1 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES

CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL

NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR OCCUPATIONAL

SAFETY AND HEALTH 

+ + + + +

ADVISORY BOARD ON RADIATION AND

WORKER HEALTH 

+ + + + +

WORK GROUP ON TBD-6000

+ + + + +

THURSDAY

MARCH 15, 2012

+ + + + +

 The Work Group convened in the 

Brussels Room of the Cincinnati Airport 

Marriott, 2395 Progress Drive, Hebron, 

Kentucky, at 8:30 a.m., Paul L. Ziemer, 

Chairman, presiding.

PRESENT:

PAUL L. ZIEMER, Chairman

JOSIE BEACH, Member 

WANDA I. MUNN, Member
2 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

ALSO PRESENT:

TED KATZ, Designated Federal Official

DAVE ALLEN, DCAS

ROBERT ANIGSTEIN, SC&A

DAN CHUROVICH*

LEROY DELL*

JOHN DUTKO*

JENNY LIN, HHS

JOHN MAURO, SC&A*

DAN McKEEL

JIM NETON, DCAS

JOHN RAMSPOTT

 

*Participating via telephone
3 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

Introductory remarks and review of Agenda 

(Paul Ziemer).............................. 4 

Overview of NIOSH White Paper on doses from 

Betatron operations at GSI (Dave Allen)... 12

Petitioner's comments and review of NIOSH 

White Paper(s) and other issues related to the 

SEC Petition for GSI (Dan McKeel)........ 169

SC&A review of NIOSH White Paper on doses from 

Betatron operations at GSI

(Bob Anigstein).......................... 236

Adjournment.............................. 299
4 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

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

2 (8:42 a.m.)

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'll officially 

4 call the meeting to order. I'd like to have 

5 everyone take a quick look at your agenda. 

6 The agenda was distributed by email. I have 

7 some hard copies here, if anyone at the table 

8 needs a hard copy and, folks on the phone, if 

9 you didn't get it by the email distribution, 

10 it also is on the website.

11 The focus today -- well, let me 

12 before I talk about the focus today just point 

13 out that when we initially set the time for 

14 this meeting, we did that with a projected 

15 assumption that we would have all the 

16 materials that we needed in time for all of us 

17 to digest them in a timely way. That only 

18 partially occurred, at least for the Chair, 

19 who was not able to, because of other 

20 commitments, even look at the SC&A piece until 

21 yesterday as well as the petitioner's piece.

22 But knowing that that was going to 
5 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be the case, I initially talked to Ted about 

2 whether or not we might schedule a follow-up 

3 meeting very rapidly within the next couple of 

4 weeks, and we have been able to do that.

5 So my idea today would be that we 

6 look at this as an information-gathering 

7 meeting where we look -- first of all look at 

8 the proposed models for the betatron work as 

9 well as, we can go back to the earlier model, 

10 source -- radiographic sources if we need to.

11 But, go through that carefully, 

12 make sure that the Work Group understands that 

13 model or that little -- portions of the 

14 modeling, have an opportunity to hear from 

15 SC&A and the issues that they have raised or 

16 are raising about the betatron model, as well 

17 as related matters, as well as hear from the 

18 petitioner and the site expert on the issues 

19 they have with -- and concerns that they have 

20 with the NIOSH models as well.

21 So this will give us an 

22 opportunity to get all of the information out 
6 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there. Then we'll have a couple of weeks so 

2 that we can individually digest it in more 

3 detail and I'm very hopeful that two weeks 

4 from now, it'll come together and be in a 

5 position to make a final judgment up or down, 

6 which -- whatever we decide to recommend, to 

7 come up with a recommendation for the full 

8 Board so that that can be acted upon after the 

9 next full Board meeting.

10 So I think we'll have time to go 

11 through these all in detail. I want to 

12 proceed in the fashion that we would go 

13 through the NIOSH White Paper, have Dave go 

14 through some detail on that and explain their 

15 thinking and approach for the modeling there, 

16 have SC&A present the analysis that they have 

17 done, what concerns that that they are raising 

18 and why, and then have the petitioner go 

19 through their materials. We have extensive 

20 comments from the petitioner and we want to 

21 make sure we understand the petitioner's 

22 concerns and issues, so we have all the points 
7 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of view on the table.

2 And I did commit to Dr. McKeel at 

3 the front end that I would make sure that we 

4 didn't end up, you know, at the last minute, 

5 with just petitioner stuff at 2:59 or 

6 something.

7 So wherever we are, if we're not 

8 there right after lunch, we are going to jump 

9 to that. The intent is to give them a chance 

10 to go through their materials, both Dr. 

11 McKeel and Mr. Ramspott, to go through their 

12 materials in whatever area of detail they 

13 want. No 10-minute limits, Dan.

14 DR. McKEEL: Thank you very much.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But I'm planning 

16 to leave at 3:00, so --

17 DR. McKEEL: I'm planning on 

18 starting at 1:00.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In any event, 

20 that's my intent today and I hope everybody is 

21 okay with that so that you don't feel 

22 pressured today to say, okay, I've got to come 
8 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to a final decision on it. Because there's a 

2 lot of issues here, number one, and we have 

3 some conflicting points of view, and we want 

4 to make sure that everybody has a chance to 

5 put their information on the table and if 

6 Board Members have questions, they have the 

7 opportunity to ask, and so on.

8 So I will proceed in that manner. 

9 We all know that at the Work Groups, we can 

10 be very flexible, in terms of you are free to 

11 raise questions, for example, during Dave's 

12 presentation. He's not the only one that can 

13 talk and, in fact, petitioners can also raise 

14 questions as the Board Members do.

15 So we'll look at this as just a 

16 discourse and you know, I don't want -- I 

17 don't want SC&A and the petitioners to make 

18 their case particularly when Dave's making 

19 his, and I don't want them to make their case 

20 when you're making yours.

21 But I think it's fair to raise 

22 questions, what do you mean by this, why did 
9 

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you do this? So we'll proceed on that basis.

2 So we'll begin with the NIOSH 

3 White Paper and, just for the record, there 

4 are three main documents that we have before 

5 us. There's other -- a whole plethora of 

6 documents that we have from seeing this, but 

7 we have the January White Paper from DCAS 

8 called Dose Estimates for Betatron Operations.

9 We have the SC&A document of March 

10 -- it doesn't have a date. It just says March 

11 2012.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: March 12th.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, 

14 officially March 12th. "Response to Battelle 

15 TBD-6000 Appendix BB General Steel Industries: 

16 dose estimates for betatron operations." 

17 And then we have Dr. McKeel's 

18 document which, at the top is called Docket 

19 140 General Steel Industries Addendum 1 to 2-

20 28-12 submission and I think there's another 

21 one. Yes. Let me get the right one out here. 

22 Critique of NIOSH January 2012 White Paper 
10

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dose estimates for betatron operations.

2 So actually there's actually two 

3 papers from the petitioner, make sure we have 

4 both of those. And then each of you also has 

5 perhaps some PowerPoint materials that you may 

6 wish to use.

7 So let's begin with the NIOSH 

8 White Paper and there's a section at the very 

9 beginning and I'm going to sort of ask -- I'm 

10 going to sort of lead you off with a question, 

11 because the first thing that you have in here 

12 is the section called "new betatron building." 

13 I mean, you have your introductory remarks, 

14 but --

15 On new betatron building, there is 

16 a section about the cobalt survey and how you 

17 have utilized that in terms of evaluating 

18 radiation levels, and I know there are a 

19 number of questions that have been raised 

20 about that.

21 But I want to make sure that I 

22 understand and that others here understand why 
11

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this was done, and so let me precede your 

2 comments by simply stating that as far as 

3 shielding -- we are talking about, in a sense, 

4 evaluation of shielding capabilities and how 

5 they relate to distances of locations in that 

6 building, as I understand it.

7 And I just want to point out, just 

8 sort of for the record, because one of the 

9 questions I think that arises is: why are you 

10 even doing this? What does this source have 

11 to do with the period in question? And I just 

12 want to point out, from a basic point of view, 

13 aside from the issues that are being raised, 

14 that -- because I have done a lot of shielding 

15 design and I've taught a lot of shielding 

16 design and others have here, that if I know 

17 something about how a particular source at a 

18 particular location delivers exposure through 

19 a shield, I can then use that information and 

20 say what would I would get if I change the 

21 shielding material, what will I get if I 

22 change the source term, the energy, or its 
12

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 location?

2 In fact, I have done that in the 

3 past all the time with students, that, okay, 

4 here's a source, a known source in a known 

5 facility and we put it here, we point it in 

6 this direction and here's what you get on the 

7 other side of the wall. What happens if I 

8 change the source, change the direction, 

9 change the distance, even change the wall 

10 material, what am I going to get? It's a 

11 standard procedure, based on physics.

12 Now, that only works, of course, 

13 if nothing else changes and the petitioner is 

14 going to raise that question, so I understand 

15 that. But do I understand the reason you are 

16 doing this to be something like what I 

17 described? Or, now that I have sort of said 

18 what I thought you said, tell us why you did 

19 this.

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes, you're right. I 

21 was looking at it as essentially calibrating 

22 the model or verifying the model or 
13

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calibration, but it's essentially verifying 

2 the model of the building itself, the betatron 

3 building, because that was the one place where 

4 we had a known source and known radiation 

5 levels at various locations.

6 We have some drawings of the 

7 building, we have some dimensions. There's a 

8 little bit of conflict from one drawing to the 

9 next on dimensions et cetera, so I revised the 

10 model that SC&A put together some time ago to 

11 update it for the new information that we have 

12 been obtaining from the NRC and used that 

13 survey to make sure that that was a realistic 

14 model of the betatron. We weren't missing some 

15 other big unknown. So like I said, 

16 essentially it was used to validate an MCNP 

17 model of the betatron building, to put it 

18 short and sweet.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, so you are 

20 basically taking the cobalt readings and 

21 saying, okay, this tells me something about 

22 the nature of the shield walls, at least at 
14

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the time the cobalt was used --

2 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: for that 

4 purpose, and it helps you refine distances, or 

5 confirm distances.

6 MR. ALLEN: Distances, 

7 thicknesses, densities et cetera.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, yes, okay. 

9 So that's the basic use of that. Now --

10 MR. ALLEN: At that point that 

11 gives me what we can verify as a good model of 

12 the new betatron buildings, then I can start 

13 putting different sources that have the 

14 betatron in there and see what kind of -- have 

15 some confidence in the radiation levels that 

16 has given me outside of the betatron building, 

17 or in various locations within.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, let me ask 

19 the Work Group Members, there were some 

20 questions on why they would use that 

21 methodology -- 

22 MEMBER MUNN: No, that's clear --
15

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Bob, do you have 

2 a question on that? It looked like, from a 

3 methodology point of view you are okay with 

4 that. Now there is -- there are some 

5 questions -- what's the starting activity of 

6 the source and I think you registered that --

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You can raise 

9 that later.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Methodology12 wise. Dr. McKeel, I know you have some other 

13 questions on it, but you understand why they 

14 did it, even though the source itself was 

15 outside the time value?

16 DR. McKEEL: Yes, let's come back 

17 to that other point later. My concern is with 

18 you're modeling a betatron facility using a 

19 cobalt source that wasn't even used in that 

20 building until after the covered period.

21 So my question is, MCNP is 

22 perfectly capable of modeling the betatron 
16

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 itself. So you know, you are modeling the 

2 cobalt source with MCNPx, why not model the 

3 betatron, which is really the function of that 

4 building during the covered period?

5 So I guess I would have to be --

6 to be frank, it seems like a bizarre thing to 

7 do. It's modeling something that is not the 

8 source that was used there at all during the 

9 covered period.

10 And I understand what you are 

11 saying, but my view, as a fellow scientist 

12 from another field, is: why don't you use the 

13 most direct evidence that you can get rather 

14 than some indirect measure that you have to 

15 extrapolate back to, and as I did point out, 

16 those two sources are really quite different 

17 on many different levels, a betatron and a 

18 cobalt source, the radiation pattern, the 

19 collimation of the beam, the energy spectrum, 

20 all sorts of things are different about that 

21 other thing. So I would say to choose --

22 choose the model is still odd. That's all I 
17

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would say.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, that's 

3 your concern. Okay.

4 MR. ALLEN: And just to come back 

5 to that, we did model the betatron and put it 

6 inside that modeling and yes, you're right, we 

7 could have started with the model of the 

8 building and used the betatron, but the 

9 information we had was some radiation --

10 actual radiation survey with the cobalt 

11 source, and that goes one step beyond simply 

12 modeling it and actually allows you to 

13 validate that model of the building --

14 DR. McKEEL: I understand.

15 MR. ALLEN: -- so the extra step 

16 to try to validate that --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the program 

18 will take into consideration the difference in 

19 energies under the spectrum because the cobalt 

20 is a monoenergetic. You've got two gammas but 

21 they basically have the same energy. You have 

22 more of a -- you have what looks more like a 
18

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 bremsstrahlung spectrum from the -- but in 

2 normal shielding calculations, you can take 

3 care of that in any event, and you also have 

4 some other factors that come into play, the 

5 buildup changes with energy sources.

6 In any event, it's just a sort of 

7 independent way to cross-check.

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I mean those 

9 numbers were not --

10 (Simultaneous speaking.)

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, you didn't 

12 use --

13 MR. ALLEN: -- dose estimates --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Comment.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I'll make a 

16 comment. To cut to the chase, the reason they 

17 did this, the cobalt source, is that was the 

18 only one on which they had actual, real world 

19 measurements.

20 They did not -- to our knowledge, 

21 to the record, they did not do a radiation 

22 survey of the -- with the betatron on. So 
19

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 only with the cobalt source do we have 

2 radiation survey measurements and therefore, 

3 they used that to validate not the betatron 

4 radiation, but the model of the physical model 

5 of the building. Does it make sense? Can 

6 MCNP predict? I think it was an excellent 

7 exercise to say: can MCNP predict the measured 

8 dose rate, given the information that we have 

9 about the building?

10 And the answer was, we both did 

11 it. Dave did it. I did it. We came up with 

12 -- there were some differences in the 

13 approach. We came up with somewhat different 

14 answers.

15 But the basic answer was: yes, we 

16 are comfortable with the model. It comes 

17 close enough, I think within a factor of two 

18 is considered pretty good for radiation 

19 release theoretical modeling with all the 

20 uncertainties there.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dan, you had a 

22 comment.
20

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. McKEEL: Yes, my comment was I 

2 wanted to make that clear for the record. The 

3 problem here with this site, particularly 

4 related to dose reconstruction, but 

5 particularly with related to the SEC, is there 

6 is no real actual data on either betatron 

7 facility, old or new, at any time during the 

8 covered period or thereafter.

9 So with all due respect, I 

10 understand everything that has been said. I 

11 accept that -- and I have been saying for a 

12 long time, years, that in order to validate a 

13 computer model -- and I have papers that we 

14 did this -- you know, you have to have real 

15 data to compare it against.

16 So when you then turn around and 

17 use a validation which there's even some 

18 dispute on how close to the real and the 

19 actual -- and the computed data have to come 

20 to be validated, I would say twofold is very 

21 generous, and lots of times you can do better 

22 than that.
21

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So, you know, but that -- I don't 

2 think that means that it validates it for 

3 betatron model, where you don't have any real 

4 data to compare against. So you can't actually 

5 validate the betatron.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And John, you 

7 have a comment too?

8 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes, this is John 

9 Ramspott. My main concern is: it is totally 

10 out of the AEC window. Any information being 

11 used is totally out of the AEC window.

12 The contract period of General 

13 Steel was 1955 to `66. The survey that they 

14 are referring to is in 1971.

15 And I want to go back to a 

16 comment, on the record, that's actually from 

17 Dr. Anigstein's meeting with the workers at 

18 General Steel -- Dave was in attendance -- in 

19 Collinsville, 2007.

20 And the quote -- I'm sure you 

21 remember it -- the workers and staff were 

22 looking at a drawing from 1991, from the 
22

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cleanup, and Dave cautioned the workers at 

2 that time -- I have the quote -- that, "Don't 

3 work with that kind of drawing because things 

4 change over the years. That's actually out of 

5 the window."

6 Now if that that's out of the 

7 window and that caution was given then, it 

8 seems pretty apparent it would be given now. 

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John, I think 

10 it's a good point and that would be always be 

11 the caution, and I think it works at both 

12 ends. We don't want to say that we shouldn't 

13 use any drawings before that period or any 

14 after, or information from before or after. 

15 The question always is: okay, we have this 

16 information, how well does it apply to the 

17 period we are looking at? Were there changes?

18 So that's a caution that would 

19 take place here as well. You know, the basic 

20 principle of doing it conceptually, good 

21 principle, the cautions that you all raise are 

22 valid cautions.
23

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Is the facility as it was when 

2 they did the survey? And that's the main 

3 point, not that we shouldn't look at it 

4 because we look at other things that -- we 

5 look at stuff that's way earlier. We look at 

6 stuff that's later. But we always have to 

7 say: Does that even apply?

8 We don't always know, and that's -

9 - your point's well taken.

10 MR. RAMSPOTT: A follow-up to that 

11 if I could. I mean, for the record, that 

12 survey that you're referring to was not done 

13 by a licensed health physicist, physicist. ‘ 

14 identifying information redacted’'s always 

15 referenced later -- or actually early in the 

16 program. That survey was actually conducted 

17 by two General Steel employee management 

18 individuals --

19 MR. DELL: That's right. 

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: -- with no 

21 credentials to really do that testing and I 

22 think that should be noted too. If you're 
24

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to have data, have valid data, you know, 

2 from experts.

3 MR. DELL: I can validate that.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'd like to 

5 disagree with a couple of points, or I have a 

6 comment, shouldn't say "disagree." First of 

7 all, the earliest drawings were from -- I'm 

8 going to show it in my talk -- January `68.

9 Yes, it's outside the window but 

10 it's a year and a half. Just a second. Your 

11 earlier charge -- there is no reason, there is 

12 no basis for saying that the building was 

13 rebuilt during this period of time.

14 I'm not talking about the lead 

15 door now. I'm just talking about the 

16 structure of the building. The building -- we 

17 have the drawings from January 1968 and then a 

18 couple of later ones during that couple of 

19 years. They are entirely consistent.

20 It did change to `91. By this 

21 time, the building had been out of use for its 

22 original purpose for almost 20 years and there 
25

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 may very well have been some walls torn down 

2 because the sketch -- the drawings from 1989, 

3 `91 are different.

4 There's a wall missing. So they 

5 may have -- and from what I understand from 

6 you, John, was that later on, by the time they 

7 were using it like for office space.

8 So there may very well have been a 

9 difference and we recognize that. That's why 

10 there's a change. That's why we did this, or 

11 NIOSH did that.

12 There was a change and this was 

13 acknowledged, but to say we can't use any 

14 information just because it came a few months 

15 later, then this whole program can't do its 

16 work because everything is based on 

17 information gathered usually in a later period 

18 or an earlier period, and my experience with 

19 this whole program, which SC&A developed about 

20 eight years, and I have been involved more in 

21 GSI than any other site, we probably have more 

22 information on GSI, wouldn't you say that 
26

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Paul, than on any other site, or at least one 

2 of the best. It's one of the best documented 

3 --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, we have a 

5 lot of information. Like any other site the 

6 issue, though, is: how good is the information 

7 and do we apply it properly?

8 But let's not have that debate 

9 today. 

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, and the 

11 other comment about the person making the 

12 survey, the person making the survey -- I 

13 guess I'm not supposed to say his name even 

14 though it's in the open record, it's in the --

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It doesn't 

16 matter what his name is.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?

18 MS. LIN: Well, I mean, the point 

19 is made --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It doesn't 

21 matter what his name is.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But anyway, the 
27

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 gentleman who did the survey, was the 

2 radiation supervisor there for a period of, 

3 call it 10 years, and his resume is very well4 documented.

5 No, he was not a certified health 

6 physicist. There were very few of them in 

7 those days. But he was well trained. He had 

8 courses in radiation safety. He had courses 

9 in radiography. He had courses in handling of 

10 radioisotopes, and his resume is very well 

11 documented in the AEC application.

12 In several places his training is 

13 -- he's probably, from what I could see, the 

14 best-trained person there, with the exception 

15 of Dr. ‘ identifying information redacted’, 

16 who is a Ph.D. physicist and a CHP. Again, 

17 there were very few of those, of people of 

18 that qualification, and he was the one who 

19 made the original radiation surveys of the 

20 facility in building -- the 6 Building.

21 But at that time, he was no longer 

22 employed -- I guess GSI figured they can 
28

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 handle it themselves and they were using the -

2 - stopped using his survey -- that's why they 

3 went to the historical -- I'm going a little 

4 ahead -- historical reasons.

5 They terminated the contract with 

6 him for whatever reason and they refused to 

7 supply -- he did three things for them. He 

8 did a radiation survey for them, he supplied 

9 the film badges under his own name -- he 

10 probably bought that from someone else but he 

11 distributed them under the name of his own 

12 company -- and he calibrated their 

13 instruments.

14 So after that, they turned to St. 

15 Louis Testing to calibrate their instruments, 

16 they got their own film badge contract with 

17 Landauer directly, and they used this 

18 gentleman for the radiation supervisor, and 

19 their film badges were -- at the beginning the 

20 film badge reports were addressed to him and 

21 then later they were addressed to the new 

22 supervisor of the betatron facility.
29

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, let's move 

2 on then. You made the point. Let's go ahead 

3 with the shot scenarios, and I guess, as a 

4 starting point, I want to make sure that I'm 

5 understanding these scenarios, and I think 

6 there's maybe some debate about whether they 

7 could or did actually occur.

8 But you have all of these -- you 

9 have like the straight-on, you have the 45 

10 each way, you have some up and downs and you 

11 have the railroad location, you have pointed 

12 at the wall, you have pointed at building --

13 yes. 

14 But were you trying to get a 

15 spectrum of what the --

16 MR. ALLEN: That was the intent, 

17 was to get a whole variety of possible angles 

18 that the betatron could be pointed at, keeping 

19 in mind that it's always going to be pointed 

20 at some kind of casting.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

22 But once you generate the numbers in Tables 3 
30

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and 4, for example, then what?

2 MR. ALLEN: The whole first part 

3 of the White Paper was essentially the pieces. 

4 This was -- this piece was essentially to 

5 point the betatron at a casting in a wide 

6 variety of locations for -- several locations 

7 for the casting in a variety of orientations 

8 of the betatron pointed at the casting, and to 

9 determine the dose rate in various areas from 

10 all those orientations.

11 That was then later all put 

12 together primarily for the -- essentially the 

13 non-betatron -- well, I wouldn't even say the 

14 non-betatron workers, but the people not in 

15 the control room, people who were layout men 

16 and anybody else outside of there, such as on 

17 the roof or outside of the betatron building, 

18 in an attempt to -- I mean, when you put the 

19 whole model together you can come up with a 

20 dose rate outside of the building, but to try 

21 to reconcile this with all the other 

22 information you've got, you need to know the 
31

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 various orientations and what kind of an 

2 effect that has on these values.

3 So like I said, it was essentially 

4 a spectrum of orientations, a whole variety of 

5 them that are explored to see what the effect 

6 would be.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So if you take 

8 the railroad position, and my understanding, 

9 and I'm coupling what you said with, I think, 

10 with what John said, that in reality, they 

11 probably would move the sample along the 

12 railroad and keep the thing perpendicular, did 

13 I understand that right, that they probably 

14 wouldn't actually do angle shots, sidewise?

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: They would try to 

16 keep the betatron heading directly at it, 

17 rather than at an angle.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, because 

19 it wouldn't make sense to -- 

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 MR. ALLEN: It would throw off --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- in terms of an 
32

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 image it would --

2 MR. RAMSPOTT: It doesn't make any 

3 sense, no.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But you're only 

5 doing that to get the effect of what happens 

6 if you're off center or up or down a little 

7 bit, what does that do?

8 MR. ALLEN: Well, keep in mind 

9 it's not -- this was this big axle model that 

10 we are shooting at, but that's not the only 

11 thing that got shot. There were various 

12 different sizes and shapes --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, so the 

14 orientation might have changed somewhat.

15 MR. ALLEN: Sure, I mean you can 

16 easily angle it to shoot straight at one piece 

17 of a casting that has a different shape, where 

18 you are kind of glancing off of a different 

19 side of it. Not everything was a flat, 

20 straight piece of steel that they were 

21 shooting at.

22 So essentially this was primarily 
33

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 just to get the various angles where you --

2 that you could angle the betatron at.

3 MEMBER MUNN: At certain angles 

4 you could not because of the limit switches. 

5 Right.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And as you 

7 modeled this, you're modeling with the beam in 

8 an orientation, but without a specified sample 

9 in place. It's unshielded? Not unshielded, 

10 but -- no sample barrier, in other words, the 

11 value you are reading in the model, outside 

12 the wall, say in the 10 Building from railroad 

13 straight on --

14 MEMBER MUNN: That's without the 

15 target.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is that without 

17 a sample target in place?

18 MR. ALLEN: No. There is a steel 

19 casting in front of that.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

21 MR. ALLEN: In front of the beam.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Of a specified 
34

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 size?

2 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, and these 

4 all have the same specified -- 

5 MR. ALLEN: Yes, the same target, 

6 coordinated, different places. Actually, they 

7 are targeted in, I think, three different 

8 places, and then, like I said, it moved ahead 

9 to where yes, it was a -- for that particular 

10 type of thing, it wouldn't make a lot of sense 

11 if it was at a glancing angle.

12 But essentially, if you had a 

13 piece of steel there that you were trying to 

14 shoot like that, oriented to head that

15 direction, then you've got the numbers there, 

16 like I said, basically trying to get a whole 

17 variety of possibilities.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, okay. 

19 This, so my simple mind can get around this, 

20 suppose that the only possibility is railroad, 

21 straight, up and down. Three numbers. Forget 

22 the others at the moment.
35

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What do you do 

3 with those three numbers? Let's say at the 

4 number 10 Building. What are you going to do 

5 with those three numbers?

6 MR. ALLEN: Well, that's towards 

7 the end of the paper. What I ended up doing 

8 with those --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, but just 

10 conceptually, you've got these three numbers, 

11 what are you doing to do with them?

12 MR. ALLEN: What I did was -- and 

13 I know there's some debate on this -- in the 

14 White Paper it'll say that I was maximizing it 

15 as 10 millirem in the control room and didn't 

16 do one particular shot forever, there was 

17 various orientations in the -- it wasn't just 

18 --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I know what 

20 you -- you parsed that out --

21 MR. ALLEN: I put -- of the 15 

22 scenarios here, I used Excel Solver to say 
36

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 what's the conditions that we come up with, 

2 which were the 41 percent utilization, the 10 

3 millirem in a control room, and trying to 

4 maximize the dose in different locations such

5 as the number 10 Building, what would be the 

6 number of hours used and these various 

7 orientations to combine to meet all these 

8 criteria.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And I 

10 know you're going to address that in a general 

11 or more specific way, and I sort of knew the 

12 answer to the question, but I want to make 

13 sure that we're understanding that you're not 

14 using these individual numbers per se, you're 

15 gaining the spectrum of readings and then 

16 you're parsing things out in a way to maximize 

17 -- the way you do it conceptually, to maximize 

18 what would be the exposure to a person, and 

19 you have them in there a certain percent of 

20 the time of their work day at that location?

21 MR. ALLEN: I think so. I did use 

22 these numbers in combination. I didn't use 
37

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 all these numbers, it was a maximizing 

2 analysis.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. 

4 Questions?

5 MEMBER BEACH: I guess the only 

6 question I would have is why would you use 15 

7 models instead of limiting it to maybe 7 

8 models of more -- so it's more applicable?

9 It seems confusing that you have 

10 put so many in there when, in reality, you're 

11 not going to use that many.

12 MR. ALLEN: Well, when I did them, 

13 I didn't know which ones I would use. That 

14 was the whole idea, was to -- any time I've 

15 tried to do any kind of a model before, it 

16 was: "But what about?" Okay?

17 So I tried to --

18 MEMBER BEACH: So you were 

19 covering all bases.

20 MR. ALLEN: -- cover the whole 

21 spectrum because honestly, I didn't know, if 

22 somebody said, what if they angled it up, what 
38

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 if they angled it down, you get a lot of 

2 scatter off the concrete floor, and in all 

3 honesty, unless I did it, I wouldn't know for 

4 sure. So I tried to get all the spectrum. I 

5 didn't know which one was going to end up 

6 being the maximizing, because once you put 

7 that criteria of not exceeding what the film 

8 badges read, it can change. It's not 

9 necessarily the highest dose rate. It might 

10 be a little more than the highest ratio of the 

11 number 10 Building to the control room, and 

12 it's not intuitive which one will give you the 

13 higher ratio.

14 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott 

15 again. One of the other concerns we have is 

16 the charters are constantly changing. And it 

17 could be HY80 steel which you referenced, 

18 could be a uranium ingot.

19 I mean, there's a variety of 

20 different items going through there, shapes, 

21 sizes, there are no shot records. They don't 

22 exist. No one knows what was on there. What 
39

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 did you use in your model?

2 MR. ALLEN: What we used is -- I 

3 think it was HY80 steel. 

4 MR. RAMSPOTT: I mean, what size, 

5 how big, how --

6 MR. ALLEN: It was the same thing 

7 in the SC&A report from a few years ago, was a 

8 large axle as I recall. Bob, you can correct 

9 me if I'm wrong.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. No, it was a 

11 hollow axle for the power shuttle which I 

12 believe --

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: So that you used 

14 one item --

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 MR. ALLEN: But I did do some 

17 scoping on a few different -- not 15 different 

18 shots; each of them takes some time to do. 

19 But I did a little bit of scoping that's not 

20 written in there, just to satisfy myself.

