should be used. In particular, new values for weighting organ doses have been defined in ICRP
Publication 60 (1991), a new lung model has been developed that provides a more realistic
basis for radioactivity retention and is described in ICRP Publication 66, and new dose
conversion factors are described in ICRP Publications 68 to 72. Federal Guidance Report 13
also provides additional guidance for metabolic information that has been adapted for the U.S.
population, rather than the ICRP Standard Man (ICRP Publication 23).

A note of caution is offered for dose reconstruction for workers with incomplete or missing
dosimetry records. For the transuranics, there are few in vivo (e.g., whole body or lung counts)
or in vitro (e.g., urine or feces samples) measurements for a majority of the workers. Prior to
1989, intakes of radionuclides into the body were not recorded as dose, but as body burden in
units of radioactivity of intake. As a result, few if any electronic databases will contain a
complete dosimetric history before 1989. Although hard copy internal dosimetry records may
be present at individual facilities, it will be difficult to verify or reconstruct these exposures.

Finally, comments are requested regarding the establishment and implementation of a process
whereby additional classes of workers are included in the Special Exposure Cohort. The NRC.
has stated previously that there is no need for a Special Exposure Cohort within the
compensation program. No epidemiological studies have been published for the workers at
the Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant. Studies published for workers at the Portsmouth
Gaseous Diffusion Plant indicate that no cancer death rate was greater than expected based on
the U.S. general population rates. Furthermore, no non cancer cause of death has a higher
rate than the U.S, general population rate. If a worker that is diagnosed with cancer, previously
worked at a DOE nuclear weapons facility, either was monitored for exposure to radioactive
material or can demonstrate the potential for such exposure, and demonstrates the cancer was
“at least as likely as not” related to employment at a DOE facility based on actual or
reconstructed personnel dosimetry, then this worker is entitled to compensation under the
provisions of the compensation program.


UNITED STATES JUN 1 2001
NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20555-0001

COPY FoR y;
May 31, 2001 INFORMATION ®

Mr. Larry J. Elliott (R-45)

Acting Director

Office of Compensation Analysis and Support
National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health
4676 Columbia Parkway

Cincinnati, Ohio 45226

Dear Mr. Elliott:

| am responding to your letter dated April 6, 2001, requesting comments and input-from the
U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) concerning the development of guidelines and
promuigation of regulations as specified in the Energy Employees Occupational lliness
Compensation Act of 2000 (Act) and Executive Order 13179. The Commission has previously
provided comments to the Office of Management and Budget on September 11, 2000
(Enclosure 1).

In addition, we are offering some technical comments and recommendations that may assist
you (Enclosure 2). It is my hope that these comments will be of assistance to you and your
staff. If additional information is desired, please contact Dr. E. Vincent Holahan at (301) 415-
8715 or via e-mail at evh @nrc.gov.

Sincere u/s oe) pee
(sala

Ash¢k C. Thadani, Director
Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research
Enclosures: as stated


NRC Comments on Draft Bill on
Energy Employees Occupational IIIness Compensation Act

The Commission understands that the proposed legislation is to provide additional
compensation programs to the men and women who served our nation in the nuclear weapons
complex and, in particular, to assure compensation ofthose workers who may have developed
illnesses from exposure to dangerous chemicals and radiation in the course oftheir
employment. We believe it is important that such legislation be consistent wth the sound
radiation standards that have been employed for protection of workers in a wide variety of
workplaces, including dental offices, medical centers, and industrial and defense facilities since
the 1950s. For example, the radiation standards established bythe Nuclear Regulatory
Commission are set at levels that are much lower than doses that would be likely to cause injury.

Thus, in our view, a provision for the compensation of radiation workers' illnesses should employ
criteria that reflect consideration of dose and causality. The use of the nation's resources for
new compensation programs should also be consistent wth sound health and radiation safety
standards, along with any special circumstances that can be integrated and justifed as a matter
of public policy. We believe that the provisions that would provide benefits to any worker at
gaseous diffusion plants who had one year of service, contracted a specified disease, and were
either monitored through the use of dosimetry badges, or received radiation exposures
comparable to those who had monitored jobs, should be evaluated with all these objectives in
mind.

Enclosure 1


Energy Employees Occupational Iliness
Compensation Act of 2000

The Energy Emploees Occupational Illness Compensation Act of 2000 (Public Law 106-398,
the “Act’) and the accompanying Executive Order 13179 of December 7, 2000, allocate the
responsibilities imposed by the legislation. In part, the Act directs the Secretary of Health and
Human Services to establish guidelines to assess the likelihood that a former Department of
Energy (DOE) contract worker diagnosed with cancer sustained the cancer in performance of
duty at a DOE facility and establish methods for arriving at and providing reasonable estimates
of radiation dose received by former workers applying for assistance.

Many of the provisions contained in the Act are based on provisions also contained in 38 CFR
Part 3, Section §3.311 “Claims based on exposure to ionizing radiation.” This Veterans Affairs
tule can be used as a template on which to base the National Institute of Occupational Safety
and Health (NIOSH) regulations. Furthermore, Section 3623 of Title 36--Energy Employees
Occupational Illness Compensation Program describes those conditions that shall be met
before an employee is determined to have sustained a cancer in the performance of duty.
Section 3623 specifies those guidelines that shall be used in the compensation program and
states that the upper 99 percent confidence interval of the probability of causation in the
radioepidemiological tables published under section 7(b) of the Orphan Drug Act (42 U.S.C.
241 note) will be used to demonstrate that the cancer was “at least as likely as not” related to
employment at a DOE facility.

The 1985 Radioepidemiology Tables are currently being revised by Dr. Charles Land, National
Cancer Institute. The tables will be replaced with an interactive computer program that
calculates “assigned share” or probability of causation for a individual provided that a complete
record of occupational doses received by the former worker is available. It would be prudent to
contact Dr. Land at (301) 496-6600 or landc@mail.nci.gov in order to familiarize NIOSH staff
with the type and format of dosimetric data required for each worker for whom an estimate of
the probability of causation is being sought. Although the 1985 Radioepidemiology Tables were
developed for use by the Veterans Administration to compensate military personnel, the dose,
dose rate, radionuclide exposure, and exposure pathways for occupational workers is not
analogous to data required for military personnel who were exposed to ionizing radiation during
nuclear weapons tests.

A major technical challenge will be reconstructing worker exposures for those situations where
occupational exposure records are incomplete. DOE does not require that radiological
dosimeters be issued to all workers. In general, only workers whose annual external radiation
exposure is expected to exceed 1 mSv (0.1 rem) is required to be badged according to DOE
regulations specified in 10 CFR 835. For example, an exposure assessment of workers at the
Paducah Gaseous Diffusion Plant, conducted by the University of Utah, observed that many
workers were not issued individual dosimeters because of a “failure to recognize the potential
for worker radiation exposure.” In other instances, workers failed to wear or lost the personnal
dosimeters issued to them.

When reconstructing worker exposure, the criteria and models for controlling and calculating
internal dose developed by the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP)

1 Enclosure 2