ML23312A167

NRC-2016-000539 - RES Part 3_RELEASED Set

ML23312A167
Person / Time
Issue date:	11/06/2023
From:	NRC/OCIO
To:
References
NRC-2016-000539
Download: ML23312A167 (1)

Text

{{#Wiki_filter:From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 1 Sep 2015 13:45:47 -0400 To: Brock, Terry Subje ct: Sorry for sched confusion Thought I'd already blocked off the appropriate days in my Outlook Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell r )(6)

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 20 Jul 2015 06:11:18 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Study Progress? T'm out most of this week for the big exercise in SC, and l understand there's new indecision at the OD level about the path forward. Where are we at? Thanks. Sent from an N RC Blackberry tt Bum II (b)( )

From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: 29 Jul 2014 10:41:33 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

There be boxes here! Just received 34 of the 41 boxes. Want to come play in the paper?

From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: 27 Oct 2014 13:13:16 -0400 To: jheimberg@nas.edu;Kosti, Ourania (OKosti@nas.edu);Brock, Terry

Subject:

Two more NFS documents See below From: Davis, Donna Sent: Monday, October 27, 2014 12:09 PM To: Ramsey, Kevin

Subject:

Immediate Release Has Been Replicated - ML14297A289 - ML14297A288 View ADAMS P8 Properties ML14297A289 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Atomic Energy Commission - Redacted Environmental Measurements Around Nuclear Fuel Services July - October 1969.) View ADAMS P8 Properties ML14297A288 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Nuclear Fuel Services, Tnc., Redacted Description of Waste Management Program.) If you have any questions or require additional infonnation, you may contact the ADAMS Customer Support Center by sending an e-mail to ADAMS IM.

Thanks, Donna Davis NRC Document Processing Center

From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: Thu, 2 Oct 2014 16:35:28 -0400 To: Cardenas, Daniel;West, Garmon;Everly, JKeith;Johnson, Robert;Blamey, Alan;Erlanger, Craig;Bailey, Marissa Cc: Brock, Terry;Pinckney, David; Baughman, Adam CCIV SEA 08 NR l(b)(6) ll

Subject:

Update to Legacy Document Concern Attachments: smime.p7s Kevin Krogh in Naval Reactors informed me that the representatives attending the Fatigue Rule meetings scheduled for Tuesday in 3WFN are the same classifiers that would need to review the legacy documents. The current plan is to show them the legacy documents while they are here for the other meetings. It will allow them to get a better idea of the effort required .

From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: 22 Oct 2014 16:07:08 -0400 To: jheimberg@nas.edu;Kosti, Ourania (OKosti@nas.edu);Brock, Terry

Subject:

Updated table for NFS stuff Attachments: NFS Effluent Records Table for NAS Cancer Study.docx attached

Effluent Records for Nuclear Fuel Services (NFS Effluent Records Table for NAS Cancer Study.docx) Record Title ADAMS Public Record Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 2014 ML14251A017 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 2013 ML14057A396 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 2013 ML13254A069 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 2012 ML13064A286 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 2012 ML12249A027 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 2011 , Rev. 1 ML12059A303 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 2011 ML12055A051 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 2011 ML11249A064 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 2010 ML110610416 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 2010 ML102360147 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 2009 ML100700519 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 2009 ML092570831 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 2008 ML090710718 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 2008 ML082960743 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 2007 ML081500695 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Dec 2007 ML072670156 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 2006 ML070590627 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 2006 ML080510464 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 2005 Missinq Paqe ML061000099 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 2005 ML060590265 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 2005 ML060860092 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 2004 ML051150075 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 2004 Amendments ML051150066 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 2004 ML042600037 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 2003 ML040760278 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 2003 ML032720728 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 2002 ML030690609 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 2002 ML080510458 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 2001 ML020710079 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 2001 ML012490200 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 2000 ML010650462 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 2000 ML003746676 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1999 ML14260A302 SeAt te QPG Ql++J.M Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 1999 ML003670798 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1998 received from Legacy Library 10/7/14, paqe missinq Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 1998 ML14248A618 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1998 Additional Info ML14248A619 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1997 ML14248A617** 1

Record Title ADAMS Public Record Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1997 ML14248A616

                                                   ** amended in ML14248A617 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1996         Sent to DPC 10/10/14
                                                   ** amended in ML14248A617 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1996         ML14248A463
                                                   **amended in ML14248A617 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1995         ML14248A462
                                                   ** amended in ML14248A617 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 1995         ML14248A461 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1994         received from Legacy Library 10/7/14, to DPC 10/ 10/14 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1994         received from Legacy Library 10/7/14, to DPC 10/10/14 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1993         received from Legacy Library 10/7/14, to DPC 10/10/14 Biannual Effluent MonitorinQ Jan - Jun 1993         ML14248A460 Biannual Effluent MonitorinQ Jan - Jun 1993 Amended ** see Jan - Jun 1994 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 1992         ML14248A459 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1992         received from Legacy Library 10/7/14, to DPC 10/10/14 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 1991         ML14248A458 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1991         received from Legacy Library 10/7/14, to DPC 10/10/14 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1990         ML14260A301 SeAtte QPG Q,I ~ 7,1 ~ 4 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 1990         ML14251A300 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1990         received from Legacy Library 10/7/14, can't read Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1989         ML14260A300 SeAtte QPG Qt ~ +.1 ~ 4 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1989         ML14260A299 SeRt ta QPG Q,I ~ +t ~ 4 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1988         ML14251A299 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1988         ML14260A298 SeRt te QPG Q,1 ~ +t ~ 4 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1987         ML14260A297 SeAt te QPG Q,I ~ +t ~ 4 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 1987         ML14251A298 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1986         ML14251A297 Biannual Effluent MonitorinQ Jan - Jun 1986         ML14251A296 Biannual Effluent MonitorinQ Jul - Dec 1985         ML14251A295 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 1985         ML14251A294 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 1984         ML14251A293 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1984         ML14260A296 SaRtte QPG 9,I H,I ~ 4 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 1983         ML14251A110 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 1983         ML14251A109 2

Record Title ADAMS Public Record Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 1982 ML14251A108 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 1982 ML14251A107 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jul - Dec 1981 Not found Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1981 Not found Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1980 Not found Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1980 Requested from Legacy (8009090504, 80090905071 Library Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1979 Amended Requested from Legacy f80082804451 Library Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1979 ML14251A106 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1979 ML14251A105 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1978 Not found Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1978 Not found Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1977 !N ot found Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1977 Requested from Legacy f83081601651 Library Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1976 ML14251A104 Biannual Effluent Monitorinq Jan - Jun 1976 Not found Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jul - Dec 1975 ML14251A103 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Jan - Jun 1975 Not found Redacted Letter responding to Senator Sasser re: Possible ML14269A112 Discharge from NFS (dated 7/26/78) Tennessee Report of Monitoring Data (dated 8/30/76) To DPC 10/10/14 Redacted Report re: Stack Concentration Exceeding Limit To DPC 10/10/14 (dated 10/30/80) Stack Concentrations for June 1981 (dated 7/15/81) To DPC 10/10/14 Gross Alpha Analysis for Environmental Air Samplers To DPC 10/10/14 (dated 7/2 1/8 1) Concentrations Released from Main Stack (dated 4/24/84) To DPC 10/10/14 Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report for July-December 1986 To DPC 10/10/14 w/values not available in 2/2:7/87 report (dated 3/24/87) Evaluation of Possible Under-Reporting of Stack Effluent (dated To DPC 10/10/14 3/4/86) NPDES Permit Discharge Monitoring Report for February 1992 To DPC 10/10/14 (dated 3/13/92) Concentrations Released from Plant Stacks in November 1982 To DPC 10/10/14 (dated 12/14/82) Plans for Remediating Araes of Pond 4 Outside of Building 410 To DPC 10/22/14 (dated 2/8/95) Res12onse to Senator Sasser re: Constituent Concerns About To DPC 10/22/14 NFS (dated 11/4/92) 3

From: Milligan, Patricia Sent: 8 Apr 2015 15:20:16 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

what would you say The current status is of the pilot study? I am going to forward an email from Nancy McNamara our RLSO in Rg 1.

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 30 Dec 2014 07:16:26 -0500 To: Tapp, Katherine Cc: Brock, Terry;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

action/urgent - daily not e - Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning Report Release Importance: High

Katie, Can you put something together? Just a few sentences of summary including our next steps. Nol sure if Terry and Rebecca already had something prepared and if they are monitoring email. I'll look to sec if I have any information you can use.

Stephanie

---

Original Message-----

From: Sheron, Brian Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 6:55 PM To: Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie; West, Steven

Subject:

FW: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning Report Release See below. make sure we get a CA note upstairs ASAP. From: Interested parties list for activities pertaining to the Cancer Risk project [CANCERRTSKSTUDY@LSW.NAS.EDU] On Behalf Of Greenleaf, Toni [TGreenle@NAS.EDU] Sent: Monday, December 29, 2014 4:27 PM To: CANCERRISKSTUDY@LSW.NAS.EDU

Subject:

Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning Report Release DO NOT REPLY TO THIS EMAIL. IF YOU HA VE QUESTIONS PLEASE EMAIL CRS@nas.edu

Dear colleagues:

I am writing to inform you that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report titled aa:Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning,aLJ was posted on the National Academies Press website earlier today. You can download a free copy of the report here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog/ 18968/analysis-of-cancer-risks-in-populations-near-nuclear-facilities-phase. NAS had planned to release this report to the public at l 1:00 am on January 5, 2015. TodayaTMs early release was in error. Please accept my apologies on behalf of NAS if this early release has disrupted your holiday plans. Sincerely yours, Kevin Crowley Director Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board

From: Case, Michael Sent: 17 Aug 2015 12:17:21 -0400 To: Chen, Yen-Ju Cc: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Cancer Paper Revisions Hi Yen . Do you have a sample of how to portray the out year budget information in an enclosure so I can get it out to Terry? Thanks for your help (ita's almost over)!

From: Case, Michael Sent: 14 Jul 2015 11:33:58 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Tadesse, Rebecca;Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

Cancer Study: Alternative Conclusion Attachments: Alternate Cancer Study Conclusion Paragraph.docx Hi folks. Can you take a look at the attached? After your consideration, we can forward to Brian and Steve to support the ongoing discussion with Mike W.

Current SECY Conclusion Paragraph: CONCLUSION: After considering the three options above, staff felt the NCRP was a reasonable option to move forward. However, due to the current budget environment, the staff has decided to not move forward with this project at this time. The NRC staff initiated this project in an effort to be responsive to stakeholders concerns about cancer risks; however, the current budget environment has required the agency to prioritize its spending to focus on activities directly related to protecting public health and safety (e.g., inspections and licensing). The uncertainty in the NRC budget for the foreseeable future precludes the agency from spending any additional funds on this project. Alternate SECY Conclusion Paragraph: CONCLUSION: After considering the two NAS and NCRP approach the staff plans to proceed with the NCRP in updating the 1990 NCI study consistent with Commission budget guidance. NCRP would provide a final report in a shorter time frame with a known completion date and budget. The NCRP update will be less modest than what NRC asked NAS to consider in anew update, but a direct update would be adequate for staff to discuss cancer risks than pursuing the lengthy options of either NAS approaches. The staff may re-engage NAS to perform the case-control study design for follow-up research if deemed necessary after the NCRP update is complete. The staff estimates that the planned NCRP approach to the study will take 2-3 years to complete and will cost approximately $2 million dollars. For 2016, the Commission redirected contracting funds for the study to higher priority work. Therefore, the staff plans for 2016 will focus on formal estimates for the NCRP project and establishing the appropriate contracting vehicles. The staff planned for nominal funding to start the study in the operating reactor business line of the fiscal year 2017 budget. Funds to complete the study will be planned for the remaining years of the project through the Planning, Budget, and Performance Management process.

From: Case, Michael Sent: 14 Jul 2015 07:05:51 -0400 To: Tadesse, Rebecca;Brock, Terry Cc: Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

Cancer Study--Alternate ending Hi folks. Brian grabbed me late yesterday. His concern is that, as the paper stands today, it appears as if he is the one killing the Cancer study. Hea's uncomfortable with that because he thinks it is hard for him to explain why (in his $55M budget) he doesna't have money for this. He checked with Bill Dean and it seems Bill supports it. He also talked to Elliot and he thought it would be a PR fiasco if we didna't do it. So Brian and I discussed what an alternative ending to the paper could be. His alternative sounded a lot like the ending that we had before. I would like to noodle on that to see if we can pick up some of the items Brian mentioned and get that to him before he chats with Mike Weber. Can you send me a file with the arnCurrent Endingan and an acealternate ending (from the first paper) and we can mark it up with Briana's insights. Thanks (we must have sounded too convincing when we told Brian we could get the money. He really was convinced that we could, even in FY16)

OFFICIAl USE ONlY SENSITIVE INTERNAl INFORMATION COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS IN POPULATIONS LIVING NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES-PHASE 2 PILOT STUDIES Introduction The objective of this communication plan is to outline the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) strategy for communicating the goals and key messages regarding the agency's next steps of the NRG-sponsored Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities study. This plan specifically addresses the recommendations made by the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in the Phase 1 report which concluded in May 2012. Goals This plan will help the NRC continue effective communications with internal and external stakeholders regarding the continuation of the project by undertaking the following tasks:

• Promote effective communications with internal and external stakeholders in a timely, consistent, and understandable manner.
• Inform all stakeholders that NRC and NAS carry out studies using processes designed to promote independence, transparency, objectivity, and technical rigor.
• Identify opportunities for educating the public regarding the impact of nuclear facilities on cancer mortality and incidence risk for populations surrounding those facilities.

Key Messages The NRC will communicate the following key messages to all stakeholders:

1. In September 2013 the NRC directed the NAS to begin the second phase of a study on cancer mortality and incidence risks in populations living near seven NRG-licensed facilities. The NAS will create an up-to-date version of the 1990 U.S. National Institutes of Health-National Cancer Institute (NCI) report, "Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities-including a more thorough examination of cancer incidence.

2. In Phase 1, NAS developed approaches to evaluate cancer risks in populations living near NRG-licensed nuclear power and fuel cycle facilities. NAS developed methodological approaches for assessing offsite radiation dose and methodological approaches for assessing cancer epidemiology. The Phase 1 report identified two scientifically sound approaches for carrying out the assessment of cancer risks, and recommended a pilot study. The pilot study, referred to as Phase 2 Pilot, was recommended because of the technical challenges associated with carrying out QIPIPIGIAb ~SE QMb:V &EM&ITIVE IHT~RMAb IMIPQRMATIQH

QFFIGIAb ij&I! QNb¥ Sl!~~SITIVI! IHTll!RNAb INFQRMATIQN assessments of cancer risks in populations near nuclear facilities in the United States and it was not clear which approach would be best or if either approach could produce meaningful results.

3. The committee recommended carrying out the cancer risk assessment through two types of epidemiology studies-an ecologic study of multiple cancer types of populations living near nuclear facilities and a case-control study of cancers in children born near nuclear facilities. These two study designs combine dose assessments with the ability to analyze many different cancer types, while also specifically focusing on children's cancer in the case-control study.

4. The committee proposed pilot studies at seven sites to determine the feasibility of performing the study designs on a larger scale. The NRG accepted NAS' suggested pilot study sites:

• Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Morris, IL (2 BWRs, 1 BWR shutdown)
• Millstone Power Station, Waterford, CT (2 PWRs, 1 BWR shutdown)
• Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Forked River, NJ (1 BWR)
• Haddam Neck (decommissioned), Haddam Neck, CT (1 PWR)
• Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant (decommissioned), Charlevoix, Ml (1 BWR)
• San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, San Clemente, CA (2 permanently shut down PWRs, 1 decommissioned PWR )
• Nuclear Fuel Services, Erwin, TN (operating uranium fuel fabrication facility)

The committee selected these sites because they provide a good sampling of facilities in six states with different operating histories, population sizes, and levels of complexity in data retrieval from the state cancer registries .

5. The NAS study process is independent of NRG, transparent, objective, and technically rigorous, ensuring that the new study will be comprehensive and scientifically sound.

6. Following the pilot study, the NAS will provide a consensus report with the findings regarding the scientific feasibility of carrying out an assessment of cancer risks at additional U.S. NRG-licensed facilities. Staff will review the report and decide whether to proceed with Phase 2.

Appendix A provides responses to inquiries expected from the general public, congressional staff, the media, and other stakeholders. The appendices also include additional information for stakeholders who may be more familiar with these topics, such as elected officials, Federal and State Government officials, public interest groups, and certain members of the media.

Background

NRG regulations and licenses require each licensee to establish and maintain a program for monitoring radioactive effluents from their facilities. The regulations that govern these programs are Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 50.34a, - Design Objectives for

QFFIGIAb ij&I! QNb¥ Sl!~~SITIVI! IHTll!RNAb INFQRMATIQN Equipment to Control Releases of Radioactive Material in Effluents - Nuclear Power Reactors, 10 CFR Part 50.36a, -Technical Specifications on Effluents from Nuclear Power Reactors, and 10 CFR Part 50, -Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities, Appendix I, -Numerical Guides for Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation To Meet the Criterion 'As Low as Is Reasonably Achievable,' for Radioactive Material in Light-Water-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents. NRC regulations in 10 CFR Part 50.36a require licensees to report these effluents in an annual radioactive effluent release report. Regulations for fuel cycle facilities effluent reporting are found in 10 CFR Part 70.59, - Effluent Monitoring Reporting Requirements, and 10 CFR Part 40.65, - Effluent Monitoring Reporting Requirements. All of these regulations ensure that offsite doses to individual members of the public are a small fraction of the 10 CFR Part 20 - Standards For Protection Against Radiation limits specified in 10 CFR 20.1301 (a) and (e). The typical offsite doses to members of the public are generally less than 1% of the amount of radiation the average U.S. citizen receives in a year from all background sources. Nonetheless, some stakeholders have expressed recurrent concerns about the potential effect of these releases on the health of residents living near nuclear facilities. To help address these stakeholder concerns, the staff uses the 1990 NCI report and other more recent epidemiology 1 reports conducted by various State Health Departments when communicating on cancer mortality in populations near nuclear power facilities. The staff rel ies on credible health studies to augment its discussions about the NRC's robust regulatory programs to keep offsite doses as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA) by providing public health information that directly applies to the health outcomes that are often of concern (i.e., cancer). However, the 1990 NCI report is now more than 20 years old, and more modern analysis methods, combined with up-to-date information sources, will provide contemporary cancer information in current populations living near NRG-licensed nuclear facilities. The state reports are generally of good quality, but are limited in the number performed and facilities covered. As a result, several NRC offices sent a user-need request to the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research to update the NCI study. These epidemiological studies are not new or unique to the United States. Since 2008, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and Switzerland have all conducted epidemiology studies of populations near nuclear facilities within their borders to address public health concerns. Generally these studies did not find elevated cancer risks, and if they did (e.g ., Germany) the increased risk could not be attributed to the radiation released from the facilities. Accordingly, the staff chose to provide a grant to NAS to perform the study. NAS agreed to take a two-phase approach. In Phase 1, NAS performed a scoping study that developed two approaches to evaluate cancer risks in populations living near nuclear power and fuel cycle facilities licensed by the NRC. NAS developed methodological approaches for assessing offsite radiation dose and for assessing cancer epidemiology. For Phase 2, NAS will perform the cancer risk assessment using the methods developed in Phase 1 at all NRG-licensed facilities. Because these are new methods with expected low statistical power2 and different cancer data quality from state-to-state, NAS recommended pilot studies at 7 facilities to evaluate the feasibility of the Phase 1 methods. 1 Epidemiology is the study of the distribution of illness, injury, disability, and death within a population. 2 Statistical power tells the researcher how big of a sample size is needed to detect a health effect that can be attributed to a specific source. A study with too low statistical power is unlikely to be able to identify a health effect attributable to a specific source, even if it exists.

QFFIGIAb ij&I! QNb¥ Sl!~~SITIVI! IHTll!RNAb INFQRMATIQN The NRC accepted the NAS recommendations and asked the NAS to carry out the pilot study. NAS started the pilot planning phase in September 2013. The pilot study will have two steps: Pilot Planning and Pilot Execution. Planning activities include:

• Appointing the study committee;
• Identifying the processes for selecting qualified individuals and/or organizations to perform the technical tasks;
• Assessing the availability and quality of release and weather data;
• Investigating the use of existing dose-estimation models or the need to create a new model;
• Identifying state requirements for data sharing and transfer of health information;
• Obtaining Institutional Review Board approvals for the study, as appropriate; and
• Identifying key stakeholders and assessing their concerns, perceptions, and knowledge.

Pilot Execution phase activities include:

• Obtaining data on weather and nuclear facility airborne and waterborne releases turning the information into computer files that can be used for dose estimation;
• Using the computer model identified or developed in the planning phase to estimate absorbed doses to individual organs from monitored releases;
• Obtaining cancer incidence and mortality data at the census tract level to determine whether the population study can be carried out;
• Linking birth registration and cancer incidence data to identify eligible cases of childhood cancers and matched controls to determine whether the case control study can be carried out;
• Developing processes for public participation and for communicating with key stakeholders identified in the planning phase.

At the conclusion of the Pilot Execution step, the NAS will report its findings regarding the scientific feasibility and merit of carrying out a wider assessment of cancer risks near additional NRG-licensed facilities. The report will also include, if feasible, an analysis of cancer risks in the populations near the seven pilot facilities. NAS estimates the pilot study will take 2-3 years to complete. Staff will review the report and decide on proceeding with Phase 2 for the balance of the operating nuclear power plants and fuel cycle facilities. Audience/Stakeholders Internal External

• Commission
• Congress
• Office of the Executive Director for
• Federal agencies Operations (OEDO)
• Institute for Nuclear Power Operations
• Advisory Committee on Reactor
• Electric Power Research Institute Safety (ACRS)
• Nuclear Energy Institute
• Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
• Conference of Radiation Control
• Office of Congressional Affairs Program Directors (OCA)
• Organization of Agreement States
• Office of International Programs (OIP)
• Agreement States
• Office of Public Affairs (OPA)
• news media (e.g., Inside NRG)
• Office of Nuclear Regulatory

QFFIGIAb ij&I! QNb¥ Sl!~~SITIVI! IHTll!RNAb INFQRMATIQN Research (RES)

• International Atomic Energy Agency
• Office of New Reactors (NRO)
• nuclear regulators of other countries
• Office of Nuclear Reactor
• residents living near nuclear power Regulation (NRR) plants
• Office of Nuclear Security and Incident
• State and local governments Response (NSIR)
• public interest groups (e.g., Union of
• Office of Federal State Materials and Concerned Scientists)

Environmental Management Programs

• academic and professional (FSME) organizations (e.g. , Health Physics
• Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Society, American Nuclear Society)

Safeguards (NMSS)

• NRC licensees
• Regions I-IV
• International Organizations (e.g. , NEA, IAEA, ICRP)
• Foreign governments of countries with similar facilities Communication Team The Communication Team will assist the Team Leader as needed in developing uniform and accurate messages, initiating communication vehicles, and coordinating implementation plans for this project. The members of the Regional Communication Team will be responsible for coordinating communication within their regions.

PS2&iii!2D t:ia..m.i nrtiani7:atirm Tolo"honP- Numhor Team Leader Terry Brock RES 301) 251-7487 NMSS Lead Marilyn Diaz NMSS 301) 287-9068 NRR Lead Steven Garry NRR 301) 415-2766 NRO Lead ean-Claude Dehmel NRO 301) 415-6619 NSIR Lead rTrish Milligan NSIR (301) 415-2223 Reqion I Lead Ron Nimitz RI 610) 337-5267 Region II Lead Gena Woodruff Rll 404) 997-4739 Reqion Ill Lead ohn Cassidy Riii 630) 829-9667 Region IV Lead Don Stearns RIV 817) 200-1176 State Liaison Lead une Cai FSME 301) 415-5192 Legal Lead Beth Mizuno OGC 301) 415-3122 Public Affairs Lead Scott Burnell OPA 301) 415-8204 International Programs !Andrea Jones OIP 301) 415-2309 Conqressional Affairs Gene Dacus OCA 301) 415-1697 Congressional Affairs Uenny Weil OCA 301) 415-1691 OEDOLead Lance Rakovan OEDO 301) 415-2589 Communication Tools Pe&crjptjoa/Pymo&e NRG External Web Site The NRC's external website will provide links to the NAS study web page, to the NCI Web page and to other related publicly available documents.

QFFIGIAb ij&I! QNb¥ Sl!~~SITIVI! IHTll!RNAb INFQRMATIQN Internal Briefings The Communication Team will conduct internal briefings at various points in the process to keep internal stakeholders informed of its activities and messages. Weekly Highlights and EDO Daily Notes The weekly highlights and/or EDO Daily Notes will report on significant milestones. Internet E-Mail The Communication Team will e-mail significant information on the status of the study and deliverables to internal stakeholders. Commissioners' Assistants Notes Commissioners' Assistants Notes will be used to communicate information about public meetings, study status, and other items of significant interest oescrj pti ontpu rpose Commissioner Interactions The Communication Team will coordinate and assist in preparing briefing materials for the interactions of Commissioners with various stakeholders. Public Meetings If necessary, public meetings could be held to discuss the final study report after NAS has briefed the staff and/or Commission on the findings and a Commission-approved message has been developed. Issuance of Significant Correspondence The project manager will coordinate the issuance of correspondence with key internal and external stakeholders. The Communication Team will coordinate with OPA when preparing press releases and interacting with the media. Congressional Communications OCA will coordinate all communication with Congress. Media Communications OPA will coordinate all communication with the media. Communications Activities Activity Responsibility Date Planned Press Release on Pilot Study Award RES/OPA Sept. 2013

QFFIGIAb ij&I! QNb¥ Sl!~~SITIVI! IHTll!RNAb INFQRMATIQN NAS Committee Selection NAS Nov. 2013 Kick-off presentation RES Dec.2013 Presentations at future meetings RES/NRC staff TBD Press Release of Planning Phase RES/OPA Sept. 2014 Results Press Release on Start of RES/OPA Dec.2014 Pilot Execution Phase Communicate pilot study results NAS/RES/OPA May. 2016 NRC evaluates the results of the RES/NRC Staff Dec.2016 pilot study and decides whether or not to continue with the next phase. Communication Challenges The Communication Team is likely to encounter challenges in the following two areas while implementing this plan: (1) Effective Communication with the General Public This study and its results will be of significant interest to the general public, particularly those members of the general public who live within the areas analyzed in the study. All NRC-produced materials must take into account the limited technical background of some stakeholders and the sensitivity of issues relating to cancer. In addition, various stakeholder groups have expressed concern with perceived elevated cancer risks in populations that live near nuclear facilities. (2) Public Perceptions of the NRC and the NAS Communications regarding this study should address the frequent misconception among some stakeholders that the NRC promotes the use of nuclear power (i.e., to generate electricity). In addition, communication efforts must stress the NAS was established by Congress to provide scientific information and advice to the government, and that any NAS report will be independent of the NRC and reflect the Academy's best judgment. Updates and Revisions If major revisions to this plan or its key messages are necessary, the Team Leader will ensure that a formal revision is made and placed in the Agencywide Documents Access and

QFFIGIAb ij&I! QNb¥ Sl!~~SITIVI! IHTll!RNAb INFQRMATIQN Management System and on the internal communications Web page. The Team Leader will also determine the need for updates to the questions and answers in Appendix A to this plan. These updates will not constitute a revision to this plan. As needed, the Communication Team will assess the degree of success that key messages and talking points have with the target stakeholder audience, and will modify/adjust the key messages as necessary. The Team Leader will brief key staff as needed regarding revisions to the messages, talking points, or guidance based on immediate concerns or questions asked by the stakeholder audience. Final Closeout At the conclusion of the study, the Team Leader will prepare a brief closeout statement about the challenges and successes related to the communication plan and attach it to the end of the last revision.

Appendix A Questions and Answers Q1 . Why has the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) asked the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to conduct this study now? A 1. This study will provide the NRC staff with the most current scientific information for responding to stakeholder concerns related to cancer mortality and incidence rates for populations that live near past, present, and proposed nuclear power facilities. The NRC staff has used a 1990 study conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), "Cancer in Populations Living near Nuclear Facilities," as a valuable risk communication tool for addressing stakeholder concerns about cancer mortality attributable to the operation of nuclear power facilities. However, the NCI report is over 20 years old and a new study needs to be performed to reflect the current populations living near nuclear power facilities. In addition, the analyses in the NCI report focus on cancer deaths, and the general public is often also interested in cancer incidence (e.g., being diagnosed with cancer, but not necessarily dying from the disease). Therefore, the NAS project will also assess cancer incidence in addition to mortality. Q2. Why is NAS, rather than NCI, conducting this follow-up study to NCl's 1990 work? A2. The NRC staff approached NCI management about performing a new study under contract to the NRC, but because of staffing limitations, NCI was unable to commit resources for this activity for the foreseeable future. NAS will draw its project team from a wide range of technical experts, which could include NCI members. Q3. Which seven sites will be included in the pilot study? A3. The pilot sites to be included in the pilot study are the Dresden Nuclear Power Station in Illinois, the Millstone Power Station in Connecticut, the Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station in New Jersey, the Haddam Neck in Connecticut (decommissioned), the Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant in Michigan (decommissioned), the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in California (permanently shut down), and the Nuclear Fuel Services facility in Tennessee. Q4. Which additional nuclear facilities could be included in the study? A4. The NRC could ask NAS to study all NRG-licensed nuclear power reactors and fuel cycle facilities (e.g., fuel enrichment and fabrication plants) that are or were in operation in the United States, however this will depend on the results of the pilot studies and NRC staff review. The 1990 NCI report included all 52 commercial nuclear power facilities in the United States OfflCIAb USE ONbY SENSITIVE INTERNAb INFORMATION

that that started operation before 1982. Preliminary information indicates that 25 new reactor sites have begun operation since 1982. The 25 new reactor sites will also be included in the study. Researchers are identifying the study and control populations for these sites for inclusion in the cancer mortality study. QS. How does the NAS project consider cancer incidence (occurrence)? A5. The NAS is expected to gather cancer incidence data from individual States health databases. When NCI conducted its 1990 study, cancer incidence information was only available for counties adjacent to four facilities located in Iowa and Connecticut. The limited cancer incidence data for these counties resembled the counties' mortality data patterns. Q6. Does the NRC suspect that cancer mortality rates are elevated around nuclear power plants? A6. The staff does not believe the low doses from th e routine operations of NRG-licensed facilities would result in observable elevated rates of cancer in the populations. The NAS Phase 1 committee's decision to not calculate sample sizes based on actual off-site doses confirms the staff position that at the low offsite doses from these facilities, researchers would not expect to observe any increased cancer risks in the populations surrounding these facilities attributed to the regulated release of radioactive effluents. Nevertheless, the staff believes that despite these potential limitations and expected outcomes, the studies would be helpful to address public health concerns and are therefore still worthwhile to pursue. Q7. How can I be sure that the nuclear power plant is not causing cancer? If I lived near a power plant, how might I be exposed to radiation? For example, if my house is 2 miles away from a reactor, am I being exposed whenever I am at my house? A?. In the previous study NCI found no increased risk of cancer in those people who lived in counties near nuclear *facilities. Nuclear facilities release very small regulated amounts of radioactivity, at very slow rates into the environment. The amounts released are strictly controlled within limits set by the NRG and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any exposures that may occur are below the established safety limits. The radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants only contribute a very small fraction (1/10001h) of our yearly total radiation exposure (approximately 0.1 percent). For comparison, your radiation exposure from natural radiation sources in soil and rocks, radon gas in homes, radiation from space, and other sources that are naturally found within the human body contributes to approximately 50 percent or 500 times more radiation than from nuclear facilities. The other half of your yearly exposure (also 500 times more rad iation than nuclear facilities) is from man-made sources, such as consumer products, medical procedures, and to a much lesser extent, industrial sources. OfflCIAb USE ONbY SENSITIVE INTERNAb INFORMATION

QB. Which age groups are included in the study? A8. The NRC expects the NAS pilot study project to analyze cancer incidence and mortality rate data for the following age groups: 0-4 years, 5-9 years, 10-19 years, 20- 39 years, 40-59 years, and 60 years and older. Q9. Will the study address cancer rates from leukemia in children near nuclear facilities? A9. Yes. The study will address leukemia in all age groups, including children (0-5 years). Q10. Why are children looked at specifically in the case-control study? A 10. Children exposed to radiation tend to be more sensitive to cancer effects than adults and any health effect should show up in this population first. Q11. I live near a nuclear power plant and my husband died of cancer. Will this study prove that living near the plant caused the cancer? A 11. No, the study is designed to survey trends in populations and does not evaluate the cause of individual cases. However, the study does give us an indication if the cancer rates of populations near nuclear facilities are the same, greater, or less than what is expected. Q12. Are such studies able to detect population health effects from industrial sources? A 12. Yes. NCI has effectively used county-based studies in the past to study cancer mortality rates. For example, NCI has used county-based studies to show elevated rates of lung cancer deaths in counties with shipyard industries and in counties with arsenic-emitting smelters and refineries. Q13. Were past studies, such as the French and German studies on childhood leukemia and radiation from nuclear power plants, being considered? A 13. Yes, these studies were considered by the phase 1 expert committee when writing their recommendations in the phase 1 report, in addition to other international studies. Q14. Why do some local cancer studies around some nuclear plants show increased cancer rates and some show no increase? A 14. Numerous local cancer studies that have been performed by local groups near nuclear plants show an increase in cancer. These local studies are sometimes based on small populations or groups and may or may not be influenced by local confounding factors, such as eating habits, cigarette smoking, and chemical exposures. In addition, some studies may not be using scientifically accepted epidemiology methods and as such may not be credible. Any local cancer studies should be submitted to the State Health Department, or possibly to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and OfFICIAb USE ONbY SENSITIVE INTERNAb INFORMATION

Disease Registry. However, the NRC has evaluated the radiation levels from radioactive effluents and radiation from nuclear power plants and found that the levels are very low. Therefore, even with a conservative linear, no-threshold assumption, the corresponding cancer risk is very low. Q15. Where can I find the NAS protocols on the s.tudy process, including committee selection and technical reviews? A 15. The NAS study protocols (http://www.nationalacademies.org/studyprocess/index.html ) include procedures for member selection and rigorous review of the project's findings. Q16. How will the NRC consider this resulting data in new reactor reviews and relicensing decisions? A 16. The NRC will use the results of the study to answer recurring questions from our stakeholders during the public comment period for regulatory actions. If necessary the results could prompt further review of both new reactor and existing regulations to ensure the effluent and direct radiation exposure dose limits adequately protect public health and safety. Q17. What will the NRC do if the results indicate an increase in cancer risk in some populations that live near a specific nuclear facility? A 17. While the NAS project is still ongoing, the NRC expects any increases in cancer risk will first be assessed against the levels of radiation dose attributable to strictly regulated radioactive materials released during plant operation, as well as any public radiation dose that might result from the releases. This data would assist NAS in examining any relationship between the study results and potential radiation exposures of the public at individual plants. Furthermore, the public radiation doses from operating plants are significantly below the radiation safety dose limits set to protect the public and are a small fraction of dose received from natural background. If there continues to be a concern then more refined epidemiology studies can be performed (e.g., case-control study). Q18. I live near a nuclear power plant or in near of the proposed pilot study sites. Will I be contacted during this study for information? Will my family or personal medical information be protected during this study or during a cancer incidence study? A 18. The NAS study process includes opportunities for the public to contribute, but the data used in this study will be obtained from anonymous state and national sources. These data do not contain personal identifying information making it impossible to determii ne to whom the medical information belongs. OfflCIAb USE ONbY SENSITIVE INTERNAb INFORMATION

Q19. Why did the NRC switch from Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU) to NAS as a study provider after one year of work? A 19. The staff has reconsidered using ORAU to do the work due to the possibility of high public interest in the topic and the importance of the project to the agency. The decision not to use ORAU was not an indication of any deficiencies in the technical quality of ORAU's work, but more of ensuring that the investigator brings a broad social and national policy perspective to the study. As such, the staff chose the NAS to perform the study. Q20. What is the status of the project and how will the NRC decide on the next step and has funding been reserved? A20. NAS released the phase 1 report on March 29, 2012. The staff reviewed the report and communicated to the Commission in SECY-12-0136 that staff will pursue the NAS recommended approach to perform pilot studies at 7 sites. The pilot study is being performed in two steps: pilot planning and pilot execution. NAS started the pilot planning phase in September 2013 and will be completed in one year. At the conclusion of the Pilot Execution step, the NAS will report its findings regarding the scientific feasibility and merit of carrying out a wider assessment of cancer risks near additional NRG-licensed facilities. NAS estimates the pilot study will take 2-3 years to complete. At the conclusion of the pilot study, the staff will review and consider the report recommendations and stakeholder comments to determine whether to analyze additional facilities. The OPA backgrounder for the study can be found on the NRC website at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/bg-analys-cancer-risk-study.html. Q21. How does the NRC ensure the validity of the licensee's reporting of off-site doses and environmental monitoring results? A21. The licensee is required to establish, implement, and maintain an acceptable effluent and environmental monitoring program. As such the licensee has the primary responsibility to ensure conformance with all applicable requirements in the area of effluent and environmental monitoring. The NRC performs selective inspections of the program to validate that the licensee is implementing such a program and that public doses are maintained well below regulatory requirements and are in fact as low as reasonably achievable. The following points illustrate this approach:

1) NRC has impose*d strict regulatory requirements for conduct of both station effluent monitoring control and environmental monitoring. These requirements are designed to ensure licensee doses to members of the public are well below regulatory limits and are as low as reasonably achievable. Consequently, licensees are obligated to establish, implement, and maintain programs to sample, monitor, evaluate, and control effluents. The licensee is also required to collect and analyze environment samples to detect activity associated with facility operations. The sampling program OfflCIAb USE ONbY SENSITIVE INTERNAb INFORMATION

is designed to review exposure pathways and sampling results. The environmental monitoring program is designed to provide a check on the station effluents control program.

2) The NRC has established reporting requirements that require the licensee to report effluent and or environmental monitoring issues as established in program requirements. NRC initiates appropriate reviews and evaluation of the reports and conducts follow-up inspections as appropriate.

3) The NRC conducts routine inspections in a variety of ways. The NRC maintains an onsite resident inspection staff that selectively and routinely reviews on-going activities to become aware of issues that may impact effluent or environmental monitoring including public dose. For example the residents review corrective action documents to evaluate potential impact on the effluents control program. The residents also review radiation monitors for indication of releases. During their inspections residents also look for potential unmonitored release paths.

4) The NRC also uses specialist inspectors, independent of the resident staff, to conduct periodic onsite inspections of both effluent release and environmental monitoring programs to ensure the licensee conforms with applicable requirements.

As part of this review, NRC inspectors also review ground water controls. The inspectors evaluate the adequacy of quality assurance of measurements to ensure they are of appropriate quality and that the licensee is implementing a robust quality assurance program.

5) The NRC routinely reviews secondary evaluations conducted as part of the licensees' quality assurance programs (e.g., audits and assessments) as well as independent measurements conducted by other regulatory entities (e.g., state monitoring programs).

6) In addition, and as necessary, the NRC conducts independent confirmatory sampling to validate the accuracy of licensee measurements.