21 But the truth of the matter is 

22 with photon radiation, which is what X-rays 
40

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are, it's honestly the electron density that 

2 makes much of the difference. It's not so 

3 much the type of material as far as scatter 

4 radiation that comes off of that. As far as 

5 any kind of build-up or activation of the 

6 material, yes, that makes a difference. But 

7 as far as the scatter -- it's kind of the 

8 density that makes the most difference and I 

9 shot some uranium, I shot some steel, 

10 different thicknesses, and as long as you're 

11 not into a thin steel, it doesn't make as much 

12 difference on the scatter, and there would 

13 definitely be no reason to shoot a quarter 

14 inch steel with a betatron or an eighth of an 

15 inch steel -- so basically, a thick, massive 

16 piece of steel or almost any other kind of 

17 metal could give you a similar answer.

18 MR. RAMSPOTT: So you did shoot at 

19 the uranium?

20 MR. ALLEN: I did. It's not in 

21 there. I didn't put -- didn't make it part of 

22 the analysis.
41

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RAMSPOTT: Because that would 

2 be interesting to see. Did you take into

3 account that 15 percent of the -- I think it's 

4 called the photon beam coming out of the 

5 betatron? 

6 MR. ALLEN: I believe it's 

7 neutrons. I think it's a smaller number. I 

8 think it was like 0.15 on that chart, percent. 

9 But I could be wrong. But in any case what 

10 we did was --

11 MR. RAMSPOTT: Aren't there 

12 documents that say it's 15 percent --

13 DR. McKEEL: There are documents 

14 that say that 15 percent of the axial beam --

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: -- the axial beam --

16 DR. McKEEL: of old and new 

17 betatron donut tubes is neutrons.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It may be that 

19 when you do the quality factor, to change it 

20 to dose, as opposed to the flux value. We can 

21 double check that.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Dose being 15 
42

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 percent sounds within reason.

2 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that might be the 

3 -- I might have been thinking the flux.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You can check on 

5 that.

6 (Simultaneous speaking.)

7 MR. ALLEN: But in any case, the 

8 model itself, its first principle, does 

9 essentially shot the 25 MeV electrons at the 

10 platinum target and the model will produce 

11 essentially whatever is going to be produced, 

12 including the neutrons and you can't -- you 

13 can tally them together. I did do these and 

14 tally the neutrons in separate runs, just 

15 because there are limitations to the program 

16 and you can only do so much in one run.

17 It was considerably easier to 

18 tally the neutrons separately in other runs, 

19 so I didn't run out of computer time.

20 DR. McKEEL: Paul, I have a 

21 question for Dave Allen. One of the pieces of 

22 information we will present is that the new 
43

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 betatron tunnel exit door was not enclosed by 

2 a lead-lined double door in the covered 

3 period.

4 So my question is: when you were 

5 modeling those 15 scenarios, one route for the 

6 betatron -- new betatron being to get into 

7 Building 10 is through the tunnel down the 

8 railroad track, directly into Building 10, was 

9 the double-leaf, lead-lined door in your 

10 model?

11 MR. ALLEN: The lead-lined is the 

12 bottom seven feet and yes, that was in my 

13 model and I have seen the question raised 

14 about that. The White Paper --

15 DR. McKEEL: I am going to stick 

16 to exactly what Paul asked and not get into 

17 that right now. But --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I understand 

19 that is a question.

20 DR. McKEEL: -- it's important for 

21 the record that that was not accurate. That 

22 didn't exist in 1966 --
44

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I would also 

2 --

3 DR. McKEEL: That's a fallacy.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: When I talked to 

5 Bob last week to see where he was on the 

6 report, I asked him if he had seen your 

7 comments on that and whether, when he was 

8 checking out Dave's stuff, whether he was 

9 doing it with or without the shielding, and 

10 you can speak to that later. But in any 

11 event, we are aware that that could be an 

12 issue in terms of how it puts at certain 

13 location --

14 DR. McKEEL: I think that's 

15 important to get on the record. That would 

16 actually affect all 15 scenarios. Whatever 

17 you are measuring, the final count --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

19 Right.

20 (Simultaneous speaking.)

21 DR. McKEEL: -- into Building 10.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right now, the 
45

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH model assumes the lead is in there. So 

2 if at some point it was either confirmed or 

3 NIOSH said, well, we're not sure but we'll 

4 accept maybe that it wasn't there for 

5 claimant-favorability, from a conceptual point 

6 of view, it would -- you would rerun some

7 numbers as far as --

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes, it would take 

9 about two minutes to change the input --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But right now, 

11 it's assuming the shielding is there and 

12 affects the final numbers, yes. You're quite 

13 right.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I had a question. 

15 This Excel Solver, now my -- perhaps I 

16 misunderstood. You had another condition that 

17 it maximizes the dose rate in the 10 Building, 

18 you had a condition in there? 

19 MR. ALLEN: Yes. Yes.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I somehow didn't 

21 catch that or I didn't realize that you didn't 

22 -- because I thought it was --
46

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: When I saw your report 

2 I went back and looked and I realized I had 

3 two things bulletized and that wasn't one of 

4 them, but essentially it was in the text above 

5 that I said I used Solver to maximize the dose 

6 rate using these conditions and then 

7 bulletized --

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I see, okay. 

9 Because otherwise it didn't make very much 

10 sense. Now I withdraw my -- would have been, 

11 you know -- so in other words, it sampled all 

12 possible combinations --

13 MR. ALLEN: And gave you the max.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- and then gave 

15 you the -- okay. That makes sense, because 

16 there's about 100 combinations that you could 

17 have. Okay.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Just for my own 

19 understanding of the term "flipping," Dave, 

20 you referred to certain positions as flipped 

21 positions and, John, I think you said that's 

22 not how they used the term. Could one of you 
47

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 explain to me what the operators understood 

2 flipping to be? And you may be using it in a 

3 different way.

4 MR. ALLEN: We could be wrong on 

5 this, because I kept getting different 

6 impressions and stories on exactly what is 

7 called that. So --

8 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott again 

9 -- 

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I mean, it 

11 doesn't affect your model. You called it 

12 something but --

13 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But in any event 

15 what's --

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: Actually, the term 

17 is wrong in your report. You actually 

18 referred to swinging the head 45 degrees as 

19 "flipping" in your paper, and that's 

20 definitely not flipping.

21 What they did, and a gentleman 

22 deceased, ‘ identifying information 
48

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 redacted’from Allis-Chalmers, Los Alamos as 

2 well, taught the workers when he came to the 

3 site how to flip the head of the betatron. The 

4 betatron, as built by Allis-Chalmers, was 

5 designed to shoot straight out away from a 

6 control room, using that wall as the example, 

7 to shoot straight out but have the ability to 

8 rotate and turn 45 degrees without any 

9 flipping, that was standard. That was safe 

10 and then that whole --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Rotate 45 degrees 

12 in any direction. Top down --

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: Absolutely. They 

14 could have -- well, actually no, they could go 

15 180 degrees down. They could shoot straight at 

16 the floor or straight at the ceiling if they 

17 wanted.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

19 MR. RAMSPOTT: They didn't do that 

20 very often, but I actually have photographs of 

21 a site with a betatron actually doing it.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So 90 degrees 
49

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 from --

2 MR. RAMSPOTT: So, flipping --

3 MR. DELL: I've seen it done.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Who is this? 

5 Who is speaking?

6 MR. DELL: My name is Leroy Dell, 

7 and I was the supervisor for the betatron in 

8 the late end of `60s and up to `70s. Yes, 

9 they could turn the head around and shoot 

10 right, I mean directly, at the control room.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, good. 

12 Thank you.

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: And the gentleman 

14 taught the guys how to do that, and that 

15 essentially lets that machine shoot about 

16 anywhere in that building, because the 

17 betatron is on a tripod -- actually a crane, 

18 telescoping crane, comes down, can go down to 

19 the railroad tracks. When you flip it you 

20 lose all barriers. Now it can go as far as it 

21 wants down the tracks, as far as the head 

22 sticks out, and we actually have some good 
50

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 photographs of the normal betatron right at 

2 the tracks, from Allis-Chalmers, shooting into 

3 that L area that everybody says is the dead 

4 area.

5 So flipping the head is not 

6 turning it 45 degrees. It's actually turning 

7 it upside down and in reverse. That's what 

8 Mr. Dell says.

9 MR. ALLEN: I mean, the scenarios 

10 I have, have it going, what would that be, you 

11 270 degrees --

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: You actually turned 

13 it back at the control room, I think, in your 

14 paper?

15 MR. ALLEN: Well, what you were 

16 just saying about shooting down that L area, 

17 shooting -- the one that I called flipping the 

18 head was shooting the 45 degree angle down 

19 that --

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: And that didn't 

21 have to be flipped to do that.

22 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I thought that 
51

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was --

2 MR. RAMSPOTT: No.

3 MR. ALLEN: -- outside the limits 

4 of what was supposed to be done --

5 MR. RAMSPOTT: No, that -- that 

6 betatron will go down to the edge. We've got 

7 photographs of it. It'll actually go down to 

8 the tracks and you still are allowed your 45 

9 degrees, so your angle -- you are not totally 

10 down it, but --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now they had to

12 defeat some limit switches or some interlocks 

13 to do the flipping?

14 MR. RAMSPOTT: They were actually 

15 taught -- no, all they had to do was move the 

16 hoses out, move the wires out of the way --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

18 MR. RAMSPOTT: -- so they wouldn't 

19 get hung up in the flip. 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: And you see that 

22 from the photographs. And then the other 
52

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 method that one of the workers shared with me, 

2 if you took the betatron down -- there's two -

3 - there's actually two cranes in the building, 

4 one to pick up castings to put it on a car, 

5 whatever, or take it off a car, the other one 

6 is for the betatron.

7 If you ran a betatron crane into 

8 the lifting crane while it was stationary, 

9 that jolt would actually allow the head to 

10 turn more than 45 degrees.

11 So they figured out how -- yes, 

12 those guys figured out how to do it when you 

13 are in a hurry and it's the end of the month, 

14 they said, okay, this is how we're going to do 

15 it, they just changed the rules. They did 

16 what they had to do and told to do, that 

17 supervisor in particular brought that bit of 

18 knowledge.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, that's 

20 helpful.

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: And 45 degrees is 

22 important because that sounds like they didn't 
53

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 flip it as much as they did the other --

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Perhaps I can 

3 clarify this. This is a diagram that was drawn 

4 by one of the workers during the meeting. Let 

5 me just reproduce it here.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, for those 

7 on the phone, Bob is going to -- is drawing on 

8 the magic white board which is actually a

9 piece of paper. Or are you? Are you drawing 

10 on the paper?

11 MR. RAMSPOTT: We have some 

12 workers on the line that could describe this 

13 too.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. He's got a 

15 diagram that was provided to him, I guess, by 

16 someone there, but in any event --

17 MEMBER BEACH: Bob, what report 

18 are you getting that diagram out of?

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, is this a 

20 report that we have, Bob, or -- 

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is something 

22 that was hand-drawn at the meeting. So I 
54

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 don't have --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It was hand3 drawn at the workers' meeting?

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, but your 

6 marker is not working there.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I see that. Not my 

8 marker. I think it's meant for the Board.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So, but does it 

10 differ from what -- I mean, does it differ 

11 from what John Ramspott has described or what 

12 Mr. Dell has described? I think I understand 

13 what they're saying. I just, I don't -- do we 

14 need a diagram? 

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do we need a 

17 diagram?

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well, I don't 

19 think they would -- I don't think it was --

20 what they were saying does not agree with what 

21 I was told by the workers at that meeting. So 

22 I want to show --
55

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay, well, 

2 I'm not sure how critical it is other than you 

3 have the ability to get the beam down that 

4 corridor that you're talking about --

5 MR. ALLEN: Whether legally or 

6 illegally.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, either way.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is what I was 

9 told. Here is the building. Here are the 

10 railroad tracks.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: This is -- the 

13 betatron is here. And the normal limit 

14 switches were 110 degrees -- I spoke to 

15 someone just recently. So this is the 

16 straight-ahead position. They could go 110 

17 degrees in either direction. So this was the 

18 normal arc that was limited to.

19 However if they, from my 

20 understanding, if they take the head and flip 

21 it this way, then you can get the other part 

22 of that arc.
56

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, the rest of 

2 the way round. Right.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So the 45 degrees 

4 was just an example. It wasn't that it was 45 

5 degrees, that normally it couldn't shoot over 

6 the control room. It could shoot at the 

7 railroad track but it couldn't shoot down.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Unless you moved 

9 it way on down.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: However, we were 

11 also told by one of the radiographers at the 

12 meeting -- no, they never actually aimed it 

13 at, you know, they never actually aimed it at 

14 the door. That was completely unlikely. But 

15 it did go -- this is getting a bit technical. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, they are 

17 obviously going to be aiming at a sample. 

18 You're not going to sit there and say, let's 

19 aim at the door. You're aiming at a sample 

20 and depending on where the sample is, and the 

21 orientation --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. In this 
57

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 instance, in Dave's model, and actually our 

2 model, the SC&A model, the thing where the 

3 axle was mounted here, and Dave's model has it 

4 pointing straight, just like in our model, and 

5 he also has it pointing 45 degrees this way, 

6 45 degrees this way and 45 degrees, if you 

7 look at it now in a vertical cross-section 

8 near the axle, you always had it centered but 

9 you also had it pointing this way and this 

10 way, and these are realistic because they 

11 would have to do -- they will have the film 

12 inside, so they would have to have different 

13 angles to get different parts of it.

14 So the up and down is realistic. 

15 The left and the right probably does not 

16 represent actual practices.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I guess 

18 the bottom line is: do the scenarios -- are 

19 the scenarios such that they would take into 

20 account whatever could scatter down that 

21 corridor, and that's the issue I guess that 

22 you are addressing.
58

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Okay. Anything else on the shot 

2 scenarios that we need to clarify for us 

3 today? The flipping, the terminology doesn't 

4 affect your numbers per se, as to whether you 

5 call it flipping or not, it's where you had 

6 that point and whether that's flipping or not 

7 flipping, you get the point there. John, you 

8 have --

9 MR. RAMSPOTT: There is one last 

10 comment.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: Regarding that 

13 model that the management at GSI did, we have 

14 worker testimony again, probably at Dr. 

15 Anigstein's meeting, if not it's definitely on 

16 the record from a Mr. George Luber, and they 

17 did use cobalt on the railroad car on the 

18 tracks. So it wasn't just the betatron that 

19 was aimed at the tracks in the L.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you.

21 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer? John Dutko, 

22 sir.
59

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Oh, hi, John 

2 Dutko.

3 MR. DUTKO: I was one of the 

4 fellows that was ordered to flip the head. 

5 Leroy Dell was telling you the truth, the 

6 exact truth. Anywhere in the chute itself, 

7 anywhere in the chute itself, if that head was 

8 flipped, limits, normal limits, would be 

9 violated. The machine would be pointed toward 

10 the control room, or the hallway, as you would 

11 call it, would violate all normal limits.

12 And there were times when we were 

13 ordered to do so and shoot toward the control 

14 room, sir, at a casting that had routed in, 

15 but we couldn't reach with normal limits.

16 The same if the casting moved, 

17 they would order that casting -- or the 

18 flipping of the head to pick up the needed 

19 shots to save a moved casting.

20 MR. DELL: That's exactly right.

21 MR. DUTKO: Thank you, sir.

22 MR. KATZ: Who's the other person 
60

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 who just said, "that's exactly right?" Is 

2 that Leroy Dell?

3 MR. DELL: Yes, it is.

4 MR. KATZ: Okay, thank you. I 

5 think everyone in the room acknowledges, 

6 realizes that this is -- and doesn't dispute 

7 this information. But thank you.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

9 Anything else on the shots right at the 

10 moment? Yes, Dan?

11 DR. McKEEL: I hate to make a 

12 point too many times but I think we can't. 

13 What Mr. Dell and what Mr. Dutko said is in 

14 fact they did point the betatron directly at 

15 the control room.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Can I just ask what 

17 -- can you give us a percentage of time that 

18 happened? Was it 5 percent, 10 percent? Just 

19 an estimate.

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: Maybe the workers 

21 could answer that better. Mr. Dell or Mr. 

22 Dutko?
61

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I mean, it was -

2 - 

3 MR. DELL: Probably wasn't over 

4 five percent.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But it was done, 

6 it's not like --

7 MR. DELL: The major reason was to 

8 save time. You didn't have to take -- if 

9 you're going to turn the casting around, you 

10 had to take it out to 10 Building and have 

11 them turn it around and bring it back in.

12 That way you could go ahead and 

13 shoot it and you didn't have to move the 

14 casting. 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you.

17 MR. KATZ: Thank you, Mr. Dell.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Anything else on 

19 shots? Everybody think they have a feel for 

20 the issues on that?

21 MEMBER BEACH: The only other 

22 question I would ask: is there any contention 
62

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 between NIOSH and -- the wall, how thick the 

2 walls were, between where you shot and the 

3 control room? Was that a contention -- I read 

4 some differences on two block walls, one block 

5 wall, filled, not filled, is there a 

6 contention on that or not?

7 MR. RAMSPOTT: I think the workers 

8 could answer that, but yes, there are 

9 definitely disagreements on that.

10 DR. McKEEL: I can answer that. I 

11 think the issue is that different drawings 

12 from different time periods show different 

13 thicknesses and even quantitative --

14 qualitative differences, which is -- there is 

15 a drawing which we'll show you a little bit 

16 later on that says that the concrete blocks 

17 and the walls had mortar in them and mortar 

18 has a different density, et cetera.

19 I think the point that's not 

20 emphasized enough is that one wall of that 

21 tunnel with the railroad tracks, where the 

22 control room was, and the thin metal control 
63

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 room door, was just a very thin wall. It 

2 wasn't a 10-foot thick wall.

3 So I think there are certainly 

4 those kinds of differences.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For clarity, on 

6 your model, Dave, on the new betatron, your 

7 walls were -- you assumed the concrete blocks 

8 were filled with -- was it with sand or with 

9 mortar?

10 MR. ALLEN: The 10-foot thick or 

11 the --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: The big walls --

13 MR. ALLEN: -- was two, I think, 

14 one-foot concrete walls with sand --

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sand-filled --

16 MR. ALLEN: between them.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And what 

18 about the other --

19 MR. ALLEN: The dimensions are in 

20 the paperwork, but I think it's 16-inch, if I 

21 remember right, that wall that Dr. McKeel's 

22 talking about.
64

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thanks.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Actually David's 

3 model was based on the early SC&A model and we 

4 had -- we made a minimum thickness to the 

5 control room. We had the hollow walls, hollow 

6 concrete block, and I looked up commercial 

7 concrete block and I picked the one that would 

8 give you the lowest overall average density, 

9 which was like less than one, that's the 

10 density of water.

11 But I ran the -- first of all when 

12 I saw that it was mortar-filled so that 

13 immediately mean, no, it wasn't hollow, it 

14 wasn't empty.

15 And second of all, I ran the model 

16 to get the dose on the outside. I ran the 

17 cobalt-60 and to get the dose on the outside, 

18 and I have extremely high doses, assuming that 

19 those outside walls, not the 10-foot thick 

20 wall but the thinner ones, were also of this 

21 light weight. I said no, this is not 

22 consistent with their survey information.
65

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So what is consistent with the 

2 survey information is all the walls, all those 

3 smaller walls would be solid -- the equivalent 

4 of solid concrete. Mortar is about the same 

5 as concrete, they're about the same density, 

6 comparable materials.

7 So that's much more consistent 

8 with the survey -- the cobalt survey and as a 

9 matter of fact our number -- my numbers 

10 actually came out higher than the ones that 

11 were actually measured, but not by that much, 

12 so I consider that to be consistent.

13 So there's no evidence and there's 

14 no logic why they would be -- I mean the 

15 building would not be built.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks. Okay. 

17 Does that answer your question? Let's go to 

18 residual radiation from uranium, and, Dave, do 

19 you want to just give us a quick overview of 

20 the concepts here that you followed and --

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes, in that 

22 particular one, I'm trying to remember the 
66

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exact page, hold on a second --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, you had a 

3 certain amount of exposure time per shot. 

4 These are --

5 MR. ALLEN: Yes, the --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Uranium --

7 MR. ALLEN: -- was 60 minutes per 

8 shot.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Uranium ingots 

10 and so on --

11 MR. ALLEN: The report was 60 

12 minutes per shot. We had earlier done one of 

13 trying to shoot through an entire ingot and 

14 found out that there was no way you were going 

15 to get an X-ray exposure, it's all scattered 

16 so you couldn't really do that and that went 

17 along with what the operators had said at one 

18 point about shooting it obliquely, basically 

19 through the corners, and if they had to shoot 

20 it four times obliquely to the top of -- there 

21 was some debate on what they were calling an 

22 ingot and what they were calling a beta slice 
67

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and some had seen one and not the other, so 

2 there were various types of uranium that were 

3 X-rayed.

4 But essentially, the model had one 

5 that's thick enough to essentially absorb all 

6 the useful X-ray and betatron and shot it four 

7 times to get a full coverage on -- I don't 

8 recall the dimensions, but a circular piece of 

9 uranium metal.

10 And what we did here was to shoot 

11 for 60 minutes, give it 15 minutes to take the 

12 film down, reorient the betatron and put some 

13 new film on and then shoot it again at a 

14 different angle, and we accounted for the 

15 activation that would occur within the uranium 

16 as well as the decay from that first shot 

17 until you are done with all four shots, that 

18 you are actually exposing different pieces of 

19 this uranium for different timeframes, plus 

20 some of the shorter-lived activation products 

21 would build up almost to an equilibrium pretty 

22 quickly and then they wouldn't go any higher 
68

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 during the shot.

2 So trying to account for all that, 

3 taking four shots, 15 minutes in between, so 

4 they ended up being 4 times 75, 300 minutes 

5 for this process, and accounting for the dose 

6 rate you would be getting from these shots to 

7 the operators that were taking down the film, 

8 they were in the betatron et cetera, and we 

9 put all that together into an average dose 

10 rate while you were X-raying uranium, and then 

11 that later on in the White Paper is used as 

12 part of the dose estimate based on how much 

13 uranium -- they were doing for various times.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And you included 

15 neutron in this one, I think, right?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Approximately 90 

17 percent of the neutron dose is received first 

18 --

19 MR. ALLEN: Okay. 

20 MEMBER MUNN: -- following 

21 irradiation.

22 MR. ALLEN: There's a lot of 
69

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 numbers going through my head right now --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, what I'm 

3 trying to get a feel for, so -- there's no 

4 prompt neutrons that you worry about because 

5 those are only occurring when the thing's 

6 being irradiated. It's only the activation 

7 products --

8 MR. ALLEN: Right, prompt neutrons 

9 are dealt with, with the shot scenarios.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, 

11 separately.

12 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So this is 

14 residual so --

15 MR. ALLEN: It's essentially 

16 delayed neutrons.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that's why 

18 I was having a little trouble with these 

19 neutron ones. Jim, can you help me out on 

20 this too? Why are we seeing this much neutron 

21 after the shot?

22 DR. NETON: I can't help you; 
70

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Dave's been doing all the work.

2 (Simultaneous speaking.)

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I can speak to 

4 that. Neutrons from the uranium?

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And you have the 

7 delayed, you have some very short-lived 

8 radionuclides that are neutron emitters. I 

9 mean there are neutron emitters, they are just 

10 very short-lived.

11 So this is the facility of MCNPx 

12 to do -- it's still at a -- even though now 

13 it's at a mature state, it's still -- they 

14 still call it developmental.

15 But what they do is they have a 

16 data file which they sample, which gives you -

17 - after the photoactivation, you get -- rather 

18 than trying to trace each radionuclide and 

19 that is now, it's just -- so the answer is to 

20 have a separate database that they simply 

21 sample and they said these will be the delayed 

22 gammas and the delayed neutrons. Delayed 
71

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 neutrons go to zero very quickly, delayed 

2 gammas persist. 

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So your question 

5 was why are the delayed --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, okay. 

7 Your delays are short enough, I guess, that 

8 you're still seeing some of the neutrons. 

9 Just intuitively, those neutron values look 

10 high to me. That's why I raised the question. 

11 I'm not necessarily disputing it, it was more 

12 intuitive. 

13 MR. ALLEN: I can't say as I have 

14 a feel for what their intuitive value would 

15 be. I'm not -- as Bob said, I mean, you know 

16 in a nuclear reactor, some of the fission 

17 products are called delayed neutron 

18 precursors.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

20 MR. ALLEN: And they have 

21 difference -- some of them are a little bit 

22 longer half life, they decay to something that 
72

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 then emits those neutrons and you get this 

2 delay.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

4 MR. ALLEN: And you know that

5 helps control a nuclear reactor.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But they're 

7 really pretty short and --

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and you're going 

9 to get --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're out here 

11 at -- I guess most of this -- see, you're 

12 assuming that, okay, they have a brief delay 

13 and then they are going in and handling it, so 

14 they are getting that early in that scenario.

15 MR. ALLEN: Yes, this starts five 

16 seconds --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Five seconds in, 

18 so yes, okay. That -- all right. I'll just -

19 - 

20 MR. ALLEN: It's my intuitive --

21 if I had to guess at what the number would be 

22 before I ran these, it wouldn't have been that 
73

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 high. 

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. 

3 MR. ALLEN: But --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And it's taking 

5 into consideration all those photoactivation 

6 products that are neutron emitters.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Essentially 

8 photofission that you would get.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Photofission.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean you get 

11 both.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You get both. But 

14 the neutron emitters are from the fission.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But I guess it's 

16 because we only had the five second delay that 

17 we are still getting some of that and -- okay.

18 MEMBER BEACH: Might be break time 

19 if we wanted to catch that.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Just a 

21 couple more seconds here and then okay. So 

22 that answered my question. Let me see if, 
74

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Dan, you have a question --

2 DR. McKEEL: I had a short 

3 comment. We brought this up many times about 

4 -- this goes back to the fundamental purpose 

5 of why General Steel Industries had a contract

6 with the Atomic Energy Commission and with 

7 Mallinckrodt Chemical Works to X-ray their 

8 uranium.

9 And what we have put on the record 

10 is, in many different ways as we know, is it 

11 is quite clear from the purchase orders and 

12 from Technical Bulletins that Mallinckrodt 

13 Chemical Works uranium division offered, that 

14 they sent to GSI the betatron slices which 

15 were modeled. They also sent both two-step 

16 uranium ingots, you know, made from derbies, 

17 remelted and then cast in the bomb, and 

18 dingots, which were a patented form of one19 step uranium from Mallinckrodt.

20 The dingots, I think most of them, 

21 actually came in the later years probably from 

22 the Weldon Spring plant. But the point of the 
75

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 X-raying certainly may have been to find 

2 cracks and flaws and voids, but the main 

3 point, which is continually overlooked, and if 

4 you understand this, you understand why they 

5 shot four corners, they weren't trying to go 

6 through the entire ingot or dingot. They 

7 couldn't. It was 3,000 pounds. It was 18 

8 inches in diameter and it was two feet tall. 

9 You couldn't do that with a betatron.

10 But what they could do is -- when 

11 those uranium, that metal came out of the 

12 bomb, it carried along with it crust or slag 

13 from the magnesium fluoride, and that crust 

14 and slag covered the entire ingot and dingot, 

15 and then, when they had the X-ray pictures and 

16 they could take it back to Mallinckrodt, then 

17 that would guide the way the vertical lathes 

18 would shave off the slag and the crust, and 

19 what they were after, of course, is that 

20 highly valuable, pure uranium, shiny metal 

21 lying underneath that crust and slag.

22 They couldn't really -- they can't 
76

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 roll an ingot or a dingot until that's done. 

2 And what -- the valuable information they got 

3 from GSI was where is that interface, all over 

4 that ingot.

5 And so a betatron slice wouldn't 

6 do that for them. And if you think about it, 

7 or at least the way I think about it, you have 

8 a two-foot tall ingot or dingot, and you take 

9 off a slice, and you see that there's a void 

10 in the bottom, well that's not representative 

11 of what's all up and down there. There were 

12 gradients in that ingot and dingot, and they 

13 talk about that.

14 And so you really had to look at 

15 the whole thing. So they needed to give those 

16 X-rays to the machinist and cut off the crust 

17 and the slag, revealing the ingot -- the pure 

18 uranium underneath, is what they were looking 

19 for. Then they could take that and roll it 

20 and send it out to Hanford or what have you.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. 

22 DR. McKEEL: That's fundamental.
77

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RAMSPOTT: Dr. Ziemer, this is

2 John Ramspott again. This is an actual 

3 document that we did share with people and 

4 we'll do it again today, and it states in 

5 here, "The amount of metal to be removed by 

6 cropping in order to produce sound material 

7 for rolling is determined by the use of high 

8 energy X-rays."

9 They had to see through the crust, 

10 take off the crust without cutting into the 

11 uranium, which was like pure gold, and the 

12 cropping was done after GSI did their X-ray, 

13 according to this, too.

14 So that's a pretty important 

15 thing. It's pretty nasty stuff in that crust. 

16 I thought I'd share this.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I don't think 

18 we've disputed that that's what they were 

19 doing.

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, there could 

21 be very few slices. A slice on an ingot is 

22 probably only four inches thick, at most. 
78

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 That's right. You couldn't tell from that 

2 what your problem was through the whole ingot 

3 or even take care of how much crust is 

4 everywhere in the ingot for that process.

5 So -- and the other thing the 

6 workers point out, they are going through 

7 magnesium. Now they're not going through 

8 uranium. So the shot time is nothing. We've 

9 got workers on the line that can tell you it's 

10 not a two hour shot. It's zing zing. You run 

11 a whole lot more uranium through there, and 

12 they bill by the hour not by the piece, and 

13 that's pretty important.

14 So the quantity has changed 

15 totally as to what could be going there.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, does any of 

17 that affect -- you have to mull that over a 

18 bit.

19 MR. ALLEN: I was going to say no 

20 right up until that last part. I don't think 

21 on the crust -- I mean, the crust that I've 

22 ever seen at Fernald and stuff, you're not 
79

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 going to get enough to where you are actually 

2 shooting much of a crust.

