National Academies Press: OpenBook

A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (2003)

Chapter: Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions

« Previous: Appendix C: Names of Invited Speakers and Interactions with Veterans
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Appendix D
Responses to Committee’s Questions

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

8725 John J Kingman Road MS 6201 Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

SEP 2 8 2001

John Till, Ph.D.

Chairman,

Committee to Review DTRA Dose Reconstruction Program

National Academy of Sciences

Board on Radiation Effects Research

2101 Constitution Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20418

Dear Dr. Till:

This is in reply to your letter dated September 6, 2001. The following responses are provided with respect to the questions posed by the National Research Council Committee to Review the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency and the Board on Radiation Effects Research. Per our conversation with NAS’ Dr. Al-Nabulsi on 7 September 2001, we indicated it would be appropriate for DTRA to respond to questions 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, and 16 and provide comments on the flow chart pertaining to DTRA responsibilities. We recommended questions 1 through 4 should be referred to Department of Veterans Affairs (VA), Office of the Undersecretary for Benefits and questions 7, 8, 10, and 15 to VA, Office of the Undersecretary for Health.

Question 5. When a claimant is referred to JAYCOR, is the dose of record then sent to VA and DTRA or only to DTRA?

Reply: When a dose is provided for a claim referred to JAYCOR, the dose information is given to DTRA for review and approval. DTRA then sends the dose information to both the VA and the claimant. In cases where the claimant’s address is not known, DTRA requests the VA to forward a copy to the claimant.

Question 6. Under what circumstances is the file referred to SAIC for a dose and in what circumstances is this not done?

Reply: Claimant files not referred to SAIC are under the following circumstances:

1997

non-participant cases (these cases are not verified participants);

1998

presumptive cases (these cases do not require dose information); and

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

1999

most Hiroshima/Nagasaki cases (these cases receive a generic reconstructed total dose, upper bound less than 1 rem).

All other cases are referred to SAIC.

Question 8. Explain the use of the “dose screen.” At what point in the process is the CIRRPC screen applied? Which of the confidence limits are used, 90%, 95%, or 99%? Are different screens applied at different stages in the process?

Reply: The CIRRPC dose screen is not, and has never been used by DTRA’s Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) program.

Question 9. Provide a history of the dosimetry process. How has it changed over the years since its beginning? Also, provide history on the use of the PC tables.

Reply: The history of the dosimetry process and its significant changes are enumerated below:

1978 

External gamma dose from film badge dosimetry applied by service NTPR teams

1979

 

1980

Neutron dose reconstruction added to film badge doses and bounding estimates for major troop units performed, i.e. generic doses applied to military units performing common activities

1981

 

1982

Internal dose reconstruction (50-year) committed dose equivalent to target organ introduced

1983

 

1984

Statistical application of military unit film badge readings in lieu of missing film badge readings introduced

1985

Standardized NTPR guidance for dose assessment published in the Federal Register (32 CFR 218)

FIIDOS computer code applied to internal dose methods

1986

Generic internal dose screen developed - no impact on individual organ doses from intake of fallout for VA claims

1987

Defense Nuclear Agency consolidates service NTPR teams into a centralized DNA program

1988

Dose reconstruction applied to periods of incomplete film badge coverage

1989

Upper-bound dose from individual film badge readings applied Doses extended to VA-defined operational test periods as published in

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

 

the Federal Register under implementing guidelines for Public Law 100-321

1990  

Deep dose equivalent factor applied as defined in 1989 NAS Film Badge Dosimetry publication

Readings from verified damaged film superseded by dose reconstruction, primarily applicable to Operations REDWING and DOMINIC film badges

1991

 

1992

Deep dose equivalent factor application rescinded

Total upper-bound dose, coupling uncertainties for film badge and reconstructed doses, introduced for application to some VA claims

1993

 

1994

1995

Single contract for Jaycor and SAIC team introduced by DTRA Coordination of records research and reporting of dose information improved

Reduction of data inconsistencies and improved internal (contractor) QA introduced as a result of collecting data for NAS mortality study

1996

Upper-bound dose included for all VA claims

Doses accrued past the VA-defined operational period assigned vs. truncated at end of period included in reconstructions

1997

Standard operating procedures (SOP) for radiation exposure assessment introduced

Case by case limited-scope guidance from previous decade rationalized in SOP

Mean and upper-bound (95%) dose reporting emphasized

NAS Five Series Study Dose Methodology Report details applied to specific test series

1997

Skin dose reconstruction added in response to VA review of scientific literature

1998

Limited one-time plutonium urine bioassay conducted - no impact on internal doses

2000

 

2001

 

PC tables are not, and has never been used by DTRA’s Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) program.

Question 10. Who has the authority to communicate with the veteran and/or the veteran’s family?

Reply: The DTRA Program Manager has authorized the Jaycor/SAIC Program Management team to designate hotline operators and analysts to communicate

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
with veterans and family members. I am not aware of any restriction on any DTRA employees communicating with veterans or family members.

Question 11. Are there any written procedures guiding the conduct of dose reconstructions other than those already provided to the committee? If so, please send us a copy of them. We assume the Standard Operating Procedure drafted in March 1997 is the basic procedure for assigning doses.

Reply: The SOP and 32CFR Part 218 standard serve as the Program’s written dose reconstruction guidelines and procedures.

Question 12. Are there any written procedures guiding the quality assurance measures applied during the dose reconstructions other than those already provided to the committee? If so, please identify them. Currently the primary document describing the dose reconstruction process is “NTPR Standard Operating Procedures: Radiation Exposure Assessment” dated 8 March 1997; is this the current guidance for quality control as well?