7) Information provided to the NRC by a licensee must be complete and accurate in all material respects. Submitting falsified information to the NRC is considered a violation of the regulations and will have severe implications. (For additional information, please refer to the Enforcement Policy.)

Q22 . How does SONGS shutdown status impact its participation in the pilot study? A22. The SONGS shutdown will not impact its participation in the pilot study. Thefacility has a long operating history and past exposures can still be evaluated and provide useful input to the pilot study effort. OfFICIAb USE ONbY SENSITIVE INTERNAb INFORMATION

Q23. Where can the public find more information on the study? A23. NAS has a study website at http://dels.nas.edu/global/nrsb/CancerRisk NRC's fact sheet on the study can be found at http://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/fact-sheets/fs-analys-cancer-risk-study.html. Staff's communication with the Commission on the status of the study at http://www.n rc.gov/reading-rm/doc-collections/commission/secys/2012/2012-0136scy.pdf OfFICIAb USE ONbY SENSITIVE INTERNAb INFORMATION

ML13274A664 OFFICE RES/DSA/RPB RES/DSA/RPB BC:RES/DSA/RPB R:RES/DSA D:RES NAME S. Hawkins T. Brock S. Bush-Goddard K. Gibson B. Sheron DATE 10/02/13 10/29/13 11/04/13 11/04/13 11/22/13 From: Case, Michael Sent: 12 Jan 2015 08:58:40 -0500 To: Sheron, Brian;West, Steven Cc: Coffin, Stephanie;Tadesse, Rebecca;Brock, Terry

Subject:

FW: 1990 NCI County Cancer Study Cost FYI. I think this was one of our look ups from our interactions on the Cancer Study last year. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 9:49 AM To: Case, Michael Cc: Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

1990 NCI County Cancer Study Cost Hi Mike I spoke to Dr. John Boice and he estimated it took the National Cancer Institute 2-3 years and about $1,000,000 in todaya's dollars (-$500k in 1990) to complete the original county-based ecologic cancer study. The study was primarily intramural research within NCla's Radiation Epidemiology Branch--John was Chief at the time so the estimate is probably pretty reasonable. Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487

From: Bush-Goddard, Stephanie Sent: 22 Feb 2012 16:20:14 -0500 To: Brock, Terry Cc: Tomon, John;Humberstone, Matthew;Diaz, Marilyn

Subject:

FW: ACTION: Concurrence needed - ACTION: Cancer Risk Study - Phase 1 Attachments: 120216_RLC_RLC Comments on the cancer study_Fact Verification.docx A gift for Terry. -Steph From: Pope, Tia Sent: Wednesday, February 22, 2012 4:18 PM To: Bush-Goddard, Stephanie

Subject:

FW: ACTION: Concurrence needed - ACTION: cancer Risk Study - Phase 1 From: Shoop, Undine Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:25 PM To: Pope, Tia Cc: Cruz, Holly; Richards, Karen

Subject:

FW: ACTION: Concurrence needed - ACTION: cancer Risk Study - Phase 1 Tia , Please see attached comments from AHPB. Undine From: Giitter, Joseph Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:23 PM To: Shoop, Undine; Lee, Samson; Pope, Tia Cc: Richards, Karen

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Concurrence needed - ACTION: Cancer Risk Study - Phase 1 Undine-The comments look good to me. From: Shoop, Undine Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2012 6:14 PM To: Giitter, Joseph; Lee, Samson Cc: Richards, Karen

Subject:

ACTION: Concurrence needed - ACTION: Cancer Risk Study - Phase 1 Importance: High Joe and Sam, AHPB reviewed the document and has several comments which are provided in the attached. If you agree, please forward this to Tia Pope. This is due on the 22. In the below e-mail it

indicates that a YT would be assigned to this but I do not recall and cannot find a YT for this action. Undine From: RidsNrrMailCenter Resource Sent: Friday, February 10, 2012 4:46 PM To: RidsNrrDra Resource Cc: Shoop, Undine; Heida, Bruce

Subject:

ACTION: Cancer Risk Study - Phase 1 Attached is an action item from RES seeking NRR comments on NAS Report "Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities - Phase 1," by February 22, 2012. I will issue the yellow ticket once the TAC number has been assigned.

Thanks, Patti From: Pope, Tia Sent: Friday, February 10, 20124:10 PM To: RidsFsmeOd Resource; RidsNrrMailCenter Resource; RidsNmssOd Resource; Brock, Terry

Subject:

Cancer Risk Study - Phase 1

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 27 Aug 2015 16:05:33 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

FW: Cancer Study Press Release Attachments: Cancer _study_end.docx This looks better to me - what do you think? From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 3:50 PM To: Sheron, Brian <Brian.Sheron@nrc.gov> Cc: Coffin, Stephanie <Stephanie.Coffin@nrc.gov>; Case, Michael <Michael.Case@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven.West@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE : Cancer Study Press Release I've incorporated the high points from our conversation. How's this version look? From: Sheron, Brian Sent : Thursday, August 27, 2015 2:47 PM To: Burnell, Scott <Scott.Burnell@nrc.gov> Cc: Coffin, Stephanie <Stephanie.Coffin@nrc.gov>; Case, Michael <M ichael.Case@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven.W est@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Cancer Study Press Release We've got comments. Changes needed before I can concur.

SRB G:\DPR\HQ Draft PRs\Cancer_ study_end.docx 8/27/2015 3:36 PM OPA DRAFT (Source: RES) NRC ENDS WORK ON NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES CANCER RISK PILOT STUDY The NRC is ceasing work [link to SECY page if this hnk isn' t live] on a National Academy of Sciences {NAS) pilot study of cancer risks in populations near U.S. nuclear power facilities. The NRC determined that continuing the work was impractical, given the significant amount of time and resources needed and the agency's current budget constraints. The NRC continues to find U.S. nuclear power plants comply with strict requirements that limit radiation releases from routine operations. The NRC and state agencies regularly analyze environmental samples from near the plants. These analyses show the releases, when they occur, are too small to cause observable increases in cancer risk near the faci lities.

       " We' re balancing the desire to provide updated answers on cancer risk with ow- responsibility to use Congressionally-provided funds as wisely as possible," said Brian Sheron, director of the NRC's Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research. "The NAS estimates it would be at least the end of the decade before they would possibly have answers for us, and the costs of completing the study were prohibitively high."

The NAS, while stating the study's approach was scientifically sound, bas repeatedly described significant challenges to completing the project. Most importantly, the latest NAS proposal said: "any data collected during the pilot study will have limited use for estimating cancer risks in populations near each of the nuclear facilities or for the seven nuclear facilities combined because of the imprecision inherent in estimates from small samples." The NAS proposed study methods are available in public reports on Phase l and Phase 2 of the effort to date. Page 2 J

From: Brock, Terry Sent: 9 Sep 2015 16:54:42 +0000 To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

FW: CONFIRMATION - Letter to NAS FYI: Open ADAMS P8 Document (Letter to K. Crowley for ending the "Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities") From: Weber, M ichael Se nt: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:41 PM To: Sheron, Brian <Brian.Sheron@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven.West@nrc.gov> Cc: Case, Michael <Michael.Case@nrc.gov>; Coffin, Stephanie <Stephanie.Coffin@nrc.gov>; Tadesse, Rebecca <Rebecca .Tadesse@nrc.gov>; Rosales-Cooper, Cindy <Cindy.Rosales-Cooper@nrc.gov>; Foster, Jack <Jack.Foster@nrc.gov>; Chen, Yen-Ju <Yen-Ju.Chen@nrc.gov>; Rihm, Roger

<Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>

Subject:

CONFIRMATION - Letter to NAS OCA shared your letter to NAS with our Congressional contacts. From: Weil, Jenny Sent: W ednesday, September 09, 2015 12:30 PM To: Weber, Michael <Michael.Weber@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: RESPONSE - Letter to NAS Hi Mike, we did pass along the letter to the Hill. From: W eber, M ichael Se nt: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 9:28 AM To: Weil, Jenny <Jen ny.Weil@nrc.gov> Subje ct: RESPONSE - Letter to NAS Sure thing. Can you inform me when we have shared with the Hill? From: Weil, Jenny Se nt: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 9:25 AM To: Weber, Michael <Michael.Weber@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: ACTION - Letter to NAS Thanks Mike! From: Weber, M ichael Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:56 AM To: Dacus, Eugene <Eugene.Dacus@nrc.gov>; Colgary, James <James.Colgarv@nrc.gov> Cc: Weil, Jenny <Jenny.Weil@mc.gov>; Decker, David <David.Decker@nrc.gov>; Rihm, Roger

<Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>

Subject:

ACTION - Letter to NAS

Good morning, Gene and Jim. Big day for the hearing this morning. Attached is the letter that Brian Sheron sent to the National Academy of Sciences today (I thought he had signed it yesterday, but apparently it was not sent, following his discussion with NAS yesterday morning). Please share the letter with our oversight and appropriations committees for their awareness. Thanks

From: Sheron, Brian Sent: 19 Aug 2015 18:00:21 -0400 To: Case, Michael;Coffin, Stephanie;Tadesse, Rebecca;Brock, Terry

Subject:

FW: FYI - CONCLUSION FOR THE NATIONAL CANCER RISK SECY PAPER FYI. From: Weber, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:57 PM To: Satorius, Mark; Johnson, Michael ; Ash, Darren Cc: Chen, Yen-Ju ; Pham, Bo; Rasouli, Houman ; Sheron, Brian ; West, Steven

Subject:

FYI - CONCLUSION FOR THE NATIONAL CANCER RISK SECY PAPER Good afternoon. I just had a discussion with Brian Sheron regarding the conclusion to the SECY paper on the national cancer risk study (updating the 1990 National Cancer Institute study). Brian agrees not to move forward with the update to the 1990 NCI study at this time, pending the results of the Million Person Study already underway with NCRP. He read to me over the phone some alternative language for the conclusion that is based on what we sent over, and is prepared to collaborate with the customer offices on whether they, too, can support this approach. He was trying to avoid the impression that the EDO did not support the study, but the staff offices wanted to proceed. I can support something like this revised language. He will work with his staff to incorporate more insights on the timing of the Million Person Study (how many years until completed) to better inform the Commission when might the staff be back with a follow-on decision on the national cancer risk study. The logic is that if the Million Person Study does not show any significant cause and effect between radiation worker exposures and cancer rates (with much higher doses and much better controls on exposures, generally), then there would be very limited utility in moving forward with the update to the NCI study. On the other hand, if the results of the Million Person Study are uncertain or suggest a cause and effect, then there could be merit in proceeding with the update to the 1990 NCI study. However, the staff would reach that decision down the road and it would be influenced by a variety of factors at that time, including agency priorities, resources, and workload. Brian caveated this approach by noting that DOE support for the Million Person Study might be drying up due to budget constraints. Staff may need our assistance in convening a discussion with DOE senior leadership (Assistant Secretary for Science level) to help sustain the present funding for a timely conclusion of the Million Person Study.

Thanks, 1Jti4e Michael Weber Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1705 Mail Stop 016E15

I PROJECT vi DELIVERING OUR FUTURE

From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: 21 Jul 2014 14:12:51 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

FW: NAS representative for Public Outreach Meeting Jim Hickey in Rll has the lead for the public meeting, so I would consider this approval to invite Dr. Kosti. From: Hickey, James Sent: Monday, July 21, 2014 12:30 PM To: Ramsey, Kevin Cc: Hickey, James; Johnson, Robert; Mendez-Gonzalez, Sandra; Rivera, Carmen; Hartland, David; Brock, Terry

Subject:

Re: NAS representative for Public Outreach Meeting As this is an area ECAN is interested in I would say yes. I think there would be some value in a short presentation of the study goals and methods for a general public audience. I think the actual proposal to the commission is later th is year.

Regards, Jim Sent via My Workspace for iOS On Monday, July 21, 2014 at 10:44:36 AM, "Ramsey, Kevin" <Kevin.Ramsey@nrc.gov> wrote:

Terry Brock in RES says Dr. Ouriana Kosti from the National Academies of Science (OKosti@nas.edu) can attend the public outreach meeting scheduled for 9/30. Does everyone concur with inviting her?

---

Original Message-----

Frorn: Brock, Terry Sent: Friday, July 18, 2014 10:5 1 AM To: Ramsey, Kevin

Subject:

RE: NFS in the News

Kevin, l checked with Rania of NAS and she can attend the meeting if we want her there. l recommend she come so NAS can hear first hand the concerns. Ok to invite her?

Terry From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2014 8:57 AM To: Johnson, Robert; Bailey, Marissa; Blarney, Alan; Moore, Scott; Haney, Catherine; Stancil, Charles; Rivera, Carmen; Hartland, David; Mendez-Gonzalez, Sandra; Brock, Terry

Subject:

NFS in the News At the next public meeting, we can expect to hear about NAS not visiting the site and not interviewing residents. NAS Cancer-Risk Study Tn Early Stages. The Greeneville (TN) Sun<http://www. greenevillesun.com/news/local news/article 7cf05670-2077-550f-aa I b-2e264802cc48.html> (7/ 17, Little, 43K) reports that a National Academy of Sciences cancer-risk pilot study aa:is in its early stages and a-only beginning to collect the necessary dataa' for a draft report, NAS spokeswoman Lauren Rugani said this

week.a0 The Sun notes that the study, entitled aa:Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear facilities,aU is being sponsored and receiving fund ing from the NRC, with the funding being areused to perform the second phase of a pilot study of cancer risks in populations near seven NRC-licensed nuclear facilities.a n The Nuclear Fuel Services complex in Erwin, Tenn., the Millstone Power Station in Connecticut, and the San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station in Cali fornia arc among those included in the study.

From: Sheron, Brian Sent: 10 Feb 2014 13:10:59 -0500 To: West, Steven Cc: Gibson, Kathy;Richards, Stuart;Tadesse, Rebecca;Brock, Terry

Subject:

FW: National Academy of Sciences' Pill ot Planning Study of Cancer Risks in Populat ions Near Seven Nuclear Facilities: Addition of member to provisional committee Here are some of the weird e-mails that have been showing up in my in-box. From: Interested parties list for activities pertaining to the Cancer Risk project [1] On Behalf Of Yahoo7mail Sent: Monday, February 10, 2014 10:22 AM To: CANCERRISKSTUDY@LSW.NAS.EDU

Subject:

Re: National Academy of Sciences' Pilot Planning Study of cancer Risks in Populations Near Seven Nuclear Facilities: Addit ion of member to provisional committee Thank You Joe! And this study doesn't take into consideration the "cocktail of chemicals" we humans are bombarded with on a daily basis from ingredients used to make RUBBER used as conditioner in our bread to diesel exhaust and toxins in our air, to the chemicals in our water. Yes, a very low dose of radiation may not 'hmt' us but if a human body is pummeled day in and day out with other environmental 'factors' that may not cause harm individually but MIXED together are toxic and cancerous! While I know it is impossible to do a study on all the environmenta l factors humans may be exposed to on a dai ly basis, A whole NEW methodology needs to in place before any of type of study can be taken seriously. Even ifthe study is coming from the "FOX WATCHING THE HENHOUSE" ~Cheers, Christy From: Bonniemike 1 ....(5....

                          )(6_)_ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

To: CANCERRISKSTUDY@LSW.NAS.EDU Sent: Friday, February 7, 2014 4:27 PM

Subject:

Re: National Academy of Sciences' Pilot Planning Study of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Seven Nuclear Facilities: Addition of member to provisional committee I think the NAS is not a co-conspirator , merely a willing partner which will take the money if someone has to take the money. Look at the conclusions of the in itial scoping study. NAS said that such a study has nearly ove1whelming obstacles. But, if the NRC as directed by Congress has to spend the money, why shouldn't NAS get a piece of the action? On Feb 7, 2014, at 4:04 PM, "Jacobus, John (NTH/OD/ORS) [E]" <jacobusj@ORS.OD.NIH.GOV> wrote: So, is the NAS also in on the conspiracy since they are conducting the study?

      -- John John Jacobus, MS Certified Health Physicist National lnsititutes of Health Division of Radiation Safety 21 Wilson Drive, MSC 6780 Bethesda, MD 20892-6780

From l~( b-

          )(_

6 )________________________________~ Sent: Friday, February 07, 2014 3:48 PM To: CANCERRTSKSTUDY@LSW.NAS.EDU

Subject:

Re: National Academy of Sciences' Pilot Planning Study of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Seven Nuc lear Facilities: Addition of member to provisional committee While I appreciate the purpose of the study, The Nuclear Regulatory Commission is nothing more than a 'captured' government agency. The relationship between the NRC, and the lobbyists who lobby Congress AGAINST regu lation is nothing more than a revolving door. The people who work for the government in the industry learn the ins and outs' and the 'who's who' so that they when they leave the government and become lobbyists they can bypass or navigate around any opposition which adds to the disfunction of the agency. Any study results wi ll sure ly be wh itewashed. Also, the NRC is notorious for 'lowering' standards for Nuclear plants who are not in compliance. These plants were only supposed to have a 30 year life span but many are passed their life expectancy with standards that would have NO WAY been allowed 30 years ago. ~C hristy Anderson From: Brian Han ley ~(b)(6) I To: CANCERRISKSTUDY@LSW.NAS.EDU Sen t: Friday, February 7, 20 14 I :06 PM Subject : Re: National Academy of Sciences' Pilot Planning Study of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Seven Nuclear Facilities: Addition of member to provisional committee We know the answers already. The issue is not number of studies. The issue is inability to speak up about the results science already has in hand. On 2/7/201 4 9:34 AM, Greenleaf, Toni wrote: interested parties: We would like to inform you of the addition of Christie Eheman, Centers fo r Disease Control and Prevention, on the Committee on Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning. Dr. Eheman will bring additional expertise to the committee in the collection, research, and analysis of data from cancer registries. The slate of provisional committee appointments is open to public comment for 20 calendar days. Members of the public can provide comments here: http://www8.nationalacademies.org/cp/CommitteeView.aspx?ke y=49579 Study Background NAS will perform the pilot study of cancer risks in populations near seven U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (U.S.NRC)-licensed nuclear facilities using hvo epidemiologic study designs: (i) an ecologic study of multiple cancer types of populations of all ages and (iii) a record-linkage-based case-cont:rol study of cancers in children. The pilot study will have two steps: Pilot Planning and Pilot Execution. NAS has started the Pilot Planning step which is estimated to take one year to complete. The seven nuclear facilities that are part of the pilot study are: Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Morris, Illinois Millstone Power Station, Waterford, Connecticut

Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Forked River, New Jersey Haddam Neck, Haddam Neck, Connecticut Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant, Charlevoix, Michigan San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, San Clemente, California Nuclear Fuel Services, Erwin, Tennessee The study is sponsored by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. It is a continuation of a previous study that was completed in May 20 12. The report from that first study can be found here: http://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id= 13388 The National Academy of Sciences, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine, and National Research Council make up the National Academies. They are independent, nonprofit institutions that provide science, technology, and health policy advice under an 1863 congressional charter. Panel members, who serve pro bono as volunteers, are chosen by the Academies for each study based on their expertise and experience and must satisfy the Academjes' conflict-of-interest standards. The resulting consensus reports undergo external peer review before completion. For more information, visit http://national-academies.org/studycommitteprocess.pdf Please direct comments and questions to the project email: crs@nas.edu. lf you would like to be removed from the list please send us an emai l with tbe title REMOVE FROM LIST. If you are member of the press and have questions regarding th.is message, please contact Lauren Rugani at 202 334 3593 or LRugani@nas.edu. Please do NOT respond to this email. Ourania (Rania) Kosti, Ph.D. Senior Program Officer Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board The National Academies

From: Jones, Andrea Sent : 15 May 2012 10:33:07 -0400 To : Brock, Terry

Subject:

FW: REMINDER RE : REQUEST: NEW DUE DATE review and comment on the NAS Phase 1 Cancer Risk Study Terry, OIP concurs. From: Brock, Terry To: Brock, Terry; Cassidy, John; Burnell, Scott; Chapman, Gregory; Dacus, Eugene; Dehmel, Jean-Claude; Garry, Steven; Jones, Andrea; Mcintyre, David; Milligan, Patricia; Mizuno, Beth; Nimitz, Ronald; Stearns, Don; VonTill, Bill; Weil, Jenny; Woodruff, Gena; Rakovan, Lance; Diaz, Marilyn; Bush-Goddard, Stephanie; Humberstone, Matthew; Conatser, Richard; Tomon, John; Salomon, Stephen; Burnell, Scott Sent: Tue May 08 11:28:45 2012

Subject:

REMINDER RE: REQUEST: NEW DUE DATE review and comment on the NAS Phase 1 Cancer Risk Study Hi All, this is a friendly reminder that all comments on the NAS Phase 1 cancer study are due one week from today on Tuesday, May 15. Thanks for your review and let me know if you have any questions. Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487 From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:04 PM To: Brock, Terry; Cassidy, John; Burnell, Scott; Chapman, Gregory; Dacus, Eugene; Dehmel, Jean-claude; Garry, Steven; Jones, Andrea; Mcintyre, David; Milligan, Patricia; Mizuno, Beth; Nimitz, Ronald; Stearns, Don; VonTill, Bill; Weil, Jenny; Woodruff, Gena; Rakovan, Lance; Diaz, Marilyn; Bush-Goddard, Stephanie; Humberstone, Matthew; Conatser, Richard; Tomon, John; Salomon, Stephen; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

REQUEST: NEW DUE DATE review and comment on the NAS Phase 1 Cancer Risk Study

All, RES sent out the official memo requesting comments on the NAS Phase 1 cancer study report to your respective offices with a new due date of Tuesday, May 15.

Thanks for your continued support, Terry

Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487 From: Brock, Terry Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 12:07 PM To: Brock, Terry; Cassidy, John; Burnell, Scott; Chapman, Gregory; Dacus, Eugene; Dehmel, Jean-Claude; Garry, Steven; Jones, Andrea; Mcintyre, David; Milligan, Patricia; Mizuno, Beth; Nimitz, Ronald; Stearns, Don; VonTill, Bill; Weil, Jenny; Woodruff, Gena; Rakovan, Lance; Diaz, Marilyn; Bush- Goddard, Stephanie; Humberstone, Matthew; Conatser, Richard; Tomon, John; Salomon, Stephen; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

REQUEST: review and comment on the NAS Phase 1 Cancer Risk Study

All, This is a heads-up that RES will be sending out a formal memo request for review and comment on the NAS Phase 1 Cancer Risk Study in the next couple of days. You all have been identified as the POC for your organizations in t he memo. We're asking for comments back by Monday, May 7, 2012. Once I get the comments I' ll put a meeting together to talk about next steps.

The NAS report, "Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities: Phase I" is available in ADAMS at ML120860057.

Thanks, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487

From: Sheron, Brian Sent: 20 Aug 2015 14:51:53 -0400 To: W est, Steven;Case, Michael;Coffin, St ephanie;Tadesse, Rebecca;Brock, Terry

Subject:

Fw: RESPONSE - Proposed Alt ernative Conclusion to Cancer paper FYI. From: Weber, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:25 PM To: Sheron, Brian

Subject:

RESPONSE - Proposed Alternative Conclusion to Cancer paper Thanks, Brian. A few suggestions, including where/how t o insert the timeframe info on the Million Worker Study. From: Sheron, Brian Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 6:02 PM To: Weber, Michael

Subject:

FW : Proposed Alternative Conclusion to Cancer paper Here is what I read to you. From: Sheron, Brian Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:39 PM To: West, Steven <Steven.West@nrc.gov> Cc: Brock, Kathryn <Kathryn.Brock@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Proposed Alternative Conclusion to Cancer paper New

Conclusion:

After considering the approaches described above, the staff has decided not to move forward at this time with the update of the 1990 NCI study. The st aff believes the NAS proposal is not timely and the costs are excessive. While the NCRP proposal is more modest in scope but could be done faster and for significantly less cost than the NAS study, it continues to have the same limitations as the 1990 study (county-based and primarily examining only mortality rates). The staff expects belieo.1es that the Million Worker Study will provide more meaningful insights into the effects of radiation exposure on cancer risks. Assuming that the million worker study is taken to completion, which we expect by 2017 (?), the staff we intends to evaluate the results re garding any relationship between radiation exposure and cancer risk. Based on the results of that evaluation, the staff can decide if an update to the 1990 NCI study is necessary, including consideration of the agency workload, priority, and resources at that time. The one potential problem is that Terry tells me that DOE is cutting way back on the million worker study. I was hoping that the Chairman could bring this up when he meets with Asst. Secretary Kotek, but Terry says that this was funded under the DOE Office of Science, which I understand is not under Kotek. I have a lot of leave I will have to use or lose, so Shirley has been looking for days on my ca lendar she can keep open so I can take AL a day or two at a t ime. Tomorrow and Friday I plan to be on AL. However, I'll be home if you would like to discuss. Home phone is 301-349-5754. Steve is acting tomorrow and Rich Correia on Friday. Terry is in tomorrow so you can also call him. Let me know what you think. If you agree, we'll start to work it with the customer offices, and also find out if we need someone to make a call to the DOE Office of Science to push them to continue funding the million worker study.

From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: 29 Jun 2015 14:21:27 -0400 To: Brock, Terry Cc: Mcintyre, David

Subject:

FW: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY Paper-Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk Populations Our ticket system says Cathy concurred on 6/25. Unfortunately, I don't have a copy of thee-mail. Dave Mcintyre is acting as Cathy's TA. He may be able to help you track down a copy of the message if you need it. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, June 29, 2015 2: 12 PM To: Ramsey, Kevin

Subject:

RE: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY Paper-Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk Populations Hi Kevin, Did Cathy get a chance to concur? Terry From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 1:42 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

FW: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY Paper-Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk Populations FYI. From: Roman, Cinthya Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 1:41 PM To: Ramsey, Kevin

Subject:

RE: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY Paper-Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk Populations Robert Sun is going to ask Cathy in a few minutes. From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: Thursday, June 25, 2015 1:40 PM To: Roman, Cinthya

Subject:

RE: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY Paper-Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk Populations Did Cathy Haney re-concur on the revised paper? RES is asking about it. From: Roman, Cinthya Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 12:42 PM To: Brock, Terry Cc: Ramsey, Kevin

Subject:

RE: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY Paper-Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk Populations The ML number of the document didn't change, that's why we were confused. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, June 23, 2015 12:41 PM To: Roman, Cinthya Cc: Ramsey, Kevin

Subject:

RE: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY Paper-Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk Populations Hi Cinthya,

The direction of the project changed mid-concurrence, so we need a new concurrence. Basically, the conclusion changed telling the Commission we do not plan on moving forward with the study. Kevin Ramsey is my NMSS POC.

Thanks, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop TWFN-10 phone: 301-415-1793 From : Roman, Cinthya Sent : Tuesday, June 23, 2015 11:15 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

FW: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY Paper-Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk Populations Hi Terry, I have a question for you. I received the request below on June 19, but the package originally came on June 3. Cathy Haney already concurred on that package (hardcopy). Mike Case picked up a hardcopy package from NSIR on Friday with Cathy's original concurrence on it and NRR's original concurrence from when the package came originally on 6/3/15. Please let me know if you are requesting NMSS concurrence, or the original concurrence will suffice.

Thanks, C inthya From: Gaskins, Kimberly Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 2:02 PM To: RidsOpaMail Resource; RidsRgnlMailCenter Resource; RidsNmssOd Resource; RidsNroMailCenter Resource; RidsNrrMailCenter Resource; RidsNsirMailCenter Resource; RidsOgcMailCenter Resource Cc: Brock, Terry; Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca; Ford, Jennifer; Ramsey, Kevin; Milligan, Patricia; Hinson, Charles; Garry, Steven; Mizuno, Beth; Burnell, Scott; Nimitz, Ronald

Subject:

RE: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY Paper-Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk Populations

All, Please concur no later than COB June 25th_ Please contact Terry Brock at Terry.brock@nrc.gov with any questions or comments concerning this document.

Thank you Kim From : Gaskins, Kimberly Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 1:57 PM To : RidsOpaMail Resource; RidsRgnlMailCenter Resource; RidsNmssOd Resource; RidsNroMailCenter Resource; RidsNrrMailCenter Resource; RidsNsirMailCenter Resource; RidsOgcMailCenter Resource Cc: Brock, Terry; Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca; Ford, Jennifer; Ramsey, Kevin; Milligan, Patricia; Hinson, Charles; Garry, Steven; Mizuno, Beth; Burnell, Scott; Nimitz, Ronald Subje ct: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY Paper-Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk Populations MEMORANDUM TO: Those on the Attached List FROM: M. Case

SUBJECT:

SECY-RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS IN POPULATION NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES:

PHASE 2 PILOT PLANNING PROJECT AND NEXT STEPS View ADAMS P8 Properties ML15141A343 Open ADAMS P8 Package (SECY - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning Project and Next Steps)

From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: 11Aug2015 09:03:26 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

FW: SECY paper for Cancer Study Attachments: cancer study SECY.docx Importance: High So, will the update expand the NCI study to include fuel facilities? From: Bailey, Marissa Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 8:59 AM To: Johnson, Robert; Ramsey, Kevin; Moore, Scott; Haney, Catherine

Subject:

FW: SECY paper for Cancer Study Importance: High FYI From: Case, Michael Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2015 8:40 AM To: Champion, Tanya <Tanya.Champion@nrc.gov>; Bailey, M arissa <Marissa.Bailey@nrc.gov>; Lewis, Robert <Robert.Lewis@nrc.gov>; Lorson, Raymond <Raymond.Lorson@nrc.gov>; Lee, Samson

<Samson.Lee@nrc.gov>; Burnell, Scott <Scott.Burnell@nrc.gov>; Flanders, Scott
<Scott.Flanders@nrc.gov>

Cc: Erlanger, Craig <Craig.Erlanger@nrc.gov>; Andersen, James <James.Andersen@nrc.gov>; Giitter, Joseph <Joseph.Giitter@nrc.gov>; Kock, Andrea <Andrea.Kock @nrc.gov>

Subject:

FW: SECY paper for Cancer Study Importance: High Hello folks. The purpose of this email is to get you up-to-date with the latest version of the Cancer Study paper. It has been the subject of much negotiation among Brian, the 17th, and the 1ath floors. Brian has even been to every Commission office to tell them about this version of the paper. Most of the paper is the same (as far as telling the story). What is different is the Conclusion and Resource section. The punch line of the conclusion section is that we (the NRC) are going to proceed with small scale version of the Cancer Study which involves a aresimplea1I update of the 1990 NCI Study. The punch line of the resource section is that it probably wona't start until FY 17 for budgetary reasons (and may not proceed at all if the budget is unattainable). We think the paper is still covered by one of your earlier concurrences, but we welcome your input if you feel that is not true (It actually will be signed by Mark S. now, so it still has some processing to go. Thanks again for all your support and wisdom. Mike From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent : Tuesday, August 11, 2015 8:09 AM To: Tadesse, Rebecca; Case, Michael

Subject:

FW: SECY paper for Cancer Study Importance: High Per our discussion this morning a" you two have actions. © From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: Thursday, August 06, 2015 11:25 AM To: Pope, Tia <Tia.Pope@nrc.gov>; Tadesse, Rebecca <Rebecca.Tadesse@nrc.gov>; Case, M ichael

<M ichael.Case@nrc.gov>

Cc: Brock, Terry <Terry.Brock@nrc.gov>

Subject:

SECY paper for Cancer Study Importance: High

Tia, Please update the ADAMS version of the SECY paper with the attached which reflects changes to address Brian Sherona's and Steve Westa's comments. Please note that I still have a couple of comments in the attached to highlight for you some final editorial changes. When all done, you can route the formal package back through the RES mailroom. And thank you for your attention a" the paper looks very polished and professional.

Rebecca, Please take a look at the attached and scream if I got something wrong. I did not have the benefit of your wisdom when making these changes. And can you let the WG members know that Mike will be resending to his division counterparts tomorrow, as a courtesy? We believe their concurrence still holds but dona't want them surprised.

Mike, Per our discussion, please send this to our colleagues across the agency to give them the courtesy alert that the paper looks quite a bit different.

The right folks would be: Tanya Champion (CFO), Marissa Bailey/Craig Erlanger (NMSS), Rob Lewis/Jim Anderson (NSIR), Ray Lorson (RI), Joe Giitter/Sam Lee (NRR), Scott Burnell (OPA), Scott Flanders/Andrea Kock (NRO). OGC saw a pretty late version so I think wea're okay with them. Thanks all, Stephanie

Comment (CS(: Tia - Please change f to Mark Satorius EDO f C omment [CS(: Tia - please change ff title in ADAMS to match this subject

/ line 11 j!

J: It FOR: The Commissioners ff FROM: [Brian W . Sheron , Director ff Office of Nuclear Regulatory ResearctL _________________________________________ J/

SUBJECT:

N EXT STEPS FOR T HE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS IN f POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES STUDYL____________________ J PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to update the Commission on the analysis of cancer risks in populations near nuclear facilities study and staff plans for the next steps. BACKGROUND: Each commercial nuclear power plant and fuel cycle facility that the NRC regulates is authorized to release radioactive materials to the environment as specified in the regulations and licensing documents, In compliance with dose limits for members of the public and concentration limits for liquid and gaseous effluent releases and to ensure offsite doses are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The staff has concluded that offsite doses to individual members of the public as a result of these routine releases are ALARA and a small fraction of the dose limits specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," specifically 10 CFR 20.1301(a) and (e). The offsite dose to the highest exposed member of the public is also generally less than 1 percent of the amount of radiation the average U.S. citizen receives in a year from all background and medical sources. Nonetheless, some stakeholders have continued to express concerns about the potential effect of these releases on the health of residents living near nuclear facilities. CONTACT: Terry Brock, RES/DSA 301-415-1793

The Commissioners These concerns are not new or unique to the United States. Since 2008, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and Switzerland have all conducted epidemiological studies near nuclear facilities within their borders to address public health concerns. These studies have generally found no association between facility operations and increased cancer risks to the public that are attributable to the releases. For example, the German study did find an association of increased childhood leukemia risk within 5 kilometers of the facilities; however, upon examination of the offsite exposures, the authors concluded the increased risk could not be explained by the releases from the facilities 1. The regional and headquarter staff routinely interact with stakeholders about their concerns of elevated cancer risk from facility operations. Although the offsite doses to the public from routine facility operations are very low, communicating this very low risk can often be a challenge. To help address these concerns, the staff has been using the 1990 National Cancer Institute (NCI) study, "Cancer in Populations Living near Nuclear Facilities" (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15035A630), and other more recent epidemiological reports conducted by various State health departments when communicating with the public on cancer mortality in populations near nuclear power facilities. The staff relies on credible health studies to augment its discussions about the NRC's robust regulatory programs to keep offsite doses ALARA by providing public health information that directly applies to the health outcomes that are often of concern (i.e., cancer). However, the 1990 NCI report is now more than 25 years old and focused primarily on cancer mortality, with limited cancer incidence (i.e., occurrence of the disease) in two states. As a result, there was broad agency support for an update to this report, including a study of incidence if feasible, that would allow the staff to evaluate and communicate more contemporary cancer information for populations living near NRG-licensed nuclear facilities. In July 2007, the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research received a formal request from the Office of Nuclear Security and Incident Response (NSIR), the Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation (NRR), the Office of New Reactors (NRO), and the Office of Public Affairs (OPA) requesting an update the NCI study. The staff originally requested NCI to provide the update. However they were unable to provide staff to support the study and they indicated these types of studies were no longer in their research focus. NCI still supports the original report and has a fact sheet on the study that is publicly available on their web site at: http://dceg.cancer.gov/abouUorganization/prog rams-ebp/reb/fact-sheet-mortality- risk. In addition, the study was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 19912. The staff then considered contracting with Oak Ridge Associated University to perform the study, but further deliberations indicated that the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) would be a better choice due to perceived independence. Therefore, in April 2010, the NRC requested NAS perform a study on cancer risks in populations living near NRG-licensed facilities to update the 1990 NCI study. NRC and NAS decided to divide the study into phases. In Phase 1, NAS explored the feasibility of conducting an updated study by using more modern methods to perform the analysis. This was documented in the 2012 report, "Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 1" (ADAMS Accession No. ML15035A132). The staff communicated the results of the Phase 1 study and the NAS recommendations for the Kaatsch P, et al. "Leukaemia in Young Children Living in the Vicinity of German Nuclear Power Plants," International Journal of Cancer. 2008 Feb 15; 122(4):721-6. 2 Jablon S, Hrubec Z, and Boice JD. "Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities: A Survey of Mortality and Incidence in Two States," The Journal of the American Medical Association, 1991 Mar 20; 265(11 ):1403-1408.

The Commissioners second phase pilot studies in SECY-12-0136, "Next Steps for the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities Study" (ADAMS Accession No. ML12249A121 ). In Phase 2, NAS would conduct pilot studies to determine the ability to practically apply the Phase 1 methods at seven sites recommended by the NAS committee: Dresden (in Illinois), Millstone (in Connecticut), Oyster Creek (in New Jersey), Haddam Neck (decommissioned; in Connecticut), Big Rock Point (decommissioned; in Michigan), San Onofre (in California), and Nuclear Fuel Services (in Tennessee). NAS selected these sites because they provide a good sampling of facilities in six States with different operating histories, population sizes, and levels of complexity in data retrieval from the State cancer registries. NAS specifically recommended the pilot study examine two study designs: a population study of cancer diagnosis and mortality rates for multiple cancer types and all age groups, down to the census-tract level, and a case control study of childhood cancers in children born within a fixed distance of a nuclear facility:>. Upon completion of the proposed Phase 2 pilot studies, NAS was to determine whether further study is practical on a nationwide scale, and the NRC would then determine whether to perform the studies at all NRG-licensed facilities (i.e., balance of operating nuclear power plants a11d fuel-cycle facilities). NAS split the Phase 2 pilot study into a pilot planning project and a pilot execution project. In the pilot planning project NAS explored the availability of facility effluent records and access to the pilot study site cancer registries in the respective states. In addition, NAS solicited cost estimates from contractors to determine the actual costs of performing the pilot study. In the following section, we describe the staffs evaluation of the NAS pilot planning project report, "Analysis of Cancer Risks Near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning" (ADAMS Accession No.: ML15035A135) and staff plans for the next steps. DISCUSSION: Summary and Staff Evaluation of the NAS Phase 2 Pilot Planning Project NAS stated in the pilot planning report that the pilot studies are meant to determine the practicality of implementing the methods and study designs recommended in Phase 1. It emphasized that any data collected during the pilot study would have limited use for estimating cancer risks in populations near each of the nuclear facilities or for the seven nuclear facilities combined because of the imprecision inherent in estimates from small samples. NAS also cautioned that any decision to proceed with a full scope study should be based solely on conclusions related to practicality and not on risk estimates. NAS communicated to the staff that the execution phase of the pilot study would require significant time and resources to complete: 39 months and $8 million. The staff estimates that it may take NAS 8 to 1O years from now to complete the pilot and the subsequent nation-wide studies before NRC has final cancer risk results to share with NRC stakeholders- the original intent of the project. That would possibly prolong the study to 2025, 15 years after the start of the project with NAS. The population-based study design uses a geographical area as the unit of observation (e.g., census tract as proposed by NAS, county as used in the 1990 NCI report, ZIP Code) and uses an aggregate analysis that looks at a study factor (exposure) and an outcome factor (disease or death) measured in the geographical area at the same time. This study can show possible associations between exposure and disease. The case-control study design compares the preva lence of risk factors or exposures in a series of diseased study subjects (cases) with the prevalence of risk factors or exposures in a series of disease-free study subjects (controls).