3 I mean you are going to shoot, 

4 it's mostly uranium, you're going to find the

5 interface as Dr. McKeel said, but from what 

6 the workers were saying in Collinsville, it 

7 was about one hour shots, shot obliquely, 

8 which make -- like Dr. McKeel said, makes 

9 sense to find that interface.

10 And they actually drew a picture 

11 out for Stu Hinnefeld of what the shots were 

12 laid out at, and it took four shots. So I mean 

13 it sounds like we're talking about the same 

14 thing. There were four, one hour shots on 

15 these of, whether it was two-foot thick or a 

16 few inches thick, it's going to make little 

17 difference in the model because, you know, the 

18 bulk of that is going to be absorbed in the 

19 first few inches of uranium because it's so 

20 dense.

21 So the White Paper, I probably 

22 shouldn't have said defects in there, I could 
80

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have just said they X-rayed uranium and left 

2 it at that, and I don't think anything would 

3 change what --

4 DR. McKEEL: I don't mean to --

5 you know, they would see surface defects on 

6 the surface of the uranium. It will penetrate 

7 some in that period of time, and the men did 

8 say they had four and -- so David's estimate 

9 of 300 minutes for the whole process, that is 

10 what -- that's what the worker that I trust 

11 the most, that seemed the most credible to me, 

12 that's basically what he said. So I --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Final comment, 

14 then we're going to take a break.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I'd like to 

16 set the record straight on this. We have -- I 

17 conferred with this at length with Bill 

18 Thurber, who is a retired -- who was a 

19 metallurgist who worked with uranium for many 

20 years with Union Carbide, at Oak Ridge, so we 

21 discussed this process.

22 I think there's a little confusion 
81

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 here. The -- your betatron slices, which we 

2 have, are documented in the Mallinckrodt TBD, 

3 and the workers that I interviewed at that 

4 meeting agreed that that was the most common, 

5 that was the common thing that they did.

6 So since those were -- those 

7 required four shots but that they were 18 --

8 18 inches in diameter, the biggest X-ray film 

9 was 14 by 17 inches -- I think they were more 

10 than 18 inches diameter -- you needed four, 

11 four shots to cover that disc, that were done 

12 head on.

13 Those were done to see if there 

14 were -- there was a quality control to see if 

15 they were coming out with defects in the 

16 middle of the uranium.

17 Now obviously, those were -- I 

18 mean that was, that was destructive testing 

19 because they would cut up that uranium ingot 

20 to get this betatron slice as a QA measure, 

21 and then of course they would send it back and 

22 remelt them because you can't send those 
82

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 slices to be rolled into rods from Hanford.

2 The second thing, which all --

3 from the worker testimony that I've seen, is 

4 one worker said he came in in the morning on 

5 the regular shift, and the weekend men were 

6 telling him what they had done. So it was 

7 already second-hand. And what they had done 

8 was they took corner shots, so they would have 

9 an ingot, and they would take four corners.

10 They did not go all the way 

11 around, and the purpose of those shots were 

12 when you do a vacuum casting, you get a lot of 

13 poor quality metal at the top or maybe even at 

14 the bottom, and they would have to crop that, 

15 cut it off with a band saw. 

16 So that was the cropping and they 

17 would cut the ends off and then of course they 

18 would remelt them and reuse them, but they 

19 wanted to know how much and -- as far as 

20 skinning it on a vertical lathe, you don't do 

21 an X-ray for that. You would have to X-ray 

22 every square inch of it. That's nonsense.
83

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 The machinist does that by eye. 

2 He puts it on, keeps turning it, as soon as he 

3 gets done, that is -- that is what my 

4 metallurgist colleague told me.

5 They turn it on the lathe until 

6 they can see it, because the coating is not 

7 regular, it's irregular, it's thicker in some 

8 place than others, and you don't do that with 

9 an X-ray, you do it by turning it and doing it 

10 by eye.

11 The ends -- and that's why they 

12 said they shot the corner -- the ends, they do 

13 for the X-ray, with the X-ray, you see how 

14 much to crop off -- there were two different 

15 things.

16 They were cropping off the ends 

17 and they were also turning it on a lathe. The 

18 end-cropping was what you did the X-rays for, 

19 not to get the surface in the middle because 

20 you would have to -- it's just not the way 

21 it's done.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I think 
84

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 we've been talking about the cropping --

2 DR. McKEEL: Paul, I need to say 

3 this. This is one of those situations where 

4 two people who have excellent intentions, and 

5 believing they have excellent data, strongly 

6 disagree with each other.

7 So I accept what Dr. Anigstein 

8 just said his expert said, but I'd also like 

9 to just mention for the record that John 

10 Ramspott in particular and I as well, have 

11 talked to those workers repeatedly, many 

12 times, and the papers that we've said -- that 

13 paper right there is from ‘ identifying 

14 information redacted’ who is the head of 

15 Mallinckrodt uranium -- who was -- very 

16 knowledgeable and that's what he said they did 

17 at Mallinckrodt, so I suggest that whoever 

18 your expert was and whatever his experience 

19 were, and when you say that's, you know, 

20 potentially you're saying that our scenario 

21 was ridiculous, and I'm saying no, it wasn't 

22 ridiculous.
85

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I didn't say that 

2 your -- they did the -- perhaps it's a 

3 technicality and it wasn't even important. I 

4 agree that they would, that they would shoot 

5 the edges, the corner -- that's what they 

6 said, that's what they would -- 

7 (Simultaneous speaking.)

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They shot the 

9 corners but not to get the -- not to see how 

10 much to take off with the lathe, to see how 

11 much to cut off on the ends. 

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, they were 

13 talking about cropping also. You're talking 

14 about -- 

15 (Simultaneous speaking.)

16 DR. McKEEL: In you all's -- you 

17 just said that --

18 MR. RAMSPOTT: Cropping was with a 

19 saw.

20 DR. McKEEL: Yes, you all said 

21 that cropping was with a saw, and in addition 

22 to the cropping of the ends, or the bottom, 
86

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 they cut off the sides.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I agree with that 

3 also, but not -- but the X-ray was not used 

4 for that purpose, but that probably doesn't 

5 matter.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But where was 

7 that done? At Mallinckrodt.

8 DR. McKEEL: At Mallinckrodt.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, so the X10 raying -- we're all agreed the X-raying is the 

11 same thing either way. Okay. Let's take a 

12 15-minute break, okay? Comfort break.

13 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

14 the record at 10:02 a.m. and 

15 resumed at 10:19 a.m.)

16 MR. KATZ: The Work Group is back 

17 and we are getting started again. Let me just 

18 remind folks on the phone, please mute your 

19 phones except when you are addressing the 

20 group. If you don't have a mute button, press 

21 * then 6, that will mute your phone, and then 

22 press * and 6 to take your phone off of mute. 
87

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Thanks.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, I'm going 

3 to have us take a look at the skin dose. The 

4 NIOSH model has a skin dose component that's 

5 based primarily on some short-lived decay 

6 products of thorium and -- is it protactinium 

7 --

8 MR. ALLEN: Protactinium-234.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- 234, yes, 

10 there it is. And those materials at the 

11 surfaces of the ingots, drive that dose rather 

12 than the uranium itself I guess, as I 

13 understand the model, those get the biggest 

14 contribution.

15 There's some uranium contribution, 

16 but your model includes all of those, right? 

17 The --

18 MR. ALLEN: Yes, and that's 

19 already typical with uranium is those two 

20 short-lived products --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So that 

22 part's -- that part of it is sort of standard 
88

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 but then you have issues of -- a percent of 

2 the time you're at, say, a foot versus a 

3 meter, and I just wanted to ask for my 

4 understanding, what's your basis for that 

5 distribution? I mean is it sort of arbitrary 

6 or is there a work basis that we know of for 

7 saying, you know, part of the time they are 

8 away, part of the time they are working close, 

9 and then you have the hours per week, is it 

10 based on the 90 percent long shots and the 10 

11 percent?

12 So can you sort of, sort of defend 

13 the basis for those distributions and then 

14 I'll open it up here for questions?

15 MR. ALLEN: The half the time one 

16 foot, half the time one meter is a standard 

17 we've been using in TBD-6000 and it is, it is 

18 based on -- I wouldn't say based or somewhat 

19 validated by looking at dosimetry records from 

20 various places that work with uranium metal, 

21 and that assumption seems to be fairly typical 

22 for somebody working with uranium metal, I 
89

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mean it gives addition to the numbers that 

2 correspond to badges and TLDs that have both

3 gamma and beta in them, and it does seem to be 

4 standard throughout time, throughout different 

5 facilities when you are working with normal 

6 low-enriched uranium. In high-enriched 

7 uranium it might be a little different because 

8 you get less of those -- less beta dose.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Right. 

10 And then just sort of for the record I want to 

11 make sure that we were aware of what NIOSH's 

12 basis was for that. Obviously one of the 

13 issues that could arise on this sort of thing 

14 is well, does that apply here and I understand 

15 that, but that's your starting point, and then 

16 the 90-10 had to do with what you learned from 

17 this site in terms of the long shots versus 

18 the --

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That's one of the 

20 workers' testimony.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, the short 

22 shots. That part I was more comfortable with. 
90

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Okay. Let me open this up for questions on 

2 the skin dose model. Dr. McKeel or anyone, 

3 did you have any questions on it right now?

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: On the skin dose 

5 model, no. No.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. That was 

7 the basis. Okay. That included both -- well 

8 that's primarily beta stuff that we are 

9 talking about there. Let's go on to film 

10 badges.

11 There -- I know there's some 

12 issues on control badges, and maybe we'll 

13 discuss a little bit of that in a moment. I 

14 wanted to ask about -- basically you're trying 

15 to use the film badge data in terms of where 

16 it overlaps in terms of normalizing that with 

17 some assumptions about control room values, 

18 and I understand that part of it.

19 And then the -- on page 15, you

20 have the statement that 400 previous shots 

21 accomplished in the same location while the 

22 short shots, assuming there were 500 previous 
91

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 shots and you referenced SC&A, and I was --

2 just needed a little clarity on that. It's 

3 the middle of page 15.

4 MR. ALLEN: Okay, that's section 

5 -- that's dealing with the residual 

6 radioactivity in the steel --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no, I'm in 

8 the wrong place on that one everybody. That 

9 was -- wait a minute -- that was still -- that 

10 one's still part of the skin dose stuff. 

11 Okay, I'm sorry, I'm looking at the wrong 

12 page. Let me get the right place. Here it 

13 is. Here it is. On the film badges --

14 MEMBER BEACH: It started on page 

15 20 and that's --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, well, the 

17 film badge stuff is on pages 16 and 17. Okay. 

18 The question that arose for me on the film 

19 badges, and I think arose maybe for the 

20 petitioners, was do we have any confirmation 

21 that the control badge was in the control 

22 room?
92

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Was there -- there was a film 

2 badge rack there where they were supposed to 

3 leave their badges. Are we assuming that the 

4 control badge was there at the rack, or what's 

5 the basis for using that --

6 MR. ALLEN: To clarify, there is a 

7 control badge that was always associated with 

8 each group and there's also, separately, a 

9 betatron control room badge.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Control room 

11 badge that's labeled as a control room badge.

12 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

13 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer. 

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Hang on.

15 MR. ALLEN: And I realize there's 

16 some -- now there's some people saying that 

17 that didn't exist or whatever, but he 

18 dosimetry reports had that in there, and I'd 

19 assume that control room badge meant that it 

20 was in the control room and that's how the 

21 White Paper was put together.

22 So are you asking about the 
93

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 control badge or the control room?

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, there's 

3 two parts of it then. The control room badge, 

4 do we know that there was a badge in the 

5 control room? There was a badge labeled 

6 control room, right?

7 MR. ALLEN: That in reality is all 

8 we know, there was a badge labeled control 

9 room badge up through --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Excuse me, can I -

11 - 

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Hang on Bob, 

13 hang on.

14 MR. ALLEN: Not the full time but 

15 up through `65, maybe. I can't recall the 

16 date.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And that's as 

18 opposed to what you're calling control badges 

19 which --

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes, they had both 

21 listed on the Landauer --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: On the Landauer 
94

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 form, which presumably are badges that they 

2 used to subtract out a background value from 

3 everything else. Is that -- 

4 MR. ALLEN: That's normally what a 

5 control badge --

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, that's 

7 normally how it's done. And do we have any 

8 knowledge of where those were located?

9 MR. ALLEN: No. There's been some 

10 information come to light since then, but when 

11 the White Paper was written, no.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Bob?

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I just have to 

14 correct -- the badge on the film badge record, 

15 those five years' worth of film badge records 

16 that I looked at, it's not -- does not say 

17 control room. It says betatron CTL, which I 

18 guess is an abbreviation for control. It does 

19 not say control room.

20 MR. ALLEN: Okay. I believe Bob's 

21 right on that.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's labeled 
95

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 betatron --

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: CTL.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: CTL. Control.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right. Right.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So we don't know 

6 that it is or isn't a control room badge --

7 that's as far as your record -- there's no --

8 let me ask Dan or John, what's your take on 

9 that one? Or do you have any -- can you shed 

10 any light on that?

11 DR. McKEEL: Yes, I'm going to 

12 show you all several slides about that, but 

13 the basic understanding that we have reached 

14 about that is the -- they are -- unlike in Dr. 

15 Anigstein's report, there is actually alive, 

16 and we have talked to him and gotten his 

17 affidavit, from the first clerk who actually 

18 handled the GSI film badges, this is very 

19 recent.

20 And what this gentleman says is 

21 that he -- he went -- when he was the clerk, 

22 he came in right as the new betatron machine 
96

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was installed and they were starting up the 

2 new badge program, and that he got the badges 

3 from Landauer, he collected the badges, and he 

4 sent the badges off to Landauer himself.

5 They didn't go through any 

6 intermediaries or anything like that. He 

7 said, you'll see, in his affidavit, that there 

8 were no control badges that were not worn by a 

9 person.

10 So the workers, no worker that 

11 we've ever talked to, has any knowledge about 

12 the CTL badges, what they were, where they 

13 were, or that they ever existed, that appeared 

14 in the Landauer film badge -- apparently.

15 And as you remember, what happened 

16 was I contacted Landauer, I got film badge 

17 data on quarterly report from about 30 workers 

18 so I've never been able to -- I've never seen 

19 the badges that Dr. Anigstein is talking 

20 about, but I'm sure he's right if that's what 

21 he says, that -- so, but the workers are not 

22 aware of any control badges, control room 
97

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 badges, and then I will share you that 

2 definitely the racks were not ever in the 

3 control room. There were no badges kept in 

4 the control room, the console room where you 

5 operated the betatron.

6 They were in two locations.

7 MEMBER MUNN: According to your 

8 report.

9 DR. McKEEL: Yes, so -- 

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, and John 

11 did you have any additional comment on that, 

12 or did --

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, just very 

14 briefly, but the badges you have are strictly, 

15 I mean I think they're from '64 on 

16 essentially. The new betatron was built in 

17 `63. So from `53 to `64, there are no badges, 

18 no control room badges --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're aware of 

20 that.

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: No nothing, no 

22 racks --
98

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No. No. No. 

2 We're just asking about these, and did you 

3 have any other comment on that?

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No I was just 

5 saying, the betatron -- the new betatron 

6 started operation just about the time the film 

7 badge records start.

8 It was either end of `63, 

9 beginning of `64. We even have a photograph 

10 of it in late `63 so -- so that's, you know, 

11 consistent with that.

12 My comment about nobody being 

13 around, I was simply going by the names to 

14 whom the reports were addressed. There were 

15 two different names on the report over the 

16 years and the first one, John Ramspott told me 

17 the gentleman is alive but incapacitated, and 

18 the other one we know has deceased.

19 So that may be -- they may have 

20 had someone else who actually did the handling 

21 but the name on the report -- it was addressed 

22 to a certain person at GSI and those names --
99

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's what I was reporting --

2 DR. McKEEL: This is Dan McKeel. 

3 When I first called Landauer, which was about 

4 13 months before NIOSH ever got their film 

5 badge data and gave it to SC&A, they told me 

6 that actually the film badge program managers, 

7 there were two of them, and one of them was 

8 Mr. Norris, who is deceased, and then there 

9 was a later one who took over after Mr. Norris 

10 left. I don't know --

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was actually 

12 a covered period.

13 DR. McKEEL: Right. But the 

14 person I'm talking about right now was 

15 actually the clerk who handled the film badge 

16 --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay.

18 DR. McKEEL: And worked under Mr. 

19 Norris. We had heard various things. One 

20 thing we had heard was that there was a chain 

21 of people with badges, passwords, and this 

22 particular person says not when he was there.
100

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And he then went on to name the 

2 other people in succession who took over his 

3 job as clerk as they kept on -- there was a 

4 lot of promotion and changing.

5 But anyway, the clerk basically 

6 handled that. And that was new for me, and 

7 that makes it much simpler to track, actually.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I think one of 

9 the GSI people on the phone had a comment they 

10 wanted to make also. They at least -- did one 

11 of you on the phone have a comment on those 

12 film badges?

13 MR. DUTKO: I relinquish my time 

14 to Dr. McKeel.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Oh, okay. Thank 

16 you.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I will address the

18 film badge location.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, you know, 

20 that's fine, I just wanted to see if we had 

21 any other questions on at least the 

22 methodology that was used for -- by NIOSH on 
101

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this.

2 Okay, the next one is the residual 

3 radiation from the betatron. And this is 

4 basically activation issues. Dave, do you 

5 have any comments on that that you want to 

6 highlight at this point?

7 MR. ALLEN: No, not really. All I 

8 tried to do in that particular section was to 

9 put down in one place everything we had looked 

10 at or other people had looked at to try to 

11 explain this -- what the Allis-Chalmers 

12 individual told about the 15 millirem right 

13 after the shot that dropped off to zero within 

14 15 minutes.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

16 MR. ALLEN: And so far as I can 

17 tell, nobody has come up with anything that 

18 will give you that kind of a dose rate. There 

19 is some activations --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, you looked 

21 at it, SC&A had looked at it without all these 

22 debates. But bottom line is -- and I think 
102

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 this is a question -- what are you doing with 

2 the number?

3 What are your plans in dose 

4 reconstruction to do with the number, wherever 

5 -- in other words will it be used or will it 

6 not be used? That's the --

7 MR. ALLEN: From the White Paper, 

8 it is -- the White Paper assumes there is no 

9 residual, no measurable residual from that. 

10 And the reason that it did that was, besides 

11 can't come up with a real basis for it, the 

12 reason I did that was we were going to 

13 normalize everything and make it consistent 

14 with the film badge readings, and this 

15 particular source of radiation would be purely 

16 gamma. Other sources of radiation that could 

17 add to the film badge would also include other 

18 radiation, such as beta or neutron, whether 

19 it's -- whether it's from the betatron shot 

20 itself or from the activated materials.

21 And as long as we're normalizing 

22 to the badges to make our estimate consistent 
103

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 with the badge readings, it ends up changing 

2 very little on the photon, if any dose on the 

3 photon dose, but it will, by ignoring this, it 

4 will increase the beta and the neutron dose 

5 because the other sources also have those 

6 components.

7 So the decision was made on this 

8 one that we can't find any realistic reason 

9 for that kind of a rating --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But in essence 

11 you are saying that if it's there as a gamma 

12 or photon component, it would have been picked 

13 up by the film badge of the workers and 

14 therefore gets included in their readings in a 

15 sense.

16 MR. ALLEN: Right.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So it's not an 

18 additional thing. It's a -- that's the 

19 position that -- it's -- you're not 

20 necessarily saying we're removing 15 millirem 

21 per hour that occurs for a brief time. You're 

22 saying that if it's actually there, we don't 
104

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 know how it could be there, but if it is, the 

2 film badge would have picked it up. Am I 

3 understanding you correctly?

4 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

5 MEMBER MUNN: If it's there and 

6 the worker was there, then it would definitely 

7 be on the film badge.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, and let 

9 me ask for questions now. Dan.

10 DR. McKEEL: Well, I have a 

11 comment and this -- I guess this is a terrific 

12 -- philosophical and scientific issue in my 

13 mind, a giant one. What I was always taught 

14 and believed is that if, you know, if you're 

15 dealing with real physical phenomena, you have 

16 to deal with it.

17 The way I read OCAS-IG-003, it 

18 says that for dose reconstruction -- and I'm 

19 going to point out this afternoon, these White 

20 Papers are supposedly primarily aimed at 

21 revising Appendix BB from June 2007.

22 So if you're really aimed at dose 
105

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reconstruction, you have to account for all 

2 sources of radiation. And so, ‘ identifying 

3 information redacted’, contracted by NIOSH, 

4 their expert, said he made these measurements.

5 The Work Group considered it, 

6 NIOSH has considered it, SC&A has considered 

7 it, and it can't be explained, everybody says. 

8 Personally I think it's easy to explain from 

9 the beginning. I think the target gets 

10 activated, and I gave Dr. Ziemer several 

11 papers which he knows much better than I --

12 you all know the literature much better than I 

13 do. But there are dozens of papers about 

14 particle accelerators, many components inside 

15 them become activated.

16 But anyway, so it seemed to me 

17 that there were a number of sources within the 

18 betatron that could emit radiation after it 

19 was turned off.

20 There's also evidence from the 

21 Allis-Chalmers manual that advises people not 

22 to go in and use the betatron. I think they 
106

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mention something like five minutes in time 

2 could maybe fill that in.

3 But also, and let me just 

4 summarize what I think it is -- so you know, 

5 John Ramspott and I met ‘ identifying 

6 information redacted’ long before anybody here 

7 knew him.

8 We talked to him across the table 

9 at length for three hours up at West Allis 

10 where the Allis-Chalmers factory betatron is. 

11 We saw the Allis-Chalmers original betatron, 

12 that building, and in operation at that time.

13 So anyway we knew ‘ identifying 

14 information redacted’ real well. And John 

15 knows him better than I do. So anyway John 

16 called him up again the other day, and so he 

17 said that he was concerned about this issue 

18 about the residual radiation, and they were 

19 curious where it was coming from so they did a 

20 second analysis where he and his buddies 

21 actually removed a donut tube right away after 

22 it had been turned off as fast as they could, 
107

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and I don't remember how long a period it was 

2 but they got it out --

3 MR. RAMSPOTT: He said a couple of 

4 minutes.

5 DR. McKEEL: A couple of minutes 

6 and they --

7 MR. RAMSPOTT: They had four guys 

8 helping or three guys helping.

9 DR. McKEEL: He did their 

10 measurement and they found -- I don't think he 

11 gave a number to it this time, but that there 

12 was residual radiation, and then I'll show you 

13 this afternoon we have yet another affidavit 

14 from another source completely, somebody at 

15 GSI, who said he was well aware. He had 

16 measured residual radiation after the beam was 

17 off.

18 So my feeling is I think we are 

19 all good solid scientists sitting around the 

20 thing. There probably was a residual 

21 radiation dose. I think it has to be 

22 considered. I think it has to be considered 
108

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 definitely for dose reconstruction and should 

2 be considered for the SEC analysis because of 

3 another factor that you'll see in the slides, 

4 and that is a point that Mr. Dutko has made 

5 for a long time and that is, I think in the 

6 calculations of how much radiation a worker 

7 might receive, if there were residual betatron 

8 beam or betatron residual activity after the 

9 beam was off, the assumption is made that, you 

10 know, they were taking shots at like six feet. 

11 But the workers were interposed between the 

12 target and the betatron and so this affidavit, 

13 which I'll show you, that worker writes it out 

14 in detail and reasons that his back was 

15 probably one to two feet away from the 

16 betatron.

17 Now then we have a scientific 

18 dilemma. We have film badges that say they 

19 didn't get a very high dose. We have workers 

20 that say they were in front of this machine.

21 I think for both situations, dose 

22 reconstruction, SEC, you have to be 
109

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 claimant-favorable, so number one, I think you 

2 have to admit there was residual radiation. 

3 So I think to discount that in a model like I 

4 understood David Allen just said was done, I 

5 think that's wrong, scientifically. I think 

6 that's a mistake, an error that shouldn't be 

7 done.

8 Now if you want to say it's a 

9 small dose, then you can put a number on it. 

10 That's what you guys do that I really can't 

11 do. I don't know how to do that, except if I 

12 have a real measurement.

13 But, so I think you need to deal 

14 with it, and then I think, you know, I would 

15 just say that one reason that I, John, and a 

16 lot of the workers are highly doubtful about 

17 the film badge data is, yes, it does reason 

18 that if were all these exposures, you know, 

19 that it ought to show up on film badges, and 

20 we have this limited data set which says it 

21 doesn't.

22 Now I'll also show you this 
110

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 afternoon a fact that Dr. Anigstein I think 

2 had in his report a long time ago, that the 

3 film badges belong to betatron employees, the 

4 people who worked in the betatron building, 

5 not all of whom were betatron operators or 

6 isotope operators, you know, the people who 

7 were photographers, the people who were clerks 

8 -- that's mentioned in the affidavit, I'll 

9 show you that this afternoon.

10 So anyway I just think it's a 

11 small but needs to be accounted for dose, and 

12 to that extent, I would say the model should 

13 account for it.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thanks. 

15 Yes, John.

16 MR. RAMSPOTT: One quick, if I 

17 could. I did talk to ‘ identifying 

18 information redacted’ two days ago. He said, 

19 yes, I know that, I've talked to people and 

20 I've told them what I did, and I don't think 

21 they believed me. I think they, you know, 

22 don't know what I'm talking about, but it is 
111

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 in the -- it's actually in the Allis-Chalmers 

2 operation manual that that tube is hot.

3 He also said there's something 

4 else you might be missing. Now that 15 

5 milliroentgen that's at six feet. It's 

6 actually 60 millirem at three feet, and I 

7 think everybody's reports pretty much 

8 acknowledge workers are within two feet of the 

9 tube, or of the cone, and his testing was 

10 uncollimated, so there is no aluminum -- or --

11 or is that the filter they had on there, the 

12 compensator -- he had one on his machine. So 

13 that's definitely not what's getting 

14 activated.

15 It's the tube. When they took it 

16 out, they set the tube on a table, they let it 

17 sit, it dissipated over 15 minutes, and it was 

18 gone. He'll be glad to talk to anybody, 

19 verify that, and then he goes, you know, it's 

20 not a whole lot. Well, I understand. That's 

21 what we're talking about.

22 And I said well, yes, and then we 
112

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 talked about one more thing, just because I'm 

2 talking about him, about the door. He goes 

3 well, you know it was pretty safe, John, in 

4 those days, we thought it would be okay.

5 And you know, that's standard, 

6 standard practice was a steel ribbon door, 

7 from this man. No ifs, ands or buts. And 

8 then I said well we had a little problem over 

9 there though, I think. They used cobalt.

10 He was dead silent, and he goes oh 

11 my God. Totally different ball game. Cobalt 

12 and betatron -- you don't use cobalt in a 

13 betatron building. Roofs aren't shielded. 

14 Walls go up 20 feet in the old betatron, 25 

15 feet in the new betatron, and the rest is tin.

16 Built up wooden tar roofs. You 

17 don't use cobalt in a betatron building. He -

18 - he was flabbergasted to hear there was 

19 cobalt in that building. As far as any 

20 modeling, big cobalt, little bit of cobalt, 

21 any isotopes, betatron building is not a non22 destructive cobalt building according to this 
113

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 guy. So that's all. Thank you.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: On the residual 

3 activity, I don't think any of us is disputing 

4 that there's residual activity after the 

5 operation. There's activated stuff.

6 This 15 value, the problem on it 

7 was that the person reported that it dropped 

8 to zero, and that's what -- that's what we 

9 were having trouble with. 

10 We felt that it should -- if it's 

11 normal decay it would not drop to zero. I 

12 mean, it would exponentially come down. So we 

13 were trying to find why would you have a 15 

14 reading go to zero in whatever that time --

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Fifteen minutes.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Fifteen minutes. 

17 That was what the puzzling thing was about 

18 that. I think what NIOSH is saying, all 

19 right, so that doesn't make sense from a sort 

20 of physics point of view, but if it was there, 

21 we'll assume that -- you're saying we're going 

22 to assume it's there, that if there is some 
114

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 ionizing radiation, it's got to be residual 

2 photon radiation. So the film badges should 

3 be picking that up. That's what they're 

4 saying, that they're not ignoring it.

5 Now, and there's other activation 

6 stuff which you have done a construction for 

7 because a lot of these workers are working 

8 with stuff that's activated in the layouts and 

9 so on, I mean, that's a part of your separate 

10 --

11 DR. McKEEL: I have one more 

12 comment to make. This is another big 

13 philosophical thing. David Allen said 

14 something in his analysis that really bothers 

15 me as a scientist.

16 I mean, not only does it bother 

17 me, but it goes against everything that I was 

18 ever taught or believe. And that is he really 

19 was saying that you fit the model because you 

20 want to, quote, "normalize it", to the film 

21 badge readings.

22 So that means that you have 
115

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 already a priori, before you do your modeling, 

2 you have already established the result that 

3 you want to occur.

4 And to me, that's not the purpose 

5 of modeling at all. The purpose of modeling -

6 - and I'll show you this in my last slide 

7 today -- to me the modeling results don't 

8 match the film badges at all. They're really 

9 way apart.

10 So -- but the idea that from the 

11 beginning you try to make the model fit the 

12 film badges, is just a really bad approach. 

13 So I think you should do the modeling and 

14 let's see where it goes. So I must say the 

15 logic of what you're telling me escapes me.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, let me say 

17 something about models and then you can come 

18 in, Dave, because models are attempts to make 

19 sense of our world. We model a lot of things.

20 DR. McKEEL: I understand.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And we use real 

22 numbers whenever possible to validate models. 
116

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I liked the quote of your colleague at 

2 Hanford who said all models are poor, but some 

3 are useful, because they are -- in a sense 

4 they are substitutes for the real world. I 

5 mean, we are trying to describe things and 

6 simplify things and so on.

