Miller, Diane M.

From:
Sent:
To:
Subject:

Add Comments to
42CFR82.doc

Robert.Bistline@rf.doe.gov

Monday, November 05, 2001 11:08 AM
NIOCINDOCKET@CDC.GOV
Comments on 42CFR82

Attached are additional comments to the "Methods for Radiation Dose
Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation
Program Act of 2000; Interim Final Rule With Request for Comments”.

(See attached file: Add Comments to 42CFR82.doc)

Thank you for your consideration of our comments.

Robert W. Bistline, Ph.D., Program Manager
Oversite of Radiation Protection Program
U.S. Department of Energy

Rocky Flats Field Office
10808 Hwy. 93, Unit A
Golden, CO 80403-8200
Ph. : (303) 966-3408

FAX : (303) 966-4763

email : robert.bistline@rf.doe.gov



RFOF 1925.8

United States Government Department of Energy
Rocky Flats Field Office
memorandum

pate: 11/05/2001

REPLY TO
ATINOF: Robert W. Bistline, Ph.D.

suBJECT: | Comments on Proposed Rule 42CFR82
to: NIOSH Docket Officer

I wish to submit further comments to the Interim Final Rule on Methods for Radiation Dose
Reconstruction Under the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program
Act of 2000.

We are concerned with how NIOSH plans to use the existing Dose-of-Record at DOE
facilities for their Dose Reconstruction for Claimants under the Act. The questions below
concerning the use of site Internal Dosimetry data do not appear to be answered in
42CFR82,

Does NIOSH plan to use the Doses-of-Record that the facilities have recorded for their
workers that were calculated using the ICRP 26/30 model for internal doses?

How is NIOSH going to use the data for workers prior to 1989 when the ICRP 2 model was
used and internal doses were expressed as Body Burdens and Lung Burdens?

How does NIOSH plan to assess the Lung Dose for those individuals before Lung Counters
existed (this was 1964 for Rocky Flats)?

How does NIOSH plan to handle site Internal Dosimetry recorded before the ICRP 2 model
existed?

Does NIOSH plan to go back to the original Urine and/or Fecal.data and Lung Count data to
re-calculate the doses using ICRP 60/66 which will give lower internal doses than those of
record for these individuals? If this is done for each and every claimant, our experience
shows this will be a major under-taking.

When missing External Dosimetry data exists in worker’s files, why aren’t co-worker doses
used for assigning doses to workers? This is often more accurate than trying to reconstruct
from area survey data which may vary greatly within a process area.

We have concern where a worker who has had one of the listed cancers and has an internal
deposition of radionuclides must submit two claims; one claim for compensation review
under the dose reconstruction/probability of causation and the other under the physician
panel review process. Why can’t one claim be submitted and if the person does not qualify



under the dose reconstruction/probability of causation process, then sent to the physician
panel for review with consideration for the radiation combined with the various chemical
exposures.

Thank you for your consideration of these comments.

Robert W. Bistline, Ph.D., Program Manager
Oversite of Radiation Protection Program
U.S. Department of Energy

Rocky Flats Field Office