National Academies Press: OpenBook

The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests (2000)

Chapter: Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program

« Previous: References
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 129
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 130
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 131
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 132
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 133
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 134
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 135
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 136
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 137
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 138
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 139
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 140
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 141
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 142
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 143
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 144
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 145
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 146
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 147
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 148
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 149
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 150
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 151
Suggested Citation:"Appendix A: A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program." Institute of Medicine. 2000. The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/9697.
×
Page 152

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

APPENDIX A A Review of the Dosimetry Data Available in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program This appendix contains a reprint of A Review of the Dosimetry Data Avail- able in the Nuclear Test Personnel Review Program: An Interim Letter Report of the Committee to Study the Mortality of Military Personnel Present at Atmos- pheric Tests of Nuclear Weapons to the Defense Nuclear Agency, which was delivered to the agency on 15 May 1995. 89

APPENDIXA hIr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 2 Committee with broad expertise in biostatistics, uncerta~ntf analysis, environmental dosimetry dose assessment, and health physics. The Five-Series Comrriittee has carefully scrutinized Me information presented to it by the Working Group and has prepared this interim letter report to document its findings and conclusions. The objective of the Working Group was to determine whether doses that have been assigned lo the Atomic Veterans and entered into the database of the NTPR program can be used as a basis for dose-response analysis in the Five-Series Study. The Working Group reviewed dose-related fields contained in the NTPR database and the methods used to estimate doses. The review considered four criteria that, ideally, should be applied when generating dose data for an epidemiologic study: (1) consistency in the technical approach, (2) nondifferential methods of dose assignment, (3) quality assurance, and (4) application of uncertainty analysis. The Worlcing Group held discussions with NTPR staff who are involved in the dosimetry and reviewed printouts of the NTPR database, as well as files of specific veterans for whom individualized doses have been determined. The Working Group concluded that there has been a lack of consistency over time in NTPR dose estimation methods and, in particular, in the methods of assigning "high-sided" doses, that is, doses in which uncertainties are resolved in favor of assigning higher doses rather than lower doses. In some cases, because of Tic existing compensation program, procedures for assigning doses have been different for those who did and did not file a claim for a radiogenic cancer. Neither Me dose assignment methods nor the database itself are thoroughly documented. In addition, uncertainties have not been estimated in a consistent manner and do not incorporate all potential sources of variability inherent in the dosimetry. The Working Group, therefore, concludes that the NTPR dose data are not suitable for dose-response analysis. This conclusion is based on the fact that the NTPR dose data were based on incomplete records, were developed primarily for the purpose of ensuing appropriate follow-up for participating veterans and do not meet the particular standards needed for use in epidemiologic research. The Worldog Group believes, based on its review, that comprehensive dose reconstructions Inay be feasible for a limited subset of veterans who participated in Me above ground nuclear test program. If doses on this population are required for epidemiologic purposes, they should be recalculated according to the fundamental principles described in this report. OBJECTIVES OF 1~; DOSI1METRY WORKING GROUP The Medical Follow-up Agency KAFKA) of the IOM is underwing a 5-year study to evaluate the mortality cxpericocc of military personnel, the atomic veterans, who participated in at least one of Five~cries of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests during Me period 1951- 1957. The principal purpose of the study is to ascertain whether morality from lcuicemias, other cancers, or any other diseases has occurred at a higher rate among participants in 91

92 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 3 atmospheric nuclear weapon tests compared with a similar group of veterans who were not participants. For additional background on the study and the IOM committee overseeing it, see Appendix A. As initially planned, the study would utilize participant identification and radiation exposure data provided by the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) of the Department of Defense (DoD). In designing the study protocol, the committee recommended that the dosunetry assignments for the Five-Series personnel be evaluated for the purpose of this epidemiologic study. To conduct this review, the committee constituted a working group with expertise in dose reconstruction, environmental transport of radionuclides, uncertainty analysis, measurement and dosumetry techniques, general health physics, and statistics. The Dosimetry Working Group roster is provided as Appendix B. The Working Group recognizes that dosimetry data could yield valuable insights into a dose-response relationship for an epidemiologic analysis, if they were derived from specific information that characterizes the veteran's duties at the time of his participation in the weapons tests and if they were estimated in a consistent and well-documented manner. The Working Group also understands that the NTPR database was developed primarily for the purposes of responding to veterans' inquiries about radiation exposures and as a basis for providing appropriate follow-up and settling claims for compensation in accordance with federal regulations. Furthermore, it iS apparent that the NTPR database has evolved over a period of time (Appendix C) that has seen improvements in the state of the art of dosimetric methods, advances in uncertainty analysis, and further discovery and review of historical records. The objective of the Working Group, therefore, was to evaluate NTPR dosimetry with an eye toward its applicability in an epidemiologic study. The Working Group did so by reviewing relevant documentation; tracing the origin of several individual dose assignments; and comparing the methods used with those generally acceptable for epidemiologic analysis. PREVIOUS NRC REPORTS ON NTPR DOSE - Y The National Research Council (NRC) previously published two reports on dosimetry related to exposures of participants in atmospheric nuclear weapon tests. The first report, "Review of the Methods Used to Assign Radiation Doses to Service Personnel at Nuclear Weapons Tests,. (NRC, 1985a) advised the DNA on whether the methods used by N1TR to assign doses of radiation arc comprehensive and scientifically sound, and recommended improvements. The second report, Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests,. (NRC, 1989) was an in-depth evaluation of film badge dos~metry practices used during the weapons testing period, recording and record-keeping of dosimetric data, and overall uncertainties associated with the film badge readings. Neither of these reports, however, judged the feasibility of using NTPR dose data as the basis for epidemiologic analysis.

APPENDIX A Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 4 EVALUATION CRITERIA EMPLOYED BY 1~ WO~G GROW In its review, the Working Group considered four criteria that, ideally, should be met if dose estimates are to be useful in an epidemiologic study. Criteria used included (1) consistency in the technical approach, (2) nondifferential methods of dose assignment, (3) quality assurance, and (4) uncertainty analysis. A brief description of these criteria follows. Consistency in the Technical Approach Ideally, consistent methods should be applied to assigning doses to all subjects contained in the database. Algorithms used to estimate doses should be uniform from one subject lo the next. Assumptions made to permit calculations of dose in cases in which no physical dosimetry data are available should be applied uniformly among the study population. If there is a tendency to bias doses in either direction, the bias applied should also be incorporated into each dose assignment. This consistency is crucial to successful merging of individual dosimetry with individual effects data for use in an epidemiologic study. Nondifferential Methods of Dose Assignment Dose assignment methods should not differ for individuals who were made known to NTPR because they or their surrogate fiend a clarion for compensation versus those who did not. If veterans who developed leukemia and filed a claim, for example, were assigned doses by methods that systematically differed from those used to assign doses to veterans who have never filed a claim, then this could produce serious bias In e~ratuat~g the dose-response relationship between radiation exposure and leukemia mortality. Quality Assurance Ideally, there should be comprehensi~c documentation of both the methods used to determine doses and the individual dose assignments. Ash dose should be traceable and capable of being recalculated through donunentation. It is important to document methods as actually applied, such as the algorithms applied (for dosimetry and urine), pua~s used (and associated distributions), assumptions regarding scenarios of e~c, and default values included when data arc not available, as wail as medication of data espy. A carefill audit trail would allow any corrections that had been made over talc to the persons assigned 93

94 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 5 dose to be retraced. Mathematical models estimating doses should also be tested to compare predicted results to measured values. Uncertainty Analysis Significant advances have been made over the past decade in the analysis of uncertainty for environmental dose analysis. Current state-of-the-art environmental dosirnetry requires quantitatively deriving best dose estimates coupled with associated uncertainties. Uncertainties should account for all possible sources of bias, including modeling bias, parameter bias, and parameter variability. To be most useful for the Five-Series Study, unbiased best estimates of dose should be bounded by a range that indicates the degree of subjective confidence. REVIEW PROCESS The Working Group met twice, once on 12-13 April 1994 and once on 16-17 May 1994. Both meetings were held in Washington, D.C. Prior to its first meeting, the Working Group was provided with background material on the NTPR program (Appendix D). On 12 April, the Working Group received briefings by Mr. D. M. Schaeffer of DNA on the NTPR database and Dr. W. J. KIemm of Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC) on dose assessment methods. The Working Group devoted considerable time to understanding the methods used in assigning doses and building and maintaining the NTPR database. On 13 April, the Working Group made site visits to JAYCOR and SAIC to review pertinent records. This review included documentation of methodologies, dose assignment policies, records from the NTPR database, and files of individual participants. At its second meeting, the Working Group reviewed additional information and drafted its report for the Five Series Committee. Upon receiving the report, the hill committee carefully scrut~n~d the information presented to it by the Working Group and prepared this interim letter report to document its findungs and conclusions.