7 But where we do have data, we do 

8 try to say okay, how -- the data is real, real 

9 stuff. We can debate is it good data and so 

10 on, but that's the reason we do that is in a 

11 sense to try to validate a model and say does 

12 it make sense with whatever real world data 

13 that we have.

14 I mean, if -- and there's errors 

15 and so on. But that's the -- so models, you 

16 know, and we do, we do modeling all the time 

17 in this program and it's, you know, that's the 

18 nature of how we have to do these things.

19 Dose reconstruction, a lot of it 

20 is modeling, but you know, it's always this 

21 thing, if we had the real data we'd all be 

22 more comfortable. We're trying to put them 
117

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 together, and that's really what's happening -

2 - 

3 DR. McKEEL: I understand that but 

4 I -- this is Dan McKeel again -- but I want to 

5 just take that on one step further and say 

6 that, you know, if you looked in my CV there, 

7 there are three papers that have to do with

8 modeling the size and shape of the plaques 

9 that accumulate in the Alzheimer brain.

10 My colleague wrote a Fortran 

11 program to do that. But the validation for 

12 that was me sitting down in front of a 

13 microscope and counting 94,000 plaques to 

14 validate that, you know, the correlation 

15 coefficient was like 0.86.

16 But I would say -- and I've read a 

17 lot of papers by now in the field of radiation 

18 modeling, so I understand everything you said. 

19 It seems to me however if you want to present 

20 your new model to a highly-respected, refereed 

21 physics journal, that you're going to be in 

22 big trouble if you send them a model without 
118

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 any real data as the validation for that 

2 model.

3 In fact, you probably won't get it 

4 published. Now, I think you would say, yes, 

5 that's academics and scholarly research and so 

6 forth, but that's not the real world.

7 So I understand why some model, 

8 it's better to make sense out of things than 

9 no model at all. That's fine. But if you 

10 recall as well as I do -- and I'm sure you 

11 recall it better and I'm sure Wanda can even 

12 better -- is what happened about Blockson and 

13 the radon model.

14 There was a model first developed 

15 by SC&A, then adopted by NIOSH, and it didn't 

16 fly with the Board. It didn't fly with the 

17 Work Group. It didn't fly with the Board. 

18 There was a deadlock on opinions on that.

19 And so basically the model didn't 

20 fly, and the model didn't fly at Texas City, 

21 which was awarded an SEC. So all I'm saying 

22 is I think there's standards that you have to 
119

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hold models to, and I'm just saying I think we 

2 should be rigorous in this program.

3 I don't think we should be overly 

4 rigid, but I guess that's -- that's where I'm 

5 coming from.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, and I 

7 understand that, and you know, in -- the 

8 reality is we don't have a standard by which 

9 to measure models. To some extent we vote on 

10 those models and it's -- some subjectivity --

11 I happened to like the one model that was 

12 turned down, but that's, you know, that's 

13 fine.

14 DR. McKEEL: I understand.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's fine. 

16 That's how this process works. And this 

17 process is not wholly scientific. It's public 

18 policy and science.

19 DR. McKEEL: Right, I understand.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And so, there's 

21 -- well, I'm preaching to the choir -- you 

22 guys all know this stuff. So I'm just --
120

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. McKEEL: Can I say --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm just wanting 

3 to make sure that we understand how NIOSH did 

4 this and they used the film badges to 

5 normalize their model as a sort of reality 

6 check, whether or not we agree to that, but 

7 that's I think what was done.

8 And my understanding is, from 

9 NIOSH's point of view, the 15 mR per hour part 

10 of that, you're not saying we're therefore --

11 we're ignoring that, that the model captures 

12 that through this normalization process where 

13 you use the film badge. That's where, I think 

14 is, am I describing that? Dave, you -- I 

15 don't want to be defending NIOSH. You guys 

16 defend yourself, and you may be wrong.

17 MR. ALLEN: Because we are -- 

18 making sure the model is consistent with the 

19 measured data, which is the film badge data, 

20 it was favorable to not account for the 

21 residual --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And that was 
121

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 favorable because?

2 MR. ALLEN: Because that means the 

3 sources we are accounting for, some of the 

4 sources we are accounting for also include a 

5 neutron component or a beta component and an 

6 increase in those, whereas the photon 

7 component is set with the film badges so this 

8 doesn't actually increase that.

9 DR. McKEEL: Well, I've just got 

10 to comment. That's exactly what I said. I 

11 think that's dead wrong.

12 MR. ALLEN: That is a bounding 

13 approach which is more policy than hard core 

14 accurate --

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: He's saying 

16 that's more claimant-favorable. That's all 

17 you're saying. Okay.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think we're 

19 losing the point of one thing here. You know, 

20 and that is, the measurement is only as good 

21 as the instrument that's used to measure, and 

22 the ionization chambers that were used are 
122

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 notorious for being susceptible to stray 

2 electromagnetic fields, and there was 

3 certainly a lot of that around the betatron 

4 when it was turned off.

5 We did this study, we hired this 

6 accelerator physicist to do the study of the 

7 betatron circuitry, and he said yes, there was 

8 a possibility that there would be some 

9 remaining -- some remaining fields there that 

10 were not enough to accelerate the beam and 

11 produce any significant dose.

12 So he did the electrical 

13 engineering analysis. I did the radiological 

14 health analysis. I came up with, you know, if 

15 you take the worst possible case, you might 

16 get a few micro-R per hour, not milli-R. It's 

17 a thousand fold difference.

18 However, those same electrical 

19 fields, radiofrequency fields, are notorious -

20 - I talked to a Mr. Zlotnicki, who is a health 

21 physicist, CHP, a lot of experience in this 

22 field, and he said we're always having trouble 
123

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 making measurements, radiation measurements, 

2 in the presence of electrical fields.

3 And Dave Allen, in his report, did 

4 point out that if there was a change in -- he 

5 had a static -- a, what do you call it, a DC 

6 field or a static field, but changing 

7 gradually, that will cause a meter reading. 

8 You have a magnetic field that is declining, 

9 that will cause a meter reading, also if you 

10 have a radiofrequency field, it's simply means 

11 the magnetic field is very rapidly 

12 oscillating, thousands of times per second, it 

13 will also cause a faulty meter reading.

14 So the -- you believe that 

15 reading, this instrument read that number, but 

16 the question is, what did that number mean? 

17 And in the absence of any --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We've sort of 

19 passed through all this before, so I think it 

20 is what it is, and they have told us how they 

21 are going to handle it, so maybe we should 

22 move on here.
124

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RAMSPOTT: One fast comment. 

2 John Ramspott, if I may. There's photographs 

3 in just about everybody's report. That's just 

4 one of them over there. And those guys aren't 

5 wearing those badges on their backs.

6 Two out of the three have them on 

7 their chests, the machine's to their back. 

8 You guys are the experts. Will that amount 

9 the radiation that's coming out of there go 

10 through a human body and hit that badge?

11 Did the badge pick it up?

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, you have 

13 the method of treating that --

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I will get to 

15 that. 

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Okay. 

17 Are we ready to talk about beta operator dose 

18 estimates? I guess the bottom line is your 

19 Table 9, right, Dave?

20 MR. ALLEN: Yes. 

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And there's some 

22 assumptions which sort of normalize this all 
125

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 to a 19 millirem per week control room upper 

2 value. That's the basis for the NIOSH 

3 estimate.

4 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And then there's 

6 some information on hours per week that an 

7 operator would work with uranium in the steel 

8 and so on. Any questions on those assumptions 

9 and how they're used? If I may ask, and Dan, 

10 again, you'll have your points, but do you 

11 have questions right now on what their 

12 assumptions were?

13 DR. McKEEL: I don't think I have.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: SC&A. Okay. So 

15 basically what you would do for a given year 

16 for the operator, would be to assign them this 

17 many hours working with the uranium, that many 

18 hours with the steel, and then use the --

19 MR. ALLEN: The Table 9, we 

20 misspoke, that's the hours, that's the uranium 

21 work --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Those are the 
126

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 hours of uranium work and then the fractions, 

2 okay.

3 MR. ALLEN: Yes, the bottom line 

4 comes down at the, I believe it's the end of 

5 the paper.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, at the end 

7 of Table 11. Okay, right, that's your time 

8 distribution.

9 MR. ALLEN: But it simply just 

10 takes the shot scenarios for the steel, and 

11 the shot scenarios for the uranium, as far as 

12 how often the betatron will actually be 

13 operating and what kind of dose they would get 

14 in the control room, and it was being combined 

15 with how often they would be out changing 

16 film, reorienting the betatron et cetera, how 

17 close they would be to the metal and what kind 

18 of dose they would get, and essentially you 

19 come up with an average dose that they're 

20 getting while they're shooting uranium and the 

21 dose they get while they're shooting steel, 

22 and then basically the hours in Table 9 as far 
127

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 as the uranium, or combine the two to come up 

2 with an overall annual dose. That's in Table 

3 11. And it varies from year to year based on 

4 Table 9 uranium work.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: On the betatron 

6 operators, speak a little bit to the 

7 contribution from the front to back, back to 

8 front issue. John has raised that a bit and 

9 clarify how that is being addressed.

10 MR. ALLEN: With the -- well, with 

11 the assumption that there was no residual on 

12 the machine then it's not much of an issue. 

13 We're assuming that you're facing the work 

14 with the casting and the uranium.

15 I think that really comes up a 

16 little later. Bob kind of raised that 

17 question too. But from what we looked at, the 

18 issue with that is essentially the energy of 

19 the photon. If the machine were activated 

20 what would be the energies, how much of that 

21 would make it through the body to the film 

22 badge, also the orientation of a person, would 
128

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 he always have his back to it or would he be 

2 turning around and moving some?

3 As far as -- there are very few 

4 isotopes that are -- that you could get from 

5 the materials in a betatron that would give 

6 you a half life that will decay away in 15 

7 minutes.

8 Most of them are hours, some 

9 millions of years, you know. Most of those 

10 that you could get end up giving you either a 

11 -- a number of them would give you a 511 keV 

12 photon, the bulk of which will get through the 

13 body and will be measured on the film badge, 

14 even if it's always at the PA geometry and 

15 it's always behind him and shielded.

16 But again, you know the person is 

17 going to be moving around some. They are 

18 going to be oriented at the betatron some, and 

19 not have their back directly to it the entire 

20 time they are reorienting.

21 MEMBER BEACH: My guess is their 

22 back would be to it most of the time, though, 
129

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and they would be facing their shot. That's 

2 what I would think.

3 MR. ALLEN: It would be back --

4 their back would be to it while they were 

5 handling the film and from what we -- from the 

6 information we get, it's a lot of shots on the 

7 casting that they are laying that out ahead of 

8 time in the number 10 Building, making marks 

9 on the casting et cetera, so they don't have 

10 to do that while they are in the betatron.

11 So a lot of the time is, in theory 

12 at least, is moving the film, putting a new 

13 piece of film on there. But they also have to 

14 reorient the betatron itself, which would be 

15 very difficult to do with your back to it.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Right.

17 MR. ALLEN: So it's going to be a 

18 mixture.

19 MEMBER BEACH: Still thinking the 

20 90-10 --

21 MR. ALLEN: Yes. The 90-10 -- I 

22 mean, it's going to -- a lot of it is going to 
130

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- 511 keV, a lot of it is going to make it 

2 through the body and show up on the film 

3 badge. Some of it is going to be directly to 

4 the film badge or you know, at an angle to the 

5 film badge.

6 There may be some reduction if 

7 there was a lot of dose coming from that, but 

8 there's still, the bulk of that would show up.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: John.

10 MR. RAMSPOTT: Actually, in the 

11 photograph too. It's a three-man crew 

12 normally, if I understand the workers 

13 correctly. Two of these guys had their backs 

14 to it. The guy up on the top is the film guy. 

15 The guy in the middle here was the marking 

16 guy. And it's already marked up but he 

17 actually, in this case here, he's putting like 

18 lead corners, markers, so when they focus this 

19 thing, they're aiming right at it.

20 Two out of these three guys, 

21 pretty typical, their back -- you're right, 

22 Josie, their backs are to the betatron a whole 
131

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 lot of the time. But they are working on the 

2 target. They are working on the casting.

3 MEMBER MUNN: But they're also 

4 quite a ways away from it. It's the two-foot 

5 limitation that you --

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: Well, this is an 

7 exception here too, Wanda.

8 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

9 MR. RAMSPOTT: This guy -- that 

10 six foot and nine foot shooting, it -- that's 

11 really a misnomer. It's six foot, but if the 

12 casting is two foot thick, that means the 

13 machine's got to be four foot.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

15 MR. RAMSPOTT: And that's -- that 

16 gets the -- you know, a human body, if it's a 

17 foot thick, I mean, they're getting pretty 

18 close to that, and this happens to be a 

19 massive casting here.

20 That camera's up kind of high.

21 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

22 MR. RAMSPOTT: Normally, it would 
132

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 be down a little bit lower to get on there --

2 they set them on three, four foot shooting 

3 platforms or a rail car. They told me that. 

4 A transfer car, about three feet high.

5 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: This one's 

7 exceptionally high because it's sitting on a 

8 truck, framed to be shot, so that's a little 

9 bit out of proportion there, for the height of 

10 the machine.

11 This is a lot closer than the --

12 we have other pictures of these -- I mean, 

13 it's almost hitting him in the head.

14 MEMBER MUNN: Oh well, it has to 

15 be when you are working in that kind of an 

16 environment. But by the same token, there's -

17 - it's one of the things that you can't -- you 

18 can't make a statement that all of these 

19 people were in close proximity to the betatron 

20 head that we are concerned about here.

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: Correct.

22 MEMBER MUNN: Au contraire; they 
133

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 are moving around a lot. They have to be 

2 moving around a lot. If the assumption that 

3 we are making here is the reason they had 

4 their backs to it is because they are working 

5 so hard and so fast, then, ergo, they are 

6 moving around a lot, so they are not going to 

7 be that close. That's the only point I was 

8 trying to make.

9 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Go ahead.

11 MR. DUTKO: The operator for the 

12 betatron -- it must be remembered that if they 

13 were five inches and shot at six foot, 

14 anything over five inches.

15 And simply, the operator is 

16 standing, sitting, placing Xs on the casting, 

17 penetrometers, numbers, arrows, he was very 

18 close to the casting, he has not touched it. 

19 You're shooting at six feet. The machine 

20 directly impacts him.

21 I cannot figure out how, if we've 

22 got a leaky machine at three feet that's 
134

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 putting out 60 millirem -- excuse me, yes --

2 three feet, 60 millirem, and it's six feet, 15 

3 millirem, how in the world would casting 

4 activation, a leaking machine and a hot 

5 control room which Los Alamos says it is, how 

6 in the world we can wind up with 1.35 

7 roentgens? Thank you, sir.

8 COURT REPORTER: Is that John 

9 Dutko?

10 MR. KATZ: Yes.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you. 

12 Okay. Any other questions on the operators? 

13 I'm going to go to the layout workers here. 

14 Okay. Layout workers -- let me 

15 start with a question here, again on the basis 

16 for the one foot 50 percent of the time and 

17 the one meter 50 percent of the time, I guess 

18 the answer there is the same as we had before 

19 then, it's sort of based on experience at 

20 other sites where they're handling similar 

21 kinds of things. Is that correct?

22 MR. ALLEN: Yes.
135

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. And the 

2 use of the 10 Building, is that pretty much, 

3 everybody agree on that, that's where that was 

4 always done, and the 10 Building was layouts? 

5 Is there any --

6 MR. ALLEN: I think that was the 

7 closest place --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's just the 

9 closest one. There might have been others 

10 that this will maximize any bounding?

11 MR. ALLEN: I mean, some of it 

12 could have been done in the betatron, but the 

13 betatron wouldn't be on.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Wouldn't be on.

15 MR. ALLEN: So the maximizing 

16 would assume that they were near that door in 

17 the -- in the number 10 Building while the 

18 betatron was operating.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And the betatron 

20 might have been operating, so they have the 

21 exposure that they get from handling plus 

22 scatter --
136

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: Right.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- coming in. 

3 That's the basis of your --

4 MR. ALLEN: Yes. It was intended to 

5 be a maximizing but it was also pretty 

6 credible, it seemed to be often that it was 

7 somewhere in that vicinity.

8 MR. RAMSPOTT: Question.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, John.

10 MR. RAMSPOTT: John Ramspott. Is 

11 that assuming the lead door?

12 MR. ALLEN: Yes, this White Paper 

13 is assuming the lead door.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thanks. 

15 Wanda or Josie, questions on those 

16 assumptions?

17 MEMBER MUNN: I don't believe so. 

18 Seemed reasonable.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And as I 

20 understand it, Dave, that you would take your 

21 layout workers' values, whatever your final 

22 numbers, which are the Table 10 values, and 
137

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 you are proposing to apply those to all 

2 workers at the site who were not betatron 

3 operators, is that correct?

4 MR. ALLEN: Actually, right below 

5 Table 11 there's a short paragraph and the 

6 last sentence says: "the dose reconstruction 

7 will choose the most favorable of the sets."

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So even if they 

9 were not known to be a betatron operator, if 

10 somehow their dose reconstruction got -- using 

11 both of these sets of things ended up, you 

12 mean that -- or how are you deciding?

13 MR. ALLEN: Well, basically 

14 whichever one's favorable for that particular 

15 person --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: For that person.

17 MR. ALLEN: -- which could depend 

18 on whether they have a skin cancer or --

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- which cancer 

20 they have.

21 MR. ALLEN: Right. So it could 

22 depend on the years too, but I don't think it 
138

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 would make a difference.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So if they had a 

3 skin cancer and the skin dose was higher from 

4 -- if you call them a betatron operator you 

5 would give them that value?

6 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: If the skin dose 

8 was higher if they were a layout worker, you 

9 would give them that value?

10 MR. ALLEN: Right.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Gotcha.

12 MR. ALLEN: And it seems credible 

13 because -- as I understand it, the betatron 

14 operators and some of them would be doing the 

15 layout --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, I 

17 understand that.

18 MR. ALLEN: And you also have 

19 people --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But there's 

21 people doing layout who were not badged and --

22 MR. ALLEN: Yes, as I understand 
139

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it, they were not badged while they were doing 

2 layout.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Even the betatron 

4 operators would be not badged.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. But 

6 there could be other people who were not --

7 didn't have a badge in the system even, 

8 wouldn't be considered a betatron operator.

9 MR. ALLEN: Right, because I mean, 

10 I called it layout, but the truth is that 

11 could be, you know, a quick repair job too --

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

13 MR. ALLEN: -- which could be, you 

14 know, any type of job. It could be also, 

15 you've got the chainmen et cetera that are 

16 moving the castings in and out of the 

17 betatron.

18 MEMBER BEACH: I just have a quick 

19 question, Paul.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

21 MEMBER BEACH: On your tables 

22 you've got `53 through 1960 and then `53 
140

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 through `65. Is that the total for those 

2 seven years or five years or --

3 MR. ALLEN: No, those are annual.

4 MEMBER BEACH: It is annual. I 

5 just wanted to make sure that that was clear.

6 MR. ALLEN: Yes, the reason I 

7 separated `66 for the Table 10 for layout guy, 

8 was because of the half a year --

9 MEMBER BEACH: That six month --

10 yes, I got that. I just wasn't sure on the 

11 others. 

12 DR. McKEEL: Paul, I have a 

13 comment.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, Dan.

15 DR. McKEEL: My comment is a 

16 general one about layout workers being 

17 representative of the rest of the workers in 

18 the plant. So you'll see that what I tried to 

19 do at the end of this, my presentation, is to 

20 summarize the agreement in 2007 and `08 

21 between the models that SC&A and NIOSH 

22 generated and compare those to what they came 
141

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 up with with new models, or reworking the old 

2 models in 2012.

3 And so in doing that, what kept me 

4 up too many hours late at night was it was 

5 very hard to trace the direction of how doses 

6 were assigned to the non-badged non-betatron 

7 operators.

8 And in Appendix B and the SC&A 

9 review, you know, there are places where the 

10 betatron doses, which were very much higher 

11 due to the earlier models, were said to bound 

12 everybody's doses, so there weren't any 

13 calculations done for those other people, so 

14 you can't get a direct comparison.

15 But what is clear is this time 

16 around, you know, the SC&A models for the 

17 layout workers are very high compared to the 

18 betatron operators and so it flip-flops.

19 We have always said in the past 

20 that the betatron operators got the highest 

21 dose, and 94 percent of the dose 

22 reconstructions at GSI have been done based on 
142

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that premise, that the other people got less 

2 than a rem per year, whereas the betatron 

3 operators got a higher amount.

4 Well, if you go with what's now 

5 been done, you are going to have a vastly 

6 different result with that. So I guess, I 

7 guess what I would like to hear from David 

8 that I don't understand is: why have we 

9 finalized on layout workers representing the 

10 rest of the people?

11 My own opinion is there are other 

12 people that, you know, haven't had a dose 

13 calculated for them because you can't do it, 

14 you don't know who they were, where they were, 

15 what doses they received, and in particular 

16 the chainmen who had to handle the uranium and 

17 the grinders and the chippers, the people that 

18 actually got exposed to those hot particles 

19 from those activated castings.

20 So I'd just like to hear David 

21 talk about other non-badged workers and why 

22 layout workers were suddenly fixed on now.
143

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: Well, the layout 

2 workers are because the doses that they are 

3 getting -- the two primary doses they are 

4 getting are from scatter while the betatron is 

5 operating down that tunnel, or down the 

6 equipment hallway or whatever you want to call 

7 that, into the number 10 Building, but also 

8 from working in close proximity to recently 

9 irradiated steel castings.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And you didn't 

11 have that before in your, in your early --

12 DR. McKEEL: Well, layout men are 

13 -- I'm sorry, excuse me.

14 MR. ALLEN: We had people outside 

15 -- Appendix BB, that one? We had --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, you were 

17 asking why the thing suddenly went so much 

18 higher, I guess.

19 DR. McKEEL: No, no, no, I was 

20 saying in Appendix BB, NIOSH mentions layout 

21 workers among other workers.

22 MR. ALLEN: Well, in any case the 
144

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reason that we are saying it's representative 

2 of other workers is that these are the sources 

3 of radiation.

4 You have the isotopic sources. 

5 You have the irradiated steel. And you have 

6 shine from the betatrons. The layout worker 

7 scenario here maximizes those last two.

8 I can't come up with any scenario 

9 where somebody is going to be closer, longer, 

10 to the freshly irradiated steel and get the 

11 scatter from the betatron itself.

12 And as far as the sources, as I 

13 mentioned before, that's in the other White 

14 Paper, and the intent -- this particular White 

15 Paper deals only with the betatron components, 

16 but a revised appendix would include both of 

17 those components, and just like the last 

18 sentence in this thing says, pick the highest 

19 of one for that particular, it's going to be 

20 pick the highest of sources versus layout men 

21 versus betatron operator et cetera and any of 

22 them that are -- obviously if one is always 
145

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 higher than the other, then it will be not 

2 even included in that particular one, but the 

3 basis would be there and say it'd default to 

4 layout man or default to near radium 

5 radiography, or whatever ends up being the 

6 highest, and I didn't actually --

7 DR. McKEEL: My point there --

8 yes, I understand that real well, and I 

9 understand why that would be an operational 

10 way to treat the non-badged, other workers.

11 I guess my point was though, if I 

12 thought about jobs and what people did, 

13 actually the people I would think that would 

14 be the most highly exposed would not be the 

15 layout men, who after all are fixing -- laying 

16 out on that activated casting, but it would be 

17 the grinders and the chippers and those people 

18 who actually take a tool and cut into those 

19 activated castings, and everybody who's worked 

20 around a, you know, a steel plant or a 

21 commercial power plant, or anything, and has 

22 seen that stuff, those hot particles can have 
146

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 intense radioactivity.

2 I would think that -- I mean, much 

3 more concentrated just in bare castings, so a 

4 priori I wouldn't pick the layout men at all 

5 as being the most, the highest of doses. 

6 I would say that it would be a 

7 grinder or chipper or somebody like that in 

8 Building 10 that just got one of those X-ray 

9 castings.

10 And as I understood it from the 

11 workers, you know, they would -- if they found 

12 a structural defect that was significant, they 

13 might have to haul that casting back out, fill 

14 it in, send it -- put it back on the truck, 

15 send it back on the railroad car, send it back 

16 into the betatron and have it re-X-rayed.

17 I guess I'm saying that this 

18 highlights the -- Dr. Anigstein said it well 

19 about the scenarios. The 15 scenarios with 

20 exposures are, I understand them on a 

21 theoretical basis, but only about five of them 

22 relate to the real world.
147

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I would say that, you know, 

2 what this really recognizes is there is no 

3 badge data for -- at any time, for 97 percent 

4 of the people that worked at GSI. No film 

5 badge data at all.

6 So you are picking, you are 

7 modeling now, and trying to apply that to 

8 these non-badged workers, and I just don't 

9 think you can reliably do that. That, that's 

10 my point.

11 So I kind of understand you've got 

12 to pick somebody, but you know, it has not 

13 been a consistent approach and I do agree with 

14 David that those two basic routes of exposure, 

15 of people working the 10 Building for 

16 instance, you know, sky shining right down the 

17 tunnel, that does apply.

18 I have to comment, though, again 

19 this is a model predicated -- coming down the 

20 tunnel through a lead-lined steel door that 

21 I'm going to try to convince you all, persuade 

22 you, was not there.
148

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So there's a problem with the 

2 model just from that point of view. Okay?

3 MR. ALLEN: I've got to say one 

4 thing there, and I don't disagree with you 

5 that somebody grinding on that is going to get 

6 more exposure, but you have to realize that 

7 we're trying to -- at least I have been trying 

8 to eat the elephant one bite at a time, 

9 essentially.

10 This White Paper -- you're right. 

11 We've been saying this is for betatron 

12 exposure et cetera. The truth is this is for 

13 external exposures from the betatron.

14 DR. McKEEL: I understand that.

15 MR. ALLEN: And what you're 

16 talking about is inhalation of radioactive 

17 dust from grinding on those. That was already 

18 in Appendix BB and that will be included in 

19 the overall index.

20 DR. McKEEL: Well, as I have 

21 understood it from painters and grinders who 

22 worked in reactor vessels, when they are 
149

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 cleaning and painting them in a commercial 

2 nuclear power plant, the tremendous doses that 

3 they worry about is, people who actually have 

4 to grind off the "crud," is the technical term 

5 for it, and they get those hot particles and 

6 the real enormous doses are the hot particles 

7 landing on your skin.

8 So it's really beta dose. I'm not 

9 talking about exclusively inhalation dose at 

10 all.

11 MR. ALLEN: You won't get those 

12 outside of a reactor. You won't get those 

13 from betatron irradiation of a metal casting. 

14 The hot particles are pieces of corroded 

15 metal that actually flow through and get 

16 caught in a reactor, get highly radioactive, 

17 and then end up breaking loose and flowing --

18 DR. McKEEL: I understand. They 

19 are radioactive pieces of metal that have 

20 broken off. But I'm saying when they bring 

21 out a recently irradiated casting into 

22 Building 10 and start grinding and chipping it 
150

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and those things are flying off it, they are 

2 radioactive hot particles.

3 MR. ALLEN: Yes, but they're not -

4 - they're not going to give you much of an 

5 external dose above what that casting is. In 

6 fact, it's negligible compared to the casting 

7 that they are coming off of.

8 DR. McKEEL: You mean the beta 

9 skin dose? 

10 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

11 DR. McKEEL: Why?

12 MR. ALLEN: Because they are not 

13 hot particles like what you're talking about 

14 from a power plant. You don't get that highly 

15 intense radioactive particle from a casting. 

16 You will get the, you know, a large piece of 

17 the casting will be evenly irradiated.

18 Those hot particles come from 

19 small corrosion products going into a reactor 

20 and getting a neutron flux out of a power 

21 reactor type of --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Probably ten to 
151

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the tenth or ten to the twelfth, probably 

2 eight orders of magnitude -- 

3 MR. ALLEN: Hundreds of R.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: These would not 

5 be defined in the field as hot particles.

6 DR. McKEEL: I know. I 

7 understand. I understand what you're saying.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: They're 

9 radioactive particles and I mean, you could go 

10 through the exercise but you will not be able 

11 to deliver much --

12 DR. McKEEL: Would you then agree 

13 with David that there's no increase in dose 

14 from those activated metal particles --

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There would be a 

16 theoretical increase but it would -- and you 

17 could do the calculation -- it's going to be 

18 in the micro-R region. It's, I mean it's --

19 it will nowhere compare with what you get in a 

20 nuclear reactor where you have the crud going 

21 in --

22 DR. McKEEL: Paul, I'm not talking 
152

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 about Rs and magnitude. I understand that.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

3 DR. McKEEL: The beginning point 

4 is so much higher in a nuclear --

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, right, 

6 right.

7 DR. McKEEL: -- reactor. I do 

8 understand that. I do. 

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

10 DR. McKEEL: I'm not a novice in 

11 that area at all. I understand that.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Yes.

13 DR. McKEEL: I'm just trying to 

14 make a point that, a priori, I would think 

15 that that could add to the dose. But you all 

16 say it's negligible. So --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, and maybe 

18 someone would need to demonstrate that --

19 DR. McKEEL: I think that's the 

20 key point. You do need to demonstrate it.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Because you are 

22 talking about a neutron flux in terms of the 
153

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 neutrons produced in this process, that's got 

2 to be at least 8 to 10 orders of magnitude 

3 lower so that -- but you know, I'm just 

4 talking sort of broad terms here. I --

5 DR. McKEEL: Okay. Understand 

6 what I'm saying. I'm not trying to compare 

7 the -- I'm not trying to compare a particle 

8 from this --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You're basically 

10 saying had you already taken that into 

11 account --

12 DR. McKEEL: I'm trying to say 

13 there's an increase -- that those particles 

14 increase the beta skin dose above what you 

15 would calculate --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I mean if 

17 it's --

18 DR. McKEEL: -- a layout man, just 

19 from his hands --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But if it's six 

21 decimal points further from the number 

22 they're using, it's a --
154

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. ALLEN: I was going to say 

2 it's not going to show up on the significant 

3 figures, for sure.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, okay. The 

5 point's been made.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Can I comment on 

7 this?