The Commissioners Summary and Staff Evaluation of Alternate Approaches Given the NAS position regarding the limited usefulness of the pilot study results to draw conclusions about the pilot plants (or just as importantly, single facilities), the long duration and high cost of the pilot study, and the long duration of subsequent studies, the staff concluded that a more timely and less costly alternative to the NAS proposal should be considered. To accomplish this, the staff communicated its concerns to NAS about the usefulness of the pilot study results in communicating cancer risks to stakeholders and the overall study duration and costs. The staff requested that NAS focus on providing final results for the next phase of the study to shorten the study time. Specifically, staff asked NAS to focus on the Phase 1 recommended case-control study design and perform an analysis of a sample of facilities in the United States to draw statistically valid and generalizable results to the entire fleet. In response, NAS proposed that the pilot planning committee reconvene to examine our request for the alternate approach at an additional $200,000 cost for a 9-month study. After the new review, NAS estimated another 50 months to complete the alternate approach at an uncertain cost. While the staff was considering NAS' response, the President of the U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) approached the staff about conducting an update to the 1990 NCI study. NCRP is an organization chartered by the U.S. Congress in 1964. The Charter of the Council (Public Law 88-376) states its objectives to include: collect, analyze, develop and disseminate in the public interest information and recommendations about (a) protection against radiation and (b) radiation measurements, quantities and units, particularly those concerned with radiation protection. The current President of NCRP was one of the original authors of the 1990 IN Ci study, and he has been following the staff activities with NAS with interest. NCRP indicated that it could update the 1990 NCI study report in 2 to 3 years and for approximately $2.5 million. An update to the NCI study would be a more modest initiative. Instead of the NAS recommended two study designs, an NCI update would use the same methods used in the 1990 study-a countywide population-based study design, no dosimetry considerations, and limited cancer incidence information. CONCLUSION: After considering the approaches described above, the staff intends to proceed with updating the 1990 NCI study. Such an approach would be able to provide final results in a reasonable time period to meet the original staff goal of having updated information. The staff acknowledges that this update will be more modest than what NRC asked NAS to consider in a new update, but we have affirmed with our colleagues in NSIR, NRR, NRO, and OPA that a direct update would be both adequate and desirable for staff to discuss cancer risks with the public. The more modest scope is also consistent with the direction of the Commission in its response to the Project Aim 2020 Report, particularly with maintaining a "balanced perspective of the significance of the activity." The staff would ensure that such an update would include new results for NRC facilities not operational or considered at the time of the 1990 study (e.g., Nuclear Fuel Services in Tennessee, Braidwood and Byron Nuclear Generating Stations in Illinois). The staff plans to engage the Office of Administration to ensure all procurement processes are followed to determine if NCRP or another entity would be the best to complete the NCI update.

The Commissioners RESOURCES: Comment (CS(: Tia - Please change f to EDO. Mark S. For 2016, the Commission redirected contracting funds for the Cancer Study to higher priority I work. Therefore , the staff plans for 2016 will focus on obtaining formal and definitive cost estimates for updating the NCI study as described above and establishing the appropriate contracting vehicles. The staff planned for nominal funding (approximately $300K) to start the  ! Cancer Study in the operating reactor business line of the Chairman's Fiscal Year 2017 Budget Proposal. Any appropriation changes in the 2017 Budget which result in a reduction to the RES Allowance will require reevaluation of the priorities and possible termination of this study. If the I Cancer Study proceeds in 2017, funds to complete the study will be planned for the remaining years through the Planning, Budget, and Performance Management process.  ! COORDINATION: I The Office of the General Counsel has reviewed this paper and has no legal objection. The Office of the Chief Financial Officer has reviewed this paper for resources implications and has I no objections.  !' Brian W. Sheron, Director i Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research L_ ____________f

ML15141A404 I iI OFFICE RES/DSA/RPB Tech Editing BC:RES/DSA/RPB D:RES/DSA R-1 NAME T. Brock QTE R. Tadesse M. Case D. Dorman DATE 06/18/15 05/26/15 06/19/15 06/19/15 07/01/15 OFFICE D:NMSS D:NRR D:NSIR D:NRO OGC NAME C. Haney J.Uhle for W. J.Andersen for B. G. Tracy B. Mizuno Dean Holian DATE 06/25/15 06/24/15 06/29/15 06/29/15 06/25/15

~FFICE D:OPA                 D:RES NAME       E. Brenner        B. Sheron                                                               I' DATE         06/23/15             I   I            I   I                 I   ~                      

From: Brock, Terry Sent: 8 Sep 2015 19:44:51 +0000 To: Pope, Tia

Subject:

Fw: Terry: Your letter to Crowley is ready for dispatch. Thanks - Shirley Please distribute. From: Flory, Shirley Sent: Tuesday, September 8, 201 5 2:47:36 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Terry: Your letter to Crowley is ready for dispatch. Thanks - Shirley

From: Giitter, Joseph Sent: 15 May 2012 15:29:11-0400 To: Gibson, Kathy Cc: Brock, Terry;Bush-Goddard, Stephanie;Cruz, Holly

Subject:

FW: Yellow Ticket: Y020120096 NRR review of draft Phase I National Academy of Science cancer study Attachme nts: 120509_RLC_Comments on NAS Cancer Study_Phase l_For Yellow Ticket.docx, S Garry comments on NAS cancer study.docx, 120509_SCM_Comments on NAS Cancer Study_Phase l_For Yellow Ticket.docx Kathy-Here are NRR comments on the NAS phase 1 study. At some point I would like to talk to you about steps we are taking to verify the statistical rigor of the epidemiological study. From: Shoop, Undine Sent: Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:05 AM To: Giitter, Joseph; Lee, Samson Cc: Richards, Karen

Subject:

FW: Yellow Ticket: Y020120096 NRR review of draft Phase I National Academy of Science cancer study Joe and Sam, Attached are AHPB comments on the NAS phase 1 study. If you agree with our comments, please send them to Holly Cruz, Kathy Gibson, Terry Brock, and Stephanie Bush-Goddard.

Thanks, Undine From: Garry, Steven Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 4:57 PM To: Shoop, Undine Cc: Conatser, Richard; Meighan, Sean

Subject:

Yellow Ticket: Y020120096 NRR review of draft Phase I Nat ional Academy of Science cancer study

Undine, As request ed and assigned in Yellow Ticket 020120096, attached are 3 set s of comments on t h e NAS Phase I cancer study from the AHPB staff (Richard Conatser, Sean M eighan, and myself).

Steve Garry 301-415-2766 NRR / DRA / AHPB From: Craver, Patti Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 1:13 PM To: Cruz, Holly; FAST Resource

Cc: Garry, Steven; Shoop, Undine; Conatser, Richard

Subject:

RE: Request to change date of YT: Y020120096 Done!

Thanks, Patti From: Cruz, Holly Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 12:49 PM To: FAST Resource Cc: Craver, Patti; Garry, Steven; Shoop, Undine; Conatser, Richard

Subject:

Request to change date of YT: Y020120096 Hi Patti, Could you please change the due date of Y020120096, TAC ME8451 to May 15th, per the change in the RES memo noted below? Thanks for your help, Holly Holly Cruz, Project Manager Licensing Processes Branch (PLPB) Division of Policy and Rulemaking Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation Phone: (301) 415-1053 Location: 012F12 M/S: 012E1 email: holly.cruz@nrc.gov JU.S.NRC Uuu4 Sc... N.UO.r LIJlhtwJ' Ca-l*le.

 "'-crl"f"""" ,,,./,.. ""'"'"""""'

From: Garry, Steven Sent: Wednesday, May 02, 2012 12: 12 PM To: Shoop, Undine; Cruz, Holly; Conatser, Richard

Subject:

FW: REQUEST: NEW DUE DATE review and comment on the NAS Phase 1 Cancer Risk Study

Holly, Can you revise the Yellow Ticket Y0120096 due date from May 7th to May 15th per the email below?

(see attached yellow ticket). Thanks Steve Garry

From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2012 3:04 PM To: Brock, Terry; Cassidy, John; Burnell, Scott; Chapman, Gregory; Dacus, Eugene; Dehmel, Jean-c laude; Garry, Steven; Jones, Andrea; Mcintyre, David; Milligan, Patricia; Mizuno, Beth; Nimitz, Ronald; Stearns, Don; VonTill, Bill; Weil, Jenny; Woodruff, Gena; Rakovan, Lance; Diaz, Marilyn; Bush-Goddard, Stephanie; Humberstone, Matthew; Conatser, Richard; Tomon, John; Salomon, Stephen; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

REQUEST: NEW DUE DATE review and comment on the NAS Phase 1 Cancer Risk Study

All, RES sent out the official memo requesting comments on the NAS Phase 1 cancer study report to your respective offices with a new due date of Tuesday, May 15.

Thanks for your continued support, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487 From: Brock, Terry Sent: Thursday, April 12, 2012 12:07 PM To: Brock, Terry; Cassidy, John; Burnell, Scott; Chapman, Gregory; Dacus, Eugene; Dehmel, Jean-c laude; Garry, Steven; Jones, Andrea; Mcintyre, David; Milligan, Patricia; Mizuno, Beth; Nimitz, Ronald; Stearns, Don; VonTill, Bill; Weil, Jenny; Woodruff, Gena; Rakovan, Lance; Diaz, Marilyn; Bush-Goddard, Stephanie; Humberstone, Matthew; Conatser, Richard; Tomon, John; Salomon, Stephen; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

REQUEST: review and comment on the NAS Phase 1 Cancer Risk Study

All, This is a heads-up that RES will be sending out a formal memo request for review and comment on the NAS Phase 1 Cancer Risk Study in the next couple of days. You all have been identified as the POC for your organizations in the memo. We're asking for comments back by Monday, May 7, 2012. Once I get the comments I'll put a meeting together to talk about next steps.

The NAS report, "Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities: Phase I" is available in ADAMS at ML120860057.

Thanks, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555

Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487

From: Case, Michael Sent: 3 Jun 2015 10:57:24 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

Fwd: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... Fyi From: "Corbett, James"

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Ri sk in Populations... Date: 03 June 2015 09:58 To: "Case, Michael" Cc: "Bumpass, Sheila", "Ford, Jennifer" , "Coffin, Stephanie", "Moy, Romena" Mike-Hope all is well with you too. Things are going well here in acquisition. We're well ahead of last year's pace working with offices to get awards made. Thanks for calling my attention to this draft paper. My team is huddling to ensure we can ful ly support the planned strategy. If we have any concerns, I' II get back with you before the week ends. - James James C. Corbett, Director Acquisition Management Division Office of Administration Location: T5-D31 - Mai lStop: T5-E3 Phone:301-415-8725 11tiali 1 Notice: The above email message, together with any.forwarded emails or attach . sole use o t 1e 111 nd ma contain information tha.t is . ' *

• ge , confidential or otherwise protectedji-om disclosure under a .1
• unauthorized use or disclosure ofthe email message and any assoc* s ts prohibited. ((you believe that you wif in error,
• e sender imrnediatefy and delete it fron1 your system.

From: Case, Michael Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 10:50 AM To: Corbett, James Cc: Jernell, Eleni; Bumpass, Sheila; Ford, Jennifer; Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

FW: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... Hey James, how's it going! We sent this Commission Info paper over to Cyndi yesterday for ADM concurrence. The paper is on a Cancer Risk Study that we intend to do. Tt may not be overtly clear why we sent it to you. Although it isn't spelled out in the paper, we had been working with Jennifer on the contracting issue with NCRP. We wanted to understand whether it would be feasib le to pursue a sole source contract with them given the circumstances. T think the general answer was yes. We also had a reasonably quick turnaround on the concurrence as well (6/ 10) because we wanted to get it up to the Commission in the general time frame of their consideration of the budget. Thanks for all the help your team has been giving us on these issues! Mike From: Pope, Tia Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 5:39 PM To: RidsOpaMail Resource; RidsRgn !MailCenter Resource; RidsOcfoMai!Center Resource; RidsNmssOd Resource; RidsNroMailCcntcr Resource; RidsNrrMailCcntcr Resource; RidsNsirMailCcnter Resource;

RidsOgcMailCenter Resource; RidsAdmMailCenter Resource Cc: Brock, Terry; Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca; Ford, Je1mifer; Ramsey, Kevin; Milligan, Patricia; Hinson, Charles; Garry, Steven; Mizuno, Beth; Burnell, Sco tt; Nimitz, Ronald Su bj ect: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations ... MEMORANDUM TO: THOSE ON THE ATTACHED LIST FROM: MICHAEL J. CASE

SUBJECT:

RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACTUTIES: PHASE 2 PILOT PLANNING PROJECT AND NEXT STEPS View ADAMS P8 Properties ML15141A343 Open ADAMS P8 Package (SECY - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuc lear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning Project and Next Steps)

From: Case, Michael Sent: 3 Jun 2015 10:58:26 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

Fwd: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... Fyi From: "Lorson, Raymond"

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Ri sk in Populations... Date: 03 June 2015 08:24 To: "Case, Michael" , "Trapp, James" Cc: "Nimitz, Ronald" , "Coffin, Stephanie" , "Noggle, James" Mike: Thanks; we will close the loop with Dan and get back with you. 1 am out after tomorrow for a few days so Jim Trapp will honcho if we don't complete today or tomorrow. Ray From: Case, Michael Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 7:57 AM To: Lorson, Raymond; Trapp, James Cc: Nimitz, Ronald; Coffin, Stephanie; Noggle, James

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... We sent it to the RA Rids box for Dan's concurrence. If Dan's OK with you concurring that works for us. From: Lorson, Raymond Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 9:45 AM To: Case, Michael; Trapp, James Cc: Nimitz, Ronald; Coffin, Stephanie; Noggle, James

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... Mike - thanks. Who do you need to concur on from Region I? l saw that Ron read it and appeared satisfied. Ray From: Case, Michael Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 8:45 AM To: Lorson, Raymond; Trapp, James Cc: Nimitz, Ronald; Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

FW: ACTION: Review & Concurrence oflnfo SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer R isk in Populations ... Hey Folks, We sent a draft Commission paper on the path forward for the Cancer Study to the RA's RIDS box last night. We wanted to get it up to the Comm ission in the same news cycle as the budget so it had a relatively quick turnaround (6/12). We've been working with Ron and it's a pretty quick read, so I don't think it would be a big problem. Thanks for your help! From: Pope, Tia Sent: Monday, June OJ , 2015 5:39 PM To: RidsOpaMail Resource; RidsRgn IMailCenter Resource; RidsOcfoMailCenter Resource; RidsNmssOd

Resource; RidsNroMailCenter Resource; RidsNrrMailCenter Resource; RidsNsirMailCenter Resource; RidsOgcMailCenter Resource; RidsAdmMailCenter Resource Cc: Brock, Terry; Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca; Ford, Jennifer; Ramsey, Kevin; Milligan, Patricia; Hinson, Charles; Garry, Steven; Mizuno, Beth; Burnell, Scott; Nimitz, Ronald

Subject:

ACTION: Review & Concurrence oflnfo SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... MEMORANDUM TO: THOSE ON THE ATTACHED LIST FROM: MICHAEL J. CASE

SUBJECT:

RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCL EAR FACILITIES: P HASE 2 PILOT PLANNING PROJECT AND NEXT STEPS View ADAMS P8 Properties ML15141A343 Open ADAMS P8 Package (SECY - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Faci lities: Phase 2 Pilot Planni ng Project and Next Steps)

From: Weber , Michael Sent: 13 Jan 2012 07:04:30 -0500 To: Sheron, Brian;Holian, Brian Cc: Brock, Terry;Sanfilippo, Nathan;Holahan, Vincent;Milligan, Patricia;Jones, Cynthia;Brock, Kathryn; Burnell, Scott;Moore, Scott;Stahl, Eric;Virgilio, Martin;Leeds, Eric; Boger, Bruce;Dorman, Dan

Subject:

FYI - FRENCH STUDY SHOWS ELEVATED LEUKEMIA RISK TO CHILDREN Good morning. I saw reporting (below) on a new French study t hat purportedly shows an elevated leukemia risk to children living within 5 km of nuclear power plants. Sounds similar to previous reports from the UK and Germany. FYI. Children near French nuclear plants may run greater leukemia risk Jan 12 - McClatchy-Tribune Regional News - dpa, Berlin Children living near French nuclear power plants may run a greater risk of contracting leukemia, French media reported Thursday, quoting a study published in the latest edition of the International Journal of Cancer. The study carried out by INSERM, France's National Institute of Health and Medical Research between 2002 and 2007 found that children under the ag*e of 15 living within 5 kilometres of a nuclear plant were twice as likely to have acute leukemia as other children. The study found 14 cases of childhood acute leukemia in areas around the country's 19 nuclear power plants. Based on national figures, researchers had expected to find 7.4 cases, out of a total 2,753 cases countrywide. "The results suggest a possible excess risk of acute leukemia in the close vicinity of French nuclear power plants in 2002- 2007," the report said. The head of the study, Jacqueline Clavel, told Le Figaro newspaper the findings came as a surprise, after a study carried out between 1990 and 2001 had found no increased risk of childhood leukemia around nuclear plants. But she also cautioned against drawing hasty conclusions. There was "no way" of knowing what caused the increased leukemia risk, she told the paper. The survey sample was too small to draw conclusions. Plus, when the results of the 1990-2001 and 2002-2007 studies were combined, the increased risk of childhood leukaemia near nuclear plants was nil.

"We must now get down to researching parameters that could explain this increase, namely through international cooperations which will allow us to work on a bigger scale" Clave! said. Anti-nuclear groups said the findings vindicated their fears over the safety of nuclear power. France gets 75 per cent of its electricity from 58 nuclear reactors. "Even in a non-accident situation, the proof is again there that nuclear technology doesn't belong in a civilized world," the Reseau Sortir du Nucleaire (Exit Nuclear Network) said in a statement. The network drew a line between the findings of the lnserm study, which was carried out in collaboration with the French Institute for Radiological Protection and Nuclear Safety, and two previous studies that found a potentially higher risk of chi ldhood leukemia near nuclear plants. A 1995 French study found a potential link between an increased incidence of childhood leukemia in the area around La Hague nuclear plant and discharges from the plant. In 2008, a study commissioned by the German Federal Office for Radiation Protection (BFS) found clusters of leukemia cases among children aged under 5 living near 16 power stations in the country. Mike Michael Weber Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1705 Mail Stop 016E15

From: Weber, Michael Sent: 9 Apr 2012 07:33:47 -0400 To: Sheron, Brian;Holian, Brian Cc: Chen, Yen-Ju;Mclntyre, David;Burnell, Scott;Brock, Kathryn;Brock, Terry;Gibson, Kathy

Subject:

FYI - NEI VIEWS ON MOVING FORWARD WITH PHASE lA Good morning. I was not sure whether you saw the article below from the New London Day regarding the NAS results from Phase 1 of the National Cancer Risk Assessment. Thought you might be interested .... Millstone data to be used in pilot study of cancer risks By Judy Benson Publication: The Day Published 04/05/2012 12:00 AM Updated 04/05/2012 12:33 AM At issue is whether incidence higher near nuclear plants Data from the Millstone Power Station in Waterford, the decommissioned Connecticut Yankee plant in Haddam and four other nuclear plants wou ld be used in a proposed pilot study of whether t here shou ld be a new and larger study of cancer risk near nuclear power plants. The National Academy of Sciences recommended the pilot study in a report released last week as part of a project it is undertaking for the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Neil Sheehan, spokesman for the NRC, said the commission asked the academy to conduct a study because modeling tools and cancer incidence data avai lable now are better than they were the last t ime such a study was done, in 1989. That study determined that there is no link between cancer risk and proximity to nuclear power plants. "The purpose is to answer the question, 'Is there an increased cancer risk and cancer mortality for people who live in the vicinity of nuclear power plants?"' he said. "We get these questions all the time from members of the public." The academy's report is the first phase of the project for the NRC. It describes the ways such a study could be done, should the NRC decide to proceed. One method would look at cancer rates and cancer deaths in small areas within a 30-mile radius of a power plant. Another approach would focus on the rates of cancers in children younger than 15 in relation to how close thei r mothers lived to a plant while they were pregnant. Both approaches also would focus on rates of leukemia, the cancer associated with radiation exposure in children, according to a news release from the academy. The academy listed several cha llenges in conducting such a study, among them the quality of data available, information on cancer patients' exposures to toxic chemicals, sources of

radiation other than nuclear plants, and other factors that could affect cancer rates and mortality. It also noted that radioactive releases from nuclear plants are expected to be low, so that "cancer risks, if any, are likely small." "It is not certain whether a full-scale study would have sufficient statistical power to detect such smal l effects, if present," t he academy said. Given those factors, the academy said, it wou ld be prudent to first conduct a pilot study before embarking on one that would look at the cancer impact of all the nation's 104 nuclear reactors and 13 fuel cycle faci lities. Jennifer Walsh, spokeswoman for the academy, said the six facilities were chosen to achieve a range of plant designs and operating histories. Millstone Power Station has two operating reactors and one decommissioned one. Connecticut Yankee, which closed in 1996, has one decommissioned plant. Ken Holt, spokesman for Millstone owner Dominion, said the company had no comment on the recom mendation at this time . "It's so early in the process," he said. Officials at Connecticut Yankee, owned by a consortium of compan ies including Northeast Utilities, could not be reached to comment Wednesday. The Nuclear Energy Institute, an organization that represents the nuclear industry, criticized the proposal, making note of limitations the academy said such a study wou ld encounter. "The committee is recommending that significant resources be applied to a project that is looking for a needle in a haystack - when a needle may not even be there in the first place," Ralph Andersen, NEI's chief health physicist, said in an email message. "Based on our initial review of the report, it is not clear how the recommended study would produce scientifically defensible results that wou ld serve to allay public concerns." Sheehan said the data that would be used for the pilot study are routinely collected at Millstone and all nuclear plants as part of their operating license requirements. It includes water and aquatic life samples collected outside the Millstone property and meterological data from a weather tower at the plant. The NRC, he said, is studyi ng the academy report. "We will careful ly consider t he recommendations before deciding on any next steps," he said, adding that if a study is undertaken, it wi ll be a multi-year initiative.

j. benson @theday.com UBOX:

The National Academy of Sciences will accept public comments on the report until May 30. The comments wil l be considered in designing the next phase of the study. The academy report can be found at:

www.nap.edu/cata loq.php? record id= 13388 Comments can be submitted via email at: crs@nas.edu or by fax at: (202) 334-3077. Mike Michael Weber Deputy Executive Director for Materials, Waste, Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1705 Mail Stop 016E15

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 18 Jun 2015 15:51:49 -0400 To: Gaskins, Kimberly Cc: Brock, Terry

Subject:

heads up - high priority paper coming through tomorrow that will need some changes lta's already in ADAMS and formatted a" wea'11 want to make some adjustments tomorrow. Thanks Kim. Let me know if any concerns on your end. Steph

From: Case, Michael Sent: 24 Dec 2014 09:21:39 -0500 To: Tadesse, Rebecca;Brock, Terry Cc: Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

Next Day Thoughts Brian shared a little more this morning about the Cancer Study. He was probably less optimistic about it. His concerns went back to time and money lamenting that we are already 4 years into it and probably 4 more and still without a result. Steve was more pessimistic but more from the results side. Couple of things to think about. We probably will need to rough out an idea of how much (in time and money) the whole thing would cost. Brian thought that maybe the study group is too academically oriented and maybe we should get some advice on whether to proceed from some more practical folks like ANS, HPS, etc (we sorted of resurrected your idea Rebecca about a workshop) We also reprised the smaller pilot idea. No decisions, just thinking out loud. Enjoy the holidays!

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 17 Jun 2015 08:58:50 -0400 To: Brock, Terry Cc: Case, Michael;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

query - status of revised cancer study SECY Mike and I would love to get this back out to the offices for re-concurrence this week. How are you doing on making the changes? Let me know how I can help.

From: Case, Michael Sent: 3 Jun 2015 07:55:18 -0400 To: Burnell, Scott;Pope, Tia;Brock, Terry;Coffin, Stephanie;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... Thanks Scott. It's good to have you helping us on this! From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 9:54 AM To: Pope, Tia; Brock, Terry; Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... Good Morning; I concur for OPA, and offer a few minor edits in the attached version . Thanks. Scott From: Pope, Tia Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 5:39 PM To: RidsOpaMail Resource; RidsRgnlMailCenter Resource; RidsOcfoMailCenter Resource; RidsNmssOd Resource; RidsNroMailCenter Resource; RidsNrrMailCenter Resource; RidsNsirMailCenter Resource; RidsOgcMailCenter Resource; RidsAdmMailCenter Resource Cc: Brock, Terry; Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca; Ford, Jennifer; Ramsey, Kevin; Milligan, Patricia; Hinson, Charles; Garry, Steven; Mizuno, Beth; Burnell, Scott; Nimitz, Ronald

Subject:

ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... MEMORANDUM TO: THOSE ON THE A TTACHED LIST FROM: MICHAEL J. CASE

SUBJECT:

RES ULTS OF THE ANALYSTS OF CANCER RISKS IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES: PHASE 2 PILOT PLANNING PROJECT AND NEXT STEPS V iew ADAMS P8 Properties ML15141A343 Open ADAMS P8 Package (SECY - Results of the Analysis of Cancer R isks in Populations Near N uclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning Pro ject and Next Steps)

From: Case, Michael Sent: 3 Jun 2015 07:54:16 -0400 To: Lorson, Raymond; Nimitz, Ronald;Trapp, James Cc: Coffin, Stephanie;Brock, Terry;Pope, Tia;Noggle, James

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... Thanks Ray. We're working on a comm plan to help with the inevitable criticism. We'll keep you in the loop on that. Part of the reason for the Commission paper was to keep them involved so that they can react to the criticism as well. From: Lorson, Raymond Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 9:56 AM To: Nimitz, Ronald; Case, Michael; Trapp, James Cc: Coffin, Stephanie; Brock, Terry; Pope, Tia; Noggle, James

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... Mike et el: I read through it and thought that you provided a sound basis for the proposed recommendation. If approved by the Commission we need to keep OCA and PAO in the loop as there could be some criticism by some external stakeholders as a lessening in the rigor of the study. Thanks Ray From: Nimitz, Ronald Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 9:22 AM To: Case, Michael; Lorson, Raymond; Trapp, James Cc: Coffin, Stephanie; Brock, Terry; Pope, Tia; Noggle, James

Subject:

RE: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations... I am fine with this .. Terry does a great job keeping us in the loop and discussing plans, concerns, issues etc.. ron From: Case, Michael Sent: Tuesday, June 02, 2015 8:45 AM To: Lorson, Raymond; Trapp, James Cc: Nimitz, Ronald; Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

FW: ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of cancer Risk in Populations... Hey Folks, We sent a draft Commission paper on the path forward for the Cancer Study to the RA's RIDS box last night. We wanted to get it up to the Commission in the same news cycle as the budget so it had a relatively quick turnaround (6/12). We've been working with Ron and it's a pretty quick read , so I don't think it would be a big problem. Thanks for your help! From: Pope, Tia Sent: Monday, June 01, 2015 5:39 PM To: RidsOpaMail Resource; RidsRgnl MailCenter Resource; RidsOcfoMailCenter Resource; RidsNmssOd Resource; RidsNroMailCenter Resource; RidsNrrMailCenter Resource; RidsNsirMailCenter Resource; RidsOgcMailCenter Resource; RidsAdmMailCenter Resource Cc: Brock, Terry; Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca; Ford, Jennifer; Ramsey, Kevin; Milligan, Patricia; Hinson, Charles; Garry, Steven; Mizuno, Beth; Burnell, Scott; Nimitz, Ronald

Subject:

ACTION: Review & Concurrence of Info SECY paper - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations ... MEMORANDUM TO: THOSE ON THE ATTACHED LIST FROM: MICHAEL J. CASE

SUBJECT:

RESULTS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES: PHASE 2 PILOT PLANNING PROJECT AND NEXT STEPS View ADAMS P8 Properties ML15141A343 Open ADAMS P8 Package (SECY - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning Project and Next Steps)

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 17 Jul 2015 15:07:44 -0400 To: Brock, Terry Cc: Case, Michael;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: Alternate Cancer Study Conclusion Paragraph.docx Thanks I will look at it tomorrow. Is there a way I can get Brian's comments so that I can do a side-by-side comparison? My personal experience with OGC is that they want to re-look after ANY change. Maybe your OGC is nicer. Beth is nice so just give her a call - you can blame me. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Friday, July 17, 2015 2:00 PM To: Coffin, Stephanie Cc: Case, M ichael; Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: Alternate Cancer Study Conclusion Paragraph.docx Hi Stephanie, Attached is the revised SECY with comments addressed. I do not recommend re-concurrence with OGC and CFO. OGC has already NLOed this twice, there's no legal issue with this study, thus this would probably be annoying to them to bother them again. CFO concurred on the original SECY with a 2017 start date and the PMBA verbiage put in the original so I see no need to get them to re-concur. AS far as Brian's comment to remove the word "recommendation" from the NAS Pilot 1 study designs should not be done. These were recommendations that were couched in the notion that the Phase 1 committee was uncertain if these methods were feasible in the U.S.-hence, the recommendation for the pilot study to determine their utility. Here's the revised paper link in ADAMS, please give it a read and let me know if I need to change/add anything, then I think it is good for Brian's review and signage. Also attached is CFO's original concurrence. View ADAMS P8 Properties ML15141A343 Open ADAM S P8 Package (SECY - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning Project and Next Steps) Have a good one, Terry From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:53 PM To: Brock, Terry Cc: Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

FW: Alternate Cancer Study Conclusion Paragraph.docx A minor tweak to make - see his comment below.

How are you doing addressing the remaining comments? We still need to get to OGC and CFO, right? I'm assuming Mike Weber agrees to the change ... From : Sheron, Brian Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 4:49 PM To: Coffin, Stephanie Cc: Case, Michael; West, Steven

Subject:

RE: Alternate Cancer Study Conclusion Paragraph.docx I like the alternate conclusion. However, it reads like contracting this work with NCRP is a done deal. I think the conclusion just needs to say that we like the NCRP proposed approach, but we need to follow government contracting practices as we move forward to utilize this approach. From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 2 :24 PM To: Sheron, Brian Cc: Case, Michael; West, Steven

Subject:

Alternate Cancer Study Conclusion Paragraph.docx

Brian, For your consideration and use, please see attached suggestion.

Stephanie

From: Brock, Terry Sent: 9 Sep 2015 15:04:09 +0000 To: Johnson, Kevin;Armstrong, Kenneth Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populat ions Near Nuclear Facilities Study That's it. From: Johnson, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 11:02 AM To: Brock, Terry; Armstrong, Kenneth Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study

Terry, Please confirm if this is the letter that Yen was referring to last week. (additional task)

From: ADAMS p8_icm_service Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 6 :19 AM To: ICM_STARS_OEDO <ICM STARS OEDO@nrc.gov>; ICM_STARS_SECYTasks <ICM STARS SECYTasks@nrc.gov>

Subject:

STARS Task Notification (SRM-SECY-15-0104, New) A new Task has been created by Shea, Pamela (pws) on 08/26/20 15. The Task information is below. Task Info Document SRM-SECY-15-0104 Number Activity nalysis of Cancer Risks in Po ulations Near Nuclear Facilities Study Title Activity SRM Type Task Number Staff w ill provide a letter to the Nationa l Academy of Sciences (NAS) describing Description the basis of the staff's conclusion to end the cancer risks in populations near nuclear faci lities study, per SECY- 15-0 I 04. Priority Normal Lead OEDO Office Supporting ES Office Due Date 10/30/201 5

Cross SRM-SECY-15-0104- 1 Reference Subject Research Codes Frequency Completio nDate Closure Code Closme Date View ADAMS P8 Properties ML15244A494 Open ADAMS P8 Document (Letter to K. Crowley for ending the "Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities") One Team/One Goal Kevin D. Johnson Research Information Specialist Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research RES/PMDA/HCITCT Email: Kevin.Johnson@nrc.gov T-10-B-12 Office: 301-415-1989 ce11: ... 16_) _ _ _ __. r_)

From: Sheron, Brian Sent: 8 Jun 2015 07:53:54 -0400 To: Coffin, Stephanie;West, Steven;Case, Michael;Tadesse, Rebecca;Gibson, Kathy Cc: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Re: Briefing for Weber on cancer study This was started in response to a user need letter from several offices. I understand Mike's feeling, but I'm not about to cancel this just because Mike thinks it's a nice but not necessary project. We need to discuss with our requestors and see what they think.

 ----- Original Message -----

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: Friday, June 05, 2015 01 :38 PM To: Sheron, Brian; West, Steven; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca; Gibson, Kathy Cc: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Briefing for Weber on cancer study Weber doesn't think the Agency can afford even the smaller scale approach and asked us to reconsider our recommendation to move forward at all. He emphasized he was always a "fan" but he can't help but see that these "nice to have but don't need to have" projects cannot be justified in the current environment. Terry feel free to chime in. Scott BurneII and Yen joined us at the meeting. ps - Mike Case you made an impact at last weeks meeting about how RES is getting squeezed by all the business lines - Weber reflected on that today too Sent from an NRC blackberry Stenhanie Coffin 1(0)(6) 1

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 4 Feb 2015 16:39:42 -0500 To: Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Brock, Terry;Case, Michael

Subject:

RE: CA_NOTE_Cancer_Pilot_Planning_011615 (Coffin comments)_tab_clean.docx Nice! Please proceed to work with Tia/Kim to develop a concurrence package. From: Tadesse, Rebecca Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 11:04 AM To: Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael Cc: Brock, Terry

Subject:

CA_NOTE_Cancer_Pilot_Planning_011615 (Coffin comments)_tab_clean.docx Hi Stephanie, I think Terry has addressed all your comments in the attached CA Note. Please let me know if you are ok with it. Thanks Rebecca

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 4 Jun 2015 09:51:10 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: cancer press release Absolutely. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:51 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: cancer press release I ask becuz of the short turnaround for tomorrow, but bullet points will work. You want to speak to that tomorrow and at the CA brief? From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:48 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: cancer press release You have to ask? Actually, la'd prefer sticking to discussing the outline of what the release would say at this point. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Thursday, June 04, 2015 9:18 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

cancer press release Do you have time to draft a press release we can show tomorrow to Weber? la' 11 work on internal bullet points Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 5 Jun 2015 16:51:24 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Cancer SECEY ready to distribute for concurrence Before I forget, if this SECY goes forward, we need to mention the User Need. Mike Case reminded me that Brian will definitely want to see it mentioned. How's the comm plan coming along? From: Brock, Terry Se nt: Monday, June 01, 2015 9:28 AM To: Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie Cc: Pope, Tia

Subject:

Cancer SECEY ready to distribute for concurrence Mike/Stephanie, The cancer secy should be ready to go. Needs your signature to exit the door. Once we get the ok Tia will distribute via RIDS.

Thx, Terry View ADAMS P8 Properties ML15141A343 Open ADAMS P8 Package ( SECY - Results of the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning Project and Next Steps)

Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 14 Jul 2015 12:48:55 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Case, Michael;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: Cancer Study: Alternative Conclusion Good catch From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 12:48 PM To: Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: Cancer Study: Alternative Conclusion One more thing in the fourth sentence ... , change "less modest" to "more modest". Thx From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 12:33 PM To: Case, Michael; Brock, Terry; Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: Cancer Study: Alternative Conclusion Love it We will need to add CFO back onto concurrence if we move forward with this angle I don't see a need to pester the other offices again - we can use their previous concurrences - maybe just give them a "heads up" after we hear from Weber.... From: Case, Michael Sent: Tuesday, July 14, 2015 11:34 AM To: Brock, Terry; Tadesse, Rebecca; Coffin, Stephanie Subject : Cancer Study: Alternative Conclusion Hi folks. Can you take a look at the attached? After your consideration, we can forward to Brian and Steve to support the ongoing discussion with Mike W.

From: Sheron, Brian Sent: 3 Jun 2015 03:58:55 -0400 To: West, Steven;Brock, Terry Cc: Case, Michael;Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

Re: Cancer study CA briefing slides Yep, good luck. If you do well, naturally I'll take all the credit. If you screw it up, I'll deny any respnsibility and blame it all on Terry. From: West, Steven Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 09:56 AM To: Brock, Terry; Sheron, Brian Cc: Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

Re: Cancer study CA bdefing slides

Terry, Looks good. I don't have any comments. Good luck with the briefings.

Steve Steven West, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. NRC From: Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, June 0 I, 201 5 04:3 7 PM To: Sheron, Brian; West, Steven Cc: Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

Cancer study CA briefing slides Brian/Steve, Attached are the cancer study slides I plan on using to brief the CAs' on June 1O and M.Weber pre-brief on June 5. You've seen these slides before in different briefs. Let me know if you want to tweak anything, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 30 Dec 2014 10:49:33 -0500 To: Brock, Terry;Tapp, Katherine Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca;Hathaway, Alfred

Subject:

RE: Cancer Study EDO Daily.docx Terry (b)(G)

        --~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~__,

The write-up below works for me and it's good to know that Brian has already blessed. Katie - when you send it to Steve let him know that Brian has already seen this. Sorry for the duplicative work.

-----Original Message-----

From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 20 14 I 0: 18 AM To: Coffin, Stephanie; Tapp, Katherine Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Hathaway, Alfred

Subject:

RE: Cancer Study EDO Daily.docx All, l(b)(G) l so I'm not available much. Looks like NAS issued the report too early. Below is the revised EDO note that Brian had already seen and provided feedback. Tsuggest we use th.is version. Thanks Katie!! Terry The National Academy of Science (NAS) Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning Project has been completed. NAS was to re;lease the report on January 5, 2015, but erroneously released the public repo11 on December 29, 20 I 4a"they provided staff a non-public advanced copy of the report that can be found in ADAMS (ML14357A430). Staff is reviewing the findings of the report to inform the execution step of the pilot study at seven sites: Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Millstone Power Station, Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Haddam Neck, Big Rock Point N uclear Power Plant, San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station, and Nuclear Fuel Services. NAS communicated with staff that the pilot study will focus on the feasibi lity of the study methods and require significant resources to complete. NAS will be providing a cost estimate for the execution phase of the pilot study in February. Staff will communicate with the Commission on the next steps via a SECY paper, including updated cost estimates for completing the pilot study. From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 9:59 AM To: Tapp, Katherine Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Brock, Terry; Hathaway, Alfred

Subject:

RE: Cancer Study EDO Daily.docx Katie, Great job! See attached suggested changes.

