
 different manufacturers. I'm sure that if you 

15 
 looked at both the 80 curie source housing and 

16 
 the -- made by Radionics and the Budd company 

17 
 sources, I'm sure there might've been some 

18 difference in design. 

19 
 However, my point was that someone 

20 
 having seen only one source, and had left the 

21 
 employment of GSI before the other source 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
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 officially procured, may very well have99
 

2 
 thought it was a large source. But it was a 

3 
 large housing, so why put a small source in a 

4 
 large housing? 

5 
 Well, for whatever reason, they 

6 
 did. And furthermore, with all due respect to 

7 
 John Ramspott, who was just on the phone, he 

8 
 did not send me or offer to send me -- no one 

9 
 offered to share the picture of the Budd 

10 radiography source. 

11 
 The gentleman I interviewed simply 

12 
 said, "Are you by any chance in contact with 

13 
 John Ramspott?" I said, "Yes, I am." "Well, 

14 
 tell him I have information for him." He 

15 
 didn't say, "I have information for you." If 

16 
 he had wished to send it to me, he did not 

17 
 have a computer or email, but he certainly 

18 
 could have -- I certainly would've made an 

19 
 arrangement with him, as I did with John, to -

20 
 - he can use our FedEx account, so there's no 

21 
 cost with him, and send me the information. 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 could copy it, and send it back to him. 100
 

2 
 No one ever offered to share that 

3 
 with me. I did not want to aggressively push 

4 
 it at that point. Again, it was getting very 

5 
 late, and I had to finish my report. It was 

6 
 late. It was late as it was. 

7 
 So, in terms of the comment about 

8 
 the recently deceased radiography supervisor 

9 
 who said -- yes, I saw the email. The email 

10 
 simply said iridium-192 was used for 

11 
 radiography. That is true. It was used by 

12 St. Louis Testing. 

13 
 The same gentleman, a year later, 

14 
 was present at the meeting where -- which John 

15 
 Ramspott arranged, and I specifically asked 

16 
 him, because I looked at the transcript, and 

17 
 the transcript is on the web, even though it's 

18 
 redacted. You sort of have to guess who was 

19 speaking. 

20 
 I specifically said, "Was there an 

21 
 iridium-192 source?" And he said, "GSI did 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 not own one. It belonged to St. Louis 101
 

2 
 Testing." So, this is the same one who had 

3 
 said, and correctly, iridium-192 was used but 

4 
 not by -- but not by GSI. 

5 
 And then finally, Dr. McKeel 

6 
 brought up the -- why today we did not mention 

7 
 the 250 kVp X-ray source. The purpose of my 

8 
 report was to say new information or new 

9 
 interpretation of information that had 

10 previously been talked about. 

11 
 The X-ray machine was discussed at 

12 
 the last meeting. There was no need, and we -

13 
 - NIOSH discussed it. SC&A responded to some 

14 
 of their discussions. We basically agreed 

15 
 with their assessment. We had some technical 

16 
 comments about it, but basically agreed with 

17 
 their assessment, and didn't need to bring it 

18 up again. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the X-ray 

20 
 sources were used in the later period anyway. 

21 So, '64 on is when we 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think so, yes.102
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That was actually 

3 
 during the AEC era. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think you're 

5 
 right. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It was. Okay, 

7 
 thank you. 

8 
 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John Mauro? 

10 
 DR. MAURO: Before you move on, can 

11 I just make a couple of observations? 

12 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You certainly 

13 can. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: Paul? 

15 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead, 

16 John. 

17 
 DR. MAURO: Thank you. In 

18 
 listening to everything here, I'd like to just 

19 
 make an observation I think is important in 

20 
 keeping with the idea that we're trying to 

21 zero on what are the important SEC issues. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 And I think a lot of factual 103
 

2 
 information that we discussed might be in some 

3 
 degree dispute, and some of that factual 

4 
 information is critical to the SEC, and some 

5 
 of it is marginal. 

6 
 I'd like to point out that whether 

7 
 the cobalt-60 source was there in '64 or '68 

8 
 is marginal. The real issue was there was 

9 
 beginning in '62 or '63, when there was 

10 
 clearly some degree of control, and there was 

11 
 a health physics program, and there was 

12 badging. 

13 
 So, that date, that dispute, seems 

14 
 to be a marginal issue. Iridium-192, whether 

15 
 it was owned by the St. Louis Testing or 

16 
 perhaps by GSI, again in the earlier years, it 

17 becomes a marginal issue. 

18 
 The issue that is central has to do 

19 
 with the degree to which there was access 

20 
 controls, and movement of material to other 

21 
 locations, where there may have been 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 breakdown in access controls during the use of 104


2 
 these smaller sources. 

3 
 What I heard, what I heard, is that 

4 
 during one interview, there was a considerable 

5 
 amount of control in the early years, through 

6 
 1962, as indicated by Bob's report. But I 

7 
 also heard Mr. Dell on the line, indicating 

8 
 that there -- I did not hear him say that the 

9 
 sources were used all over the plant. I did 

10 
 hear him say they were used in building 6, and 

11 
 quite frankly, I'd like to hear him say 

12 
 whether he felt these sources were in fact 

13 moved all over the plant. 

14 MR. DELL: I can tell you. 

15 DR. MAURO: Please. 

16 
 MR. DELL: It was moved all over 

17 
 the plant from the betatron to 6 building. Any 

18 
 building they wanted to use it in, if they had 

19 
 a casting and didn't want to move the casting 

20 
 or -- we would take the camera, hook it on the 

21 
 crane, move it down to wherever, down 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 foundry or wherever it was -- building it was 105


2 
 in and set it down. That crane would pick it 

3 
 up and take it in all over the plant. 

4 
 DR. MAURO: And I have one more 

5 
 brief question. When they did move it at 

6 
 these locations, I wasn't quite clear as to 

7 
 these are generally relatively short shots. 

8 
 Did you observe -- I guess starting in 1955, I 

9 
 believe that's when you said you had -- or 

10 '57. I'm not sure of the date. 

11 
 MR. DELL: I started in the last of 

12 '55 and stayed until the first of '72. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: Okay. During that time 

14 
 period, when they were moved or when they were 

15 
 in building 6, either way, did I hear you say 

16 
 that there were barriers put up, but -- and 

17 
 that -- but there was not a degree of control 

18 
 over those barriers? That you expected -- in 

19 
 other words, I'd like to hear a little more. 

20 
 Your sense was that -- that they were -- there 

21 
 was not people patrolling those barriers 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 during the time when the shots were being 106


2 
 taken? Or was it generally that the shots 

3 
 were short, and that the barriers were in fact 

4 
 in place and controlled? 

5 
 MR. DELL: The barriers were 

6 
 supposed to be, and every time I've seen it, 

7 
 the barriers were put up. If men wanted to 

8 
 walk through there, I'd say barriers. All it 

9 
 was was a tape, like the police tape, around, 

10 
 that said, "Radiation area." They were put up, 

11 
 and they were put up 50 percent further than 

12 they had to be put up. 

13 
 If anyone wanted to walk through, 

14 
 and walk within two inches of the casting, 

15 
 they would just lift the tape, walk through 

16 
 and walk right on, rather than to walk around 

17 
 it. And -- and they wouldn't do it if the 

18 
 operator was there, but like I said, the 

19 
 operator may be in the little brick building. 

20 
 After he set the shop up, he may go sit in the 

21 
 little concrete block building, or he may go 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 to the betatron, or he may go get a sandwich 107


2 
 at the lunchroom or something. 

3 
 It was not -- I tell you, they were 

4 
 very lack in safety. Very, very lax in 

5 
 safety. 

6 
 DR. MAURO: Thank you, Mr. Dell. I 

7 
 appreciate your helping me out with this. 

8 
 MR. NETON: Mr. Dell, this is Jim 

9 
 Neton. I have one other question. You say 

10 
 that these shots were done all over the plant, 

11 
 but could you estimate what percentage were 

12 
 done in the room, exposure room, versus about 

13 the plant? 

14 
 MR. DELL: No, I cannot because I 

15 
 was not in the plant that much. I was more in 

16 the laboratory in the earlier years. 

17 
 MR. NETON: So, you don't know 

18 
 whether an occasional shot could've happened? 

19 
 I think I hear you say very strongly that they 

20 
 could've occurred anywhere, and we've heard 

21 
 that. But I guess the question in my mind 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 what frequency were they done anywhere? 108
 

2 
 MR. DELL: Well, you know, every 

3 
 time I went in the plant -- I'll put it this 

4 
 way. I don't know what frequency it was, but 

5 
 every time I walked down to give the men a 

6 
 shot to shoot or anything, I'd not seen one 

7 
 out of ten that would be in that block 

8 
 building. They would be on the outside of the 

9 
 block building. 

10 MR. NETON: Okay, thank you. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Was this true of 

12 the radium sources, as well as the cobalt? 

13 
 MR. DELL: Now, you know what? 

14 
 Everyone says radium. I don't know which was 

15 
 radium and which was cobalt. I know that we 

16 
 had a plumb-bob. I even remember when it got 

17 
 stolen. If it would've been policed, it 

18 
 wouldn't have got stolen, but it got stolen. 

19 And we had the cameras. 

20 
 So, I don't know what -- I know 

21 
 that it said -- we called them. They said, 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 "Well, cobalt 60." But the plumb-bob, I don't 109
 

2 
 know what it was. It could've been radium. It 

3 
 could've been cobalt. But I know we did use a 

4 
 plumb-bob, and we did use the camera. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think it 

6 
 is pretty well established that the cobalt 

7 
 source replaced the radium sources in 1962. 

8 
 MR. DELL: Well, radium could've 

9 
 been the one that we used with a fishing pole 

10 then. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think the 

12 
 testimony of the other workers indicates that 

13 that was the case. 

14 
 MR. DELL: Well, if it was, yes, it 

15 was used wherever they wanted to use it. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

17 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer? 

18 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes? 

19 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott, if I 

20 
 may ask -- just clarify a point. I thought if 

21 
 I heard Leroy Dell correctly, he said one out 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 of ten seemed to be in the block building. So, 110


2 
 that means 90 percent were done out in the 

3 
 plant. Is that correct? 

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we heard 

5 
 two things. One was that he -- he wasn't 

6 
 there very much to see, but the ones that we 

7 
 saw were. So, he apparently saw a small 

8 
 fraction of the total, but that fraction was 

9 
 mainly around the plant is what I understood. 

10 MR. DELL: And you're both right. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, okay. And -

12 
 - and on this, someone asked earlier if we're 

13 
 disregarding worker testimony. The fact is we 

14 
 have conflicting testimony on many of these 

15 
 issues depending on who has brought it up. But 

16 okay, Bob, you have a comment? 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, just to Mr. 

18 
 Dell, we may be -- let's see. If you saw --

19 
 if you witnessed radiography going on in the 

20 
 plant, they'd be rather conspicuous because 

21 
 there were signs around the ropes or tapes 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 around, but it would not -- but if the 111
 

2 
 radiography was going in the radiography room, 

3 
 there would be no way of knowing about that 

4 
 unless you actually walked into that room to 

5 
 observe it. 

6 
 So, would you always know that 

7 
 there was radiography going on in that room if 

8 
 you were --

9 
 MR. DELL: If I went down, I would 

10 
 walk in the room. If I went down to talk to a 

11 
 man that was supposed to be doing this, of 

12 course I would walk in the room. 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I see. And the 

14 
 room -- wasn't the room kept locked so 

15 outsiders couldn't walk in? 

16 
 MR. DELL: It would not be locked 

17 
 if the man was there. 

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I see. Okay. 

19 
 MR. DELL: And if it was locked, 

20 
 then I knew he was with the betatron or 

21 somewhere else. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I understand, yes. 112
 

2 
 That makes sense. 

3 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, John 

4 
 Ramspott. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

6 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Just like to remind 

7 
 everybody they had two cobalt sources, and 

8 
 they had two radium sources. So, something 

9 
 could be going on in the block building, and 

10 in the plant simultaneously. 

11 
 MR. DELL: Yes, and it was at 

12 times. 

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, good point. 

14 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: We never discussed 

15 
 this, but I assumed that. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I think that 

17 certainly makes sense. 

18 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I wouldn't think 

19 
 somebody would want to be in with both cobalt 

20 cooking at the same time. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Actually, according 113
 

2 
 to the first radiographer I interviewed this 

3 
 past month, I asked if it was possible, just 

4 
 for my own bounding analysis, to use the two 

5 
 radium sources simultaneously inside a 

6 
 radiography room, and he said, "Sure. You just 

7 
 put some blocks of shielding in between, and 

8 
 you could have two castings. You could be 

9 
 doing two castings simultaneously near each 

10 
 other, just as long as there was shielding so 

11 
 you wouldn't be exposing the film from one 

12 
 casting, from the source that was being used 

13 by the other one." 

14 
 MR. DELL: But that was not a 

15 practice. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But it could be 

17 
 done. 

18 MR. DELL: It was possible to do 

19 
 it, but it was against the rules, and it was 

20 
 not a practice because scatter radiation would 

21 come back in on the other 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure. 114
 

2 
 MR. DELL: You'd have to set it up 

3 
 exactly right. I mean it would have to be 

4 
 perfect. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think that's a 

6 
 good point. 

7 
 MR. DELL: Radiation interfering 

8 
 with the other film. So, it was a no-no. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I think 

10 
 that's a good point because it would mess up -

11 
 - they'd mess each other up with scatter. 

12 
 DR. MCKEEL: I will back up that 

13 statement. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Okay, any 

15 
 further comments on these issues right now? We 

16 
 want to also cover the film badge issue here 

17 
 before lunch. Okay, we have the NIOSH White 

18 
 Paper on Film Badge Response, and I think the 

19 
 author of that paper is also on the phone with 

20 
 us today so that he can answer questions on 

21 
 that if necessary, and we have that -- well, 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 let me ask if there's any other -- Greg, do 115


2 
 you want to make any statements on your paper 

3 
 to start with, then we'll have SC&A give their 

4 
 critique on it. 

5 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Sure, yes. Let me 

6 
 give a basic idea of what I was trying to do 

7 
 with the paper because there seems to be 

8 
 discussion about all the energy ranges, the 

9 
 filters, the graphs and all that. 

10 
 The whole point of what I was 

11 
 trying to show, the question was what happens 

12 
 to a dosimeter that is exposed to high energy 

13 
 photons? I want to preface by saying I worked 

14 
 at Landauer 1979 through 1984, involved with 

15 
 research and quality control on film. TLDs 

16 and track etch type dosimetries. 

17 
 So, I am familiar with Landauer and 

18 
 the types of film. What I was trying to show, 

19 
 and it is basically simple, is this: one, that 

20 
 as the photon energy goes up, film of any type 

21 
 and metal filters of any type, the metal 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 filters will cause an over-response of the 116


2 
 film to high energy photons. 

3 
 And the example, and through my 

4 
 experience, one of the things that was 

5 
 commented on was the Landauer having a plus or 

6 
 minus 20 percent accuracy all the way up to 6 

7 
 MeV. And that is true, but the one thing that 

8 
 has to be mentioned: at Landauer that 6 MeV 

9 
 was nitrogen-16, which produces under a lead 

10 filter an over-response of the film. 

11 
 If you didn't tell Landauer that 

12 
 this was being exposed to nitrogen-16 or a 

13 
 high energy photon, they would not make a 

14 
 correction, and you would get a higher dose on 

15 
 that dosimeter than you would if it was it's 

16 
 full response with respect to cesium or 

17 
 cobalt. In that 0.5 to 1 MeV range, the 

18 
 response is essentially flat. It starts to 

19 
 tail up at about 4 to 5 MeV, and you start to 

20 go up. 