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: First of all, if 

10 you are talking about a particle of metal 

11 going on the skin, we have, NIOSH and we have 

12 both now, have both modeled the entire hand 

13 being on the steel, so how can a particle give 

14 you a greater dose than the entire surface of 

15 the steel?

16 We are having the maximum dose, 

17 the maximum reactivity is on the surface and 

18 it goes down as you go deeper into the metal. 

19 So we already get it. We've done that in 

20 great detail and we -- and there is a skin 

21 dose, and it's accounted for.

22 And the reason the layout man has 
155

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 a higher dose than the grinders and chippers, 

2 he has -- he gets it first. Then by the time 

3 the grinders and chippers get it, there's 

4 already been some additional decay time. 

5 These are short-lived isotopes. We saw them.

6 And so the first person that gets 

7 the steel coming out of there is a layout man. 

8 We look -- this SC&A has looked at all of 

9 these things. We have looked at the chippers 

10 and grinders. We have looked at the layout 

11 men. We looked at the chainmen.

12 The chainmen don't make the grade 

13 because they get to it sooner, but they're not 

14 in contact with the metal, in contact with the 

15 metal as long.

16 The layout man is the one that 

17 gets the highest dose of these categories and 

18 all of them we can examine. As far as the 

19 inhalation and ingestion, that was looked at 

20 also, and even with a minor decay, there is 

21 negligible dose to the inside.

22 Giving the maximum amount that 
156

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 anyone is going to inhale over the period of 

2 their eight-hour work day, starting with the, 

3 oh, after the irradiation steel, over the 

4 course of a year, they get less than a 

5 millirem, and that's a completely negligible 

6 dose.

7 DR. McKEEL: I'd just like to make 

8 one final comment. I accept what Dr. 

9 Anigstein just said --

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean, you said 

11 "a priori," well, we did it a posteriori. We 

12 did it after the modeling and we looked at 

13 each one. We did not jump to any conclusion. 

14 We looked at each one, and each, each of 

15 these exposure pathways has been fully 

16 accounted for.

17 DR. McKEEL: Okay. Then I've got 

18 to make a comment about that, and this is 

19 another huge issue with me and this Work Group 

20 and the way it's operating.

21 Dr. Anigstein just said, and we've 

22 heard many instances this morning, where David 
157

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Allen and NIOSH took SC&A models and revised 

2 them and reworked them.

3 Bob Anigstein is now sitting and 

4 claiming that he and SC&A have done all the 

5 original fundamental work to do what, in my 

6 opinion, this program pays NIOSH to do, and I 

7 have said it many times and I'll keep on 

8 saying it until the very end of the program, 

9 that I think the roles are improper and they 

10 have been reversed.

11 It is not SC&A's job to construct 

12 the dose reconstruction data for these folks. 

13 So that's over and above whether the modeling 

14 you have done is accurate.

15 So I think that this Work Group 

16 should be considering what NIOSH has done, 

17 what NIOSH is able to do on its own. The SEC 

18 basis is: can NIOSH accurately bound, you 

19 know, with sufficient accuracy, bound the 

20 doses? Can NIOSH with sufficient accuracy 

21 calculate the doses for these workers?

22 And I think that -- I just think 
158

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that's wrong. The other thing that I think is 

2 wrong is: from the petitioner's point of view, 

3 I think that SC&A's proper role is to evaluate 

4 what NIOSH has done, and, you know, in many 

5 instances I think that the two roles have been 

6 switched.

7 So all I can say is, you know, I 

8 don't consider the Board's contractor's 

9 modeling work on all the other workers in the 

10 plant to be definitive.

11 And where's the comparable data 

12 from NIOSH that was done independently? How 

13 did those numbers agree? So I just think a 

14 big part of the necessary picture is missing.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: One comment.

16 MEMBER MUNN: I'd like to address 

17 Dr. McKeel's concerns in a slightly different 

18 perspective.

19 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

20 MEMBER MUNN: From at least this 

21 Board Member's perspective, we hired SC&A. I, 

22 as a Board Member, hired SC&A. SC&A was 
159

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 instructed to obtain a wide variety of 

2 expertise because we had many different kinds 

3 of structures to look at, and there were very 

4 few Members of the Board who had the personal 

5 background and expertise to be able to 

6 evaluate these things well ourselves.

7 So we wanted our contractor to 

8 have -- and I am one of those people who is 

9 not always happy with the people who were 

10 chosen for that contract role. But it was our 

11 desire, I believe I can speak for the Board in 

12 this single instance, it was our desire to 

13 have the broadest possible expertise.

14 Now, when we do this, we -- again, 

15 as an individual Board Member I'm very, very 

16 sensitive to the issue that you just raised, 

17 which is first, the chicken or the egg, who's 

18 doing our work?

19 When we have NIOSH bringing us the 

20 work that they have done and we have 

21 outstanding experts in our contract field who 

22 is working with the Board and with NIOSH to 
160

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 resolve some of these really, really deep 

2 technical issues, then, if we have expertise 

3 in the Board's technical contractor, which is 

4 helpful to both the Board and NIOSH in moving 

5 some of these things forward, then, from my 

6 point of view, SC&A is not providing this 

7 information. They are working with the agency 

8 to achieve what we want done, which is the 

9 best possible product that gives us the best 

10 technical solution to the issue that's up in 

11 front of us, at that given time.

12 Now, the sensitivity varies, I 

13 suspect, from member to member around the 

14 Board. But certainly some of us are extremely 

15 sensitive to whether the issue is one that 

16 needs to be NIOSH work or whether it is one 

17 which SC&A can bring additional expertise to 

18 help resolve single technical points.

19 So whether your concern in this 

20 particular instance is seen in exactly the 

21 same way by others, of course no one can judge 

22 except the individual. 
161

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But we, I think most of the 

2 Members of the Board are very concerned to see 

3 that we -- we understand we want NIOSH to do 

4 the work, and for -- in almost all instances, 

5 from my perspective, I see NIOSH doing the 

6 work.

7 I see another perspective 

8 occasionally brought by our contractor, but 

9 the Board is aware of that when this is going 

10 on, and isn't -- we are concerned also that 

11 the right, the right agency, the right group 

12 of people is doing the right -- what we are 

13 expected to do both by law and by the process 

14 that we've developed here.

15 MR. KATZ: Wanda?

16 MEMBER MUNN: Yes.

17 MR. KATZ: Let me interject now, 

18 because I don't think we should spend a lot of 

19 time, precious time on this process question.

20 MEMBER MUNN: No, we shouldn't.

21 MR. KATZ: But the Board tasks 

22 SC&A to do evaluative work. That's what we 
162

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 do. And they do it. And sometimes when they 

2 do evaluative work, they produce products that 

3 end up being sort of -- leading the path in 

4 another direction and those get taken up and 

5 made use of. Why would you ignore it when 

6 good technical work has been done?

7 But the charge to SC&A is always 

8 to do evaluative work and that's what they do. 

9 They don't do -- they're not, they're not 

10 intending to break ground in the first place 

11 or intending to evaluate how well NIOSH did 

12 its job. Often, in trying to validate a model 

13 or contest it, whatever, they do their own 

14 modeling and so on, that gets brought into 

15 play. That's fine. It's evaluative work.

16 And then if, at that point, NIOSH 

17 finds that that information is useful, is a 

18 better path, I think it's perfectly fine for 

19 NIOSH to take up that information and improve 

20 their dose reconstruction process, because the 

21 one thing that is certainly true, is that the

22 Board is concerned that at the end of the day, 
163

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 however it comes about, the best methods are 

2 used for dose reconstruction and the right 

3 answers are reached finally about SEC 

4 petitioners, in other words that feasibility -

5 - whether feasibility is there or is not.

6 So, I mean I think I don't want to 

7 continue this discussion.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, and I just 

9 want to point out, and Dan, conceptually, you 

10 are quite right, and you've heard me say it 

11 many times, that I don't want NIOSH to do --

12 or SC&A to do NIOSH's work.

13 But what Ted has described is 

14 exactly true, I mean, we have many instances, 

15 I think of high-fired plutonium which is 

16 originally raised as a question by SC&A, have 

17 you considered high-fired plutonium?

18 And now that has permeated all of 

19 our sites because it was raised as part of the 

20 evaluation process. But I think we understand 

21 your point and we are always trying to find 

22 the right balance to make sure that, you know, 
164

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 NIOSH has the legal responsibility to do 

2 certain things and we're evaluating, we are 

3 trying to reach a point of best science.

4 DR. McKEEL: I respect everybody's 

5 opinion and I hear what you're saying. But 

6 I'd like to summarize what my point is, and I 

7 certainly respect particularly what Wanda just 

8 said, the point I was trying to make is 

9 slightly different.

10 And it is that as far as I can 

11 see, from the law and the spirit and the whole 

12 thing of this process -- and I respect you, 

13 Ted, too -- I just want to make a summary --

14 it's NIOSH's job to come up with the dose 

15 reconstruction methods that SC&A evaluates.

16 It's their job to come up with 

17 information. If there is a gap, in other 

18 words if NIOSH does not do something, like for 

19 instance model all the different worker jobs, 

20 their exposure rates from the betatron, which 

21 I think they did not do in the first place, 

22 then I don't think evaluation means fill in 
165

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the blanks, and I actually disagree with Ted.

2 The way I see it, as a citizen, I 

3 see the Board as overseeing NIOSH's 

4 activities -- evaluating that for the 

5 Secretary of Health and Human Services, that 

6 is fine and valid. But I do not see this law 

7 saying that the Board is charged, or its 

8 contractor is charged with filling in the 

9 blanks for dose reconstruction methods and 

10 new information that would change an SEC 

11 evaluation from deny to approve or something 

12 like that.

13 So that's just --

14 MR. KATZ: I didn't say that, I 

15 didn't say it's the Board's job -- I said it 

16 rises out of their evaluation work that they 

17 do this kind of -- that they, for example, 

18 looking at all the different occupations and 

19 what the -- you know, DCAS didn't do that, but 

20 they did that. That's fine. They were doing 

21 that for an evaluative purpose.

22 That was the hat they were 
166

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 wearing. They were evaluating, saying: how 

2 well does this model function? So they looked 

3 at more than perhaps DCAS did in that. That's 

4 fine. It's still fine.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, the 

6 point's on the table. What I want to do now, 

7 let's take our lunch break. I'd like to see 

8 if we can get it done in 45 minutes, the 

9 lunch, let's streamline it a little bit.

10 Dan, I'm going to give you the 

11 table right after lunch, so we are going to 

12 try to come back here at 12:30, okay?

13 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer?

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

15 MR. DUTKO: Quick comment, please.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

17 MR. DUTKO: What Dr. McKeel was 

18 talking about was absolutely true. The 

19 casting is not limited to the layout person, 

20 as you know. You've got bag crews, you've got 

21 grinders and chippers. Once that casting is 

22 marked up, a magnaflux crew, grinders and 
167

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 chippers go to work. They work with each 

2 other.

3 Also, who might be called in is 

4 burners and welders. There's a lot more 

5 people involved with the repair of a casting, 

6 and it might be -- the layout might be done a 

7 lot quicker, in a half hour, depending on what 

8 stage or amount of defects the casting gets. 

9 Thank you, sir.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thanks, 

11 yes, we understand that.

12 MEMBER BEACH: Paul, one quick 

13 question.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

15 MR. CHUROVICH: And I have a thing 

16 to say here. My name is Dan Churovich.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dan, you're 

18 going to have to hold off. We're taking a 

19 break now. You are welcome to join us at 

20 12:30 when we will reconvene. Thank you.

21 MEMBER BEACH: Are we skipping 

22 over SC&A's review or --
168

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're going to 

2 just -- I committed to Dan we'd let him go 

3 after lunch. 

4 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We'll still hear 

6 from Bob, Dan -- Dan, you're not going to go 

7 till 3:00.

8 (Laughter.)

9 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But I made that 

11 commitment that we would --

12 DR. McKEEL: I appreciate that.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, we've got 

14 to be careful on that because that's sleep 

15 time, you know, right after lunch.

16 You're going to have to keep us 

17 awake. So see if we can get done by 12:30 and 

18 that'll give us a little more time this 

19 afternoon, okay? 

20 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

21 MR. KATZ: Okay, so I'm ending the 

22 call and we'll be back on at 12:30.
169

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

2 the record at 11:43 a.m. and 

3 resumed at 12:32 p.m.)

4 
170

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 A-F-T-E-R-N-O-O-N S-E-S-S-I-O-N 

2 (12:32 p.m.)

3 MR. KATZ: Good afternoon. Folks 

4 on the phone, this is the Advisory Board on 

5 Radiation and Worker Health, TBD-6000 Work 

6 Group, and we are just reconvening, having 

7 finished the lunch break.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

9 As we begin the afternoon session, we are 

10 going to begin with the presentation by the 

11 GSI petitioner, who is Dr. Dan McKeel.

12 And, Dan, do you want folks to ask 

13 questions as you proceed or do you want to go 

14 through everything and then wait until the 

15 end? Do you have a preference on that?

16 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Ziemer, I think 

17 it might be better to just let me go on 

18 through the slides.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

20 DR. McKEEL: I will try to pause 

21 maybe in between the big sections --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.
171

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. McKEEL: -- if somebody has a 

2 burning question.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: All right. 

4 Appreciate it.

5 DR. McKEEL: But we can go back to 

6 a slide if we need to bring it up.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure.

8 DR. McKEEL: But I think the flow 

9 --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That'll be fine.

11 DR. McKEEL: -- will be better just 

12 to finish with it.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you.

14 DR. McKEEL: Well, anyway, the 

15 first thing I'd like to say is to thank Dr. 

16 Ziemer and to thank the Work Group for 

17 accommodating John and I even being here, but 

18 in particular for participating fully in this 

19 meeting.

20 And I hope to make this 

21 presentation in the spirit in which Dr. Ziemer 

22 started the meeting by saying it's really to 
172

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 convey information, new information, go over a 

2 few points from the past that needed to be 

3 clarified, but particularly to concentrate on 

4 a few big picture issues that we really have 

5 not been over this morning about what was the 

6 intended purpose of the path forward for GSI 

7 and have those goals been realized.

8 And then finally, to kind of sum 

9 up where we are, I believe, is to give you an 

10 overview of the doses that have been 

11 calculated from several years ago and updated 

12 here more recently by both NIOSH and SC&A, and 

13 that sort of indicates what the work of this 

14 Work Group might be, particularly at the next 

15 meeting in bringing things to a closure, at 

16 least on the SEC portion of things.

17 So, the first thing I wanted to 

18 concentrate on is this basic information about 

19 the path forward for GSI, and to remind us 

that on October 20th 20 of 2010, David Allen came 

21 forth with his White Paper entitled "A Path 

22 Forward for GSI."
173

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And in that paper he mentioned the 

2 large 80-curie Co-60 non-destructive testing 

3 source and said that the law itself, EEOICPA, 

4 disallowed the use of that source.

5 In that path forward he proposed 

6 new exposure models based on GSI information 

7 from outside sources including workers and 

8 advocates, site experts and myself, and the 

9 intended purpose of the path forward, one of 

10 the main ones, was to revise Appendix BB Rev 

11 0, which was first put out in June of 2007.

12 But also, at that point in time, 

13 there were outstanding findings from SC&A's 

14 review of Appendix BB and SC&A's findings on 

15 the SEC 105 for GSI that needed to be 

16 addressed, and Dave Allen outlined that they 

17 would be addressed in the path forward.

18 So as the path forward began to be 

19 analyzed, Dr. Ziemer sent out an email which I 

received in May of 2011, May 16th 20 , 2011, and 

21 in that email Dr. Ziemer outlined the 10 new 

22 exposure models that NIOSH was going to 
174

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 produce.

2 The first four models were going 

3 to be supplied by David Allen, and he did 

4 produce that document as a White Paper in 

5 August of 2011 and that dealt with GSI 

6 portable sources.

7 And then this last paper, the one 

8 we are focusing on today, was by David Allen 

9 and NIOSH and that was dated January of 2012, 

10 and that was a White Paper on betatron 

11 operations.

12 Now the big picture on the path 

13 forward as far as I can see is those 

14 outstanding five SEC issues that were outlined 

15 in the original path forward document of 

16 October 2010, they've really not been 

17 addressed and they certainly -- they were not 

18 addressed in this latest White Paper.

19 So as we come here today, the 

20 petitioners do have a large number of concerns 

21 and I've tried to hit the highlights here, and 

22 now I'm focusing on this latest White Paper 
175

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 dated January 2012.

2 First was that among the six 

3 methods that were supposed to be covered, was 

4 a new exposure model for the old betatron, and 

5 basically that was really left out of this 

6 paper.

7 There is, I think, one sentence 

8 that mentions that the doses for the new 

9 betatron, which has been recalculated, would 

10 be bounding for the old betatron, but there 

11 really isn't any new model for the old 

12 betatron.

13 And my comment is that you can't 

14 equate them as identical facilities because 

15 they really are quite different, and we don't 

16 have the time to go into all the differences, 

17 but they are not the same.

18 Second point here is that the new 

19 betatron model uses 1971 data for an 80 curies 

20 cobalt source where we said that that same 

21 source is really not allowed under EEOICPA, 

22 and the purpose of that was to validate film 
176

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 badge hearings from 1964 to `66.

2 So I understand the discussion 

3 this morning, but I still would like that 

4 comment to be entered in the record. The 

5 other comment I'd like to make is that 

6 OCAS-IG-003 guidance says that all radiation 

7 sources during the covered period must be -- 

8 dose must be determined with sufficient 

9 accuracy, and with the second path forward 

10 document that's now been delivered, I would 

11 say that what is not covered is the old 

12 betatron doses, the fact that GSI did own a 

13 10- to 20-curie iridium-192 source that's 

14 different from the St. Louis Testing source, 

15 and I'm going to show you some new information 

16 about that.

17 And although the 250 kVp portable 

18 industrial X-ray units were discussed in the 

19 previous White Paper, the doses for both those 

20 units were not really defined.

21 The other thing I'd like to just 

22 point out is that this site is one of the ones 
177

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that really had an extensive array of 

2 underground tunnels that we've not talked 

3 about very much, and they were really designed 

4 to be a housing for the conveyor belts, which 

5 ran all throughout the GSI building complex.

6 And we also have tunnels for the 

7 railroad tracks that go into the betatron 

8 buildings. So it seems to me that one of the 

9 things that's really not been addressed at all 

10 at this site is radon exposure.

11 I want to turn to our -- to recap 

12 for you the information we have about GSI 

13 owning and using an iridium-192 source, and 

14 this first affidavit was really presented in 

15 2006 and I want to read it again, the relevant 

16 parts.

17 It says, "The large castings were 

18 processed only in the old betatron except for 

19 the pipes, which were X-rayed using iridium 

20 anywhere necessary, but not routine, except 

21 primarily in the end of 10 Building and 

22 sometimes in Building number 9."
178

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 He also notes that the only 

2 cobalt-60 source that he knew about was the 

3 small pill in 6 Building west end up against 

4 the foundry and the core truck aisle on the 

5 west.

6 The second affidavit is more 

7 recent, and that has to do with the same GSI 

8 iridium-192 source, and this gentleman says as 

9 follows, and this is a report from John Terry 

10 Dutko, who had just spoken with this person.

11 "Dr. Dan, just a reminder that the 

12 iridium info about the GSI 10- to 20-curie 

13 iridium source and one quarter curie cobalt-60 

14 sources came from -- and I'll omit his name.

15 "This gentleman started in the 

16 fall of 1963 at GSI, worked in magnaflux then 

17 moved up to isotopes. He periodically worked 

18 in 6 Building with iridium and cobalt, 

19 shooting corner shots on rail truck frames."

20 And that's an interesting comment 

21 because the majority of the work that had been 

22 ongoing in Building 6, and this inner 
179

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 radiography structure, was to look at railroad 

2 truck frames.

3 He also worked steady midnights, 

4 et cetera, in the old betatron while he and 

5 his friend were going to school. This 

6 gentleman stated that comparing iridium and 

7 the cobalt source that he worked with in 

8 Building 6, iridium was the weaker source, 

9 penetration-wise, and it would take two to 

10 four hours using cobalt to penetrate two 

11 inches of steel, and so forth.

12 The third affidavit about there 

13 being a GSI iridium-192 source comes from the 

14 attorney son of a GSI radiographer who is now 

15 deceased, and the son filed this formal 

affidavit on November 25th 16 , 2006, really in 

17 the terminal stages of life of his dad, but he 

18 wanted to get this information on the record.

19 And this is a quote from that 

20 affidavit, number 8, "My job duty was to X-ray 

21 castings with the betatron. I used 250 kVp 

22 industrial radiography equipment and also X-
180

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 rayed castings using cobalt-60 and iridium2 192." He said, "The latter unit was in the 

3 betatron room, was mobile and sat on the 

4 floor."

5 We have, I didn't put it here 

6 today for time reasons, but we have a fourth 

7 affidavit from a gentleman that you all know 

8 well, we've talked to before, JP, who worked 

9 at GSI during 1957 and the late `50s, and he 

10 also attested to the fact that GSI owned and 

11 used an iridium-192 source during that time 

12 period.

13 This is from that same dying man's 

14 declaration, but a different point that I 

15 thought was relevant to what we discussed this 

16 morning about the residual radiation from the 

17 betatron when it was off.

18 He said --

19 MR. RAMSPOTT: Oh, Dan?

20 DR. McKEEL: Yes.

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: Excuse me. You 

22 added that slide. That's not in their handout 
181

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 right now.

2 DR. McKEEL: I understand that, 

3 John.

4 MR. RAMSPOTT: They didn't know 

5 that.

6 DR. McKEEL: Oh, I'm sorry. There 

7 are three slides, I think, that are not in 

8 your handout.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, mine was -

10 - I can just --

11 DR. McKEEL: I apologize. They 

12 will be -- I'm leaving this PowerPoint --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You can just 

14 email it to Ted.

15 DR. McKEEL: And a copy for Ted.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, great. 

17 Thanks.

18 DR. McKEEL: Okay, so you'll have 

19 the full, what I have on here. So yes, I 

20 apologize for not explaining. 

21 So, in -- so RW says as follows --

22 I'm quoting, "Before I'd ever heard of the 
182

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 concept of activation, I explained to my son 

2 that after the betatron was turned off after a 

3 shot, I could still get a radioactive meter 

4 reading at the site of the shot.

5 "The reading was most apparent 

6 from the cone of the betatron itself. This 

7 was a concern because in setting up the shot, 

8 my back was between the cone and the casting, 

9 one to two feet from the cone."

10 And I'd just like to point out 

11 that this was an independent affidavit about 

12 that effect of their residual activity, made 

13 in 2006, long before anybody had contacted ‘ 

14 identifying information redacted’ or any of 

15 that information was known. And this 

16 gentleman has since expired.

17 Okay. I next want to turn to the 

18 subject that we talked about extensively this 

19 morning, and this is just our factual basis 

20 for believing that in 1966, the new betatron 

21 building and the old betatron building were 

22 not -- the tunnel with the railroad tracks was 
183

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 not closed off by a lead-shielded double-leaf 

2 door that was used in all of David Allen's 

3 modeling that he discussed this morning.

4 But instead, in 1964-66, we have 

5 very strong evidence that there was a roll-up 

6 steel ribbon door and I'm going to show you a 

7 picture of that door in a few minutes.

8 I'd also comment that in the 

9 Department of Energy Oak Ridge National 

10 Laboratory 1991/2 cleanup report, and in 

11 pictures that John Ramspott and I took in 

12 2006, when we're looking at the new betatron 

13 area and the old betatron area, there was a 

14 double-leaf door there, but there was no lead 

15 shield, and what we did find was a door which 

16 was a ribbon roll-up door at the entry of the 

17 tunnel break area into Building 6.

18 So I'll show you why we believe 

19 that that door was probably moved from the end 

20 of the tunnel in either the old or the new 

21 betatron buildings.

22 This is the drawing that Dr. 
184

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Anigstein has in his report and I can't 

2 remember, I think Dave Allen may have his --

3 but what I want to focus on is, I'm going to 

4 get away from the microphone for a second.

5 I'm going to take this with me. 

6 Here on the left you can see there's an 

7 annotation, there's an opening in the new 

8 betatron tunnel wall, and there's a bracket 

9 across it.

10 There's no door actually drawn in 

11 there but it says, double-leaf door, bottom 

12 leaf seven feet, zero inches high, lead 

13 shield. And it has an arrow drawn into that 

14 opening.

15 And then, apropos the discussion 

16 we had this morning about the walls of the 

17 tunnel and the control room and so forth, you 

18 can see on this drawing that the big, thick 

19 sand-filled walls bound, you know, three and a 

20 half sides of the betatron shooting area, but 

21 the tunnel walls are thinner and an annotation 

22 at the bottom with two arrows, says, concrete 
185

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 block walls, mortar-filled, 25 inches high, 

2 which is -- that part is correct.

3 So this is the drawing showing the 

4 cobalt-60 source and target being used in the 

5 new betatron building, and it says, Rev 

6 11-4-68, so that's the date of this drawing.

7 Now, this is the picture that I 

8 took of the old betatron building looking down 

9 the tunnel from the shooting room out the 

10 front door, towards the new betatron building.

11 And you can see at the top up 

12 here, there are vertical ribs, metal ribs in 

13 this door. It was a double-leaf door and this 

14 bottom leaf, which was supposed to have the 

15 lead shield, at least in 2006, there was no 

16 lead shield there.

17 And to sum up a lot of data, none 

18 of the workers who worked at this facility 

19 ever saw a lead shield and all of them 

20 unanimously say that in 1966, this door was 

21 not present. What was present, was a red steel 

22 roll-up, ribbon door.
186

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now, when John and I went to the 

2 GSI site in 2006, I took this photo, which I 

3 took from the inside of 10 Building and it was 

4 quite clear to me that I was standing in 10 

5 Building, looking back towards the new 

6 betatron building, at the entrance to the 

7 tunnel or what would be now called the break 

8 area, so where the railroad tracks ran into 

9 the new betatron building to carry the big 

10 castings and uranium as a matter of fact.

11 And what you see here is a door 

12 that's exactly what the workers described for 

13 all these years: it's red, it's ribbon steel 

14 and you can see the roll clearly at the top of 

15 the frame and there's a little sign attached, 

16 E 22, which identifies the location within 

17 that building, and then you can see -- above 

18 you can see part of the metal wall, you can 

19 see that on either side of the door, and you 

20 can see a window in the 10 Building and the 

21 construction of the wall above that.

22 And it's this door, or this type 
187

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of door, this exact type of door, that we 

2 believe closed off the tunnel to both the old 

3 and new betatron buildings in the covered 

4 period, 1964-66.

5 To further the idea that a rolled6 up steel door was the norm for betatron 

7 buildings, this is taken from the Allis8 Chalmers manual and remember that Allis9 Chalmers built both of the GSI betatrons.

10 And this is -- this relates to 

11 their facility, and you can see this is the 

12 laboratory that they built at Allis-Chalmers

13 in West Allis, Wisconsin. John and I visited 

14 there, he twice, me once.

15 We saw this facility. They had 

16 the same old original betatron working and so 

17 forth, but the point was that in the Allis18 Chalmers manual, they say that a steel roll-up 

19 door closes the rail tunnel, and that's what 

20 was their recommendation.

21 ‘ identifying information 

22 redacted’, again, said that the ribbon steel 
188

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 door was standard fare for Allis-Chalmers 

2 betatron installations, and John has further 

3 testimony from a worker at the company that 

4 took over this facility, called NDT, and this 

5 gentleman I met, John has interviewed several 

6 times, and that man said that this ribbon door 

7 that was in the West Allis facility was just 

8 removed a short while ago this year.

9 So you know, they felt it was 

10 adequate and it was there and I think that 

11 ought to really put to rest the idea that 

12 during the period that's being modeled by Dave 

13 Allen, the covered period at GSI, those last 

14 years, that it was the ribbon steel door which 

15 I've shown you that should be included in the 

16 model, and not a double-leaf, lead-shielded 

17 door.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: There was a date 

19 for this replacement. Did you find an exact 

20 date on the adding of the shielding later, on 

21 the ribbon steel door, or did anybody find the 

22 date for that?
189

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. McKEEL: Not really -- we 

2 would --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, when you 

4 said it was recently replaced --

5 DR. McKEEL: Oh, I'm sorry. No.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's at their 

7 place?

8 DR. McKEEL: That's at the West 

9 Allis facility. As far as GSI, we can do a 

10 bounding date.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

12 DR. McKEEL: You know that --

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I know what 

14 bounding is, roughly.

15 DR. McKEEL: Yes, so --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sorry to 

17 interrupt, but --

18 DR. McKEEL: We can bracket the 

19 date as some time after 1966 --

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Gotcha.

21 DR. McKEEL: and between that and 

22 1991 when DOE came.
190

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RAMSPOTT: The drawing of `68 

2 would be the first possible --

3 DR. McKEEL: And that's -- and 

4 that would be the logical time to have added 

5 that, when they now have a license for a large 

6 cobalt source, and they're going to use cobalt 

7 inside the -- well, they basically said in 

8 both the new and old betatron buildings.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks.

10 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir. Another 

11 concern -- now we're switching subjects, yet 

12 one more -- and this time we are going back to 

13 Dave Allen's first White Paper on the 

14 radiography portable sources in GSI.

15 And I'm focusing now on SC&A's use 

16 of MCNP to simulate the exposures from the 

17 226 radium source that was used in the Number 

18 6 Building radiography facility.