APPENDIXA 95 Mr. I). Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 6 OBSERVATIONS The NTPR Database The NTPR database contains the following categories of information: personal identification and information related to claims, cause of death, etc.; records of correspondence sent by the DNA; dud assignments and intervals of participation for specific test series; · dose assigrunents obtained from dosimetry records; dose assignments derived by reconstruction; and, total doses by test series and summed across all series combined. Individual fields contain codes that identify results, explanations, sources of information, and so on (Appendix E). The dose estimates entered Into the database may be derived from film badges, dose reconstructions, a combination of the two, or from other sources. The ideal dose estimates are those based on undamaged badges actually worn by the individual during that person's entire time of participation in atmospheric tests. Such instances, however, are rare for series conducted before 1955. In the more typical case, the film badge results do not account for the participant's complete exposure and doses are reconstructed, if a reconstruction has been requested. When the badge records are available, the results of the separate badge readings are itemized in the database, along with the corresponding dates and identifiers for each badge. The corresponding identifiers provide a link to the badges stored at Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company (REECo) in Las Vegas, Nevada. Following this variable-length record, which accounts for the separate dose contributions, the estimated total gamma dose assigned to a person is given as the sum across badges catered for each series. In this way, We database allows entry of separate badge doses as well as a total dose for all external gamma dose contributions within each of the series in which that person has participated. When a dose reconstruction has been carried out, the reconstructed doses are stored in the same manner, accounting for interval-specific,and total doses. No uncertainty estimate is given and there is no data field for upper or lower bounds on the estimated total dose. Although data fields for the internal dose estimates exist in the NTPR database, most individuals do not have internal dose estimates entered into these fields. As described earlier, undividual records contained in the dose field are also accompanied by Wee fields explaining how the dose was derived (Appendix F): data soured, dose explanation, and dosimetry type. The dosimetry type field has 55 numeric codes for diffcrcat methods of dose assignment, including, for example, .~0-no dose assigned,.

96 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Fir. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 7 "423-extremity TLD dose assigned by investigation," and "455-exposure assigned to cohort member based on more than another cohort film badge, wearer ur~own." In this field, there are also alphabetic codes that indicate the minimum detection level (MDL) for the specific type of film badge used. These possible MDLs range from 10 rnrem lo 120 rnrem. It is not clear whether this information on the MDL is ever provided. Ambiguities in interpreting the dose data may arise because of missing information in the NTPR database. Appendix G illustrates such an example by using a case presented to the Worlcing Group at its site visit to JAYCOR. In this case, four separate film badge readings are listed for the veteran's participation in Operation CASTLE. It is not clear, however, whether these readings were based on individual or cohort badges, since the dosimetry type field (T1) is left blank for all four badge readings. After reviewing the SAIC dose reconstruction report, however, it became clear that the first of Me four readings is identified as a cohort badge reading, whereas the remaining three readings are identified as being individual badges issued to the veteran. In cohort badging, film badges were often issued to representative personnel in units with common activities and equivalent relationships to the radiation environment. It is important to note, however, that when the dosirnetry type code corresponds to 34, "exposure assigned to cohort based on average of several film badges,. it is difficult to know exactly what dose assignment method was used. Sometimes, a dose was assigned Mat is equal to the mean of the cohort badges plus two standard deviations (97.5 percentile). This is in accord with the methods to be used for assigning radiation doses as described In the Federal Register (50 FR 42258 October 21, 1985). In other instances, the average dose was assigned. Because these instances are not identifiable in the database, it cannot be determined whether the former method was chosen or whether the average was actuady assigned. This ambiguity is further complicated by the fact that summing across a number of 97.5 percentile levels yields a total dose that is at an even higher percentile. Although the dose data have been updated over time, the history of dose estimate changes is not traceable in the NTPR database, since only the latest dose assigs~nes~t for each period of exposure is maintained, asked the reason for change is not specified. This is illustrated in AppendL'c G. It may be possible to trace the dose assignment history by using transaction record tapes maintains by REECo since 1988. Even if full transaction records were to exist, however, the policy decisions on which the changes were based may not be available. The NTPR database includes a field for on upadoslal code of the pardcspaot at the time of a test series. However, it appears that this field is usually vocal Even after a dose reconstruction that includes use of an ocalpatios)a1 title and grade, the corresponding code is not always entered in Tic database (see Appendices G and H). The NTPR database does not contain the veterans' military specialty codes for the period of participation in weapons tests, for subsequent periods of service, or at the time of discharge. Such information would be unportant for tracking potential occupational exposures to radiation subsequent to series exposure. For example, it is highly likely that veterans who were involved in radiological

APPENDLYA Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 8 sciences during their service have continued to be involved as civilians in occupations related to nuclear power or radiological sciences. In those eases, subsequent radiation doses may outweigh the doses received during weapons tests. Film Badge Dosimetry The pnneipal source of film badge information is the REECo master file located in Ids Vegas. In reviewing the badge information, the Working Group found that correction factors recommended by the previous NRC committees had not been applied consistently to NIPR dose assignments. The two NRC eotsunittees, (1985a, 1989) noted that film badge readings were biased high for actual exposures. It was also noted that die deep dose equivalent in rem would be only 0.8 to 0.9 of die true exposure in roentgens (NRC, 1989). The latter NRC committee had recommended corrections for overall bias ranging from 1.1 to 1.4, Hat is the badge readings should be divided by these correction factors to obtain He best estimate. The DNA did not adopt these correction factors to modify film badge results. Instead, it has established policy that Film badge readings expressed in terms of roentgens (R) or its subunits shall be converted directly to dose equivalent in rem, i.e. 1.0 roentgen equals 1.0 rem. This factor allows an unequivocal traceability of film badge doses direedy to source records containing film badge readings. Conversion to deep-dose equivalent and the associated bias factor (1.3) shall not be applied (NIPR, 1992). In the ease of Operation REDWING, the NBC (1989) recommended no bias correction for environmentally damaged badges. By utilizing new findings on He REDWING badges, however, DNA concluded that Judging from recent dose re~onstruetions and film badge analysis by SAIC, it is evident that the NAS guidance is incomplete and appropriate action must be taken to portray REDWING doses more accurately (analysis of REDWING Film Badges," RARP/NTPR memorandum, 9 October 1992). Subsequent to dds policy decision, however, DNA decided Hat it will revise REDWING film badge doses only as required to support veterans applying for compensation from He Department of Veterans Affairs. The correction factors recommended by the NRC Committee (1989) do not account for additional biases introduced when an unbadged individual's dose is derived from cohort badge data. Originally, badging was not done in order to cshmate individual exposures for epidemiologic purposes, but rawer to verify that radiation safeq limits were not exceeded. During the GREENHOUSE and UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE series, and to some degree in the CASTLE series, cohort badging was oRen used to represent the entire unit or group. Dosuneters, however, also tended to be assigned to radiation monitors "d others who were expected to receive the highest doses. According to the DNA, the number of participants whose dose data were derived from film badges varied substantially for the Fivc~eries participants (see Table 1). The overall fraction of individual Five~erics participants with doses based on film badge data is 97