21 
 That was the purpose of the two 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 graphs, and I chose those two graphs to show 117


2 
 that for tungsten, for lead, and the point 

3 
 being any high-z material; if you've got high4 
 z, you've got high energy photons. You're 

5 
 going to get an over-response of the film. 

6 
 It's not going to not respond. It's going to 

7 
 over-respond. 

8 
 And now, you can get into things 

9 
 about, "Well, orientation of the film, the 

10 
 type of dosimetry," which is totally 

11 
 irrelevant to this, if a DuPont dosimeter had 

12 
 metal filters, which they did, it's going to 

13 have an over-response. 

14 
 Now, the question you want to go 

15 
 and say, "Well, how much do you make the 

16 
 correction to that, and all that? But it is 

17 
 not an SEC type issue. It's more of a 

18 
 correctional factor for the dosimetry issue 

19 because the dosimeter does work. 

20 
 I think even Bob Anigstein shows 

21 
 that in doing his Monte Carlo simulation 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 he uses, as a justification, the dosimetry to 118


2 
 say, "See my experiment work." Now, if the 

3 
 dosimeter didn't work, then you wouldn't use 

4 
 that as a justification. 

5 
 The dosimetry does go there. It's 

6 
 not a question of that you don't know the 

7 
 dose. It's that the dose isn't over8 
 responding. And that was basically what I was 

9 
 trying to show. Also, the graphs are from the 

10 
 1960s, and I've tried to get from the books 

11 
 and things that I had in papers that refer 

12 
 back to things that were done in the '60s to 

13 
 film that was used in the '60s, and show that 

14 
 there is an over-response as you get past that 

15 
 1.022 MeV; you will start to see a rise in the 

16 
 curves. 

17 
 And it is there for the lead 

18 
 filters, with Kodak film; it's there with the 

19 
 tungsten. I'm sorry, tantalum filter in that 

20 
 one batch that's there, and that really the 

21 
 point of it. They didn't try to go beyond 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that, but that -- the question was does this 119


2 
 dosimeter respond? 

3 
 Well, it does respond, and it over4 
 responds. It is up now to a dose 

5 
 reconstructor's discussion as to how you 

6 
 address that over-response, but you distinctly 

7 
 have over-response of the film. 

8 
 Let's see. I had one other -- oh, 

9 
 I recently, as of yesterday, so I'm using --

10 
 when I talked about dose over-response, and 

11 
 the question brought up, "Well, are you 

12 talking dose or intensity?" 

13 
 Well, the relative response to the 

14 
 film does increase when you compare it to 

15 
 cesium calibration, or a cobalt calibration 

16 
 doesn't matter. That film rises when you 

17 compare high energies to those energies. 

18 
 I came upon an abstract for a 

19 
 paper, which I think I'll get -- have put out 

20 
 on the internet, the web for you guys to take 

21 
 a look at. But so far, I only have 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 abstract. And here is the abstract, and this 120
 

2 
 is from D.M. Quinn, radiological engineer, 

3 
 Power Authority State of New York, Indian 

4 
 Point Number 3 Nuclear Power Plant, Buchanan, 

5 
 New York. 

6 
 It's a paper from 1980 under 

7 
 discrepancies from film and thermoluminescent 

8 
 dosimetry readings at an operating power 

9 
 reactor, and the abstract says, "The results 

10 
 of exposure measurements using film badges and 

11 
 thermoluminescent dosimetry were compared in 

12 operating nuclear power plants." 

13 
 The film badge over-responded to 

14 
 the high energy nitrogen-16 gamma rays 

15 
 produced under power. All the TLD did not, 

16 
 because TLD is lower-z material. So, it is 

17 not over-responding like the film. 

18 
 And it says, "Discussions of 

19 
 charged particle equilibrium and energy 

20 
 dependence are included. The cause of the 

21 
 over-response was determined to be the excess 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 pair-production electrons created because of 121


2 
 the high atomic number and the lead energy 

3 
 compensating shields surrounding the film and 

4 
 the film itself. Because film has silver, it 

5 
 also over-responds." 

6 
 So, my point was not to say, "I'm 

7 
 talking about just Kodak film, or DuPont film 

8 
 or any of these others." I'm saying if you 

9 
 got a film, you've got high energy photons, 

10 
 and you've got metal filters. You're going to 

11 
 get an over-response. That's basically my 

12 summary. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thanks, 

14 
 Greg. And I just want to actually confirm one 

15 
 piece of information for everyone on those 

16 
 early Landauer badges, they actually have 

17 
 three filters, and I confirmed this with the 

18 
 individual who is your -- on your reference, 

19 
 Greg, it is the third author. You'll 

20 recognize that as your old boss -- Landauer. 

21 
 The three filters in all 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Landauer films in those days -- or badges, 122


2 
 rather, were lead, aluminum and plastic. And 

3 
 then there was an open window for the betas. 

4 
 But so, the lead high-z would actually over5 
 respond I think more than your curve would 

6 
 show, which is for -- was it titanium or? 

7 
 DR. MACIEVIC: Right. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, there was 

9 
 some question, I think, raised as to what the 

10 
 filters were in those Landauer badges. I did 

11 
 ask whether they ever changed it for different 

12 
 users, and the answer was no. It's the same 

13 regardless of the user. 

14 
 And as I said -- as he said, if you 

15 
 -- if it had -- if they didn't tell him they 

16 
 were using high-energy stuff, then they would 

17 
 end up giving them the high reading. Okay, 

18 Bob, you have a comment. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, that makes 

20 
 very good sense because, on the Landauer film 

21 
 badge reports at the time, the separate 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 columns for low, medium and high energy 123
 

2 
 gammas, and that would correspond to using the 

3 
 plastic, the aluminum and the lead filters. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, because 

5 
 they had different densities under each of 

6 
 those, and actually identify and compare 

7 
 those. Now, Bob, do you want to go through 

8 
 your analysis here? 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. Well, first 

10 
 of all, our report was based on a critique of 

11 
 Dr. Macievic's report as such -- the 

12 
 discussion we just heard on the phone actually 

13 
 was very clear. I would say it was more --

14 
 somehow I got more out of it than I did out of 

15 
 reading the original paper, the original 

16 report. 

17 
 But I'll go through -- since 

18 
 obviously I prepared this earlier, I'll just 

19 
 go through my quick -- quickly my independent 

20 
 -- it's more of an independent analysis to --

21 which ended up confirming the conclusions. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 And what we did was we said the 124


2 
 first reaction was -- before we can talk about 

3 
 the film badge response to different energies, 

4 
 the question is what energy were the workers 

5 
 exposed to. They obviously did not stand in 

6 
 front of the betatron beam or they wouldn't --

7 
 they wouldn't be around very much longer. 

8 
 So, we went back to the original 

9 
 MCNP analysis that we did back in -- for the 

10 
 report that was first issued in March 2008, 

11 
 and it was a very easy job in terms of labor 

12 
 because everything was set up; the only thing 

13 
 we hadn't done at the time because we saw it 

14 
 was -- didn't think there was any need for it 

15 
 was do an energy spectrum. We just did the --

16 
 you know, what is the dose, and what is the 

17 exposure rate, and certain revisions. 

18 
 So, now, we just went back and dug 

19 
 up the same pile, and we went and basically 

20 
 changed one line. We changed a few lines in 

21 
 the input file. I think literally one line to 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 produce by energy bin, the exposure rate. 125
 

2 
 Not the photon flux -- we're 

3 
 interested in the photon flux; we're 

4 
 interested in how much of the exposure is due 

5 
 to 10 to 15 keV photons. How much of it is 10 

6 
 to 10.1 keV photons, and so forth. It would 

7 
 take us too long. There were a number of 

8 
 locations in the first one. We would just 

9 
 pick two important ones. Some of the 

10 
 locations that we originally did were fenced 

11 
 off. No one would likely have ever been 

12 there. 

13 
 One was in the control room, where 

14 
 the operators would stay during the shot, and 

15 
 another one was this restroom, which was --

16 
 here it is shown practically line of sight to 

17 
 the betatron in this particular position. This 

18 
 is, by the way, not the customary position for 

19 
 the betatron, but it was one that was used --

20 
 the casting is on the railroad track, and some 

21 
 fraction of the shots were done that way, 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 there was a greater degree of scattered 126
 

2 
 radiation both toward the control room, and 

3 
 towards the outside areas. 

4 
 This is shown now as an empty 

5 
 space. Only recently, looking at the FOIA 

6 
 information, it turns out there was a two-foot 

7 
 wall here. However, based on the original 

8 
 FUSRAP reports, where they went in to clean up 

9 
 back in the -- what was it? In the '80s. They 

10 showed an open door here. 

11 
 So, I don't know, I -- I go by the 

12 
 prior report because that was done by the 

13 
 person doing the radiation survey, very 

14 carefully drawn. 

15 
 Anyway, but we -- but I kept this 

16 
 because this is the extreme. There's no 

17 
 shielding. Here is the number 1. Here is the 

18 
 number 6. And here is the exposure rate in 

19 
 the number 1, the red dots, inside the control 

20 
 room as a function of energy. And see, the 

21 
 energy peaks at about 105-110 keV. Then 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 goes down past 1 MeV. 127
 

2 
 It goes down very low, and here 10 

3 
 MeV and the curve actually goes up to 25, but 

4 
 it's just flat. So, no point taking up space 

5 
 with it. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's because 

7 
 there are virtually no photons of that energy 

8 
 that actually show up in the control room. Is 

9 
 that --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, right. 

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And this I 

13 
 superimposed on the drawing that was -- well, 

14 
 I went back to the original source because I 

15 
 was able to get a better copy, make a better 

16 
 copy of the drawing. But it appears in Dr. 

17 Macievic's report also. 

18 
 Here is a response with the 0.02 

19 
 inch, or the half a millimeter, tantalum 

20 
 filter. And it is right in the sweet zone. 

21 
 It's right in the nice, flat region of 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 film response. It doesn't under-respond. It 128
 

2 
 doesn't over-respond. 

3 
 That seems to have been calibrated 

4 
 in cesium. This is the point -- this would be 

5 
 the cesium energy, and it seems to be pretty 

6 
 close to the 1.0 line. So, by the way, the 

7 
 graph did not show those lines. I 

8 
 superimposed them to make them easier to read. 

9 
 So, apparently it was calibrated 

10 
 against cesium, and it gives a nice response, 

11 
 a slightly lower response here, but not by 

12 
 much. Maybe five percent. So, it looks like 

13 
 the film badge is pretty good for that, for 

14 that spectrum. 

15 
 Now, here's the spectrum within a 

16 
 different form, a cumulative exposure rate in 

17 
 the restroom, the unshielded restroom, which 

18 
 in reality was a little more shielding than we 

19 
 had. And even here is a harder spectrum, but 

20 
 even here, if you look at the 2 MeV, the 

21 
 cumulative is 0.5, meaning 50 percent 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 exposure is due to photons below 2 MeV, and 129


2 
 the other 50 percent is due to exposures 

3 
 above 2 MeV. 

4 
 You want to get up to slightly over 

5 
 9 MeV, and that encompasses 90 percent. So, 

6 
 then it just trails off. You don't -- what 

7 
 happens is a 25 MeV electron gives almost --

8 
 rarely gives off a 25 MeV photon. All the 

9 
 photons are less than 25 MeV. 

10 
 Then finally, I just reproduced the 

11 
 other drawing from Dr. Macievic's paper, which 

12 
 he copied. I don't have the original source 

13 
 from it. And here, it shows this is -- this 

14 
 is one using a filter. It's a combination 

15 
 filter, a total of 1 millimeter, combining tin 

16 
 and lead, and again show a comparable curve 

17 
 just looking at the -- the 90 degree -- the 

18 normal incidence. 

19 
 A zero degree is going to be 

20 
 straight at the film. And they keep doing 

21 
 that. The highest point here is about 2.2 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MeV. It keeps going up, which confirms what 130
 

2 
 Dr. Macievic said. 

3 
 Then finally, as a quotation, and 

4 
 this was a study done at Los Alamos by the 

5 
 author, Ellery Storm, a very prolific writer. 

6 
 So he and a man named Israel put out the 

7 
 definitive -- it's still used -- calculations 

8 
 of attenuation coefficients for all from z 

9 
 equals 1, z equals 100, as an aside. Anyway, 

10 
 this is the direct quote from his abstract. 

11 
 Response of Eastman type K and DuPont 552 film 

12 
 on high energy were investigated. Both types 

13 
 of film are found to be energy-independent 

14 
 from 0.4 to 2 MeV. For a given roentgen 

15 
 value, a given response in terms of density is 

16 
 obtained and the effective energy increases 

17 beyond 2 MeV. 

18 
 The motivation for doing this study 

19 
 was they had a 22 MeV betatron made by Allis20 
 Chalmers, and the -- there were -- they had 

21 
 the same concern: is the film badge still good 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 at those high energies. Because previously, 131
 

2 
 they had been used primarily for medical X-ray 

3 
 work, lower energies, and the answer was yes, 

4 
 it is. And they did use the 22 MeV betatron 

5 
 to create exposures of that same film, and the 

6 
 fact was it was good. 

7 
 Then the information that we 

8 
 obtained, which is comparable to -- Dr. Ziemer 

9 
 talked to him, and Greg Macievic gave 

10 
 information from the official -- senior 

11 
 official at Landauer made the following 

12 
 statements. He said they had large -- he 

13 
 didn't say anything to my contact about 

14 aluminum. 

15 
 He had large filters, including a 

16 
 lead one, and he said he had good response to 

17 
 high-energy air production in the lead, and 

18 
 good angular response with very large angles. 

19 
 For people that may not be quite 

20 
 familiar, what happens is the reason film by 

21 
 itself would not be good, like a bare film 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 high energies, is the interaction rate of 132


2 
 these high-energy photons per millimeter is 

3 
 actually greater than in the body because of 

4 
 the response in the film. 

5 
 It is silver with a Z of 47, 

6 
 bromine Z equals 35. However, the energy 

7 
 that's liberated by the energy interaction 

8 
 does not stay in the film because it's so 

9 
 thin. So, the actual energy deposited would 

10 be smaller. 

11 
 However, with the lead behind it, 

12 
 you get both the high interaction, even higher 

13 
 interaction, Z 82, and the energy does stay 

14 
 in. The electrons do get captured, and they 

15 
 in turn give off secondary electrons and low 

16 energy photons to expose the film. 

17 
 So, the lead, on the one hand, we 

18 
 think of as a shield. But actually, it is an 

19 
 intensifier. It is used in other X-ray work, 

20 
 medical X-ray work to make the film more 

21 
 sensitive. You put in the thin lead screen 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 behind it. 133
 

2 
 So, this had -- in his opinion, 

3 
 there were -- at that time, there were 

4 
 calibrated with cobalt 60, which has a --

5 
 which is by the way the same -- my impression 

6 
 is that this is -- this -- here you have 

7 
 calibration of cobalt 60. It doesn't say so, 

8 
 but this X right on the 1, 1.0, is equal to 

9 
 approximately 1.2 MeV, and cobalt 60 has an 

10 
 average energy of 1.25. So, this is clearly 

11 what was used for calibration. 

12 
 And they were calibrated from 60, 

13 
 and this official said he would not expect 

14 
 deviation by more than 10 to 15 percent. They 

15 
 used DuPont film, and it was calibrated in 

16 
 air. So, I think that we can put this issue 

17 
 to rest probably more conclusively than almost 

18 
 any other issue that we've encountered. The 

19 
 film badges were, with the array of filters, 

20 
 and with Landauer's knowledge and exposure of 

21 
 processing them where they took all 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 exposure fields under consideration, and end 134


2 
 up with a dose based on calculation, utilizing 

3 
 the exposures under the no filter, plastic 

4 
 filter, aluminum filter that was the case lead 

5 
 filter. It's a pretty good one. 