I modified it a little bit mostly to shorten but also to convey the message that the decision to go forward with the pilot study bas not yet been made (which is my understanding of the status). So I added the sentence at the end. Let me know if you think I am missing something. If you are good with it, go ahead and accept all the changes. Leta's !:,rive Ten)' and Rebecca a few hours to respond to this email. Ifwe donafTMt hear from them by l pm or so, letafTMs move the attached forward. Just send to Steve West for his review, and copy me and Shirley and Trey and Milton just so we are aware. Shirley knows how to process them. Stephanie From: Tapp, Katherine Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 9:36 AM To: Coffin, Stephanie Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Brock, Terry

Subject:

Cancer Study EDO Daily.docx As discussed. Please let me know if you have any comments/questions. Kaite

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 10 Jul 2015 09:34:04 -0400 To: Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Cancer Study Meeting Sorry Rebecca, I came in late and did not see this email before the meeting Bottom line - Brian is going to try again with Weber!

---

Original Message-----

From: Pope, Tia Sent: Friday, July 10, 2015 6:47 AM To: Tadesse, Rebecca; Coffin, Stephanie; Brock, Terry

Subject:

Cancer Study Meeting Bridgeline Information below: Dial in: 888-922-9161 f(li)(6)l Passcode: L__J

From: Case, M ichael Sent: 19 Aug 2015 17:56:49 -0400 To: Chen, Yen-Ju;Brock, Terry Cc: Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

Re: Cancer Study Paper Hi Yen. I was off today and couldn't tell if anyone had got back with you. Terry made the changes late yesterday. (I th ink) it's been shared w ith Brian. He had some additional thoughts based on the Mill ion Worker study that Mike added in. I th ink Steve West and Stephanie will have the baton tomorrow b/c both Brian and I are out. Thanks for your patience. The wheels are turning! On: 19 August 2015 13: 12, "Chen, Yen-Ju" wrote: Hi, Terry: How are you doing with the paper? Any chance that we will get it today? Yen

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 25 Aug 2015 14:53:38 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Cancer study press release OK, I think I see the disconnect - don't our Regional state liaison officers talk to the State RP directors? From: Brock, Terry Se nt: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:49 PM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: Cancer study press release Yep. Some are also the Liaison folks, but only about half. Terry From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:45 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Cancer study press release RP directors as in non-NRC, Agreement State staff? We can work something out. From : Brock, Terry Se nt: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:40 PM To: Burnell, Scott <Scott.Burnell@nrc.gov>; McGrady-Finneran, Patricia <Patricia.McGrady-Finneran@nrc.gov> Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca <Rebecca .Tadesse@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Cancer study press release Scott, The SLOs cover about 50% of the OAS RP Directors. The RP directors will have a keen interest in this info since they will likely be called about it. Is there any way we can include all State program RP folks to ensure complete coverage in the release? Terry From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:37 PM To: Brock, Terry; McGrady-Fin neran, Patricia Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

Re: Cancer study press release Hi all; OPA's existing procedure sends the press release internally an hour before it 's public, specifically so OCA and the SLOs can make their notifications. Scott Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell r )(6) From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 02:30 PM To: McGrady-Finneran, Patricia Cc: Burnell, Scott; Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

Cancer study press release Hi Patricia, Good to talk to you. So the plan is we will distribute the cancer study press release to the State Liaison and OAS Radiation Protection Directors via the designated State list server the morning of September 8 prior to NRC releasing the press release. Sound like a plan? Terry From: McGrady-Finneran, Patricia Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 2:02 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Hey Information Man! Hi Terrino! I called and left a voice mail message earlier. Paul said you needed my help regarding sending something out via LYRIS list servers. If you can fill me in this afternoon. There's a good chance I'll be out tomorrow Uury duty) and I want to be able to fill in the person who will actual ly be emailing your message out-so get back to me please. Patricia McGrady-Finncran Project Manager, USNRC Office of Nuclear Material Safety and Safeguards (NMSS) Division of Materials Safety, States, Tribal and Rulemaking (DMSSTR) Federal, State and Tribal Liaison Branch (FSTLB) Patricia.McGrady-Finneran@n rc.gov Phone: (301) 415-2326

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 21 Aug 2015 11:20:11 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: cancer study SECY.docx Thanks, I responded to her. We have a little bit of a version control issue that we can work out next week. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Friday, August 21, 2015 11:16 AM To: Coffin, Stephanie <Stephanie.Coffin@nrc.gov>

Subject:

cancer study SECY.docx Hi Stephanie, Per Mike W's request, here's the latest SECY version with Brian's suggestion finished. I suggest we emphasize that we found out that the low dose study is dead and we plan to confab with Brian on Monday about possible alternate endings. Terry

From: Case, Michael Sent: 1 Apr 2015 08:56:06 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Re: cancer study slides and pop for EDO meeting tomorrow Hey Terry. Good luck today. You'll do great. BTW, is congressional affairs going to be there? Might be good for them to hear in case there is an end run to Congress On: 31 March 20 15 13:30, "Brock, Terry" wrote: Attached are the revised slides for the cancer study EDO briefing and a meeting POP. Brian want ed a look-see before we forwarded to the EDO (Yen). Thanks Terry

From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: 31 Mar 2015 10:18:00 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Cancer Study Update Remind Mike Weber that if fuel facilities get dropped, public stakeholders wi ll complain (especially NFS stakeholders). From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, March 3 1, 2015 I 0: 15 AM To: Ramsey, Kevin S ubject: RE: Cancer Study Update Not necessarily, NCRP is able to include new sites using the NCJ protocol. I' ll keep you in the loop as we move forward to some conclusion. Meeting with EDO tomorrow.

Thx, Terry From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: Tuesday, March 31 , 2015 I 0: 11 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Cancer Study U pdate Was unpacking in new office and missed the meeting. TfNCRP option is selected, will fuel facilities be outside the scope of the effort? I don' t believe fuel facilities were addressed in the original report, so there is nothing to update.

---

Original Appointment-----

From: Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, March 30, 20 15 8:48 AM To: Milligan, Patricia; Garry, Steven; Burnell, Scott; Weil, Jenny; Ramsey, Kevin; Nimitz, Ronald; Hinson, Charles; Tadesse, Rebecca S ubject: Update: Slides attached - Cancer Study Update When: Monday, March 30, 2015 3:00 PM-4:00 PM (UTC-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada). Where: teleconference-bridge-line in message Slides I ' ll be going over during the meeting. << File: cancer_study_pilot_options_033020 l .pptx >> Hi All, This call is to give you the program office staff and user-need requesters an update on what RES has been thinking about in regards to the NAS cancer risk pilot studies proposal. We' ve had some discussions internally and with NAS on their pilot study execution proposal and would like to share this with you as a heads-up and to solicit input in preparation for developing the SECY paper on the next steps of the study. Bridge-line below.

Thanks,

Terry Passcodes/Pin codes: !Participant passcode:l(o)(&l For security reasons, the passcodc will be required to join the conference. Dial in numbers: Freephone/ Country Toll Numbers Toll Free Number USA 800-779-2652

Thanks, Terry

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 19 Jun 2015 11:11:26 -0400 To: Brock, Terry Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca;Case, M ichael

Subject:

RE: cancer_secy_take2 OK. Mike and I were anticipating Brian Sheron wanting this added but your points below make sense to me. So go ahead and ignore that suggested change. From : Brock, Terry Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 10:40 AM To: Coffin, Stephanie Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Case, Michael

Subject:

RE: cancer_secy_take2 Hi Stephanie. On the user-need reference . .. this is internal baseball stuff that la've been told from Brian to Weber over the years to not include in outside communications . . . la've added it before and it always gets taken out since this is all internal memos and not publicly available I recommend deleting the comment since the user-need requests arena't publicly available. As far as sad, not really, with this project I try to keep an even keel ...dona't be surprised to hear about this again . .. Terry From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 10:06 AM To: Brock, Terry Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Case, Michael

Subject:

RE: cancer_secy_take2 Importance: High Looks great. Please see attached for minor edits. Let me know if any concerns with these changes. Please ask Kim to update the ADAMS version and email it out like Tia did (minus CFO and ADM). Kim might appreciate it if you can find that email for her to use as a template. I have it but cannot access it as it is on my old computer. And then you can give your WG partners a ac:eheads upan and I will give my counterparts a ac:eheads upaL too. Thanks Terry. Are you sad? Stephanie From : Brock, Terry Sent: Friday, June 19, 2015 9:27 AM To: Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

cancer_secy_take2 See attached

From: Case, Michael Sent: 9 Jun 2015 07:12:55 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Coffin, Stephanie;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: cancer_study_CA_brief_NCRP_2_06152015.pptx Looks good to me. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, June 08, 2015 2 :53 PM To: Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

cancer_study_CA_bri ef_NCRP_2_06152015.pptx Hi, Take a looksee at slides 15 and 16 Terry

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 25 Aug 2015 10:01:58 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: cancer_study_comm_plan_2015_Closeout_l.docx Thanks. From: Brock, Terry Se nt: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:01 AM To: Burnell, Scott Subje ct: cancer_study_ comm_ plan_2015_ Closeout_ l.docx Draft comm plan and final secy

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 25 Aug 2015 13:11:00 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: cancer_study_comm_plan_2015_Closeout_l.docx Links to the 1990 NCI study pages are dead, cana't find anything in Google except IAEA, etc. From: Brock, Terry Se nt: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 10:01 AM To: Burnell, Scott Subje ct: cancer_study_ comm_ plan_2015_ Closeout_ l.docx Draft comm plan and final secy

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 25 Aug 2015 11:52:28 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: cancer_study_comm_ plan_2015_ Closeout_opa .docx Thanks Terry Does this reflect the comments I provided on the previous version (to the extent they apply)? From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 11:37 AM To: Tadesse, Rebecca <Rebecca.Tadesse@nrc.gov>; Coffin, Stephanie <Stephanie.Coffin@nrc.gov> Subje ct: cancer_study_comm_ plan_2015_Closeout_opa.docx Here you go, Scott and I put this comm plan together. We're working on the press release. Been on the phone with the State Liaison folks to give them a heads up and they will notify the states at the appropriate time.

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 10 Aug 2015 23:42:25 -0400 To: Brock, Terry Cc: Mcintyre, David

Subject:

RE: cancer_st udy_comm_plan_2015_srb Hey Terry; I'll be back next Monday; check with Dave if this has a shorter fuse. Thanks. Scott From : Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, August 10, 2015 12:33 PM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

cancer_study_comm_plan_2015_srb Straw responses to your three new Q's. Let's chat.. these need help.

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 27 Jul 2015 11:52:13 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: cancer_study_communication_plan_2015.docx Attachments: cancer_study_comm_plan_2015 _srb. docx Hi Terry; Made a few plain-language edits and added three Qs based on the change in approach. Thanks. Scott From : Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 2015 11:13 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

cancer_study_communication_plan_2015.docx Herea's the whole comm plan when you get a chance. Terry

COMMUNICATIONS PLAN ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS IN POPULATIONS LIVING NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES-NEXT STEPS 2015 Introduction The objective of this communication plan is to outline the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) strategy for communicating the key messages regarding the agency's next steps of the Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities study to update a 1990 National Cancer Institute (NCI) report. This plan specifically addresses the 2015 staff plan to switch investigators from the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to possibly the U .S . National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP) or some other entity following NRC's procurement process. Key Messages The NRC will communicate the following key messages to all stakeholders:

1. The NRC staff reviewed the NAS Pilot Planning Project Report and Pilot Execution Proposal.:.... and has deGitleG-te-Rot move fofWafG..wi.tfl..tihe pilot project~-GYe-tG--tA&sk:ltly duration, cost, and lack of usefulness et the pilot results forffi communicating cancer risks with stakeholderspreclude the agency devoting further resources to this effort.

2. The staffs current decided on a more modest approach wouldto directly update the NCI study with the same methods used in the original report. This approach is expected towould conclude be done sooner.1 aAfUGFcost less-eost, andwrule still provid~ffi§ updated cancer risk information for staff to discuss w ith our stakeholders.

3. The NRC will FefttJ0St-follow its normal procurement process to determine iftRat the Y.S.

National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRPj or some other comparable entity selected through the normal procurement-{3rocess do acan directjy update ef.-the original NCI study. This-a more modest alternative to theapproach than wAat NAS proposaled, however staff would meet the project's original intent - providing the staffstill find it valuable to have updated information on cancer risk-tl=le original intent of this project.. Appendix A provides responses to inquiries expected from the general public, congressional staff, the media, and other stakeholders. The appendices also include additional information for stakeholders who may be more familiar with these topics, such as elected officials, Federal and State Government officials, public interest groups, and certain members of the media.

Background

Each commercial nuclear power plant and fuel cycle facility that the NRC regulates is authorized to release radioactive materials to the environment as specified in the regulations and licensing

documents, in compliance with dose limits for members of the public and concentration limits for liquid and gaseous effluent releases to ensure offsite doses are as low as reasonably achievable (ALARA). The staff has concluded that offsite doses to individual members of the public as a result of these routine releases are ALARA and a small fraction of the dose limits specified in Title 10 of the Code of Federal Regulations (10 CFR) Part 20, "Standards for Protection Against Radiation," specifically 10 CFR 20.1301(a) and (e). The offsite dose to the highest exposed member of the public is also generally less than 1 percent of the amount of radiation the average U.S. citizen receives in a year from all background and medical sources. Nonetheless, some stakeholders have continued to express concerns about the potential effect of these releases on the health of residents living near nuclear facilities. These concerns are not new or unique to the United States. Since 2008, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and Switzerland have all conducted epidemiological studies near nuclear facilities within their borders to address public health concerns. These studies have generally found no association between facility operations and increased cancer risks to the public that are attributable to the releases. For example, the German study did find an association of increased childhood leukemia risk within 5 kilometers of the facilities; however, upon examination of the offsite exposures, the authors concluded the increased risk could not be explained by the releases from the facilities . The regional and headquarter staff routinely interact with stakeholders about their concerns of cancer risk from facility operations. Although the offsite doses to the public from routine facility operations are very low, communicating this very low risk can often be a challenge. To help address these concerns, the staff has been using the 1990 National Cancer lnstit1::1te (NClj study, "Cancer in Populations Living near Nuclear Facilities" (Agencywide Documents Access and Management System (ADAMS) Accession No. ML15035A630), and other more recent epidemiological reports conducted by various State health departments when communicating with the public on cancer mortality in populations near nuclear power facilities. The staff relies on credible health studies to augment its discussions about the NRC's robust regulatory programs to keep offsite doses ALARA by providing public health information that directly applies to the health outcomes that are often of concern (i.e., cancer). However, the 1990 NCI report is now more than 25 years old and focused primarily on cancer mortality, with limited cancer incidence (i.e., occurrence of the disease) in two states. As a result, there was broad agency support for an update to this report, including a study of incidence if feasible, that would allow the staff to evaluate and communicate more contemporary cancer information for populations living near NRG-licensed nuclear facilities. Audience/Stakeholders Internal External

• Commission
• Congress
• Office of the Executive Director for
• Federal agencies Operations (OEDO)
• Institute for Nuclear Power
• Advisory Committee on Reactor Operations Safety (ACRS)
• Electric Power Research Institute
• Office of the General Counsel (OGC)
• Nuclear Energy Institute
• Office of Congressional Affairs
• Conference of Radiation Control (OCA) Program Directors
• Office of International Programs
• Organization of Agreement States

(OIP)

• Agreement States
• Office of Public Affairs (OPA)
• news media (e.g., Inside NRG)
• Office of Nuclear Regulatory
• International Atomic Energy Agency Research (RES)
• nuclear regulators of other countries
• Office of New Reactors (NRO)
• residents living near nuclear power
• Office of Nuclear Reactor plants Regulation (NRR)
• State and local governments
• Office of Nuclear Security and
• public interest groups (e.g., Union of Incident Response (NSIR) Concerned Scientists)
• Office of Federal State Materials and
• academic and professional Environmental Management organizations (e.g., Health Physics Programs (FSME) Society, American Nuclear Society)
• Office of Nuclear Material Safety and
• NRC licensees Safeguards (NMSS)
• Nuclear Energy Agency
• Regions I- IV
• Foreign governments of countries with similar facilities Communication Team The Communication Team will assist the Team Leader as needed in developing uniform and accurate messages, initiating communication vehicles, and coordinating implementation plans for this project. The members of the Regional Communication Team will be responsible for coordinating communication within their regions.

Position Name Oraanization Teleohone Number Team Leader Terry Brock RES (301) 415-1793 NMSS Lead Kevin Ramsey NMSS 301) 415-7506 NRR Lead Steven Garry NRR 301) 415-2766 NRO Lead Charles Hinson NRO 301 ) 415-6619 NSIR Lead Trish Milligan NSIR (301) 415-2223 Region I Lead Ron Nimitz RI 610) 337-5267 Reaion II Lead Gena Woodruff Rll 404) 997-4739 Region Ill Lead John Cassidy Riii 630) 829-9667 Reqion IV Lead Don Stearns RIV 817) 200-1176 State Liaison Lead June Cai FSME 301) 415-5192 LeqalLead Beth Mizuno OGC 301) 415-3122 Public Affairs Lead Scott Burnell OPA 301) 415-8204 International Proqrams Andrea Jones OIP 301) 415-2309 Congressional Affairs Jenny Weil OCA 301) 415-1691 OEDOLead Lance Rakovan OEDO 301) 415-2589 Communication Tools Description/Purpose NRC External Web Site The NRC's external website will provide links to the NAS study web page, to the NCI Web page and to other related publicly available 8FFl81AL WSE 9tHs¥ iiMilll'Jli ltllliliUIH, ltl,08" 4119"

documents. Internal Briefings The Communication Team will conduct internal briefings at various points in the process to keep internal stakeholders informed of its activities and messages. Weekly Highlights and EDO Daily Notes The weekly highlights and/or EDO Daily Notes will report on significant milestones. Internet E-Mail The Communication Team will e-mail significant information on the status of the study and deliverables to internal stakeholders. Commissioners' Assistants Notes Commissioners' Assistants Notes will be used to communicate information about public meetings, study status, and other items of significant interest Description/Purpose Commissioner Interactions The Communication Team will coordinate and assist in preparing briefing materials for the interactions of Commissioners with various stakeholders. Public Meetings If necessary, public meetings could be held to discuss the final study report after NAS has briefed the staff and/or Commission on the findings and a Commission-approved message has been developed. Issuance of Significant Correspondence The project manager will coordinate the issuance of correspondence with key internal and external stakeholders. The Communication T earn will coordinate with OPA when preparing press releases and interacting with the media. Congressional Communications OCA will coordinate all communication with Congress. Media Communications OPA will coordinate all communication with the media. OFFICIAL t:I~! OIR'f = ~1!!14~1flVE UfFERUAL ltJFQAM:\:rlOH

Communication Challenges The Communication Team is likely to encounter challenges in the following two areas while implementing this plan: (1) Effective Communication with the General Public This study and its results will be of significant interest to the general public, particularly those members of the general public who live within the areas analyzed in the study. All NRC-produced materials must take into account the limited technical background of some stakeholders and the sensitivity of issues relating to cancer. In addition, various stakeholder groups have expressed concern with perceived elevated cancer risks in populations that live near nuclear facilities. (2) Public Perceptions of the NRC and the NCRP Communications regarding this study should address the frequent misconception among some stakeholders that the NRC promotes the use of nuclear power (i.e., to generate electricity). In addition, communication efforts must stress the NCRP was established by Congress to provide scientific information and advice to the government, and that any NCRP report will be independent of the NRC and reflect the Council's best judgment. Updates and Revisions If major revisions to this plan or its key messages are necessary, the Team Leader willl ensure that a formal revision is made and placed in the Agencywide Documents Access and Management System and on the internal communications Web page. The Team Leadler will also determine the need for updates to the questions and answers in Appendix A to this plan. These updates will not constitute a revision to this plan. As needed, the Communication Team will assess the degree of success that key messages and talking points have with the target stakeholder audience, and will modify/adapt the key message as necessary. The Team Leader will brief key staff as needed regarding revisions to the messages, talking points, or guidance based on immediate concerns or questions asked by the stakeholder audience. Final Closeout At the conclusion of the study, the Team Leader will prepare a brief closeout statement about the challenges and successes related to the communication plan and attach it to the end of the last draft.

Appendix A Questions and Answers Q1. Why has the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) decided to conduct this study now? A 1. This study will provide the NRC staff with the most current scientific information for responding to stakeholder concerns related to cancer mortality and incidence rates for populations that live near past, present, and proposed nuclear power facilities. T he NRC staff has used a 1990 study conducted by the National Cancer Institute (NCI), "Cancer in Populations Living near Nuclear Facilities," as a valuable risk communication tool for addressing stakeholder concerns about cancer mortality attributable to the operation of nuclear power facilities. However, the NCI report is over 25 years old and a new study needs to be performed to reflect the current populations living near nuclear power facilities. In addition, the analyses in the NCI report focus on cancer deaths, and the general public is often also interested in cancer incidence (e.g., being diagnosed with cancer, but not necessarily dying from the disease). Q2. Why isn't NCI conducting this follow-up to their 1990 work? A2. The NRC staff approached NCI management in [2007?] about performing a new study under contract to the NRC, but because of staffing limitations, NCI was unable to commit resources for this activity for the foreseeable future. Q3. Why is the NRC abandoning the National Academies suggested research methods? Q4. Why does the NRC think the cost of the study is more important than giving the public the best information about cancer risks from nuclear power? QS. Why should the public trust the NRC when it's abandoning a truly independent look at cancer risk? Q3. Which additional nuclear facilities could be included in the study? A3. The NRC is to study all NRC-licensed nuclear power reactors and fuel cycle facilities (e.g., fuel enrichment and fabrication plants) that are in operation in the United States.

Comment IBSI: Strict ly t rue? Should we The 1990 NCI report included all 52. commercial nuclear power facilities in the United States explain the NCRP approach is overall that that started operation before 1982. Preliminary information indicates that 25 new reactor sites have begun operation since 1982. The 25 new reactor sites and fuel cycle facilities will i mortality, not broken dow n by age? also be included in the study. Q4. Does the NRC suspect that cancer mortality rates are elevated around nuclear  ! power plants?  ! j A4. The study tests the basic premise that there is no difference in cancer rates near nuclear power plants compared to populations further away.  ! The staff does net believe§. the low doses from the routine operations of NRC-licensed  ! facilities would result inare too small to cause observable elevated rates of cancer near the facilitiesifl4Re..pop1:1lalians. The NAS Phase 1 committee's decision to not calculate sample sizes based on actual off-site doses confirms the staff position that at the low offsite doses I from these facilities, researchers would not expect to observe any increased cancer risks in the populations surrounding these f acilities attributed to the regulated release of radioactive effluents. Nevertheless, the staff believes that despite these potential limitations and expected outcomes, the studies would be helpful to address public hea lth concerns and are therefore still worthwhile to pursue. I! QS. How can I be sure that the nuclear power plant is not causing cancer? If I lived i near a power plant, how might I be exposed to radiation? For example, if my house is j 2 miles away from a reactor, am I being exposed whenever I am at my house?  ! AS. In the previous study NCI found no increased risk of cancer in those people who lived in counties near nuclear facilities. Nuclear facilities release very small regulated amounts of radioactivity, at very slow rates into the environment. The amounts released are strictly controlled within limits set by the NRC and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Any exposures that may occur are below the established safety limits. The radioactive emissions from nuclear power plants only contribute a very small fraction (1/10001h) of our yearly total radiation exposure (approximately 0.1 percent). For comparison, your radiation I exposure from natural radiation sources in soil and rocks, radon gas in homes, radiation from space, and other sources that are naturally found within the human body contributes to approximately 50 percent or 500 times more radiation than from nuclear facilities. The other half of your yearly exposure (also 500 times more radiation than nuclear facilities) is from man-made sources, such as consumer products, medical procedures, and to a much lesser I f extent, industrial sources. i I ~6. Will the study address cancer rates from leukemia in children near nuclear i facilities?  ! A6. Yes. The study will address leukemia in all age groups, including children (0- 5 years))__ __) Q7. I live near a nuclear power plant and my husband died of cancer. Will this

study prove that living near the plant caused the cancer? A?. No, the study is designed to survey trends in populations and does not evaluate the cause of individual cases. However, the study does give us an indication if the cancer rates of populations near nuclear facilities are the same, greater, or less than what is expected. Q8. Are such studies able to detect population health effects from industrial sources? A8. Yes. NCI has effectively used county-based studies in the past to study cancer mortality rates. For example, NCI has used county-based studies to show elevated rates of lung cancer deaths in counties with shipyard industries and in counties with arsenic-emitting smelters and refineries. Q9. Were past studies, such as the French and German studies on childhood leukemia and radiation from nuclear power plants, being considered? A9. Yes, these studies are considered in any literature review of this subject matter. Q10. Why some local cancer studies around some nuclear plants show increased cancer rates and some show no increase? A 10. Numerous local cancer studios that have been performed by local groups near nuclear plants have done studies that could suggest~ an increase in cancer risk. T hese local studies are sometimes based on small populations or groups and may or may notcould be influenced by local confounding factors, such as eating habits, cigarette smoking, and chemical exposures. In addition, some studies may niot be using scientifically accepted epidemiology methods and as such may not be credible. Any local cancer studies should be submitted to the relevant ~§.tate'...§_ Health Department, or to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry. However, the NRC has evaluated the radiation levels from radioactive effluents and radiation from nuclear power plants and found that the levels are very low. Therefore, even with a conservative linear, no-threshold assumption, the corresponding cancer risk is very low. Q11 . How will the NRC consider this resulting data in new reactor reviews and relicensing decisions? A 11. The NRC will use the results of the study to answer recurring questions from our stakeholders during the public comment period for regulatory actions. If necessary the results could prompt further review of both new reactor and existing regulations to ensure the effluent and direct radiation exposure dose limits adequately protect public health and safety. Q12. What will the NRC do if the results indicate a n increase in cancer risk in some

populations that live near a specific nuclear facility? A 12. While the project is still ongoing, the NRC expects any data suggesting increases in cancer risk will first be assessed against tAe-leve1&-ef...radiation dose.§ attributable to strictly regulated radioactive materials released during plant operation, as well as any public radiation dose that might result from the releases. This Gata-assessment would assist-iA-examin§~ any relationship between the study results and potential radiation exposures of the public at individual plants. Furthermore, the public radiation doses from operating plants are significantly below the radiation safety dose limits set to protect the public and are a small fraction of dose received from natural background. If there continues to be a concern then more refined epidemiology studies can be performed (e.g., case-control study). Q13. I live near a nuclear power plant or in near of the proposed pilot study sites. Will I be contacted during this study for information? Will my family or personal medical information be protected during this study or during a cancer incidence study? A 13. The data used in this study will be obtained from anonymous state and national sources. These data do not contain personal identifying information making it impossible to determine to whom the medical information belongs. Q14. How does the NRC ensure the validity of the licensee's reporting of off-site doses and environmental monitoring results? A 14. The licensee is required to establish, implement, and maintain an acceptable effluent and environmental monitoring program. As such the licensee has the primary responsibility to ensure conformance with all applicable requirements in the area of effluent and environmental monitoring. The NRC performs selective inspections of the program to validate that the licensee is implementing such a program and that public doses are maintained well below regulatory requirements and are in fact as low as reasonably achievable. The following points illustrate this approach:

1) NRC has impose*d strict regulatory requirements for conduct of both station effluent monitoring control and environmental monitoring. These requirements are designed to ensure licensee doses to members of the public are well below regulatory limits and are as low as reasonably achievable. Consequently, licensees are obl igated to establish, implement, and maintain programs to sample, monitor, evaluate, and control effluents. The licensee is also required to collect and analyze environment samples to detect activity associated with facility operations. The sampling program is designed to review exposure pathways and sampling results. The environmental monitoring program is designed to provide a check on the station effluents control program.

2) The NRC has established reporting requirements that require the licensee to report

effluent and or environmental monitoring issues as established in program requirements. NRC initiates appropriate reviews and evaluation of the reports and conducts follow-up inspections as appropriate.

3) The NRC conducts routine inspections in a variety of ways. The NRC maintains an onsite resident inspection staff that selectively and routinely reviews on-going activities to become aware of issues that may impact effluent or environmental monitoring including public dose. For example the residents review corrective action documents to evaluate potential impact on the effluents control program. The residents also review radiation monitors for indication of releases. During their inspections residents also look for potential unmonitored release paths.

4) The NRC also uses specialist inspectors, independent of the resident staff, to conduct periodic onsite inspections of both effluent release and environmental monitoring programs to ensure the licensee conforms with applicable requirements.

As part of this review, NRC inspectors also review ground water controls. The inspectors evaluate the adequacy of quality assurance of measurements to ensure they are of appropriate quality and that the licensee is implementing a robust quality assurance program.

5) The NRC routinely reviews secondary evaluations conducted as part of the licensees' quality assurance programs (e.g., audits and assessments) as well as independent measurements conducted by other regulatory entities (e.g., state monitoring programs).

6) In addition, and as necessary, the NRC conducts independent confirmatory sampling to validate the accuracy of licensee measurements.

7) Information provided to the NRC by a licensee must be complete and accurate in all material respects. Submitting falsified information to the NRC is considered a violation of the regulations and will have severe implications. (For additional information, please refer to the Enforcement Policy.)

ADAMS Accession No.: OFFICE RES/DSNRPB BC: RES/DSA/RPB D:RES/DSA R:RES/DSA NAME T. Brock R. Tadesse M. Case B. Sheron DATE 07/22/15

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 2 Sep 2015 09:28:17 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Re: Comm plan discussion Ok, I'll let you know when I break free here. Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell l(b)(6)

----- Original Message -----

From: Brock, Teny Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 09:26 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: Comm plan discussion Sounds good

-----Original Message-----

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9:22 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Re : Comm plan discussion Ok, ifl g ive you 15 min warning is that enoug h? Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell l(b)(6)

----- Original Message -----

From: Brock, Teny Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 09:1 9 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: Comm plan discussion We can eat lunch and talk in the TWFN cafeteria if you want.

-----Original Message-----

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 9: 16 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Re: Comm plan discussion lf it's still @ l l can call in. I'm over at the Adv Rx workshop this morning, closer to (or shortly after) noon would work better. Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell l(b)(6)

---

Original Message -----

From: Brock, Ten)' Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 08:35 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: Comm plan discussion Yes, the call is tomorrow. Are you completely out of pocket? W e need to divvy up who does what Can you stop by al IO?

---

Original Message-----

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 8:34 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Comm plan discussion Hi Terry; Is it still set for tomorrow? ln any case, I'll try and stop by later today if you'll be around. Thanks. Scott Sent from an NRC Blackberry ttBtrnll

From: Brock, Terry Sent: 9 Sep 2015 16:46:48 +0000 To: Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

RE: CONFIRMATION - Letter to NAS Here you go >> Open ADAMS P8 Document (Letter to K. Crowley for ending the "Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities") From: Coffin, Stephanie Se nt: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:43 PM To: Brock, Terry Subje ct: RE: CONFIRMATION - Letter to NAS Can you send me the letter to NAS? Not sure how it was distributed. From: Weber, Michael Se nt: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:41 PM To: Sheron, Brian <Brian.Sheron@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven .West@nrc.gov> Cc: Case, Michael <Michael.Case@nrc.gov>; Coffin, Stephanie <Stephanie.Coffin@nrc.gov>; Tadesse, Rebecca <Rebecca .Tadesse@nrc.gov>; Rosales-Cooper, Cindy <Cindy.Rosales-Cooper@nrc.gov>; Foster, Jack <Jack.Foster@nrc.gov>; Chen, Yen-Ju <Yen-Ju.Chen@nrc.gov>; Rihm, Roger

<Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>

Subject:

CONFIRMATION - Letter to NAS OCA shared your letter to NAS with our Congressional contacts. From: Weil, Jenny Se nt: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 12:30 PM To: Weber, Michael <Michael.Weber@nrc.gov> Subje ct: RE: RESPONSE - Letter to NAS Hi Mike, we did pass along the letter to the Hill. From: Weber, Michael Se nt: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 9:28 AM To: Weil, Jenny <Jenny.Weil@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RESPONSE - Letter to NAS Sure thing . Can you inform me when we have shared with the Hill? From: Weil, Jenny Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 9:25 AM To: Weber, Michael <Michael.Weber@nrc.gov> Subje ct: RE: ACTION - Letter to NAS Thanks Mike!

From : Weber, Michael Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 8:56 AM To: Dacus, Eugene <Eugene.Dacus@nrc.gov>; Colgary, James <James.Colgarv@nrc.gov> Cc: Weil, Jenny <Jenny.Weil@nrc.gov>; Decker, David <David.Decker@nrc.gov>; Rihm, Roger

<Roger.Rihm@nrc.gov>

Subject:

ACTION - Letter to NAS Good morning, Gene and Jim. Big day for the hearing this morning. Attached is the letter that Brian Sheron sent to the National Academy of Sciences today (I thought he had signed it yesterday, but apparently it was not sent, following his discussion with NAS yesterday morning). Please share the letter with our oversight and appropriations committees for their awareness. Thanks

From: Sheron, Brian Sent: 11 Sep 2015 09:02:06 -0400 To: Burnell, Scott;Weber, Michael;Case, Michael;Coffin, Stephanie;Tades.se, Rebecca;Brock, Terry;West, Steven

Subject:

RE: CORRECTION STATEMENT: NRC decides to terminate study on cancer risks near nuclear facilities BTW, this is a true statement. The issues were that 1.) NAS does not have a good reputation for completing studies on schedule, so we expected that the 39 months would extend to close to 48 months, or 4 years, and 2.) they said we would not be able to draw any conclusions from the pilot study, and they told us informally that to do a study that would give us results we could draw conclusions from would likely take 52 months and cost about $10M. We also expected that is was an optimistic estimate. From : Sheron, Brian Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 8:56 AM To: Burnell, Scott; Weber, Michael; Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca; Brock, Terry

; West, Steven

Subject:

FW: CORRECTION STATEMENT: NRC decides to terminate study on cancer risks near nuclear facilities Importance: High FYI. From: Interested parties list for activities pertaining to the Cancer Risk project [2] On Behalf Of Greenleaf, Toni Sent: Friday, September 11, 2015 8:54 AM To: CANCERRISKSTUDY@ LSW.NAS.EDU

Subject:

[External_Sender] CORRECTION STATEMENT: NRC decides to terminate study on cancer risks near nuclear facilities Importance: High The National Acade111ies of SC IENCES* ENGIN EERING

• MEDICINE Date: Sept. 10, 2015 Correction regarding NRC cancellation of NAS study on cancer risks The Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) announced Tuesday that it has decided to stop work on the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study on cancer risks in populations living near U.S. nuclear facilities. The NRC cited the long duration and high cost of the NAS pilot study, and the long duration of a subsequent nationwide study, as reasons to end the study.

Several media outlets have reported incorrectly that NAS estimated the pilot study would take 8 to 10 years to complete at a cost of $8 million. In fact, the NAS estimated that it would take 39 months at a cost of $8 million to complete the pilot study of 7 nuclear facilities, which was intended to inform the feasibility, schedule, and cost of a nationwide study. NAS did not provide time or cost estimates for a nationwide study. The NRC made its own estimate that it may take 8 to 10 years to complete both the pilot and subsequent nationwide studies, and offered no additional cost estimate.

Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board 500 5th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 (202) 334-3066

From: Case, M ichael Sent: 24 Dec 2014 09:47:05 -0500 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Cost of the NCI Study thanks

---

Original Message-----

From: Brock, Tcny Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 2014 9:44 AM To: Case, Michael Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Coffin, Stephanie; Sheron, Brian; West, Steven

Subject:

RE: Cost of the NCI Study Let me check with John Boice, the original PI. From: Case, Michael Sent: Wednesday, December 24, 20 14 9:1J AM To: Brock, Teny Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Coffin, Stephanie; Sheron, Brian; West, Steven

Subject:

Cost of the NCI Study Hi Terry. Dona't know if you were in today. Do you know the approximate cost of the NCI Cancer Study?

From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: 19 Mar 2014 10:34:07 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Diaz, Marilyn

Subject:

RE: Doceckt Number for NFS How far back are you going? Some information is already posted at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/fuel-fab/nfs-effluent-reports. html. Unfortunately , it doesna't appear to have been updated recen!!_y. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:22 AM To: Diaz, Marilyn Cc: Ramsey, Kevin

Subject:

RE: Doceckt Number for NFS Thanks From: Diaz, Marilyn Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:49 AM To: Brock, Terry Cc: Ramsey, Kevin

Subject:

RE: Doceckt Number for NFS Hi Terry, la'm not sure if Kevin has already responded to your email but if not, NFS docket number is 70-143.

Thanks, Marilyn From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 9:42 AM To: Ramsey, Kevin Cc: Diaz, Marilyn

Subject:

Doceckt Number for NFS Hi Kevin, la'm m starting to collect environmental and effluent reports for the NFS site to support the NAS cancer risk study. Do you have their specific docket number handy? I have OIS p lugged in to retrieve old paper records if they need to, I just need to get them some identifier information so they can retrieve the records from the catacombs.

Thanks, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487

From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: 19 Mar 2014 11:29:00 -0400 To: Brock, Terry Cc: Diaz, Marilyn;Johnson, Robert

Subject:

RE: Docket Number for NFS Attachments: NFS effluent records 1986 - 1995 legacy library.pdf, NFS effluent records 1996 - 2000 legacy library.pdf, NFS effluent records 2002 - 2004 main library.pdf, NFS effluent records 2005 - 2013 main library.pdf, NFS effluent records before 1986 legacy library.pdf, NFS effluent records before 2002 main library.pdf Herea's what I found . From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:35 AM To: Ramsey, Kevin

Subject:

RE: Doceckt Number for NFS As far back as we have records. From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 10:34 AM To: Brock, Terry; Diaz, Marilyn

Subject:

RE: Doceckt Number for NFS How far back are you going? Some information is already posted at http://www.nrc.gov/materials/fuel-cycle-fac/fuel-fab/nfs-effluent-reports. html. Unfortunately, it doesna't appear to have been updated recently.

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :19:43 AM Page 1of6 Accession Number 8602030038 Document Title Forwards Nov 1985, "Radiological Monitoring of Stack Effluents - NFS,Erwin,TN," per NRC contractor team 850204-15 onsite visit.Comments re sizeable discrepancies between NRC & facility data requested. Document Date 1/22/86 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 8603260436 Document Title Ack receipt of Oak Ridge Associated Univs (ORAU) rept on monitoring of stack effluents.Good agreement between ORAU & NFS results for major discharge stack noted.Rapt on impact of under-reporting of discharges from Stack 278 encl. Document Date 3/4/86 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8604210082 Document Title lnsp Rept 70-0143/86-04 on 860121-24.Violation noted: inadequate procedures for sampling,preparation

                             & analysis of effluent radioactivity & environ samples.