Reply: There are no additional quality assurance written procedures other than those provided to the committee. The SOP indicates what constitutes a quality dose reconstruction and directs review for conformity with the SOP’s procedures, and appropriateness and responsiveness to the correspondence or request received by the NTPR program. The DTRA Program Manager conducts the final review/approval.

Question 13. Is the master file still in use in Las Vegas and updated by JAYCOR/DTRA? Does the JAYCOR/SAIC database have different data from the master file?

Reply: The Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company (REECo), in Las Vegas, Nevada, was a prime support contractor to the Department of Energy (DOE), formerly the Atomic Energy Commission, throughout most of the U.S. nuclear testing program. As a result, the company maintained an archive of dose records, historical source documents, and original film badges for DOE and DoD participants in both atmospheric and underground nuclear testing. In 1978, DTRA (then DNA) began funding REECo (now Bechtel Nevada) for a dosimetry project to establish a database of all U.S. DoD-affiliated atmospheric nuclear testing records. NTPR dosimetry research and dose reconstruction results were added to the master file as they became available, primarily through routine data exchanges. As a result of DTRA’s database upgrade project, which resulted in the Nuclear Test Review Information System (NuTRIS), DTRA assumed full responsibility for maintaining dosimetry data

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
for all U.S. DoD-affiliated U.S. atmospheric nuclear test participants. DOE continues to provide DTRA dosimetry documents and extant film badge analysis support. Also, when DOE receives a direct request for dosimetry information from a DoD-affiliated individual, Bechtel Nevada (formerly REECo) contacts DTRA to request available dose data from the NTPR database. This case-by-case exchange of data ensures consistency when doses for DoD-affiliated individuals are reported by Bechtel for DOE.

Question 14. Is file A separate from the JAYCOR/DNA database?

Reply: File “A” was a satellite database of DTRA’s retired legacy system database. It contained anecdotal and unverified information collected from callers and correspondents. The File “A” database has been integrated into DTRA’s newer, upgraded NuTRIS database system.

Question 16. What is the policy for contacting veterans during the dose assignment process? Does SAIC often check with the veteran or references he may have provided by phone to verify information? Please explain the frequency of this occurrence during the past.

Reply: Contact with the veterans (and/or their representatives or references) is an integral part of the dose reconstruction process. There is some form of pertinent participation statement regardless of the method by which they contact the program (personal inquiry, VA claim, FOIA, Congressional inquiry, etc.). The participation statements are contained within the responses to an NTPR program questionnaire, a statement in support of claim, or simply within the text of a letter the veteran wrote, or transcribed from conversation notes from when he called to request information through the NTPR hotline regarding his dose.

An analyst can, at his/her discretion, contact the veteran or review any references they may have been provided by telephone (if contact information is available) in the absence of veteran-supplied statements, if the information in the statements leaves large uncertainties in the assessment which might be reduced by follow-up, or if there are inconsistencies in the statements that need to be resolved. The most effective and expedient way to obtain this information is by direct contact between the analyst and the veteran. Even after the assessment is complete and the veteran is informed of the resulting dose(s), he is free to contact the program if he feels that the events described in the assessment do not properly reflect the scope or circumstances of participation. If new and pertinent event information is proffered and after review is deemed to be within the credible range of possible activities, documented by record sources, in which the veteran could have

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
participated, then the analysis is revisited and, if necessary, a new assessment is performed.

While written statements and correspondence have always been a part of the dose reconstruction process, contact by telephone has, until recent years, been relatively rare, due in large part to the inherent public relations risk when contacting a veteran. However, the increased complexity of the reconstructions, due to both the incorporation of additional historical information as well as new tasks into the scope of the program (internal doses, skin doses, etc.) has resulted in a need for increased levels of detail in the veteran’s participation statements. While direct contact is not always necessary, the veterans can often provide invaluable information, sometime even beyond what was expected, that has a direct impact on their dose assessment.

Enclosed is a copy of the flow chart with our corrections as they pertain to the DTRA responsibilities in the process. I recommend that you contact VA, Office of the Undersecretary for Benefits, to obtain specific information for the VA parts of the process.

Regarding the input numbers for the DTRA part of the process, DTRA receives typically about 600 VA claim-related inquiries a year. The outcomes of these claims are: about 150 are found to be non-participants, about 90 are presumptive, participation only responses, and about 360 are responses for which participation and dose information is provided to VA.

I hope these comments will be of assistance to your committee and board. Please feel free to contact me at 703-325-2407 or by e-mail at dennis.schaeffer@dtra.mil if there are additional questions.

Sincerely,

D. M. Schaeffer

Program Manager

Nuclear Test Personnel Review Technology Development Directorate

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

8725 John J. Kingman Road MSC 6201 Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

3 NOV 2001

Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office

Compensation and Pension Service

ATTN: Mr. Bradley Flohr

810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420

Dear Mr. Flohr:

The National Academy of Sciences has requested the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) to provide the VA with identifing information for 99 case files the Academy is sampling as part of its dose reconstruction review. The Academy would like to investigate actions VA may have taken in processing claims on the 99 individuals.

A review of our files indicates that the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program has received VA claim inquiries for only 62 of the 99 sample cases. Attached is a spreadsheet containing pertinent identifying information for these 62 cases; a second spreadsheet contains identifying data for the 37 cases for which we have no record of a VA contact. It is possible that for these 37 cases, some individuals may not have submitted claims to the VA, and others may have involved VA action but without referral to DTRA. The Academy has requested that you indicate only key number and adjudication outcome in your response.