19 And I just wanted to read you that 

20 and this sets the reason for why -- for the 

21 next three or four slides.

22 It says, we simulated the 
191

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 exposures and dose rates from 226 radium in 

2 the radiographic facility in Number 6 Building 

3 in GSI using the MCNP5 radiation transport 

4 code. The model of the radiographic room was 

5 based on sketch in the GSI application for an 

6 AEC byproduct material license, and it gives 

7 the NRC FOIA document date, which is 

8 replicated in Figure 4. 

9 And so what we wanted to show you 

10 was that that drawing and that FOIA was in 

11 1962 but it was after -- we can show you, and 

12 what I hope will convince you -- that changes 

13 had been made in the shielding of that inner 

14 radiographic room, as well as structural 

15 changes they say in the walls of that -- and 

16 to add extra shielding.

17 And just to further set the stage, 

18 in 1962, GSI had to give up its old radium-226 

19 sources that they used with fishpole 

20 technique, and switch over to cobalt-60, to 

21 small half-curie sources, and so they were in 

22 the business of applying for a byproduct 
192

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 license for those two cobalt-60 sources. And 

2 all this material is now from the FOIA 

3 material, 2010-0012.

4 John Ramspott, who is a proficient 

5 digger after the facts, obtained a new map of

the GSI facility dated January the 29th 6 , 1957, 

7 and he got that from the current owner of the 

8 6 Building and 7 Building area, and in 7 

9 Building there is now a commercial operation 

10 going on.

11 And I'll show you that map in a 

12 minute which establishes that what they then 

13 called the radiograph room, the same thing 

14 that everybody else later on called the 

15 radiographic facility of the inner structure 

16 in Building 6, existed in 1957, and I think at 

17 the last meeting, we had had some new 

18 evidence, new testimony from workers, that in 

19 fact, that building did exist before 1962. 

20 Now we know it did and it may have been there 

21 all throughout the early -- the 1950s and into 

22 the early 1960s, and we know the building was 
193

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there in `57, and I'll show you why we know 

2 that.

3 Worker testimony established that 

4 radium-226 sources were used in this facility 

5 for NDT inspection of railroad trucks, and the 

6 quote was, even earlier than the AEC were, 

7 which really, in context, meant it was -- it 

8 was used before 1953 and after that.

9 So that facility may have been 

10 there doing railroad track, non-destructive 

11 testing -- railroad truck, non-destructive 

12 testing -- from the late 1940s all the way up 

13 through the covered period.

14 Anyway the covered period at GSI 

15 starts in 1953. I think John may have said 

16 1955 this morning but it started -- it starts 

17 in 1953.

18 So this is the -- kind of the 

19 signature block from that large map which John 

20 brought with him. If anybody needs to see it, 

21 it's a very detailed drawing.

22 And at the top, you see, you know, 
194

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the scale and so forth, General Steel Castings 

2 Corporation in Granite City, Illinois. It 

3 notes that they have another plant in 

4 Eddystone, Pennsylvania.

5 But this is a general drawing of 

6 the Granite City plant, and you can see on 

7 that there's a date, 1/29/57. That's 

8 critical. And up above, as well, Granite 

City, January 29th 9 , 1957. And below, I've 

10 taken a section from that great big map to 

11 show you part of the 6 Building.

12 So, for orientation, this is drawn 

13 on there and it's a rectangle and it's labeled 

14 radiograph room. Down in the lower part of 

15 the figure would be the foundry and I am now 

16 persuaded that this area basically was open, 

17 so there were columns but there was no wall 

18 between the radiograph room and the foundry.

19 And the next slide shows that this 

20 was a heavily trafficked -- let's see -- yes. 

21 This area right here was heavily trafficked 

22 between the radiograph room and there was a 
195

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 pathway here and here, which I'll show you in 

2 a minute, a walkway where lots of people 

3 walked on their way to the foundry and the 

4 current, most accurate estimate is that maybe 

5 this walkway was no more than 20 feet and 

6 maybe as close as 10 feet to this radiography 

7 facility, so that actually some of the 

8 comments that had been made and the modeling 

9 of this facility, that there were very few 

10 workers, ‘ identifying information redacted’

11 1962 survey noted that there were very few 

12 workers in this area. That is absolutely not 

13 true, by worker testimony and the fact that 

14 this foundry pathway that had heavy traffic 

15 all day long, was a few feet away from the 

16 wall of that radiography facility.

17 John Ramspott asked me to put in 

18 this slide and I think it's something he 

19 noticed and I think it's very important. This 

20 is a picture, basically, recently taken of the 

21 Building 6 facility as it appears today.

22 But the thing that's constant from 
196

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the old days is this crane, which you can see 

2 here, which stretches all across this end of 

3 the building.

4 The radiographic facility that we 

5 are talking about was over here on the right, 

6 you know, it was a roofless structure concrete 

7 blocks. It was here. The cab of the crane is 

8 here, the gondola where the operator sat, and 

9 there's a big hook which picked up the 

10 castings you can see here, that's been 

11 retracted out of the way.

12 So this hook would have to travel 

13 and the crane would have to travel and pick up 

14 a casting and bring it back, and then bring it 

15 over here and drop it down into the 

16 radiographic facility to be X-ray imaged.

17 John's point was that, in David 

18 Allen's modeling of the cobalt-60 source with 

19 MCNPx in the old betatron building -- now 

20 stick with me, because there is a connection -

21 - he found that in general, the modeling with 

22 the 60 and the computer modeling agree very 
197

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 well with the actual data as measured by the 

2 1971 survey workers.

3 But there was one big discrepancy 

4 and that was that the computer model showed 

5 1.8 millirems per hour at one point, whereas 

6 the real data at that same point in the new 

7 betatron building showed 0.2 millirems per 

8 hour.

9 And David postulated that perhaps 

10 there was some -- something like a door motor 

11 that was interfering, that the computer model 

12 hadn't seen, but that the real data had seen, 

13 and that accounted for this very dramatic, 

14 nine-fold, significant difference.

15 So John Ramspott was thinking 

16 about all of this and he said, well, if you 

17 think about the geometry of this 6 Building 

18 where ‘ identifying information redacted’ made 

19 his radiographic survey, here we have a source 

20 here, two cobalt-60 small sources, and we are 

21 trying to calculate the dose to this guy. 

22 Below this, there was a reading there, but 
198

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there are also doses calculated up on this 

2 catwalk which is above this massive steel 

3 structure, and John reasoned, and I think it's 

4 quite reasonable, that this source would have 

5 to go through and around this big, massive 

6 steel structure before it could ever get up to 

7 the catwalk to be measured.

8 So to us it means that the ‘ 

9 identifying information redacted’ data, you 

10 know, real data, measured data, cannot be 

11 taken literally without taking this kind of 

12 thing into consideration, and that brings us 

13 to the really key part of this slide, which is 

14 a question.

15 And that question is, and I would 

16 love for Dave Allen to answer it, actually now 

17 would be a good time. Instead of modeling the 

18 new betatron building with a cobalt source as 

19 a way to validate the fact that MCNPx was 

20 giving you good, valid data, we do have even 

21 better radiation survey data from ‘ 

22 identifying information redacted’, you know, 
199

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Ph.D., Certified Health Physicist who was 

2 heavily involved in obtaining and helping GSI 

3 obtain their AEC cobalt license. Why did 

4 NIOSH not choose to model the Building 6 

5 radiography site and to use that data, that 

6 real data to compare with the MCNPx model?

7 So I'm just wondering, David, did 

8 you all think about doing that?

9 MR. ALLEN: We used the 1971 new 

10 betatron survey to validate the MCNP model of 

11 the building. We then used that model to 

12 estimate dose.

13 For this we used dose rates 

14 measured at the site. We didn't have to use 

15 the MCNP models. There wasn't anything to 

16 validate.

17 DR. McKEEL: Yes, but you know --

18 okay. This is information and I don't want to 

19 argue about it, but it seems to me that, you 

20 know, you had real data for the old -- for the 

21 new betatron building too, from the survey.

22 So if you used the same reasoning 
200

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for both, why -- basically you needed -- you 

2 felt like you needed to model the new betatron 

3 data, right?

4 MR. ALLEN: We had modeled the new 

5 betatron building because we didn't have a 

6 radiation survey with the betatron.

7 DR. McKEEL: And you still don't.

8 MR. ALLEN: Right.

9 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

10 MR. ALLEN: But here, we didn't 

11 model the Building 6 radiography room because 

12 we had dose rates with the cobalt-60 source 

13 exposed.

14 DR. McKEEL: Okay. All right.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you did use 

16 the ‘ identifying information redacted’ data?

17 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

18 DR. McKEEL: Yes, and now it's a 

19 really crucial slide that I want to show you 

20 about the 1962 building, was this. Everybody 

21 referred to later drawings, but John Ramspott 

22 again discovered this drawing in another NRC 
201

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 FOIA, 2010-12 document.

2 And that was -- and the key thing 

3 here is -- this is a radiography facility, it 

4 still shows -- it shows some added lead -- I'm 

5 sorry -- steel plates, four by four by -- four 

6 by four feet, by six-inch thick steel plate, 

7 one by four by two-inch steel plate, welded on 

8 top.

9 And it points to this shield here 

10 and then there's another shield here on the 

11 opposite side of the radiographic facility, 

12 it's four by four-foot by six-inch steel 

13 plate.

14 And then it also shows that the 

15 walls of this are 24 inch, concrete block wall 

16 and the idea is that those are two new 

17 findings, added shielding.

18 But here's the thing that's 

19 interesting that's not on the drawing shown in 

20 the SC&A and the NIOSH reports. This drawing 

21 has this annotation, shows additional 

22 shielding added during June/July 1962, not 
202

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 drawn to scale, and D. Darr, D-A-R-R, and it's 

2 signed 8-15-1962.

3 So we looked at the timeline for 

4 all of this and this was about the time the ‘ 

5 identifying information redacted’ survey 

6 report, the letter from ‘ identifying 

7 information redacted’, Nuclear Consultants 

8 Corporation, to GSI, to insert in their 

9 license application. That letter is dated 

August the 1st 10 , 1962. So that was actually 

11 after these changes had been done.

12 So what our point is, is that 

13 prior to June and July of 1962, this shielding 

14 was not there and the walls -- the men still 

15 dispute the fact that the walls were ever 

16 enlarged to be 24 inches thick.

17 Most of them say that it was a 

18 single concrete block thick. But in any case, 

19 before 1962, the lead shields were not in 

20 place, the walls were certainly one block and 

21 not two blocks thick, and so for all the 

22 radium-226 modeling, 1962 back to 1953, you 
203

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 have to use a different set of conditions, and 

2 we don't believe that that has yet been done, 

3 so that's a very important thing for future 

4 work, I would say.

5 Okay. I want to show you quickly 

6 the point I was continuing to make about the 

7 radiographic room in Building 6. This is a 

8 photograph that we got of the area between the 

9 new betatron building here, which you can see 

10 at the top. The 10 Building is in the 

11 background, and there's the walkway between 

12 those, that tunnel, was, you know, 30 or 50 

13 feet at the most. It was very close to that.

14 There's a lot of stuff in the 

15 middle outside of this facility. These are 

16 molding casks, there were railroad tracks as I 

17 will show you, and there was a road that 

18 passed one of them for 30 feet of this new 

19 betatron building, that was heavily 

20 trafficked.

21 And inside the radiograph room, 

22 there were these walkways -- here's one and 
204

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 here's another one -- on either side of the 

2 radiograph room, and they were actually very 

3 close to the radiograph building.

4 So the whole point of this slide 

5 is there were a lot of non-badged people on 

6 the outside that were exposed to radiation 

7 both from the betatrons and on the inside, 

8 from the radiograph room, who really haven't 

9 been accounted for in the dose reconstruction 

10 models so far.

11 This is from John's new giant map 

12 that he got, so this is a 1957 January 

13 drawing, and we are looking now at the space 

14 between the new betatron building, which is 

15 yet to be built in `57, but was indicated on 

16 this old map as new betatron building, right 

17 here, you know, with nothing drawn in, this is 

18 my addition.

19 And then the old betatron building 

20 is drawn in and you can see the two cranes 

21 modeled, and the tunnel and the railroad track 

22 running straight into the tunnel.
205

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So in between that, there are two 

2 features I want to focus on. There are all 

3 these railroad tracks, and you saw a lot of 

4 paraphernalia, there were cars parked in here 

5 right next to 10 Building.

6 But also, there's this main road 

7 which goes up here and here and here, comes 

8 very close to the new betatron building, and 

9 I'm assured by the workers that this was a 

10 road that almost everybody in the factory used 

11 on a daily basis. So there was a lot of 

12 traffic past the new betatron building.

13 The distance between these two 

14 facilities, 300 feet. There's a sign that we 

15 photographed in 2006 on the old betatron 

16 building, and the sign says, do not approach 

17 this building within 100 feet.

18 And so at least then, they thought 

19 there were radiation fields that extended out 

20 that far, and so if you draw in your mind's 

21 eye -- I didn't have the time to do this --

22 but if you drew a radius of 100 feet around 
206

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 these facilities here and here, maybe there 

2 would be an area of non-overlap of about 100 

3 feet, but there are a lot of people included 

4 in that field, the people on this road, and 

5 the people in between the railroad workers and 

6 so forth.

7 So I would just -- a point of this 

8 slide is, I don't believe the non-badged 

9 people's dose has been modeled along the 

10 outside of the building complex.

11 Now I want to get to the control 

12 room badges. I think we just about laid that 

13 to rest this morning. NIOSH and SC&A state 

14 that Landauer GSI film badge reports include 

15 data on 114, variously reported as controller 

16 or control room badges. David Allen uses the 

17 room badges terminology.

18 But the key point is that David 

19 Allen uses those control badges to limit doses 

20 to the GSI betatron workers. Two GSI badge 

21 handlers refute the fact that those control 

22 badges ever listed, and I'll show you an 
207

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 affidavit from one of those to that effect, 

2 and also we have new information about where 

3 those film badges were stored in the new 

4 betatron building.

5 This is the testimony from one of 

6 those two clerks. I said, this affidavit was 

7 recently obtained from the first clerk who 

8 handled GSI film badges on startup of the new 

9 betatron operation in 1964. It is clear that 

10 not only the betatron operators and isotope 

11 workers were badged. And here's what this man 

12 said. Quote, all betatron employees wore 

13 badges, operators, supervisors, film readers, 

14 photographers, darkroom employees, clerks, et 

15 cetera. I recall there were a few extra blank 

16 badges for visitors. This was rare that they 

17 were used. The film badges were exchanged 

18 every Monday morning. There was never a 

19 control room badge that was not worn by a 

20 person.

21 And this is a drawing supplied by 

22 John Terry Dutko of the new betatron facility 
208

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and he has annotated this in red now to show 

2 the two locations where, during 1964-66, when 

3 he worked there, the film badges were racked.

4 Here for -- here again, here's the 

5 railroad track, here's the shooting room, the 

6 big thick walls, there's the tunnel going down 

7 that way to the break area, which adjoins 

8 Building 10.

9 This drawing has a wall on the 

10 break area. On this thing, Terry said that 

11 when he was there, there was no wall there. 

12 But the badge locations were first in this 

13 area, which was actually the control room, 

14 where the console was. The console control 

15 room is here.

16 Everybody agrees there were never 

17 any control badges left in this room. So the 

18 first site was over here where the badges 

19 were, then they were moved at some time where, 

20 when he was there, this was called an office 

21 and they were moved from the office over here 

22 on this wall, which is, you know, just below 
209

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 the second floor wall. There was a darkroom 

2 over here.

3 So the badges got moved even 

4 farther away from the control room, so 

5 whatever they picked up in the way of 

6 radiation, it certainly was -- at this point 

7 was not as great as you would expect them to 

8 pick up, maybe, in the control room. In any 

9 case, they weren't in the control room.

10 MR. DELL: They were not in the 

11 control room.

12 DR. McKEEL: And I think Mr. Dell 

13 just echoed they were not in the control room 

14 and now we know that.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Just for 

16 clarification, on the second position, that 

17 rack position --

18 DR. McKEEL: Yes, sir.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is that a 

20 different office or is it a corridor?

21 MR. RAMSPOTT: It's a hallway.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's a hallway.
210

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. McKEEL: It's a hallway -- I 

2 think it's a hallway on the wall, hallway of 

3 the wall --

4 MR. DELL: Where my office was, 

5 down at the end of that hallway, and I didn't 

6 have an office, I only had a desk, there was 

7 no wall.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Gotcha.

9 DR. McKEEL: Okay. All right. 

10 And then, moving on, so for the badges, here's 

11 our concern. A new affidavit attests that GSI 

12 badge handlers sometimes destroyed film badges 

13 they believed to be spurious and the person 

14 who provided this affidavit believes this fact 

15 casts doubt on the validity of the entire GSI 

16 film badge program, and we have further doubts 

17 about its validity because radiographers wore 

18 badges only part-time, and we think, we are 

19 not sure, but GSI may have submitted control 

20 room badges that certainly were -- the 

21 existence of which was not known by any of the 

22 workers or the badge handlers.
211

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Now that doesn't mean they didn't 

2 really exist. It just means that nobody knew 

3 about them except the person who supplied them 

4 and we don't know how they got to Landauer and 

5 we really don't know what they mean.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: A quick question 

7 on that, Dan. The one affidavit you talked 

8 about earlier, about the one person that 

9 handled it, indicated he was the only sort of 

10 middle man. He sent this stuff to Landauer and 

11 later there may have been others, we don't 

12 really know that exactly.

13 DR. McKEEL: No, he -- actually 

14 that's part of a longer statement he made and 

15 he spelled out exactly who they were there.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I was trying to, 

17 trying to reconcile that with who is it that 

18 believes they were spurious and how would they 

19 know they were spurious, because the film 

20 badges would not have been read out. What 

21 would be the basis for saying --

22 DR. McKEEL: Oh, well --
212

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You know what 

2 I'm asking?

3 DR. McKEEL: Yes.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In other words -

5 - 

6 DR. McKEEL: So this, in -- let me 

7 see now.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Or you can 

9 answer it later but --

10 DR. McKEEL: No, I'll answer it 

11 right now.

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But you don't 

13 know a priori if a reading is high or low.

14 DR. McKEEL: Well, here's what 

15 they said.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

17 DR. McKEEL: So, this particular 

18 individual said he collected the badges, he 

19 sent the badges out and he saw the reports 

20 when they came in.

21 He said when they came in he 

22 screened them, and he looked at the reports 
213

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 looking for high values. And he said he had -

2 - he was aware that some of the badges looked 

3 black when he sent them in, okay? Or dark.

4 Anyway when he got them back --

5 MR. DELL: He could not have 

6 known, they did not look black. How could he 

7 look through the cover on the --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: He could not 

9 have opened them or they wouldn't be usable.

10 MR. DELL: If he opened them, they 

11 would be useless. That's a bunch of bull --

12 MR. KATZ: Mr. Dell, one at a 

13 time, just -- I'm sorry, go ahead Mr. Dell if 

14 you want, but we just had people talking over 

15 each other.

16 MR. DELL: I said there is no way 

17 that he could look at them and tell they were 

18 black. If he did, then he exposed the film and 

19 it wasn't any good anyway.

20 MR. KATZ: Thank you Mr. Dell.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, exactly 

22 my point.
214

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. McKEEL: My point is that I'm 

2 not taking sides here. I'm reporting the 

3 facts. This is what the man testified, and he 

4 was -- he was a direct badge handler.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

6 DR. McKEEL: So I don't know what 

7 to -- I -- my own personal -- I'm just -- I'm 

8 reporting, I'm reporting the facts.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And they are in 

10 packets so they have to --

11 DR. McKEEL: Well, he went on to 

12 say that he believed that -- actually he 

13 believed that -- actually he, he actually goes 

14 on to say that occasionally he would find a 

15 high badge reading and he would report it to 

16 one of his supervisors, and he said he felt 

17 like those high badge readings were discussed 

18 with employees, but he didn't -- he didn't say 

19 he knew they were. He just felt they were.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But the 

21 destroying of the film badges was the one I 

22 was trying to get a feel for. Who would have 
215

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 done that and how would they know what to 

2 destroy, because you don't know until it goes 

3 to Landauer whether it's a high reading.

4 DR. McKEEL: Well, let's put it 

5 this way. This person who made this statement 

6 said he had personal knowledge, he knows they 

7 were destroyed.

8 MR. DELL: Well, he's wrong.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: What would be 

10 the basis, is what I'm saying. How would they 

11 know --

12 DR. McKEEL: Well, there's, 

13 there's a possibility, Paul.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

15 DR. McKEEL: You know --

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well --

17 DR. McKEEL: The people that we're 

18 reporting from are alive. Actually anybody 

19 can probably try to talk to them. So you all 

20 may want to do that, and answer it for 

21 yourself.

22 I don't know the answer to all of 
216

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 those. I was convinced --

2 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer? Dr. 

3 Ziemer?

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes.

5 MR. DUTKO: May I comment on that, 

6 please?

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Sure.

8 MR. DUTKO: I was the person that 

9 reported that I overheard the individuals that 

10 handled the film badges, one of these 

11 individuals said directly to me, and I was 

12 sitting right next to him, that exposed film 

13 that was questionable was discarded.

14 Now I assume that he was ordered 

15 by the company to do this. But I heard 

16 statements twice by the same individual that 

17 handled film badges.

18 Now, that immediately set me to 

19 question the integrity of the film badge 

20 system, and we heard rumors 50 years ago that 

21 this was being done, but we could never prove 

22 it.
217

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I did not want to name this 

2 individual by any means, but I swear this 

3 conversation took place and this is exactly 

4 what I heard.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thank you. 

6 MR. ALLEN: Just one real quick. 

7 At one point in there, Dr. McKeel, and I don't 

8 know if it was accidental, what I think you 

9 said, badges were processed and then the 

10 reports were screened, and destroyed or, you 

11 know --

12 DR. McKEEL: No, no, no, I'm 

13 sorry.

14 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

15 DR. McKEEL: They are kind of two 

16 separate statements.

17 MR. ALLEN: Okay.

18 DR. McKEEL: The first statement 

19 was, oh, and by the way his complete interview 

20 that was reported, all of this was described 

21 in much greater detail in my two submissions 

22 that I made to the Board.
218

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So that's all described in detail, 

2 the complete quote.

3 No, what -- what this gentleman 

4 said was he collected the badges, he mailed 

5 them off every Monday, he substituted the new 

6 badges which he had received from Landauer and 

7 distributed those. Then he took, I guess, the 

8 badges off the rack, sent them in to Landauer, 

9 then Landauer sent him back -- him back the 

10 reports and that he said if he saw a report --

11 MR. DELL: Wrong.

12 DR. McKEEL: Okay, Ted --

13 MR. KATZ: Mr. Dell, please let 

14 Dr. McKeel finish his statement --

15 DR. McKEEL: I don't want to be 

16 interrupted because I am reporting what -- I 

17 am trying to answer the question. Mr. Dell 

18 may think it's wrong, but the person telling 

19 the story was not Mr. Dell.

20 So, in any case, so, the reports 

21 would come back to this person and he would 

22 look at them and said if there was a high 
219

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 reading, he would inform the worker involved 

2 about that, but he also said he informed -- he 

3 talked to a supervisor on several occasions to 

4 let him know.

5 Now, he didn't go into any detail 

6 how often this happened or any of those kind 

7 of things, and you know, that's just -- I 

8 didn't talk to him for hours or anything. But 

9 he's a knowledgeable person who could give 

10 more information, so I'm not sure he will, I'm 

11 not committing him to that. I'm just telling 

12 you or I'm trying to tell you what happened.

13 Okay. So -- and I don't know 

14 about the -- you know, I don't know exactly 

15 any of the details about the destruction of 

16 the badges, exactly who did it, that stuff.

17 But the summary statement I'd like 

18 to make is that from one of the reports, I'm 

19 not sure whether it's Appendix BB or the SEC 

20 Evaluation Report, there is a section that 

21 says -- it refers to the pedigree of General 

22 Steel data.
220

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And the factors in the pedigree 

2 analysis, which I know is done at many sites, 

3 are data quality, credibility, reliability, 

4 representativeness and sufficiency.

5 In one of my reports, the critique 

6 thereof, I wrote back the following. This was 

7 my take on whether the pedigree of the General 

8 Steel data, based on film badge information, 

9 whether that met those criteria.

10 And I would just say this, NIOSH 

11 Landauer GSI film badge data 1964-66 are not 

12 quality data as the measurements are confined 

13 to periods that betatron workers, who are only 

14 three percent of the total workforce, spent in 

15 the betatron facilities.

16 It's not credible because, despite 

17 what this gentleman said, there's very little 

18 other testimony from GSI workers that they 

19 were ever told or talked to about their 

20 supervisors, about high readings on the 

21 badges.

22 In fact, almost all of the
221

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 testimony from the workers is that they never 

2 got any feedback, and in a specific case or 

3 too, if there was a high reading, one 

4 individual, who chose not to have his name 

5 used, said that he definitely was not informed 

6 of his high badge reading. He had a 7 rem 

7 dose.

8 Anyway, the workers in general 

9 testified that they didn't trust their 

10 supervisors or management about the badge 

11 readings.

12 I thought that the badge readings 

13 were not reliable and there were really no 

14 evaluations of that -- I mean, nobody has

15 really looked at that. I don't really know 

16 how to establish that, to be honest with you.

17 They certainly, the data were not 

18 representative. There were 89 of 3,000 

19 workers out of a single job class, all men, 

20 1964-66, which was only the last three years 

21 of a 13-year covered period.

22 So -- and that was the only class 
222

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of people that were monitored with the film 

2 badges. So I didn't think these film badge 

3 data met any of the criteria for a good 

4 pedigree -- for any site.

5 Now, this is the data that I want 

6 to close on, and I'd like to apologize for 

7 this slide before I begin, because it may not 

8 be entirely accurate. It was the best I could 

9 do, late at night, trying to skip through 

10 reports.

11 And I would say that in my 

12 defense, it may not be perfect, but it is a 

13 good first try at a slide that I think should 

14 have been in both the SC&A and the NIOSH 

15 reports, these last two papers that we are 

16 considering today.

17 So what I tried to do was to 

18 reconstruct this. We had certain data from 

19 2007, actually, and 2008, from Appendix B, and 

20 from the SEC Evaluation Report and the SC&A 

21 reviews. And the -- so what I'm trying to do 

22 is in this upper table, I say, computer-
223

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 modeled annual photon dose during GSI covered 

2 period, 1953-1966, in rems per year.

3 So I was trying to compare what 

4 the model showed 2008 to seven, versus four 

5 years later, for betatron workers in this 

6 upper panel. And basically what you can see 

7 is that 2008, the rates, according -- in 

8 Appendix B that NIOSH found were one, 6.3 and 

9 it varied by year as Dave Allen has explained, 

10 because there were different uranium loads 

11 through time, the peak year being in 1962 and 

12 then it declined in the later years.

13 And so that the -- the betatron 

14 operators got a variable dose depending on the 

15 time within the covered period.

16 They found the same thing 

17 basically in 2012 but the numbers were lower 

18 by an order of 5 to 10 times. So 0.2 versus 

19 1.0 earlier, 0.62 versus 6.3 earlier, much 

20 lower dose in 2012, part of which explains, is 

21 by modeling using the double-leaf lead door, 

22 which I hope you saw was an incorrect way to 
224

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 model.

2 But what about SC&A's modeling 

3 then and now? Well, Mr. Dutko pointed this 

4 fact out to me -- 2008, SC&A modeled with same 

5 code, MCNPx, said the dose to the betatron 

6 workers for the early years was 12.4 rems, and 

7 rose to 13.6 rems in the later years, and now 

8 we're down, in 2012, to 1.35 or about 10 

9 percent of that level, and to say that some of 

10 the workers are upset by that would be 

11 understating the situation.

12 Now this lower panel is basically 

13 the same thing for the other workers, and I've 

14 got that titled 2007, 2008 because for others 

15 -- and I don't use layout person, which is a 

16 term used this year, because they weren't 

17 classified as truly -- it's really the non18 badged, non-betatron workers in the early 

19 years versus the late.

20 And what you can see here is an 

21 even more startling discrepancy in the model 

22 result. So here we have NIOSH's estimate 
225

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 based on Appendix BB, of 1.73. That was the 

2 dose assigned, rems per year, assigned to the 

3 non-betatron, unbadged worker, 1.73.

4 Now we come up in this time 

5 period, you know, and the range actually 

6 overlaps this. So it's not too bad, pretty 

7 close, 1.02 to 2.03.

8 But if you want to be truly 

9 confused, then you will read farther in this 

10 second report, the SEC Evaluation Report, 

11 where they divide the non-betatron, unbadged 

12 workers into three groups and they give a 

13 number for only one of the three groups and 

14 that number is 0.417 rem.

15 So really, in those two reports, 

16 NIOSH has a different evaluation for other 

17 workers. 

18 SC&A for other workers in this 

19 early period of time basically said that they 

20 agreed that the betatron doses bounded 

21 everything else. And the way they put it was 

22 that the betatron doses bounded the layout men 
226

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 and the cobalt-60 operators, which in turn 

2 bounded the chainmen and the chainmen in turn 

3 bounded all the other workers.

4 So they didn't actually come up 

5 with any actual values for this large set for 

6 the GSI workforce, and that's why there's no 

7 number.

8 However, please focus on this 

9 number. For the layout numbers now, and I 

10 want you to know that -- the technical 

11 difference between this and this, so NIOSH 

12 2012 for the layout workers, one to two rems 

13 per year, SC&A 9.2 rems per year.

14 So this is a four and a half to 

15 nine-fold difference, depending on which of 

16 these ranges you use. Was there a difference 

17 here? Yes, there was.

18 Here David Allen accepted that the 

19 tunnel units from the new betatron were 

20 bounded by a double-leaf steel, lead-lined 

21 door. That's his model.

