Miller, Diane M.

From: Bogard, Rhonda S. (XEB) [XEB@y12.doe.gov]

Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:56 PM

To: Robinette, Betty K. (BKR)

Ce: Barker, James H. (X6B) ; 'NIOCINDOCKET@cdc.gov’; 'sharon.evelin@hq.doe.gov'
Subject: FW: NIOSH comments

a |

comments.doc

Betty,
Attached are our comments on the 42CFR Part 81 and 82. | believe our
original cost comments still stand. Compared to the other requests we
receive, these require slightly less time to respond on an individual basis.
Unfortunately they compete for resources with FOIA,PA, Legal, and Routine
requests.
Thanks,
Rhonda

> -----Original Message-----

> From: Veinot, Ken G. (KED)

> Sent: Friday, March 01, 2002 12:39 PM
>To: Bogard, Rhonda S. (XEB)

> Subject: NIOSH comments

>

> <<comments.doc>>

>

>

rrererrerrrrcterrrrtry

> Ken Veinot

> Internal Dosimetry

> ked@y12.doe.gov

> Phone: (865) 241-6165

> Fax: (865) 574-1770

> Pager: (865) 417-6715
eretenvenrretrnn!

> “I'm a victim of circumstance" - Curly Howard
>


Thank you for allowing us to comment on the draft rule “Guidelines for Determining the Probability of
Causation Under the Energy Employees Occupational IIness Compensation Program Act of 2000” and
“Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness
Compensation Program Act of 2000". We provide the following comments:

oD)

2)

3)

4)
5)
6)

72)

8)

9)

The method for determining probability of causation has been thoroughly researched and should be
based on the best available science. A method for updating the process and knowledge is included.
We feel any updates to the method should be peer reviewed by an expert panel prior to inclusion and.
implementation. This includes any updates made to the 1985 radioepidemiological risk tables.

The method of determining probability of causation is favored toward the claimant through the use of
the 99" percentile of the confidence level. While this is justified, some portions in the dose
reconstruction process may be overly conservative. Some examples follow.

The method for performing dose constructions recommends that a dose dose-rate effectiveness factor
of 2 be used to compensate for supposed inverse dose rate effects of low-dose and low dose-rate
radiation, thereby increasing the risk associated with high-LET radiation under typical occupational
exposure scenarios. This enhancement factor is contrary to recommendations given in the
International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) publication 60. In fact, ICRP-60 (the
most recently approved ICRP publication relating to radiation risks) recommends reducing by a factor
of 2 the probability coefficients of high-LET radiation that have been obtained by extrapolation of
observations at high doses and high dose rates. The net result of this change is the increase of
radiation risk by a factor 4 above what the ICRP recommends.

We agree with the recommendations that annual doses be used for probability of causation
calculations.

Although some mention is given to latency effects, we believe additional documentation and
justification of modifications to risk estimates based on these effects is necessary.

Under current laws, radiation doses to workers are limited both by the Committed Dose Equivalent
(CDE) to any organ or tissue and the Committed Effective Dose Equivalent (CEDE). Since these
limits are based on recommendations from the ICRP, some consideration should be given to a
worker’s annual (or committed) dose relative to these limits. That is, if a worker did not exceed the
current regulatory limits during any year since their implementation, the probability of causation
should reflect the reduced likelihood that a cancer was caused by radiation. Since the ICRP
recommendations are a risk-based model, the limits derived from these recommendations provide
protection against stochastic effects.

No consideration appears to have been given to the recommendation of the Health Physics Society in
their letter dated May 2, 2001 which states “... there should be no compensation for persons whose
lifetime doses are less than approximately 0.1 Sv (10 rem). This relationship of increasing likelihood
of disease with increasing dose has only been observed for doses greater than approximately 0.1 Sv.
The likelihood of radiation-induced disease below this level, if it exists at all, is so small that it is not
measurable, it is not a matter of scientific fact, and it can only be estimated utilizing hypothetical
mathematical dose-response models."

Exposure assumptions differ for external monitoring based on the type of radiation. Neutron results
are treated as chronic exposures while photon results are treated as one time acute exposures. This,
presumably, is intended to minimize uncertainty with dose and dose-rate effectiveness factors for
photons as they are the reference radiation. Given the uncertainty surrounding the TLD results
(regardless of the radiation type), this seems unnecessary.

In the case of lung cancers, special risk models for radon are included. Exposure data for radon
models may not be readily available. What assumptions will be used since ambient radon levels differ
by geographic region?

10) More detail of the smoking risk model should be provided. Given that smoking has been shown to be

a carcinogen, it would seem that it would have a much higher risk associated with it than that of low-
level radiation exposures.


11) The board should recognize the limitations of some monitoring data, particularly older information.
These limitations include uncertainties associated with measurement results, techniques used, and
detection levels.

Records Information

1) For pre-1989 exposures modem internal dosimetry models may not have been used and doses were
typically reported in terms of percents of the radiation protection standards. Regardless, any organ
doses calculated using percent RPS methods are irrelevant since the newest ICRP-recommended
biokinetic and lung models will be used for dose reconstruction.

2) In general, worker monitoring data is easily retrievable. However, other requested data including
particle size studies, site characterizations, material solubility information, air sampling data, and
respiratory protection practices may be difficult to obtain.