Document Date 4/8/86 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 8609220142 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas,Jan-June 1986." W/860829 !tr. Document Date 6/30/86 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8611260500 Document Title lnsp Rept 70-0143/86-44 on 861006-24.No violations or deviations identified.Major areas inspected:liquid effluent releases into sanitary sewer sys.Tables of results of sampling encl. Document Date 11/3/86 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8703190060 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas,Jul-Dec 1986." W/870227 ltr. Document Date 12/31/86 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8704030062 Document Title lnsp Rept 70-0143/87-06 on 870209-13 & 0302-04. No violations or deviations noted.Major areas inspected:radwaste mgt, effluent monitoring & environ monitoring.seaboard railroad property,radwaste burial ground & waste treatment ponds. Document Date 3/10/87 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8704070467 Document Title Advises that 861218 revs to Chapter 2.0 & App A of fundamental mall control plan to allow processing of laundry effluent in Bldg 111 or discharging to waste water treatment facility acceptable.License Condition 2.1 being revised. Document Date 1/2/87 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 87051 10212 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas for Jul-Dec 1986." W/870324 ltr. Document Date 12/31/86 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :19:43 AM Page 2 of 6 Accession Number 8709100181 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas for Jan-June 1987." W/870828 ltr. Document Date 6/30/87 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8808180248 Document Title lnsp Rept 70-0143/88-18 on 88071 1-15.No violations & O.viations noted.Major areas inspected:environ monitoring, liquid radwaste treatment.effluent measurements & analyses & confirmatory measurements. Document Date 7/28/88 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8812220069 Document Title Application for amend to License SNM-124,revising SG-2 Condition 2.12 re highly enriched U-bearing liquid effluents.Fee paid. Document Date 10/14/88 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8901090017 Document Title lnsp Rept 70-0143/88-31 on 881128-1202.No violations & deviations noted.Major areas inspected: radiological effluent sampling & monitoring,radiologncal environ enhancement projects & State of TN end-of-project radiation survey. Document Date 12/22/88 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8903210030 Document Title "NFS Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas,Ju l-Dec,1988." W/890301 ltr. Document Date 12/31/88 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8910020064 Document Title lnsp Rept 70-0143/89-20 on 890814-18.No violations & deviations noted.Major areas inspected:areas of radiological effluent processing,radwaste,radiological environ monitoring.burial ground treatment & pond decommissioning. Document Date 9/7/89 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9005080060 Document Title lnsp Rept 70-0143/90-08 on 900319-23.No violations or deviations noted.Major areas inspected: radiological effluents,environ monitoring,onsite waste burial & Pu facility & pond decommissioning. Document Date 4/6190 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9008240207 Document Title lnsp Rept 70-0143/90-16 on 900716-20 & 30-31.No violations or deviations noted.Major areas inspected: radiological effluents.environ monitoring.solid waste burials & Pu facility & pond decommissioning. Document Date 8/9190 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9009070041 Document Title Effluent monitoring rept for Jan-June 1990.W/900831 ltr. Document Date 6130190 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :19:43 AM Page 3 of 6 Accession Number 9010170149 Document Title Submits amended rept of effluent monitoring at Erwin.TN plant for Jan-June 1990.Amended rept fulfills licensee commitment to provide update upon receipt of outstanding isotopic resu lts. Document Date 10/9/90 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 9010170173 Document Title Amended rept of effluent monitoring & release to unrestricted areas for Jan-June 1990. Document Date 6130/90 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9 106050330 Document Title Forwards NFS weekly status rept for wks of 910513-17 & 0520- 24.Regional insp will be conducted during wk of 910520 in area of decommissioning & radioactive effluents & chemistry. Document Date 5/20191 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9 109100285 Document Title Forwards "Monthly Discharge Monitoring Rept for June 1991" & "Toxicological Evaluation of Treated Effluent Biomonitoring Support for NPDES Permit:NFS,lnc May Monitoring Period." Document Date 7/15/91 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9 109100300 Document Title "Toxicological Evaluation of Treated Effluent Biomonitoring Support for NPDES Permit:NFS,lnc May Monitoring Period." Document Date 5/31/91 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 9 110080178 Document Title Forwards corrected rept of effluent monitoring at plant for Jan-June 1991,containing outstanding isotopic results. Document Date 919/91 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9 110080349 Document Title Corrected "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas.Jan-June 1991." Document Date 6/30/91 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9 110100159 Document Title Forwards amended rept of effluent monitoring at Erwin, TN plant for period covering Jan - June 1991,in accordance w/ requirements set forth in 10CFR70.59.W/o encl. Document Date 916/91 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9 112120015 Document Title lnsp rept 70-0143/91-29 on 911021-25 & 30-31.Noncited violation noted.Major areas inspected:plutonium facilities decommissioning.waste ponds decommissioning,radwaste mgt, including radioactive liquid effluents & environ protection. Document Date 11/27/91 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :19:43 AM Page 4 of 6 Accession Number 9204070279 Document Title "Biannual Effluent Monitoring Rept," for Jul-Dec 1991. W/920228 ltr. Document Date 12/31/91 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9302100085 Document Title Forwards corrected Page 11 to licensee 930126 response to NRC 921112 request for addl info re dose assessments & effluent data. Document Date 2/1/93 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9305120303 Document Title "Biannual Effluent Monitoring Rept Jul-Dec 1992." W/930301 ltr. Document Date 12/31/92 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9307120070 Document Title Forwards insp rept 70-0143/93-13 on 930504-0604.Violation noted being considered for escalated enforcement action & involves failure to comply w/existing nuclear criticality safety limits during transfers of liquid effluents. Document Date 6/24/93 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9310130309 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas." W/930827 ltr. Document Date 6/30/93 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9406060085 Document Title lnsp rept 70-0143/94-05 on 940414,18-22 & 28.No violations noted.Major areas inspected:environ monitoring,liquid & gaseous effluent waste mgt,plutonium facilities & waste ponds decommissioning activities & radwaste transport. Document Date 5/25/94 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9407280064 Document Title "PCE WWTF Effluent Concentration Jan 1994." W/940215 ltr. Document Date 1/31/94 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 9407280122 Document Title "Rept Of Effluent Monitoring & Release To Unrestricted Areas," for period of Jul-Dec 1993.W/940301 ltr. Document Date 12/31/93 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9408290375 Document Title Requests authorization of addl effluent stream to sanitary sewer & adjusted sewer rate to reflect advanced payment for any sewer discharges above 1993 average daily flow of 22,738 gallons per day. Document Date 6/16/94 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :19:43 AM Page 5 of 6 Accession Number 9409190260 Document Title Forwards "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas Jan-June 1994" & amended "Effluent Monitoring Rept for First Half 1993." Document Date 8/29/94 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 9409190262 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas Jan-June 1994." Document Date 6/30/94 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9409190264 Document Title Amended "Effluent Monitoring Rept for First Half of 1993." Document Date 6/30/93 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9502160262 Document Title Submits plans for remediating areas of Pond 4 outside of Bldg 410,including evaluations of estimated worker & public radiation exposures & potential groundwater impact.Summary rept, "Impact of Airborne Radioactive Effluent..." encl. Document Date 2/8/95 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9502160265 Document Title "Summary Rept:lmpact of Airborne Radioactive Effluent From Pond 4 Remediation Project." Document Date 11/ 10194 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9503090295 Document Title "Bi-annual Effluent Monitoring Rept Jul-Dec 1994." W/950228 ltr. Document Date 12/31194 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9506280019 Document Title lnsp rept 70-0143/95-03 on 950522-26.No violations noted. Major areas inspected:environ monitoring program.effluent controls & mgt. Document Date 6/16195 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9509080100 Document Title "Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid & Air.Jan-June 1995." WI 950829 ltr. Document Date 6/30/95 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9509180315 Document Title lnsp rept 70-0143/95-06 on 950807-11.No violations noted. Major areas inspected:onsite review of environmental monitoring program effluent controls & mgt program.status of "Pond 4" area decommissioning project. Document Date 9/8195 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :19:43 AM Page 6 of 6 Accession Number 9603050369 Document Title "Biannual Effluent Monitoring Rept Jul-Dec 1995," per 10CFR70.59.W/960129 ltr. Document Date 12/31/95 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9607030306 Document Title "Radioactivity In Effluent Liquid & Air from Jul-Dec 1995." W/960229 ltr. Document Date 12/31/95 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9803060336 Document Title Amended "Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid," for period Jul-Dec 1995. Document Date 12/31/95 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9805140059 Document Title Forwards "Biannual Effluent Monitoring rept for Jan-June 1992." Isotopic ratios applied to determine respective activity contributions were estimated by averaging available appropriate isotopic ratios. Amended rept will be provided. Document Date 8/28/92 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9805180092 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestircted Areas for Jan-June 1992." Document Date 6/30/92 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/201411 :13:27 AM Page 1of3 Accession Number 9608280262 Document Title "Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Rept for Jan-June 1996." W/960822 ltr. Document Date 6/30196 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9703040368 Document Title "Bi-annual Effluent Monitoring Rept for Jul-Dec 1996." W/970225 ltr. Document Date 12/31196 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9707030103 Document Title lnsp rep! 70-0143/97-05 on 970512-16.No violations noted. Major areas inspected:effluent waste mgt, environ protection & decommissioning activities. Document Date 6/13197 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9709190180 Document Title "Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Rept in Effluent Liquid for Period of Jan-June 1997." W/970829 ltr. Document Date 6/30197 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9803060322 Document Title Forwards "Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Repts" & amends to previous repts for 1996 & 1997. Document Date 2/27/98 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 9803060325 Document Title "Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid," for period Jul-Dec 1997. Document Date 12/31197 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9803060326 Document Title "Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Air," for period Jul-Dec 1997. Document Date 12/31197 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9803060330 Document Title Amended "Bi-Annual Effl uent Monitoring Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Air," for period Jan-June 1997. Document Date 6/30197 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9803060340 Document Title Amended "Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Rep! of Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid," for period Jan-June 1996. Document Date 6/30/96 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/201411 :13:27 AM Page 2 of 3 Accession Number 9803060343 Document Title Amended "Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid," for period Jul-Dec 1996. Document Date 12/31/96 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9803060346 Document Title Amended "Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid," for period Jan-June 1997. Document Date 6130/97 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9806250186 Document Title Forwards draft "Environ Assessment for Renewal of SNM-124." EA can be finalized after NRC provides guidance on how to resolve effluent & environ monitoring issues & on whether North Site actions will remain as proposed by NFS. Document Date 6/8/98 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9809030055 Document Title Forwards "Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid for Period.Jan-June 1998." Attachment C includes amended repts for radioactivity in effluent air for liste d monitoring periods Jul-Dec 1996,Jan-June & Jul-Dec 1997. Document Date 8128/98 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 9809030061 Document Title "Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid Jan-June 1998." Document Date 6/30/98 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9809030066 Document Title Amended "Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid Jul-Dec 1997." Document Date 12/31/97 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9810020015 Document Title Forwards add I info on radiological air & liquid effluents reported for first six months of 1998, per 980914 telcon with H Astwood & W Gloersen of NRC. Document Date 9/28/98 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9903 160151 Document Title Forwards "Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid for Period Jul-Dec 1998" & "Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Air for Period Jul-Dec 1998," IAW requirement of 10CFR70.59. Document Date 2/25/99 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9903 160154 Document Title "Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid for Period Jul-Dec 1998." Document Date 12/31/98 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/201411 :13:27 AM Page 3 of 3 Accession Number 9903160155 Document Title "Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Air for Period Jul-Dec 1998." Document Date 12/31/98 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9909010035 Document Title Forwards bi-annual effluent monitoring repts for Jan-June 1999,IAW 10CFR70.59 requirements.Revised dose & air activity concentration summary rept for period July-Dec 1998,encl. Document Date 8127199 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9909010037 Document Title "Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid for Period Jan- June 1999." Document Date 6/30/99 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9909010040 Document Title "Rept of Radioactivity in Effluent Air for Period Jan-June 1999." Document Date 6/30199 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/201410:57:54 AM Page 1of6 Accession Number ML030690609 Document Title Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report July through December 2002. Document Date 2127103 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML031070533 Document Title 05/0112003 Notice of Meeting with Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc Re BLEU Preparation Facility and Future BLEU Oxide Conversion Facility and Effluent Processing Building Licensing Amendment Applications. Document Date 4117103 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML032720728 Document Title Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report, January Through June 2003. Document Date 8/26103 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML033010178 Document Title Proposed Revisions to the NFS Emergency Plan to support the Oxide Conversion Building (OCB) and Effluent Process Building (EPB). Document Date 10/24/03 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number ML033140002 Document Title 11/ 19/2003 Notice of NFSINRC Meeting to Discuss Oxide Conversion and Effluent Processing Buildings in the BLEU Complex Submittal. Document Date 11/7/03 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML033250324 Document Title 11/19/2003 Overview of License Amendment Application for Oxide Conversion & Effluent Processing Buildings. Document Date 11/19103 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML033350258 Document Title 10/23/03-License Amendment Request for Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building at BLEU Complex. Document Date 10/23/03 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML033360220 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Meeting Summary, November 19, 2003, Kick-Off Meeting With Nuclear Fuel Services Re: Overview of License Amendment Application For Oxide Conversion & Effluent Processing Building. Document Date 11/21103 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML033380535 Document Title 11/ 14103-Non-Proprietary Version of Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) Summary for the BLEU Project Oxide Conversion and Effluent Processing Buildings. Document Date 11/14/03 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/201410:57:54 AM Page 2 of 6 Accession Number ML033420756 Document Title Attachment II to 10123103 Letter, Revision 0 to 21T-03-0978, Integrated Safety Analysis Summary - Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Project - Oxide Conversion and Effluent Processing Buildings. Document Date 10/23103 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML033430563 Document Title Federal Register Notice: Receipt Of Amendment Request And Opportunity to Request A Hearing for Oxide Conversion Building And Effluent Processing1Building At The Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Complex. Document Date 12/17103 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML033490408 Document Title 10/23103-License Amendment Request for Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building at BLEU Complex. Document Date 10/23103 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number ML033490413 Document Title Revision 0 t.o 21T-03-0978, "Integrated Safety Ana lysis Summary Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Project Oxide Conversion and Effluent Processing Building." Document Date 10/31103 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML033490420 Document Title Revision 0 t:o 21T-03-0978, "Integrated Safety Analysis Summary Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Project Oxide Conversion and Effluent Processing Building," Attachment Ill Decommissioning Cost Estimate. Document Date 10/31/03 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML033520128 Document Title Transmittal of Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluations for the BLEU Complex Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building (Proprietary and Non-Proprietary Versions). Document Date 12/11103 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML033520131 Document Title Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluations for the BLEU Complex Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building. Document Date 12/11 /03 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML033520132 Document Title Revision 0 to" Nuclear Criticality Safety Evaluation for the Effluent Process Building Ammonia Recovery, and Liquid Waste Processes." Document Date 11/3103 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/201410:57:54 AM Page 3 of 6 Accession Number ML033640152 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Nuclear Criticality Evaluations For BLEU Complex Oxide Conversion Building And Effluent Processing Building Submittal Dated December 11 , 2003, Public Disclosure Determination (TAC NO. L31791 ). Document Date 1/9104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML040480515 Document Tille 02/06/04-Commitment Letter to Address NRC Licensing Review Questions Pertaining to Instrumentation and Controls at the Oxide Conversion Building (OCB) and Effluent Processing Building (EPB). Document Date 2/6104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML040480518 Document Title 02/11 /04-Commitment Letter to Address NRC Licensing Review Questions Pertaining to Nuclear Criticality Safety at the Oxide Conversion Building (OCB) andl Effluent Processing Building (EPB). Document Date 211 1/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number ML040570761 Document Title Review of Nuclear Fuel Services Decommissioning Cost Estimate for BLEU Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building. Document Date 2/26104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML040610801 Document Title 02/25/04-Revision to Commitment Letter to Address NRC Licensing Review Question No. 5 Pertaining to Nuclear Criticality Safety at the Oxide Conversion Building (OCB) and Effluent Processing Building (EPB). Document Date 2/25/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML040750448 Document Title 03/11 /04-Memo Re: In-Office Verticle Slice Review of NFS Integrated Safety Analysis Summary for Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Process Building on February 10-11, 2004. Document Date 3/11/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML040760278 Document Title Transmittal of the Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report, July through December 2003. Document Date 2127104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML040910468 Document Title 03/31/04-B. Marie Moore Ur. re: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Oxide Conversion Building And Effluent Processing Building Request For Additional Information (TAC L31791 ). Document Date 3/31/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML040990147 Document Title Comments on the Draft Environmental Assessment for Nuclear Fuel Services' Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building at the Blended Low-enriched Uranium Complex. Document Date 417104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/201410:57:54 AM Page 4 of 6 Accession Number ML041270047 Document Title B. Marie Moore Ur. re: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., - Response To Request For Additional Information For Oxide Conversion Building And Effluent Processing Building At The Bleu Complex Submittal Dated April 30, 2004, Public Disclosure Determination. Document Date 5/19/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML041280281 Document Title 04/30/04-Revised Affidavits to Reaffirm Proprietary Information Contained in the License Amendment Request for the Oxide Conversion and Effluent Processing Buildings. Document Date 4130/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML041280556 Document Title 04/30/04-NFS Response to Request for Additional Information for Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building at the BLEU Complex. Document Date 4130/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML041280562 Document Title Attachment 2 - NFS Response to Request for Addit ional Information for Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building. Document Date 4130104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML041690008 Document Title Review of Nuclear Fuel Services Letter of Credit for Oxide Conversion Building and Effl uent Processing Building. Document Date 6/21/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML041970681 Document Title B. Marie Moore Ur re: Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Amendment 51 - To Authorize Operations In The Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Oxide Conversion Building And Effluent Processing Building (TAC L31791). Document Date 7130/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML042110329 Document Title Implementation Response to the NRC Order for Interim Compensatory Measures for Category Ill Fuel Cycle Facilities for the Bleu Oxide Conversion and Effluent Process Buildings. Document Date 7/13/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML042180326 Document Title ISA Summary, Revision 1, for the Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building located at the BLEU Complex. Document Date 7130104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML042190180 Document Title Ur to B. Marie Moore Re: Response to NRC Order or ICM for Category Ill Fuel Facilities for BLEU Oxide Conversion and Effluent Process Building - Nuclear Fuel Services Inc. Document Date 815/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/201410:57:54 AM Page 5 of 6 Accession Number ML042540343 Document Title 07/30104-NFS - Amendment 51 to Authorize Operations in the Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building - letter. Document Date 7/30/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML042540349 Document Title 07/30104-Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Safety Evaluation Report, License Amendment 51, Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building. Document Date 7/30/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML042590496 Document Title NFS Operation of Blended Low-enriched Uranium Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building. Document Date 9/14104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML042600037 Document Title NFS Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report January through June 2004. Document Date 8/27/04 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML042660407 Document Title 07/30104-NFS, Amendment 51 to Authorize Operatuons in the Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Oxide conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building License. Document Date 7/30104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML042720620 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Operation of Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building. Document Date 9/14104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML042720621 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Operation of Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building. Document Date 9/14104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML050120007 Document Title Non-Proprietary Version of Integrated Safety Analysis (ISA) Summary for the BLEU Project Oxide Conversion and Effluent Processing Buildings. Document Date 11/ 14/03 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML050130096 Document Title License Amendment Request for the Oxide Conversion Building and Effluent Processing Building at the BLEU Complex. Document Date 10/23/03 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/201410:57:54 AM Page 6 of 6 Accession Number ML080510458 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services - Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report January - June 2002. Document Date 8129102 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML081360251 Document Title 05119104 - B .Marie Moore Ur. re: Nuclear Fuel Services, lnc.,-Response to Request for Additional Information for Oxide Conversation Building and Effluent Processing Building at the BLEU Complex Submittal Dated 0413012004, Public Disclosure Determination Document Date 5119104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML081500560 Document Title Response to NRC Order for Category Ill Fuel Facilities for BLEU Oxide Conversion and Effluent Process Building. Document Date 815104 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 10:46:06 AM Page 1of3 Accession Number ML050350098 Document Title "Integrated Safety Analysis Summary, Blended Low-Enriched Uranium Project Oxide Conversion and Effluent Processing Buildings," Revision 2. Document Date 1/27/05 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number ML051150066 Document Title Amendments to Biannaul Effluent Monitoring Report July Through December 2004 Document Date 3/11/05 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML051150075 Document Title Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report July through December 2004. Document Date 2/25/05 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML060450323 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services - ISA Summary for Oxide Conversion and Effluent Processing Buildings, Revision 3. Document Date 1131/06 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number ML060860092 Document Title Biannual Effluent Mentoring Report for January through June 2005. Document Date 8129105 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML061000099 Document Title Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report, July through December 2005. Document Date 3130/06 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML070590627 Document Title Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report July through December 2006. Document Date 2/26107 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML072670156 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services - Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report, January Through June 2007. Document Date 8116/07 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML080510464 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services - Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report January - June 2006. Document Date 8125/06 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 10:46:06 AM Page 2 of 3 Accession Number ML082960743 Document Title NFS, Submittal of Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report January through June 2008. Document Date 8128108 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML090710718 Document Title NFS, Inc., Submittal of Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report for July through December 2008. Document Date 2126109 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML092570831 Document Title Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report January throug1h June 2009. Document Date 8126109 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML100700519 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report, July - December 2009. Document Date 2/22110 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML102360147 Document Title Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report January througih June 2010. Document Date 8118110 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML103610258 Document Title E-mail from K. Ramsey, NRC, Response to 11/19/10 Questions re; NFS Biannual Effluent Monitoring Reports. Document Date 12122110 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML103610273 Document Title Response to 11/19/10 Questions re; NFS Biannual Effluent Monitoring. Document Date 12122/10 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML110610416 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. - Submittal of Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report for Period July through December 2010. Document Date 2/22111 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML11249A064 Document Title Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report January throug h June 2011 . Document Date 8129/1 1 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 10:46:06 AM Page 3 of 3 Accession Number ML12055A051 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report July through December 201 1. Document Date 2116112 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML12059A303 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. - Biannual Effluent Moniitorlng Report January through June 201 1, Rev. 1. Document Date 2121112 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML12249A027 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report January through June 2012. Document Date 8127112 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML13064A286 Document Title Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report July Through December 2012. Document Date 2118113 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML13254A069 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc., Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report January through June 2013 and Amendment to Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report July through December 2012. Document Date 8127113 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML14057A396 Document Title Biannual Effluent Monitoring Report July through December 2013. Document Date 2118114 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :23:53 AM Page 1of6 Accession Number 7907160268 Document Title IE lnsp Rept 70-0143n9-12 on 790321.No noncompliance noted. Major areas inspected:nonradiological liquid effluents, underground tank monitoring program & stack fluoride monitoring program. Document Date 5/9/79 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 7908270282 Document Title IE lnsp Rept 70-0143n9-29 on 790723-08.No noncompliance noted.Major areas inspected:air sampling data.contamination surveys.effluent controls & review of operator qualifications. Document Date 7/16/79 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 7909250683 Document Title Forwards "Rept of Effluent Monitoring" for Jan-June 1979. Document Date 8/31/79 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 7909250684 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring" for Jan-June 1979. Document Date 6130/79 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 7910220459 Document Title PNS-11-79-102E supplementing 790924 PNS-11-79-102D:lab results of soil samples confirmed presence of low enriched U consistent w/normal effluents.Detailed environ survey is in progress. Document Date 9/25/79 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 80021 10297 Document Title IE lnsp Rept 70-0143/79-40 on 790917-27, 1002-06 & 09-12. Noncompliance noted:failure to adequately survey stack effluents, make dilution of dispersion calculations & establish adequate contamination control procedures. Document Date 11/27/79 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8002190258 Document Title IE lnsp Rept 70-0143/79-40 on 791 127.Noncompliance noted: failure to adequately stack effluents.failure to make dilution & dispersion calculations & to establish adequate contamination control proPROBABLE DELETE:DUPE OF 80021 10297. Document Date 11/27/79 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8004300003 Document Title Forwards "Effluent Monitoring Rept," Jul-Dec 1979. Document Date 2/26/80 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8004300024 Document Title "Effluent Monitoring Rept," Jul-Dec 1979. Document Date 2/26/80 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :23:53 AM Page 2 of 6 Accession Number 8005130155 Document Title Requests info re encl G McKinney ltr commenting on inventory difference & NRC decision re continued operation.Also requests info re continued federal govt monitoring of effluent releases & radiation background levels near plant. Document Date 317180 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8008280445 Document Title Amends rept of effluent monitoring & release to unrestricted areas.Jul-Dec 1979.Corrects quantity of gaseous effluents released.Amended rept is necessary due to re-evaluation of quantity of U released during 790807 leak. Document Date 8/22/80 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8009090504 Document Title Forwards "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas.Jan-June 1980." Document Date 8/29/80 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8009090507 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas.Jan-June 1980." Document Date 8/29/80 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8009240631 Document Title Responds to NRC 800626 ltr re violations noted in I E lnsp Rept 70-0143180-13.Corrective actions: employee exposure repts & effluent release data updated. Document Date 7/21180 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8010100020 Document Title IE lnsp Rept 70-143180-01 on 800109-10 & 0519-23.No noncompliance noted.Major areas inspected:U effluent scrubber sys.stack sampling sys.safety committees & operations review. Document Date 6/6180 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8010100023 Document Title "Analysis of Ventilation Scrubbers & Gaseous Effluent Measurement Sys at NFS Plant,Erwin,TN." Document Date 5/5180 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8011260407 Document Title IE lnsp Rept 70-0143/80-28 on 800818-22.No noncompliance noted.Major areas inspected :airborne effluent monitoring, environ air sampling & soil decontamination. Document Date 10/6180 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8 103130662 Document Title IE lnsp Rept 70-0143/80-42 on 801027-1216.No noncompliance noted.Major areas inspected:criticality safety.radiation protection.stack effluents.access controls & physical inventory.Encl 2 withheld (ref 10CFR2.790). Document Date 215181 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :23:53 AM Page 3 of 6 Accession Number 8103260910 Document Title IE lnsp Rept 70-0143/80-36 on 801103-04.No noncompliance noted.Major areas inspected:effluent control

                             & measurement.

Document Date 1/28/81 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 8104280409 Document Title Forwards "Radioactive Effluent Release Quarterly Rept, Jan-Mar 1981° Document Date 4/22/81 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8104280410 Document Title "Radioactive Effluent Release Quarterly Rept,Jan-Mar 1981." Document Date 4/22/81 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8209020396 Document Title IE lnsp Rept 70-0143/82-28 on 820712-16.No noncompliance noted.Major areas inspected:radioactive effluents.external exposure control.solid waste & followup on inspector identified items. Document Date 7130/82 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number 8209020509 Document Title Forwards "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas.Jan-June 1982." Document Date 8/16/82 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8209020513 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas,Jan-June 1982." Document Date 8116/82 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8211170150 Document Title Discusses commitment re bioassay program.liquid effluents. impinger solutions & soil.QA program will be revised per Reg Guide 4. 15. Document Date 7/2/82 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8211190043 Document Title Application to amend License SNM-124,permitting installation of new ventilation sys to combine gaseous effluents from highly enriched U processing & lab areas & discharge from one emission point. Document Date 8/5/82 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8211190045 Document Title Requests G Kosinski technical assistance to evaluate NFS Erwin.TN facility gaseous effluent sys. Document Date 12/19/79 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :23:53 AM Page 4 of 6 Accession Number 8307140382 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas for Jul-Dec 1982." Document Date 2124183 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8308160157 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Releases to Unrestricted Areas.Jul-Dec 1975." W/760226 ltr. Document Date 2126176 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8308160162 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas.Jul-Dec 1976." Document Date 219177 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8308160165 Document Title "Rep! of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas Jan-June 1977." W/770901 ltr. Document Date 911177 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8310040556 Document Title "Effluent Monitoring & Release to Restricted Areas,Rept for Jan-June 1983." W/830831 ltr. Document Date 6130183 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8401090121 Document Title IE lnsp Rept 70-0143183-46 on 831128-1202.No violations noted.Major areas inspected:gaseous effluents.liquid effluents.solid waste mgt & followup on previous identified enforcement matters. Document Date 12/18183 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8404060075 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas.Jul-Dec 1983." W/840224 ltr. Document Date 12/31183 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8405070208 Document Title IE lnsp Rept 70-0143184-10 on 840319-23.No viola1ions or deviations noted.Major areas inspected: nuclear criticality safety of effluent scrubbers,procedures,audits,training, mods & plant tours. Document Date 419184 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8412060339 Document Title Forwards proposed stack effluent monitoring plan conducted under contract w/Oak Ridge Assoc Univs. Document Date 11/ 19/84 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :23:53 AM Page 5 of 6 Accession Number 8412060346 Document Title Forwards 841022 revised proposed stack effluent monitoring plan. Document Date 10/26/84 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8502270031 Document Title Forwards response to environ questions, per 851228 request, environ monitoring rept re groundwater monitoring wells & Science Applications Intl 831018 rept re sampling study of process effluents. Document Date 2/8/85 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8502270039 Document Title Vol 1 to "Sampling Study of Process Effluents at Nuclear Fuel Svcs Facility,lrwin,TN." Document Date 5/8/81 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8503180296 Document Title "Rept of Effluent Monitoring & Release to Unrestricted Areas.for Jul-Dec 1984." W/850228 ltr. Document Date 12/31/84 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8504170236 Document Title IE Info Notice 85-031, "Buildup of Enriched U in Ventilation Ducts & Associated Effluent Treatment Sys." Svc list encl. Document Date 4/19/85 12:00AM Docket Number 07000008 07000027 07000036 07000143 07000364 07000371 07000687 07000734 07000754 07000820 07000824 07000925 07000984 07001 100 07001 113 07001143 07001151 07001201 07001257 07001308 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number 8509250114 Document Title Effluent monitoring rept for Jan-June 1985. Document Date 8/29/85 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 8602030040 Document Title "Radiological Monitoring of Stack Effluents - NFS.Erwin.TN,' final rept. Document Date 11/30/85 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :23:53 AM Page 6 of 6 Accession Number 8603190380 Document Title Effluent monitoring rept for Jul-Dec 1985.W/860228 ltr. Document Date 12/31/85 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number 9210120023 Document Title Discusses State of NY Health & Safety Lab participa tion in measurement of effluent sample s from NFS plant at West Valley.NY & lab role in subsequent news stories that effluents 36,000 times permissible amounts of Sr-90. Document Date 2/29/68 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :01 :24 AM Page 1of3 Accession Number ML003670798 Document Title Letter forwarding bi-annual effluent monitoring report for January - June 1999, per requirements of 10CFR70.59. Document Date 8127199 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number ML003746089 Document Title REVISION OF INFORMATION TO SUPPORT DOSE-BASED EFFLUENT DISCHARGE CIRITERIA AS SPECIFIED IN CHAPTERS 5 AND 15 OF SNM-124 Document Date 8/18/00 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML003746676 Document Title NFS - Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Report: January through June 2000 Document Date 8/28/00 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML003748970 Document Title Memo: Comments on EA for NFS License Amendment to change liquid effluent action levels Document Date 9/12/00 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Ava ilable Accession Number ML003748992 Document Title EPAB markup of EA for NFS license amendment to change liquid effluent action levels Document Date 9/12/00 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML010120046 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Inc. Amendment 12 Tac No. L 1387 Adjust Liquid Effluent Discharge Limits, and NRC Correction of Previous Amendments Document Date 10/27/00 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML010650462 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services - Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Report July - December 2000. Document Date 3/1/01 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML010720037 Document Title Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Report July - December 2000. Document Date 3/1/01 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML010960361 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Servlces,lnc. - Amendment 12 Letter and SER - Tac L31387 - Adjust Liquid Effluent Discharge Limits Document Date 10/27/00 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :01 :24 AM Page 2 of 3 Accession Number ML012490200 Document Title Submittal of report of Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid for period January-June 2001, report of Radioactivity in Effluent Air for period of January-June 2001, & evaluation of dose & air activity concentration for maximally exposed individual. Document Date 8/28/01 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML012490405 Document Title Submittal of report of Radioactivity in Effluent Liquid for period January-June 2001 , report of Radioactivity in Effluent Air for period of January-June 2001, & evaluation of dose & air activity concentration for maximally exposed individual. Document Date 8/28/0 1 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available Accession Number ML020710079 Document Title Nuclear Fuel Services, Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Report, July - December 2001 Document Date 12/31/01 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Publicly Available Accession Number ML080800400 Document Title Ltr from S. Smiley of USAEC to A. Abreu of Whittaker Corporation, Regarding Uniform Methods for Monitoring Effluents Release to the Environment. Document Date 3/24/72 12:00AM Docket Number 05000201 05000268 07000008 07000025 07000027 07000033 07000036 07000064 07000072 07000082 07000135 07000143 07000150 07000157 07000287 07000337 07000364 07000371 07000456 07000734 07000754 07000784 07000807 07000820 07000824 07000903 07000925 07000938 07001007 07001059 07001068 07001086 07001 100 07001 113 07001 143 07001 151 07001 193 07001201 07001257 Availability Publicly Available

ADAMS Documents as of 03/19/2014 11 :01 :24 AM Page 3 of 3 Accession Number ML100890081 Document Title Bi-Annual Effluent Monitoring Report January - June 1997. Document Date 8129197 12:00AM Docket Number 07000143 Availability Non-Publicly Available

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 16 Jan 2015 10:16:02 -0500 To: Brock, Terry;Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Case, Michael

Subject:

RE: Draft EDO Daily Nl-'-'-"'--'-"'=-'d.1.Ll.6._Lio..L.l.<ll.Ll.!.l"-L...lw.ud..L.l-"'-""1.l.1...1.----------~ Attachments: CA note example.pdf The attachment, which does not perta in to ~he Cancer Risk Study, has been treated as outside-the-scope of this request. The attached is a recent example of a CA note. It aretells a storyar in that there is a bit of background , relevant references, next steps. Hope this helps. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Friday, January 09, 2015 9: 19 AM To: Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Case, Michael

Subject:

RE: Draft EDO Daily Note regarding NAS cancer study report Herea's the draft CA note. Let me know if you want to change anything. Brett Rini told me he and EDO will put it into the proper format once you approve the content and distribution list.

Thx, Terry From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 10:42 AM To: Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Case, Michael

Subject:

RE: Draft EDO Daily Note regarding NAS cancer study report Yep, I think we got our notes crossed . I had shown Brian a draft note that he commented on a" that was what we sent up as the EDO note. 18'11 do a CA note with more details. Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487 From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 10:21 AM To: Brock, Terry; Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Case, Michael

Subject:

RE: Draft EDO Daily Note regarding NAS cancer study report This has been an area of confusion My interactions with Brian and Steve indicated they were both expecting a CA note (not a Daily note) and still want one as a areheads upa[J to the SECY paper. I think Rebecca was thinking along these lines as well when I talked with her last week. Brian thought you had one already crafted , in fact. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2015 9:06 AM To: Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Case, Michael

Subject:

RE: Draft EDO Daily Note regarding NAS cancer study report Hi Mike/Stephanie,

Does Brian want to do the CA note in addition to the EDO note as described by Steve? My understanding from our conversations with Brian was that an EDO note would be sufficient.

Thanks, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487 From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 2:11 PM To: Tadesse, Rebecca; Brock, Terry Cc: Case, Michael

Subject:

FW: Draft EDO Daily Note regarding NAS cancer study report The Daily Note went up. See Stevea's email about when he would like to send a CA note (soon). Hopefully this is consistent with all your discussions and plans from last week. Let Mike and I know if any concerns. Stephanie From: West, Steven Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 1:42 PM To: Coffin, Stephanie; Tapp, Katherine

Subject:

RE: Draft EDO Daily Note regarding NAS cancer study report I support the plan, but maybe not the timing. I dona't think we can wait until wea've reviewed the report and get additional cost information from NAS (sometime in February?) before we provide additional detail to the CAs. We should shoot for something in the much shorter term that presents some of the key information from the report and introduces some of our concerns (e.g., cost, based on best available information and our own judgment about how projects like this run (over schedule and over budget)), and some of the other key points we discussed/made during our internal meeting and the NAS briefing. Among other things, this might help the CAs (and the individual Commissioners) decide if they want a briefing. Leta's talk if youa'd like. Steve From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 1:03 PM To: West, Steven Cc: Flory, Shirley; Tapp, Katherine

Subject:

RE: Draft EDO Daily Note regarding NAS cancer study report

Steve, If you support, our plan is to send the Daily Note today as a areheads up.a1 Then after we review their report and get some more financial insights, we plan to prepare a CA note. Right now we dona't have enough info to write a meaningful CA note.

And then eventually we plan to right a SECY paper with our plans. We are also coordin_.9ting with OPA. From: West, Steven Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 11:22 AM To: Tapp, Katherine Cc: Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca; Brock, Terry; Flory, Shirley; Hathaway, Alfred; Valentin, Milton

Subject:

RE: Draft EDO Daily Note regarding NAS cancer study report

Thanks Katie. I think Shirley told you that it needs to be trimmed so the system will accept it. Also, is the daily note a substitute for the CA note I think Brian (or maybe OEDO) asked for? Steve From: Tapp, Katherine Sent: Tuesday, December 30, 2014 11:08 AM To: West, Steven Cc: Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca; Brock, Terry; Flory, Shirley; Hathaway, Alfred; Valentin, Milton

Subject:

Draft EDO Daily Note regarding NAS cancer study report Importance: High

Steve, Attached is a EDO daily note for your review regarding the release of the National Academy of Science (NAS) report regarding the pilot cancer study. Brian has previously seen and provided feedback on this note.

Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you, Katie Katie Tapp (Streit), Ph.D. Health/Medical Physicist Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research I Radiation Protection Branch Phone: (301) 251-7520

From: Case, Michael Sent: 3 Sep 2015 06:39:35 -0400 To: Brock, Terry Cc: Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

RE: From NAS on the cancer study Thanks Terry. Nice intel. From : Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 5:36 PM To: Sheron, Brian; West, Steven; Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Burnell, Scott; Weil, Jenny

Subject:

FYI: From NAS on the cancer study

All, Below is an e-mail from my counterpart at NAS. Per Weber's request I invited Dr. John Samet to join the call-he was the chair of the Cancer Study Pilot Project Planning cmt that briefed us last December. In addition, I invited Dr. Dynes to join the call- he's the chair of the cmt that Kevin Crowley reports to. The initial angst described in the e-mail is because Drs. Samet and Dynes live in California and balked a bit about the early phone call , however they will join us. I asked Dr. Dynes of the NAS cmt to join us because he will be around for awhile and will have first hand knowledge of our reasoning to cancel the study. In contrast, Dr. Samet is done with the project and will not be helpful in future communications with the board. Dr. Dynes is also less political and I wanted him to hear from us directly to communicate our rationale to the board in future meetings.

