J.W. Neton
OCAS
April 11, 2001
Trip Report
National Academy of Sciences
Washington, D.C.
April 2, 2001

On April 2 I observed the initial meeting of the National Academy of Sciences committee that
is reviewing the dose reconstruction program of the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA).
This review was mandated by Public Law 106-419, Section 305 which specified that the DTRA
enter into a contact with the NAS to carry out periodic reviews of their dose reconstruction
program. The committee currently consists of five members (see below) but will expand to 10 or
12 members as soon as possible.

NAS Committee Reviewing the DTRA’s Dose
Reconstruction Program
John Till (Chairman) Risk Assessment Corporation
William Brady | _ Retired Principal Health
Physicist
Eric Kearsley Consultant
David Kocher SENES Oak Ridge
Clarice Weinberg NIEHS

Also in attendance at the meeting were representatives from the National Research Council, the
DTRA, SAIC and Jaycor (see below).

Other Meeting Participants
Evan Douple NAS Study Director
Rick Jostes NAS
D. Michael Schaeffer DTRA, Senior Program Manager
John Pommerville DTRA staff
W. Jeffrey Klemm SAIC
Steve Powell Jaycor

After an introduction of members and participants by Evan Douple of the NAS, Mike Schaeffer
provided the charge to the committee. The DTRA is requesting the NAS to determine: 1)



whether or not the reconstruction of doses is accurate; 2) whether or not the reconstructed doses
are accurately reported; 3) whether or not the assumptions made regarding radiation exposure are
credible; and 4) whether or not the data from nuclear tests used by DTRA are accurate. The
review is funded through a $1.2 million contract with the NAS that extends over a 28 month
period. Much discussion was held at this point conceming the interpretation of the word.
“accurate” in the charge to the committee. John Till expressed his opinion that accurate dose
estimates and dose estimates that are appropriate for the compensation program are not
necessarily the same thing. This will need to be addressed in their review.

Following the introductions, Mike Schaeffer provided an overview of DTRA’s program.
Although Jeff Klemm of SAIC was scheduled next to provide a discussion of the dose
reconstruction program, Mike Schaeffer decided to deliver this presentation as well. A copy of
the presentation overheads has been provided to OCAS technical team members. Any additional
staff members that would like a copy should let me know.

The balance of the meeting consisted of Mike Schaeffer (with help from SAIC and Jaycor)
answering committee members questions regarding DTRA’s program. Some of the more
interesting facts that were learned during this discussion were:

+ | The DTRA’s program was previously reviewed by an NAS committee chaired by Merril
Eisenbud in 1985. At that time, the committee found that the methods used by the current
contractor were insufficiently documented. It was very difficult for the 1985 committee
to determine exactly how dose reconstructions were being performed. Also, methods
used to assign internal doses associated with inhalation or ingestion of radioactive
material were found to be based on unsupported assumptions. I have a copy of this report
if anyone is interested in reviewing it.

* Some discussion was held on the accuracy of the film badge results. The 1989 NRC
review of the film badge program! tends to support SAIC’s contention that the DTRA’s
approach to interpretation of external dosimetry results is conservative.

? Lalos G, ed. [1989]. Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Tests, National Academy
Press.

+ A total of twelve public laws have been written that relate to the three Federal regulations
published by DoD (32 CFR 218), DoJ (28 CFR 79) and VA (38 CFR 3). The DoD
regulations contained in 32 CFR 218 are similar in scope to OCAS’s mandated dose
reconstruction regulations.

¢ Currently, DoD receives about 80 - 120 pieces of correspondence per month related to the
compensation program.

+ For internal dose calculations, DTRA uses the ICRP 30 methodology. Interestingly, they



assign all the internal dose delivered over 50 years to the year of intake. This, of course,
will provide an upper estimate of the dose, but it raises questions as to how this might
effect the probability of causation calculation when latency and time since exposure are
factors. Also, the current radioepidemiologic tables do not consider the inverse
relationship that exists between DDREF and high LET radiation.

Although eye and skin dose are not considered in 32 CFR 218, the VA has asked DTRA
to evaluate these exposures as well.

The plutonium urine sampling campaign of 100 veterans found two individuals with
detectable levels of Pu in their urine. One of these was consistent with the known
exposure scenario while the other is still being evaluated. There was some discussion by
John Till of the importance of collecting contemporaneous samples whenever possible to
validate exposure models.

Thus far, the VA has been contacted by 60,000 eligible participants out of an eligible pool
of approximately 400,000 claimants.

According to the DTRA, internal doses are typically less than 25% of the total dose in
exposed veterans. :

The value of the current DTRA contract with SAIC is approximately $5M per year.
There is still some information in the DTRA dose reconstruction efforts that is classified.
Claire Weinberg wanted to know if the method of uncertainty estimation documented.
Also, is there a paper trail associated with each dose reconstruction such that it would be

possible to determine which version of a procedure / method was used?

To the best of Mike Schaefer’s recollection, only 5 claimants have challenged their case
evaluations.

John Till made a strong argument for getting the claimant’s involved early in the process,