6 
 And with all the modern techniques 

7 
 now, according to our colleague Joseph 

8 
 Zlotnicki, who is the former vice president of 

9 
 Landauer, he said he would use -- even despite 

10 
 everything, he would use film today. The only 

11 
 limitation would be that for very high doses, 

12 
 and we're talking about around 100 rem, the 

13 
 film response is non-linear, meaning if you go 

14 
 into the very high dose region, you double the 

15 
 dose. You don't double the density. So, it 

16 
 sort of tapers off, and you don't get -- but 

17 
 for the medium or low -- but medium doses, he 

18 
 said it's perfectly good, even though it's 

19 been replaced by TLDs. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, and by high 

21 
 here, I think you're talking about almost 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 lethal doses, where they have accident -- 135
 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I think so. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, such as 

4 
 criticality accidents where the film badges 

5 
 are not useful any longer. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Okay, 

8 
 I think we want to give the petitioner an 

9 
 opportunity to ask questions also on the film 

10 badges. 

11 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer? 

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

13 MR. DUTKO: John Dutko, sir. 

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, sir. 

15 
 MR. DUTKO: How do you calibrate a 

16 
 film badge you don't have on a good portion of 

17 
 the time? I said before, and it seems like 

18 
 nobody cares to listen, when we were working 

19 
 magnaflux, magnaflux operators were never 

20 
 issued film badges. They weren't worn outside 

21 of the betatrons, period. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 I don't know what about that is not 136


2 
 understood right now but thank you, sir. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Well, 

4 
 actually in the NIOSH proposal for 

5 
 reconstructing doses, they have other methods 

6 
 for handling those individuals who are not 

7 
 wearing film badges. Right now, we're --

8 
 we're simply addressing the reliability of the 

9 
 film badge data itself that we do have. We 

10 
 have this at all sites. It is the -- are the 

11 
 film badges reliable for what they're trying 

12 to measure? And that was --

13 
 MR. DELL: Can I make a statement? 

14 I think I can clear that up. 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

16 
 MR. DELL: When he left and worked 

17 
 in magnaflux, he would not be in that block 

18 
 building. And the block building is the only 

19 
 place that they were supposed or -- you know, 

20 
 when they set it up to do the X-raying. But 

21 
 he may be working within 15 feet of a casting 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 setting out in the building that was being X- 137


2 
 rayed. 

3 
 Like I said, they did it daily, but 

4 
 that's the reason he wouldn't wear a film 

5 
 badge down there because it wasn't supposed to 

6 
 be anything outside that block building. So, 

7 
 that's the way it was set up, and he's right 

8 
 when he left and he was going to magnaflux, he 

9 
 didn't wear a film badge. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, we 

11 
 understand that, and -- and actually NIOSH has 

12 
 proposed a way to compensate for that with 

13 
 additional assignment of additional exposure 

14 beyond what a film badge would have recorded. 

15 
 MR. DELL: I hope that's cleared 

16 up. I'm sorry if --

17 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, that's 

18 
 helpful. Thank you. Any other comments from 

19 the petitioner? 

20 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, it's 

21 John Ramspott. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead. 138
 

2 
 DR. MCKEEL: Wait a minute. 

3 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Did somebody else 

4 
 have a comment? Are you ready for me, Dr. 

5 
 Ziemer? 

6 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead. 

7 
 DR. MCKEEL: Can you all hear me? 

8 
 This is Dan McKeel. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, I can hear 

10 you now. 

11 
 DR. MCKEEL: Actually, the 

12 
 petitioner, the co-petitioner, hadn't had a 

13 chance to comment. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I asked if 

15 
 the petitioner had comments, and I guess we 

16 weren't hearing you at first, Dan. Go ahead. 

17 
 DR. MCKEEL: Can I go on and make 

18 my comment? 

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, sure. Sure. 

20 
 DR. MCKEEL: Good. Well, I have a 

21 
 couple of comments. Number one, when I read 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 the SC&A review of Greg Macievic's paper on 139


2 
 film sensitivity, what I was impressed by was 

3 
 that Dr. Anigstein actually had numerous 

4 
 criticisms of the methods within this paper, 

5 
 including the validity of many of the 

6 
 references that were given, and used terms 

7 
 like irrelevant and so forth. 

8 
 Then, Dr. Anigstein went on, as he 

9 
 said, to do an independent analysis, which 

10 
 again, as far as I am concerned is doing 

11 
 NIOSH's work. But anyway, he came to 

12 
 basically the same conclusion: that this film 

13 
 was sensitive -- overly sensitive and hyper14 responded to high-energy photons. 

15 
 So, that is the NIOSH paper, and 

16 
 the SC&A response. What is amazing to me 

17 
 that's left out of this story is that at the 

18 
 September the 20th meeting, John Ramspott 

19 
 mentioned that he was going to acquire through 

20 
 the generosity of Leroy Dell, who is on the 

21 
 phone, Mr. Dell's actual GSI film badge 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 his pocket dosimeter. And John put that into 140
 

2 
 the record. 

3 
 Well, actually that meeting 

4 
 happened and occurred, and John did get the 

5 
 badge, and on October the 6th, I believe, I 

6 
 sent the Work Group a picture of Mr. Dell's 

7 
 badge, and lots of information about it. 

8 
 One thing that was clear from 

9 
 examining the film packet, which had Leroy 

10 
 Dell, badge number 30, and 2084, which is the 

11 
 program -- film badge program that Landauer 

12 
 conducted for General Steel Industries. It 

13 
 had the type film clearly written on there, 

14 which was DuPont Type 544. 

15 
 Now, left out of Dr. Anigstein's 

16 
 analysis, and left out of Greg Macievic's 

17 
 original paper, is the fact that we know what 

18 
 at least one badge that actually was used at 

19 
 the time at GSI, what the film badge type was: 

20 DuPont type 544. 

21 
 So, I started doing a little bit 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
 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 independent analysis in reading about just 141


2 
 that specific -- I thought specific, unique 

3 
 type of film. And what I found out is DuPont 

4 
 makes a large number of different kinds of 

5 
 films, and they do change their 

6 
 characteristics, and emulsino characteristics, 

7 
 over time. 

8 
 But anyway, here's one description 

9 
 of DuPont type 544 film that I found in a Los 

10 
 Alamos document, which has the title of 

11 
 P9/00420212, and there is a section in there 

12 
 on film badges, and it said, and I quote, 

13 
 DuPont type 544 film packets were used to 

14 
 measure the integral gamma dose at all 

15 
 stations. They were measuring atomic bomb 

16 blasts. 

17 
 This packet contains a sensitive 

18 
 film, type 555, which indicates doses from 

19 
 0.01 to 6R, and an insensitive film, type 834, 

20 
 which measures doses from 2 to 10 to the third 

21 
 R. A 40 mil lead strip surrounded the film 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that gamma exposures could be distinguished in 142


2 
 the presence of beta radiation. 

3 
 Then it just notes, the film packet 

4 
 was contained in a protective plastic wrapper 

5 
 for placement in the field. 

6 
 So, my comment is that although Dr. 

7 
 Macievic had well outlined that, based on his 

8 
 exposure working at Landauer, that his 

9 
 comments are applied to a wide range of films 

10 that are used in film badges. 

11 
 But my issue is, if you know the 

12 
 type of film used at GSI, that's the point. 

13 
 That's what we're talking about here. We're 

14 
 talking about General Steel Industries. We're 

15 
 not talking about all the other sites. You 

16 
 know, we're not talking about generic issues. 

17 
 We're talking about a specific 

18 
 issue: what did the GSI film badges register 

19 
 with respect to high-energy photons? And so, 

20 
 both of those analyses should have used DuPont 

21 
 type 544 film, and as a matter of fact, 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 would be interesting to know what was the 143


2 
 response characteristics just as a scientist. 

3 
 It would be interesting to know 

4 
 what were the response characteristics of the 

5 
 two types of film emulsion that were in film 

6 
 544, that is, sensitive film 555, insensitive 

7 
 film 834. 

8 
 And I would just comment that if 

9 
 Mr. Macievic worked at Landauer, and if Dr. 

10 
 Ziemer had a private conversation with a 

11 
 Landauer employee, and Dr. Anigstein mentions 

12 
 in his report that he had a private 

13 
 communication with a senior Landauer person 

14 
 through his colleague, Joe Zlotnicki, then why 

15 
 is it that, among all those three interviews 

16 
 with high-level former and present Landauer 

17 
 employees, could you not -- and we know the 

18 
 film badge program. That's not an issue, 2084 

19 
 -- why could you not know from their extensive 

20 
 records what type of film was used in their 

21 
 film packet, and what type of filters 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 used in their film badges, and then key the 144


2 
 analyses by both NIOSH and SC&A to those 

3 
 specifics? 

4 
 And so, I'll just put that out 

5 
 there. I don't necessarily mean that the 

6 
 analyses are invalid. I do think that, again, 

7 
 SC&A was duplicating work that NIOSH had done. 

8 
 They already criticized NIOSH's methodology, 

9 
 which was severe, and then went on and 

10 performed their own analysis. 

11 
 But I would say to you, as a 

12 
 scientist, there is a principle that, you 

13 
 know, you come -- if you have to use surrogate 

14 
 data or you have to use co-worker data, well, 

15 
 then you can use that under certain 

16 
 circumstances. But on the other hand, if you 

17 
 have -- if you know the type of film, and you 

18 
 know the type of filters, base your analysis 

19 
 on those actual facts, and that wasn't done in 

20 
 this case. 

21 Frankly, when everybody claims 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 they're using the best science available, to 145


2 
 me that's simply not true. It doesn't square 

3 
 with the facts. All they had to do, all that 

4 
 NIOSH, all that SC&A had to do -- after all, 

5 
 they both interviewed Mr. Dell -- was to find 

6 
 out about the film badge. 

7 
 I can promise you from being a 

8 
 silent observer of the last interview that 

9 
 that topic didn't even come up. 

10 
 So, I would still think that to put 

11 
 this issue to rest, which I don't consider has 

12 
 been done, then both NIOSH and SC&A should 

13 
 weigh in with specific, short reports on 

14 
 whether, knowing that DuPont type 544 film was 

15 
 used, and finding out exactly what filters 

16 
 were used in the Landauer badges at GSI. Not 

17 
 just in general, but at GSI, then to update 

18 
 their analyses. If the conclusion is the 

19 
 same, well, then that's fine with me. Thank 

20 
 you. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dan, I want to 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 make a partial response to that. The issue 146
 

2 
 here of course was -- in the beginning was a 

3 
 general question: do film badges -- can film 

4 
 badges correctly read the high energy photons. 

5 
 Now, that was sort of what Greg was 

6 
 looking at in a generic sense. The fact that 

7 
 Landauer has a specific film and specific 

8 
 filters, we don't have -- in my opinion, we 

9 
 don't have to reanalyze that. Landauer has 

10 
 already done that. They know what the 

11 response is. 

12 
 They actually know what the filters 

13 
 are. We don't have to reproduce what Landauer 

14 
 already has done and has been doing for years. 

15 
 The question was, could we rely on their 

16 
 results. Are they in fact correcting for the 

17 
 fact that there's high-energy photons 

18 involved? Can they see that? 

19 
 The answer from Landauer is yes, 

20 
 and generically, what we learn is that all 

21 
 films of this type behave in general that way, 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 and that all high-Z filters in general behave 147


2 
 that way. The specific ones: that analysis 

3 
 has been done by Landauer, and we have been --

4 
 it was sort of the question, are we accepting 

5 
 their analysis. 

6 
 I don't know what we would gain by 

7 
 going back and running -- basically, we're 

8 
 talking about exposing film of that type with 

9 
 known filters, and sort of confirming what 

10 Landauer has done. 

11 
 Well, they have a certified 

12 
 dosimetry program. It has been certified for 

13 
 years independently by national dosimetry 

14 
 certification bodies, and I think we're simply 

15 
 saying that we are accepting those values, 

16 
 that they have the ability to make that 

17 distinction. 

18 
 I would also add that my 

19 
 confirmation of the -- of the filters just 

20 
 occurred over this weekend for my own 

21 
 satisfaction. So, it's not like I had 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 report in advance to issue. I simply wanted 148
 

2 
 to confirm that Landauer did not use different 

3 
 types of badges for different -- for different 

4 
 customers. 

5 
 They all had -- every customer had 

6 
 these same filters and these same film 

7 
 packets. So, that's the only comment I would 

8 
 make on that. 

9 
 DR. MCKEEL: Well, I would like to 

10 
 make this comment in response. This is Dan 

11 McKeel again. 

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure. 

13 
 DR. MCKEEL: I believe that 

14 
 actually, just for the record, everybody needs 

15 
 to understand that, before I contacted 

16 
 Landauer on my own and found out that they had 

17 
 film badges, some film badges for some people 

18 
 at GSI, nobody on the Board, SC&A or NIOSH had 

19 any inkling that this was true. 

20 
 I have letters dating back to 2005 

21 
 from then-OCAS director Larry Elliott, who 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 said, no, there was no film badge data at all 149


2 
 for General Steel Industries. And I'd also 

3 
 like to put on the record that it was I, not 

4 
 anybody else, that brought up the issue of 

5 
 film badge sensitivity because it hadn't been 

6 
 discussed before. It hadn't been analyzed 

7 
 before. 

8 
 And so, you know I brought it up. I 

9 
 brought it up at the September 20th meeting, 

10 
 and Dr. Neton said, well, we've already 

11 
 analyzed that. And so, we will bring forth 

12 that report. 

13 
 So, in a fairly short while, I did 

14 
 get a report on -- from Dr. Macievic's paper, 

15 
 and it was dated August 2010. So, I thought, 

16 
 gee, that's kind of strange. So, it was done 

17 
 in August of 2010, and it's just being 

18 circulated in November of 2011. 

19 
 So, the next day, I have an email 

20 
 from Josh Kinman, I believe, that says, oh, 

21 
 that report I sent you yesterday was -- 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 date was in error. And so, there's a new 150
 

2 
 report attached, a date-corrected report, 

3 
 that says October of 2011. 

4 
 So, anyway -- I mean August of 

5 
 2011. Excuse me. So, I just don't know. My 

6 
 own opinion is, despite what Paul just said, 

7 
 it's that if Landauer is supposed to have 

8 
 total credibility, then they should know, they 

9 
 should have in their records exactly what kind 

10 
 of film badges they supplied to General Steel 

11 Industries, including the types of film. 

12 
 And I too have been to the ORAU 

13 
 museum website, and seen the fact that 

14 
 Landauer has at least, at least three 

15 
 different kinds of film badges shown on those 

16 
 pages. So, to say that they -- you know, they 

17 
 didn't just issue one kind of film badge and 

18 one kind of film, that's not true. 

19 MR. DELL: Comment please. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are you done, Dr. 

21 McKeel? 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. MCKEEL: Yes. 151
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, who else 

3 
 was commenting? 

4 
 MR. DELL: I have a comment. When 

5 
 I first started at General Steel in '56, I 

6 
 don't know what was in the film badge, but it 

7 
 was a different shape, a larger film badge, 

8 
 than what I had in '68 and '70. There was a 

9 
 difference there. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I think 

11 we're aware of that. In fact --

12 
 MR. DELL: And then there was one 

13 
 other thing. The dosimeters, you guys get 

14 
 real technical. I'll tell you how technical 

15 
 General Steel was. Every day, we calibrated 

16 
 the dosimeter and took the reading on it at 

17 
 the end of the day and wrote it down. The 

18 next day, we recalibrated. 