Sincerely,

D. M. Schaeffer

Nuclear Test Personnel Review Technology Development Directorate

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Veterans Benefits Administration

Washington DC 20420

October 31, 2001

John E. Till, Ph.D

Chairman,

Committee to Review the Dose Reconstruction Program of DTRA

National Academy of Sciences

Board on Radiation Effects Research

2101 Constitution Ave., NW Washington, DC 20418

Attn: Ms. Isaf AI-Nabulsi, Ph.D.

Study Director

Dear Dr. Till:

I am responding to your request of September 7, 2001, seeking answers to certain questions from the NRC committee to review the dose reconstruction program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Please excuse the delay in responding to your request.

I have been asked to respond to questions 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, and 10.

Question #1: Clarify and resolve the number of claims awarded on the basis of non-presumptive, atmospheric testing and Hiroshima and Nagasaki, “radiogenic” diseases, especially the issue of the number 50.

Reply: According to the information contained in our special issues database, non-presumptive service connection has been awarded in 1,260 claims based on atmospheric nuclear testing, and in 357 claims on the basis of the occupation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki. As we discussed during your information gathering session earlier this year, the number “50”, which has been used, unfortunately, to represent the number of claims for which service connection has been granted under the provisions of 38 CFR § 3.311(b), has no basis in fact.

Question #2: Can you provide us a list of names/ID numbers for veterans who filed a claim under “non-presumptive” law?

Reply: The information you are requesting is protected by the Privacy Act (5 USC § 552a (b)) and 38 USC § 5701. We may release names of veterans and addresses, but not identifying claim numbers, to DoD, but not to NRC.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Question #3: When did the VA’s claims database get started and what information is available in the database?

Reply: VA began tracking special issue cases, of which radiation-related cases is a category, in 1982. In November 1998, the initial tracking system was migrated into the Veterans Issue Tracking Adjudication Log (VITAL). VITAL tracks information input into it on a number of special issue claims, e.g., Agent Orange, post-traumatic stress disorder, and radiation. Information can be extracted concerning the number of granted and denied claims in different categories, such as grants and denials of claims based on atmospheric nuclear testing on a non-presumptive basis and grants and denials of claims on the basis of the presumptive provisions of Pub. L. 100-321.

Question #4: Clarify the VA’s policy on handling claims retroactively that would have been different due to changes in policy (such as the change in the list of presumptive cancers).

Reply: When a cancer is added to the list of presumptive diseases contained at 38 CFR § 3.309(d), benefits which had previously been denied may be granted upon request of a claimant, or on VA’s own review, but no earlier than the date of the legislation. This is not a matter of VA policy, but a matter of a legislative change with a resulting amendment to the regulation.

Question #7: Is a compensation decision for a “radiogenic” disease ever made without a SAIC reconstruction?

Reply: There are two categories of claims where determinations of entitlement to benefits based on a radiation-related illness are made without an SAIC reconstruction. (1) Claims based on the presumptive provisions of Pub. L. 100-321 and (2) claims based on occupational or therapeutic exposure to radiation while in the active military service.

Question #10: Who has the authority to communicate with the veteran and/or the veteran’s family?

Reply: Under the general delegation of authority provided by 38 U.S.C. § 512(a), any employee of the Department of Veterans Affairs, in the performance of their duty, has the authority to communicate with the veteran and/or the veteran’s family.

I hope this satisfactorily responds to your questions. Should you require further information, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Bradley Flohr,

Chief

Judicial/Advisory Review

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

8725 John J. Kingman Road MSC 6201 Ft Belvoir, VA 22000-6201

April 1, 2002

Dr. Isaf Al-Nabulsi

Board on Radiation Effects Research

National Academy of Sciences

2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20007

Dear Dr. Al-Nabulsi:

In response to your 26 February 2002 letter, we provide an explanation of the calculations in the computer printouts for cases 344921 and 201699. We are including the documented method for performing the calculations, its basis, and policy memorandum implementing the method’s use (see enclosed).

The documented method is contained in the attached computer code printout. The codes are what produce the computer printouts contained in your February 2002 letter. The basis for the codes is the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) report of “Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests” (1989) (see excerpts enclosed). We implemented the performance of combined uncertainty analysis on multiple film badges in July 1992 (see policy memorandum enclosed). This memorandum implements the combined uncertainty analysis as prescribed in the 1989 NAS film badge study, except for the application of the deep-dose equivalence conversion and the use of 95% confidence intervals. We use the uncorrected film badge readings (factor of 1.0) for determining the total dose vice the deep-dose factor. We do this to preserve a one-to one correlation to the film badge record for the veteran to see evidence that original records are being used in the dose reconstruction and avoid the perception that we are lowering recorded doses. We use a 90% confidence interval vice 95% so that we have a consistent basis for combining the overall film badge reading uncertainty with reconstructed dose uncertainties, compiled and published in historical records at the 90% level.

The code computes the individual entries by selecting the applicable test series by inclusive operation dates. It then selects the bias factors (B) and uncertainty factors (K) for the applicable test series (see computer code printout as annotated). The Band K factors originate from pages 136, 143, and 152 of the 1989 NAS report (excerpts enclosed). They correspond to Operations CASTLE,

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

TEAPOT, and REDWING in file 201699’s printout and CASTLE in file 344921’s printout (both enclosed as marked). The B and K factors are applied in the code as prescribed in pages 63 through 66 of the 1989 NAS report. From this application, the “lower, mean, and upper” entries are produced for each film badge entry in each of the file printouts. The code next applies the methodologies and considerations of pages 67 through 72 of the 1989 NAS report to combine the uncertainties of the individual film badges. The last line marked TOTALS results from these combined uncertainties.

Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (703) 325-2407 or at dennis.schaeffer@dtra.mil.

