VA Does Not Consider Nuclear Weapons Technicians’ Duties a “Radiation-Risk Activity”

In spite of the significant exposures to ionizing radiation, a primary reason frequently used in denied VA claims and appeals is because the duties of Nuclear Weapons Technicians are not considered a “radiation-risk activity”. That is a false premise. VA is well aware of our dilemma, having reviewed claims for ionizing radiation and toxic-exposure for decades, rejected due to lack of the necessary language in Title 38, United States Code. VA and DoD did not step forward to correct the laws as necessary to support radiation-exposed and toxic-exposed military veteran Nuclear Weapons Technicians. The primary purpose of this project is to do just that.

VA regulations and procedures discourage many legitimate claims and appeals, require individual claims, and discourage group or class certification when large numbers of veterans were subjected to similar dangers. E.g., “Eligibility for disability compensation or survivors’ benefits are based on radiation type, radiation dose, and timing of the onset of illness. VA decides these claims on a case-by-case basis”. ¹ [Bold emphasis is included in the VA site] These policies are in direct contrast to the treatment of other veteran groups and civilian DOE employee/contractor cohort groups described in this document.

Ionizing radiation exposures occurred every time Nuclear Weapons Technicians worked on a nuclear weapon or were in areas containing nuclear weapons. In spite of that, VA does not “presume” occupational ionizing radiation causation for Nuclear Weapons Technicians.

VA has several misconceptions regarding ionizing radiation dangers to Nuclear Weapons Technicians; one states: "Various military occupations, such as nuclear weapons technicians and dental technicians, include routine and usually safe exposure to radiation”.² X-rays generally emit energy from 100 eV (electron volts) to 106 eV. Gamma (y-rays) emit energy from 105 eV to over 1011 eV. Nuclear weapons emit alpha, beta, gamma, and neutron radiation. Nuclear weapons do not have an on/off switch. They emit ionizing radiation 24/7.

VA Claim and Appeal Denials

Numerous individual veterans’ claims have been denied due to lack of ionizing radiation exposure dose data. For significant numbers of Nuclear Weapons Technicians, such monitoring programs did not exist or were limited at best. Consequently, military service branches reported to VA that specific radiation dose data did not exist in the records, while in most cases, individuals had not been consistently and continuously monitored for those exposures.

That tactic forces veterans to provide evidence of actual exposure dose assessment/estimate; or leave it to a VA military partner, lab, or consultant to develop an assumed level of exposure i.e., malinformed opinion based on “assumed facts not in evidence”. The veteran must then provide their own arguments and defensible, accepted estimates in a battle seldom won.

Thousands of Nuclear Weapons Technicians worked large portions of their careers, or all, without wearing a personal dosimeter. Several groups wore them for short periods without being given the results after a “test program” or “experiment” was suddenly and inexplicably cancelled, often within a few months of the start. Questions were typically addressed with nonsensical answers or silence. Some received their DD Form 1141 only after leaving the assignment, some did not receive them until separation or retirement, or not at all.

Many Nuclear Weapons Technicians who wore dosimeters stated that their military service records—when requested by VA—did not include a DD Form 1141, the form included little to no exposures, or recorded exposure data had blatantly obvious errors. Those errors were evident when work was conducted with frequent and consistent activities on the same nuclear weapons series with short periods containing dose data; while substantially longer periods with similar duties contained multiple recorded readings of zero ionizing radiation exposure.

VA relied on incomplete, incorrect, and illogical information to deny service connection to ionizing radiation. Examples of denied claims or related appeals include:

• VA (2005): “DD Forms 214 reflect that he worked as Nuclear Weapons Mechanical Specialist and a Nuclear Weapons Supervisor during service.” [active 1950-1970] “There was no evidence showing that the veteran was exposed to ionizing radiation or chemicals during service.” ³

• VA (2020): “It was unknown whether he was exposed to ionizing radiation from handling these warheads to a degree that would have increased his risk for any disease, since the warheads were sealed and shielded, and no public information exists about whether there is an increased medical risk from handling unexploded shielded nuclear warheads in such a manner”. ⁴ [underline added]
  This was arguably an uninformed opinion from a person or persons, without applicable experience, and not familiar with warhead designs nor sources of ionizing radiation, particularly intrinsic ionizing radiation "INRAD" (ionizing radiation emitted through the nuclear weapon surface or directly from exposed weapon components).

• VA (1996) denied an appeal ⁵ from an Army Nuclear Weapons Technician who was verified as having conducted “hands-on assembly and maintenance of the 8-inch howitzer atomic projectile (M422)” and worked nuclear weapons 1957-1965 and 1970-1973. VA: “The U.S. Army Ionizing Radiation Dosimetry Radiation Center [IRDRC] reported: All film badge measurements were reported as 000.000 rem.” “His total exposure recorded within the Army was “000.000 rem.” VA: Per IRDRC, he was monitored for exposure only from September 1958 to February 1959 (6 months) of his verified career working with nuclear weapons (approximately 11 years) .

