Department of Energy (DOE) - Office of Environment, Safety and Health
Comments on Interim Final Rule: Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 82,
Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction under the Energy Employee Occupational Illness

Compensation Program Act of 2000

42 CFR 82.10, table 1: The radiation weighting factor for high energy neutrons is 20. Current
radiation protection standards in the United States use a value of 10. In the introductory text, it
states that HHS will take an approach similar to that of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency
(DTRA). The DTRA does not use the newer neutron weighting factor of 20. They would need
additional review to validate the acceptability of using the newer value. The HHS approach
differs from the DTRA, and it should be consistent.

42 CFR 82.10(1): Add to this section that the draft of the dose reconstruction report will also be
sent to DOE for review and for any additional information that would enhance the dose
estimation.

42 CFR 82.16: A NIOSH publication is referenced (National Technical Information

Service (NTIS)-PB 95189601). This publication is not available from the NIOSH publication
website and must be purchased from NTIS. DOE recommends that NIOSH make this publication
available on their website.

42 CFR 82.19: The uncertainty associated with each estimate of annual dose for each organ will
be larger than the uncertainty of the dose for a longer period of time. This section, and others that
mention annual doses, should allow for the use of doses estimated for the total time from first
exposure to date of diagnosis when determining the total uncertainty.


Department of Energy (DOE) - Office of Environment, Safety and Health
Comments on Interim Final Rule: Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 82,
Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction under the Energy Employee Occupational Iliness

Compensation Program Act of 2000

3. The rule needs specifically to address the situation where an individual has a dose of record
for the organ/tissue of interest from DOE that is higher than that calculated by NIOSH using
newer models. This is especially critical for situations where the DOE dose of record would
qualify for compensation and the NIOSH calculated dose would not. It is recommended that
the DOE dose of record be used in these situations.

Specific Comments

II. B, paragraph 3: Provide a citation for the agreement under which it was determined that the
Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) would inform covered employees of the results
of dose reconstructions on behalf of DOE. This same comment applies to section 82.3(b).

IIL D, paragraph 2: Specific technical details of how complex dose reconstructions issues will be
determined, and assumptions made, should be provided.

Ill. G: The use of new biokinetic models for mathematically describing the uptake, transport, and
retention of radionuclides in the body is discussed. This part should also discuss the approach for
mathematically describing the uptake, transport, and retention of radionuclides in specific
organs/tissues/parts of body for which there is no accepted modeling (i.e., nervous system,
salivary glands etc.).

IX, table: DOE contractors and AWEs should be added to the number of respondents as well as
the number of hours they will require to provide NIOSH with the information needed to
reconstruct doses.

42 CFR 82.2 and 82.3: The language in these sections is somewhat conflicting and makes it
appear that there are no instances in which a dose reconstruction will not be performed, even if
monitoring data, as described in paragraph (a) of section 82.2, is adequate. These sections should
be combined and the situation described in 30 CFR 30.115(b) should be explained so it is clear
that the requirement for dose reconstruction by HHS may be waived when “there is clear evidence
showing a sufficient level of radiation exposure to qualify a claimant for benefits.” This would be
the case when the claimant’s “dose of record” provided by DOE is at a level that would result in
an award. Also, some of the language that appears in section III. F. might be helpful here.

42 CFR 82-10: Many claimants will be survivors of a covered employee. Section 82.10 should
explain that several paragraphs of this section might not apply to survivors who are filing claims.
For example, paragraph (c) of section 82.10 details the extensive interview NIOSH plans to use to
obtain all types of information but does not explain if such information is expected of survivors
who are filing claims.



Miller, Diane M.

From: Barbara.Halter@eh.doe.gov

Sent: Friday, November 02, 2001 2:39 PM
To: NIOCINDOCKET@CDC.GOV

Ce: Peter.O'Connell@eh.doe.gov
Subject: Comments on 49CFR, Part 82

42cfr82comments-e
mail.wpd

Attached are the DOE Office of Environment, Safety and Health comments on
subject interim final rule; hard copy will follow.

(See attached file: 42cfr82comments-email.wpd)


National Institute of Occupational Safety

and Health
Docket Office
Robert A.Taft Laboratories
Mail Stop C34
4676 Columbia Parkway
Cincinnati, Ohio 45226
Dear NIOSH Docket Officer:
This is in response to the October 5, 2001, Federal Register notification of the interim final rule
with a request for comments. Enclosed are the Department of Energy, Office of Environment,
Safety and Health, comments on interim final rule, Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
Part 82, Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction under the Energy Employee Occupational
Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000.

Sincerely,

Steven V. Cary
Acting Assistant Secretary
Office of Environment, Safety and Health

Enclosure



Department of Energy (DOE) - Office of Environment, Safety and Health
Comments on Interim Final Rule: Title 42 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 82,
Methods for Radiation Dose Reconstruction under the Energy Employee Occupational Illness

Compensation Program Act of 2000

General Comments

Il. Background
E. How is Dose Reconstruction Conducted

1,

The National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) dose reconstruction
methodology codifies an approach to dose reconstruction that differs from the current system
of radiation protection used in the United States. The draft NIOSH approach uses
International Commission on Radiological Protection recommendations that have not been
adopted in the United States, it proposes to estimate doses that cannot be measured by current
available technology, and it uses models for estimating the incidence of radiation induced
cancers that have not yet been incorporated into the currently accepted system for control of
radiation exposure.

While we support use of the latest scientific base for estimating the radiation dose and the
resulting “probability of causation,” we feel that the approach to dose reconstruction and
probability of causation, as specified in 42 CFR parts 81 and 82, unintentionally creates the
impression that the current system may not adequately protect radiological workers in the
United States.

Rather than stating that the approach is well grounded in the best available science, the
language needs to state more clearly that a very conservative approach is being taken in
assessing the potential doses. This conservative approach will minimize the possibility that a
claimant will be wrongfully denied compensation. The program is set up such that any
claimant whose cancer had a reasonable potential to have been caused by occupational
exposure to radiation will be compensated.

The rule needs to determine if any occupational radiation exposures occurred while not
employed by DOE, a DOE contractor, or an atomic weapons employee (AWE). This change
is needed to properly determine the probability that radiation caused a cancer and then to
determine the assigned share of that probability. For example, the dose received by an
“atomic veteran” while in the service may be too low, by itself, to earn compensation. When
added to subsequent DOE dose, it may qualify for compensation. Likewise, large exposures
from nongovernment activities need to be accounted for appropriately in determining the
assigned share. The rule should clearly describe how dose incurred while not a covered
employee will be treated.