From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Attachments:

Sampsel, James, VBAVACO Klosterman, David, VBAVACO Imboden, Jacqueline, VBAVACO FW: Wes Carter C-123 VAIQ Monday, June 03, 2013 5:06:00 PM C-123 response.docx Agent Orange and C123 aircraft.doc

Dave, See edits and comments. I will be out on Tues but back on Wed for any additional discussion.

_____________________________________________ From: Klosterman, David, VBAVACO Sent: Monday, June 03, 2013 9:48 AM To: Sampsel, James, VBAVACO Subject: Wes Carter C-123 VAIQ

Here is a draft of the response I wrote:

David Klosterman Consultant, Policy Staff (211B) Compensation Service Washington, DC Exemption 6

John A. Kitzhaber United States Governor 700 Summer St. NE Salem, OR 97301-1285 The Honorable John A. Kitzhaber, Thank you for your inquiry to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on behalf of your constituent Wes Carter regarding Agent Orange (AO) exposure as a result of service aboard C-123 aircraft used after the Vietnam War. VA regulations provide for a presumption of exposure to tactical herbicides (AO) for Veterans with service in Vietnam and service in certain units on the Korean demilitarized zone during the Vietnam era. VA also acknowledges AO exposure on a direct or facts-found basis in other locations when evidence shows that the Veteran was directly involved with handling or testing AO. VA evaluates such claims on a case-by-case basis. Your letter stated that C-123 aircraft flown during Vietnam were used “primarily as an in-theater airlifter conducting the Ranch Hand Defoliant Program.” However, only a small number (approximately 30) of the several hundred C-123s used in Vietnam were used for the aerial spraying of tactical herbicides. The majority of the C-123 aircraft used during the Vietnam War were used for other purposes, such as troop and supply movements, flare dropping and gunship security on Thailand airbases, and aerial spraying of insecticides to control malaria-causing mosquitos in both Vietnam and Thailand. After the war, all C-123s in Southeast Asia were sent back to the United States, where they were used by Air National Guard or Reserve units for the remainder of their useful life. VA does not currently have a method of determining if a Veteran claiming stateside AO exposure was flying on one of the Operation Ranch Hand C-123s or one of the many other post-Vietnam C-123s flown stateside during the 1970s and 1980s. Your letter also indicated that VA “has conceded” that the Veterans who served aboard the post-war C-123 aircraft were exposed to residuals of tactical herbicides. In fact, VA has not conceded exposure to tactical herbicides for these Veterans. The general claim of AO exposure among stateside C-123 crewmembers is based on a wipe test sample of residual TCDD (the carcinogenic element in AO herbicide) found in only one C-123, which is exhibited at the Wright-Patterson U.S. Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. The TCDD found on that aircraft was obtained only through the application and rubbing of a strong solvent to the plane’s interior metal surface, a scenario not likely encountered during day-to-day operation of the aircraft. Additionally, that aircraft was assigned to Operation Ranch Hand initially and stayed with the operation longer than other C-123s. Most of the Operation Ranch Hand C-123s arrived in Vietnam after 1968, when the application of tactical herbicides was on

the decline and herbicides other than AO, such as Agent White and Blue, were in use. These other tactical herbicides did not contain TCDD. Government documents provided by Dr. Alvin Young, a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and leading expert on tactical herbicides found that surface wipe samples taken from four mothballed Operation Ranch Hand C-123 aircraft between 1996 and 2009 showed no evidence of TCDD in two of the aircraft and only trace amounts of TCDD in the other two. Air samples from all four planes showed no TCDD. VA assumes that some Veterans flew stateside aboard post-Vietnam Operation Ranch Hand C-123s that did contain residual solidified TCDD, so the issue of exposure and long-term health effects among those Veterans must be considered. Therefore, the Veterans Health Administration’s (VHA) Office of Public Health conducted a specific scientific investigation into the theory of exposure to TCDD via incidental aircraft contact. The results are posted on VA’s Web site. The general conclusion was that: (1) any residual TCDD in the Operation Ranch Hand aircraft had solidified and is unable to enter the human body in any significant amount, as the percentage of TCDD in a wipe sample obtained with a strong solvent does not translate into a high dose that would be absorbed by the human body. Studies show the skin to be a strong barrier against absorption, and extremely high temperatures would be required to vaporize TCDD and make it absorbable through the lungs. (2) There is no scientific evidence that a Veteran’s presence in an aircraft containing solidified TCDD can lead to adverse long-term health effects. A study of 1,261 Operation Ranch Hand pilots and crewmembers that were exposed to tactical herbicides on a daily basis during Vietnam failed to show a general increased risk of adverse long-term health effects as compared to other populations. Given that the evidence from actual participants in Operation Ranch Hand does not show a health risk from direct exposure to TCDD, it is difficult to ascertain a basis upon which to find a health risk among crewmembers of post-Vietnam Operation Ranch Hand C-123s. In conclusion, there is no conclusive evidence that shows all post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft contained TCDD, that the solidified TCDD found in some of the planes is able to be absorbed into the body, or that solidified TCDD can lead to adverse long-term health effects. Therefore, exposure to tactical herbicides for crewmembers that served aboard post-Vietnam C-123 aircraft cannot be conceded. I hope this information has been helpful. Thank you for your concern and advocacy for our Nation’s Veterans. Sincerely, Allison A. Hickey