Later in the e-mail there's a pitch to support NAS in their home grown initiative to do a BEIR VIII study with a reference to EPA, implying they support this. I went to the NAS public meeting earlier this year on BEIR VIII and the scientific consensus was that this is too early. John Boice is not in favor of this until we get more information from the Million Worker Study (MWS). Additionally, I called EPA to gauge their interest in BEIR VIII. What I learned was that NAS' comment below is overstated and EPA is not actively interested in BEIR VIII. In fact, they are more interested in funding the MWS to gleam the information we will get from these cohorts. They also support Brian calling DOE to raise the issue about them cancelling the low dose program and the MWS without notifying us- EPA also signed an interagency agreement with DOE like us and were not notified off the impending sunset of the program. Finally, I assure you I did not tip our hand on us cancelling the study, however I thought it was important for you all to know what NAS is thinking. Terry From: Kosti, Ourania [3] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 1:54 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: schedule a teleconference this week Terry: Jon Samet and Bob Dynes were not happy with the request to reschedule the call an hour earlier-in our view it is disrespectful to ask them to participate at a 6 AM call. However they said they will connect. I have forwarded the call-in information. Kevin and I had a call with Jon and Bob earlier today. We have been reading between the lines and suspect that the USN RC has made a decision not to fund the pilot study on cancer risks near nuclear facilities and that it will make a public announcement of its decision. We are certainly disappoi nted- if this is indeed the decision- as we were looking forward to working on the study using the best possible information to answer the stakeholders' questions about risks near nuclear facilities. However we understand that your agency's priorities may have changed

since inception of the project some 5 years ago and that staff have no control over this. We are sympathetic that your decision was not easy. We expect that there will be some negative reaction to the announcement. The USNRC informed its stakeholders that it will be funding the Academies study in 2012 and now it will reverse its decision. We would like to work with you and help you be responsive to the stakeholders' health concerns. Although there is no direct substitute to an epidemiological study in populations near nuclear facilities we would like to work with you to identify and engage in activities that address some of the stakeholders' concerns related to chronic low dose and low dose-rate radiation-induced health effects. As you know, our board has started thinking of the next BEIR study and have initiated discussions with EPA on the timing and scope of the BEIR VI II. BEIR VIII will address, among other topics, risks related to chronic low radiation doses. There is an opportunity for the USNRC to support the BEIR VII I study and announce its intent to do so when it announces its decision about the cancer risk study. There might be other ways for the USNRC to acknowledge that even if it will not sponsor the study in cancer risks near nuclear facilities it will continue to engage in activities aiming to better understand risks at low radiation doses. I welcome any initial thoughts you might have. In any case we will talk September 8 at 9 AM (ET). Rania

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 9 Sep 2015 10:26:08 -0400 To: Sheron, Brian Cc: Weber , Michael;'eliotb@cox.net';Tadesse, Rebecca;Case, Michael;Coffin, Stephanie;West, Steven;Brock, Terry;Brenner, Eliot;Harrington, Holly

Subject:

Re: FYI - BEYOND NUCLEAR's RESPONSE TO NRC's CANCELLATION OF THE NATIONAL CANCER RISK STUDY Hello all; At least one reporter in today's articles recognized the errors in Folkers' statement, and l be lieve the coverage has been tilted in our favor so fa r. If Folkers gets any further traction we can push back w ith the tools in hand -- the SECY and comm plan address the main points of her errors. Scott Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell 1'6)(6) From: Sheron, Brian Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 20 15 10:20 AM To: Burnell, Scott Cc: Weber, Michael; Eliot Brenner (eliotb@cox.net); Tadesse, Rebecca; Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie; West, Steven; Brock, Terry

Subject:

FW: FYI - BEYOND NUCLEA R's RESPONSE TO NRC's CANCELLATION OF THE NATION AL CANCER RISK STUDY Scott, I agree with Mike that the "Beyond Nuclear" release is very distorted, makes totally unfounded allegations, and in some places is flat out wrong. Would you like us to provide any rebuttal talking points? From: W eber, Michael Sent: Wednesday, September 09, 2015 9:53 AM To: Satori us, Mark; Johnson, Michael ; Ash, Darren ; Galloway, Melanie Cc: Brenner, Eliot ; Harrington, Holly; Sheron, Brian ; W est, Steven; Case, M ichael; Coff in, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca; Burnell, Scott ; Rosales-Cooper, Cindy; Brock, Terry; Rihm, Roger; Rasou li, Houman

; Pham, Bo

Subject:

FYI - BEYOND NUCLEAR's RESPONSE TO NRC's CANCELLATION OF THE NATIONAL CANCER RISK STUDY Good morning. Jenny Weil, OCA, shared the attached release from Beyond Nuclear that was prompted by our announcement yesterday that we are not going forward with the update to the National Cancer Risk Study. Quite distorted. ?/Me Michael Weber Deput y Executive Director for M at erials, Wast e, Research, State, Tribal, and Compliance Programs

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-415-1705 Mail Stop 016E15 I R0 J EC DEllV!RING OUR FUTURE

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 2 Sep 2015 17:41:58 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Sheron, Brian;West, Steven;Case, Michael;Coffin, Stephanie;Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Weil, Jenny

Subject:

Re: FYI : From NAS on the cancer study Ourania's tea-leaf reading is not at all surprising, nor is the "we're available to help communicate" message and their approach to the issue. Sent from an NRC Blackberry Scott Burnell 1(6)(6) From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 20 15 05:35 PM To: Sheron, Brian; West, Steven; Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Burnell, Scott; Weil, Jenny

Subject:

FYI: From NAS on the cancer study All, Below is an e-mail from my counterpart at NAS. Per Weber's request I invited Dr. John Samet to join the call-he was the chair of the Cancer Study Pilot Project Planning cmt that briefed us last December. In addition, I invited Dr. Dynes to join the call-he's the chair of the cmt that Kevin Crowley reports to. The initial angst described in the e-mail is because Ors. Samet and Dynes live in California and balked a bit about the early phone call, however they will join us. I asked Dr. Dynes of the NAS cmt to join us because he will be around for awhile and will have first hand knowledge of our reasoning to cancel the study. In contrast, Dr. Samet is done with the project and will not be helpful in future communications with the board. Dr. Dynes is also less political and I wanted him to hear from us directly to communicate our rationale to the board in future meetings. Later in the e-mail there's a pitch to support NAS in their home grown initiative to do a BEIR VIII study with a reference to EPA, implying they support this. I went to the NAS public meeting earlier this year on BEIR VIII and the scientific consensus was that this is too early. John Boice is not in favor of this until we get more information from the Million Worker Study (MWS). Additionally, I called EPA to gauge their interest in BEIR VIII. What I learned was that NAS' comment below is overstated and EPA is not actively interested in BEIR VIII. In fact, they are more interested in funding the MWS to gleam the information we will get from these cohorts. They also support Brian calling DOE to raise the issue about them cancelling the low dose program and the MWS without notifying us-EPA also signed an interagency agreement with DOE like us and were not notified off the impending sunset of the program. Finally, I assure you I did not tip our hand on us cancelling the study, however I thought it was important for you all to know what NAS is thinking. Terry From: Kosti, Ourania [4] Sent: Wednesday, September 02, 2015 1:54 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

[External_Sender] RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: RE: schedule a teleconference this week Terry:

Jon Samet and Bob Dynes were not happy with the request to reschedule the call an lhour earlier- in our view it is disrespectful to ask them to participate at a 6 AM call. However they said they will connect. I have forwarded the call-in information. Kevin and I had a call with Jon and Bob earlier today. We have been reading between the lines and suspect that the USN RC has made a decision not to fund the pilot study on cancer risks near nuclear facilities and that it will make a public announcement of its decision. We are certainly disappointed- if this is indeed the decision- as we were looking forward to working on the study using the best possible information to answer the stakeholders' questions about risks near nuclear facilities. However we understand that your agency's priorities may have changed since inception of the project some 5 years ago and that staff have no control over this. We are sympathetic that your decision was not easy. We expect that there will be some negative reaction to the announcement. The USNRC informed its stakeholders that it will be funding the Academies study in 2012 and now it will reverse its decision. We would like to work with you and help you be responsive to the stakeholders' health concerns. Although there is no direct substitute to an epidemiological study in populations near nuclear facilities we would like to work with you to identify and engage in activities that address some of the stakeholders' concerns related to chronic low dose and low dose-rate radiation-induced health effects. As you know, our board has started thinking of the next BEIR study and have initiated discussions with EPA on the timing and scope of the BEIR VIII. BEIR VIII will address, among other topics, risks related to chronic low radiation doses. There is an opportunity for the USNRC to support the BEIR VIII study and announce its intent to do so when it announces its decision about the cancer risk study. There might be other ways for the USNRC to acknowledge that even if it will not sponsor the study in cancer risks near nuclear facilities it will continue to engage in activities aiming to better understand risks at low radiation doses. I welcome any initial thoughts you might have. In any case we will talk September 8 at 9 AM (ET). Rania

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 22 Dec 2014 12:33:44 -0500 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Heads-Up: FW: Report on Cancer Risks near Nuclear Facilities: Pilot Planning Dangit, I sat so long on the shuttle I blanked on OCA and went straight to my cube. Thanks for forwarding that. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 12:32 PM To: Weil, Jenny Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Dacus, Eugene; Burnell, Scott

Subject:

Heads-Up: FW: Report on Cancer Risks near Nuclear Facilities: Pilot Planning Hi Jenny, NAS came into today to brief staff on the results of the cancer study pilot planning project. Attached are their slides and the embargoed report. NAS told us they plan on briefing Senator Markeya's staff this afternoon--no other NAS congressional briefings are scheduled. Please note that I am still briefing my RES management on the study, but wanted you to know what NAS was planning today. Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487 From: Kosti, Ourania [ mailto:OKosti@nas.edu] Sent: Monday, December 22, 2014 7:29 AM To: Brock, Terry Cc: Kosti, Ourania; Crowley, Kevin

Subject:

Report on Cancer Risks near Nuclear Facilities: Pilot Planning Dr. Brock: Attached is the advance copy of the report on Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities: Phase 2 Pilot Planning. Also attached a re the slides that the pilot planning committee chair, Dr. Jon Samet, will be presenting tomorrow at the briefing to the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission. I will bring copies of both for our discussions today. Thank you, Rania Ourania (Rania) Kosti, Ph.D. Senior Program Officer Nuclear and Rad iation Studies Board The Nat ional Academies email: okosti@nas.edu phone: 202 334 3066

From: Case, Michael Sent: 17 Aug 2015 13:54:37 -0400 To: Chen, Yen-Ju;Brock, Terry Cc: Coffin, Stephanie;Pope, Tia;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: I Response: Example of Resource in SECY Enclosure OK, we'll cross that bridge when we come to it and Tia can probably give us some good advice. From: Chen, Yen-Ju Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:51 PM To: Case, Michael; Brock, Terry Cc: Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

I Response: Example of Resource in SECY Enclosure I still have the package. Once you made the changes in ADAMS, just let me know. I can print a copy for the package. However, let me k now if you prefer to have the package back. I can bring it back. Yen From: Case, Michael Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:41 PM To: Chen, Yen-Ju <Yen-Ju.Chen@nrc.gov>; Brock, Terry <Terry.Brock@nrc.gov> Cc: Coffin, Stephanie <Stephanie.Coffin@nrc.gov> Subje ct: RE: Response: Example of Resource in SECY Enclosure Got it. Thanks. From: Chen, Yen-Ju Se nt: Monday, August 17, 2015 1:31 PM To: Case, Michael; Brock, Terry

Subject:

Response: Example of Resource in SECY Enclosure See the recent SECY-15-0077 where resource is placed in an non-public enclosure. Let me know if you have questions about Mike's comments on the cancer study paper. View ADAMS P8 Properties MLl5054Al 39 Open ADAMS P8 Package (SECY-15-0077: Options for Emergency Preparedness for Small Modular Reactors and Other New Technologies.)

From: Milligan, Patricia Sent: 19 Jun 2015 07:34:02 -0400 To: Brock, Terry Subje ct: RE: I' m in 3wfn; you here for a drive by around 11:45 - eom Je suis en Paris. not completely surprised given the budget environment.. disappointed but wait until Congress gets a hold of it .. it may be back on. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:13 AM To: Milligan, Patricia

Subject:

RE: I'm in 3wfn; you here for a drive by around 11:45 - eom I see you are on travel. The EDO canceled the cancer study due to budget reasons, even though we already had all concurrences for the NCRP approach. Regardless, I need to write another SECY paper informing the Commission we are not going forward. Stay t uned, thought you should know. Terry From: Milligan, Patricia Sent: Wednesday, June 17, 2015 11:09 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Out of Office: I'm in 3wfn; you here for a drive by around 11:45 - eom I am out of the office on travel from 6/15-6/19. I will have periodic access to email and will respond to emails.

From: Case, Michael Sent: 17 Aug 2015 10:29:54 -0400 To: Brock, Terry Cc: Coffin, Stephanie;Tadesse, Rebecca;Bush-Goddard, Stephanie

Subject:

RE: Input on the Cancer Study Thanks. I just talked with Brian. We complained a lot but he's OK in principle if it matches his mental picture. I told him we would crank them in and let him see a clean result. The comments are handwritten and I got some verbal ones from Yen as well. Want me to have Tia scan it out to you? From : Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:02 AM To: Case, Michael Cc: Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca; Bush-Goddard, Stephanie

Subject:

Re: Input on the Cancer Study I'm working at home, but can call in when ready. From: Case, Michael Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 9:54 AM To: Brock, Terry Cc: Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca; Bush-Goddard, Stephanie

Subject:

Input on the Cancer Study Hi Terry. I have the EDO input on the Cancer Study. We'll need to make the changes (that they seem to be looking for in the next couple of days). Brian wasn't in yet but we may want to swing by to see if he has any verbal direction .

From: Case, Michael Sent: 17 Aug 2015 12:14:55 -0400 To: Brock, Terry Cc: Coffin, Stephanie;Tadesse, Rebecca;Bush-Goddard, Stephanie

Subject:

RE: Input on the Cancer Study OK. Great. Tia will beam it out to you. Yen's verbal direction had to do with moving out year budget information to an attachment (probably so that the paper can be released publically without it). She said she had a sample. I'll follow up. From : Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 10:02 AM To: Case, Michael Cc: Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca; Bush-Goddard, Stephanie

Subject:

Re: Input on the Cancer Study I'm working at home, but can call in when ready. From: Case, Michael Sent: Monday, August 17, 2015 9:54AM To: Brock, Terry Cc: Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca; Bush-Goddard, Stephanie

Subject:

Input on the Cancer St udy Hi Terry. I have the EDO input on the Cancer Study. We'll need to make the changes (that they seem to be looking for in the next couple of days). Brian wasn't in yet but we may want to swing by to see if he has any verbal direction.

From: Case, Michael Sent: 19 Nov 2014 07:11:36 -0500 To: Tadesse, Rebecca;Brock, Terry;Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

RE: Interesting Bill Yep, leta's get them to keep us in the loop. DOE could help us with the Cancer Study. It like a shovel ready project! From: Tadesse, Rebecca Sent: Tuesday, November 18, 2014 1:53 PM To: Brock, Terry; Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

Interesting Bill It wi ll be interesting if this B ill goes any were. Do you think it might be worth asking OCA to keep us inform as the bill goes thru the Senate. We might want to get involved if DOE gets funding. The House reconvened at 2:00 p.m. Monday, November 17, 20 14. The House passed H.R. 5544, which requires DOE to conduct research to enhance the scientific understanding of the health effects of exposure to low doses of ionizing radiation, and will be considering several EPA-related bills (H.R. 1422, H.R. 4795, and H .R. 4012). The President has come out in strong opposition of these three bills and threatens to veto them, saying that they would threaten public health goals, undermine the agencyftTMs integrity and create unnecessary requirements.

From: Brock, Terry Sent: 1 Sep 2015 12:25:08 +0000 To: Zabel, Joseph;Pope, Tia;Gaskins, Kimberly Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: Letter to NAS Attachments: Crowley_Closeout.cor.docx Thanks Joe! Tia/Kim, Would you please use the clean version and give it to Mike Case for concurrence. I need to get this to the FO this week. Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop TWFN- 10 phone: 301-415-1793 From: Zabel, Joseph Sent: Monday, August 31, 2015 10:18 AM To: Brock, Terry; Pope, Tia; Gaskins, Kimberly Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: Letter to NAS Hi Terry: I have attached my redline and corrected versions of the letter. Joe From: Brock, Terry Sent: M onday, August 31, 2015 9:46 AM To: Pope, Tia <Tia .Pope@nrc.gov>; Gaskins, Kimberly <Kimberly.Gaskins@nrc.gov>; Zabel, Jo.seph

<Joseph.Zabel@nrc.gov>

Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca <Rebecca .Tadesse@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Let ter to NAS Tia/Kim, Another short leash for the cancer study.. Brian needs this letter for the communication with NAS early next week. Would you please put in the concurrence block me, Rebecca, Joe Zabel, Stephanie Coffin, and Brian Sheron.

Joe, Would you please give the attached an edit. Tia will put it in the correct format, so if you could focus on the text..

Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487

Dr. Kevin Crowley, Senior Board Director Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board Division on Earth and Life Studies The National Academies of Science, Engineering, and Medicine 500 5 th St. NW, Washington DC 20001

Dear Dr. Crowley,

This letter is to inform you that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) has decided to end the "Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities" study due to the current agency budget environment, the cost and time estimate to complete the study, and the uncertainty in the NRC staff's ability to use the study results to communicate risk estimates to our stakeholders. We knew this study would be a challenge to execute because of the very low offsite doses from the operation of NRG-licensed facilities and the limited ability for epidemiology to detect health effects at these low exposures-the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Phase 1 and Phase 2 Pilot Planning reports thoroughly document these challenges. However, even with these technical challenges, the NRC thought it was worthwhile to continue exploring the feasibility of performing the study through the pilot study. Unfortunately, current agency fiscal realities preclude us from continuing. The NRC staff appreciates NAS's candid advice on the limited usefulness of the pilot results in communicating risks to the public and the large costs to perform the study. As a result, the staff will continue to monitor international and national activity in this area to determine if further study is warranted. We also encourage any other entities in the United States that would want to do these types of studies to use the NRG-funded Phase 1 and Phase 2 Pilot Planning reports as guidance in initiating any future efforts. Sincerely, Dr. Brian Sheron, Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

From: Milligan, Patricia Sent: 5 Feb 2015 14:59:10 -0500 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Meet with Brian next week Send me a scheduler. Thanks From: Brock, Tcny Sent: Thursday, February 05, 2015 12:37 PM To: Milligan, Patricia

Subject:

RE: Meet with Btian next week Can you make it to the staff meeting on Tuesday too! Please do. if you feel up to it. From: Milligan, Patricia Sent: Wednesday, Februa1y 04, 2015 7:06 PM To: Brock, Teny

Subject:

RE: Meet with Brian next week r can join you in person From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, Februa1y 04, 2015 2:20 PM To: Milligan, Patricia

Subject:

RE: Meet with Brian next week Best number to call?

---

Original Message-----

From: Milligan, Patricia Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 20152:18 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Meet with Brian next week Ok. l should be k with that time From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 1:5 1 PM To: Milligan, Patricia

Subject:

RE: Meet with Brian next week Next week Thursday (Feb. 12) 3:30 to 4:30. See attached for inspiration

---

Original Message-----

From: Milligan, Patricia Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2015 1: 17 PM To: Brock, Teny

Subject:

RE: Meet with Brian next week

_ Yes. When? T have dr appts on thursday_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3:26 PM To: Milligan, Patricia

Subject:

Meet with Brian next week Hey, Brian wants to meet next week about the cancer study to plan on moving forward. Would you please attend? He's bringing in the budget people so l think it's going to happen, but your input would be valuable. T From: Milligan, Patric ia Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 11: 14 AM To: Brock, Teny

Subject:

Out of Office: Reschedule: Cancer Study Update and Djscussions on Path Forward l am out of office and will return Monday Feb 9

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 22 Jul 2015 10:18:38 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Re: My contact info for next week OK, so where are we, process and t imeline-wise?? F rom: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, July 22, 20 15 I 0: 17 AM To: Burnell, Scott Su bj ect: My contact info for next week

Scott, 5

I'm going to be in Oregon tonight and next week. My bat phone isr_

                                                               ... >,_>___.....lif you need to get a hold of me.

Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop TWFN-10 phone: 301-415-1793

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 13 Aug 2015 10:38:32 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Case, Michael Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: NAS Cancer Risk study update/Greeneville Sun Sounds good. And maybe provide the link to the recent NAS report. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 10:19 AM To: Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

FW: NAS Cancer Risk study update/Greeneville Sun Mike /Stephanie, OPA is getting asked about the study by the Erwin, TN local paper. At this point, I propose we tell them that the staff is still evaluating options and will be informing the Commission of our plans soon. Any thoughts? Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop TWFN-10 phone: 301-415-1793 From: Mcintyre, David Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 10:10 AM To: Ledford, Joey; Conley, Maureen Cc: Hannah, Roger; Brock, Terry

Subject:

Re: NAS Cancer Risk study update/Greeneville Sun Terry - last I heard we were still a little bit in flux on this. Anything we can say to answer these questions? Dave On: 13 August 20 15 10:05, "Ledford, Joey" <Joey.Ledford@nrc.gov> wrote: Dave, Maureen: Scott talks about the cancer study almost weekly on the call, but of course he isn't here when I have an actual inquiry on it.

Do either of you have any idea what, if anything, we can say at this point?

Thanks, Joey From: Ken Little [mailto:ken.little@greenevillesun.com)

Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 9:23 AM To: Ledford, Joey <Joey.Ledford@nrc.gov>

Subject:

[External_Sender] NAS Cancer Risk study update/Greeneville Sun Hi Joey: I'm trying to provide an update on the NAS "Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities." Do you have any information on the status of the study? Have NAS officials met or updated the NRC recently? Is the Nuclear Regulatory Commission still funding the study? Do additional funds have to be provided for its completion? If so, how will that work? Also, are there any NRC meetings planned this year in Erwin?

Thanks, Ken Little (423) 359-3141

From: Case, Michael Sent: 6 Feb 2015 09:34:13 -0500 To: West, Steven Cc: Coffin, Stephanie;Brock, Terry;Bamford, Lisa;Flory, Shirley;Landau, Mindy;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: NAS Cancer Study Pilot Program Recommendation, etc. Thanks. Got it. Rebecca will be our point person for setting it up. From: West, Steven Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 3: 16 PM To: Case, Michael Cc: Coffin, Stephanie; Brock, Terry; Sheron, Brian; Bamford, Lisa; Flory, Shirley; Landau, Mindy

Subject:

NAS Cancer Study Pilot Program Recommendation, etc. Importance: High

Mike, I understand we now have both the NAS report on the pilot program and its cost proposal for the pilot program (-8M over 39 months). Could you get the right folks w ith Brian and me next week to discuss your recommendation and the plan/status for communicating w ith the Commission.

Please invite Lisa so she or someone of her choosing can participate in the discussion w rt the contract/funding. Thanks. Steve Steven West, Deputy Director Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Com mission 301-251-7400 Steven.West@nrc.gov

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 3 Feb 2015 09:15:11 -0500 To: Brock, Terry Subje ct: RE: NAS Pilot Study Proposal So T'll tell Jennifer we'll make* their report public through our usual process but any announcement would wait, etc etc?

---

Original Message-----

From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 2015 9: 14 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: NAS Pilot Study Proposal Yes, eventually. We're probably not sticking to their self-selected schedule. We still need to get staff alignment, a SECY paper out, and most importantly, find the money.

---

Original Message-----

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 20 15 9: 12 AM To: Brock, Teny

Subject:

FW: NAS Pilot Study Proposal We're sticking to the schedule that would suggest a press release if the staff recommends moving forward, correct?

---

Original Mcssagc-----

From: Walsh, Jennifer [5] Sent: Tuesday, February 03, 20 15 9:09 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

NAS Pilot Study Proposal

Scott, I was alerted that we submitted a proposal to your organization for the pilot execution portion of the cancer risk study. I understand that the USNRC hasn't committed to carrying out the pilot yet, but I was wondering if you would make an announcement that you received the proposal. I want to be prepared in case we receive any media calls. We are not going to make any announcements on our end.

Thanks, Jennifer Jennifer A. Walsh Senior Media Officer (202) 334-2183 Institute of Medicine National Academy of Sciences National Research Council

From: Ramsey, Kevin Sent: 17 Dec 2014 08:08:56 -0500 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: NEW DATE AND TIME: Cancer Risk Study - Pilot Planning Project Coming to an End Like Tiny Tim said, "It will cost you, everyone." From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, December 16, 2014 8:27 AM To: Milligan, Patricia; Burnell, Scott; Garry, Steven; Ramsey, Kevin; Diaz, Marilyn; Cassidy, John; Nimitz, Ronald; Stearns, Don; Mccoppin, Michael; Jones, Andrea; Weil, Jenny; Rakovan, Lance; Pinckney, David; Mroz, Sara Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Mcintyre, David; Dacus, Eugene

Subject:

NEW DATE AND TIME: Cancer Risk Study - Pilot Planning Project Coming to an End NAS has confirmed these dates and times for the cancer study pilot planning project briefing and report release.

    *Tuesday, December 23, 1 PM: Committee Chair briefs NRC
    *Monday, December 29, 11 AM: Release of report to the public Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487 From: Brock, Terry Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2014 8:43 AM To: Milligan, Patricia; Burnell, Scott; Garry, Steven; Ramsey, Kevin; Diaz, Marilyn; Cassidy, John; Nimitz, Ronald; Stearns, Don; Mccoppin, Michael; Jones, Andrea; Weil, Jenny; Rakovan, Lance; Cai, June; Pinckney, David Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Mcintyre, David; Dacus, Eugene

Subject:

UPDATE RE: UPDATE-HEADS-UP: Cancer Risk Study - Pilot Planning Project Coming to an End Hi All, The cancer study briefing will not happen tomorrow. NAS needs some more time to get the cost estimates for the pilot execution phase ready. It may happen on 12/23 if all the briefings can be scheduled. If not, we're looking early in January for the brief. I'll let you know. Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487 From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, December 03, 2014 1:32 PM To: Milligan, Patricia; Burnell, Scott; Garry, Steven; Ramsey, Kevin; Diaz, Marilyn; Cassidy, John; Nimitz, Ronald; Stearns, Don; McCoppin, Michael; Jones, Andrea; Weil, Jenny; Rakovan, Lance; Cal, June; Pinckney, David Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Mci ntyre, David; Dacus, Eugene

Subject:

UPDATE-HEADS-UP: Cancer Risk Study - Pilot Plann ing Project Coming to an End

All,

Terry Brock here from RES. We're coming to the end of another stage of the NRC -sponsored National Academy of Sciences Cancer Risk Study. As you may recall, we informed the Commission in SECY 2012-0136 (attached) that we were embarking on the Phase 1 NAS recommendation to perform pilot studies at seven sites: Dresden, SONGS, Oyster Creek, Haddam Neck, Millstone, Big Rock Point, and Nuclear Fuel Services. In the last year, NAS assembled a committee to plan the pilot project to give NRC the best cost estimate for performing the pilot study. Another two important parts of this effort were to determine the feasibility of retrieving cancer data from the various State agencies and the availability of effluent records for the dose assessment part of the study. On this last point, I must acknowledge the excellent help I received in retrieving and reviewing archived effluent records from David Pinckney (OIS), Kevin Ramsey/Marilyn Diaz (NMSS), and Steve Garry (NRR). NAS is planning on briefing the RES Office Director on the results of the planning project next Friday, December 12, 2014 from 1 :00 to 2:00. NAS will publicly release the report on Monday, December 15. RES plans to review the report and I'll distribute it to you all. In January I'll meet with you all to discuss the findings and our recommendation for the next step. This may involve another SECY paper to the Commission depending on the resource implications to complete the pilot execution phase of the study. At this point I don't have anything to share because NAS holds things close to the vest until they brief us, so stay tuned.

Thanks, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487

From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: 28 Aug 2015 07:56:09 -0600 To: Brock, Terry;Sheron, Brian;Case, Michael;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: Notifyng NAS Thanks Terry From: Brock, Terry Se nt: Friday, August 28, 2015 9:23 AM To: Coffin, Stephanie <Stephanie.Coffin@nrc.gov>; Sheron, Br ian <Brian.Sheron@nrc.gov>; Case, M ichael <Michael.Case@nrc.gov>; Tadesse, Rebecca <Rebecca.Tadesse@nrc.gov>

Subject:

RE: Notifyng NAS I also think we should invite the chair of NAS Nuclear Science and Radiation Studies Board (NSRB) who oversee this project. The chair of the study committee is done and gone and won't be able to talk to this at the board meetings. Having the chair of the NSRB on the call will ensure he gets the information first hand from us and he can deliver it to the board in future meetings- the NAS staff defer to the board quite a bit. I'll contact NAS to include both chairs on the call. Terry From: Coffin, Stephanie Sent: Thursday, August 27, 2015 4:46 PM To: Sheron, Brian; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca; Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Notifyng NAS I think it's a good idea if we can work out the logistics From: Sheron, Brian Sent: Wednesday, August 26, 2015 11:32 AM To: Case, Michael <M ichael.Case@nrc.gov>; Coffin, St ephanie <Stephanie.Coffin@nrc.gov>; Tadesse, Rebecca <Rebecca .Tadesse@nrc.gov>; Brock, Terry <Terry.Brock@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Notifyng NAS Weber was saying we should not only notify Crowley personally, but also the chair of the NAS Committee. What do you think?

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 8 Sep 2014 14:01:33 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: On cancer study backgrounder title please change Risk to Risks OK From: Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 1:41 PM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

On cancer study backgrounder title please change Risk to Risks http://www.nre.gov/reading-rm/doc-collection s/fact-sheets/bg-analys-ca ncer-risk-studv. htm I T hx, T erry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 9 Sep 2014 11:28:51 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: On cancer study backgrounder title please change Risk to Risks De nada. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 11:28 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

RE: On cancer study backgrounder title please change Risk to Risks merci Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487 From: Burnell, Scott Sent: Tuesday, September 09, 2014 10:25 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: On cancer study backgrounder title please change Risk to Risks Done, changes should be posted shortly. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, September 08, 2014 1:41 PM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

On cancer study backgrounder title please change Risk to Risks http://www.nre.gov/reading-rm/doc-collection s/fact-sheets/bg-a na lys-ca ncer-risk-stud y.htm I

Thx, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 24 Aug 2015 14:17:26 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: pilot planning link I think we can stick to these three main Q&A (and derive a key message or two from them): Q3. Why is the NRC abandoning the National Academies suggested research methods? A3. The NAS approach remains publicly available for those who have the resources and time to carry it out. The NRC's cu rrent path forward enables research on safety-significant topics for licensing, inspection, enforcement, and rulemaking. The NAS Phase I report called out several challenges to completing the study, not least of which was the work "may not have adequate statistical power to detect the presumed small increases in cancer risks arising from ... monitored and reported releases." Q4. Why does the NRC think the cost of the study is more important than giving the public the best information about cancer ris.ks from nuclear power? A4. The NRC must appropriately balance the need to provide updated information with the agency's responsibility to use taxpayer funds as wisely as possible. The methods proposed by NAS are publicly available and can be performed by any other entity willing to support the study. The NAS Phase I report called out several challenges to completing the study, not least of which was the work "may not have adequate statistical power to detect the presumed small increases in cancer risks arising from ... monitored and reported releases." The NAS Phase 2 report explicitly stated the proposed pilot was "not a small-scale study of analysis of risks around the pilot nuclear facilities." The Phase 2 report also explicitly warned that "any data collected during the pilot study will have limited use for estimating cancer risks in populations near each of the nuclear facilities or for the seven nuclear facilities combined because of the imprecision inherent in estimates from small samples." These drawbacks, when considered alongside the significant time and resources estimated for the pilot study, argue against conti nuing the project in the current budget environment. QS. Why should the public trust the NRC when it's abandoning a truly independent look at cancer risk? AS. The original 1990 NC I study was conducted by researchers independent of the NRC. Any future NRC efforts in this area will ensure researcher independence and any fi nal product will undergo independent peer review. The agency carried out this entire effort with the NAS in full view of the public. From : Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 12:56 PM To : Burnell, Scott

Subject:

pilot planning link View ADAMS P8 Properties ML15035Al 28 Open ADAMS P8 Package (Analysis of Cancer Risk in Populations near Nuclear Facilities) Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulat ory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop TWFN-10

phone: 301-415-1793 From: Sheron, Brian Sent: 19 Aug 201517:58:17 -0400 To: Case, M ichael;West, Steven Cc: Coffin, Stephanie;Brock, Terry;Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: Proposed Alternative Conclusion to Cancer paper Mike Weber is OK with this conclusion. I told him we would try to get the customer offices on board, and he would like us to add something about what the schedule is for the million worker study. Terry and Steve need to update Mike on whata's going on with the million worker study at DOE and who, if anyone, the EDO or Chairman need to call to make sure it is funded. From : Case, Michael Sent: Wednesday, August 19, 2015 5:52 PM To: Sheron, Brian ; West, Steven Cc: Brock, Kathryn Subject : Re: Proposed Alternat ive Conclusion to Cancer paper Thanks Brian. I like the million worker study too. It had a few cohorts of interest to us so maybe it could be pursued in bite size chunks. On: 19 August 2015 17:39, "Sheron, Brian" < Brian. Shcron@nrc.gov> wrote: New

Conclusion:

After considering the approaches described above, the staff has decided not to move forward at this time with the update of the 1990 NCI study. The staff believes the NA S proposal is not timely and the costs are excessive. While the NCRP proposal is more modest in scope but could be done faster and for significantly less cost than the NAS study, it continues to have the same limitations as the 1990 study (countya"based and primarily examining only mortality rates). The staff believes that the million worker study will provide more meaningful insights into the effects of radiation exposure on cancer risks. Assuming that the million worker study is taken to completion, we intend to evaluate the results regarding any relationship between radiation exposure and cancer risk. Based on the results of that evaluation, the staff can decide if an update to the 1990 NCI study is necessary. The one potential problem is that Terry tells me that DOE is cutting way back on the million worker study. I was hoping that the Chairman could bring this up when he meets with Asst. Secretary Kotek, but Terry says that this was funded under the DOE Office of Science, which I understand is not under Kotek. l(b)(6) Iso Shirley has been looking for days on my calendar she can keep open so I can take AL a day or two at a time. Tomorrow and Friday I plan to be l(b)(6) !However, 18' 11 be home if you would like to discuss. Home phone isl""(bimi(5.....) ----. l(b)(6) I Steve is acting tomorrow and Rich Correia on Friday. Terry is in tomorrow so ...y-ou- ca_ n__. also call him. Let me know what you think. If you agree, wea'11 start to work it with the customer offices, and also find out if we need someone to make a call to the DOE Office of Science to push them to continue funding the million worker study.

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 25 Aug 2015 08:53:27 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Query/Action - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study I'll get back to you after a quick discussion here. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 8:53 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

FW: Query/Action - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study

Hey, See below.

I'll churn on a new comm plan if you want to take a cut at a press release. Terry From: Sheron, Brian Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:39 AM To: Chen, Yen-Ju; West, Steven Cc: Burnell, Scott; Case, M ichael; Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca; Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Query/Action - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study I will discuss with staff at my morning staff meeting. Steve suggested, and I agree, that a press release is probably the way to go. I will have Terry work with Scott to craft one. I want to call Kevin Crowley at NAS first so he hears it from me rather than read it in a press release. From : Chen, Yen-Ju Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:26 PM To: Sheron, Brian <Brian.Sheron@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven.West@nrc.gov> Cc: Burnell, Scott <Scott .Burnell@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Query/Action - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study The cancer study paper will become public on Sept 8 ... the day after Labor Day. Mike is asking about our plan in reaching out to stakeholders (NAS, NCRP, NEI, HPS, States, public around Braidwood and NFS, etc.). We will need to work out a communication strategy/plan. I cc Scott on this email. From: Weber, Michael Sent: M onday, August 24, 2015 4:47 PM To: Chen, Yen-Ju <Yen-Ju.Chen@nrc.gov> Cc: West, Steven <Steven.West@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Response/Action - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facil ities Study ... And other public stakeholders (NEI, HPS, States, public around Braidwood and NFS, ... ). Thanks From: Chen, Yen-Ju Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 04:42 PM To: Weber, Michael

Subject:

RE: Response - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations

Near Nuclear Facilities Study I understand that RES is working to talk with NAS ... they asked about the public date. I will make sure that RES also reach out to NCRP. From : Weber, Michael Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:39 PM To: Chen, Yen-Ju <Yen-Ju.Chen@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Response - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Faci lities Study Thanks. Are we reaching out proactively to stakeholders (including NAS and NCRP)? From: Chen, Yen-Ju Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 04:21 PM To: Sheron, Brian; West, Steven Cc: Rini, Brett; Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca; Brock, Terry; Weber, Michael

Subject:

FYI: Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study The cancer study paper (SECY-15-0104) is being distributed. Note that it will be publicly available on Sept 8. From : Akstulewicz, Brenda Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:09 PM To: Bellinger, Alesha <Alesha.Bellinger@nrc.gov>; EDO Distribution <EDODistribution@nrc.gov>; Ellmers, Glenn <Glenn.Ellmers@nrc.gov>; Giitter, Rebecca <Rebecca .G iitter@nrc.gov>; Gonzalez, Hipolito <Hipolito.Gonzalez@ nrc.gov>; Hackett, Edwin <Edwin. Hackett@nrc.gov>; Julian, Emile

<Emile.J ulian@nrc.gov>; Meador, Sherry <Sherry.Meador@nr c.gov>; OCA Distribution
<OCADistribution@nrc.gov>; OPA_TNT <OPA TNT@nrc.gov>; Riddick, Nicole
<Nicole.Riddick@nrc.gov>; RidsAdmMailCenter Resource <RidsAdmMailCent er.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RidsAslbpManagement Resource <RidsAslbpManagement.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsCsoMailCenter Resource <RidsCsoMailCenter .Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsHrMailCenter Resource

<RidsHrMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsNmssOd Resource <RidsNmssOd.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RidsNroMailCenter Resource <RidsNroMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsNrrMailCenter Resource

<RidsNrrMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsNsirOd Resource <RidsNsirOd.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RidsOcaaMailCenter Resource <RidsOcaaMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOcfoMailCenter Resource <RidsOcfoMai lCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOeMailCenter Resource

<RidsOeMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOgcMailCenter Resource
<RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOigMailCenter Resource
<RidsOigMailCent er.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOipMailCenter Resource
<RidsOipMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOIS Resource <RidsOIS.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsResOd Resource <RidsResOd.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsRgnlMailCenter Resource
<RidsRgnl MailCenter.resource@nrc.gov>; RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource
<RidsRgn2MailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource
<RidsRgn3MailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource
<RidsRgn4MailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsSbcrMailCenter Resource
<RidsSbcrMailCent er.Resource@nrc.gov>; Shea, Pamela <Pamela .Shea@nrc.gov>; Svinicki, Kristine
<Kristine.Svinicki@nrc.gov>; Wellock, Thomas <Thomas.Wellock@nrc.gov>

Cc: Jimenez, Patricia <Patricia .Jimenez@nrc.gov>; Temp, SECY <SECY.Temp@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study

Greetings, This is to inform you thatSECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilit ies Study {Ml15141343 }, is available for your information and use. Hard copies are being distributed to each Commission Office and OGC; all others - electronic distribution only. This a er will be nublicly available, September 8, 2015. Please do not distribute the paper outside the agency prior to its release. Best regards, Brenda 9JIU!lu1a a&t.u&wiu <9{,fice o/ tAe SWtdwu,f .Nudeax. fiWgulatcvu; &t1u1ii.J.iUtli 301-415-1968

From: Burnell, Scott Sent: 25 Aug 2015 09:47:38 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Query/Action - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study OK, let me see the latest draft of the paper and I'll get the release going. I would suggest a minimal, 'c' comm plan focused on the latest decision. From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 8:53 AM To: Burnell, Scott

Subject:

FW: Query/Action - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study

Hey, See below.