22 Dr. Anigstein looked at it and he 
227

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 said he didn't believe that point was proved 

2 and he said, being claimant-favorable, and 

3 weighting the evidence the way he saw it, you 

4 should discard the idea that the double-leaf, 

5 lead-shielded door was there, and he came up 

6 with this number.

7 So that brings me to the 

8 conclusion and the last slide, but again I 

9 want to focus on the two really big changes in 

10 this slide, and that's the SC&A estimate of 

11 the dose the betatron workers in 2008, 12.4 to 

12 13.6, 2012 1.35, a precipitous decline in the 

13 dose, and probably they're worse, since they 

14 were basically agreeing in 2007 and `08 with 

15 NIOSH, which lists the dose to the other 

16 workers as 1.73 rem, now that's skyrocketed up 

17 to 9.2 rems.

18 So I would like to offer the final 

19 closing slide. That's the way -- this is the 

20 way I see it. The way I see it is that NIOSH 

21 and SC&A -- MCNPx was used in both and both of 

22 their models disagree with each other and the 
228

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 film badge data, and are both based on, I said 

2 many -- why don't you take out the many and 

3 just say erroneous assumptions that need to be 

4 corrected and the models need to be corrected.

5 Second point is that compared to 

6 2007 and `08 model data, SC&A betatron 

7 operator dose show a 90 percent decrease while 

8 layout doses sharply increased compared to all 

9 NIOSH estimates from the non-betatron workers. 

10 So that's a discrepancy just within the SC&A 

11 modeling data in two time periods.

12 We can't resolve this today. I 

13 don't think we can resolve it in two weeks. I 

14 don't think that's going to be enough time to 

15 redo those models, reissue those papers and 

16 come out with a better table than I just 

17 showed you. I don't think that's possible.

18 So what I'm saying is -- and I 

19 said it all along -- I think we are at the 

20 point -- I, when I wrote this -- when I wrote 

21 this slide, I knew we were going into a second 

22 meeting, but the truth is, whether it was one 
229

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 meeting or not, I think it's time for this 

2 Work Group to say that NIOSH and SC&A, taking 

3 into full cognizance everything that Paul 

4 Ziemer said, everything that Wanda Munn said, 

5 everything that Dave Allen said, everything 

6 that Dr. Anigstein said, that SC&A and NIOSH 

7 cannot come to a model that fixes a dose 

8 that's stationary. They go up, they go down, 

9 they're wildly discrepant from each other, and 

10 it's time to say that this site, that has no 

11 bioassay data and no badge data except for 

12 three years on only three percent of the 

13 workforce, and even the GSI betatron film 

14 badge data is diluted by the fact that only a 

15 portion of those folks that have badges 

16 actually were betatron isotope operators. The 

17 rest of them were people that were 

18 photographers et cetera. I think it's time 

19 for this Board to pass on this SEC to the full 

20 Board, which is going to take another weeks or 

21 months or longer, and get on with a final SEC 

22 position on this site.
230

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And I do really thank you. I'll 

2 send -- make sure everybody gets a copy of 

3 this.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, thanks, 

5 Dan. Let's see if we have other questions. 

6 We've asked some of them as we went.

7 MEMBER BEACH: I have just a real 

8 quick question. Building 9 was mentioned and 

9 I know I was looking at that earlier. 

10 DR. McKEEL: Yes.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Where is Building 

12 9? It was never --

13 DR. McKEEL: Let's see. 

14 MR. RAMSPOTT: Building 9 is the 

15 immediately next to 10.

16 MEMBER BEACH: Is it right close 

17 to 10?

18 MR. RAMSPOTT: And the train 

19 tracks went into 9 and 10, so castings from 

20 the betatron, from -- actually came in down 9 

21 and the rest of the plant, and across 10.

22 MEMBER BEACH: And then what 
231

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 percentage was 10 or 9 used? Do you know, 

2 Dan?

3 MR. RAMSPOTT: Oh, the building?

4 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

5 MR. RAMSPOTT: Oh, totally?

6 MEMBER BEACH: All the time?

7 MR. RAMSPOTT: Oh, absolutely.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

9 MR. RAMSPOTT: Yes. Actually, 8, 

10 9, 10 are connected together. No walls.

11 MEMBER BEACH: Okay.

12 DR. McKEEL: Josie, on this 

13 diagram, on the big --

14 MR. DELL: It's all one big 

15 building.

16 DR. McKEEL: This is the -- this 

17 is the 10 Building right here, running 

18 horizontally along here. Here's where the 

19 railroad tracks in 1957 were approaching where 

20 the new betatron building would be, and then 

21 in 1963, when it was actually built, they sent 

22 it up here.
232

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Here's 9 Building right up -- so 

2 they're a really skinny fit with very long --

3 MEMBER BEACH: Thank you.

4 DR. McKEEL: And these buildings 

5 were wide open. They're columns. There's no 

6 wall. So it's really like --

7 MR. DELL: Like a big building.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, other 

9 questions? Okay. Thank you, Dan.

10 DR. McKEEL: Thank you.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I think we 

12 have a pretty good grasp of your points, I 

13 told you I am still digesting and I am seeing 

14 some of them for the first time today. The 

15 Chair is not ready to do the --

16 DR. McKEEL: I understand.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- the third 

18 point that --

19 DR. McKEEL: I understand. 

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But you know, 

21 whether we have agreement or disagreement in 

22 two weeks, we are going to have to do 
233

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 something and I understand that. We're at a 

2 point where I think we have gathered about all 

3 the gathering we can do and we have to --

4 DR. McKEEL: I think this was a 

5 great time to do that.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We have to sift 

7 through it.

8 DR. McKEEL: I'm probably not 

9 going to be able to come in person to the next 

10 meeting, but I sure will --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Unless we meet 

12 in St. Louis or down in southern Missouri.

13 DR. McKEEL: Come to Van Buren --

14 MR. CHUROVICH: May I make a 

15 comment?

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Comment?

17 MR. CHUROVICH: Yes.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Go ahead.

19 MR. CHUROVICH: First of all --

20 MR. KATZ: Sorry, we couldn't 

21 hear. Who is this speaking?

22 MR. CHUROVICH: Dan Churovich. I 
234

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was a timekeeper and clerk in 10 Building.

2 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

3 MR. CHUROVICH: Back in `52 or `51 

4 to `61. 

5 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

6 MR. CHUROVICH: And what I have to 

7 say is that -- why so few -- why is there so 

8 few badges and why, the ones that they do 

9 have, all of them show everything was 

10 hunky-dory and some workers, like foremen and 

11 like timekeepers like myself, et cetera, was 

12 not given any kind of consideration that they 

13 could be harmed by the radiation when the -- I 

14 can attest to the fact that the old betatron 

15 had that ribbon door they talked about, 

16 because it just rolled up on a spool. I knew 

17 you couldn't put lead plating in that.

18 And also, no one knew that this 

19 was going on at the time. It was a secret 

20 from us. We were literally not told that they 

21 had any uranium around that place. They 

22 brought it in and secretly, even -- I 
235

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 understand the operators in the betatron 

2 didn't know what they were X-raying. Why was 

3 everything so secret and why is it now that 

4 everything was tried to confuse this issue so 

5 that we -- a lot of people were turned down 

6 because they didn't work at the place, and 

7 that's just terrible. That's all.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. We hear 

9 your comment. I wonder if we should take a 

10 ten-minute break and then we'll hear from Bob. 

11 A quick, ten-minute break, comfort break, and 

12 then we'll have an hour, Bob, to hear from you 

13 and then we're going to go home. Okay?

14 (Whereupon, the above-entitled matter went off 

15 the record at 1:45 p.m. and 

16 resumed at 1:56 p.m.)

17 MR. KATZ: We're back on the line 

18 and we're going to have a presentation by Dr. 

19 Anigstein now.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, so this is 

21 the SC&A review of the NIOSH White Paper. So 

22 you're -- that report was distributed over the 
236

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 weekend. I think all the Work Group Members 

2 and petitioners have copies.

3 And Bob has got a PowerPoint 

4 presentation here for us. And Bob, do you 

5 want us to ask things as we go along or do you 

6 want to go ahead through it first?

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Well --

8 (Laughter.)

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Not that we'll 

10 pay attention to what you'd like but --

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I mean it's a 

12 question of if I am going to get to finish.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, okay.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Questions, yes, 

15 comments -- comments, no. How is that?

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. If 

17 something needs to be clarified, we can ask.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, by all means 

19 ask questions.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. Do we 

21 have -- we don't have the PowerPoint?

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Pardon?
237

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Do we have the 

2 PowerPoint?

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's not a 

4 PowerPoint. No, I didn't distribute it.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I didn't think 

6 you did.

7 Go ahead, Bob.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. All right, 

9 so I'm going to do a quick -- the nature of 

10 the presentation has changed considerably 

11 throughout the course of the meeting but I'm 

12 just going through the slides quickly.

13 I'm just going to give a history -

14 - 

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Be sure to speak 

16 up there, Bob.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: A quick history of 

18 the document review. I'll give you a quick 

19 history of this. Okay, the first report came 

out June 25th 20 , 2007, which was the Appendix BB 

21 that's been talked about frequently.

22 Then we were tasked with reviewing 
238

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 and we produced our review March 17th 1 , 

2 2008, was the first version that came out. 

3 There have been numerous White Papers and 

4 memos and responses to White Papers, SC&A 

5 White Papers in between.

6 These are the ones that deal with 

7 the data transfer. That's why I highlighted 

8 these, and then of course, the paper, the 

9 report that you just heard Dave Allen talking 

10 about came out in January and then our 

11 response on March 12.

12 Just for those who are not too 

13 familiar, which I guess is almost everybody is 

14 familiar with, this is the aerial photo of the 

15 Granite City facility while it was in 

16 operation, and from there to there is enlarged 

17 to give you an idea of the orientation. This 

18 is the new betatron and you can see it goes 

19 right into the 10 Building, the 10 Building 

20 here. The old betatron is considerably 

21 further away and this is just a Google Earth 

22 picture of the new betatron.
239

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 And this is the typical -- this is 

2 a photograph, which was furnished by John 

3 Ramspott, passed on by John Ramspott, it was 

4 furnished by one of the workers.

5 And we just used this as a model

6 simply because the light was better here. We 

7 had information on this, we might as well use 

8 it.

9 And we -- in our model, we just 

10 shot -- we did he one shot at the casting, we 

11 had the betatron going directly at this hollow 

12 axle. That is the betatron here, there's the 

13 magnets and the beam goes -- the doughnut is 

14 there so the beam goes out like this.

15 And all right so the source of the 

16 exposure from the betatron, can be stray 

17 radiation during the operation of the 

18 betatron, either photons or neutrons for the 

19 betatron target has sufficiently -- the 

20 electrons kind of hitting it at 25 MeV as well 

21 as the photons from bremsstrahlung. 

22 Then you may have, question mark, 
240

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 residual activation we talked about in the 

2 betatron apparatus, and then there is the 

3 delayed radiation from photoactivated metals, 

4 so that if you approach the metal, be it 

5 uranium or steel, after the beam is off, 

6 you're still going to have -- for a while it's 

7 going to have some radiation coming out.

8 Then you have the skin, exposure 

9 of the skin, first of all just from handling 

10 uranium you get a beta dose, photoactivated 

11 uranium isotopes, which turn out to contribute 

12 very little actually, and then the activated 

13 steel.

14 This is the overview of SC&A 

15 activities during these last two months, what 

16 we did since seeing the Dave Allen paper in 

17 the middle of January.

18 We revised the MCNPx model of the 

19 new betatron. We had actually constructed a 

20 model of the new building and of the old 

21 betatron building back in 2008.

22 We had -- where we were working --
241

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 I'm going to do a lot of skipping, back and 

2 forth. We were working with this initial --

3 this was the only information that we had back 

4 when we started in 2008, this and other 

5 drawings, but they were all basically the 

6 same, of the new betatron building from the 

7 FUSRAP -- the Formerly Utilized Sites 

8 radiation -- and so this was done starting 

9 from 1989 to about 1991.

10 So the building probably had been 

11 modified, I think these walls at least, the 

12 walls had been opened, I mean, unless you 

13 think that they were completely inaccurate, 

14 which is not likely.

15 But this is all we had to work 

16 with, so then subsequently, we got a much 

17 better picture from the AEC licensing records, 

18 and first of all, here they were the --

19 whoever was making these things was very 

20 interested in the details of this, while 

21 people doing the FUSRAP were just giving a 

22 drawing so they could show here's where we 
242

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 sampled for uranium.

2 So they didn't have a great 

3 interest in getting every detail right. So 

4 this is the first -- going back to what we 

5 did. So we revised the model, comparing it to 

6 the survey report, actually in earlier 

7 information like from `68, we revised -- we 

8 ran the model and revised the photon and 

9 neutron dose rates for the betatron in the 

10 control room and in the Number 2 Building. 

11 These were the only -- this -- they had 

12 earlier done it in many locations, and these 

13 were the two that we focused on because they 

14 were significant at this point.

15 We revised the neutron doses to 

16 the betatron operators. The reason we focused 

17 on the neutron doses rather than the photon 

18 dose is we had for the film badges. So we 

19 really were only interested in using the model 

20 for the neutron doses, and then the dose of 

21 the layout man, because he was not badged, 

22 even though he might have -- the layout man 
243

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 may have actually been a betatron operator who 

2 rotated jobs, while he was working as a layout 

3 man, he was not wearing a badge.

4 We then -- we also revised our 

5 initial MCNPx analysis of photoactivation of 

6 uranium and steel, not because information 

7 changed, but because the MCNPx codes changed 

8 considerably over these three years.

9 Back in 2007 was when they first -

10 - there was an MCNPx of 2.5 or 25 as they call 

11 it internally. We did not have the ability to 

12 do this photoactivation.

13 But they introduced it somewhat 

14 around that time, early 2007 I think, and we 

15 ended up using version 26E. They are now up 

16 to 27E and there's been a lot of refinement in 

17 those calculations there.

18 And this one -- the earlier one 

19 was only available to beta testers, now this 

20 one is on the RSICC, you can get it directly 

21 from RSICC. So anyone qualified can buy it.

22 So we calculated a new beta doses 
244

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for the skin. The photon doses were 

2 unchanged. Actually it went down slightly but 

3 they were small enough there was no reason to 

4 change them.

5 We then were able to put this 

6 information together and to form a bounding 

7 estimate of residual radiation -- oh no, sorry 

8 -- separately we did a bounding estimate on 

9 this mysterious residual radiation from the 

10 betatron which I'll talk about.

11 And then finally we compared our 

12 estimates with NIOSH's estimates. So this is 

13 the earliest -- now all the AEC literature, a 

14 thousand pages, a lot of which is redundant 

15 and duplicated, but still, there's a lot of 

16 material there.

17 This is the first drawing of the 

18 betatron building that shows up, and here they 

19 indicate this was January -- this is a little 

20 hard to read and so I put it into the legend 

21 but this says 1-10-68.

22 And they indicate the double-leaf 
245

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 door with the lead shield. They also indicate 

2 these additional walls that were not in the 

3 FUSRAP write-up.

4 One of the walls looked like a 

5 line but we had not idea how thick it was, so 

6 we just left it out of our version of the 

7 model. This wall was there, we could scale 

8 it, this wall was not there. This wall was 

9 not there.

10 And then the better drawing came 

11 later. They simply redrew it and a little 

12 neater, neater lettering. Mostly the only 

13 improvement is in the lettering, the actual 

14 contour of the wall is more detailed, more 

15 correct.

16 But it's not to scale and the 

17 reason is I superimposed the MCNPx model, I 

18 reconstructed the model using the dimensions 

19 that are written here, 97 feet, 77 feet, 8 

20 inches, 112 feet, 71 feet -- we put those into 

21 the model and this is what MCNP gave me back.

22 I superimposed it too and they 
246

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 were just -- all they took was a ruler and 

2 just drew lines, not very carefully. It's 

3 clearly not to scale, because this is 10 feet, 

4 this shows it as like three feet.

5 But nevertheless we did the best 

6 we could with this information. Wherever 

7 there were numbers, we used the numbers, but 

8 the source here, they didn't give you any --

9 they just put an X here. They didn't tell you 

10 where it really was in terms of distance.

11 So by using their outlines and 

12 measuring, I ended up putting the source here 

13 because what's important is where this shield 

14 ends. I put it the same way with respect to 

15 the shield, the same with respect to the 

16 actual wall, ended up in a slightly different 

17 position on the drawing.

18 Okay, so this is the yellow and 

19 the green. The yellow is the sand and green is 

20 the concrete. Even the door to the control 

21 room is a little differently located than it 

22 shows on the drawing. That's the best we had.
247

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 Here are our issues regarding the 

2 DCAS model, most of which I have already 

3 raised, just going over quickly during the 

4 discussion.

5 The betatron control badges, that 

6 what it was called, betatron CTL, Dave assumed 

7 that it was kept in the control room desk but 

8 another drawing showed the desk to be located 

9 right about here.

10 And we don't agree with SC&A's 

11 position and we cannot make that assumption. 

12 It may have been there. It may have been 

13 somewhere else. We just don't know where it 

14 was.

15 So consequently there's no 

16 documentation on it and so far the only 

17 testimony we've heard was it didn't exist. I 

18 think it did exist because it's on every 

19 weekly badge record, it's on badge number 1, 

20 but we just don't know where it was kept.

21 The second is, the assumption was 

22 made, I can understand, they said it's in the 
248

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 betatron building, that they were kept in the 

2 control room.

3 They in fact were kept in this 

4 location at the -- one of the gentlemen on the 

5 phone, I can -- if he wishes to identify 

6 himself he can -- gave me this information a 

7 few days ago and he said, you walk in the main 

8 entrance, you walk by, this is the bathroom 

9 here, you walk past the bathroom, and they 

10 were, the film badges were on the wall on the 

11 left. So this is from the conversation, the 

12 best record, that they were -- this is where 

13 the rack of the badges were. It was not in the 

14 control room, and it was presumably a low 

15 radiation area.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Just a comment, 

17 now that agrees with what I think we heard 

18 from you, right?

19 DR. McKEEL: Well, except that's 

20 location number 2.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, location 2.

22 DR. McKEEL: And the other fellow 
249

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 said that they originally --

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Earlier it might 

3 have been in that office.

4 DR. McKEEL: In the office location 

5 --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, that's where 

7 the same worker told me, yes, it was in the 

8 office earlier, but I just --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's not the 

10 control room.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, it's 

12 definitely not the control room. He did say 

13 it was earlier but I didn't quite -- he didn't 

14 quite clarify where or what period and I just 

15 settled for what -- the only purpose of this 

16 was to show that it's not the control room.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That we do know 

19 where.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And that's a 

21 little further away, actually.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, well, not 
250

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 only is it further away, but the control badge 

2 -- not the betatron control -- but the 

3 unnumbered control badge would have been kept 

4 there. In any radiation safety program,. You 

5 keep the -- you store the control badge right 

6 where you can store the badges, and, which is 

7 more claimant-favorable -- that's the 

8 claimant-favorable assumption because then 

9 they subtract whatever -- they develop them 

10 all at the same time, so whatever variation 

11 may be in the processing, in the developer of 

12 that day, is reflected equally on the control 

13 badge. It's still blank, it's a laboratory 

14 blank, and you subtract -- Landauer subtracts 

15 the readings from the other badges.

16 So that 10 millirem is already 

17 with the background subtracted. Whatever the 

18 badges would have accumulated during the 100 

19 hours of the week that the worker is not using 

20 the badge is already taken care of.

21 DR. McKEEL: Dr. Anigstein, I just 

22 have a brief comment that the unanimous 
251

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 testimony of the people I've talked to is that 

2 they are unaware of the CTL --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And I am not using 

4 it.

5 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm just starting 

7 it so --

8 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: We're in -- we may 

10 not be in agreement, but at least the outcome 

11 is the same.

12 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay. So instead 

14 of the 15 positions, we just utilized one 

15 position. Here is the diagram of -- this is 

16 the casting, because we are doing a horizontal 

17 cross-section, it's a hollow pipe, so you see 

18 it as two lines, cutting across the pipe.

19 This is the betatron. Compared to 

20 the size of the room, it's very small. This 

21 is the actual donut, this little tiny dot is 

22 the aluminum cone.
252

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So the beam goes straight in this 

2 direction, and that's the only shot we 

3 consider. However, I do have an aside now I'd 

4 like to add, I think I understand better the 

5 discussion of how, based on Dr. McKeel's 

6 written documentation, the roll-up door was 

7 here. This is the beginning of the 10 

8 Building. It's not shown here, but this is 

9 the 10 Building.

10 The roll-up door was here. Here 

11 you have the rail tunnel. They call it a 

12 tunnel, but of course it's above ground. And 

13 here is, at least according to the drawing, 

14 where that steel -- the double-leaf, lead15 lined door was.

16 So they're two different doors, so 

17 there is in fact -- excuse me, yes they are --

18 everything Dr. McKeel showed was the steel 

19 roll-up door was between -- was in the 10 

20 Building, looking towards the betatron, that's 

21 where you have the steel door. Same thing --

22 same thing on the old betatron.
253

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. McKEEL: That was in 2006.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, I understand 

3 that.

4 MR. RAMSPOTT: And the FOIA says 

5 there was a steel mesh gate at that same 

6 location, in a FOIA document. So you've got a 

7 wire gate --

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Okay, in any case, 

9 in any case that does not -- you can have 

10 both. You can have a door here and you can 

11 have a door here. And if you were to -- and 

12 from a radiation safety shielding standpoint 

13 you put your shield where your radiation is.

14 MR. RAMSPOTT: No.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: All right, you're 

16 allowed to disagree. You put your shield 

17 where the radiation is, so you will put your 

18 shield here and here there may be a reason to 

19 have a door just to keep people out, 

20 separating this thing.

21 All right, let me go on. So 

22 anyway, this is where we assume, this is the 
254

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 shot that we use for our representative case, 

2 and I know there were dozens of possibilities, 

3 but you have to pick one.

4 So we used this as a 

5 representative case and probably a limiting 

6 case, because the -- one of the gentlemen 

7 that's on the phone now, or at least was a 

8 while ago, said this practice of shooting on 

9 the railroad tracks only accounted for about 

10 15 percent of the time. The rest of the time 

11 they were following the normal protocol and 

12 shooting inside, near the middle of the 

13 betatron shooting room.

14 So instead of -- most of the time 

15 the betatron would be here shooting castings 

16 more or less in every -- in different 

17 directions, as Dave Allen indicated, and so 

18 only about 15 percent of the time, they were 

19 on the railroad track.

20 So we use that as a limiting case, 

21 trying to come up with a bounding estimate, we 

22 used that as a bounding estimate -- that's 
255

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 very conservative -- and say it happened all 

2 the time. That's extremely conservative, 

3 extremely claimant-favorable.

4 Okay. So this is the case that we 

5 modeled. And finally this is what we came up 

6 with. Now, one of the suppositions, and I've 

7 since had reason to rethink it, it's in my 

8 report, and that is what about this mysterious 

9 radiation from the betatron?

10 Let's say it happened and let's 

11 say it hit the worker in the back. Well, if 

12 you want to do a ratio, and it's in my report 

13 but let me put it here, if you want to take a 

14 ratio of how much exposure the worker could 

15 have gotten, and how much exposure the badge 

16 could have gotten, if you read it coming from 

17 the back.

18 We used the model, the current 

19 table put out by ICRP, report number 74 or 

20 page 74, uses an earlier anthropomorphic 

21 phantom, this is just geometric shapes that 

22 are easy to model.
256

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So you have a human body, the 

2 torso is an ellipse, the various organs are 

3 the different shapes, like an ellipse, a 

4 truncated cone, and so forth.

5 This is some of the -- actually 

6 they are redoing it now with a more realistic 

7 modeling, but it's androgynous. So they use 

8 the same model for a male and a female.

9 So they add on, if you want to 

10 model -- if it goes to a female breast, they 

11 simply put breasts on the same model. Well, a 

12 breast is a pretty good surrogate for the film 

13 badge. They are worn on the chest often, so on 

14 that side of the body.

15 So I looked at the ratio. What is 

16 the dose to the whole body, the effective 

17 dose, if the radiation is coming from the 

18 back, compared to the dose to the breast, 

19 which will be the surrogate for the film 

20 badge.

21 And the worst you can get is the 

22 lowest energy, which is 30 keV, anything lower 
257

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 than that NIOSH doesn't even consider in the 

2 dose reconstruction, and there, the breast got 

3 10 millirem, the whole body got 26 millirem.

4 So you have at most, so if you say 

5 that no worker got more than 10 millirem, 

6 assuming that all of the radiation came from 

7 behind, and all of it was 30 keV, the most 

8 they would get is 26 millirem.

9 The reality is, I was later told 

10 that there is a problem with this because the 

11 -- again, Joseph Zlotnicki, that was formerly 

12 from Landauer, said that -- and also my 

13 colleague ‘ identifying information redacted’, 

14 I have to say this was done under time 

15 pressure -- said no, the film badge is not the 

16 same back to front, front to back, because 

17 from the front, it has the metal filters, from 

18 the back it doesn't.

19 So from the back it will actually 

20 over respond. So actually when I say it 

21 registers 10, or the 26, you divide it up 26, 

22 the dose would be -- the film badge will 
258

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 probably get more than 26.

2 But anyway I used that as a limit. 

3 And the only purpose of this was to establish 

4 and to -- in agreement with Dave's report, to 

5 establish that no way is the betatron operator 

6 the limiting individual for photon exposure to 

7 the whole body.

8 The reality is the layout man gets 

9 a much higher dose. So if NIOSH was to assign 

10 the external dose of the layout man to all 

11 workers, we don't have to worry about the 

12 betatron operator, because whether it's one --

13 whether he gets 10 millirem or gets 26 

14 millirem, or anything as long as it's not 

15 much, much higher, the layout man is going to 

16 be higher, and then the real betatron 

17 operators will be assigned the dose of the 

18 layout man, because, again, they sometimes 

19 will have worked as layout men, not wearing a 

20 film badge.

21 So I think we can pretty much put 

22 that to rest as a non-issue, that even if 
259

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 there is a little bit of radiation coming from 

2 behind, and it's more than likely the readings 

3 are spurious and were caused by 

4 electromagnetic interference with the meter, 

5 but regardless, it's not -- it does not affect 

6 the ability to reconstruct doses.

7 Now, we got higher doses that give 

8 us -- so here's the comparison, the exposure, 

9 but again, it's really irrelevant. Neutron 

10 doses are relevant and we got higher doses 

11 because we did not scale back the exposures 

12 because of this -- this betatron control 

13 badge. We did not take that into account.

14 But consequently we assume -- we 

15 didn't scale it at all. This is simply the 

16 calculated dose to the neutron dose, to the 

17 betatron operator from two sources, from the 

18 operating betatron while the operator is in 

19 the control room, taking into account, you 

20 know, the long shot, the short shot, how much 

21 time -- he spent long periods in the control 

22 room, shorter periods in the control room, all 
260

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 of that is taken into account, and this is the 

2 neutron dose using the latest model of the 

3 betatron building.

4 And so we get 480 millirem to this 

5 period. Oh, and this also includes the 

6 neutron dose from handling uranium. There is 

7 a small, small amount of neutron dose from the 

8 uranium, from handling the recently-irradiated 

9 uranium. It has a little photoactive --

10 photofission there and there is a small, small 

11 neutron component.

12 So this is where we got these 

13 numbers. Then the beta dose again comes from 

14 handling the uranium. And we got somewhat 

15 different -- I'm not quite sure what the 

16 difference is, why -- because I think we used 

17 the same approach but there were some 

18 differences there between my modeling and the 

19 DCAS modeling, the beta dose to the hand and 

20 forearm, the beta dose to the skin one foot 

21 away, this is to the betatron operator.

22 So the layout men -- oh, and they 
261

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 also get -- I'm sorry -- they also get a beta 

2 dose from the irradiated steel. They are 

3 assumed to be handling the irradiated steel 

4 half the time. Half the time they are doing 

5 the layout, they are touching the steel.

6 So there, we get a higher dose --

7 yes, excuse me, that was the explanation. We 

8 get a higher dose because as it turns out, 

9 repeating -- using the latest version of 

10 MCNPx, which is where the major difference is, 

11 you get a fivefold higher concentration of the 

12 beta-emitting isotopes generated from the 

13 steel. It's a just more refined model and the 

14 beta doses is from the steel, not from the 

15 uranium.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Is that simply a 

17 difference in you using the later version 

18 versus --

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Mostly, yes. Yes, 

20 it is, because --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's not a 

22 difference in assumption, starting assumption 
262

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 or anything, it's a refinement in the model 

2 that has caused that?

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No. No, we didn't 

4 change the model, because actually Dave took 

5 our numbers directly for the beta dose from 

6 the steel, and so we --

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I'm trying to 

8 get a feel for the difference in the numbers 

9 I'm seeing on the chart.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Under which, under 

11 which column?

12 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: On the beta dose 

13 to the skin.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. The beta 

15 dose to the skin is primarily due to the MCNP 

16 -- newer version of MCNPx --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's what I'm 

18 asking.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- predicting 

20 higher concentrations of the beta-emitting 

21 activation products in the steel.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And you're 
263

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 saying DCAS took the same starting numbers but 

2 they were using an earlier version?

3 MEMBER BEACH: 2008 version.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: They -- no. They 

5 took the actual numbers from the report, my 

6 2008 report.

7 MR. ALLEN: If I remember right, 

8 we took yours for steel, did them for the 

9 uranium, and this is a combination of the two, 

10 right? The steel and uranium beta dose?

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, yes, yes.

12 MR. ALLEN: So there's a little 

13 difference there and we used -- we used a 

14 different model for the uranium, very similar 

15 to what you did.

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, you did, you 

17 reran the uranium but you did not rerun the 

18 steel --

19 MR. ALLEN: Right.

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You just took our 

21 results for steel, and we are -- and so -- I 

22 felt a little badly towards Dave, because he 
264

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was accepting our results and I said, wait a 

2 second, we don't accept the results anymore. 

