Implications of Recent Epidemiological Studies for Compensation of Veterans Exposed to Plutonium

The objective of this paper is to compare post-2007 epidemiological results for plutonium workers to risk predicted by the software program NIOSH-IREP (IREP for short), which is used to determine the lowest dose for a US veteran to obtain cancer compensation. IREP output and methodology were used to predict excess relative risk per Gy (ERR Gy(−1)) for lung cancer at the 99(th) credibility percentile, which is used for compensation decisions. Also estimated were relative biological effectiveness factors (RBE) predicted for workers using IREP methodology. IREP predictions were compared to results for Mayak and Sellafield plutonium workers, separately and pooled. Indications that IREP might underpredict 99(th)-percentile lung cancer plutonium risk came from (1) comparison of worker RBEs and (2) from comparison of Sellafield results separately. When Sellafield and Mayak data were pooled, ERR Gy(−1) comparisons at the 99(th) percentile roughly matched epidemiological data with regression dose range restricted to < 0.05 Gy, the most relevant region to veterans, but overpredicted for the full dose range. When four plausible distributions for lung cancer risk, including both new and old data, were combined using illustrative weighting factors, compensation cutoff dose for lung cancer matched current IREP values unless regression results below 0.05 were chosen for Sellafield, producing a two-fold reduction. A 1997 claim of a dose threshold in lung cancer dose response was not confirmed in later literature. The benefit of the doubt is given to claimants when the science is unclear. The challenge for NIOSH-IREP custodians is dealing with the Sellafield results, which might best match US claimants.