John A. Kitzhaber United States Governor 700 Summer St. NE Salem, OR 97301-1285 WRONG ADRESSEE: This goes to Director of State of Oregon Veterans Office: see incoming letter signature: Cameron Smith Also, there is confusion regarding who should sign this letter. You need to check this with Melba. The top of SP says Secretarial, but the bottom says Front Office (Tom Murphy). If it is actual Secretarial, you will need the 2 additional forms. If for Tom, you need to state “I am responding on behalf of Secretary Shinseki .” I have made edits/comments in bold and added some language on the regs because they were brought up in the incoming letter. The Honorable John A. Kitzhaber, Thank you for your inquiry to the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) on behalf of your constituent Not a constituent Wes Carter regarding Agent Orange (AO) don’t use AO, spell it out because the real issue is tactical herbicides exposure as a result of service aboard C-123 aircraft used in the US after the Vietnam War. VA regulations provide for a presumption of exposure to tactical herbicides, such as Agent Orange, (AO) for Veterans with service in Vietnam and service in certain units on the Korean demilitarized zone during the Vietnam era. VA also acknowledges AO such exposure on a direct or facts-found basis in other locations when evidence shows that the Veteran was directly involved with handling or testing of tactical herbicides (AO). VA evaluates such claims on a case-by-case basis. Your letter stated that C-123 aircraft flown during Vietnam were used “primarily as an in-theater airlifter conducting the Ranch Hand Defoliant Program.” However, only a relatively small number (approximately 30) of the several hundred C-123s flown (used) in Vietnam were used for the aerial spraying of tactical herbicides. The majority (of the C-123 aircraft used during the Vietnam War) do not need this redundant statement were used for other purposes, such as troop and supply movements in Vietnam, flare dropping and gunship security on Thailand airbases, and aerial spraying of insecticides to control malaria-causing mosquitos in both Vietnam and Thailand. After the war, all C-123s in Southeast Asia were sent back to the United States, where they were used by Air National Guard or Reserve units for the remainder of their useful life. VA does not currently have a method of determining if a Veteran claiming stateside tactical herbicide (AO)exposure was flying on one of the Operation Ranch Hand C123s or one of the many other post-Vietnam C-123s flown stateside during the 1970s and 1980s.

Your letter also indicated that VA “has conceded” that the Veterans who served aboard the post-(war) Vietnam C-123 aircraft were exposed to residuals of tactical herbicides. In fact, VA has not conceded exposure to tactical herbicides for these Veterans. The general claim of AO exposure among stateside C-123 crewmembers is based on a wipe test sample of residual TCDD (the carcinogenic element in Agent Orange (AO) herbicide) found in only one C-123, which is exhibited at the WrightPatterson U.S. Air Force Museum in Dayton, Ohio. The TCDD found on that aircraft was obtained only through the application and rubbing of a strong solvent to the plane’s interior metal surface, a scenario not likely encountered during stateside day-to-day operation of the aircraft. Additionally, that aircraft was assigned to Operation Ranch Hand initially and stayed with the operation longer than other C-123s. Most of the Operation Ranch Hand C-123s arrived in Vietnam after 1968, when the application of tactical herbicides was on the decline and herbicides other than (AO) Agent Orange, such as Agent White and Blue, were in use. These other tactical herbicides did not contain TCDD. Government documents provided by Dr. Alvin Young, a retired U.S. Air Force Colonel and leading expert on tactical herbicides (found) documents that surface wipe samples taken from four mothballed Operation Ranch Hand C-123 aircraft between 1996 and 2009 showed no evidence of TCDD in two of the aircraft and only trace amounts of TCDD in the other two. Air samples from all four planes showed no TCDD. VA assumes that some Veterans flew stateside aboard post-Vietnam Operation Ranch Hand C-123s that did contain residual solidified TCDD, so the issue of exposure and long-term health effects among those Veterans (must be) has been considered. (Therefore, don’t need) The Veterans Health Administration’s (do not need acronym, since no further usage (VHA) ) Office of Public Health conducted a specific scientific investigation into the theory of exposure to TCDD (via incidental aircraft contact) based on service in aircraft potentially containing dried residual TCDD. The results are posted on VA’s Web site. The general conclusion (was) is that: (1) any residual TCDD in the Operation Ranch Hand aircraft had solidified and is unable to enter the human body in any significant amount. (as) The percentage of TCDD in a wipe sample obtained with a strong solvent does not translate into a (high) don’t mention high dose that would be absorbed by the human body. Studies show the skin to be a strong barrier against absorption, and extremely high temperatures would be required to vaporize TCDD and make it absorbable through the lungs. (2) There is no scientific evidence that a Veteran’s presence in an aircraft containing solidified TCDD can lead to adverse long-term health effects. A study of 1,261 Operation Ranch Hand pilots and crewmembers that were exposed to tactical herbicides on a daily basis during Vietnam failed to show a general increased risk of adverse long-term health effects as compared to other populations. Given that the evidence from actual participants in Operation Ranch Hand does not show a health risk from direct exposure to TCDD, it is difficult to ascertain a basis upon which to find a health risk among stateside crewmembers of post-Vietnam Operation Ranch Hand C-123s. You letter cites VA regulations pertaining to the presumption of tactical herbicide exposure and the granting of service connection for diseases

associated with such exposure. These apply to Veterans who served within the country of Vietnam where the possibility of direct contact with tactical herbicides existed. These regulations do not apply to stateside service based on a theoretical secondary or remote dose level of TCDD exposure associated with aircraft or equipment previously used in Vietnam. In conclusion, there is currently insufficient evidence showing that all postVietnam C-123 aircraft contained TCDD, that the solidified TCDD found in one of the planes is able to be absorbed into the human body, or that solidified TCDD can lead to adverse long-term health effects. VA evaluates disability claims on a case-by-case basis. Therefore, if additional evidence is received in a particular case, that evidence will be weighed and considered on its merits. I hope this information has been helpful. Thank you for your concern and advocacy for our Nation’s Veterans. Sincerely, Allison A. Hickey Eric Shinseki or Tom Murphy