3 But it's -- yes, the interaction.

4 So basically, and the basic 

5 conclusion is: we believe, that's the 

6 position, that doses during this period of the 

7 betatron -- from the betatron operation, and 

8 these are limiting. I just want to point out 

9 a couple of things. One is I have got a 

10 question mark. I think Dave, I think there 

11 was a mistake here in these numbers. You 

12 didn't divide by two to account for the half 

13 here. Here, you divided by two, `65 to `66 

14 goes down exactly by two, and here I don't 

15 think you divided by two for -- well, over the 

16 six months.

17 MR. ALLEN: I'll have to double 

18 check. It kind of looks that way.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes. Otherwise it 

20 would mean that the monthly rates, they went 

21 up -- and this is only a six-month period, so 

22 I guess, you know, it was just a slip.
265

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But another -- another point I 

2 want to make is: first of all, this is you 

3 assuming -- this is assigning the new betatron 

4 to the old betatron, and let's just say it's 

5 claimant-favorable. It's simple.

6 We did run the old betatron, 

7 satisfied ourselves, and it's in the 2008 

8 report, that the doses are lower simply 

9 because the energies are lower.

10 And you didn't have, as far as we 

11 know, there wasn't this business of shooting 

12 on the railroad tracks, but at any rate, the 

13 energies were lower.

14 And that time I just scaled the 

15 energy, naturally the exposure rates were 

16 considerably lower, it was 100 -- 100 Rs per 

17 hour, per minute or maybe 100 -- as opposed to 

18 160. They were considerably lower, through 

19 the compensator.

20 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So SC&A is 

21 suggesting that if you use the new betatron 

22 values to bound doses during those years, and 
266

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 someone is working either then or earlier in 

2 the old betatron --

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- you just --

5 you give them the same value even though you 

6 are overestimating.

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, that's 

8 bounding then if they want to, I mean, NIOSH -

9 - 

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Are you guys 

11 saying the same thing as that?

12 MR. ALLEN: Yes.

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay. So -- but 

14 why not give them what they had for the old 

15 one? 

16 MR. ALLEN: It would make sense.

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: It's just easier 

18 to do and you are claimant-favorable because 

19 you are overestimating?

20 MR. ALLEN: It's

21 claimant-favorable plus we had the dimensions 

22 in the dose rate survey of 1971, to kind of 
267

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 calibrate this model for the new betatron 

2 building. 

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So you're more 

4 confident that the model is --

5 MR. ALLEN: There was a lot more 

6 unknowns with the old one.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: More unknowns 

8 with the old model, but you know enough to be 

9 able to say, in spite of those unknowns, the 

10 new one will capture it, because of the higher 

11 energies?

12 MR. ALLEN: Yes, you can still --

13 if you still have drawings, you can scale off 

14 of those drawings, but it's not like having 

15 the dimension that's measured and put on the 

16 drawing.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But you wouldn't 

18 have this layout worker, because -- and that's 

19 the other issue. I mean, it's not an issue, 

20 it's just the -- I'd like to point out the --

21 both the strengths and the weaknesses, and 

22 here we have the layout man always getting the 
268

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 same dose. But in reality this is a layout 

2 man in the 10 Building --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I understand.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- being irradiated 

5 by the new betatron. The new betatron wasn't 

6 there prior to `64. So that would be a 

7 hypothetical construct, and if you want to go 

8 back and -- but you can say, well, there will 

9 be other workers getting other exposures, and 

10 this is probably limiting. So you can use that 

11 as a kind of a, as a realistic bounding value.

12 But again, the bottom line is: we 

13 disagree in detail but not in principle. I 

14 think that is -- GSI is extremely well15 documented and even though there may be, like 

16 always, some minor inconsistencies where one 

17 person recalls this and one person recalls 

18 that, and workers that I've spoken to will 

19 contradict what other workers have said, and 

20 after 50 years, what do you expect? It's not, 

21 it's not going to be -- that's not surprising.

22 But if you put the whole picture 
269

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 together, and you get a reasonably consistent 

2 picture that's adequate for, again, giving a 

3 bounding estimate, you're not going to get the 

4 right number for every single individual, it's 

5 just a bounding estimate, and the fact that 

6 during that time period, or during the covered 

7 period with the badges, there was one incident 

8 of, in one week, which is some kind of an 

9 incident, most likely to the film badge rather 

10 than to the worker, of over two rem in one 

11 week, and the same worker had a film badge for 

12 every week and it was always m, except that 

13 one reported. And the others had: 300 was the 

14 second highest, the third highest was 40 and 

15 after that there were either actual numbers of 

16 10 or m which we equate to 10.

17 So -- and there are very few 

18 missing badges, because we went through -- I 

19 went through every week's records and there 

20 was very rarely was there a missing badge. 

21 Sometimes somebody loses their badge, somebody 

22 takes it home.
270

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But the film badge record seems to 

2 be extremely complete, extremely consistent. 

3 There were some incidents and questions that 

4 were raised as we have discussed, in later 

5 years, but that is outside the covered period.

6 So that's about it now.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Have you 

8 finished your --

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'm finished.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, I'll open 

11 it up for questions to the Work Group. I've 

12 already asked several but Wanda, did you have 

13 additional questions?

14 MEMBER MUNN: The only question 

15 that I have in my mind, and I haven't gone 

16 back and reviewed our original documents, has 

17 to do with the old betatron building.

18 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

19 MEMBER MUNN: And I can't remember 

20 whether we had good as-builts on the old 

21 betatron building or not.

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, the old 
271

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 betatron building would only have the FUSRAP. 

2 Those later FUSRAP drawings.. That's the 

3 only thing we have. The only reason we have 

4 these is because they wanted a license for the 

5 80-curie source, and they did this radiation 

6 survey and they show here's where we are going 

7 to use it. I think they ended up using it in 

8 the old betatron as well, but again, that was 

9 not near -- not right next to an area, 10 

10 Building where you have workers --

11 MEMBER MUNN: Correct.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- working, you 

13 know, on it. They may have been passing by, 

14 they may have outdoors, but not somebody who 

15 could plausibly have a work station right 

16 outside that door.

17 MEMBER MUNN: It was so far 

18 removed from the other activities --

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes.

20 MEMBER MUNN: At least it appeared 

21 to be so, on the --

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, oh there --
272

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 it was several hundred feet away.

2 MEMBER MUNN: Yes. Yes.

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Josie.

4 MR. ALLEN: I got one -- one thing 

5 to say about all this, okay, about everything 

6 today, is the location of the badge and the 

7 control room or whatever, that was my bad 

8 assumption. But now we're showing a badge 

9 rack in the building that has, from everything 

10 we've been told so far, has -- everybody 

11 either has their badge on that or it's on them 

12 in the control room, or the betatron is off 

13 and they're out in the shooting room.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Yes. 

15 MR. ALLEN: So the same kind of 

16 concept still applies to the badge rack --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. So does 

18 that change --

19 MR. ALLEN: It changes the numbers 

20 --

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's going to 

22 change a possible number in the control room 
273

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 for you, won't it, because --

2 MR. ALLEN: It will --

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You're saying 

4 that -- you're going to be saying the 10 is 

5 not in the control room, it's out here 

6 somewhere, which conceptually pushes the 

7 control room up some amount --

8 MR. ALLEN: Right.

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: -- in your model. 

10 So your other doses are going to change 

11 upward a little bit?

12 MR. ALLEN: Yes. It'll make changes

13 to the numbers, not the general concept.

14 MEMBER MUNN: They should be 

15 relatively minor.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. And one 

17 thing that was a little new to me, Bob, was on 

18 the door. You're saying that, and I guess 

19 these folks are asking, or maybe challenging 

20 that, that there may have been a shield on an 

21 inner door, which was a roll door. Do we know 

22 that for sure?
274

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Just to say, 

2 however -- I should say in my -- I'm just 

3 throwing that out, however in my model, 

4 because it was not, because we can't be 

5 certain that the lead was not added later, 

6 there's no lead in my model.

7 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay.

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But my 9.2 rem to 

9 the layout man assumes that he is --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right, so you 

11 didn't assume any lead in there?

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, I picked the 

13 worst location --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. But 

15 while you're doing that -- while you were out 

16 of the room, Dr. McKeel showed some numbers 

17 comparing the earlier SC&A results with the 

18 later runs, and that was remarkably higher, 

19 but you had some questions on the earlier 

20 models that didn't seem to change, I think, on 

21 SC&A, right?

22 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The earlier model 
275

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 -- two things. The earlier model to the 

2 betatron worker calibrated was not from MCNP. 

3 It was from this 15 millirem -- it was from 

4 the 15 mR per hour, at that time we took it as 

5 gospel. It was before we had film badges.

6 DR. McKEEL: To the layout men?

7 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So the reason that 

8 they had to shoot 12 and 13 --

9 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: In your earlier 

10 models you -- okay, I --

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was most of 

12 the exposure was from this residual betatron 

13 operation.

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: You were 

15 modeling the residual time based on the 15 --

16 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Right, right. It 

17 was not an MCNP model, it was just -- the 

18 scaling was just the inverse square law and 

19 time and motion studies.

20 This is, in case you're curious, I 

21 put the layout man, either he -- he couldn't 

22 be on the railroad track, because he would be 
276

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 blocking the rail cars. So I assumed his 

2 casting was either here or here. We did both 

3 and took the higher level, so he is just maybe 

4 20 feet from -- it's probably unrealistic. 

5 This is the worst location, based on my 

6 limited knowledge, where he could be for that 

7 eight hours a day, and he doesn't even -- and 

8 even in the earlier model, we had a -- which 

9 NIOSH also used -- we had a -- there was, I 

10 guess it would be easier to show it here, out 

11 here you can see it, right here.

12 There was a restroom. It was used 

13 not by the betatron workers, but by other 

14 plant workers, in the 8, 9, 10 Building. And 

15 that one was within line of sight with nothing 

16 in between to the betatron.

17 Well, that's not true anymore. 

18 Now we know this would have been here, now we 

19 know we have this wall and having put that 

20 wall there, the dose to the restroom now is 

21 lower than the dose to the location of the 

22 layout man.
277

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 So we simply assumed that the 

2 layout man spent eight hours a day on his job 

3 because he would actually be getting less dose 

4 if he went to the restroom.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Now, Bob, for 

6 purposes of what you've demonstrated or are 

7 demonstrating today, you've identified this, 

8 which in your mind is a worst case scenario. 

9 Are you using numbers from that to assign to 

10 all those folks? Whereas I think NIOSH is 

11 saying -- you're looking at several different 

12 ones, and you're not assigning that worst case 

13 100 percent of the time, you're scaling it in 

14 a sense, is that right?

15 MR. ALLEN: Right. That worst 

16 case there, I did just a quick scoping --

17 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, I'm trying 

18 to get a feel for the comparison that I think 

19 Dr. McKeel was raising the issue of the 

20 difference in the comparisons of the models, 

21 but are you -- you're using 100 percent time 

22 for the worst case and you're using a scaling 
278

NEAL 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 DR. ANIGSTEIN: That was not the 

3 worst case, because the worst case, you see, 

4 in Dave's worst case, he was shooting like 

5 this. He was shooting not at the casting. 

6 Let me go back, angling not at the casting, he 

7 was shooting like this at the casting, now the 

8 betatron was here, here and here, so there was 

9 going to be much more going out the door from 

10 that direction and --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But he wasn't 

12 assuming that that happened all the time 

13 either.

14 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But then, using 

15 these assumptions about the betatron control 

16 badge, this only represented something like 

17 2.5 percent of the time --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's what I'm 

19 asking. 

20 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And 97.5 percent of 

21 the time it was shooting towards the back 

22 wall.
279

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So there was much 

3 less radiation going out of the building.

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right. Well, 

5 I'm just trying to get a feel for what's being 

6 proposed in terms of bounding, if you use a 

7 weighted sort of distribution of those versus 

8 taking a worst case and saying, well, worst 

9 case will bound everything but is that really 

10 realistic?

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Again, this is not 

12 -- my worst case is not as bad as his worst 

13 case. 

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: No, no, but he 

15 wasn't using worst case to assign the doses 

16 either.

17 MR. ALLEN: I was using a worst 

18 case for a small percentage of the time. You 

19 were using a less worst case 100 percent of 

20 the time.

21 (Laughter.)

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: That's right. 
280

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 But you guys are both trying to show that you 

2 can bound -- if we were to accept bounding in 

3 principle, you still have the issue of, okay, 

4 but then what's the number you would assign? 

5 And you know, is it -- and I think Dr. 

6 McKeel's point is that those are a ways apart 

7 at the moment.

8 MR. ALLEN: Well, I don't know if 

9 they're that far apart. I was going to say, I

10 did a real scoping, just a scoping-type of, 

11 you know, I wouldn't trust this run, I just 

12 did it overnight real quick, and without the 

13 lead in the door and with the badge rack in 

14 the new location, and that run there that Bob 

15 did, the estimate he did to give the nine rem 

16 to the layout man, it gives you about 60 

17 millirem a week at the badge rack.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes. Well, the 

19 only thing I'm getting at is if there's any 

20 refinements, we want to see them pretty fast, 

21 okay?

22 MR. ALLEN: Yes, that's why I'm 
281

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 mentioning this, because I would like to try 

2 to make that refinement, but I don't want to 

3 go to that trouble then have everybody say the 

4 hell with that.

5 But, I mean, the truth is you had 

6 the badges at the badge rack or on the person 

7 in the control room or in the shooting room, 

8 and six millirem at the badge rack is the 

9 lowest dose --

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, the bottom 

11 line is what we're going to eventually have to 

12 grapple with is if, option 1, if we say yes, 

13 we think you can bound, what is it -- what's 

14 that going to be, and petitioners need to know 

15 what that's going to be and what the basis is.

16 MEMBER BEACH: And if it's going 

17 to cover all years or --

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, right. And 

19 so we're not going to have that comfort degree 

20 if there's all these numbers out here that are 

21 far apart. So it's --

22 DR. NETON: The main difference 
282

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 seems to be, though, is: do you give any 

2 credibility to the badge readings - 

3 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

4 DR. NETON: -- in trying to 

5 establish the bounding, or do you ignore them 

6 completely and come up with numbers based on 

7 just workers --

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Right.

9 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, the badge --

10 my model assumes the badge readings --

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: But they both 

12 used the badge -- the approaches are the same, 

13 they just haven't used as many options. He's 

14 used one scenario and you've used --

15 DR. NETON: I just heard Dave say 

16 that the badge rack would be receiving 60 

17 millirem per week.

18 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, he made an 

19 assumption about where the badge rack was --

20 MR. ALLEN: Based on the new 

21 stuff, I mean, I ran this like yesterday.

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, right, so -
283

NEAL 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 DR. NETON: And so there's an 

3 inconsistency there between --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Okay, well --

5 MR. ALLEN: I guess the question 

6 for the Work Group right now is: is the 

7 concept that that badge rack can't be more 

8 than 10 millirem a week acceptable to the Work 

9 Group or not? That seems to be reality to me.

10 MEMBER MUNN: Well, that's what 

11 the badge reports say. Correct?

12 MR. ALLEN: Correct.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: But there was a 

14 control badge at the --

15 MR. ALLEN: Right, but the control 

16 badge --

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- was subtracted, 

18 so whatever their badges got during the badge 

19 rack --

20 MR. ALLEN: But the control badge 

21 is on the Landauer reports, it was always zero 

22 until 1971, and Landauer normally subtracted 
284

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 on a dose basis. They would read the dose on 

2 all these things and then subtract that dose -

3 - 

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, but there 

5 would have been already the report -- no, 

6 that's not correct. This is again, the people 

7 who worked at Landauer said they -- the report 

8 would -- the control badge would be 

9 subtracted, not the betatron control -- 

10 MR. ALLEN: I know, the control 

11 badge is also on the report.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The control badge 

13 would be subtracted already prior to them 

14 sending out the report. They might either --

15 he said there were two possibilities. One, 

16 either they assigned the dose to the control 

17 badge, or they simply took the density, as a 

18 factor of the density before calculating the 

19 dose.

20 MR. ALLEN: Which is directly 

21 proportional to the same thing. It's a 

22 calibration curve. It's the same thing.
285

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, yes, it's the 

2 same thing.

3 MR. ALLEN: But they wouldn't 

4 subtract the control badge dose from itself 

5 and then record that.

6 MEMBER MUNN: No.

7 MR. ALLEN: What I'm saying is --

8 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I hear what you're 

9 saying.

10 MR. ALLEN: We have the number and 

11 what they subtracted was zero.

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Yes, and they do 

13 report the -- let me ask that question of my 

14 colleague.

15 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Dan, do you have 

16 some additional questions or comments? You 

17 want to react to what --

18 DR. McKEEL: I do want to react. 

19 I want to modify my last slide. So I looked 

20 at Bob's table, which I've got to admit, Bob, 

21 are we going to get that -- your PowerPoint 

22 presentation? Can we get your PowerPoint 
286

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 presentation?

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Give it to Ted 

3 and he can distribute it.

4 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I'll put my slide 

5 back up.

6 DR. McKEEL: No, I don't need your 

7 slide, I just want to know if we can have it 

8 to examine it.

9 MR. KATZ: You can send it to me 

10 and I can distribute it.

11 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Oh, yes, yes. 

12 DR. McKEEL: All right, well -- so 

13 I was writing down the differences between the 

14 SC&A and the NIOSH numbers for photons and 

15 neutrons and the beta skin dose just to the 

16 forearms and the hands.

17 And earlier on there's been a lot 

18 of what I would call -- gee, I want to be 

19 polite, but I want to also be a scientist --

20 talk about roughly similar and the same and so 

21 forth, and somebody, maybe David, maybe Bob 

22 Anigstein, I'm not sure, somebody said that 
287

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 roughly if a model agreed with another model, 

2 with real data within 200 percent, twofold, 

3 that would be okay. Maybe you said it. 

4 Somebody said it.

5 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I think I said it.

6 DR. McKEEL: Okay, good. So I 

7 would say I disagree with that. I think that 

8 in academic papers where you propose a 

9 computer model and you test it with real data, 

10 I don't believe anybody would buy it within 

11 twofold. I think they would say 10 to 20 

12 percent, from the papers that I've seen.

13 But let's say 200, let's say 200 

14 percent. That's fine. So I did a bunch of 

15 ratios here between SC&A and NIOSH, just 

16 looking at them, and basically, for most year, 

17 let's say for photons, the ratio is three or 

18 higher, 300 percent or higher.

19 For neutrons the difference is 

20 fourfold up to fivefold. That's the point. 

21 The ratio has changed from year to year, and 

22 if you look at beta skin dose, they run along 
288

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 almost one to one, one to 0.8 for quite a long 

2 time, and then after 1962, you notice a 

3 precipitous change in the ratio which goes 

4 down now to 1964, SC&A 10.7, NIOSH 3.5.

5 So that's 300-plus percent. So 

6 I'm just saying that, you know, numbers --

7 when you are in the business of doing 

8 quantitative analysis, numbers matter, and 

9 these numbers do not agree with each other, 

10 and I think that if I were the editor of a 

11 peer-reviewed journal and I had an editorial 

12 board, I would expect my reviewers to point 

13 that out, that these numbers are not in 

14 agreement.

15 So that's one comment.

16 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Incidentally, 

17 this reflects something, and you kind of 

18 raised it earlier, Dan, SC&A is not taking the 

19 NIOSH model and revalidating it, it's sort of 

20 a -- it's kind of a different model.

21 DR. McKEEL: But you've got to --

22 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: I know, I'm 
289

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 saying, so that's, that's what we're saying 

2 here, and we do want to have some assurance 

3 that, and Bob's here, as in the next two 

4 weeks, just that looks very specifically at 

5 the NIOSH model, however they come out with 

6 it, with any final modifications, and make 

7 sure that you know, that you guys would come 

8 up with the same thing using their assumptions 

9 if you -- unless you think their assumptions 

10 are way out in left field.

11 But I mean right now we are 

12 talking about, okay, here, I'm going to try to 

13 see if I can -- you've kind of modeled 

14 independently here from what was done and 

15 that's led to this issue.

16 DR. McKEEL: Well, again this is -

17 - these are not independent models being 

18 compared. These are so biased, because we 

19 start -- the starting point is an SC&A 

20 calculation that is then -- and it said NIOSH 

21 used their input parameters to MCNPx. So 

22 they're not independent models. They're 
290

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 actually comparing the same models, and that's 

2 the further point, which is an enormous point 

3 that just can't be overlooked, and that is 

4 that MCNPx is a research computer code. It is 

5 not fixed in stone. It's not like IREP, and 

6 even IREP is upgraded from time to time. But 

7 it's not even standardized like IREP. That's 

8 used all over the world for all sorts of 

9 things, as you all know better than I do.

10 But he's saying that in the 

11 specific version that may be two weeks apart, 

12 the numbers change.

13 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It's three years 

14 apart.

15 DR. McKEEL: Okay, but they've 

16 changed a lot, Bob. Right.

17 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, they were just 

18 beginning to develop these capabilities --

19 DR. McKEEL: I understand that, I 

20 worked with a man --

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: -- it is now the 

22 final one because it is already -- at the time 
291

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 was only available to beta testers.

2 DR. McKEEL: I understand.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: At this point it 

4 is now being distributed by RSICC as the 

5 final, official version.

6 DR. McKEEL: I understand that, 

7 but my friend who is a programmer distributed 

8 a number of successive, official versions, and 

9 all I can say is the software gets changed.

10 And what you're saying is you're 

11 here to assign -- whatever winds up in 

12 Appendix BB, like that 1.73 R per year for the 

13 non-badged workers, that's what they got for 

14 94 percent of those dose reconstructions, and, 

15 you know, if you come out with a number that 

16 you know could change any time depending on 

17 the code, you have to stick with that number.

18 So all I'm saying is: please be 

19 reasonable about that. I mean, you know, at a 

20 certain point there's no bright white line 

21 between what is acceptable agreement. But I 

22 suggest that those two -- the numbers are far 
292

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 apart, and that we don't even know, I don't 

2 know, you know, there's MCNPx running on two 

3 different computers. I still haven't heard 

4 this morning, David, if the exact code that 

5 you were using, the version, was exactly the 

6 code that Bob Anigstein was using. I 

7 personally, if I read these numbers, I'd want 

8 to know that. I'd want to know exactly what 

9 version --

10 MR. ALLEN: Using the computer run 

11 with the exposure model, I mean, the computer 

12 --

13 DR. McKEEL: No, I want to know 

14 what -- I'm calculating it with --

15 MR. ALLEN: He was running 26E a 

16 few years ago and now he's running 27E.

17 DR. McKEEL: But it's a different 

18 -- that's a different code.

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: It is.

20 DR. McKEEL: And, as Bob says, as 

21 Bob says, they also have an ancillary database 

22 that includes a lot of other data that can be 
293

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 culled in a sub-routine, I'm sure, into MCNPx. 

2 I don't know if NIOSH has that.

3 DR. ANIGSTEIN: No, it's a 

4 standard -- the data, the database, the data 

5 files, I should really say, are distributed 

6 with the code. Everybody who gets that code 

7 package gets the identical code and it runs 

8 identically on every PC.

9 DR. McKEEL: Okay.

10 DR. ANIGSTEIN: So, it's not like 

11 one machine, you know, runs it differently 

12 than another. We have the same operating 

13 system.

14 DR. McKEEL: I do understand that.

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: And also, because 

16 of this fact, as I noted in my report, 

17 because of this, we got an independent MCNP 

18 expert who knew nothing about this. I mean, we 

19 put him on there, actually he worked for SC&A 

20 in the past, also doing exactly the same 

21 thing, doing independent QA. He's from Los 

22 Alamos, Ph.D., CHP, he looked over this and he 
294

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 completely agreed. He checked everything. He 

2 found discrepancies like of three thousands of 

3 an inch where I miscopied a number from the --

4 DR. McKEEL: Bob, he's validating 

5 your measurements but what I'm saying is --

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: He validated the 

7 calculation. He didn't validate the 

8 measurements; he validated the calculation.

9 DR. McKEEL: I understand. Your 

10 numbers and David's numbers differ from each 

11 other by -- the ratio --

12 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Because of 

13 different assumptions.

14 MR. ALLEN: It's not because of 

15 MCNP for the most part, it's because of what 

16 we do with MCNP as a tool.

17 DR. McKEEL: Okay, but I'm saying 

18 that if I were the Board -- what I ask of the 

19 Board is to insist that you all be closer 

20 together, to accept these data.

21 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Well, that's 

22 basically what I was asking --
295

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 DR. McKEEL: Yes, I know that, I 

2 just wanted to make sure. Then I agree with 

3 you, but I just --

4 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, because 

5 it's hard for us as Work Group Members if 

6 these are way far apart by 300 percent, so --

7 DR. McKEEL: And then I have to 

8 put my final statement about the double-leaf 

9 door, and that is that the workers are 

10 unanimous, 100 percent, not a dissenter, that 

11 it was the door to the tunnel, not the door to 

12 the break area, that in 1964-66 was that red, 

13 ribbon, roll-up door that I looked at, and my 

14 point is that even -- you know, even if you 

15 model -- forget the lead. Take the lead away. 

16 Just talk about a double-leaf steel door 

17 versus a roll-up steel door. The steel's not 

18 the same. The thickness is not the same --

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: I modeled a very 

20 thin one sixteenth inch steel, which is 

21 negligible amount of shifting.

22 DR. McKEEL: Well, whatever you 
296

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 modeled, I'm just saying that those two doors 

2 are different, but the door that was there, if 

3 you want to use reality, was the red ribbon 

4 steel door. I promise you that. That's all 

5 I'm saying.

6 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: And I think we 

7 probably can accept that as the --

8 MR. ALLEN: Yes, I think I have 

9 to, because when you look at it, it's very 

10 clear to me in 1971 there was lead in that 

11 door, just looking at the dose readings that 

12 were taken five feet versus 10.

13 MR. DUTKO: Dr. Ziemer --

14 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Hang on --

15 DR. ANIGSTEIN: January `68, 

16 actually, was the first roll-up door.

17 DR. McKEEL: I will say that there 

18 is no testimony on the record, and there were

19 men who were there in `71, nobody has ever 

20 confirmed that by visual sighting. You had 

21 folks --

22 MR. ALLEN: Well, you would never 
297

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 see the lead in the door.

2 DR. ANIGSTEIN: You wouldn't see 

3 the lead because you would have sheet metal on 

4 the inside -- on both sides.

5 (Simultaneous speaking.)

6 MR. RAMSPOTT: No, I have 

7 pictures. It's not made that way. No. It's 

8 rusted on both sides. It's a single piece of 

9 steel --

10 MR. ALLEN: The double-leaf door 

11 in the old betatron building?

12 MR. RAMSPOTT: Absolutely. I've 

13 got pictures right here.

14 DR. McKEEL: Absolutely. Now, it 

15 is possible that there was a piece of lead on 

16 there that was then removed carefully and 

17 gone. I can't prove that, you know, between -

18 - but it wasn't there in 1966, that's the 

19 truth.

20 MR. RAMSPOTT: About the same 

21 thickness as a stop sign piece of material.

22 MR. ALLEN: And hollow in between?
298

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 MR. RAMSPOTT: I'm sorry?

2 MR. ALLEN: Hollow in between?

3 MR. RAMSPOTT: No. Oh, no, it's 

4 one piece -- it's one thin piece of steel.

5 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Mr. Dutko, did 

6 you have another comment?

7 MR. DUTKO: I didn't want to 

8 interrupt anybody, sir. I'd like to comment 

9 briefly.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, go ahead.

11 MR. DUTKO: I left in November, 

12 late November of 1966. I promise you, there 

13 was not a double-leaf door on at that time. 

14 It was a red ribbon door.

15 Maybe I'm wrong, but I was there. 

16 There simply was not any doggone lead there, 

17 nor did anybody else I worked with ever see 

18 any lead or see evidence of it.

19 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Yes, I think 

20 we're agreeing that that's the direction we 

21 are going with this.

22 MR. DUTKO: I just wanted to make 
299

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 that clear, sir.

2 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thank you.

3 MR. KATZ: Thank you.

4 MEMBER BEACH: So Dave, are you 

5 going to -- your new model without the lead --

6 MR. ALLEN: I'm going to take the 

7 lead out of it.

8 MEMBER BEACH: Perfect.

9 DR. NETON: Get the lead out there.

10 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: We're all going 

11 to get the lead out.

12 (Laughter.)

13 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks, 

14 everyone. That's been very helpful, certainly 

15 for me, and we're going to --

16 MEMBER BEACH: So I have one other 

17 question. How soon do you think you can get 

18 the updated matrix to us, Bob?

19 DR. ANIGSTEIN: The matrix?

20 MEMBER BEACH: Yes.

21 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Maybe in a week.

22 MEMBER BEACH: Okay. Thank you.
300

NEAL R. GROSS

COURT REPORTERS AND TRANSCRIBERS

1323 RHODE ISLAND AVE., N.W.

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

1 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: So we have it as 

2 a reference when we are meeting, and then --

3 so we'll get those new numbers from Dave and 

4 Bob, we want you to take a look at Dave's 

5 final numbers too.

6 DR. ANIGSTEIN: Will do. I've got 

7 to rush out.

8 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks.

9 MEMBER MUNN: Safe travels.

10 MR. KATZ: I've got to rush too.

11 CHAIRMAN ZIEMER: Thanks. And Dan 

12 and John, thank you for coming. Appreciate it.

13 MR. RAMSPOTT: Thank you all for 

14 listening.

15 MR. KATZ: Thank you all, 

16 everybody, this was a great discussion. I'm 

17 glad I was here.

18 MR. KATZ: Thank you for coming, 

19 Dr. McKeel and Mr. Ramspott.

20 (Whereupon, at 2:58 p.m., the above-entitled 

21 matter went off the record.) 

22 
301

NEAL 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