19 
 We didn't send it in and out. That 

20 
 was the use of the dosimeter. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Those are 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 those are the pocket dosimeters, I believe. 152
 

2 
 MR. DELL: Yes. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Yes, 

4 
 actually we agree that, prior to Landauer, 

5 
 there probably was a different supplier. Dr. 

6 
 Anigstein suggested it might've been a 

7 
 Tracerlab badge. I think there was a picture. 

8 
 I don't know if it's available to you. It's 

9 
 in the report. Maybe Dr. McKeel --

10 
 MR. DELL: I saw it, and it's a 

11 
 larger badge than what we had in the later 

12 years. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. It's 

14 larger than the Landauer badge. 

15 MR. DELL: Yes. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. It had a 

17 
 larger opening. That's the one that I was 

18 
 referring to. It might've been a Tracerlab. 

19 
 We're not sure on that. Thank you for that 

20 input. That's also helpful. 

21 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 John Ramspott. 153
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John. 

3 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Can I make a 

4 
 comment? 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You sure can. 

6 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm going to refer 

7 
 back to Dr. Mauro and his statement earlier. 

8 
 We're hearing a lot about film, and we're 

9 
 hearing a lot about filters, and we're hearing 

10 
 a lot of data. Your meeting did say it was 

11 going to be kind of the early years. 

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

13 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: To go on the record, 

14 
 you have no film. You have no filter, and you 

15 
 have no data. You have no badges prior to, I 

16 believe, '64 or late '63. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think that is 

18 
 correct. 

19 MR. RAMSPOTT: Now, everything else 

20 
 is hypothetical, would be, maybe. And then I 

21 
 go back to the ORAU website, and it's easy 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Google search, ORAU radiation badges. And when 154


2 
 that website comes up, there's a button I 

3 
 didn't hit until about two weeks ago. 

4 
 It's called the info button. It's 

5 
 right on the front page. When you click on 

6 
 that, there's a chart on there that shows 

7 
 everybody's badges, and what they're good for, 

8 
 and what they can do. And Landauer gives 

9 
 their accuracy rating on there. 

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

11 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Anybody looked at 

12 
 it? Do they know what the rating is? I'll 

13 share it with you. Gamma 20 percent. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Twenty percent, 

15 yes. 

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: Beta 20 percent. 

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

18 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: That means the badge 

19 misses 80 percent, doesn't it? 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no. 

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: What does it mean? 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's plus or 155
 

2 
 minus. For example, a reading of 10 might've 

3 
 been 8 or 12. 

4 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay, but when you 

5 
 add up all those readings at the end of a 

6 
 month, wouldn't you still end up with missing 

7 
 80 percent? 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no. For 

9 
 example, if you had 10 readings of 10, that 

10 would be 100. 

11 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay. 

12 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The true value 

13 
 might've been 120, or it might've been 80. It 

14 
 might've been 80. In other words, it's a plus 

15 
 or minus. It's an error -- it's an error 

16 
 band. 

17 It's like when you weigh yourself 

18 
 on the scale, and if you weigh 200 pounds, 

19 
 maybe you really weigh 201 or 199, or 

20 something like that. How accurate is it? 

21 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I just saw 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 accuracy 20 percent, and I was trying to 156


2 
 figure that out. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, it's a plus 

4 
 or minus value. 

5 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Okay, then I'm just 

6 
 going to defer back to my point. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

8 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: No badges --

9 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, you're right. 

10 
 We're aware. The early period -- well, I 

11 
 think we're not necessarily saying no badges. 

12 We're saying we don't have records. 

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, yes. 

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

15 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: That's a valid 

16 point. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We think there 

18 
 were badges. We have a photograph. We have 

19 
 worker testimony that tells us there were 

20 badges. 

21 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: We don't know if 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that guy wearing that badge got toasted, do 157


2 
 we? 

3 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We only know --

4 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: We don't have any 

5 
 reports, do we? 

6 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We don't. That's 

7 
 exactly right. 

8 
 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, I have a 

9 
 comment. I know it is close to the lunch 

10 
 hour. Just in keeping with the matrix, we're 

11 
 talking about issue number 4, and I think I 

12 
 heard Bob's comment, was that he recommends or 

13 
 SC&A recommends that we rest this issue, which 

14 
 would be close that issue. Is that correct? 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For film badges? 

16 MEMBER BEACH: Film badges. 

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What is Issue 4? 

18 
 DR. NETON: In response to film 

19 badges at high energy. 

20 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. No -- yes. 

21 
 No, I think we're completely satisfied. This 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 is one of the easier -- easier things to 158


2 
 resolve, that we're completely satisfied that 

3 
 the film badges are responsive -- if anything, 

4 
 over-responsive to high energies, and just to 

5 
 echo Dr. Ziemer's comment in response to Dr. 

6 
 McKeel about the different types of film 

7 
 badges, it would be inappropriate, let's say, 

8 
 to do a calibration of dose versus film 

9 
 density on one type of film and apply it to 

10 another. 

11 
 But as long as the calibration, 

12 
 which is done on every batch of film that is 

13 
 used by Landauer, and for that particular type 

14 
 of film for all the workers, then the 

15 
 calibration is valid. And as far as a 

16 
 question of, well, we had several types of 

17 
 film. There were two types of -- three or 

18 four. 

19 
 We had two types of film in the Los 

20 
 Alamos report. There were two other types of 

21 
 film in the two sources cited by Greg 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Macievic, and they all -- the details are 159


2 
 slightly different, but they all have the same 

3 
 general shape. They over-respond. The 

4 
 response going up after 1 MeV, and they over5 
 respond, and this is understandable because 

6 
 all film is composed primarily of silver 

7 
 bromide. Slightly different mixes in the 

8 
 emulsion, slightly different other chemicals 

9 
 added, but it's the basic film. 

10 
 The basic thing is if you put 

11 
 energy into the film, you're going to get a 

12 
 response in terms of -- after the film is 

13 
 developed in terms of density. So, again, the 

14 
 type of filter, the thickness of the filter, 

15 
 would be -- would make a quantitative 

16 fractional difference. 

17 
 The number would be slightly 

18 
 different. There would be an over-response by 

19 
 a certain percentage, over by a slightly 

20 
 different percentage. But the general physics 

21 does not change. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think your 160
 

2 
 point is on the money, Josie. That would 

3 
 appear to close that particular issue. We're 

4 
 trying to focus today on the early years, and 

5 
 this is outside the early years, but it came 

6 
 up in part because of the question whether 

7 
 film badges were in use prior to this period 

8 
 or not. And somehow we got into what badges 

9 
 were used and when, but if the -- if the Work 

10 
 Group is agreeable, we would agree to close 

11 that issue. Any objection to that? 

12 MEMBER MUNN: Not at all, no. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But after lunch, 

14 
 we want to come back to the main issue of the 

15 
 SEC itself in the early years, and evaluate 

16 
 where we are. So, we're going to take a one17 
 hour break for lunch, and then we'll return at 

18 
 ten after one. 

19 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

20 
 matter went off the record at 12:09 p.m. and 

21 resumed at 1:23 p.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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. KATZ: Let me just check before 161
 

2 
 we get started on the line for Dr. Poston. 

3 
 Are you on the line with us? No, okay. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Petitioners still 

5 
 on the line? 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Petitioners on the line? 

7 
 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, this is Dan 

8 
 McKeel. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, okay. 

10 MR. KATZ: Okay. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, we want to 

12 
 focus on item 5 on the agenda now, 

13 
 consideration of the question of whether or 

14 
 not NIOSH model will bound doses with 

15 
 sufficient accuracy in the early years. The 

16 
 focus here is primarily on the -- what we 

17 
 might call the radium period. This is pre -

18 
 cobalt-60, pre-iridium, pretty much pre-film 

19 
 badge records. So, we have some -- some 

20 record that lapses --

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, except 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 - you know two things about the film badges. 162


2 
 One is one worker's film badge record, and 

3 
 also the statement of the AEC application. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: For all of the 

6 
 years they'd been using radium, you never 

7 
 exceed -- no one exceeded the AEC, the then 

8 
 existing AEC regulations. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So, there 

10 
 are those records. But just to focus on this 

11 
 because we talked about before, separating 

12 
 these periods in terms of thinking about the 

13 
 SEC, and we were going to consider the issue 

14 
 of whether there might be an SEC identified 

15 for the earlier period. 

16 
 So, I have indicated here we want 

17 
 to give NIOSH an opportunity to reiterate 

18 
 their position, and make any comments they 

19 
 want on the early period to have SC&A 

20 
 reiterate their position, and any comments on 

21 
 the early period, and we can consider them 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 whether or not the Work Group wishes to make a 163


2 
 recommendation to the full Board on that early 

3 
 period. 

4 
 And let me also add that if we 

5 
 don't make a recommendation, that doesn't 

6 
 preclude us doing it at some other point if 

7 
 you may feel like you're not prepared to make 

8 
 a recommendation one way or the other right 

9 
 now. But at least we want to address that 

10 question. 

11 
 Let me ask Dave Allen to start for 

12 NIOSH. 

13 
 MR. ALLEN: Well, the White Paper 

14 
 we sent out last -- I wouldn't even call it a 

15 
 couple months ago. It was last -- we 

16 
 discussed it in the last Work Group meeting. 

17 
 The White Paper included during the radium era 

18 
 an estimated dose radiography items out in the 

19 
 plant, including people breaking the barrier 

20 and walking through. 

21 
 It also included a similar estimate 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 for the cobalt era for radiography out in the 164


2 
 plant, as well as cobalt radiography inside 

3 
 the -- what I call the radiography room in --

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Building 6, yes. 

5 
 MR. ALLEN: What it did not include 

6 
 is the -- an estimate for the radium 

7 
 radiography inside of the radiography room. We 

8 
 didn't think it exists. We thought they built 

9 
 that for the cobalt era. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But we have 

11 
 worker testimony now indicating it was there 

12 during the radium era as well. 

13 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes. So, the White 

14 
 Paper version should be revised to include an 

15 
 estimate for radium radiography inside the 

16 
 radiography room, and the intent of the White 

17 
 Paper was to try to estimate all the major 

18 
 sources, and to -- essentially we were 

19 
 intending to take the highest one for each era 

20 to be the bounding case. 

21 
 So, I think we have to include 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 radiography inside the radiography room if the 165


2 
 radiography out in the plant is higher than 

3 
 that, we --

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You have to see 

5 
 what it is in the radiography -- or in the 

6 
 building 6 area as well. 

7 
 MR. ALLEN: Right. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You would have to 

9 
 do that yet. 

10 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But in terms of 

12 
 doing that, your methodology would be similar 

13 
 in terms of putting the source in the room, 

14 
 calculating doses into the -- into the control 

15 
 office and at the door and outside the room, I 

16 assume. Right? 

17 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes, we would probably 

18 
 start with a similar approach that we'd used 

19 
 for the cobalt and then modify it for the 

20 different source. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Difference in 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 gamma. 166
 

2 
 MR. ALLEN: And the gamma. They 

3 
 added some shielding when they went to the 

4 
 cobalt. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Which they didn't 

6 
 have during the radium era. 

7 
 MR. ALLEN: Right. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. 

9 
 MR. ALLEN: So, the intent would be 

10 
 to start with the same approach, and modify it 

11 
 for the appropriate conditions. The only 

12 
 other change I can think of on there is that 

13 
 the St. Louis Testing: we did not know the 

14 
 time frame that they were operating. It was 

15 
 not the limiting factor prior to '62, but it 

16 
 was after. Now it's looking more like it was 

17 
 around 1964 when they started working. So, we 

18 might have to break it up into three periods. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You had some St. 

20 
 Louis Testing dose assigned to the early 

21 period originally. Is 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. ALLEN: It was one of the 167
 

2 
 models that we modeled the St. Louis Testing 

3 
 and said it could've been any of the covered 

4 
 period. It was not limiting -- it was not the 

5 
 bounding dose until after '62. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

7 
 MR. ALLEN: So, I think now I would 

8 
 have to say after '64, and have a different 

9 
 dose between '62 and '64. 

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Late '64 apparently 

12 
 they came in, judging just because of the 

13 names of who he dealt with. 

14 MR. ALLEN: Okay. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It sounded like 

16 
 late '64. 

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, but NIOSH's 

18 
 position is that they can reconstruct dose in 

19 
 the early period, including dose resulting 

20 
 from individuals walking through roped-off 

21 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 168
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Now, 

3 
 Bob, do you want to summarize for SC&A, and 

4 
 what is SC&A's position on that issue and any 

5 
 related comments? 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. I put on the 

7 
 screen the one sort of summary chart on the 

8 
 radium exposure, and I think that this is a --

9 
 I think this is a call the Board will have to 

10 
 make in terms of we have one report -- I mean 

11 
 a report of one incident, and the remarkable 

12 
 thing about that report is it's always 

13 
 attributed to someone else at a different 

14 
 time. 

15 
 Someone heard it from someone that 

16 
 this radium source was taken, and the 

17 
 circumstances differ from account to account, 

18 
 and they differ as to how it was recovered, 

19 
 and to where it was taken, and where it was 

20 
 found. 

21 So, there is a -- what I would 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 if I was putting another bullet item, I would 169


2 
 say incident of stolen or mistakenly taken 

3 
 radium source, with a big question mark after 

4 
 it. 

5 
 MR. KATZ: I'm sorry, Bob. Can I 

6 
 just interrupt you a second because, although 

7 
 it's not interfering with us, I don't know 

8 
 that it's not interfering with people on the 

9 
 line. 

10 Someone on the phone has a phone 

11 
 open and a number being dialed in. Whoever 

12 
 that is, you need to mute your phone, because 

13 
 I think everyone else on the phone is 

14 
 listening to an incoming phone call. Okay, I 

15 don't hear anything now. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thanks. 

17 MR. KATZ: Sorry. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, there may have 

19 
 been such an incident. We don't really -- the 

20 
 accounts have been different. Two accounts 

21 
 are similar, but again one is from 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 recently deceased supervisor who described his 170


2 
 colleague, named on the application, slightly 

3 
 senior person, who actually went up in an 

4 
 airplane with a Geiger counter was described. 

5 
 The question is, can you really 

6 
 detect the radium. They have -- radium 

7 
 sources with Geiger counter flying in an 

8 
 airplane, which I guess has, well, probably a 

9 
 minimum speed of 100 miles an hour. I don't 

10 think --

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But if someone --

12 
 let's assume that the event happened. I think 

13 
 there's reason to think it probably happened, 

14 
 but if the individual who had that exposure 

15 
 made a claim, and indicated that they were 

16 
 involved in that, that would be accounted for 

17 
 just as the case where the site -- where the 

18 
 betatron was turned on inappropriately when 

19 someone was in the room. 

20 
 That person's dose could be taken 

21 care 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And that -- it's 171
 

2 
 not inappropriate for me to say I checked that 

3 
 person's dose, and there was nothing on his 

4 
 film badge. 

5 
 MR. ALLEN: Which incident are 

6 
 we're talking --

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The gentleman who 

8 
 was on the phone this morning said that the 

9 
 betatron would turn on when he was in the 

10 room. This was during the period --

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I don't 

12 know whether it's the same person, or --

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, it is the same 

14 
 person. 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We don't want to 

16 
 get into that, but in the case of an alleged 

17 
 event, NIOSH does add that into that 

18 
 individual's dose. 