Sincerely,

D. Michael Schaeffer

Program Manager

Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program Technology Development Directorate

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

8725 John J. Kingman Road MSC 6201 Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

May 7, 2002

Dr. Isaf Al-Nabulsi

Board on Radiation Effects Research

National Academy of Sciences

2001 Wisconsin Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20007

Dear Dr. Al-Nabulsi

In response to your 17 April 2002 letter, we provide responses to your eight questions, and narrative explanations and public law citations for the DTRA flow charts attached to your letter. Enclosed are the supporting materials for the answers to your questions.

Question 1 - Specific Statements regarding REDWING Film Badge Damage: Regarding the statements about damaged film badges at REDWING in files 321458,489573, 199993, we cite two passages from the 1989 NAS film badge report and one reference entitled, “Operation REDWING, Radiological Safety,” WT-1366 [EX] (excerpts enclosed). The specific passage in WT-1366 referring to the proportion of damaged badges is (see page 38 excerpt from WT): “As the operation progressed, it was found that badges worn in excess of four weeks were badly watermarked, showed evidence of severe light leaks, and were generally quite difficult to read.” The NAS report states (see page 50 from NAS): “During Operation REDWING, operation or series badges were initially issued for 4 to 6 week intervals. When unprotected, those badges used for longer periods showed frequent evidence of light leaks and water damage.” The NAS report (see page 149 from NAS) further states: “After light damage and water damage were detected in a few badges after the initial deployment of six weeks, subsequent film packets were dipped in ceresin wax before sealing.” The latter statement demonstrates that film badges issued in the first badge exchange were not sealed in this fashion, as the problem had yet to be discovered. Thus, most second period badges worn for long intervals also show damage, as has been verified visual examinations of archived REDWING films by Bechtel Nevada, Inc. (formerly REECo). Badges issued in a third exchange period tend not to show damage. This may reflect a combination of successful sealing, a shorter wear period, and masking of damage by high optical densities registered by rem-level exposure to Shot TEWA fallout on the residence islands.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Question 2 - Calculating and Reporting Upper Bound Doses: SAIC started calculating upper bound doses in 1978. The first instance of this was for Task Force WARRIOR as can be found in DNA Report 4747F. The first upper bound dose reported to VA was in 1979, starting with a reconstruction for John E. Knights and likely other reconstructions processed by NTPR Service Teams.

It is DTRA’s policy to report upper bound doses to all veterans who have been confirmed as participants.

We do not know when the upper bounds were first used as a basis for probability of causation calculations and their application to decisions regarding compensation awards. The answer to that question should be sought from the VA as DTRA plays no role in VA’s application of probability of causation calculations.

Upper bound doses reported to the VA have always been reported to the veterans who have been confirmed as participants.

The reporting of upper bound doses have gone through some evolutions. From the start of the NTPR program and as later codified in 1985 in the Federal Register (32 CFR part 218), upper bound doses, if available were reported to the VA and claims-filing veterans. Through this time frame (1978-1988), available upper bound doses were drawn from DNA-published dose reconstruction reports for major participating military units, In 1989, after the NAS film badge report, upper bound doses on film badge became available and then were reported. From 1989 to 1992, upper bounds were reported on the individual components making up the veteran’s total dose, i.e. on the individual film badge results and on the specific reconstruction activities. An overall uncertainty (for example combining the individual components of film badges per the 1989 NAS publication and then combining that result with individual reconstruction uncertainties in quadrature) was not calculated and reported prior to 1992. From 1992 to present, individual components of uncertainty are no longer reported, but are combined and reported as an overall upper bound uncertainty for the summed components of a veteran’s dose (see policy note enclosed).

Question 3 - Copies of Citations Listed in File 489573: The citations for the file are attached or, for the NAS film badge reference, given in the reply to question 1 above.

Question 4 - Selection of Resuspension Factors and Policy Guidance: The written documentation on the selection of resuspension factors that apply to Pacific and NTS, and ship and land is contained in three references: “Low-

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Level Internal Dose Screen - CONUS Tests,” DNA Report, DNA- TR-85-317 (Table 5); “Internal Dose Assessment, Operation CROSSROADS,” DNA Report, DNA- TR-84-119; and “Low-Level Internal Dose Screen - Oceanic Tests,” DNA Report, DNA- TR-88-260. The references explain how resuspension factors are selected and applied. If novel and unique exposure situations arise, the guidance from the above three references are adapted to fit these situations) subject to DTRA technical review. The documented policy is in the Federal Register, 32 CFR part 218 and the Standard Operating Procedure (provided earlier to you) implements the Federal Register policy through further guidance.

Question 5 - Use of Screening Factors for Evaluating Inhalation Doses: DTRA/SAIC does not and has not used internal dose screening factors to evaluate inhalation doses to individuals’ organs or tissues. The FIIDOS report, DNA-TR-84-75, provides the principal methodology for preparing an individual’s dose reconstruction. The screen reports provide an underlying scientific methodological basis which augments the principal FIIDOS internal dose methodology.

The dose screens were prepared as generic internal dose estimates for groups of participants belonging to common military units, but never implemented because the focus of Public Law 98-542 and its implementing regulations issued by VA and DTRA (38 CFR part 3.311 and 32 CFR part 218) were on preparing individualized internal organ dose reconstructions vice generic internal dose reconstructions. The FIIDOS methodology was developed and placed in use for individualized dose reconstructions.

If the screens had been used, they would have provided a means of specifying which military units had a potential for intake that would result in a non-zero internal dose estimate from those that had no potential for an intake that would indicate no internal dose. It further subdivided non-zero dose units into those that had nominal less than 0.150 rem dose (chosen as 1% of the then-occupational organ dose limit) and those that were above that dose. Bone was used as the reference organ as it was the one that provided the highest valued internal dose for most of the units’ participation activities. For a few of the activities, for example, the internal dose to the lung is higher than bone.