98 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 9 approximately one-half. This number of badged personnel, however, can be misleading. The primary reason is that it does not represent the number of participants who actually wore undamaged badges during their entire period of exposure, for whom good dosimetry data can be obtained. TABLE 1. Description of Approximate Numbers of Participants, Number of Personnel Issued Personal Dosimerers (film badges), and Dosimeter Correction Factors as Determmed by the NBC (1989). Test Series No. of No. of Badged Dosimeter Correction (B) Participants ' Participants ' and Uncertain (K) Factors b GREENHOUSE 7,723 (1951, Pacific) 2,317 (30%) B = 1.4; K = 2.0 UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE 17,062 2,282 (13%) B = 1.1; K = 1.5 (1953, Nevada) CASTLE 13,958 8,113 (58%) B = 1.3; K = 2.1 (1954, Pacific) REDWING (1956, Pacific) 13,540 11,044 (82%) B = 1.3; K = 1.5 PLUMBBOB (1957, 12,938 10,243 (79~) B = 1.3; K = 1.5 Nevada) Total 65,221 33,999 (52~) ~ NTPR data distributed to the Working Group by ONA on 12 April }994. b B = estimated bias correction (divide by this number to obtain the corrected dose). K = estimated geometric uncertainty factor, as recommended by NRC (1989). 9S ~e confidence limits on a single badge dose can be obtained by multiplying the badge reading, after correcting for bias, by (1/~ and K. The following reasons explain why these film badge data would not be a suitable subset of NTPR dosimetry information for use in epidemiologic studies: · an undetermined number of these badges (REDWING) may have been environmentally damaged by high temperature, high humidity, water or light leaks (NRC, 1989);

APPENDIXA hIr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 10 · some of these individuals may have been assigned doses based upon cohort badging (CASTLE, GREENHOUSE, and UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE); · some film badges lacked adequate identifying information to uniquely link them lo an individual (CASTLE); · although an individual may have been badged in one series, he may have participated in other series for which he was not badged; · in some instances, the dose is based solely on the individual's medical records, which listed film badge doses without clear explanation as to whether they covered the person's entire exposure period; and · for certain series (GREENHOUSE), only one date (e.g., date of issue) was recorded for film badges, so that the actual interval of exposure is unknown. Reconstructed doses When film badge dose data were not available or were incomplete, or when there was reason to believe that these data did not adequately characterize the actual exposure, alternative approaches were sometimes used to estimate doses. All approaches commonly involve the investigation of individual or group activities and their relationship to the radiation environment. First, if it was apparent that personnel were not present in the radiation environment-that is, personnel were far distant from the nuclear test(s) and did not experience fallout or enter the fallout area-and had no other potential for exposure, then the assigned dose was zero. Second, if some members of a group had film badge readings and others who did not wear film badges had a common relationship with the radiation environment, NTPR used cohort badging to derive individual doses for unbadged personnel. Third, when sufficient badge readings or a common relationship to the radiation exposure did not exist, doses were sometimes reconstructed. Consistent application of these methods to assign doses did not begin, however, until after 1987, when the DNA consolidated the individual service databases. For example, doses to typical crew members on ships may have been reconstructed from radiation surrey measurements and assumptions of time spent topside and below decics (Thomas et al., 1982). In some instances, different approaches were taken. In the case of UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, observers without badges were assigned the highest dose measured among the observers who wore badges, regardless of how long they were there. There was an apparent lack of consistency between the Army and Nary approaches in assigning reconstructed doses. When the DNA consolidated t.hc service NTPR teams, the Navy provided documentation of the lend of confidence associated with assigned doses, whereas the Army did not. The Working Group found no Air Force documentation on the rationale or confidence lc~cl for assigned doses. 99

100 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 1 1 Most of the reconstructed doses were based on units or groups, but there were approximately 560 cases of some 70,000 Five-Series participants for whom the doses were reconstructed on an individual basis. Once an atomic veteran has developed cancer and he or his surrogates have filed a claim for health or death benefits, a set of institutional responses is set in motion. Typically, and especially if he developed a radiogenic Foxhall of cancer such as leukemia, the DNA requests that SAIC undertake an individualized dose reconstruction. Because the individualized dose reconstructions cost about $3,000 each, the process is generally only carried out if there is a specific institutional or legal need for a refined estimate. All periods of potential exposure are identified and examined to verify as accurately as possible the duty assignment and actual locations that the veteran claimed. Film badge data are reviewed for validity. Sufficient information might have been obtained from these additional verification steps to allow a more rigorous dose assignment method than was possible for a unit- or group-based reconstruction. Thus, by filing a claim for which a reconstruction is needed, a participant may be assigned a dose that is derived differently from the one he would have had, had he not filed a claim. lithe possibility of this type of differential dose assignment was a significant concern to the-Working Group. Because the original dose assigned by a unit-based reconstruction may not be recoverable once an individualized dose has been calculated, one cannot revert to any set of dose estimates that can be assumed to be based on a methodology that is comparable for those who filed a claim for a radiogenic cancer and those who did not. The Working Group attempted to quantify possible bias in the Five-Series dose data that could have resulted from different treatment of those who had individualized reconstructions and those who did not. This was done by comparing the dose entered in the data file for the 1985 Five Series Study (NRC, 1985b) with that in the current data file for all participants whose name had been referred to SAIC for an individualized dose reconstruction and for a comparison group of participants who had not had an individualized reconstruction. Participants with individualized reconstructions were more likely than those without to have had their doses modified between 1985 and 1994. In both individualized and nonindividualized groups, when there was a change in the assigned dose it was much more likely to be an increase than a decrease. When individuals whose doses did not change over time were eliminated from consideration, no differences were found in the pattern of changes in dose between Me individualized and nonindividualized groups. That is, between these two groups, no difference was detected in the proportion of participants who fell into categories defined by whether their doses went down, went up by a little (up to 1 rem), or went up by a lot (more than 1 rem). Thus, for those individuals whose dose did change, it did not appear to make a difference whether they received an individual reconstruction or not. This suggests that the individualized dose reconstruction methodology was not systematically biased relative to the generic "cleaning" of the data.

APPENDIX A Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 12 These findings do not, however, allay one of the Working Group's most serious concerns over differential dose assignment-that individualized doses could have experienced a significantly different pattern of change than nonindividualized doses. Those with an individualized dose were much more likely than those without to have had their dose revised upward. Such a differential pattern could bias any dose-response analysis if cancer cases are more likely than noncases to have an individualized dose reconstruction. Further details of this assessment are given in Appendix I. In reconstructing doses, the radiation environment was characterized in time and space, as were the activities of the unit or group. The physical models used by SAlC have been calibrated to the dose data that were collected as part of the detonation experiments, along fixed radials (at the Nevada Test Site), or on ships (at the Pacific Proving Grounds), or at fixed locations on the islands. For periods of participation that were not captured by the individual's personnel dosimetry (usually badging), the external gamma dose is calculated at SAIC by applying the computer model to integrate the time-dependent dose rate over the appropriate path, using what is known or can be surmised about the person's movements through space and time and his activities in the radiation environment. When there are qualitative uncertainties (e.g., uncertainty about which ship the person was on during the particular dates), high-sided assumptions are usually employed to resolve them, in order to award the veteran the highest plausible dose. There are other scenarios under which high-sidedness may be unposed, apparently to give the veteran the benefit of the doubt. For example, a memo from SAIC to NTPR dated September 1993 overturned the dose reconstruction for a participant in GREENHOUSE (1951) in favor of the dose found in a medical record. Quoting from the memo, "...medical record doses for April and May 1951 are 0.25 rem and 0.6 rem ... Because this value is greater than Me sum of his film badge dose for 8-13 April (0.095 R) and his reconstructed dose for 14 April to 28 May (0.212 rem) it is retained as the veteran's dose of record while he was in CABILDO from 8 April to 28 May." Ideally, reconstructed doses include calculations of doses from internal (inhaled) radioactivity, based on duration of direct exposure to airborne fallout and/or to resuspended particles during activities in contaminated areas. Even though the assumptions of airborne concentrations of respirable particles appear to be exaggerated, and calculations are deliberately high-sided (as noted in some of the individual records examined by the Working Group), the internal dose contributions to total dose are generally negligible and would not significantly affect the lifetime doses that would be used in an epidemiologic study. The DNA documented the methods currently being used by NTPR to estimate doses (Schaeffer, 1993). This compilation was provided to the Working Group for its considerations. 101