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If they say they 

21 
 were in -- if there's pretty good reason to 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 think that a person took that source home, 172


2 
 they will reconstruct that dose because --

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The only other 

4 
 thing -- the only other thing about the 

5 
 incident, general conclusion, is it does 

6 
 indicate lax -- I mean, having been a 

7 
 radiation safety officer myself at one time --

8 
 I wasn't a certified health physicist, the 

9 
 first thing you do is maintain security over 

10 your sources. 

11 
 I mean you don't need very much 

12 
 training to know you put things under lock and 

13 
 key. So, if they didn't do that, that does 

14 
 indicate some laxity during the period let's 

15 say pre '57. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's probably 

17 when they put locks on the doors apparently. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, right, because 

19 
 one radiographer said that when he came back 

20 
 to work in '56 or maybe '57, there was a lock 

21 
 on the door, which hadn't been there before. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 So, that -- because of that. Someone else said 173


2 
 the same thing: they put a lock on the door 

3 
 after the source was taken. 

4 
 So, there is some question, and I'm 

5 
 not being concise and to the point. So, 

6 
 first, let's say '53, '54, '55, '56, were the 

7 
 controls really adequate? Well, they didn't 

8 
 have a lock on the door. That's the one thing 

9 
 we know. There was at least one incident. 

10 
 Whether that just -- they just 

11 
 didn't happen to think anyone could walk in 

12 
 and take the source out of the lead shield --

13 
 I mean they normally -- there were two 

14 
 possibilities in my mind. Normally, the 

15 
 source was kept in the lead shield with a 

16 
 string attached to it, so that you can lift it 

17 
 out with a fish pole. That's a little far 

18 
 fetched to say, oh, here is a big lead shield. 

19 
 Here is a string. Let me see what's at the 

20 end of that string. 

21 
 The other possibility is there 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 an exposure being made, and it was left 174
 

2 
 unattended, and with no lock on the door, 

3 
 radiographer goes away to get film or have 

4 
 lunch or whatever, and somebody walks in and 

5 
 sees this shiny little brass plumb-bob sitting 

6 
 there in the middle of the room, doesn't 

7 
 realize that there is a casting there. Doesn't 

8 
 realize that there is film, and just picks it 

9 
 up and walks off with it. 

10 
 Maybe. Or maybe it was being done 

11 
 elsewhere in the plant where occasionally it 

12 
 got -- and then it would just -- apparently, 

13 
 they put it on something like a golf tee, like 

14 
 a little cup, and it just sits there. You 

15 don't leave it on the string then. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The string is 

18 
 attached to it so that you can retrieve it. 

19 
 And so, it's conceivable that somebody saw it 

20 
 and didn't know what was going on, and took 

21 it. You know, it's --

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, that may or 175
 

2 
 may not have been related to locks on the 

3 
 doors because if it was out --

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They wouldn't have 

5 
 done it anyway, but they may have just --

6 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, the answer is, 

8 
 who knows what was going on? From the -- from 

9 
 '57 on, it seems like at least according to 

10 
 the testimony of one worker, that they had 

11 
 some decent controls. And furthermore, 

12 
 regardless of how careful -- you know, whether 

13 
 they controlled everything, the fact that --

14 oops, got locked out again. 

15 
 Unless we believe that they --

16 
 unless we believe -- I'm going to put it in 

17 
 extreme terms. Unless we believe that GSI was 

18 
 a criminal enterprise and deliberately 

19 
 perjured themselves, I think it's a criminal 

20 
 act to submit an application to a government 

21 agency with material false statements. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 And unless they deliberately 176


2 
 perjured themselves and directly lied and 

3 
 deliberately falsified records, they did in 

4 
 fact go with -- stick with the AEC limits. 

5 
 They're pretty high. I mean if I was a 

6 
 radiation safety officer supervisor, I 

7 
 wouldn't brag about the fact that somebody got 

8 
 15 rem in a year. 

9 
 MEMBER MUNN: No. 

10 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But nevertheless, 

11 
 they said basically during '54, '53, it 

12 
 would've been under 15, and after '55, under 

13 
 12. Twelve point five, unless I made an error 

14 somehow. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, keep in 

16 
 mind the ALARA concept wasn't really being 

17 
 utilized in the '50s in most places. There 

18 was not a lifetime dose limit. 

19 
 MEMBER MUNN: No. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It was quarterly 

21 
 and annual limits, and in fact, though it 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 not mentioned here, the quarterly limit at one 177


2 
 time was a sliding limit. It was 3 rems in 

3 
 any 13 weeks, and it wasn't calendar quarters. 

4 
 The NRC specifically changed it to 

5 
 calendar quarters because it was very hard to 

6 
 administer a sliding calendar quarter. 

7 
 MEMBER MUNN: As Bob points out, 

8 
 although it's nothing to be very pleased with, 

9 
 nevertheless --

10 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The goal was to 

11 
 stay below the limit. Now it is to be as low 

12 
 as reasonably achievable. But that's a 

13 different mind set. 

14 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And they all but --

15 
 they implicitly admitted that there were 

16 
 instances where people reached the limit 

17 
 because otherwise they said no one exceeded 

18 
 the limit. If no one exceeded half the limit, 

19 they would trumpet that. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: Of course. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, they couldn'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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 have had high doses, and again the -- and the 178


2 
 second thing, whether you agree -- Dave and I 

3 
 may disagree about how long the fishing pole 

4 
 was, or how long the -- how long they held it, 

5 
 but the fact that this one radiographer gave 

6 
 us his -- gave us his report and it comes out 

7 
 to two rem per year, 2 R per year -- they call 

8 
 it rem I think. 

9 
 So, 2 rem per year, and he only 

10 
 worked weekends. That falls right -- so, 

11 
 these two numbers, this falls right in the 

12 
 middle of this range. So, I would go with 

13 
 this, with these numbers, as being plausible 

14 
 upper bounds based on some information, 

15 
 documented information, certainly claimant16 favorable. 

17 
 And yet, it is a number. It's not 

18 
 like we can't reconstruct the dose. Now, the 

19 
 doses to the non-radiographers I think that's 

20 
 a little -- little hazier because of the mere 

21 fact that they weren't badged. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 So, here is just an example 179
 

2 
 scenario that they spent, according to the 

3 
 nuclear consultant survey, this was -- no, I'm 

4 
 sorry. According to our calculation, this is 

5 
 the dose rate with both radium sources in use, 

6 
 and according to the NCC survey, they would 

7 
 give a plausible occupancy of 25 percent, 

8 
 which seems reasonable. 

9 
 I mean, no worker was stationed out 

10 
 there at a guard duty station outside that 

11 
 door. He gave it for outside the wall, but I 

12 
 put him outside the door because that's the 

13 least shielded location. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, we've had 

15 
 worker testimony in this last round here that 

16 
 indicates that the one-and-a-half times the 

17 
 limit distance was in fact used. That was the 

18 question we had early on. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but that 

20 wouldn't apply to this building, see. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But it could 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 apply to the radium used out in -- 180
 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Outside, yes. But 

3 
 that would’ve given an even lower dose. 

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But that also has 

5 
 implications for the non-radiographers in 

6 
 terms of where the boundary was. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then if you 

9 
 allow for the fact that they may walk across, 

10 
 and I think both of you have constructed how -

11 -

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

13 
 MR. ALLEN: I don't think we're 

14 
 very far apart there. They're both smaller. 

15 
 They're both kind of a small dose if I 

16 remember. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, this is a 

18 
 little higher than that boundary dose because 

19 
 the actual -- the actual exposure rate -- see, 

20 
 this already takes the 25 percent into 

21 
 account. The actual exposure rate there 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 8.6 mR per hour. Then I take the number of 181
 

2 
 hours, multiply by 30 percent, and multiply by 

3 
 the 25 percent --

4 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's separate 

5 
 from this roped-off area. 

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but I'm saying 

7 
 this is the limiting --

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's much 

9 
 higher, yes. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, if the 

11 
 radiographer is done there, you actually get a 

12 
 higher exposure than if you assume that it was 

13 
 done in the plant. Can't be done in both 

14 
 places because I'm assuming again one curie. 

15 So, two sources are there. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Which also is 

17 probably unlikely. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Again, it's a 

19 limiting case. 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But then you 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 say one source is here. One source is 182
 

2 
 outside. It's a simple --

3 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's an upper 

4 
 bound. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Exactly. Exactly, 

6 
 and that's all we're looking for. We're not 

7 
 looking for realistic, exact. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let's see if 

9 
 Board Members have comments or questions. The 

10 
 other pieces of information that we have 

11 
 gained since our last meeting on this early 

12 
 period: one is the confirmation that film 

13 
 badges were used. We don't have the film 

14 
 badge numbers. Well, we have one set of 

15 numbers based on that one individual. 

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But the actual 

18 
 fact that film badges were used tells us 

19 
 something about the fact that there was a 

20 
 radiation protection program in use because 

21 
 that was one of the questions. Loose cannons 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 just doing this without any protection 183
 

2 
 program; obviously there were some concerns 

3 
 that we've heard today about the -- sort of 

4 
 the adherence to safety programs, leaving 

5 
 things unattended and so on, but we also know 

6 
 that we can account for doses of people who 

7 
 traversed the boundaries. 

8 
 So, the film badge program is one 

9 
 issue. The confirmation that there was a 

10 
 practice of roping off the area to the one11 
 and-a-half times the 2 mR distance, 2 mR per 

12 
 hour distance, is another indication of a --

13 
 of the presence of a somewhat formalized 

14 radiation protection program. 

15 
 So, we have those additional pieces 

16 
 of information that we didn't really have well 

17 
 established at our last meeting. But so I want 

18 
 us to keep that in mind. So, we have sort of 

19 
 several pieces of information that some --

20 
 some better information on practices, and some 

21 
 -- well, I guess it's better information 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 the practices. 184
 

2 
 We know we're focusing on the 

3 
 radium sources. We have the additional 

4 
 information of the presence of the use of the 

5 
 sources in building 6, as --

6 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And this is -- what 

7 
 I'm showing on the screen is during what I 

8 
 call the radium era. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Which is? 

10 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Which is prior to -

11 
 - so, here the date on this thing is pre 1962. 

12 That's when they filed the application. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, and is 

14 
 this -- this is the AEC form that gives the 

15 occupational exposure. 

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Part of which for 

18 
 this person was at Pittsburgh Testing Company. 

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was earlier. 

20 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then the 

21 
 rest, the 18 quarters that we're referring to, 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 are General Steel Industries, '53 up to -- 185
 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, but in reality 

3 
 it wasn't doing radiography. He was employed 

4 
 there in '53, but he was -- the 18 quarters --

5 
 you see, the 18 quarters would have been prior 

6 
 to December 31st, 1961. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, 

8 
 understood. 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, therefore if 

10 you do that, it starts in the middle of '57. 

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. Which is 

13 consistent with his account. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But they are 

15 
 accounting for everything from the time he 

16 
 started working, whether he actually worked 

17 with radioisotopes or not in '53. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, but they say 

19 18 quarters. 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, that would only 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 be -- 186
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's part of 

3 
 that. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They put is -- this 

5 
 is when his initial employment -- but the 18 

6 
 quarters on this you assume they were 

7 
 discontinuous, but I assumed they were 

8 
 continuous. Would've started in the middle of 

9 
 '57. 

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

11 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Which is entirely 

12 
 consistent. He spent two years in the 

13 
 service, so, mid '54 to mid '56. Came out, 

14 
 went back to work, and then started doing 

15 
 radiography in mid '57, if you assume that the 

16 18 quarters end prior to '62. 

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Which is -- it's 

19 
 not precisely what this individual said, but 

20 it's entirely consistent with what he said. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, okay. 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Wanda, comments or questions? 187
 

2 
 MEMBER MUNN: Yes, two quick 

3 
 comments. When they're talking about things 

4 
 that we did not know before or things that 

5 
 have been reassured in the meantime, we do now 

6 
 know -- have been assured by the workers that 

7 
 pencil dosimeters were widely in use. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: As well. 

9 
 MEMBER MUNN: As well, which is 

10 always comforting information to have. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But we don't have 

12 the records. 

13 
 MEMBER MUNN: Even without the 

14 
 records, the thought that they would be used 

15 
 assures us that there were safety practices in 

16 house at the time. 

17 
 The other comment is simply to 

18 
 reinforce what was said earlier with respect 

19 
 to unusual incidents. Certainly an incident 

20 
 of the type that we have discussed in 

21 
 relationship to this case would pose enough 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 a stir both in the company and certainly in 188


2 
 the employee's home that even his -- his 

3 
 family certainly wouldn't have been aware that 

4 
 such an occurrence had been factored in his 

5 
 exposure. 

6 
 So, it does not seem wise to be 

7 
 putting undue amount of emphasis on that 

8 
 incident as having been indicative of anything 

9 
 other than an off-normal incident. It appears 

10 to me that we can bound. 

11 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. Josie? 

12 
 MEMBER BEACH: I guess I'm on the 

13 
 other end of things. I believe that this is 

14 
 still an SEC issue for the early years, '53 

15 
 through -- what is it, '63. While we have 

16 
 more information, I still don't think we have 

17 
 key things like the documentation, radiation 

18 monitoring. 

19 
 We have varying accounts of what 

20 
 actually happened. We have varying accounts 

21 
 on the men walking through the areas. We have 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 two different models right now. While they're 189
 

2 
 close, they're still two different models. 

3 
 So, at this time, I'm still leaning 

4 
 towards SEC for those earlier years. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Actually, the 

6 
 issue of two different models per se is -- is 

7 
 -- that's more of an issue of what assumptions 

8 
 -- I think the modeling is very similar. It's 

9 
 what assumptions like the length of the pole 

10 and that sort of thing. 

11 
 MEMBER BEACH: And maybe different 

12 
 models wasn't correct. Differing concepts 

13 maybe. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, but that's a 

15 
 -- that's a bounding issue. I think the other 

16 
 ones that you raise are the type that would --

17 
 one would consider for an SEC. You're sort of 

18 
 getting at some levels of uncertainties that 

19 you're uncomfortable with. 

20 MEMBER BEACH: Correct. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: My personal 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 feeling is -- for the early years is that the 190


2 
 bounding models that have been proposed, 

3 
 whether -- aside from the differences in the 

4 
 assumptions on the length of poles and so on, 

5 
 that -- and taking into account in the absence 

6 
 of film badges and those other records, what 

7 
 you won't have on the other employees in any 

8 
 event, that -- the fact that we know the size 

9 
 of those radium sources and -- you know, this 

10 
 is one of those cases where, in my mind, it is 

11 
 much easier to bound because we don't have a 

12 
 complex system like we have in many labs with 

13 
 multiple external, internal, daughter products 

14 and all of these things. 

15 
 We know the outputs of radium 

16 
 sources. We know what doses you can get at 

17 
 various distances. So, even had they had no 

18 
 film badges and no dosimeters, in my mind, we 

19 can reconstruct dose. 

20 
 So, I'm comfortable in doing that 

21 
 in the early years. I don't think that still 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 necessarily precludes us from -- because at 191


2 
 this point, if we don't make a recommendation 

3 
 for an SEC, we're not -- we haven't ruled it 

4 
 out because there's some other issues that 

5 
 still need to be closed. 

6 
 I will still want to hear about --

7 
 I think some of us are satisfied with why we -

8 
 - why we are where we are with respect to 

9 
 iridium, and the -- when did they start having 

10 use the 80-curie sources and so on. 

11 
 But there's actually conflicting 

12 
 testimony from the workers on this, and it's 

13 
 not like we're rejecting the workers. They're 

14 
 not all agreeing on when these things were 

15 there, and when they started. 