I'll churn on a new comm plan if you want to take a cut at a press release. Terry From: Sheron, Brian Sent: Tuesday, August 25, 2015 7:39 AM To: Chen, Yen-Ju; West, Steven Cc: Burnell, Scott; Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie; Tadesse, Rebecca; Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Query/Action - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study I will discuss with staff at my morning staff meeting. Steve suggested, and I agree, that a press release is probably the way to go. I will have Terry work with Scott to craft one. I want to call Kevin Crowley at NAS first so he hears it from me rather than read it in a press release. From: Chen, Yen-Ju Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 5:26 PM To: Sheron, Brian <Brian.Sheron@nrc.gov>; West, Steven <Steven.West@nrc.gov> Cc: Burnell, Scott <Scott .Burnell@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Query/Action - Electro nic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study The cancer study paper will become public on Sept 8 ... the day after Labor Day. Mike is asking about our plan in reaching out to stakeholders (NAS, NCRP, NEI, HPS, States, public around Braidwood and NFS, etc.). We will need to work out a communication strategy/plan. I cc Scott on this email. From: Weber, Michael Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:47 PM To: Chen, Yen-Ju <Yen-Ju.Chen@nrc.gov> Cc: West, Steven <Steven .West@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Response/Action - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study ...And other public stakeholders (NEI, HPS, States, public around Braidwood and NFS, ...). Thanks From: Chen, Yen-Ju Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 04:42 PM To: Weber, Michael

Subject:

RE: Response - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study I understand that RES is working to talk with NAS ... they asked about the public date. I will make sure that RES also reach out to NCRP. From: Weber, Michael Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 4:39 PM To: Chen, Yen-Ju <Yen-Ju.Chen@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Response - Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Faci lities Study Thanks. Are we reaching out proactively to stakeholders (including NAS and NCRP)? From: Chen, Yen-Ju Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 04:21 PM To: Sheron, Brian; West, Steven Cc: Rini, Brett; Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael; Tadesse, Rebecca; Brock, Terry; Weber, Michael

Subject:

FYI: Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study The cancer study paper (SECY-15-0104) is being distributed. Note that it will be publicly available on Sept 8. From : Akstulewicz, Brenda Sent: Monday, August 24, 2015 3:09 PM To: Bellinger, Alesha <Alesha.Bellinger@nrc.gov>; EDO Distribution <EDODistribution@nrc.gov>; Ellmers, Glenn <Glenn.Ellmers@nrc.gov>; Giitter, Rebecca <Rebecca .Giitter@nrc.gov>; Gonzalez, Hipolito <Hipolito.Gonzalez@nrc.gov>; Hackett, Edwin <Edwin.Hackett@nrc.gov>; Julian, Emile

<Emile.Julian@nrc.gov>; Meador, Sherry <Sherry.Meador@nrc.gov>; OCA Distribution
<OCADistribution@nrc.gov>; OPA_TNT <OPA TNT@nrc.gov>; Riddick, Nicole
<Nicole.Riddick@nrc.gov>; RidsAdmMailCenter Resource <RidsAdmMailCenter.Resource@nr c.gov>;

RidsAslbpManagement Resource <RidsAslbpManagement.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsCsoMailCenter Resource <RidsCsoMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsHrMailCenter Resource

<RidsHrMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsNmssOd Resource <RidsNmssOd.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RidsNroMailCenter Resource <RidsNroMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsNrrMailCenter Resource

<RidsNrrMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsNsirOd Resource <RidsNsirOd.Resource@nrc.gov>;

RidsOcaaMailCenter Resource <RidsOcaaMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOcfoMailCenter Resource <RidsOcfoMai lCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOeMailCenter Resource

<RidsOeMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOgcMailCenter Resource
<RidsOgcMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOigMailCenter Resource
<RidsOigMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOipMailCenter Resource
<RidsOipMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsOIS Resource <RidsOIS.Resou rce@nrc.gov>; RidsResOd Resource <RidsResOd.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsRgnlMailCent er Resource
<RidsRgnlMailCenter.resource@nrc.gov>; RidsRgn2MailCenter Resource
<RidsRgn2MailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsRgn3MailCenter Resource
<RidsRgn3MailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsRgn4MailCenter Resource
<RidsRgn4MailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; RidsSbcrMailCenter Resource
<RidsSbcrMailCenter.Resource@nrc.gov>; Shea, Pamela <Pamela.Shea@nrc.gov>; Svinicki, Kristine
<Kristine.Svinicki@nrc.gov>; Wellock, Thomas <Thomas.Wellock@nrc.gov>

Cc: Jimenez, Patricia <Patricia .Jimenez@nrc.gov>; Temp, SECY <SECY.Temp@nrc.gov>

Subject:

Electronic Distribution SECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study Greetings, This is to inform you thatSECY-15-0104: Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities Study {Mll5141343 }, is available for your information and use. Hard copies are being distributed to each Commission Office and OGC; all others - electronic distribution only. This paper will be publicly available, September 8, 2015. Please do not distribute the paper outside the agency prior to its release. Best regards, Brenda 9Jitenda a&t.u&wiu <9(,tke oJ. t.Ae s~ JVucieav, 9leguiatwu; 0u11mi.i6io.tt 301-415-1968

/ - "

                                                                                              ~-1
                                                                                                     ,,-._f,;,
                                                                                           - L*>v /) ...,_,...
                                                                                               ' +..-i.e...,.

FOR: The Commissioners FROM: R. W. Bor Exec Director for Operations

SUBJECT:

NEXT STEPS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES STUDY PURPOSE: The purpose of this paper is to inform the Commission of staff plans for the next steps of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC)-sponsored Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facllities study.

SUMMARY

In April 2010, the NRC staff requested the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) to perform a study on cancer mortality and incidence risks in populations living near NRG-licensed facilities to update the 1990 National Cancer Institute (NCI) report on "Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities." The study was divided into two phases. In Phase 1, NAS explored the feasibility of conducting an updated study by developing modem methods to perform the analysis. The staff has reviewed the results of the Phase 1 study and the NAS recommendations for the next phase. The staff's next step will be to proceed with the NAS-recommended approach to determine the feasibility of the Phase 1 methods through pilot studies at seven sites recommended by the NAS committee: Dresden in lltinois 1 Millstone in Connecticut, Oyster Creek in New Jersey, Haddam Neck (decommissioned) in Connecticut, Big Rock Point (decommissioned) in Michigan, San Onofre in California, and Nuclear Fuel Services in Tennessee. Upon completion of the pilot studies, NAS will comment whether further study is beneficial, and the NRC staff will determ*1ne whether to perform the studies at all NRC-licensed facilities (1.e., balance of operating nuclear power plants and fuel-cycle facilities). CONTACT: Terry Brock, RES/DSA 301-251-7487

MEDIA RELEASE For immediate release

Contact:

Cindy Folkers, (240) 354-4314 Paul Gunter, (301) 523-0201 Bl YONO NUCLEAR Linda Gunter (media director), (301) 455-5655 Agency to leave children unprotected and public in the dark on cancer risks around nuclear power facilities Vital cancer study canceled as nuclear industry moves in to offer end-run cover-up TAKOMA PARK, MD, September 8, 2015 - Beyond Nuclear, a leading U.S. NGO of record on the health, safety and environmental dangiers of nuclear power facilities, today decried the outrageous decision by the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to cancel a study that would have examined cancer incidence and mortalities and the connection to U.S. nuclear facilities. "Study after study in Europe has shown a clear rise i1n childhood leukemia around operating nuclear power facilities, yet the NRC has decided to hide this vital information from the American public," said Cindy Folkers, radiation and health specialist at Beyond Nuclear. The study, initiated in 2009 and carried out under the auspices of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), had completed Phase 1 and was looking at seven pilot nuclear sites around the country, a project that was estimated to cost $8 million. "An $8 million price tag for the next phase of this study is a drop in the bucket for an agency with a $1 billion annual operating budget," added Folkers. The NRC identified the "significant amount of time and resources needed and the agency's current budget constraints" as its excuse for terminating the study. Folkers noted that, in reality, nuclear industry manipulation, rather than budget constraints, could be behind the NRC's sudden decision to abandon the NAS study. In documents obtained by Beyond Nuclear it was revealed that NRC staff had been approached by the president of U.S. National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP), John Boice, offering a cheaper, faster and less sensitive study design to replace the NAS study, although the NRC has not yet agreed to accept the NCRP bid. "NCRP is not only funded in part by the nuclear industry but its decision-makers also have strong pro-nuclear ties," said Folkers, who has been leading a six-year effort by Beyond Nuclear and other groups to ensure the NAS cancer study went forward with scientific integrity.

"John Boice has repeatedly taken industry funding for health studies and has testified against plaintiffs in radiation exposure cases," Folkers continued. "The public will have absolutely no confidence in any conclusions reached by such a study and would recognize it as an attempt by the NRG to, yet again, bury public concerns about radiation exposure," Folkers added. What's also behind the cancelation, Folkers alleges, is the incontrovertible evidence of negative health impacts caused by the routine operation of nuclear power reactors and especially on children, that such a study would have made public. Last year, Dr. Ian Fairlie, a noted British radiation biologist, conducted a meta-analysis of cancer studies around nuclear plants in the UK, Germany, France and Switzerland and found "a highly statistically significant 37% increase in childhood leukemias within 5 km (3 miles) of almost all nuclear power plants" in those countries. Reacting to the NRG's decision, Fairlie said it was "highly regrettable and inexplicable given the large amount of good evidence from countries outside the U.S. which strongly pointed to increased leukemias near nuclear power plants." The influence of the nuclear industry over the NRG is no surprise, given the agency receives 90% of its funding from the nuclear industry itself. But a recent pattern of dismissing public engagement and canceling minimal safety measures at U.S. nuclear plants is a worrying trend. "Funding a cancer study around nuclear power plants is a legitimate cost of doing radioactive business that the NRG could have collected through its licensing fees," said Paul Gunter, Director of Reactor Oversight at Beyond Nuclear and an NRG watchdog. "Instead, the NRG has decided to pass along another cost savings to the nuclear industry at the expense of public health and safety." Beyond Nuclear aims to educate and activate the public about the connections between nuclear power and nuclear weapons and the need to abandon both to safeguard our future. Beyond Nuclear advocates for an energy future that is sustainable, benign and democratic. The Beyond Nuclear team works with diverse partners and allies to provide the public, government officials, and the media with the critical information necessary to move humanity toward a world beyond nuclear. Beyond Nuclear: 6930 Carroll Avenue, Suite 400, Takoma Park, MD 20912. lnfo@bevondnuclear.org. www.bevondnuclear.org.

ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISKS IN POPULATIONS LIVING NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES-PROJECT CLOSEOUT One - Pager Key Messages

• The NRC staff reviewed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Pilot Planning Project Report and Pilot Execution Proposal. The pilot project's duration, cost, and lack of useful results for communicating cancer risks preclude the agency from devoting further resources to this effort in the NRC's current budget environment.
• The methods developed by NAS in Phase 1, and discussed further in the pilot planning project are publicly available for other agencies or organizations to use.
• The staff will continue to monitor international and national studies in this area to determine if any future work in this area is warranted.

Facts

• The NAS Phase I report called out several challenges to completing the study, not least of which was the work "may not have adequate statistical power to detect the presumed small increases in cancer risks arising from ... monitored and reported releases."
• The Phase 2 report also explicitly warned that "any data collected during the pilot study will have limited use for estimating cancer risks in populations near each of the nuclear facilities or for the seven nuclear facilities combined because of the imprecision inherent in estimates from small samples."
• These issues, when considered alongside the significant time and resources estimated for the pilot study, argue against continuing the project in the current budget environment.
• The NRC continues to find U.S. nuclear power plants comply with strict requirements that limit radiation releases from routine operations. The NRC and state agencies regularly analyze environmental samples from near the plants. These analyses show the releases, when they occur, are too small to cause observable increases in cancer risk near the facilities.

Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities Project Closeout Key Messages

• The NRC staff reviewed the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) Pilot Planning Project Report and Pilot Execution Proposal. The pilot project's duration, cost, and lack of useful results for communicating cancer risks preclude the agency from devoting further resources to this effort in the NRC's current budget environment.
• The methods developed by NAS in Phase 1, and discussed further in the pilot planning project are publicly available for other agencies or organizations to use.
• The staff will continue to monitor international and national studies in this area to determine if any future work in this area is warranted.

Facts

• The NAS Phase I report called out several challenges to completing the study, not least of which was the work "may not have adequate statistical power to detect the presumed small increases in cancer risks arising from ... monitored and reported releases."
• The Phase 2 report also explicitly warned that "any data collected during the pilot study will have limited use for estimating cancer risks in populations near each of the nuclear facilities or for the seven nuclear facilities combined because of the imprecision inherent in estimates from small samples."
• NAS communicated to the staff that the execution phase of the pilot study would require significant time and resources to complete: 39 months and $8 million. The staff estimates that it may take NAS 8 to 10 years to complete the pilot and the subsequent nation-wide studies before NRC has final cancer risk results to share with NRC stakeholders- the original intent of the project. That would possibly prolong the study to 2025, 15 years after the start of the project with NAS
• These issues, when considered alongside the significant time and resources estimated for the pilot study, argue against continuing the project in the current budget environment.
• The NRC continues to find U.S. civilian nuclear facilities and users of radioactive material comply with strict requirements that limit radiation releases from routine operations. The NRC and state agencies regularly analyze environmental samples from near nuclear power plants. These analyses show the releases, when they occur, are too small to cause observable increases in cancer risk near the facilities.

     .....                                                 U.S. NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION NOTICE OF GRANT/ASSISTANCE AWARD f1.' GRANT/AGREEMENT NO.                         IL. Muu1r-11..A t tUN  NU.      13. PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE                        ~1:4 . AUTHORITY I N'RC 10- 152                                  M002                          FROM: 09/01/2010          TO:     0513112012 Pum1anl to Section 31b;md 141b of lhe Atomic Energy Act of 1954, as amenaed

5. TYPE OF AWARD 6. ORGANIZATION TYPE 7. RECIPIENT NAME, ADDRESS, and EMAIL ADDRESS National Academy of Sciences 0 GRANT Nonprofi t Publically Supported National Research Council D COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Organiza t ion Duns: 041964057 500 Fifth Street, NW, Room T433C Washington, DC 20001

                                                                                                  ~denning@nas . edu

8. PROJECT TITLE:

Analysis. of Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuclear Facilities - Phase r

\

9 PROJECT WILL BE CONDUCTED 10. TECHNICA~ REPORTS ARE REQUIRED 11.' PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR($) NAME, ADDRESS and EMAIL ADDRESS he National Academies PER GOVERNMENT'S/RECIPIENT'S PROPOSAL(S) DATED Q PROGRES~ AND FINAL ttn: Kevin Crowley 0FINALONLY Sr. Board Director/ See Program Description uclear and Radiation Stud i es Board AND APPENDIX A-PROJECT* 0 OTHER (Conference Proceedings) Email: kcrowley@nas.edu GRANT PROVISIONS Phone: 202-334-3066. '

12. NRC PROGRAM OFFICE (NAME and ADDRESS) ' 13. ACCOUNTING and APPROPRIA:l"ION DATA 14. METHOD OF PAYMENT

• us Nuclear. Regul.a tory.,*conm.ission APPN. NO: ,. 31X0200 OADVANCE B.Y i:REASURY CHECK.

Office'of" Research * ** Attention: Robin Barnes B&R NO: ~ - - ~ 2012 60 11 6 110 D REIMBURqEMEN°T BY TREASURY CHECK Mailstop: CSB C6-D20 JOB CODE: C6000 Washington DC 20555 BOC NO: 4110 D LEITER OF CREDIT 301-251 - 7487 Terry Brock OF ICE ID NO: iy:s-12-105 0 OTHER (SPECIFY) Electronic ASAP .gov

                                                                    *\MS ~         1".f.~-                        See Remarks in Item #20 "Pa ment Information"

15. NRC OBLIGATION FUNDS This action provides funds for Fiscal Year THIS ACTION $0 . 00 NRC $1,036,653.00 in the amount of 0. oo PREVIOUS OBLIGATION $1,036,653 . 00 RECIPIENT _so~.._o_o______

                                            $1, 036,   653 . 00            TOTAL       $1,036,653.00 TOTAL

17. NRG ISSUING OFFICE (NAME, ADDRESS and EMAIL ADDRESS)

U.S. Nuc:ear Regulatory Commission Div. of Contracts Attn: Chris Walston Mail Stop: TWB-01-BlOM

           . Washington, DC 20555 18.

Contracting Officer TITLE (301) 492-3484 TELEPHONE NO.

20. PAYMENT INFORMATION Payment will be made through the Automated Standard Application for Payment (ASAP.gov) unless the recipient has failed to comply with the program objectives, award conditions, Federal reporting requirements or other conditions specified in 2 CFR 215 (OMB Circular A110).

21. Attached is a copy of the "NRC General Provisions for Grants and Cooperative Agreements Awarded to Non-Government Recipients.

Acceptance of these terms and conditions is acknowledged when Federal funds are used on this project.

22. ORDER OF PRECEDENCE 1In the event of a conflict between the recipient's proposal and this award, the terms of the* Award shall prevail.

!23. By this award, the Recipient certifies that payment of any audit*related debt will nol reduce the level of perfonmance of any Federal Program.

NRC-04-10-152 M002 Page 2 of 2 DESCRIPTION OF MODIFICATION: The purpose of this modification M002 is:

1. Change the Project Manager

2. To extend the period of performance.

As a result of this modification:

1. Hobin Barnes has replaced Terry Brock as the RES Pr'oje~t Manager and Mr. Terry Brock

     . *is hereby designated as the Technical Analyst;                  *      *   *    *

2.

• The Period of.-Performance is extended for an additional three months:

FROM: 09/01 /2010 TO: 05/31/2012 Base Period: September 01, 2010-May 31, 2012 (changed) Total Agreement Amount: $1 ,036,653.00 (unchanged) Total Obligated Amount $1,036,653.00 (unchanged) All terms and conditions remain the same .

                                                          . ~* .'

From: Armstrong, Kenneth Sent: 16 Jun 201417:33:10 +0000 To: Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Rini, Brett

Subject:

RE: QUERY: Possible Radiation Protection Topics for the Chairman @ HPS Meeting Attachments: RAMP - RIC 2014.pptx, Analysis of Cancer Risk.pdf, Part 20.pdf

Rebecca, They also asked for background information, what do you think about the attached? Should we refer them to FSME for Patient Release? Or, do we have something already canned?

Thanks! From: Armstrong, Kenneth Sent: Monday, June 16, 2014 11:30 AM To: Rini, Brett Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: QUERY: Possible Radiation Protection Topics for the Chairman @ HPS Meeting

Brett, As requested:

• Patient Release
• Cancer Risk Study
• Radiat ion Protection Code Analysis & Maintenance Program (RAMP)
• Part 20 Rulemaking From: Rini, Brett Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 2:15 PM To: Tadesse, Rebecca Cc: Armstrong, Kenneth

Subject:

QUERY: Possible Radiation Protection Topics for the Chairman @ HPS Meeting

Rebecca, See the e-mail below from Jennifer Schwartzman regarding the Chairman's speech at the HPS meeting next month. She's not looking for immediate input, but do you have any thoughts on what RP topics it would be good for her to discuss?

Thanks, Brett From: Rosales-Cooper, Cindy Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 2:09 PM To: Rini, Brett

Subject:

FW: Are you still doing RES?

Hi Brett, How are ya??? See below the inquiry from the Chairman's Office for topics the Chairman can speak on at the HPS annual meeting. Let me know what RES' thoughts are so we can relay back to the Chairman's Office.

Thanks, Cindy From: Schwartzman, Jennifer Sent: Friday, June 13, 2014 2:05 PM To: Rosales-Cooper, Cindy

Subject:

RE: Are you still doing RES? The Chairman will speak at the Health Physics Society annual meeting in Baltimore next month. Kim Morgan-Butler and I have been working on topics and messages, and one area that she thinks might be of interest to the audience is the NRC's ongoing radiation protection research - things like the NAS cancer study, patient release, MILDOS (uranium recovery), and others in the reactor, fuel, waste and other areas. I'd appreciate some input from the staff on what issues would be good to raise, and what background might be available that I can crib from. Some of this might touch FSME or other offices too but I thought I'd start with RES. I don't need anything today certainly so this is something we could discuss next week. Thanks! Jen

Analysis of Cancer Risks in Region t Populations Near Nuclear Facilities

Background

Nuclear facilities that the U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) licenses (Figure 4 .5) some times release very small amounts of radioactivity during normal operations. These releases are a very small fraction of background radiation and die A Ucensed to Ope1crte 11041 amount of radiation the average U.S. citizen receives in a year Figure 4.5 locations of operating nuclear power facilities from all sources. NRC regulations ensure that plant operators monitor and control these releases to meet very strict radiation Today, srakcholdcr interest continues abour perceived elevated dose lim its, and plants must publicly report these releases to the cancer rates in popularions near reactors, including cancer agency. Nonetheless, some communities have expressed concern about the potential impact of these releases on the health of incidence (i.e., being diagnosed wirh cancer, but not necessaril y dying from rhe disease). The NRC is having NAS conduct citizens living near nuclear faci lities. this study to provide up-to-date information on cancer risks in populations near nuclear facilities. To help address these concerns the NRC requested that the U.S. National Academy of Sciences (NAS) conduct a study analyzing the cancer risk of populations living near NRC-lice nsed facilities. Approach This study will be used as an update co the 1990 National C ancer Institute (NC I) report, "C ancer in Populations Living N ear The proposed study will be perfo rmed in two-phases: Nuclear Facilities." The NAS is a nongovernmental organization (I) preparation of a scoping study to determine the besr chartered by d1e U.S. C ongress to advise the Nation on issues methodology, the best approach, and the potential limitations of science, technology, and medicine. Through the National for performing the cancer incidence and mortality epidemiology Research Council and Institute of Medicine, it carries out studies study and (2) conduct of the actual study. 1he NRC's objective independent of the government using processes designed to is to have the larest cancer epidemiology information to promote transpare ncy, objectivity, and technical rigor. More communicate with its stakeholde rs. 1l1e study also will information on its methods for performing studies is available at evaluate whem er the risks arc different for va rio us age groups, http://www.nationalacademies.org/studvcom m itteprocess.pdf. including c hildren. NRC staff has used the 1990 N C I study as a valuable risk communication tool for addressing stakeholder concerns abour Study Status-Phase 1 results and cancer mortality amibucable to the o peration of nuclear faciliries. next steps Stakeholders often ask the staff abour perceived elevated cancer rates in populations working or residing near NRC-licensed The NAS published the Phase I committee report on March 28, nuclear facilities, including power reacto rs and fuel cycle facilities 201 2, which can be accessed on the NAS Web site at: (e.g., fuel enrichment and fabrication plants) . The N C I study hrrp://www.nap.edu/catalog.php?record id= 13388#toc. was produced in response to concerns about elevated risk of childhood leukemia to persons near a British nuclear facility "The Phase 1 study committee made three recommendations to (Sellafield) . NCI researchers studied more than 900,000 the NRC fo r the next phase of rhe smdy: cancer deaths using county mortality records collected from 1950- 1984. C hanges in morrality races for 16 types of cancer Recommendation 1: Two study designs were recommended we re evaluated . The N C I reporr concluded rhat cancer mo rrality subject to the feasibility assessment described in rates generally are nor elevated for people living in the 107 U.S. Recommendation 2. counties containing or closely adjacent to 62 nuclear facilities. However, the population data that the N C I report used is now I. An ecologic study of multiple cancer types of populations more than 20 years old and should be updated. living .near nuclear facilities.

2. A record-linkage based case-control srudy of cancers in children born near nuclear facilities.

76 - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)

Recommendation 2: A pilot scudy should be carried om to assess the feasibility of the committee-recommended dose assessment and epidemiology studies and ro estimate the required time and resources. Recomm endation 3: The epidemiology studies should include processes for involving and communicating wirh srakeholders. A plan for stakeholder engagement should be developed before the initiation of data gathering and analysis. The NRC has engaged with the NAS to perform the Phase 1 recommendations and expects the pilot studies to be completed in 2015. The NCl facr sheet on the original 1990 study is available at hup;//www.cancer.gsw/cancertopics/factsheet/Risk/m1clear-faciliries. The press release on NRC's request to NAS is available ar http://www.nrc.gov/readi ng-rm/ doc-collections/ news/201Of10-060. html. For More Information Contact Terry Brock, RES/DSA, at Terry.Brock@nrc.gov. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - 77

Regulatory Basis for NRC appropriate where scientifically justified, to achieve greater alignment with the recommendations in ICRP Publication 103. Standards for Protection In response, the NRC staff engaged a wide range of stakeholders on potential issues, conducted preliminary assessments of rhe Against Ionizing Radiation impacts of implementation ofICRP's recommendati()ns, and participated in international and national meetings. ln April Background 20 12, the NRC summarized in a paper to the Commission the staff's multiyear effort, and identified several technical and policy 1he U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) provides issues that i-equire further study. 1his paper, SECY-120064, rhc fundamcnral radiological prorccrion criteria for licensees "Recommendarions for Policy and Technical D irection To Revise ro use in Title 10 of the Code ofFedeml Regulations ( 10 CFR) Radiation Protection Regulations and Guidance," is available Parr 20, "Srandards for Protection against Radiation." The last on the NRC's Web sire at hrrp://www.nrc.gov/reading-rm/doc-major revision to I 0 CFR Part 20 was completed in 1991. It collections/commission/secys/2012/20 I 2-0064scy.pdf. was primarily based on the 1977 recommendations contained in International Commission on Radiological Protection Current Activities (ICRP) Publication 26, "Recommendations of the International Commission on Radiological Protection." As part of this effort, the Radiation Protection Branch (RPB) is developing technical information on the benefits and burdens Since 199 1, the NRC has made minor revisions ro JO CFR associated w ith revising the NRC's radiation protection Pal't 20, such as a reduced public dose limit rhat incorporates regulatory framework. RPB will consider (1) impacts on the recommendacions of ICRP Publication 60, "1990 licensees, (2) impacts on public confidence, (3) cost-benefit Recommendarions of the International Commission on issues, (4) backfir issues, (5) impacts on the N RC's materials Radiological Protection," issued in 1991. However, in orher program, and (6) other benefits and burdens of adopting ICRP NRC regulations, such as Appendix I, "Numerical Guides for Publication 103 recommendations. Currently, development of Design Objectives and Limiting Conditions for Operation to this regulatory basis comprises the four technical areas Meet the Criterion 'As Low as is Reasonably Achievable' for described below. Radioactive Material in Lighr-Warer-Cooled Nuclear Power Reactor Effluents," to JO CFR Part 50, "Domestic Licensing of Production and Utilization Facilities," some radiation dose Impacts of Changing Occupational criteria are based primarily on ICRP Publications 1 and 2 Dose Limits and Using Dose (rhe 195 8 and 1959 "Recommendations of rhe International Commission on Radiological Protection"). In addition, NRC Constraints fuel cycle licensees have received aurhorization, on a case-by-case basis, to use rhe newer ICRP mcrhodology (ICRP Publication The purpose of this task is to collect and analyze informarion 66, "Human Respiratory Traer Model for Radiological about the actual dose distributions from industrial and medical Protection," issued January 1995 and beyond) in their licensed licensees and to determine the impact of reduced dose limits acriviries. 1l1e Agreement Srates' requirements for their licensees from 50 ro 20 millisieverr (5 rem to 2 rem) per yea r both on an are essentially identical to I 0 CFR Part 20. As a result, three annual basis and averaged over 5 years. 1l1e staff is developing a different sets of IC RP recommendations are in use today by reporc that provides technical information and a policy synopsis various 1icensees. for agencywide use. RPB also contributed to the technical development of a 20 1 I report on dose constrain rs issued by rhe Nuclear En ergy Agency (NEA) entitled, "Dose Constraints in Approach Optimization of Radiological Protection" (NEA/CRPPH/R (20 11 ) (see Figure 4 .1 ). This report can be viewed on the NEA's In December 2008, rhe NRC sraff provided che Commission Web sire at www.oecd-nea.org:. with a summary of regulatory and technical options for moving-or not moving-toward a grearer alignment of the NRC's radiation protection regulatory framework with !CRP Publication l 03, "Recommendarions of the [nternational Commission on Radiological Prorection," issued February 2008. The Commission subsequenrly directed the staff ro begin engaging with stakeholders and interested parties to initiate development of a regularory basis for possible revision ()f the N RC's radiation protection regulations, as adequate and 72 - Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research (RES)

recommendations. 1his is a multiyear effon that will continue Planned exposure until IC RP finalizes the numerical values associated with ICRP situations Publication 103. RES staff is working closely Dose limit with other Federal agencies to share the cost of funding O RNL for related work, and participate in domestic and Dose constraint international working groups thar assess porenrial rechnical j j and policy issues associated l with the implementation of ORN.Ls research. Optimization Figure 4.1 Planned exposure situations Occupational Dose Information and Evaluation of Potential Compliance Issues This analysis will address potential cha nges ro the occupational dose limir, rhe dose limit to an embryo or fetus of a declared Figure 4.2 Biokinetic model pregnanr woman, and the use of dose constraints. Although, there is minimal information on occupational exposures ar Agreement Srate-licensed facilities, medical institutions, or for exposures to the embryo or fems, the staff continues to explore Costs and Impacts of Implementing addi tional approaches with external stakeholders to gather data ICRP Publication 60 in the United needed to support this analysis. In August 20 I 0, N RC staff States issued a letter to Agreement State Radiation Control Programs requesting occupational dose information from Agreement To esti mate the potential cosrs of implemcnring ICRP State-licensed materials licensees. Information received from Publication l 03, the NRC is seeking information from domestic Agreement Stare mate rials licensees was analyzed for trends and and international sources on costs for implementing ICRP impacts associated with a potential reduction in the occupational Publication 60. Based on the results of initial data gathering dose limit. RPB developed the July 2012 report entitled, eA-orrs, RES staff is currently focusing on scrategies that other "Occupational Radiation Exposure at Agreement State-Licensed Federal agencies and the international radiation protection Materials Facilities, 19972010" (NUREG-21 18). This reporr is commun ity use to implement TCRP Publication 60 and more available on the NRC's public Web site ar http://www.nrc.gov/ recent recommendations. reading-rm/doc-collccrions/nuregs/staff/sr2 1J8/vl /. Support Development of New Use of Research Results Biokinetic and Dosimetric Models and The overall goal of this efforr is ro obtain sufficient information Dose Coefficients for Occupational to proceed with a rulemaking and to identify policy issues and Public Exposure that require future Commission decisions. ln particular, rhis will su pporr rhe NRC sraff in developing a regulatory basis, The purpose of this task is to support and moniror work that associated guidance, and proposed language for rulemaking. Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) is conducting on the development ofbiokinetic and dosimerric models (see Figure For ;:-..Iore Information 4.2} and dose coefficients for occupational and public exposure Contact Tony Huffert, RES/DSA, at Anrhony.Huffert@nrc.gov. to radionuclides that are based on TCRP Publication 103 United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission - 73

From: Armstrong, Kenneth Sent: 10 Apr 2014 11:46:23 +0000 To: Collins, Daniel

Subject:

RE: FY16 Cut List, Cancer Risk Study question from Brian Attachments: FY16 Cancer Risk Study Question from Brian.docx Update attached , per our discussion. From: Armstrong, Kenneth Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2014 7:39 AM To: Collins, Daniel Cc: Richards, Stuart

Subject:

FW: FY16 Cut List, Cancer Risk Study question from Brian Dan , Kathy had one minor edit which I implemented in the attached . It's ready for Brian. Thanks! From: Armstrong, Kenneth Sent: Wednesday, April 09, 2014 4:53 PM To: Gibson, Kathy Cc: Collins, Daniel; Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

FY16 Cut List, Cancer Risk Study question from Brian

Kathy, Brian reviewed our proposed FY16 Operating Reactors "cut list" this morning and approved our approach . However, he did have a question pertaining to our inclusion of the Cancer Risk Study.

In the attached , I tried to capture his question and propose a response (after discussing with RPB). Will you please review and let me know of any concerns before we respond to Brian? Thanks!

Question from Brian: DSA identified the Cancer Risk Study as part of their FY16 low priority cut list (40% cut to DSA's contracting budget).

• If we have an active grant with NAS, can we contractually implement this cut?
• What will be the effect on the NAS committee?

Answer: When approving a grant, we have language in the agreement that payment from the grantor to the grantee is dependent upon funding availability. So, the agreement allows for the funding to be discontinued. NAS is currently undertaking the planning for the cancer risk pilot study. This planning effort is expected to be completed in early FYlS. Thus, if we don't have a current active grant with NAS entering FY16, then the project would simply be delayed. If RES decides to proceed with the pilot study in FYlS and the funding is cut in FY16, then NAS would likely try to stretch the FYlS money as long as possible. However, once they ran out of funding, there is no guarantee that the committee would stay together. There is a chance that the committee disbands due to other work priorities and if the NRC found funding in late FY16 or later, a new committee may be formed to complete the work.

From: Armstrong, Kenneth Sent: 5 Feb 2015 12:18:12 +0000 To: Moore, Ross

Subject:

FW: CA NOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISK IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES PILOT STUDY Attachments: Kathy Halvey Gibson2.vcf, CA NOTE ON THE STATUS_brock cor.docx, RE : CA NOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISK IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES PILOT STUDY

Ross, Attached is the last version that I have. Note that I also attached an email where Brian approved this document but had a question related to timeframe for the study.

This should help. But, I would also try and locate the final OEDO/OCA approved version. Hopefully, Terry or Rebecca has. Thanks! From: Gibson, Kathy Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:29 PM To: Sheron, Brian; West, Steven Cc: Bush-Goddard, Stephanie; Colon, Jessica; Armstrong, Kenneth; Brock, Terry; Richards, Stuart

Subject:

RE: CA NOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RI SK IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES PILOT STUDY Brian, Steve, Attached is the CA note for the cancer risk study for your review.

Thanks, Kathy Kathy Halvey Gibson Director D1v1sion of Systems Analysis Kathy .Gibson~nrc.gov 301 251-7499 Work (b)(6) Cell

               -=.

0-:!

                    ~ !.! " :-..:: ...
                    ~*

• , c.:--;: :*

                          . : ! :!" t.:: - .:: .. :\.::.;!!":-
               ~*~c- : ~~==         ! 11*.::-.!: r*   *:--!*-;

From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, November 12,. 2013 1:23 PM To: Gibson, Kathy; Armstrong, Kenneth Cc: Bush-Goddard, Stephanie; Colon, Jessica

Subject:

RE: CA NOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE ANALYSI S OF CANCER RISK IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES PILOT STUDY

Kathy,

Here's the cancer study CA note Brian asked for with your comments addressed and tech edit by Joe Zabel. Should be good to go to Brian. Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulat ory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Comm ission Washington D.C. 20555 M ail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487 From: Gibson, Kathy Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:44 AM To: Armstrong, Kenneth Cc: Bush-Goddard, Stephanie; Brock, Terry; Colon, Jessica

Subject:

RE: CA NOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISK IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES PILOT STUDY It needs tech edited. It needs to add the interactions with the public that NAS has or is planning. It needs to add the link to the NAS webpage for this study. Then it should be in good shape to pass along to Brian. Thanks! Kathy Halvey Gibson Director Division of Systems Analysis Kathy.Gibson@nrc.gov (301) 251-7499Work l(b)(6) !Cell

                *=-** .    ! !.! " :::;-... !~~* .::-- ::-:-

C... ~ c.* .. : !: " =-..: : ... : ':Q* t :;: :i *~ t;~.;":!._:; * ; ".!.::: : ~-: ~ ! t* *:-- - !.."'; From: Armstrong, Kenneth Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:33 AM To: Gibson, Kathy Cc: Bush-Goddard, Stephanie; Brock, Terry; Colon, Jessica

Subject:

CA NOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISK IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES PILOT STUDY

Kathy, Will you please review the attached draft CA note.

Thanks!

From: Sheron, Brian Sent: 12 Nov 201317:06:16 -0500 To: Gibson, Kathy;West, Steven Cc: Bush-Goddard, Stephanie;Colon, Jessica;Armstrong, Kenneth; Brock, Terry;Richards, Stuart

Subject:

RE: CA NOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISK IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES PILOT STUDY I have no problem with the CA note. What I do have a problem with is the schedule. We started this effort in 2010. The feasibility st udy was supposed to take a year, and the actual study was supposed to take about 3 years. Thus, we were thinking about 5 years total. Now I see that 3+ years has elapsed since we started the study, they want 2-3 years just to do the pilot, which we all know will evolve to probably 4+ years. They will submit the pilot results and we'll chew on them for a year or so. Then we'll start the actual study, which will probably take at least S+ years. Thus, I do not see this study finishing up until beyond 2020. If we have to keep funding them, how much is this going to cost? How long did the NCI study take back in 1990? Why are we comfortable with this schedule? lfwe keep sending NAS $,they obviously have no incentive to move it along and get it finished. And what does taking perhaps 13 years to do a study like this say about our credibility? From: Gibson, Kathy Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:29 PM To: Sheron, Brian; West, Steven Cc: Bush-Goddard, St ephanie; Colon, Jessica; Armstrong, Kenneth; Brock, Terry; Richards, Stuart

Subject:

RE: CA NOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISK IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES PILOT STUDY Brian, Steve, Attached is the CA note for the cancer risk study for your review.

Thanks, Kathy Kathy Hatvey Gibson Otrector Division of Systems Analys s Kathy .G bson;;g;nrc.gov 30 1 251-7499 \Vor~

(bl(6l Ce

                              ._: u

• 1'1 ;.!::.* :.:-- ; :"'

                      ~:e "'*        -~ ~: ~ .e_:: .. : ::- =..:::.:.:*:-
                      , . !'!!.:---; ; ! : : ~ ! *! '!"' : [ " * :*--!.'*!

From: Brock, Terry Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2013 1:23 PM

To: Gibson, Kathy; Armstrong, Kenneth Cc: Bush-Goddard, Stephanie; Colon, Jessica

Subject:

RE: CA NOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISK IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES PILOT STUDY

Kathy, Here's the cancer study CA note Brian asked for with your comments addressed and tech edit by Joe Zabel.

Should be good to go to Brian. Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487 From: Gibson, Kathy Sent: Monday, November 04, 2013 11:44 AM To: Armstrong, Kenneth Cc: Bush-Goddard, Stephanie; Brock, Terry; Colon, Jessica

Subject:

RE: CA NOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISK IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES PILOT STUDY It needs tech edited. It needs to add the interactions with the public that NAS has or is planning. It needs to add the link to the NAS webpage for this study. Then it should be in good shape to pass along to Brian. Thanks! Kathy Halvey Gibson Director o,*.,~sion of Systems Analy~ Kathv.G bsoo~rrc .go'I ( JQ1) 251-7~99 \~or'i< 1(0)(6) Ce

                    .1 .. : !!* <t'_:: . : : * ::-- ; :*

0-.:t .;.* .: t.!* '..t: . !~*1 t.i.~*: r--.:::::-: *! :: ~ :*_: ~ t ,. *=---:~ From: Armstrong, Kenneth Sent : Monday, November 04, 2013 11:33 AM To: Gibson, Kathy

Cc: Bush-Goddard, Stephanie; Brock, Terry; Colon, Jessica

Subject:

CA NOTE ON THE STATUS OF THE ANALYSIS OF CANCER RISK IN POPULATIONS NEAR NUCLEAR FACILITIES PILOT STUDY

Kathy, Will you please review the attached draft CA note.