102 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY NIr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 13 CONCLUSIONS Based on its findings, the Working Group concluded the following for each of the evaluation criteria. Consistency in the Technical Approach The NTPR database reflects numerous types of inconsistencies that compromise its reliability as a basis for epidemiologic study. There was an apparent lack of consistency between the Army and Navy approaches in assigning reconstructed doses. There have been irreversible biases in dose assignments introduced as a matter of policy, but these policies have not been consistent over the life of the NTPR database. Because of these policy changes, repeated dose reconstructions for the same individual do not always agree, but the reasons for the discrepancies and the extent of the bias are not readily apparent. Although there is anecdotal evidence that individual doses may have been greatly underestimated in individual cases, the overall tendency may have been to overestimate both external and internal doses. Nondifferential Dose Assigrunent Dose assignment methods applied to self-selected cases may have differed systematically from those applied to unit-based reconstructions, as additional steps are generally taken in self-selected cases to verify their activities in order to carefully estimate their exposure. This could seriously compromise a dose-response analysis. For example, suppose that doses assigned to self-selected cancer cases tend to be lower than those assigned to others who did not file a claim This could conceivably occur because original high-siding applied to the unit-based reconstructions is generally removed in Me cases of individualized reconstruction. In this instance, the form of the dose-response could be seriously distorted. IJsing information contained in the current NTPR database, it appears possible that the individualized recons~ucdons for cancer cases may tend to yield higher doses (Appendix I). Quality Assurance The NTPR database has been subject to only limited quality control. There has been lime peer review of the methods used and of Me actual dose assignments. There is no evidence that dose assignments are verified by an independent source over than the NRC conunittees' general reviews mentioned earlier. The originator of the dose recons~ucdon estimates (SAIC) did not have Anal responsibility for the data acutely entered in the JAYCOR database, and, in many instances, dose estimates were adjusted by representatives of tile armed

APPENDIX A Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 14 services without retrievable documentation or notification of those who initially performed the dose estimates. Documentation of methods used to assign doses in the NTPR database and documentation of individual doses are inadequate. Changes made to the database are not documented by date and reason, and the old dose data are not preserved in the NTPR database when replaced by updated estimates. Overall, the Working Group felt that documentation of both methods and individual dose assignments in the NTPR database was not sufficiently precise to permit its use for epidemiology. Uncertainty Analysis Although uncertainties have been determined for film badge readings, uncertainty analysis applied to estimated doses lacks comprehensiveness and is not state of the art. For example, uncertainties are not being estimated for error associated with using one member's film reading to infer a dose for another subject who did not wear a badge. No uncertainty estimates for the reconstructed doses are entered into the NTPR database. In summary, the Working Group concludes that the NTPR dose data are not suitable for dose-response analysis in epidemiology. This conclusion is based on the fact that the NTPR dose data were developed primarily for the purpose of ensuring appropriate follow-up for participating veterans and hence and do not meet standards acceptable for their use in epidemiologic research. The Working Group believes, based on its review, that comprehensive dose reconstructions may be feasible for a [united subset of veterans who participated in the above ground nuclear test program. If doses on this population are required for epidemiologic purposes, they should be recalculated according to the following fundamental principles: · An a pnori methodology should be established for the dose reconstruction. The methodology should identify mathematical models to be applied, distributions of parameters, and basic assumptions anticipated in dose analysis. · The objective of the reconstruction should be to derive a "best estimate" of dose with associated uncertainty. · Doses should be assigned, to the greatest extent possible, with a system that will ensure consistency and minimize subjectivity. · Uncertainties should be determined by applying state of the art techniques that incorporate all possible sources of bias and parameter variability. . The dose assignment method should account for doses to specific organs of interest. 103

104 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page 15 · The dose assignment procedure should incorporate plans for quality assurance, including documentation of methods, testing of models used, and verification of data processing. · Doses should be assigned without knowledge of subjects' health status or previous dose assignments. Sincerely, ~'~'V~ W. ,, Clarlc W. Heath, Jr., M.D. Chain?lan Committee on He Mortality of Military Pcrsome1 Present at Atmospheric Tests of Nuclear Weapons If- \~ / John E. I ill, Ph.D. ( Chainnan) ' \~ Working Group

APPENDIXA hIr. D. Michael Schaeffer May Is, 1995 Page 16 REFERENCES Defense Nuclear Agency. "For the Record-A History of the Nuclear Test Persome Review, 1978-1986~; 1986 50 Federal Register 42258; 21 October 1985. I:lor WJ and Goes IL. "DoO Experience with Dose Reconstructions for Atmospheric Test Veterans." Presented at the Environmental Radiation and Public Policy Symposium, Las Vegas, Nevada; October 1991. National Research Council. Review of the Methods Used to Assign Radiation Doses to Service Personnel at Nuclear Weapons Tests. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1985a. National Research Council. Mortality of Iluctear Weapons Test Participants. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1985b. National Research Council. Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests. Washington, D.C., National Academy Press, 1989. Nuclear Test Personnel Review. Policy Note 02-92, Defense Nuclear Agency RARP; 6 July 1992. Schaeffer DM. Defense Nuclear Agency. Compilation of Dose Reconstruction Methodology; 3 December 1993. Schaeffer DM. Defense Nuclear Agency. Presentation to the Dosunetry Working Group; April 1994. Thomas C, et al., Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Shipyard Naval Personnel, Operation GREENlIOUSE,. Science Applications International Corporation 83-874-WA; 30 July 1982. 105

106 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 APPl;NDI=S

APPENDIX A Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page A-1 A Background of the Five Series Study and the Study Committee Roster From 1946 through 1962, the U.S. government conducted more than 230 atmospheric tests of nuclear weapons, mainly at the Nevada Test Site and at the Pacific Proving Ground. It is estimated that some 220,000 DoD personnel, both military and civilian, participated in these tests. In 1979 the Centers for Disease Control published a report noting an apparent increase in leukemia among the participants present at shot SMOKY, which was detonated in Nevada in 1957. In 198S, the Medical Follow-up Agency (MFUA) of the National Academy of Sciences reported the results of a study of mortality of more than 49,000 Iriilitary participants attending five nuclear weapon test series, including shot SMOKY. The study reported no consistent, statistically significant evidence of an increase in mortality from any disease other than leukemia among participants at SMOKY. In 1989, MFUA learned from the Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) that the cohort of atomic veterans on which MFUA based its 1985 study contained misclassification errors. Subsequent investigations by the General Accounting Office and the Office of Technology Assessment concluded that the changes in participant numbers and dose estimates were large enough to require that the study be redone. Subsequent to these reports, MFUA was asked to redo the 1985 study. The principal purpose of this study is to ascertain whether mortality from leukemia, other cancers, or other diseases has occurred at a higher rate among participants at atmospheric nuclear weapon tests including SMOKY compared with a similar group of veterans who were not participants. This second follow-up study will utilize updated participant identification and radiation exposure data provided by DNA for the same five series of nuclear tests. To conduct the current study, the IOM has established a committee of 10 members representing a range of expertise in epidemiolog ,, biostatistics, radiation biology, radiation medicine, military records, and health physics. . . Center for Disease Control, Leukemia among persons prose at Ail a~mospAcnc nuclear test (SMOKY). M~WR 21:361-362, 1979. 107