The examples, which you cited as a source for confusion on the use of the screens, show both the internal bone dose as given by the screen and the specific organ dose as computed by FIIDOS. Note that FIIDOS computes larger organ doses than the bone dose for many of the cited examples. Why both doses were reported in individual dose reconstructions is unclear. In the mid 1990s, reporting the bone dose from the screen was dropped after VA indicated that it was not used to evaluate claims.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Question 6 - Use of 20 Micron vs 1 Micron AMAD Particles: The standard practice for internal dose reconstructions is to provide the veteran a single, high-sided dose in the absence of bioassay data. This practice is accomplished through the choice of 1 micron or 20 micron AMAD particle sizes for inhalation. For most organs or tissues, one micron AMAD particle sizes are used when the particle size is unknown as is the guidance in ICRP Report 30.

We have recognized from the 1980’s that a 20 micron AMAD particle size maximizes the dose to certain organs, especially in the gastrointestinal tract. As given in the FIIDOS report, the larger of the particle sizes are cleared from the naso-pharyngeal region into the GI tract rather than into the pulmonary region. For a few organs, the high-siding of the particle size depends on the radionuclide inventory available for the given situation and is determined using FIIDOS.

Question 7 - Target Ship Dose Uncertainties: Although DNA Report DNA-TR-82-05 estimates a target ship intensity uncertainty factor of 1.5, this factor was reduced to 1.2 in 1986 for most applications involving topside intensities. There is no quantified derivation available for the 1.5 uncertainty factor in that DNA report. The motivation for the change to a 1.2 factor can be explained through Figure 2-7 of the DNA report (copy enclosed). The depicted topside intensities are reasonably characterized as falling within a factor of 1.5 of the trend line. If a single day’s intensity were relied on, an uncertainty factor of 1.5 could be justified. However, the standard error of the mean, closer to a factor of 1.2, is usually more appropriate.

The scatter in the data most likely results from inconsistencies in characterizing the topside average intensities from scattered radiation survey measurements. Thus, for any situation in which reboarding personnel were not confined to a limited area on deck, the standard error of the mean provides the better measure of uncertainty. If you note the cases cited in the question, involving submarine reboardings, the radiological data depicted in Figures A-35 and A-36 (see enclosed) of the above referenced DNA report have less scatter than in the example of Figure 2-7.

Question 8 - Support of Individual Dose Reconstructions: SAIC is funded under a level-of-effort subcontract through Jaycor Corporation, the prime contractor to DTRA for the NTPR veterans support program. The subcontract contains a maximal annual ceiling for dose reconstruction support. Payment is not based on the completion of each dose reconstruction. There is no fixed dollar limit for the completion of each reconstruction. The complexity of the dose reconstruction does not factor into payments for dose

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

reconstructions. There is no imposed time limit for the completion of dose reconstructions. The origin of the dose reconstruction request does not factor into its completion time or payment. There is no limitation on the amount of effort to be expended on an individual assessment The contractual performance standards that apply to the Jaycor/SAlC team are to complete actions on veterans’ cases within 90 days for 70% of inquiries, to have no more than 5% of cases pending longer than 180 days, and to have no pending transactions exceeding 365 days. If veterans inquiry demands exceed the capacity of the maximal annual support ceiling, DTRA can increase funding resources to expand the level of effort.

Narrative Explanations: DTRA will provide narratives as follows for the flow charts it originally submitted to you. NAS should ask the VA to provide narratives on the charts they provided.

Chart pertaining to VA claim inquiries requiring participation and dose information: This chart shows the organizations handling a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claim initiated by a veteran through a VA Regional Office. The chart depicts the detailed actions and steps through which a veterans claim inquiry transits after the VA Regional Office submits it to Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). DTRA has a veterans support effort (steps 4 through 9), a teamed contract with Jaycor Corporation and SAIC, to conduct historical research on veterans participation activities and to determine radiation doses related to those activities. DTRA reviews and approves the results of the contract effort before submitting them to the VA Regional Office. The requirement for providing participation and dose information supporting a veteran’s claim originates from Public Law 98-542 as implemented by VA regulation under 38 CPR part 3.311 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CPR). The VA Regional Office specifies the above cited CFR in its inquiry to DTRA for processing the claim per this chart.

Chart pertaining to VA claim inquiries requiring participation only: This chart shows the organizations handling a Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) claim initiated by a veteran through a VA Regional Office. The chart depicts the detailed actions and steps through which a veterans claim inquiry transits after the VA Regional Office submits it to Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA). DTRA has a veterans support effort (step 4), a teamed contract with Jaycor Corporation and SAIC, to conduct historical research on veterans participation activities and to determine radiation doses related to those activities. For this chart, only participation information is required and does not involve the SAIC team partner to complete the action. DTRA reviews and approves the results of the contract effort before submitting them to the VA Regional Office. The requirement for providing only participation information

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
supporting a veteran’s claim originates from Public Law 100-321 as implemented by VA regulation under 38CFR part 3.309 of the Code of Federal Regulations. The VA Regional Office specifies the above cited CFR in its inquiry to DTRA for processing the claim per this chart.

I trust that the above answers provide a complete and comprehensive treatment of your questions. Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (703) 325-2407 or at dennis.schaeffer@dtra.mil.