16 
 We have some workers saying that no 

17 
 -- in fact, one that was indicated to us as 

18 
 being the person to pay attention to today, 

19 
 telling us that the iridium was only from St. 

20 
 Louis Testing. So, we -- there's some 

21 conflicting testimony there. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 A lot of that may move us into the 192


2 
 post '62 era because that's when the cobalt 

3 
 sources also started to be used. But we have 

4 
 what we have right now. We have the radium 

5 
 part of the radiography. 

6 
 We have the cobalt and the St. 

7 
 Louis Testing stuff. We have all that. We 

8 
 have yet to get the final modeling from NIOSH 

9 
 for the betatrons, and we have coming to us in 

10 
 December the exposure model for the old and 

11 
 new betatrons, the air activation model, the 

12 
 model for the uranium activities, the steel 

13 
 activation from the betatron, and then 

14 
 reconciling the dose estimates with the dose 

15 records. 

16 
 So, all of that is still coming in 

17 
 December, and some of this could also impact 

18 
 on the decisions here. Another thing, and I 

19 
 haven't asked for a formal motion, but I've 

20 
 heard I think two of us are leaning toward not 

21 
 an SEC, one leaning toward. We haven't heard 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 from Poston or Mark, so they need an 193
 

2 
 opportunity to weigh this stuff in as well. 

3 
 My -- I think -- I was very hopeful 

4 
 we would sort of be in a position to put this 

5 
 part to rest now, but we do have two other 

6 
 committee members who haven't weighed in, 

7 
 number one, and again, I don't think it 

8 
 precludes us, but it appears to me that it'll 

9 
 be very difficult for us to make a 

10 recommendation at the upcoming meeting. 

11 
 The other two Members -- I assume 

12 Mark and John have gotten all the documents. 

13 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

14 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't know if 

15 
 John has because he's had some computer 

16 
 problems in the transmittal of these. So, 

17 that's also an issue. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Mark, I think, only 

19 
 got the redacted version because he was not --

20 
 MR. KATZ: Mark didn't -- I've sent 

21 Mark the non-redacted version. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You did? 194
 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Yes, but Mark has been 

3 
 sort of -- I need to speak to Mark because 

4 
 Mark has really not been engaged in this Work 

5 
 Group for quite a long time. Dr. Poston has 

6 
 made some of these meetings or parts of these 

7 
 meetings. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, so we need 

9 
 to find out --

10 MR. KATZ: So, I need to speak to 

11 Mark. 

12 
 MEMBER MUNN: On where he is with 

13 it. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: On where he is with it, 

15 
 I don't -- he hasn't come to meetings. He 

16 
 hasn't participated by phone, and he hasn't 

17 
 even responded to these materials I've been 

18 sending to him in any way. 

19 
 Now, I know he -- Mark cut back on 

20 
 a number of Work Groups as he transitioned to 

21 
 his new job. I don't know. It's unclear to 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 me whether in this case of this Work Group 195


2 
 whether he intended to step back on this Work 

3 
 Group as he did on some other Work Groups, or 

4 
 just doesn't have the time to attend the 

5 
 meetings. 

6 
 But I will be speaking with Mark 

7 
 about that. I know John Poston is still an 

8 
 active member. That's clear to me. He hasn't 

9 
 made this meeting, which he intended to make 

10 
 at least intermittently today, but then he's 

11 
 missed all this, and he needs to see not just 

12 
 the materials that we've forwarded but he 

13 
 needs to see the transcript of the discussion 

14 
 today because I think it's an important 

15 
 transcript. I think workers have said a lot 

16 
 today on the record which is helpful, as well 

17 as all of your discussions. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: He got the redacted 

19 
 version of this -- of the presentation. I 

20 
 took all the names out. I left other 

21 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 MR. KATZ: Right. Some materials 196
 

2 
 I've been sending him to another government 

3 
 address he has, even though --

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm talking about 

5 
 Poston now. 

6 
 MR. KATZ: Oh, John Poston. 

7 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

8 
 MR. KATZ: Right, and John Poston 

9 
 has been limited because he hasn't had access 

10 
 to his CDC account recently. So, right, he's 

11 getting only material that is PA-cleared. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I wouldn't call it 

13 PA-cleared. 

14 
 MR. KATZ: No, no, no. I know what 

15 you're talking about. You're just --

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Presentation. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right, but 

18 
 that's just leaving names out. That doesn't 

19 
 per se affect the technical information in 

20 there, I don't think. 

21 MR. KATZ: 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, that in 197
 

2 
 itself shouldn't be a barrier to --

3 
 MR. KATZ: Oh, no. I think John 

4 
 can read the reports and carry on with that. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Can -- the other 

6 
 thing I think could be considered -- some of 

7 
 these issues, for example whether or not the 

8 
 80 curie source was there before '68, you 

9 
 know, even if it was, does that affect the 

10 modeling very much? 

11 
 I think maybe you can look at that 

12 
 data, or maybe you have already. You know, we 

13 
 know how it models in after '68, and the 

14 
 question would be, all right, let's suppose 

15 
 for some weird reason which we can't figure 

16 
 out -- it doesn't make sense really to me --

17 
 if it were there two years earlier, what does 

18 that mean in terms of the model? 

19 
 I think you can still -- you can 

20 
 still bound with it. They changed the number 

21 
 a little bit. I don't know if you'd 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 something similar to that on the -- 198
 

2 
 MR. ALLEN: Well, like you 

3 
 mentioned with the conflicting information and 

4 
 all that stuff, the one consistent piece of 

5 
 information with the 80-curie source is that 

6 
 it was used in the betatron building. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

8 
 MR. ALLEN: So, I could try to 

9 
 include some analysis of that with --

10 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: With the 

11 
 betatrons when you do the rest of that 

12 
 analysis. The other thing I would mention is 

13 
 if there were an iridium source, and again, 

14 
 that is one of those conflicting things, but 

15 
 it -- and the one license obviously does allow 

16 them to use iridium instead of cobalt. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was in '72. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, it's later 

19 
 here, but suppose that were the case, the --

20 
 the bounding value probably changes very 

21 little whether you use iridium or cobalt. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's the opposite. 199
 

2 
 It's much less. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I would think it 

4 
 would be less. If you use iridium -- whether 

5 
 you use iridium or cobalt as far as the film, 

6 
 you've got to get the same dose to the film to 

7 
 get the image. 

8 
 Now, you may have to leave the 

9 
 iridium source out a little longer to do that, 

10 
 so that -- but my intuitive -- but you could 

11 verify this readily. 

12 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But if the -- the 

13 
 scattered radiation, nobody stands there in 

14 front of the source. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, for the 

17 
 scattered radiation or penetrating through the 

18 
 shield, there's going to be much less than 

19 with cobalt --

20 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, because the 

21 
 spectrum is lower energy. So, just be 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 cognizant of that. I don't -- I don't think 200
 

2 
 we gain much by having a great deal of 

3 
 argument about exactly when the sources came 

4 
 there. If they were there earlier, what would 

5 
 it look like? And my -- I don't think it's 

6 
 going to change it very much. That's the only 

7 
 point I'm going to make. 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The only exposure 

9 
 scenario --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Probably would be 

11 
 less if you substituted the iridium for the 

12 cobalt. 

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The only exposure 

14 
 scenario that you have with the 80-curie 

15 
 cobalt is if somebody is on the unshielded 

16 
 roof of the betatron building. That's a 

17 
 higher dose than you even get from the 

18 betatron. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, but they've 

20 modeled that already, I think, and 

21 MR. ALLEN: Bob modeled 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right, but -- 201
 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But nonetheless, 

4 
 it can be accounted for, if necessary. Okay, 

5 
 let me also -- I want to give the petitioner 

6 
 an opportunity to comment as well on all of 

7 
 this that we've talked about here. Dr. 

8 
 McKeel? 

9 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And we also -- just 

10 
 an addition here. In the AEC records, they --

11 
 when they did get the legal 80-curie source, 

12 
 they did -- actually did a radiation survey 

13 
 with the source, exposed source, in the 

14 betatron. 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

16 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And we have that 

17 
 data. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I have that 

19 
 number, right. Okay, Dr. McKeel, are you on 

20 the line? You had some comments. 

21 
 DR. MCKEEL: Yes, I am on the line. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do you have 202
 

2 
 comments or questions at this point? 

3 
 DR. MCKEEL: Just a few comments, 

4 
 please. We have not heard from Dr. Mauro 

5 
 today about his view of where things stand 

6 
 versus the early SEC, and certainly at the 

7 
 last meeting of this Work Group, he has made 

8 
 impassioned arguments for an early-year SEC. 

9 
 So, I would personally be very 

10 
 interested in what he might have to say at 

11 
 this point. I also would have to say that as 

12 
 far as a vote on an SEC today, as much as I 

13 
 would like to move this along, I do think it 

14 
 is premature with two Board Members absent, as 

15 
 you said, and also because whether you can 

16 
 accurately bound the dose for the early years 

17 is dependent on some facts. 

18 
 I must disagree with you that it's 

19 
 not important whether there was an iridium-192 

20 
 source there because at least two people have 

21 
 said that he was there during the 1950's. 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that replaces there in the early period, and 203


2 
 in that case, you would have to calculate a 

3 
 dose for it, and consider that along with the 

4 
 radium-226 dose. 

5 
 And the other thing that I just 

6 
 cannot really understand is, we heard today 

7 
 Mr. Dell, Leroy, say without any equivocation 

8 
 that he would go down to the 6 building area, 

9 
 and from the betatron area, and to do that you 

10 
 would have to pass through Buildings 10, 9, 

11 
 you know, the intervening area into building 

12 
 6. 

13 And he said he was impressed that, 

14 
 on this daily tour that he made, that you 

15 
 would often find the small source out in the 

16 
 plant being used. And on intense questioning 

17 
 about this, by both the Board and SC&A, he 

18 
 said that, no, that this could be anywhere in 

19 the plant. 

20 
 So -- and he estimated in fact that 

21 
 90 percent of the time those smaller sources 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 were used out in the plant. So, if we're 204
 

2 
 talking about an SEC, which as it stands right 

3 
 now is for the whole GSI workforce, then all 

4 
 of the previous comments that Dr. Mauro has 

5 
 made, with which I have strongly agreed, that 

6 
 you don't have any real data. 

7 
 Yes, you know the strength of the 

8 
 radium source. You do not know the strength 

9 
 of the iridium source from GSI, which I argue 

10 
 is still -- there's quite a bit of evidence 

11 that it was there. 

12 
 You don't know -- you might know 

13 
 the strength of that, but you don't know how 

14 
 long it was used, where it was used, how many 

15 
 times it was used, how many people were 

16 exposed to it when it was being used. 

17 
 But what you do know from Mr. Dell, 

18 
 which I think is powerful new testimony, is 

19 
 that there were frequent violations of the 

20 
 roped-off area, and as he told the story 

21 
 today, you know, yes, he said a tape 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 always put up, actually one-and-a-half times 205


2 
 the safe distance from the source. But he also 

3 
 said right after that that people would walk 

4 
 under that tape and go next to the -- go next 

5 
 to the -- could walk within a foot of the 

6 
 source and often did. 

7 
 In other words, he's painting a 

8 
 picture that people did what was convenient. 

9 
 So, I just think the occupancy time of that 

10 
 zone, and so forth, that they're not really 

11 based on plausible assumptions. 

12 
 I think that yes, some dose has 

13 
 been calculated in there, but all the 

14 
 assumptions were wrong. The assumptions were 

15 
 that people -- I remember at the last meeting 

16 
 that all during St. Louis Testing, the use of 

17 
 their sources at GSI, somebody was always 

18 around watching and surveilling. 

19 
 Now we hear that when the GSI 

20 
 sources were used out in the plant, frequently 

21 
 nobody was watching them. So -- and when 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 people say, oh, and most -- most is one of the 206


2 
 words I dislike in scientific quantitative 

3 
 discussions. What does most mean? Does that 

4 
 mean a majority? It really has no exact 

5 
 meaning. That, most of the time the shots 

6 
 were short. 

7 
 Well, is that 98 percent of the 

8 
 time, or 50 percent of the time? Who knows? 

9 
 And so, there's a huge amount of uncertainty 

10 about all these assumptions. 

11 
 So, I guess the bottom line is 

12 
 right at this moment I would appreciate 

13 
 hearing Dr. Mauro's opinion. Of course, he 

14 
 doesn't have to say that, but I would love to 

15 hear what he has to say about things. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, actually I 

17 
 would too, and I wasn't sure. John, are you 

18 on the line? 

19 
 DR. MAURO: Oh, yes. I've been on 

20 the line all along. 

21 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I thought maybe 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 you would say something during the SC&A 207
 

2 
 portion but I didn't hear from you. 

3 
 DR. MAURO: No, I was just 

4 
 listening earlier when Mr. Dell -- I found Mr. 

5 
 Dell's material to be the most pertinent in 

6 
 just about everything that we discussed. Yes, 

7 
 you know, you do come to a perspective, and I 

8 
 do have a perspective. 

9 
 What it looks like is we have a 

10 
 time period starting in I guess around '53, 

11 
 going up the end of the SEC period, which I 

12 believe is '66. 

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

14 
 DR. MAURO: The time period. And 

15 
 I'm starting to think in terms of increments 

16 
 of -- I call it elbows in our knowledge, or 

17 
 how our knowledge changes regarding the level 

18 
 of information we have, and how that bears on 

19 
 with sufficient accuracy, reconstructing doses 

20 with sufficient accuracy. 

21 
 It seems to me starting around '62, 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 '63 to the end of the SEC period, we have a 208


2 
 lot of regulatory controls. We have film 

3 
 badge data. We have programs in place, which 

4 
 argues toward the ability to reconstruct doses 

5 
 fairly well. Then we have an interesting 

6 
 period, which is I would say from '57 or '56, 

7 
 up to '62, where we have information, and the 

8 
 information goes toward the interviews, where 

9 
 we have a little bit of conflicting 

10 
 information regarding the degree of control 

11 
 that there was over the radium sources, and 

12 perhaps other sources. 

13 
 We hear from Mr. Dell, and we also 

14 
 heard from, I won't mention the name, but the 

15 
 other person that was interviewed, where we 

16 
 get information in one case that there was a 

17 
 considerable amount of control. In another 

18 
 case, there was some marginal or a lesser 

19 degree of control. 

20 
 So, if that -- and we also have 

21 
 information, as Bob has explained, sort 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 like weight of evidence. We have information 209
 

2 
 on at least one person's exposure records. We 

3 
 also have information on the filing for the 

4 
 application for the license, which argues 

5 
 toward what types of exposures or experience. 

6 
 That's where we heard about no one received 

7 
 more than the radiation exposure limits, the 

8 
 15 and 12 rem. 

9 
 So, all of a sudden we have this 

10 
 time period which starts to say that, well, we 

11 
 have information for '56, '57. I'm not too 

12 
 sure where the line is, but to '62, where 

13 
 clearly there's a lesser degree of control 

14 
 than we have for '62, but there is some degree 

15 of control with some conflicting information. 

16 
 This is an area that goes toward 

17 
 weight of evidence in my mind, and it's a 

18 
 tough call. Then we have the time period 

19 
 before '56 to earlier. That time period seems 

20 
 that we have very little information. We have 

21 
 less information on the degree of controls 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 that there might've been in place. 210
 

2 
 We have -- I guess from everything 

3 
 I heard, I guess we have -- all we know is 

4 
 that there were film badges. Other than that, 

5 
 we have some information -- in other words, we 

6 
 don't have the benefit of the knowledge that 

7 
 was given to us around the '56 to '62 period 

8 
 related to, for example, the 18-month 

9 
 exposure, that 2 rem per year for that worker 

10 
 regarding the testimony that there was 

11 control. 