08 ~ ~ _S~F Mr. D. Michael Schaefer May I, 1993 Page A-2 H~ C~c~, AD. Pm~"or Dcp~= of _~_en~ Hew ~ ~m-~ U~vcni~ of Wan Scacllc, WA Rig_ J. M. a, ~ a. Colt of ~ - Barlow Dlvisl~ of mdgo Committee to Study 1be ~oMellty of ~111to~ Pe~onne' ~ W. ma, h~ AD. Vim ~ for En_ ~ Saga Apia Car - age, G^ S_1 fame, H.D, (~M) aPair Dh`-ls~d Scale Professor Tic Dep~coc of Ideation ~ Cells Oncology at us of aim Chat, IL a, AD, ~^~ Revlon Epi~^lo~ BE Nook India of Had Notion Car Ad_ Ha, MD ~11~ G. Age, M.^. Sear am ados Pc~ ~- ~,~0 Jog E. T111, Pa. Presidem Radlologl~ ^ssessmc~ Co-=don act, SC Cal= R. Ala, AD. M~c~dc~ S=bllc~ Page of ~- Blolo~ Medics Eliot Ad_ of ~_n~ Heat Scion R0_~ ~8k ~ NC Riches N. Miller, M.D., MFu^ Director J. stair am, as., Say Dl~tor ~,~ Hack Cam, Mar of Dog M_ ~ =~m M. H. am, B.S., alar Afar Sag, B.S., - ~0 am. ~ -_ ~4 ma-, -= ^ Dad G. ~1, AD. go "= H. ~Wi , M.D., AD. boa ~ gap ~D. ~-

109 Mr. D. Michael Schemer ma, 1 Pago B-1 B Doomed ~~ng Group Doer Co~ittce to Saw He Goalie of Milieu Persona P=sem at A~spbedc less of Nuclei Weapon Dos-~ Wowing Group Em, ~ Posing, ~iolog~al Assess~= Commotion am, SC a. Owen Hogan, Pb.D. SEND of Oak Ridge, I=. ~,~ 1 _~ Dep~m of Etiology Head Oliver of USA Sag ~ Cay, k~ Or Is Ems ~1 Bogy ~_, ~ C1~ R. any, ED.* ~~ of ~^1 Blolo~ - Edna of E=~- _, -Co^ ** ~[ ~- ~ Sly

0 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer NIay 15, 1995 Page C-1 C Background of the N1 PR Program In 1978, shortly after DNA became the DoD executive agency for matters per~in~ng to participants of DoD personnel in the atmospheric nuclear tests, DNA established the NTPR program. The NTPR program was responsible for the following tasks (DNA, 1986): · developing a history of every atmospheric nuclear event that involved DoD personnel; · identifying He radiation monitoring control policies and procedures that were in effect; · identifying DoD personnel involved in the atmospheric nuclear tests and providing estimates of their radiation exposures; · making this snfo~lation available for scientific review and appraisal; and · handling Congressional and public affairs matters. Initially, DNA directed each individual military service to conduct the NTPR research on its own persoMe1 and to develop its own database for the NTPR. In an effort to ensure that the information was collected consistently across services, DNA specified data fields for each of He service LITER databases. However, the DNA did not specify to He services how the available data were to be used in assigning doses. In 1987, DNA consolidated the individual NTPR teams into a single team and merged the data from the separate services. To assist it in executing the NTPR program, DNA employed three contractors: JAYCOR, Science Applications International Corporation (SAIC), and Reynolds Electrical & Engineering Company (REECo) (DNA, 1994, D.M. Schaeffer presentation to the Dosimetry Working Group, April 1994). Historical research and database services were provided by JAYCOR. Its findings are used to verify participation of veterans in the atmospheric nuclear weapon tests and lo provide the historical basis for dose reconstructions. It also maintains the NTPR database that documents veterans' participation, VA claims history, most recently assigacd dose and other related information. Dose reconstruction services were provided by SAIC using historical information provided by JAYCOR. The ~master. nuclear testing dosunetry database, originally developed for the Department of Energy, is ~ Stained by REECo (Flor and Goetz, 1990). The process of identifying participants and estimating their doses is a continuing one. Participant rosters and exposure assessments are updated as federal criteria for inclusion evolve and as additional historical records arc found providing new unit games or over information used for dose assignment. When DNA assigns or changes a veteran's dose, the new dose is entered into the NTPR database and is also forwarded to REECo, which updates the veteran's dose in its database. While the NTPR database has kept only Tic most recent

APPENDIX A Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page C-2 dose estimate. REECo has retained transaction records since 1988 for previously assigned doses (personal communication, DM Schaeffer, DNA, 31 May 1994). 111

112 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page D-1 D Background Materials Provided to the Working Group Prior to its First Meeting · A "Dose Reconstruction Methodology" binder provided by the DNA. Contained in this document is the FEDERAL REGISTER notice of 21 October 1985, Guidance for the Determination and Reporting of Nuclear Radiation Dose for DoD Participants in the Atmospheric Nuclear Test Program." The binder also contains excerpts from relevant documents describing the methodologies for reconstructing external doses based on field surveys and internal doses from resuspension and inhalation of fallout. "DoD Experience with Dose Reconstructions for Atmospheric Test Veterans "Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Shipyard Naval Personnel, Operation GREENHOUSE. "Neutron Exposure for DoD Nuclear Test Personnel.

APPENDIXA LAST TRANSACTION over 5 it- RADIOGENIC CLAIM- DEATH IND- CANCER IND- Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page E-1 NTPR Database Fields Relevant to this Review "ID INFORMATION" date of last record update indicates that the total dose exceeds 5 rem in 12 consecutive months indicates a VA claim for a radiogenic cancer, with claim number, ICD-8 codes, VA Regional Office and Court of Veterans Appeals indicated in the following fields. "PERS INFORMATION" indicates the individual has died; subsequent fields indicate date and cause. indicates the individual has cancer. "CORR INFORMATION" CORK CODE- Column 1 contains code letter for type of response: File A letter C: Congressional letter P: Freedom of Information I: J~vi~ V: VA 0: Other ·Aa exunpk of ~ N1PR P=*~ I~on~oa Flo u ~ in ~DK G-1. 113

114 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY hIr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 199S Page E-2 "SERIES INFORMATION" This section contains general infonnation about the participant's stands during a specific test senes. PAR CAT- OCCUP- participant category code occupation code at time of series (usually vacant) "UNIT INFORMATION" This section indicates the specific unit assignment and inclusive dates of participation in the test series, as well as the individual's permanent unit assigrunent. "BADGED DOSES. BADGED DATE- GAMMA- E1 and E2- T1 and T2- BEECo NUM- T13RN-~ and PROC-DT contains start and ending dates for each badge record. contains the dose of record (mrem), which is usually the film badge reading; the number following the colon indicates the source of the assigned dose. contain codes for an explanation of the dose assignment. contain codes that indicate type of dosimetry worn, e.g., .01:34. refers to a Field packet dosimeter. with the source being the ~REECo dosimetry princely source documents.. is tl~e al Or Hat provides the link to REECo records; this is usually a film packet ID Member. contain dates badges were owned in and processed, but lacy are usually vacant "RECONSIRUCIED DOSES. These fields contain information from reconstruction Hat is similar to badged doses with He following exceptions: LOW and HIGH- indicate the range of possible gamma dosa.

APPENDIX A CHG-DT- RECON ID- BPCD- 115 Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page E-3 indicates the date the reconstructed dose was entered in the database. identifies the reconstruction documentation by data. "INTERNAL DOSES" indicates the organ receiving the dose shown in the DOSE column.