Sincerely,

D. Michael Schaeffer

Program Manager

Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program Technology Development Directorate

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

8725 John J. Kingman Road MSC 6201 Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

July 16, 2002

Dr. Isaf Al-Nabulsi

Board on Radiation Effects Research

National Academy of Sciences

500 5th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

Dear Dr. Al-Nabulsi

In response to your 18 June 2002 letter, we provide replies to your seven questions. In a recent conversation with you to clarify certain questions, you indicated that the Dose Reconstruction Committee preferred to receive an informal reply to the questions at the upcoming August 2002 Committee meeting. We intend to support this meeting and reply to the questions in person. Additionally, we believe it would help to provide written answers in advance, especially to question 6. Our reply to that question is detailed and lengthy and important that you receive the full reply in advance of the meeting. We feel that a verbal reply in the absence of a formal response could be misconstrued and possibly result in continued and open-ended questions. We ask for your indulgence in this regard.

Question 1- Second Period REDWING Film Badge Damage: Verified visual examinations of archived REDWING films performed by Bechtel Nevada, Inc. (formerly REECo) in support of individualized dose reconstruction provides the evidence of damaged film badges.

Question 2 -Fixed Rate Compensation for Dose Reconstruction: SAIC never received fixed rate compensation for the performance of dose reconstructions.

Question 3 - Update on Bioassay Program: The enclosed spreadsheet of actual vs. predicted bioassay measurements for 100 eligible NTPR Program veterans was provided on 18 March 2002 to NAS at the request of the Committee for its review. We will update the Committee at its August 2002 meeting on other follow-on activities.

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Question 4 -Date Pair/Upper Bound Meaning: Date pair request means reconstructing a dose for periods for which film badge readings do not exist or for which a film badge reading is not valid. Upper bound request means computing a 95% percentile total external dose which was not calculated previously and also computing a internal dose to a target organ, skin dose, or eye dose for a radiogenic disease specified in a VA claim.

Question 5 - Use of 20 Micron Particle Sizes: To the best of our knowledge, we instituted the practice of using 20 micron particle sizes to maximize internal organ doses sometime in the late 1980s.

Question 6 - Top Level Quality Assurance Guidance: Quality Assurance has always been a key element in our management and direction of the NTPR program. Specifically, the DTRA solicitation for NTPR Program Support, Statement of Work (June of 2000), contained a program management requirement for quality assurance monitoring in the program areas of database management, dose assessment and veteran assistance. Additionally, the solicitation designated quality assurance process as one of the contract evaluation factors for award.

In response to the solicitation, Jaycor/SAIC submitted a technical proposal that specified quality assurance measures in the program task areas of database management, radiation exposure assessment, and veteran assistance. Our approach is consistent with many of the key elements of both ASME NQA-l and ANSI/ASQC E4-1994.

Key elements of NTPR quality assurance include:

  • Designated senior management responsibilities

  • Designated responsibilities and roles by program task area

  • Integrated and interdisciplinary work processes established IAW technical and administrative standards

  • Approved work processes incorporated into standard operating procedures

  • Comprehensive case tracking / monitoring system, records management system, and records back up system

The key feature of NTPR Program Support’s quality assurance is the use of standard operating procedures (SOPs) in all program areas, to include dose reconstruction. As part of an earlier response to NAS, we provided a copy of the SOPs. As noted in the EPA Quality Assurance guidelines (EPA QA/G-6, March 2001): “The development and use of SOPs are an integral part of a successful quality system as it provides individuals with the information to perform the job properly, and facilitates consistency in the quality and integrity

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
of a product or end result.” The NTPR SOPs were developed by Jaycor/SAIC as standard procedures and guidelines for company proprietary work in support of the NTPR program and were reviewed and approved by us to ensure consistency with federal guidelines and standards applicable to the program.

The fully integrated Jaycor/SAIC NTPR team, under our direction, uses an interdisciplinary approach to ensure the work in all task areas meets Government-established performance standards. The following summary illustrates the comprehensive quality assurance actions implemented in the program’s three key task areas.

Database Management

Application Development

  • Requirements review by working groups, team leader, program manager

  • Application testing by selected users and team leaders

  • Major modifications review by team leaders

LAN Administration

  • Standard procedures review by team leader

  • Enhancements review by team leader, corporate LAN engineers, program manager

Database Administration / Analysis

  • Data entry review by Quality Assurance Specialist and team leader

  • Data structure modifications review by programmers, team leader, program manager

  • Dose data accuracy and database integrity review by data analyst and database administrator

Documentation / Training

  • Training materials review by selected users and team leader

  • Training procedures review by team leader and program manager

Radiation Dose Assessment

Dose Triage

  • Correspondence case review by health physicist

Radiation Exposure Data

  • Film badge review by health physicist

  • Film badge versus reconstructed dose analysis/review by dose analysts

  • Test series operational detail knowledge by dose analysts

Technical Documentation

  • Assessments and technical documents review by senior scientist and senior historian/editor

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Radiation Environment

  • Scenario development review by senior scientist

  • Scenario refinement and enhancement by senior scientist

  • Methodology application consistency and accuracy IAW dose SOP review by senior scientist

Veteran Assistance

Research documentation:

  • Correspondence actions review by deputy team leader, team, leader, health physicist (if dose info provided), admin supervisor, operations director (selected actions), program manager

Outreach Admin:

  • Outreach data collection review by team leader

  • Word processing review by team leader

  • Administrative action review by team leader

St. Louis operation:

  • Records retrieval and review cross-checks by team leader and researchers

Special Projects

  • Data abstraction review by deputy team leader and team leader

  • Library maintenance review by team leader

  • Special taskings review by operations director, program manager, health physicist (if dose related)

Question 7 - Generic Dose Assignment vs. Dose Assessment Statistic: We are unable to sort out the information in our NTPR database according to these parameters to provide you a reply. We would have to hand sort NTPR files in order to make a meaningful reply. We would prefer to discuss alternatives with the Committee for obtaining the needed data.