Thanks!

From: Armstrong, Kenneth Sent: 20 May 2014 20:27:44 +0000 To: Rini, Brett

Subject:

Cancer Risk Study one-pager is OK as is. Attachments: RES_Cancer Risk Study.docx Kenneth Armstrong Technical Assistant RES/DSA

Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities Message: The NRG-sponsored National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study aims to update and provide information on potential cancer risks around nucEear sites from the 1990 U.S. National Institutes of Health - National Cancer Institute (NCI) report " Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities."

1. NAS completed the first phase of the study in an open, transparent manner providing opportunities for interested parties to participate.

2. Communicating to the public the limitations and findings of health studies is a challenge.

Key Points

• The NRC has used the 1990 NCI report as a primary resource when communicating with the public about cancer risks in counties that contain or are adjacent to nuclear sites.
• Recent international studies indicate that epidemiology studies can be an important tool for informing stakeholders about public health concerns.
• This effort can demonstrate NRC's commitment to working constructively with interested parties.
• Many technical challenges must be met in performing these types of studies because of low population sizes, low estimated doses, and thus low statistical power {how big of a sample size is needed to detect a certain level of a health effect). The pilot studies are being performed to see if these limitations can be overcome.

Possible Questions

1. How is the study being carried out?

The study was divided into phases. In the first phase, NAS recommended two study designs to assess cancer risks in the general population and, specifically, in children. For the second phase, NAS recommended pilot studies in populations near seven operating or decommissioned facilities. The sites are: o Millstone Power Station, Waterford , Conn. o Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Forked River, N.J. o Haddam Neck (decommissioned), Haddam Neck, Conn. o Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant (decommissioned), Charlevoix, Mich. o San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (permanently shut-down), San Clemente, Calif. o Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Morris, Ill. o Nuclear Fuel Services, Erwin, Tenn. This phase of the study should take two years and, once it is completed, the NRC staff will evaluate the results and decide on the next steps.

2. Why is NAS, rather than NCI, conducting this follow-up study to NCl's 1990 work?

The NRC staff approached NCI management about performing a new study under contract to NRC . Because of staffing limitations, NCI was unable to commit resources for this activity for the foreseeable future. NAS will draw its project team from a wide range of technical experts that could include NCI members.

3. Is NRC aware of recent studies being reported regarding the adverse health effects to children in the Western U.S. from exposure to small amounts of lodine-131 from the Fukushima accident; as well as the study that noted cancer rates went down around Rancho Seco after it shut-down?

Yes. The staff is aware of these studies and has examined them. Since 2008, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and Switzerland have all conducted epidemiology studies of populations near nuclear facilities within their borders to address public health concerns. Most of these studies did not find an increase in cancer risk, and if they did, any increases could not be attributed to the very low radiation doses the public receives from the routine operations of these facilities. The NRC has not identified any substantive data or new evidence that routine operation of licensed nuclear power and fuel cycle facilities impacts the health and safety of the public. The staff believes that the NAS study will be helpful in addressing public questions on the health effects of near-by facilities.

4. Is the schedule for this study affected by sequestration?

Yes, there were initial delays associated with starting the pilot study grant (second phase) due to FY201 3 funding being sequestered. However, FY2013 year-end funds became available and NRC awarded a grant to NAS on September 1, 2013, to start the planning phase of the pilot studies.

From: Armstrong, Kenneth Sent: 20 May 2014 20:21:31 +0000 To: Gibson, Kathy

Subject:

Cancer Risk Study, One-pager update Attachments: RES_Cancer Risk Study.docx

Kathy, OEDO asked us to update our one-pager on the Cancer Risk Study. Terry reviewed the document and believes everything is current.

OK to tell OEDO that no updates are needed? Thanks!

Analysis of Cancer Risks in Populations near Nuclear Facilities Message: The NRG-sponsored National Academy of Sciences (NAS) study aims to update and provide information on potential cancer risks around nucEear sites from the 1990 U.S. National Institutes of Health - National Cancer Institute (NCI) report " Cancer in Populations Living Near Nuclear Facilities."

1. NAS completed the first phase of the study in an open, transparent manner providing opportunities for interested parties to participate.

2. Communicating to the public the limitations and findings of health studies is a challenge.

Key Points

• The NRC has used the 1990 NCI report as a primary resource when communicating with the public about cancer risks in counties that contain or are adjacent to nuclear sites.
• Recent international studies indicate that epidemiology studies can be an important tool for informing stakeholders about public health concerns.
• This effort can demonstrate NRC's commitment to working constructively with interested parties.
• Many technical challenges must be met in performing these types of studies because of low population sizes, low estimated doses, and thus low statistical power {how big of a sample size is needed to detect a certain level of a health effect). The pilot studies are being performed to see if these limitations can be overcome.

Possible Questions

1. How is the study being carried out?

The study was divided into phases. In the first phase, NAS recommended two study designs to assess cancer risks in the general population and, specifically, in children. For the second phase, NAS recommended pilot studies in populations near seven operating or decommissioned facilities. The sites are: o Millstone Power Station, Waterford , Conn. o Oyster Creek Nuclear Generating Station, Forked River, N.J. o Haddam Neck (decommissioned), Haddam Neck, Conn. o Big Rock Point Nuclear Power Plant (decommissioned), Charlevoix, Mich. o San Onofre Nuclear Generating Station (permanently shut-down), San Clemente, Calif. o Dresden Nuclear Power Station, Morris, Ill. o Nuclear Fuel Services, Erwin, Tenn. This phase of the study should take two years and, once it is completed, the NRC staff will evaluate the results and decide on the next steps.

2. Why is NAS, rather than NCI, conducting this follow-up study to NCl's 1990 work?

The NRC staff approached NCI management about performing a new study under contract to NRC . Because of staffing limitations, NCI was unable to commit resources for this activity for the foreseeable future. NAS will draw its project team from a wide range of technical experts that could include NCI members.

3. Is NRC aware of recent studies being reported regarding the adverse health effects to children in the Western U.S. from exposure to small amounts of lodine-131 from the Fukushima accident; as well as the study that noted cancer rates went down around Rancho Seco after it shut-down?

Yes. The staff is aware of these studies and has examined them. Since 2008, Canada, France, Germany, Great Britain, Spain, and Switzerland have all conducted epidemiology studies of populations near nuclear facilities within their borders to address public health concerns. Most of these studies did not find an increase in cancer risk, and if they did, any increases could not be attributed to the very low radiation doses the public receives from the routine operations of these facilities. The NRC has not identified any substantive data or new evidence that routine operation of licensed nuclear power and fuel cycle facilities impacts the health and safety of the public. The staff believes that the NAS study will be helpful in addressing public questions on the health effects of near-by facilities.

4. Is the schedule for this study affected by sequestration?

Yes, there were initial delays associated with starting the pilot study grant (second phase) due to FY201 3 funding being sequestered. However, FY2013 year-end funds became available and NRC awarded a grant to NAS on September 1, 2013, to start the planning phase of the pilot studies.

From: Case, Michael Sent: 15 Jun 2015 15:40:19 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: 3rd request: Final Reports for G6027 (NRC-HQ-13-G-04-0051) Thanks! From: Brock, Terry Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 1:04 PM To: Case, Michael Subje ct: RE: 3rd request: Final Reports for G6027 (NRC-HQ-13-G-04-0051) I'll close it out. I got the reports from NAS and considering this is not going forward we can completely kill this vehicle. Terry From: Case, Michael Sent: Monday, June 15, 2015 11:15 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

FW: 3rd request: Final Reports for G6027 (NRC-HQ-13-G-04-0051) Hi Terry. W ere w e ever able to close t he loop on this o ne? From: Brock, Terry Se nt: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 8 :14 AM To: Shaffer, Sarah Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

RE : 3rd request: Final Reports for G6027 (NRC-HQ-13-G-04-0051) Hi Sarah , I'm waiting for NAS to send me the final closure statement. I'll check with them again today. Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487 From: Shaffer, Sarah Sent: Tuesday, May 12, 2015 7: 12 AM To: Brock, Terry Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca; Case, Michael; Coffin, Stephanie

Subject:

FW: 3rd request: Final Reports for G6027 (NRC-HQ-13-G-04-0051) Importance: High Hello Ter ry: Please submit your reports for closeout of this grant. Sarah Shaffer Program Analyst U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research RES/PMDA/FPMB Phone: 301.251.7942 E-mail: sarah.shaffer@nrc.gov From: Shaffer, Sarah Sent: Friday, May 01, 2015 9: 14 AM To: Brock, Terry Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

FW: Final Reports for G6027 (NRC-HQ-13-G-04-0051) Importance: High Hello Terry: I have not received the reports or your final evaluation concerning this grant as of today (5/1). Can you please submit ASAP. Thank you, Sarah Shaffer Program Analyst U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research RES/PMDA/FPMB Phone: 301.251.7942 E-mail : sarah.shaffer@nrc.gov From: Shaffer, Sarah Sent: Thursday, April 16, 2015 7:34 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Final Reports for G6027 (NRC-HQ-13-G-04-0051) Importance: High Good morning Terry: The final reports for this grant wer e due to us by end of last month. Can you please submit them to me along with your final evaluation so we can proceed with closeout. I've attached a final evaluation for your convenience. All forms are on the PMDA Grants Management SharePoint site. Please submit all forms to me by Friday 4/24/2015. What is needed is: Final Progress Report Final F245 (financial form) F428 (property form) Final TA evaluation Thank you, Sarah Shaffer Program Analyst U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research RES/PMDA/FPMB Phone: 301.251.7942 E-mail : sarah.shaffer@nrc.gov

From: Brock, Terry Sent: 20 Feb 2015 09 :11:21 -0500 To: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: cancer_study_pilot_options_draft_02182015.pptx ORAU public interest was when all the antis got upset about using an organization affiliated with, although loosely, DOE. I plan on verbally explaining the issue. NCI did address childhood leukemia, but not in the more analytical study design in a case-control study. Case control studies are more better study designs for finding/ruling out associations. As far as the current budget environment, sure>>> do you want to add some bullets, I'm not sure what to say? From: Tadesse, Rebecca Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 9:03 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Re: cancer_study_pilot_options_draft_02182015. pptx Hi Terry, I like the slides the only comment I have is that it is not clear to me what ORAU public interest means. Also did the NCI study address childhood leukemia? if not should we also let them know that 1u pdating the NCI study would not help us in communicating the risk. One more thing should we have a slide the would discuss the current environment is cost prohibitive to move forward with such a large study? Sent from an NRC BlackBerry Rebecca Tadesse 1(6)(6) From: Brock, Terry Sent: Friday, February 20, 2015 08:43 AM To: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

cancer_study_pilot_options_draft_02182015.pptx Pis review for the EDO brief

From: Case, M ichael Sent: 4 Jun 2015 07:11:09 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Coffin, Stephanie Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

RE: SECY - Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuc Facilities Certainly. Question 1--H's in Operating Reactors--Research. There is no more available internally to redirect. There is about $200K on the shortfall list but the prospects of getting that is slim. Question 2--No budget in FYl 6. We would have to use redirected funds (if we started the project). Either internally, externally from any of the offices in the user need, or short fall money. All those avenues look pretty dismal next year based on conditions now.

---

Original Message-----

From: Brock, Terry Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3: 13 PM To: Coffin, Stephanie; Case, Michael Cc: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

FW: SECY - Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuc Facilitie AHi From OCFO. Not sure how to answer this one. Any words to share? Thx Terry From: Champion, Tanya Sent: Wednesday, June 03, 2015 3: 11 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

SECY - Cancer Risks in Populations Near Nuc Facilitic Hi Terry 1 am reviewing the resources section for OCFO. l have a few questions, to suggest re-wording in this section RES has $11 OK budgeted for this year. fs this in OR/Research/Reactor Research? Do you plan to plan to redirect additional resources this year or will only use what is currently budgeted? What will be the source of funding? How do you expect you will get resources in FY 2016? Since you plan to request a nominal amount in FY 20 17, what amount do you plan to obligate next FY? Your planned obligations for each FY would help. Thanks Tanya 30 14 157544

From: Kosti, Ourania Sent: 23 Jun 201112:43:44 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Atlanta slides and San Onofre tour Hello Terry, I know you keep me updated .... but is there any progress on the San Onofre tour? Also, did you get the chance to talk to the region officer about combining the NRC community meeting at NFS with a potential tour? I called Marie Moore from NFS again yesterday and left another message - have not heard back. Rania From: Brock, Terry [6] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:59 AM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

RE: Atlanta slides and San Onofre tour I sent the licensee an e-mail yesterday and have not heard back yet. If I don't hear back today I'll call tomorrow. Terry From: Kosti, Ourania [ mailto:OKosti@nas.edu] Sent: Thursday, June 16, 2011 9:49 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Atlanta slides and San Onofre tour Hello Terry, Any progress regarding the tour? Rania From: Kosti, Ourania Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:13 PM To: 'Brock, Terry'

Subject:

RE: Atlanta slides and San Onofre tour I think it went very well. The audience asked some very good questions which to me means that they could follow the presentation and were interested in the subject. The Director, John Kinneman was very kind to me. Thank you for moving the tour so fast! We are pretty much organized with the basic things that a meeting needs (conference area, hotel, presenters). I am waiting for Kevin to come next week to discuss/approve and then I wil l send you the information. You probably already know that the meeting will take place at the Beckman Center. Rania

From: Brock, Terry [7] Sent: Wednesday, June 08, 2011 3:07 PM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

RE: Atlanta slides and San Onofre tour NRC regional and resident inspector folks are on board. We're waiting for confirmation from the licensee. Hopefully by Friday, if not sooner. Vered said you did well yesterday at the Fuel Cycle meeting. How do you think it went? Sorry I missed it, I was at a mandatory acquisition training class. Terry From: Kosti, Ourania [ mailto:OKosti@nas.edu] Sent: Tuesday, June 07, 2011 6:30 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Atlanta slides and San Onofre tour Hello Terry, Any progress regarding the tour? Rania From: Brock, Terry [8] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 1:57 PM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

RE: Atlanta slides and San Onofre tour thanks Oops, I'll make sure it's Tuesday not Wednesday. From: Kosti, Ourania [9] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 11:21 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Atlanta slides and San Onofre tour Hello Terry,

1. We have permission from all presenters to post their slides and they should be posted by the end of this week (we are slightly understaffed here because of a meeting in Russia!). I will send you a note when it is done so t hat you know.

2. The committee would prefer to tour Tuesday, July 19th. Thank you for working on that!

Rania From: Brock, Terry [10] Sent: Tuesday, May 31, 2011 10:36 AM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

Atlanta slides and San Onofre tour Hi Rania ,

2 questions:

1) Do you know when the Atlanta meeting slides will be posted on the study website? We received some requests for slides and would like to point them to the site.

2) I wanted to confirm that the committee would prefer to tour the San Onofre nuclear power plant on Wednesday, July 19th7

Thanks, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487

From: Kosti, Ou rania Sent: 25 May 201115:15:24 -0400 To: Brock, Terry;Crowley, Kevin Cc: Shaffer, Vered

Subject:

RE: Atlanta meeting recap. Sounds good. Please ask to be connected with me and Kevin will join us if he is available. Rania From: Brock, Terry [11] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 3:00 PM To: Kosti, Ourania; Crowley, Kevin Cc: Shaffer, Vered

Subject:

RE: Atlanta meeting recap. Friday at 2 works for me. I'll call you since I'll probably be in a conference room when I make the call and don't know the number.

Thanks, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487 From: Kosti, Ourania [12] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:57 PM To: Brock, Terry; Crowley, Kevin Cc: Shaffer, Vered

Subject:

RE: Atlanta meeting recap. Hello Terry, We thought it was a good meeting and the closed session was indeed very productive. I can tell you that whole day tomorrow and half day Friday both Kevin and I will be at our bi-annual NRSB Board meeting, therefore wil l not be available to talk. I am available Friday 2pm onwards to discuss if this works for you; I will need to confirm with Kevin if he is available also. You may remember that Kevin will be out of the office next week. Thank you - Rania From: Brock, Terry [13] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 2:47 PM To: Kosti, Ourania; Crowley, Kevin

Cc: Shaffer, Vered

Subject:

Atlanta meeting recap. Rania/Kevin, Good meeting in Atlanta. It was a content rich day, I hope the closed session was productive. Are you available tomorrow afternoon to discuss what was covered in the closed session? How does 2:30 - 3:30 work? I would also like to provide some feedback on what I heard during the meeting, some suggestions for the LA meeting, and confirm ongoing/forthcoming NRC action items to support the committee-e.g ., survey of state environmental monitoring programs, NFS tour, San Onofre reactor tour, effluent and dose reports for uranium recovery and other fuel cycle facilities.

Thanks, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487

From: Kosti, Ou rania Sent: 13 Feb 2012 09:28:07 -0500 To: Brock, Terry;Crowley, Kevin

Subject:

RE: are you in today? Yes, I am in and I heard your voicemail. Please, let's talk at 10:00 AM if this is good for you. I will call you at 301 251 7487.

Regards, Rania From: Brock, Terry [14]

Sent: Monday, February 13, 2012 9:25 AM To: Kosti, Ourania; Crowley, Kevin

Subject:

are you in today? Kevin/Rania Left a message. Are you available to chat about the roll-out some more? I have some new info to discuss about your presentation on Monday, March 12th and the RIC slides.

Thanks, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487

From: Kosti, Ou rania Sent: 3 Aug 201114:39:50 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Are we calling Kevin 's office at 3:00? OK! From: Brock, Terry [15] Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2011 2:40 PM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

Are we calling Kevin's office at 3:00? We can call Kevin's office at 3:00 for the meeting if you two are going to be co-located there. Ok? Terry

From: Kosti, Ou rania Sent: 23 Feb 201111:00:33 -0500 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: any other speakers confirmed? Hi Terry, Dr. Michal Freedhoff cancelled due to another commitment. This means that we do not have any confirmed talks from congressional staff. Regarding comments from the public, we will not know till tomorrow when people sign up. Rania From: Brock, Terry [16] Sent: Wednesday, February 23, 2011 9:49 AM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

any other speakers confirmed? Hi Rania, Do you have an update on who is speaking tomorrow at the meeting? Terry

From: Crowley, Kevin Sent: 13 Jan 201116:25:15 -0500 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: all set for next week Wednesday Thanks Terry. Her full name is Ourania Kosti, but she goes by Rania. See you next week. Kevin From: Brock, Terry [17] Sent: Thursday, January 13, 2011 1:06 PM To: Crowley, Kevin

Subject:

all set for next week Wednesday Hi Kevin, I checked with security and there is no issue with non-US citizens gaining access to the building. Please provide your new employees full name and I will enter her info into our visitor reg istration system. See you next week. Terry

From: Crowley, Kevin Sent: 29 Mar 2010 15: 14:29 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: agenda items for tomorrow's meeting Terry: This looks good to me. We will have a speaker phone in the room. Kevin From: Brock, Terry [18] Sent: Monday, March 29, 2010 2:28 PM To: Crowley, Kevin

Subject:

agenda items for tomorrow's meeting Hi Kevin, Below are some items I thought we could cover during our meeting tomorrow. Let me know if you want to add anything. Also, will we have access to a speaker-phone? Our grants person, Sheila Bumpass, plans to call-in for the meeting. See you at 10 AM . Thanks, Terry

1. Introductions - All

2. Study background -Terry Brock, NRC

3. Study path forward; open discussion on the phased approach - Kevin Crowley/NA, T*e rry Brock/NRC

a. Analysis of off-site doses and source terms from routine operations

b. Cancer mortality and incidence study

c. Smaller study geographic areas using geograplhic information systems

4. National Academies grant process - National Academies

5. Press release concept - Scott Burnell I NRC Public Affairs Terry Brock, Ph.D.

U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission 301-251-7487

From: Kosti, Ourania Sent: 15 Oct 2014 09:01:18 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Advice: BEIR VIII report Terry: This sounds good. Rania From: Brock, Terry [19] Sent: Wednesday, October 15, 2014 8:55 AM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

RE: Advice: BEIR VIII report This w ill most likely fall in my lap. I'm not sure having a meeting before your NSRB meeting would be very fruitful. I'll have to pre-brief Brian before you come and I would like to hear what the NSRB has to say before we discuss BEIR VIII internally. I recommend we meet with Brian after the NSRB meeting. Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulat ory Comm ission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487 From: Kosti, Ourania i@nas.edu Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2014 9:06 AM To: Brock, Terry Cc: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

Advice: BEIR VIII report Terry: Kevin Crowley and I would like to pay the Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research a visit to discuss the National Academy of Sciences' November 17 meeting on Planning Towards the BEIR VIII Report and the possible way forward towards a BEIR VIII report. Do you think I (or Kevin) should be contacting Dr. Brian Sheron directly? Should you be part of the discussion? Thank you for the advice. Rania Ourania (Rania) Kosti, Ph.D. Senior Program Officer Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board The National Academies email: okosti@nas.edu phone: 202 334 3066

From: Brock, Terry Sent: 12 Apr 201119:59:05 +0000 To: 'Kosti, Ourania'

Subject:

RE: add Richard Conatser to Dosimetry subgroup agenda Yes, that's ok. I want to attend the epidemiology and statistics session- Rich and Steve can handle the dosimetry subgroup.

Thanks, Terry From: Kosti, Ourania [20]

Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:57 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: add Richard Conatser to Dosimetry subgroup agenda Hi Terry, I will correct that in the public agenda. To make sure; your name will not appear in the agenda at all? Rania From: Brock, Terry [21] Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2011 3:08 PM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

add Richard Conatser to Dosimetry subgroup agenda Hi Rania, The agenda is looking good. Please remove my name from the Dosimetry working group agenda and replace it with: Richard Conatser, Health Physicist, Office of Nuclear Reactor Regulation. Richard willl be participating by phone.

Thanks, Terry

From: Kosti, Ou rania Sent: 30 Jan 2012 16:37:20 -0500 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: 2011-2012 NRC Info Digests in the mail

Terry, Yes, please call Kevin's office at 202 334 3198.

I had the chance to talk to Kevin briefly about the report release strategy today. As everything will be happening in the nick of time, one thing to discuss with you on Wednesday is the tradeoff of having the opportunity to brief the NRC before the study is released to the public (that includes the RIC presentation) or not. In other words, if the NRC wants to receive a briefing before the official release of the report to the public, then very likely the findings cannot be discussed at the RIC conference, unless a briefing is scheduled for earlier in the week before the RIC presentation (this depends on your availability and the committee's chair or other member availability). Thank you very much for sending is the NRC info digest. Regards - Rania From: Brock, Terry [22] Sent: Monday, January 30, 2012 4:21 PM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

2011-2012 NRC I nfo Digests in the mail On their way. Talk with you on Wednesday at 5 PM. There will be a couple of us, should we call Kevin's office? Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D. Office of Nuclear Regu latory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487

From: Kosti, Ou rania Sent: 27 Sep 201113:33:12 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: 1979 DC Cook reports mailed tomorrow I will do so, thank you. I have received the NFS 1979 and 1992 renewal reports. From: Brock, Terry [23] Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 20111:31 PM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

1979 DC Cook reports mailed tomorrow

Rania, We found both semi-annual 1979 DC Cook Environmental Operating Reports and will be mail ing the hard copies tomorrow. Please let me know when you have received them.

Thanks, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regulatory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 Mail Stop CSB-3A07 phone:301-251-7487

From: Brock, Terry Sent: 7 Apr 201114:41 :50 +0000 To: 'Kosti, Ourania'

Subject:

RE: 2 papers on our study Thanks. I'm starting to see a theme about the original NCI study design, re: Wing, et al. From: Kosti, Ourania [24] Sent: Wednesday, April 06, 2011 5:49 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

2 papers on our study Ouran ia (Rania) Kosti, Ph.D. Program Officer Nuclear and Radiation Studies Board The National Academies 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 phone: 202 334 3066 fax: 202 334 3077 email: okosti@nas.edu

From: Kosti, Ou rania Sent: 25 Feb 201115:17:52 -0500 To: Brock, Terry Cc: Shaffer, Vered

Subject:

RE: Sounds good! Rania From: Brock, Terry [25] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 3:16 PM To: Kosti, Ourania Cc: Shaffer, Vered

Subject:

RE: Sure. How about Monday around 10:30? Vered and I will be together so we can call you directly. Terry From: Kosti, Ourania [26] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 3:04 PM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: Thank you Terry. It was nice seeing you on Thursday. Shall we plan to talk on the phone beginning of next week so that I give you an update on the closed/open sessions from the committee's perspective? Kevin and I were hoping we can do that together but he will be in Hiroshima the whole of next week. He is certainly available on email if you have any direct questions for him. Let me know if there is a time that works best for you, my schedule is pretty open next week. Thank you and have a good weekend - Rania From: Brock, Terry [27] Sent: Friday, February 25, 2011 2: 14 PM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

A recent Spanish study to add to your bibliography. Terry

From: Crowley, Kevin Sent: 6 Apr 2010 12:36:12 -0400 To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

RE: ? for you RE: Tomorrow's announcement Terry: Thanks for the quick response. At this point we are not planning a webcast of the board meeting, but I will check to see if it is feasible to have one. We have meeting facilities in S. California and Massachusetts. However, we often meet in other cities in rented space such as hotels and convention centers. Getting appropriate meeting space is generally not a problem. Kevin From: Brock, Terry [28] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 12:05 PM To: Crowley, Kevin

Subject:

? for you RE: Tomorrow's announcement Hi Kevin, The Chairman still has the press release. I'll let you know the time once he approves. The press release will have wide distribution to congress, the states, and key non-governmental organizations. The distribution of the press release is handled by the program offices responsible for notifying congress, states, and the general public.

? for you

1) Some of our regional management wanted to view the April 26, 201 O NRSB meeting. Is it available through VTC or web?

2) What cities does the NAS have facilities in that you could hold regional public meetings during the study? I got one vote for Atlanta from the regional office. I remember Boston and somewhere in California.

From: Crowley, Kevin [29] Sent: Tuesday, April 06, 2010 11:23 AM To: Brock, Terry

Subject:

Tomorrow's announcement Hi Terry: I know that you are scrambling to tie up loose ends before tomorrow's big announcement. Could you let me know what time tomorrow you plan to release the announcement? I want to make sure that we are ready to respond to inquiries. Also, how do you plan to disseminate the announcement and who will you send it to?

Thanks, Kevin

From: Brock, Terry Sent: 4 May 201117:02:49 +0000 To: 'Kosti, Ourania'

Subject:

pis call me when you have a chance -eom 301-251-7487

From : KostL Ouranja To: Brock Terry Subject : Fw: Effluent Reports for Dose subcmt consideration Date: Friday, June 24, 2011 1:24:29 PM Atta chments: NFS biannual effluent reoort 01 to 06 2009.odf crow butte uranium revovery Feb 2011 ML1108401241.odf

Terry, You may remember this email exchange a few weeks back. l he dosimetrists would like to have similar reports for those two facil it ies for other periods of time, if possible ea rl ier, in order to have an idea of the variation with time of t he doses to the ME ls.

Can you please provide me with these? Thank you, Ra nia From: Brock, Terry [ mailto:Terry.Brock@nrc.gov] Sent: Friday, May 27, 2011 11 :31 AM To: Kosti, Ourania

Subject:

Effluent Reports for Dose subcmt consideration

Rania, Attached are two recent effluent and dose reports for the Crow Butte uranium recovery facility and the Nuclear Fuel Services fuel cycle facility that the subcommittee is planning to tour. Please forward these to the dose subcommittee for their review and consideration.

Let me know if the committee members need additional NRC expertise to discuss these reports

Thank, Terry Terry Brock, Ph.D.

Office of Nuclear Regu latory Research U.S. Nuclear Regulat ory Commission Washington D.C. 20555 M ail St op CSB-3A07 phone: 301-251-7487

From: Brock, Terry Sent: 20 Feb 2015 08:43:04 -0500 To: Tadesse, Rebecca

Subject:

cancer_study_pilot_options_draft_02182015.pptx Attachments: cancer_study_pilot_options_draft_02182015.pptx Pis review for the EDO brief

~ U.S.NRC l *t\ltcd Statt-. Nu.cl~a.f Rt gu(a toly Co 111 1nl~~lor Proutring Petrplr 1t11d th~ Environmn1t \ NAS Alternate Approach \ Proposal \

• Reconvene the Pilot Planning Co~ mittee

                              - $200-300k for 9 months
                              - Select sites with enough statistical power to draw conclusions about cancer risk

• Develop test hypothesis

                              - Provide cost estimate to complete final study (final cost unknown at this time)

• Perform final analysis 2

~ U.S.NRC l *t\ltcd Statt-. Nu.cl~a.f Rt gu(a toly Co 111 1nl~~lor Proutring Petrplr 1t11d th~ Environmmt Second Approach

• Staff received an unsolicited proposal to provide a 20 year follow-up to the NCI study at a much reduced time (2-3 years at -$1 million)
• Updated NCI study would still be useful to staff in communicating cancer mortality risks, but lack the additional information asked for when project started 3

Since the last time

• Unsolicited NCRP approach

 - OGC/ADM - No comparable NAS approach to funding

• Options for Consideration

 - Open the grant solicitation, OR
 - Reconvene the NAS Pilot Planning Committee and determine how many sites needed to draw conclusions ($200k; 6 months) OR
 - Open solicitation to update NCRP 1990 Cancer Study 4

~ U.S.NRC l *t\ltcd Statt-. Nu.cl~a.f Rt gu(a toly Co 111 1nl~~lor Proutring Petrplr 1t11d th~ Environmmt Staff Recommendation

• Do not move forward with NAS
• Open solicitation for a contract to perform a direct update to the NCI study

                              - Completed sooner and at less cost than NAS proposals 5

~ U.S.NRC l *t\ltcd Statt-. Nu.cl~a.f Rt gu(a toly Co 111 1nl~~lor Proutring Petrplr 1t11d th~ Environmmt Next Steps

• TA brief on current recommendation (Near-term)

                              - Already sent-up a CA note on the results of the NAS pilot planning project

• Develop SECY paper informing Commission of next steps (Summer) 6

~ U.S.NRC l *t\ltcd Statt-. Nu.cl~a.f Rt gu(a toly Co 111 1nl~~lor Proutring Petrplr 1t11d th~ Environmmt External Communication

• Question to the EDO - In what sequence do we inform the public of this new approach?

                              - Public meeting before SECY paper; provides additional data for Commission
                              - Public meeting after SECY paper; Commission direction frames discussion 7

U.S.NRC UNITED STATES NUCLEAR REGULATORY COMMISSION Protecting People and the Environm.etr.t Radiation Worker and Russian Health Studies RES/DSA brief Terry Brock, Ph.D. I RES April 22, 2015

'\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t Introduction

• Why study occupationally exposed workers?

2

'\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t Health Studies - epidemiology

• The primary basis for our judgments and decisions on the effects of ionizing radiation on man
• Epidemiology is the study of the distribution and determinants of disease in human populations 3

' U.S.N R C t ""'rrt.J) !l't \rU NUu..l.AR IU.OOL\T01't' t.U\l\USS.10." Prou c ting People and Ill e En viro1mu-11t Current Risk Estimates

                                                                                                                                            /
                                                                                                                                          /
                                                                                                                                       /

• Based on high i w

u

                                                                                                                   . / -*
                                                                                                                   /
                                                                                                                     /

z // dose, dose-rate w e

                                                             ~

CURVE *e* LINEAR, NO THRESHOLD _,,,/J

                                                                                                           ~

exposures Q w 0 SLOPE.IL

                                                                                                  /
                                                                                               //

• CURVE*c..

                                                                                                      "LOW DOSE RATE*                    -
                                                             ~                    ,,,"'                 SLOPEotEa_.._..-.-

z

• LNT interpolation _'\......_..._ ~J.\ - -

                                                                            \
                                                                              /
                                                                            /                       --                 ~   -;_.1.-
                                                                       / /                                   ~-

to lower dose and //

                                                                 / /~O~f, _

J.

                                                                                            -   -   -  -         'CURVE*o*

LIMITING SLOPE FOR dose rates

                                                               ~

ABSORBED DOSE LOW DOSE RATE

• Dose and Dose- What is the level of risk when exposure occurs gradually over Rate Effectiveness time and not briefly as in the factor (DDREF) study of atomic bomb survivors?

4

'\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Enviro11me11t LNT - Plausible and Practical Although Risk Below 10 REM Uncertain From ICRP 103: the adoption of °°"'" Re91><>fl$6 fWatlonthlpe the LNT model combined with a judged value of a dose Probability of cancer and dose rate effectiveness factor (DDREF) provides a / I I prudent basis for the practical ' 1 I I purposes of radiological , I I I protection, i.e., the __,. ~ management of risks from Background incidence low dose radiation exposure. Dose

Background

d:>$0 t Radiation epidemiology has yet to tell us about low dose rate Boice, 2-22-11 exposures 5

'\ U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t Dose and Dose-Rate Effectiveness

• Full ranges historically considered could be from 1 to 10
• Human data shows little effect of fraction with values of 3-4 at most
• Statistical data on the A-Bomb cohort shows no more than a factor of 2
• UNSCEAR (86) suggested up to 5 in 1988 (2-10), BEIRV said 2, BEIR VII said 1.5
• ICRP, NCRP, and NRC use 2 C.B. Meinhold, 2006 6

'\ U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t NRC Collaboration

  - Originally a $25 million dollar study over five years
  - NRC lnteragency agreement for the last 3 years
                * $2.0 million

• Prioritized the early nuclear power and industrial radiographer worker cohort

  - DOE pulled the plug on LOR in 2015 7
  - Future

  '\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t

 'Million Man Study" Research Collaboration

• National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements, Bethesda, Maryland

    - John Boice, Sc.D.

• Oak Ridge Associated Universities, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    -  Donna Cragle, Ph.D., Richard Toohey, CHP, Ph.D., Derek Hagemeyer, REIRS PM

• Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge, Tennessee

    -  Keith Eckerman, Ph.D., Richard Leggett, Ph.D.

• University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California

    -  Daniel 0. Stram, Ph.D.

• Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee
• Risk Assessment Corporation, Neeses, South Carolina

    - Jon E. Till, Ph.D.

• Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico 8

'\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t Results so far

• Paper 1: Dose Reconstruction for the Million Worker Study: Status and Guidelines: Health Physics, Feb, 2015
• Draft NCRP SC 6-9: U.S. Radiation Workers and Nuclear Weapons Test Participants Radiation Dose Assessment -

Sarni, Terry, James Thompson (RI)

• N RC cohorts 9

Early Nuclear Utility Workers ( Vital Status as of Dec 31 , 2011 (updated March 3, 2015) Earty Nuclear Worker lden1ified Population N=148,370 Exclusions S1udy Cohort lnsufficientfrncorrect identifiers N=---100 N= 147,231 Duplicates N=-1 ,000

• 4-Vital Status Assumed Alive Confirmed through 201 1

                           =

N 135,580 N = 11,651 Confirmed Dead Confirmed Alive N = 31 ,410 N = 104,170 CODKnown COD Unknown N =30,796 N=614 Died< 1979 Died>= 1979 N == 129 N =485 10

Industrial Radiographers Vital Status as of Dec 31, 2011 (updated March 4, 2015) Industrial Radiographers Identified Population N=131.580 Study Cohort lncorred/lnadequate identifers: -300 N=130,938 Duplicates - 300 Vrtal Status Assumed Alive Confirmed N =21,451 N = 109,487 Confirmed Dead Confinned Afrve

             =

N 21 ,697 N = 88,790 COO Knov.TI COD Unknown N =21 ,193 N =504 Died < 1979 Died >= 1979 N =238 N =266 11

'\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t Worker Study next steps

• Papers on NRC cohort leukemia risk

   - Need Navy doses of workers to complete career doses for individuals

• Stable funding

   - Working with DOE and EPA 12

'\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t Other Government Agencies and the "Million Man Study"

• Veterans Affairs - Provides data linkages, death certificates, staff expertise
• Centers for Disease Control -

NIOSH, EPA, NASA 13

B! I: 0 tn CJ)

              -c                              Ii I
              ....en

J J n

              .c                            H ca                              f CJ)

I: u

               ~

ca u !l~ =..E tn

 ~ "H*s        tn z'l IC a:

0

     ~ -

lo:!

J *I! ...

I

     ~]       0::          l (fj ~ ~                 ~I
     ~. .~
 ~ f5~ ct~

w II f. i I 0 i a c i l f

                                 ~-
                                 ~;

~ c J

                     .! (I
                     ~

I f I f! l - ~

'\ U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t DOE Russian Health Studies Purpose To assess worker and public health risks from radiation exposure resulting from nuclear weapons production activities in the former Soviet Union To better understand the To provide information to relationship between To estimate cancer risks the national and health effects and from exposure to international organizations chronic, low-to-medium gamma, neutron, and that determine radiation dose rate radiation alpha radiation protection standards and exposures practices 3 15

'\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t Joint Coordinating Committee Radiation Effects Research (JCCRER) U.S. Members: Russian Members:

• Department of Energy (DOE), U.S.
• Federal Medical-Biological Agency Executive Agent (FMBA), Russian Executive Agent
• Department of Defense (DoD), including
• State Research Center-Burnasyan the Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Federal Medical Biophysical Center Institute (AFRRI) (BFMBC)
• Department of Health and Human
• State Atomic Energy Corporation Services (DHHS ), including the Centers (Rosatom) for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)
• State Scientific Center - Institute of
• Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Medical and Biological Problems of the Russian Academy of Sciences (IBRAE)
• National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA)
• Mayak Production Association (Mayak)
• Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) 5 16

'\ U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t 5 Current Projects Community Studies Worker Studies 2.2, Mayak Worker Cancer Mortality 1.1 , Techa River Population Dosimetry 1.2b, Techa Rrver Population Cancer 2.4, Mayak Worker Dosimetry Morbidity and Mortality 2.8, Human Radiobiology Tissue Repository 17

'\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t Mayak worker

• Program fills data gaps in radiation research
• Mayak worker cohort is a unique resource for evaluating:

    - Risk of cancer from exposure to plutonium
    - Risk of cancer from extended external exposure

• Large female population in workforce
• Complements the Million Worker Study 18

'\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t Next Steps

• IAA SOW developed
• NRC provides nominal support for the effort ($5 k to start)
• OIP - no NRC impediments to signing agreement I Follows Executive Branch (DOE)
• Spoke to DOE - Full steam ahead 19

0 N

'\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t Since the last time

• Unsolicited NCRP approach

   - OGC/ADM - No comparable NAS approach to funding

• Staff Recommendation

   - Open the grant solicitation, OR
   - Reconvene the NAS Pilot Planning Committee and determine how many sites needed to draw conclusions ($200k; 6 months) OR
   - Open solicitation to update NCRP 1990 Cancer Study 21

'\

U.S.NRC U~rrt:D ~'tA TES XLICl.J-...AR R.Bt.llll.ATORl' COM.llfSSlO~ Prokcting Pe!op-11! an.d tile Envi ro11me11t Information

• Presenting a 1.5 day class on Understanding Health Studies and How to Communicate them (6/16-17)

   - Yours truly, Donna Cragle (ORAU),

Trish Milligan, and Gladys Figueroa

   - In ilearn
   -Already requests for a second session 22}}