116 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page F-1 Source Codes for NTPR Data Fields Relevant to this Review Provided by DNAIJAYCOR

APPENDIXA DATA ELEMENT 62-66 DOSIMETRY TYPE CODE TABLE 01 FIELD PACKS DOSIMETER 02 TLD 03 POCKET DOSIMETER 04 IN VIVO COUNT 05 WHOLE BODY COUNT 06 BIOASSAY RESULT 07 INVESTIGATION ASSIGNED BY DOSE RATE 08 INVESTIGATION ASSIGNED BY OVER BADGED PERSON 09 INVESTIGATION ASSIGNED FROM DAMAGED FILM 10 CALCULATED FROM LOCATION 11 CALCULATED FROM fALLOUT 12 CHEMICAL DOSIMETER 13 NRDS PENETRATION-NONPENETRATING DOSIMETRY 14 TLD NEUTRON DOSIMETER 15 NTA FAST NEUTRON FILM PACKS 16 ACCIDENT DOSIMETRY 17 ASSIGNED FROM AtR CONCENTRATION 18 EXTREMITY DOSIM£TRY-FILM 19 EXTREMITY DOSIMETRY-TLD 20 NO DOSE ASSIGNED 21 DOSIh/IETER TYPE UNKNOWN ANDIOR DOSIMETER NUMBER ASSIGNED BY REECO (WHEN DOSIMETER NUMBER IS BLANK, AND THERE IS A PERMANENT OR MISSION BADGE DOSE) 22 FILM PACKS DOSIMt~ tR, DOSE ASSIGNED BY tN~SnGA~ON 23 EXTREMITY TLD DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVESTIGATION 24 NEUTRON TLD, DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVESrlGAllON 25 NTA FAST NUt I kON FttM, DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVE=GA~ON 26 DOSE WPE UNMOWN, DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVE=GA~ON 27 KODAK FILM WITH Ma AS ~R" POSITION OF FIN NUMBS 28 KODAK FI~t Wt~ ~J. ~ HR~ POSITION OF HWt NUMBER, DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVESTIGATION 29 DOSE ASSIGNED BY HEALTH PHYSICIST EVALUATION 30 RECONSTRUCTION OF REECO R~ BADGE RECORDS 31 TLD CARD, DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVESTIGATION 32 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT FROM COHORT MEMBER FILM BADGE 117 Revised Ott 1, t993

118 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY DATA ELEMENT 62-66 DOSIMETRY TYPE CODE TABLE 33 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COffORT BASED ON AVERAGE OF SHIP EXPOSURE 34 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BASED ON AVERAGE OF SEVERAL FILM BADGES 35 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BASED ON ·LESS THAN ANOTHER COHORT BADGE EXPOSURE. 36 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BASED ON 'MORE MAN ANOTHER COHORT BADGE EXPOSURE. 37 RESIDUAL OR ADDITIONAL EXPOSURE IN flNAL REPORTS, NOT FOUND tN DOSIMETRY SOURCE DOCUMENTS 38 DOSE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BASED ON HIGH EXPOSURE OF SHIP 39 EVIDENCE INDICATES PAR~CIPA~ DID NOT WEAR ASSIGNED FILM BADGE 40 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BADGE WEARER FROM COHORT FILM BADGE. 41 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BADGE WEARER BASED ON AVERAGE OF SHtP EXPOSURE. 42 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BADGE WEARER BASED ON AVERAGE OF SEVERAL FILM BADGES. EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT MEMBER fROM COHORT FILM BADGE, WEARER UNKNOWN. 44 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT MEMBER BASED ON AVERAGE OF SHIP EXPOSURE, WEARER UNKNOWN. 45 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT MEMBER BASED ON AVERAGE OF SEVERAL FILM BADGES, WEARER UNKNOT. 46 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BADGE WEARER BASED ON LESS UtAN ANOTHER COHORT RIM BADGE 47 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BADGE WEARER BASED ON MORE THAN ANOTHER COHORT FILM BADGE 48 OPTICAL DENSITY USED ERRONEOUSLY TO DE I ERMINE EXPOSURES 49 NO DOSE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BADGE MEMBER 50 NO DOSE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BADGE W"R~ 5t NO DOSE ASSIGNED TO COHORT. MEMBER, BADGE WEARER UNKNOWN. 2

APPENDIX A DATA ELEMENT 62-66 HOSIERY TYPE CODE TABLE DOSE ASSIGNED TO COHORT BADGE WEARER BASED ON HIGH EXPOSURE OF SHIP. 53 DOSE ASSIGNED TO COHORT MEMBER BASED ON HIGH EXPOSURE OF SHIP 54 DOSE ASSIGNED TO COHORT MEMBER BASED ON LESS THAN ANOTHER COHORT FILM BADGE, WEARER UNKNOWN 55 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED TO COHORT MEMBER BASED ON MORE THAN ANOTHER COHORT FILM BADGE,WEARER UNKNOWN MA FILM BADGE: M8 FILM BADGE: MC FILM BADGE: MD FILM BADGE: ME FI'M BADGE: OF FILM BADGE: MG FILM BADGE: MH FILM BADGE: Ml FILM BADGE: MJ FILM BADGE: INK FILM BADGE: Mi FILM BADGE: MM FILM BADGE: MN FILM BADGE: MO FILM BADGE: IMP FILM BADGE: MO FILM BADGE: MR FILM BADGE: MS FILM BADGE: MT FILM BADGE: MU FILM BADGE: MV FILM BADGE: M\V FILM BADGE: 119 PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MOL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL PROCESSING MDL - 3 10 MR 1S MR 20 MR 25 MR 30 MR 35 MR 40 MR 45 MR 50 MR 55 MR 60 MR 65 MR 70 MR 75 MR 80 MR 85 MR 90 MR 95 MR 100 MR 105 MR t10 MR 115 MR 120 MR Revised Oct 1, lS93

120 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY DATA ELEMENTS 83-88 DOSE FIELD EXPLANATION ____ ...__ A LOST BADGE 8 LIGHT DAMAGED C HEAT DAMAGED D PRESSURE DAMAGED E FACTORY DAMAGED ~PROCESSING DAMAGED G MEDICAL EXPOSURE ~NON PERS. OR NON OCCUPATIONAL X-RAY I DESTROYED J WATER DAMAGED K AGE DAMAGED L UNDETERMINED DAMAGE M MONITORED, NO DOSE ASSIGNED N OCCUPATION DAMAGE O NON - RETURN P PRESENT, BUT NOT MONITORED Q RESIDUAL DOSE FROM REECO SOURCE DOCUMENT R RECONSTRUCTED S ESTIMATED T COMBINED (ESTIMATED & ACTUAL) U PRESENT, 8= MONITORING UNKNOWN V MULTIPLE BADGES WORN~IGHEST DOSE ASSIGNED W MULTIPLE BADGES WORN/LOWEST DOSE NOT ASSIGNED X DOSE ASSIGNED BY INVESTIGATION Y OCCUPATION X-RAY BADGE ASSIGNED TO EQUIPMENT ONLY I NEUTRON MONITORED POSITIVE DOSE INCLUDED IN GAMMA DOSE HEW 2 MULTIPLE BADGES WORN, AVERAGE DOSE ASSIGNED 3 DOSIMETER ISSUED, NO RESULTS AVAILABLE - 1 Revised OCt 1 ~ 1 993