I trust that the above answers provide the groundwork for the reply to your questions at the August Committee meeting. Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (703) 325-2407 or at dennis.schaeffer@dtra.mil.

Sincerely,

D. Michael Schaeffer

Program Manager

Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program Technology Development Directorate

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

8725 John J. Kingman Road MSC 6201 Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

August 30, 2002

Dr. Isaf Al-Nabulsi

Board on Radiation Effects Research

National Academy of Sciences

500 5th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

Dear Dr. Al-Nabulsi:

In response to your 13 August 2002 letter, we provide responses to your six questions, concerning report SAIC - 0012024 “Methods and Applications for Dose Assessments of Beta Particle Radiation”.

Question 1: P3, second bullet. Please elaborate on how adding the gamma dose to the beta dose leads to an upper bound of the skin dose. What method is used to provide a central estimate of skin dose?

Response: We do not provide a central estimate for the skin dose. For the purposes of beta dose calculations, the nominally uniform external whole body gamma dose (including its upper bound) is considered to be applicable at 70 μm. A more central estimate of skin dose can be given by using the mean whole body gamma dose (i.e., in lieu of the terms annotated by Dγ/ub/fallout and Dγ/ub/total in Equation 7 on page 17). In addition, because the assumed retention of fallout on surfaces tends to high-side the beta component of the skin dose, we do not have a means of providing a central tendency value for the beta skin dose component.

Question 2: PI5, table 10. What is the meaning of the numbers in parentheses in the column identified as “βdose4 (CEPXS)”?

Response: The dose conversion factor in parentheses was based on an air density of 1.189 mg/cc, whereas the other value was based on an air density of 1.293 mg/cc.

Question 3: Please help us understand the apparent contradiction between the statement on pg.13 “Figure 5 depicts…and illustrates reasonable justification to use U-235 based generic spectra for all shots during the testing era,” and the

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
statement on pg.17 , “the determination of what constitutes the appropriate beta/gamma (β/γ) ratio must include evaluations such as the type of weapon used….”

Response: Fission byproduct radionuclides predominated both fission and thermonuclear-type detonations. Figure 5 indicates that in the worst known deviation from a pure fission product inventory based on pure U-235 (i.e., CASTLE Bravo being thermonuclear) the difference in β/γ ratios is modest. Given that the majority of shots are much closer to a pure fission product inventory than were the CASTLE shots, the solid-line relationship in Figure-5 is typically representative. However, the deviation for CASTLE shots (similar to BRAVO) is enough to warrant applying the dashed-line relationship in Figure-5 for these shots. The statement made on page 17 regarding type of weapon is applied only in this context.

Question 4: Page 28, last paragraph. What is the basis for using “l/r” estimation for an infinite plane source geometry factor?

Response: There is none. The l/r estimate was not meant to indicate a mathematical functional relationship between gamma intensity and height from a plane source, but rather to indicate that there is an inverse proportional relationship with height. Note that the sentence could be clarified to indicate that an linear interpolation of the (β/γ) ratio between a height of 1 and 20 centimeters (to obtain an estimate of the ratio at 10 cm from Table-7) would result in an expected beta dose about 9 times greater than that at a height of 120 cm (rather than the stated factor of 12).

Question 5: P44. It is implied in the second complete paragraph that an uncertainty factor of 2 in the beta dose component is reasonable. Should this be interpreted as the entire uncertainty of the beta dose or the uncertainty in the beta/gamma ratio?

Response: Neither should be implied. This statement was an interpretation relative to the ratio of the beta dose to gamma dose cited in Reference 1 and does not pertain to current skin dose methodology. The ratio cited was 8 to 16 (i.e., a factor-of-2 range for this ratio). Note that while this range for the ratio may be representative (and generally corresponds to SAIC values at 1 meter from a surface), it does not address dependence on distance from surface and radionuclide inventory (e.g., with time for mixed-fission products).

Question 6: What procedures were used for assessing beta dose prior to publication of SAIC-001/2024?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Response: Prior to 1998, skin doses were not performed in the NTPR program, except on a case-by-case basis. Prior to the publication of SAIC-001/ 2024, beta doses were computed by applying the references therein directly -principally (and as cited in the radiation dose assessments) the user’s manual for the CEPXS radiation transport code and the SAI report that specified the beta and gamma energy spectra as a function of time after a detonation.

I trust that the above answers provide a complete and comprehensive treatment of your questions. Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (703) 325-2407 or at dennis.schaeffer@dtra.mil.

Sincerely,

D. Michael Schaeffer

Program Manager

Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program Technology Development Directorate

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

8725 John J. Kingman Road MSC 6201 Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

SEP - 5 2002

Department of Veterans Affairs Central Office

Compensation and Pension Service

ATTN: Mr. Bradley Flohr

810 Vermont Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20420

Dear Mr Flohr:

The National Academy of Sciences has requested the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA) to provide the VA with identifying information for 200 case files the Academy is sampling as part of its dose reconstruction review. The Academy would like to investigate actions VA may have taken in processing claims on the 200 individuals

A review of our files indicates that the Nuclear Test Personnel Review (NTPR) Program reported radiation exposure information for 141 of the 200 sample cases. The remaining 59 cases did not require the NTPR Program to furnish dose information to the VA.

Enclosed is a spreadsheet containing pertinent identifying information for all 200 cases. The first worksheet of this spreadsheet includes the dose information reported by the NTPR Program to the VA for 141 cases. The second worksheet provides pertinent information for the remaining 59 cases. As can be seen from this enclosure, some VA claim data, i.e., claim number and/or Regional Office information, is available from the NTPR case files for some of these 59 cases. This claim data was obtained from various sources, e.g., service medical records, reviewed by the NTPR Program during the course of researching individual inquiries. The available data is being provided to assist you with your response to the NAS.