12 
 I'll call him Mr. P testified that 

13 
 yes, they did have good controls instituted 

14 
 and managed in terms of barriers. But he, 

15 
 that person, joined -- I believe, was active 

16 
 in those types of activities and starting in 

17 '56-'57 time period. 

18 
 So, then I have this last time 

19 
 period, from '52 to '56, which I'm a little 

20 
 bit more troubled by in terms of having 

21 
 adequate information to come to some judgment 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 here. So, then of course we have this 211
 

2 
 incident that may or may not have taken place, 

3 
 and that was -- that happened also, it sounds 

4 
 like if it did happen, it was in that '52, '53 

5 
 to '56, '57 time frame. 

6 
 And so, taking it all together, I 

7 
 break it up into those three time segments, 

8 
 and the one that gives me -- I am most 

9 
 concerned with is the very early time period, 

10 
 '52-'53, whenever the beginning is, '53, up to 

11 
 about, let's say, '56. I'm feeling a little 

12 
 bit better about being able to reconstruct 

13 
 doses, although there's some concerns because 

14 
 of conflicting information from, let's say, 

15 '56-'57 up to '62. 

16 
 Starting in '62, I feel as if 

17 
 things -- you know, you got a good handle on 

18 
 the problem. I guess that's the best I could 

19 
 do. I wish I could have a stronger answer for 

20 you, but that's my perspective. 

21 
 DR. MCKEEL: I appreciate it 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 much. 212
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you, John, 

3 
 for those comments. Let's see of there's any 

4 
 further input here in the people around the 

5 
 table. 

6 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, it's 

7 
 John Ramspott. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John. 

9 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: I just want to 

10 
 clarify one -- I think this is an easy point. 

11 
 Mr. Leroy Dell, if he was still on the phone, 

12 
 told myself and Terry Dutko without any doubt 

13 
 that that plumb-bob was stolen out of 10 

14 
 Building, not 6 Building, and that -- that was 

15 
 one of those leave it alone, unsupervised 

16 
 tests. 

17 And it was a plumb-bob, which my 

18 understanding was radium in plumb-bobs. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, that makes 

20 
 more sense to me, too, John. It probably was 

21 
 taken when it was out in use, rather 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 somebody going into the room where they stored 213


2 
 it and taking it out of its shield. 

3 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Mr. Dell knows the 

4 
 individual that was actually the radiographer, 

5 
 and the guy went to lunch. So, I mean if you 

6 
 guys want to reinterview Mr. Dell to confirm 

7 
 that, but Terry Dutko and myself had that 

8 
 story told to us by Mr. Dell when we first met 

9 
 him. 

10 Another point is Mr. P's radiation 

11 
 badge report, I guess I just heard that that 

12 
 went back to '57, if I understand the 18 

13 
 quarters. So, there's absolutely no badge 

14 
 information prior to '57 for anybody, unless 

15 I'm missing something. 

16 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think that's 

17 
 correct. That's -- that matches what we have. 

18 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was correct 

19 
 for Mr. P's badge. We back-calculate; we 

20 simply count 18 quarters --

21 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: We have no reports 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 from anybody -- 214
 

2 
 MR. KATZ: Hey, John, hold on one 

3 
 second, please. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: John, wait. But 

5 
 the other information is that they used film 

6 
 badges from at least '53 on, because we have 

7 
 the photograph, and the statement -- the 

8 
 unqualified statement made by GSI on the AEC 

9 
 application during all the time they used 

10 radium, no one ever exceeded the AEC limits. 

11 
 So, that was one of my suggested 

12 
 limits was simply assume that the AEC limit is 

13 
 the limiting dose, which is a very high dose, 

14 
 by the way. Twelve rem or even up to 15 rem 

15 in the early years is a very high dose. 

16 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Having the picture 

17 and no badge reports is my point. 

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

19 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: The picture is one 

20 
 thing, but the actual reports: they do not 

21 
 exist. So, essentially, there's no badge 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 information for '57 to '53. 215
 

2 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Except the 

3 
 statement based on badge information that 

4 
 existed at the time, saying there was -- it 

5 
 never exceeded AEC limits. 

6 
 MR. RAMSPOTT: Know what, Bob? You 

7 
 danced around a little bit today, but you were 

8 
 talking about the legalities of a company 

9 
 lying to the AEC. I read all over those 

10 
 reports that there's not going to be any 

11 
 isotopes out in the plant, too. So, I don't 

12 
 know how anybody can believe, and it's in that 

13 
 FOIA. If somebody is blatant, you got people 

14 
 saying those things are out there in the 

15 plant. 

16 
 You got on the report it's not 

17 
 going to happen that way, so I don't think I'd 

18 believe anything they said. 

19 
 DR. MCKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, this is 

20 
 Dan McKeel. May I amplify that point, please? 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure, 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. MCKEEL: I am also extremely 216
 

2 
 distressed that there's a -- I would call it 

3 
 kind of unquestioning acceptance that whatever 

4 
 is written down in a license application is 

5 
 true, and this includes the 1962 forward 

6 
 safety, which has been referred to as 

7 
 controls. 

8 
 We know a lot more from various 

9 
 workers that things that are written down as 

10 
 ironclad procedures in the safety procedures 

11 
 at GSI, drafted by Dr. Konneker, and NCC, that 

12 
 those things simply never happened; for 

13 
 example, that the crane operators in the 

14 
 Building 6 radiography facility had to notify 

15 
 the supervisor at -- before they were going to 

16 come over that building. 

17 
 We have testimony that that 

18 
 actually never happened. And there are a lot 

19 
 more things like that, and I can't go into all 

20 of them today. I would be happy to do that. 

21 
 But as a matter of fact, 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 everybody there, I would make the following 217


2 
 blanket statement. There is very little 

3 
 corroboration, by either records or AEC 

4 
 compliance reports, or anything that that 

5 
 complete safety program that is outlined in 

6 
 the 1962 license application, and repeated 

7 
 over and over through into the 1970s, when 

8 
 there was a major change in the safety 

9 
 officer. 

10 There's lots of evidence from 

11 
 workers that those things never happened, and 

12 
 there's almost no corroboration that they did 

13 
 happen. The training program -- this is not 

14 
 brought out today by Mr. Dell, but it is 

15 
 important to say it. He said the training at 

16 
 GSI was extremely poor, and I would say from 

17 
 everything that I've learned that that's a 

18 
 true statement. 

19 
 And just as an example, which was 

20 
 not brought out today, there was supposed to 

21 
 be annual AEC testing of the radiographers 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
 

 

 

 

 218 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

GSI, and as far as we know there is some 

testimony that ‘ identifying information 

redacted’, who is deceased, gave informal 

talks about radiation safety before 1962. 

We also have direct evidence from 

Mr. Dell to John Ramspott, who related to me 

that as a matter of fact, he was one of the 

four people that he's aware of that ever took 

a formal AEC radiation safety test, and he 

took that test at Washington University. 

It was given by Dr. Konneker. In 

fact, he's the only living worker that we are 

aware of that even acknowledges knowing Dr. 

Konneker, but apparently, Leroy Dell knew him 

and about him quite well. 

But the salient point about the 

radiation safety program quality at GSI is 

that when Mr. Dell took his examination, 

radiographer's exam, at Washington U under Dr. 

Konneker, Bill Davis also took it, and two 

other people took it as well. And all 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 other people flunked, including ‘ identifying 219


2 
 information redacted’, who was the head safety 

3 
 man in the later years after 1966, for 

4 
 example, and had some part in radiation safety 

5 
 very early on. 

6 
 So, three of the chief folks who 

7 
 ran the radiation safety flunked the test, did 

8 
 not pass it, and only Mr. Dell passed the 

9 
 test. That's not a good record for an in10 
 control, very well run radiation safety 

11 program. 

12 
 In fact, in most places, what 

13 
 should happen is those people could not 

14 
 continue in their jobs if they didn't pass the 

15 
 qualifying test to be a certified 

16 
 radiographer. And Mr. Dell mentioned this 

17 
 morning that he was licensed but some of the 

18 
 other people that did radiography were not 

19 licensed. 

20 
 So, I want to say, just from what 

21 
 I've heard, that I do not believe the vast 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 majority of what's written on paper, and you 220


2 
 can refer to it by various things, but I would 

3 
 say, having been in the grants business 

4 
 actively for -- including the Army, actually, 

5 
 for 35 years, that people in all fields, many 

6 
 fields, certainly medicine and certainly Army 

7 
 research, put things in grants that may be 

8 
 well intentioned at the time they are written, 

9 
 but they just never get followed through on. 

10 
 And some of the time, for practical reasons, 

11 
 and sometimes because people never intended to 

12 follow through on them. 

13 
 And I'm suggesting that was the 

14 
 situation largely at GSI, and I could go 

15 
 through this in much larger detail, but I 

16 
 would challenge anyone to go through the 

17 
 radiation safety requirements that are written 

18 
 down as formal things that need to be done 

19 
 that -- about notifying ‘ identifying 

20 
 information redacted’, for instance, any time 

21 
 there was going to be a shot done in 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 Building 6 facility. 221
 

2 
 That wasn't done. I mean it just 

3 
 wasn't done. And so, I think just a -- sort 

4 
 of a blanket acceptance that the controls were 

5 
 really quite good, as has come out today just 

6 
 does not square with the actual in practice 

7 
 tax at GSI, and I just had to add that as a 

8 
 postscript. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thanks for 

10 
 those additional comments, Dan. I do want to 

11 
 make sure we understand that our assessment of 

12 
 the sort of presence of a radiation safety 

13 
 program in the early years is not dependent on 

14 
 these documents per se, but more on the worker 

15 
 testimony that there were film badges in use. 

16 
 There were dosimeters in use, and there was a 

17 
 practice of roping off the areas at one-and-a18 half times the 2 mR per hour distance. 

19 
 So, we were understanding that as 

20 
 there being the presence of a more formalized 

21 
 radiation safety program. Now, whether 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
 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 effective or not I think you're quite right; 222


2 
 that is always a separate question. But I 

3 
 don't think we're basing that on any 

4 
 statements in these documents, but more on 

5 
 testimony that has come out since our last 

6 
 meeting, where we were trying to establish 

7 
 sort of what the level of practice was, if 

8 
 any, in those everyday. 

9 
 So, I'm -- we know what was being 

10 
 done. You always have the question of was it 

11 
 effective in controlling the exposures. To 

12 
 some extent, the modeling doesn't depend fully 

13 
 on whether or not the workers were adhering to 

14 
 things because we make certain assumptions. 

15 
 For example, you're not supposed to walk 

16 
 through a roped-off area. We're assuming 

17 
 people did that on a regular basis in the 

18 modeling. 

19 
 So, there is an effort to take into 

20 
 consideration the idea that good practices 

21 were not necessarily always followed. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. MCKEEL: This is Dan McKeel 223
 

2 
 again. I certainly do understand that. 

3 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

4 
 DR. MCKEEL: And my final comment 

5 
 for the day is I made similar comments about 

6 
 this at -- to the Board, but at Texas City --

7 
 but here's an example where there is one 

8 
 report from one worker out of 3,000, Mr. P, 

9 
 who worked at the site, left for the Army, 

10 
 where there is one page that gives information 

11 about 18 quarters' worth of radiation data. 

12 
 There's no other data for that 

13 
 period that everybody now seems to be quite 

14 
 comfortable about, and actually it is basing a 

15 
 lot of quantitative dose determinations as 

16 that representing real data. 

17 
 Well, if data from a man who worked 

18 
 on weekends -- and there's even some dispute 

19 
 of whether the law permitted working two days 

20 
 on a weekend -- but obviously that is very 

21 
 limited, restricted data from one individual 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 who is not a full-time radiographer. 224
 

2 
 That's the only job description 

3 
 that is represented among that data for those 

4 
 film badges. There are 89 film badge -- film5 
 badge workers who have data out of a workforce 

6 
 that range upwards of 3,000 a year, throughout 

7 
 a 13-year period. 

8 
 And to say that one set of data, 

9 
 again, which we arranged for you all to have, 

10 
 that that's representative of an entire ten11 
 year period is really astounding to me. And 

12 
 I've said it before, but it does not seem to 

13 
 score any points for this group, that, there 

14 
 is no other place that I'm aware of in science 

15 
 where the rule of statistics that data has to 

16 
 be somehow representative of the population 

17 
 could be so widely ignored. And if that's the 

18 
 only degree of confidence you need in a 

19 
 certainty of bounding, then you know I'm --

20 
 I'm just up against a hopeless situation that 

21 
 I've never met a scientific group 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 accepted data like that, and I don't think it 225


2 
 represents good science, and I'm sure you all 

3 
 strongly disagree with me, but that's the way 

4 
 I feel about it, and I would not take any 

5 
 comfort in the small amount of data. 

6 
 I understand about the gentleman 

7 
 wearing the film badge. Again, John Ramspott 

8 
 sent you that picture. He supplied you with 

9 
 that picture, and you know, yes, it is 

10 
 evidence that some people had a badge, but 

11 
 where's the data? That doesn't seem to bother 

12 anybody. 

13 
 If there was a program that the --

14 
 the license application in '62 outlines all 

15 
 sorts of records that were supposed to be 

16 
 kept, calibration tests and so forth. None of 

17 
 the -- shot logs, the utilization and 

18 maintenance records, none of that is there. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, Dan, we're 

20 all very much aware of that. 

21 
 DR. MCKEEL: But you don't seem to 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

-- 

 

 

 226 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, look --

look. This is not unlike -- we have the very 

same situation with the worker testimony. We 

have very, very few workers out of that 

workforce, and they're not unlike this one 

case you're talking about, and they don't all 

agree. And so, we're having to make judgments 

based on a sparsity of information. That's 

sort of the nature of this. 

This is not a science experiment. 

This is science and public policy. It is 

very, very difficult. We know it. You know 

it. We're doing our best to sift through 

this. All of these cases are individual. 

We don't know how representative 

they are. We're trying to appreciate every 

piece of information we get, and see if we can 

use it, if it makes sense. So, you know, in a 

certain sense we share your frustration. We're 

-- but we are trying to do the best we can to 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 sift the chaff from the grain, and make a 227


2 
 sensible decision. 

3 
 I think it's one of those areas 

4 
 where we won't all agree on either the 

5 
 validity, the value or the interpretation of 

6 
 all of these things. And you know that as 

7 
 well as I. 

8 
 So, you know, please be assured 

9 
 that we are doing our best to be fair to all 

10 
 of this data that we have. We're not ignoring 

11 
 it. We're trying to judge it, evaluate it, 

12 
 and see where it makes sense. In some cases, 

13 
 it seems to reinforce certain things. In 

14 
 other cases it seems to contradict. So, 

15 that's part of the dilemma. 

16 
 If it were much smaller, 

17 
 straightforward, we probably wouldn't be where 

18 
 we are right now, struggling with these kinds 

19 
 of issues. But we will do the best we can 

20 
 going forward to try to sniff these out, and I 

21 know you're frustrated. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 DR. MCKEEL: No, I -- 228
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We are too. 

3 
 DR. MCKEEL: I'd like to defend 

4 
 myself. I'm really not frustrated. 

5 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, maybe 

6 
 that's not the right word, but --

7 
 DR. MCKEEL: No, that's not right 

8 
 word. What I am is I am upset because what I 

9 
 see is -- I appreciate everything you did. 