APPENDIXA DATA ELEMENTS 83-88 DOSE FIELD EXPLANATION Ct31:)E TABLE = 121 DOSE RESULTS AVAll ABLE, ISSUE DATE AND/OR RETURN OR PROCESS DATE INFORMATION NOT AVAILABLE 5 EXPOSURE RESULTS LESS THAN 50 MREM MAY BE QUESTIONABLE 6 BASED ON MEDICAL RECORD REMARK INDICATING NO EXPOSURE; FILM BADGE NOT USED AS BASIS FOR EXPOSURE 7 THE NET OPTICAL DENSITY OR PROBIT DENSITY IS UNKNOWN, THE GAMMA EXPOSURE IS REPORTED AS A BLESS THAN. VALUE OR ~ZERO. IN THE SOURCE DOCUMENT 8 hIAME APPEARS ON BLANK DOSIMETRY CARD, MAY NOT HAVE BEEN PARTICIPANT 9 EXPOSURE ASSIGNED FROM ANOTHER PERSON'S FttM BADGE O (zero) FILM BADGE DAMAGED BY RADIOACTIVE CONTAMINATION THE NET OPTICAL DENSITY OR PROStT DENSllY IS REPORTED AS ZERO, THE GAMMA EXPOSURE IS REPORTED AS A BLESS THAN. VALUE OR ~ZERO. IN THE SOURCE DOCUMENT + THE NET OPTICAL DENSITY OR PROBIT DENSITY IS REPORTED AS A POSITIVE VALVE, THE GAMMA EXPOSURE IS REPORTED AS A "LESS THAN. VALUE OR ~ZERO. IN THE SOURCE DOCUMENT # THE GAMMA EXPOSURE IS REPORTED AS A BLESS THAN. VALUE OR ~ZERO. IN THE SOURCE DOCUMENT, BUT THERE WAS NO OPPORTUNITY FOR EXPOSURE Al NOT PRESENT fOR ENTIRE COHORT BADGE PERIOD A2 COMBINED tACTUAL AND RECONSTRUCTED) A3 ENVIRONMENTAL DAMAGE A4 READING FROM HIGH RANGE BADGE AS POSTING ERROR AS NET OPTICAL 6ENslTY OR PROSIT OENStrt Is REPORTED ~ZERO. THE GAMMA EXPOSURE Is REPORTED AS A POStTlVE VALUE IN THE SOURCE DOCUMENT

122 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY UNOFFICIAL COPY DATA ELEMENT 99 DATA SOURCE CODE TABLE Change October 1, 1993 01 LEXINGTON BLUE GRASS MICROFILM 02 MORNING REPORTS 03 SECURITY CLEARANCE FORMS 04 ORDERS 05 SECURITY ROSTERS 06 DISCHARGE PAPERS 07 MEDICAL RECORDS 08 LETTERS AND PHONE CALLS OTHER THAN JAYCOR 09 LETTERS AND PHONE CALLS - JAYCOR 10 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA) REGISTRY ~ 1 11 VETERANS ADIVIINISTRATION (VA) 1 2 REYNOLC)S Et ECTRICAL & ENGINEERING COMPANY (REECO) SECONDARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS 13 CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL (CDC) 14 INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE (IRS) 15 SCIENCE APPLICATIONS INTERNATIONAL CORP. (SAIC) 16 NATIONAL ACADEMY OF SCIENCES (NAS) 17 THE ADJUTANT GENERAL (TAG) 1 8 NAVY 19 AIR FORCE 20 MARINE CORPS 21 COAST GUARD 22 ARMY 23 JAYCOR 24 DNA ANA: YSIS OF DATA 25 DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY (DNA) 26 DASIAC 27 MUSTER ROLLS (NAW) 28 DECI; LOG LIST OF OFFICERS (NAW) 29 DAILY DECK LOG (NAW) 30 BUMED (NAVY) 3.1 MULTIPLE SOURCES 1 424T - 1

APPENDIXA UNOFFICIAt COPY DATA ELEMENT 99 DATA SOURCE CODE TABLE Change October 1, 1993 32 UNITJPERSONNEL DIARY 33 GENERATED ID NUMBER 34 REECO DOSIMETRY PRIMARY SOURCE DOCUMENTS 35 DISCHARGE REVIEW BOARD 36 ARMY COUNCIL OF REVIEW BOARDS 37 ARMY 80ARD FOR CORRECTION OF MILITARY RECORDS 38 NATIONAL PERSONNEL RECORD CENTER (NPRC) 39 RESERVE COMPONENT PERSONNEL ADMINISTRATION CENTER (RCPAC) 40 RETIRED PAY DIVISION - US ARMY FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING CENTER(USAFAC) 41 FEDERAL BUR"U OF INVESTIGATION (FBI) 42 Mll ITARY PERSONNEL CENTER (MILPERCEN) 43 AFSWP DOSE LE I I ER OF 9 JUN 55 44 DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY (DOE) 45 PERSONNEL RECORD 46 DNAIFIELD COMMAND 47 UNITED STATES ARMY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS SUPPORT AGENCY(USAMSSA) 48 REECOlH&N MICROFILM 49 REECO/SANDIA MICROFILM 50 REECO/LLL SOURCE DOCUMENT 51 REECO/~SL MAGNETIC TAPE 52 AFTER ACTION REPORT 53 LASL RECORDS 54 AEC DOCUMENT 55 DOE NV 185-RADIATION EXPOSURE HISTORY INQUIRY 56 AFSWP DOCUMENTS 57 RESEARCH & DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF D.O.D. 58 EBERLINE INSTRUMENT CORP. 59 REECO DOSIMETRY ISSUE CARD 60 REECO NTS/SSN 1 424T 123 - 2

124 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY UNOFFICIAL COPY DATA ELEMENT 99 DATA SOURCE CODE TABLE 71 72 73 74 75 76 Change October 1, 1993 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA) REGISTRY ~ 2 GENERAL SERVICES ADMINISTRATION (GSA) REGISTRY ~ 3 ORIGINAL SOURCE DATE INCOMPLETE. CHECK SOURCE RECORDS FOR ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. 64 JAYCOR/NUS 65 REECO PAYROLL HISTORY CARDS 70 AVAILABLE EVIDENCE INDICATES PARTICIPANT NOT EXPOSED TO IONIZING RADIATION. GAMMA DOSE ASSIGNED TO PARTICIPANT BASED ON DOSIMETRY RECORDS OF OTHER TEST PARTICIPANTS. PROBABLE DOSE/DOSE RANGE ENTERED AS REMARKS IN BIOASSAY DATA FIELD. DOSEIDOSE RANGE ASSIGNMENT OF PARTICIPANT BASED ON FORMAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION BY SAtC. PROBABLE DOSEIDOSE RANGE ENTERED AS REMARK IN BIOASSAY DATA FIELD. DOSE/DOSE RANGE ASSIGNMENT OF PARTICIPANT BASED ON FORMAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION BY DNA. PROBABLE DOSE/DOSE RANGE ENTERED AS REMARK IN BIOASSAY DATA FIELD. DOSE/DOSE RANGE ASSIGNMENT OF PARTICIPANT BASED ON FORMAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION BY NAW. PROBABLE DOSE/DOSE RANGE ENTERED AS REMARK IN BIOASSAY DATA FIELD. DOSE/DOSE RANGE ASSIGNMENT OF PARTICIPANT BASED ON FORMAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION BY AIR FORCE. PR08ABLE DOSE/DOSE RANGE ENTERED AS REMARK IN BIOASSAY DATA FIELD. DOSE/DOSE RANGE ASSIGNMENT OF PARTICIPANT BASED ON FORMAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION BY MARINE CORM. PROBABLE DOSE/DOSE RANGE ENTERED AS REMARK IN BIOASSAY DATA FIELD. 1 424T

APPENDIX A UNOFFICIAL COPY DATA ELEMENT 99 C)ATA SOURCE CODE TABLE Change October 1, 1993 DOSE/DOSE RANGE ASSIGNMENT OF PARTICIPANT BASEI:) ON FORMAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION BY ARMY. PROBABLE DOSE/DOSE RANGE ENTERED AS REMARK IN BIOASSAY DATA FIELD. 78 DOSE/DOSE RANG-E ASSIGNMENT OF PARTICIPANT BASED ON FORMAL DOSE RECONSTRUCTION. PROBABLE DOSEfDOSE RANGE ENTERED AS REMARK IN BIOASSAY DATA FIELD. 79 NO RECORDED GAMMA DOSE. NO DOSE RECONSTRUCTION PLANNED. 80 NEUTRON DOSE ASSIGNED TO PARTICIPANT, BASED ON DOSIMETRY RECORDS OF OTHER TEST PARTICIPANTS. PROBABLE DOSE/DOSE RANGE ENTERED AS REMARK IN BIOASSAY DATA FIELD. 81 DOSIMETER ISSUED. NO RESULTS AVAILABLE. 82 REECO SOURCE DOCUMENT FILM BADGE RECORD - MILITARY MEDICAL RECORDS EXIST AND CANNOT BE PROVEN TO BE IN ERROR. ASSIGNED DOSE RESIDUAL FROM MEDICAL RECORD NOT ACCOUNTED FOR WITH FILM BADGE RECORDS, AND MEDICAL RECORD CANNOT BE PROVEN TO BE IN ERROR. 84 REECO SOURCE DOCUMENT FILM BADGE RECORD - MILITARY MEDICAL RECORD EXISTS AND PROVEN TO BE IN ERROR. 85 FLIGHT LOG 86 MUSTER ROLLS (MARINE CORPS) 87 RECORDS OF THE JUDGE ADVOCATE GENERAL, RG 153 (POWS) 88 RECORDS OF THE PROVOST MARSHAL (GENERAL, RG 389 (POWS) 89 RECORDS OF THE ADJUTANT GENERAE'S OFFICE, PHILIPPINE ARCHIVES COLLECTION, RG 407 (POWS) 90 VETERANS ADMINISTRATION POW ~ IST 91 CRUISE BOOK/UNOFFICIAL UNIT HISTORY 92 SHIP MOVEMENT REPORT 1 424T 125 - 4