Sincerely,

D. M. Schaeffer

Nuclear Test Personnel Review Technology Development Directorate

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

8725 John J. Kingman Road MSC 6201 Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

OCT 10 2002

Dr. Isaf Al-Nabulsi

Board on Radiation Effects Research

National Academy of Sciences

500 5th Street, NW Washington DC 2000

Dear Dr. Al-Nabulsi:

In response to your early September request, we are providing an update to our dose reconstruction summary which extends to 30 September 2002 (copy attached). Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (703) 325-2407 or at dennis.schaeffer@dtra.mil.

Sincerely,

D. Michael Schaeffer

Program Manager

Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program Technology Development Directorate

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Defense Threat Reduction Agency

8725 John J. Kingman Road MSC 6201 Ft Belvoir, VA 22060-6201

December 03, 2002

Dr. Isaf Al-Nabulsi

Board on Radiation Effects Research

National Academy of Sciences

500 5th Street, NW Washington, DC 20001

Dear Dr. Al-Nabulsi:

In response to your November 5, 2002 letter, we will clarify the dose reconstruction process when unit dose reconstructions form the basis for an individual’s dose assessment. Current DTRA policy requires that SAIC provide all doses prepared in support of VA claims.

At one point in the NTPR Program before the current policy, there were cases where Jaycor applied available SAIC-prepared generic external dose reconstructions if the participation scenario for that reconstruction was applicable to the veteran’s participation scenario and if SAIC had previously determined the internal dose to a particular organ. As noted in your letter, the assigned doses then went to DTRA for review, approval, and release to the VA.

Please contact me if you have questions or need additional information. I can be reached at (703) 325-2407 or at dennis.schaeffer@dtra.mil.

Sincerely,

D. Michael Schaeffer

Program Manager

Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program Technology Development Directorate

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS

Veterans Health Administration

Washington DC 20420

In Reply Refer To:

September 17, 2001

13

Isaf AI-Nabulsi, Ph.D.

Study Director

National Academies

2101 Constitution Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20418

Dear Dr. AI-Nabulsi:

This is in reply to your letter dated September 7, 2001. As we discussed, I am responding to question numbers 8, 10, and 14 as they pertain to responsibilities of our office.

Question 8. Explain the use of the “dose screen”. At what point in the process is the CIRRPC screen applied? Which of the confidence limits are used, 90%, 95%, or 99%? Are different screens applied at different stages in the process?

Reply: Screening doses are used when a compensation claim requires a medical opinion on the likelihood that radiation exposure in service was responsible and when the CIRRPC report provides screening doses relevant to the veteran’s disease. The CIRRPC screening doses are applied after the case has been sent to the Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards for a medical opinion. The screening doses based on the 99% confidence limits are used. The same screening doses based on 99% confidence limits are used for medical opinions provided at all stages of the adjudication process.

Question 10. Who has the authority to communicate with the veteran and/or the veteran’s family?

Reply: I am not aware of any restriction on any VA employees communicating with veterans or family members.

Question 14. Are the CIRRPC screening doses used in actual compensation decisions? If not, what PC labels are used?

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×

Reply: The CIRRPC screening doses when applicable are used in formulating a medical opinion but other factors are considered as well.

I hope these comments will be of assistance. Please feel free to contact me at 202-273-8452 or by e-mail at neil.otchin@hq.med.va.gov if there are additional questions.

Sincerely,

Neil S. Otchin, M.D.

Program Chief for Clinical Matters

Office of Public Health and Environmental Hazards

Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 305
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 306
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 307
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 308
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 309
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 310
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 311
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 312
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 313
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 314
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 315
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 316
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 317
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 318
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 319
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 320
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 321
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 322
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 323
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 324
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 325
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 326
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 327
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 328
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 329
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 330
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 331
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 332
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 333
Suggested Citation:"Appendix D: Responses to Committee's Questions." National Research Council. 2003. A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/10697.
×
Page 334
Next: Appendix E: Analysis of Potential Inhalation Doses Due to Blast-Wave Effects at Operation PLUMBBOB, Shot HOOD, and Implications for Dose Reconstructions for Atomic Veterans »
A Review of the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency Get This Book
×
Buy Hardback | $85.00 Buy Ebook | $69.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

From 1945 through 1962, the US atmospheric nuclear weapons testing program involved hundreds of thousands of military and civilian personnel, and some of them were exposed to ionizing radiation. Veterans' groups have since been concerned that their members' health was affected by radiation exposure associated with participation in nuclear tests and have pressured Congress for disability compensation. Several pieces of legislation have been passed to compensate both military and civilian personnel for such health effects. Veterans' concerns about the accuracy of reconstructed doses prompted Congress to have the General Accounting Office (GAO) review the dose reconstruction program used to estimate exposure. The GAO study concluded that dose reconstruction is a valid method of estimating radiation dose and could be used as the basis of compensation. It also recommended an independent review of the dose reconstruction program. The result of that recommendation was a congressional mandate that the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), a part of the Department of Defense, ask the National Research Council to conduct an independent review of the dose reconstruction program. In response to that request, the National Research Council established the Committee to Review the Dose Reconstruction Program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency in the Board on Radiation Effects Research (BRER).

The committee randomly selected sample records of doses that had been reconstructed by DTRA and carefully evaluated them. The committee's report describes its findings and provides responses to many of the questions that have been raised by the veterans.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    Switch between the Original Pages, where you can read the report as it appeared in print, and Text Pages for the web version, where you can highlight and search the text.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  9. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!