10 
 It's a very tough job that you all must do, 

11 
 and you work at it valiantly, and I think 

12 
 everybody is -- I give the Board and SC&A and 

13 
 NIOSH great credit for that. I am in that 

14 camp. 

15 
 But what I do think is that while 

16 
 we're in this period of the ten-year review, 

17 
 that as I look at difference SECs that have 

18 
 been awarded quickly within months or weeks, 

19 
 particularly from some of the larger DOE 

20 
 sites, they have copious film badge data. They 

21 
 have copious neutron data. They have copious 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 bioassay data, none of which we have for GSI.229


2 
 And all I'm saying is that those 

3 
 sites, I think, are awarded SECs because the 

4 
 data is too scanty to actually calculate 

5 
 doses. Whereas here, you take a dose from one 

6 
 individual who works part-time, and his badge 

7 
 therefore only part-time, and extrapolate to a 

8 
 whole ten-year period based on that. 

9 
 So, what I'm upset about is the 

10 
 inconsistent way that criteria are applied for 

11 
 recommending a denial or an approval of an 

12 
 SEC. And those same comments would go for 

13 
 NIOSH and for the -- but particularly for the 

14 Board and for NIOSH. 

15 
 I think they use different criteria 

16 
 for judging different SECs that are just 

17 
 simply not consistent. And I think there 

18 
 comes a point where history is going to look 

19 
 back at this program, and it's going to say 

20 
 that the purpose of an SEC was, when there was 

21 
 not enough real data to calculate a dose 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 bound it with sufficient accuracy for all 230


2 
 sources that were present at that site, that 

3 
 that's the time right then that there 

4 
 should've been an SEC awarded. 

5 
 And when it drags on for years 

6 
 after that point, and when SC&A is allowed to 

7 
 do part of the new modeling and to reconstruct 

8 
 new methods that will help NIOSH achieve their 

9 
 goal, that's where I part company as being 

10 
 within the guidelines for how the SEC process 

11 should work. 

12 
 So, no, sir. I'm not frustrated. 

13 
 It's way beyond that. I am upset as a 

14 
 scientist. And I don't think this program is 

15 
 really about public policy. The public policy 

16 has already been decided. 

17 
 Public policy is in the preamble of 

18 
 the Act that the workers were harmed by 

19 
 activities sponsored by the US government, and 

20 
 they are to be compensated. And so, I think 

21 the public policy issues are well settled. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 What I think is -- that NIOSH and 231


2 
 the Board are about are about science, about 

3 
 the science. And the science has got to do 

4 
 with dose reconstruction and SECs applied in a 

5 
 very strict context and with very strict 

6 
 guidelines and rules. 

7 
 I don't think they are being 

8 
 applied consistently. So, I want that 

9 
 represented as that's the way I feel about it. 

10 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, well, 

11 that'll certainly be on the record. 

12 DR. MCKEEL: Thank you. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, thanks for 

14 
 those additional comments. I want us to take 

15 
 a look at moving forward and maybe scheduling 

16 another meeting. 

17 DR. MAURO: This is John Mauro. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John? 

19 
 DR. MAURO: I'm sorry to interrupt 

20 
 you, but there's something that is troubling 

21 
 me, and I'm not sure it's appropriate to bring 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 it up or not, but it is troubling me and I'm 232


2 
 going to bring it up anyway. 

3 
 There probably are a substantial 

4 
 number of workers who, maybe the predominant 

5 
 number of workers, who have developed prostate 

6 
 and skin cancer at this site. 

7 
 If an SEC is assigned to any time 

8 
 period, those workers will not be assigned a 

9 
 dose on the order of anywhere from I guess 2 

10 
 to 6 to 15 rem per year. They won't be 

11 
 assigned a dose, though they may very well 

12 
 have experienced a dose of that size. We 

13 
 don't know, but they will not be compensated 

14 if an SEC is granted. 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That is correct. 

16 
 DR. MAURO: And I would suspect, 

17 
 knowing the stats on different types of 

18 
 cancers, that prostate and skin cancer is 

19 
 probably the most prevalent amongst the worker 

20 
 population. So, we are in a very -- I mean I 

21 
 don't know whether or not that has any play 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 here. But I actually feel as if I was a 233
 

2 
 worker there, and I developed prostate cancer, 

3 
 and I was a radiographer and I was denied, 

4 
 well, I would've been granted if they would've 

5 
 used any of these models we're talking about, 

6 
 but I'm denied because an SEC was granted, it 

7 
 would trouble me. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I 

9 
 understand your point, John, but I don't think 

10 
 we're allowed to make a decision based on 

11 
 thinking about whether or not an SEC would pay 

12 
 off certain cancers better than other cancers. 

13 
 DR. MAURO: And that's why I sort 

14 
 of opened my statement saying, I probably 

15 
 shouldn't say this, but it's troubling me 

16 anyway. And I'll leave it at that. 

17 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, I -- and I 

18 
 think this is true of any SEC: certain cancers 

19 
 get excluded. And if the dose reconstruction 

20 
 method is not accepted, it cannot be used to 

21 
 reconstruct doses for those who get other 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 cancers. 234
 

2 
 DR. MAURO: This side is rare and 

3 
 unique. Most of the times SECs are granted 

4 
 because of internal dosimetry issues. They 

5 
 dominate. This is a site where concerns by 

6 
 far are external, and so you have a unique 

7 
 circumstance where, if there's any place where 

8 
 this strained set of circumstances are real, 

9 
 it's here. 

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But that's not an 

11 issue that we would be allowed to consider. 

12 DR. MAURO: I understand. 

13 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't think 

14 legally we can --

15 DR. MAURO: I understand. 

16 
 MR. KATZ: No, I agree. I mean 

17 
 that's -- I mean I think, John, it is fine you 

18 
 saying it. It's public education, I guess, in 

19 
 this case. But it cannot have a bearing on 

20 how the Board makes a decision. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I just want to 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 respond. 235
 

2 
 DR. MCKEEL: Please, this is Dan 

3 
 McKeel. I must comment on that, and I 

4 
 understand this is not in the purview of this 

5 
 Work Group, but Dr. Mauro did bring it up. May 

6 
 I, please? 

7 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, yes. Go 

8 
 ahead. 

9 
 DR. MCKEEL: All right. Here's my 

10 
 statement. Number one, prostate cancer rarely 

11 
 gets compensated. Number 2, 94 percent of all 

12 
 the dose reconstructions that were submitted 

13 
 to NIOSH at GSI have already been completed. 

14 
 So, those people have either been compensated 

15 or not compensated. 

16 
 The dose reconstruction is 

17 
 essentially done. So, people who would've 

18 
 been compensated with skin cancer, all but 6 

19 
 percent of the total, they would've already 

20 been decided on by Department of Labor. 

21 
 The other thing is I would try to 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 mention to you is, among the problems that 236


2 
 people have faced including the workers, to 

3 
 even judge the points that John Mauro just 

4 
 brought up, I personally have had a long 

5 
 discussion with the Department of Labor, 

6 
 trying to find out the breakdown of specific 

7 
 cancers at General Steel Industries, and have 

8 
 not been able to get those data. 

9 
 So, I really think that's a false 

10 
 issue that he brings up. I don't think people 

11 
 with prostate cancer are probably going to get 

12 
 compensated. And I agree it -- what this is 

13 
 is a statement that it would be better for 

14 
 people not to have an SEC, and I am 

15 
 particularly interested in this because I'm a 

16 
 counselor also. I mean the co-petitioner at 

17 
 Dow Chemical, as many of you all probably 

18 know. 

19 
 And so, I've been following for the 

20 
 last six years the patterns of payment at GSI 

21 
 and Dow. What it shows is a complete negation 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 of that idea that an SEC is bad for you. 237


2 
 There are far fewer claims and cases at Dow, 

3 
 and they've been paid overall approximately 

4 
 twice as much as GSI, which has submitted a 

5 
 far larger number of claims and cases and had 

6 
 far more dose reconstructions. 

7 
 And also, the covered period at GSI 

8 
 is 13 years. At Dow, it is four years. So, 

9 
 having an SEC at Dow is demonstrably a very, 

10 
 very good thing for workers. And anybody that 

11 
 could claim anything to be different would 

12 have to do an analysis like I've done. 

13 
 I'll be happy to send anybody who 

14 
 is interested those figures. But having an SEC 

15 
 for Dow was a very good thing, for just the 

16 
 covered period. So, I had to make that 

17 
 comment. That comment by Dr. Mauro just can't 

18 stand. Thank you. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dan, I think it 

20 
 is probably true at the other sites too, where 

21 
 there are SECs. The percent of claims paid 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
 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 certainly greater than the other, and there 238


2 
 may be specific cancers that are not 

3 
 compensated, but -- well, there are. I mean 

4 
 those that were named, but I think it is 

5 
 almost double at most of the sites. I'm 

6 
 looking at Ted to see if he can verify that, 

7 
 or Jim. But an SEC site has roughly twice as 

8 
 many claims as a regular site. 

9 
 MR. ALLEN: Right. In general, I 

10 
 think it runs about 50 to 60 percent 

11 compensation. 

12 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Fifty to 60 

13 percent? 

14 
 DR. NETON: John Mauro's point is 

15 
 well taken that this site is unique in the 

16 
 sense that there's very high external 

17 
 exposures here. Almost all the other sites --

18 
 I can't think of one that has been added 

19 
 because of external. It has been added 

20 
 because of internal exposures, which provide 

21 
 almost zero dose to the prostate gland and 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
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 skin. 239
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, 

3 
 nonetheless, I don't think we can take that 

4 
 into consideration. 

5 
 DR. NETON: No, I understand that, 

6 
 but I think this is -- John Mauro's point was 

7 
 interesting. 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: When we're talking 

9 
 about 12 to 15 rem a year, when we're talking 

10 
 about much smaller dose, that's something 

11 else. 

12 
 DR. NETON: That's why I'm saying 

13 
 all the cases that have been done at GSI would 

14 
 be reworked --

15 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't want us 

16 
 to spend time discussing this since it's 

17 nothing --

18 DR. NETON: Exactly. 

19 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- in our 

20 
 purview. Let's look at our calendars. We 

21 
 have at the end of the year several more 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 things coming from NIOSH. We need time for 240
 

2 
 SC&A to review those. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Is that still on 

4 
 track? 

5 
 MR. ALLEN: It's on track. I can't 

6 
 guarantee it won't be late, two weeks late. 

7 
 But right now, it's on track. 

8 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right, the 

9 
 federal budgets are still sort of up in the 

10 
 air. So -- yes, assuming they're still --

11 
 they're on continuing resolution, and that's 

12 the --

13 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Assuming SC&A still 

14 has a contract next year. 

15 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But anyway, we 

16 need to look at probably late January. 

17 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Not again. We're 

18 
 talking about beginning of March. It comes a 

19 
 little late, the report comes a little late. I 

20 
 do have -- it may not seem like it, but I do 

21 have other work. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's not like you 241
 

2 
 guys are only working on this. You've got 

3 
 multiple sites. 

4 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I would like two 

5 
 months, frankly. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Can we -- can we 

7 
 hit early March? 

8 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, with a 

9 
 baseball bat. 

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, now, which 

11 
 days are good for Poston? Is it Tuesday and 

12 Thursday? I think it is. 

13 
 MR. KATZ: I think so, because 

14 
 that's why he had a problem today. He 

15 
 could've done it yesterday. So, Tuesday is 

16 good for --

17 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: How about March 

18 6? I think we need to get a date down. 

19 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: What day of the 

20 week is that? 

21 
 MEMBER MUNN: I can't do early 

NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 242 1 


2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


11 


12 


13 


14 


15 


16 


17 


18 


19 


20 


21 


This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

March. I can't do early March. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: How about the 

following week. 

MEMBER MUNN: Any time after the 

15th . 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You know what? We 

already penciled in the 15th. 

MR. KATZ: Yes, I already have that 

on mine. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I just realized I 

already have it down. 

MEMBER MUNN: I do too. 

CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're going to 

meet, and then we're going to deal with these 

additional issues. Well, we'll have a lot on 

our platter, but we'll plow through that. 

We're going to have NIOSH stuff. We're going 

to have SC&A, and as we go, if we can close 

out issues on the matrix, we'll do --

MEMBER BEACH: Or update the 

matrix. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or update the 243
 

2 
 matrix. Actually, Bob, can you make sure that 

3 
 we get an updated matrix which will include an 

4 
 enclosure of that --

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Sure. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- which is item 

7 


8 
 MEMBER MUNN: Four. 

9 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- four. 

10 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. We have two 

11 
 matrices floating around at the same time. Do 

12 we just do both, or just the SEC matrix? 

13 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, we finished 

14 
 TBD-6000. 

15 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I don't mean that. 

16 
 I mean there is an Appendix BB matrix and a 

17 SEC matrix for GSI. 

18 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, those two. 

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: With some overlap. 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

21 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Do you want both 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 matrices updated? 244
 

2 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It would be good 

3 
 to do both. 

4 
 MR. KATZ: Yes. 

5 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. It's going 

6 
 to be a little while though. 

7 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, there's not 

8 
 a whole lot of change in them. 

9 
 MR. KATZ: Do you want him to 

10 
 update them now, or update them after the 

11 
 papers come in and so on? Before the next 

12 
 meeting for sure, but do you want them updated 

13 
 now or do you want them updated once we have 

14 the new material from --

15 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't think the 

16 
 material will update anything per se, will it? 

17 
 MR. KATZ: Well, there will be new 

18 responses from NIOSH in effect. 

19 MEMBER BEACH: SC&A will review. 

20 
 MR. KATZ: And SC&A will review 

21 those. 

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 transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: They can see if 245
 

2 
 there's any --

3 
 MR. KATZ: So, typically before a 

4 
 meeting, we get a matrix that takes into 

5 
 account a new response from NIOSH, a response 

6 
 from SC&A, all of that, all in the matrix, so 

7 
 it is all covered up and up to date for that 

8 
 meeting. Because I don't see how the matrix 

9 
 gets used before then. So, does that make 

10 sense? 

11 
 MR. ALLEN: It just seems like the 

12 
 responses and the comments that are going to 

13 
 get on the matrix are minimal compared to 

14 these White Papers are going to be. 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

16 
 MR. ALLEN: It's not like you're 

17 going to have pages and put them --

18 
 MR. KATZ: No, absolutely not. It's 

19 
 -- the matrix is just used to keep us on track 

20 for closing issues. Right? 

21 
 MEMBER BEACH: Bob, can you send 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
 

 

 

 

 

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 your slide presentation? I didn't get it this 246
 

2 
 time around. 

3 
 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Will do. 

4 
 MEMBER BEACH: I know I'm not on 

5 
 your list for some things. 

6 
 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Let me thank the 

7 
 petitioner, Dan. Thank you. And all the GSI 

8 
 workers on the line, and others for your 

9 
 participation today. We will meet again on 

10 
 March 15th, and we expect that -- well, we'll 

11 
 certainly keep you posted on any documents 

12 that we develop in the meantime. 

13 
 You can certainly feel free to keep 

14 
 us posted on other issues, or comments that 

15 
 you want to put in the record, as well, in the 

16 
 meantime. Thank you very much, and we are 

17 adjourned. 

18 
 (Whereupon, the above-entitled 

19 matter went off the record at 2:50 p.m.) 

20 


21 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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

This transcript of the Advisory Board on Radiation and Worker Health, TBD 6000 Work Group, has 

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

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

certified by the Chair of the TBD 6000 Work Group for accuracy at this time. The reader should be 

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

1 
 247
 

2 


3 


4 


5 


6 


7 


8 


9 


10 


NEAL R. GROSS 

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS 

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W. 

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