Tri-Valley CAREs

Communities Against a Radioactive Environment
2582 Old First Street, Livermore, CA 94550 * (925) 443-7148 © Fax (925) 443-0177

Peace Justice Environment
October 31, 2001 since 1983

NIOSH Docket Office,

_ Robert A. Taft Laboratories; M/S C34
4676 Columbia Parkway 11-06-01 P01:02
Cincinnati, OH 45226

National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
Re: Tri-Vailey CAREs comments on EEOICPA dose reconsiruction

Tri-Valley CAREs (Communities Against a Radioactive Environment) was started in
1983 by a group of neighbors and laboratory workers of the Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory. We wish to submit the following information as part of the
Department of Labor’s (DOL) formal comment period regarding how dose
reconstructions will be done.

We strongly advocate for the integration of stakeholder and worker input throughout all
stages of dose reconstruction because conditions in and between facilities can vary so
significantly, as can the interaction of radiation with the worker’s body. Worker and
stakeholder input can help to customize what is measured and how it is measured to
ensure a higher level of dose reconstruction accuracy as opposed to standardized
measurements based on inadequate data. For instance, worker input could describe how
their exposure was due to carrying “hot” materials on their left side, yet their dose badges
were always pinned to their right pocket and, therefore, may not have recorded the
exposure.

We suggest that worker participation be coordinated through cooperation with the
union(s) and by using both one-on-one interviews and open meetings. Workers should be
able to provide an affidavit to NIOSH based on their knowledge and that is part of the
administrative record. Where significant data gaps exist for an individual, we hope that
NIOSH will group workers based on job categories, department or building information
to assist in dose estimation. Air monitoring data, dose badge re-reading, neutron
exposures, isotopes and ionizing radiations, radiation surveys, work practices, co-located
worker exposure data should all be considered in reconstructing the dose.

Past DOE conflict of interest problems would be detrimental if they resurface in
implementation of the current legislation. For that reason we recommend that individuals
or companies not be placed in the position of reviewing, re-estimating or needing to
critique their current or former radiation dosimetry work. If there is a potential liability
associated with radiation exposure or if the individual or company has been retained by


Tri-Valley CAREs comments — Pg. 2

the DOE or its contractors to serve as experts in ongoing litigation that involves radiation,
these individuals or companies should not receive contracts to perform dose estimates for
NIOSH.

The revised radioepidemiological tables and the supporting interactive computer program
(IREP) should be modified to address weaknesses. The tables need to be tailored to
better account for the experiences of workers in the nuclear weapons.complex. We
suggest tailoring tables to include results of epidemiological studies of workers so that the
tables reflect low-dose exposures typically received over a working lifetime and internal
exposure to alpha particles—the largest sources of radiation dose at many DOE sites.

There are assumptions built into the IREP model that need to be adjusted to truly reflect
the atomic bomb survivor data and the conditions at DOE nuclear facilities. One
assumption in the IREP model--the effectiveness of radiation at causing cancers decreases
at low doses—needs to be changed. In the analyses of the atomic bomb survivor data--
the quantitative basis for the tables—atomic bomb survivor data suggests that there is no
reduction in effectiveness at causing solid cancers at low doses. In addition, the
epidemiological tables are applied to workers who were exposed to alpha and neutron
radiation typical at the DOE facilities, not just gamma radiation, which was typically the
type of radiation exposure that atomic bomb survivors received. These incorrect
assumptions cause the IREP model to be programmed with a dose and dose-rate
effectiveness factor (DDREF) value that is distributed around 2 and which is too high for
solid cancers.

National Research Council studies published in the National Academy Press in 1999 of
exposure to alpha-radiation among miners suggest an inverse exposure rate effect (that is,
radiation effects were of larger magnitude when doses were accrued at lower does rates).
Also, an International Agency Research on cancer study published in 2000 concluded that
there is no evidence of a reduction in effectiveness of neutrons at low dose or low dose
rates, and that effects may be larger for neutron doses accrued at lower rates.

A 1997 study by the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements
suggests that the simple inflation of all doses by a fixed correction factor is an inadequate
assumption about the distribution of measurement error. The study suggests that further
investigation of measurement techniques for evaluating the contribution of the neutron
component of dose in each city, and at varied distances, is needed to understand the error
distribution.

The decision to divide the lung cancer radiation risk estimate approximately in half for all
workers who ever smoked should be questioned. We recommend that NIOSH apply the
multiplicative approach for all cancers. The assumption that a multiplicative relative risk
model is valid has been argued in much of the literature on radiation effects.


Tri-Valley CAREs comments — Pg. 3

Furthermore, the multiplicative model would give the benefit of the doubt to the claimant
in a situation where there is scientific uncertainty

The assumption built into the current radioepidemiological tables is that the probability
that an adult worker’s cancer was caused by radiation tends to be lower for workers
exposed at older ages than younger ages. Recent occupational epidemiological studies,
however, indicate the opposite is true. Richardson and Hoffman report in the
Occupational Medicine: State of the Art Reviews 2001 that older adults are more
vulnerable to the cancer causing effects of ionizing radiation than young adults. The
work of Kaplan and Haan in the 1999 Annual Review of Public Health and the work of
Cohen in Cancer published in 1994 find a similar pattern of increasing vulnerability in
later life in most studies of other chemical and physical hazards.

We hope that the recommendations and suggestions above will influence how dose
reconstruction will be done, the assumptions built into the radioepidemiological tables,
and the IREP model. Without these revisions we believe that many sick nuclear workers
will be denied compensation in direct conflict with the goals and objectives of the Energy
Employees Occupational Injury Compensation Program Act.

We appreciate the opportunity to provide our comments.

Sincerely,

OD

Marylia Kelley
Executive Director

MK:pao