Also Per IRDRC “...dose assessment was based on the results of a 2-year study (1981-1983) in which the various services and the Department of Energy conducted exhaustive measurements of ionizing radiation emanating from storing, handling, and maintaining nuclear weapons, excluding radiation exposure from detonation or accident. This ionizing radiation from nuclear weapons was otherwise known as the intrinsic radiation (INRAD) program. This program also included extensive time motion studies and direct personnel monitoring as a part of their assessment of personnel exposures for the most hazardous of these systems.”

This VA statement was apparently a reference to the 1981 Intrinsic Radiation Intercomparison Workshop, part of the study promised in the 1980 DNA Carter-Reagan Briefing Book, documented in the related January 25, 1983, DOE report described earlier.

In the 1983 report just mentioned above, DOE acknowledged previous decades of unreliable data; and documented many unreliable, confusing, and questionable data that resulted during the 1981 workshop. Based on the results, many would consider the workshop a failure. Arguably, unless proven to be a different study than that discussed in the DOE report, any claim and appeal denials based on the “2-year study” were ill-advised, misguided, and incorrect. It is also highly probable that most weapons series maintained during the Cold War period were no longer available for direct radiation exposure measurements.

Groups and Events VA Considers “Exposure to Radiation During Military Service”

The following groups of Veterans participated in what is called a “Radiation-Risk Activity”. ⁶

• Participated in the occupation of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, Japan, 1945-1946.
• Were prisoners of war in Japan during World War II.
• Participated in atmospheric nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and 1962.
• Participated in underground nuclear weapons testing at Amchitka Island, AK.
• Worked in gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, Kentucky; Portsmouth, Ohio; or K25 in Oak Ridge, Tennessee for at least 250 days before Feb. 1, 1992.

“Veterans who served in any of the following situations or circumstances may have been exposed to radiation”. ⁷

• U.S. Air Force plutonium cleanup mission near Palomares, Spain (1966), “VA presumes exposure to radiation”. [Added as the result of a court order in 2020.] The cleanup included approximately 1,418 Air Force, 107 Army, 37 Navy and 38 other individuals.
• Radiological cleanup of Enewetak Atoll. VA presumes exposure to radiation.
• Thule Air Force Base in Greenland, response to fire onboard a B-52 carrying nuclear weapons. VA presumes exposure to radiation.
• Fukushima, Japan nuclear accident.
• “Various military occupations, such as nuclear weapons technicians and dental technicians, include routine and usually safe exposure to radiation.” [emphasis added] VA does not presume exposure to radiation.

VA Ionizing Radiation Registry Health Exam – Excludes Nuclear Weapons Technicians⁸

“Veterans who meet any of the following criteria are eligible:

• On-site participation in a test involving the atmospheric detonation of a nuclear device, whether or not the testing nation was the United States
• Participation in the occupation of Hiroshima or Nagasaki from August 6, 1945, through July 1, 1946
• Internment as a prisoner of war in Japan during World War II
• Receipt of nasopharyngeal (NP)—nose and throat—radium irradiation treatments while in the active military, naval, or air service
• Involved in the following "radiation-risk activities":
• Service at Department of Energy gaseous diffusion plants at Paducah, KY, Portsmouth, OH, or the K25 area at Oak Ridge, TN, for at least 250 days before February 1, 1992 under certain conditions
• Proximity to ‘Longshot’, ‘Milrow’, or ‘Cannikin’ underground nuclear tests at Amchitka Island, AK, before January 1, 1974”

Note: Nuclear Weapons Technicians are not specifically included because our primary duties are not considered a “Radiation-Risk Activity” in U.S.C. Title 38 - Veterans' Benefits, therefore we are not considered “Radiation-Exposed” veterans.

________________________________________

Footnotes:

[1] https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/diseases.asp Reviewed 7-22-23 oh
[2] https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/index.asp Reviewed 7-21-23
[3] VA initial claim text cited (and remanded) by Board of Appeals Judge, Citation: 0500302 Decision Date: 01/06/05
[4] A VA Claims Examiner’s response included incorrect comments stating unexploded nuclear weapons were not radiation risks because they were “sealed and shielded”, Citation 20048516, 7-20-20, 1956-59 exposure window.
[5] Appeal denied by VA, Citation NR: 9607194, 19 March 1996.
[6] https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/radiation-risk-activity.asp Reviewed 7-22-23 oh
[7] https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/sources/index.asp Reviewed 7-22-23oh
[8] https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/radiation/benefits/registry-exam.asp Reviewed 7-22-23 oh