126 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY UNOFFICIAL COPY DATA ELENIENT 99 DATA SOURCE CODE TABLE 95 96 97 98 99 Change October 1, 1993 93 ASSIGNED BEGIN DATE FOR FILM BADGE EXPOSURE PERIOD IS BASED ON RESEARCH 94 ASSIGNED END DATE FOR FILM BADGE EXPOSURE PERIOD IS BASED ON RESEARCH GREENHOUSE FILM BADGE DATA SHEET (CTG 3.3) MILITARY SERVICE UNIT HISTORY MILITARY SERVICE UNIT ROSTER ASSIGNED BEGIN AND END DATES FOR FILM BADGE EXPOSURE PERIOD IS BASED ON RESEARCH POST-CROSSROA[)S SHIPYARD REPORTS (CIVILIAN AND MILITARY) AA POSTING DATE NO OTHER DATES AVAILABLE AB BADGE NUMBER ON SOURCE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PROVEN TO BE IN ERROR. AC BADGE NUMBER ON SOURCE DOCUMENT UNREADABLE. AD ATTACH DATE NOT IN SERIES YEAR RECORDS. APPEARS TO HAVE ATTACHED IN PREVIOUS YEAR. DETACH DATE CORRECT. AE DETACH DATE NOT iN SERIES YEAR RECORDS. APPEARS TO HAVE DETACHED IN FOLLOWING YEAR. ATTACH DATE CORRECT. Requested by REECO ~ ~ Requested by JAYCOR 1 424T Modified 28 Mar 94

APPENDIX A Ma .w Oetense l~uctear Agency 6801 Telegraph Road Alexandria. Visa 223 ~ 0 3198 Reynolds ElectsicaI and Engineering Company, Inc. AITN: Mr. Tom Basdan Mail Stop 543 P.O. Box 98521 Las Vegas, Nevada 89193-8521 Dear W. fustian: We hwe detcr:T~ined that tub new source codes are needed. AD Attach date not ~ Series year records. Appea" to have attached in pmious year. Detach date correct. AE Detach date not in Series year records. Appeals to have detached in folIo~rTng year. Attach date correct. 2 8 MAR j90 ~ These Andes arc needed to indicate to researchers that Series year mcords hwe been rematched for attach or detach dates. If attachldc~ch dates are required, it indicates what research ho been compIcted and where to start Iooldng for dates. Sincerely, ~3~1! - D. 14. Schaefer Program Manager Nuclear list Pewond Review Ion Sciences Doctorate 127

128 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page G-1 G Example of Film Badge Data (Operation CASTLE) For a participant in the CASTLE series, four periods of doses cDtained from badge data are shown (Appendix G-1 #1). There are no entries to indicate whether these were individual or cohort badges; however, the dose reconstruction (Appendix G-2 #1) indicates that the first of the four was a cohort badge, whereas the other three values were individual badges. The database includes a small internal dose for this individual. Although the code for the source of this internal dose calculation is shown as ":72,. indicating an SAIC dose reconstruction, there is no entry in the last column "CHG-DT. (G-1 #3) to verify that the 8 December 1993 document (G-2) is the basis for the number. Code .19" under "BPCD~ (G-1 If4) indicates that this is a dose to the kidneys (G-2 At). Appendix G-2 also illustrates the concern of the Working Group with respect to biases in the data. Two statements (G-2 #2 and G-2 #3) refer to high-siding of the internal dose calculation.

APPENDIXA Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page G-2 129 GO Personal Information Form-Film Badge Data Operation CASTLE

130 . . . ..\ . . . ~ .,~ .. .3 ·.~. ^e "~. i -~ r c-. '£t ...... _ .,, L: ~ ~ O ~L ~, ll 3 / ,; ) w t C , o ~ 1 1~ 0 i ~ S z ~ t - 0 w x - - `,' ~' - ~ u' ~ ~ > o u' 2 ~- c ~u ;! 1 0 r~ Z Q _ 3t ~ ~ ~ ~t g t - , tit i ~ ~ 1 j, 1; ~ ~t3`i. I I C j 0 8 ~ - _ tstU ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ j C >~ , * * , ~cit 0 ~* * 1 * Z * 1 1 _1 I c, ~I u' ~ 1 · >.* 1 I · 's * . i ~ I · · I ~zIm;i ~ ~I I =1- : · · 1 : i-:G5 1 :: 1i 81 , ~j[1. ~. * ~_ ~2' I *: ' I _ ~· * ~_ 1 t t tri' , *,. · l · c ~ t ~, _ ~) I · · t ~' _ ~· · 1 ~ ~* ~, O _i a' ~ 5, Q O- O . . · I ~ ~·; ~ · 1 , ' _ * ~ ~i ~ i < · ~! z: _ ~u ~* ~, ~ ~ I * ~ t ~, I I l - 1 1 * * I _ : Zl ~ , · · : , ~1 ~ ~ t * t ': l ~t ~; ~ , ~· i ~· t ~t ~i ~ it ' { ; zl''' m 1 1 > _ * 1 ~ ~ ~ 2 Z at ,* t , j c~i `! O - - It · ~.. ~; - t- t- · - ~l~lt t., , I C C * 1 - 1~- i51 .; ~S 3: L' * C U ~I g * i'< ~ ~ ~E '~ _ ~ ~I t_ 2 - * - ~J -I O ~ [C ~-i t~.7 ,,, :~ U. ~J ~- ~S ~1 _ ~· _ .'t : ~7 ,~.7< Z ~ '-i L'i ~ O 1 · , ~, _ t , ·* I ~I ~t~ 1 i *· 1 qr ~ ~_ * ~I ~; ~t - · ** I t I '~ ; ~* I I ~ r-i ~t_ I I * * I I -t ~O I I * * I - t ~1 ID `_ I i * * I N I Oi O ~ l l * r~ ~I ~I 1~ _ it ,, ~o I 0- ? = I I * t · I ~, t.7 ~ I I * O * I ~I ~ _ I I * ti * I s ~I ~ 1 1 *1-* 1 1 0 ** g 3t r *~* ~I i tt I * ~ t i . .*e t tO ~' · t .*:,j t i 3 ~ r ~ · E~ija ~ * ~ * t ~I n _ . r c~i

131 den . `4 O O O l

132 THE FIVE SERIES SIBLEY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page G-3 GO SAIC Memorandum to RAEM/NTPR Subject: Radiation Dose Assessment for < NAME A, Operation CASTLE (1954) Dated: 8 December 1993

APPENDIXA RAEM/NIPR 8 December 1993 Purpose Memorandum For Record - Radiation Dose Assessment for Operation CASTLE (1954) This memorandum assesses the dose from extemal emitters, and from internally deposited radionuclides, that was accrued by the subject named veteran during his participation in atmospheric nuclear weapon testing. Background Operation CASTLE was the series of nuclear weapon tests conducted at the Pacific Proving Ground (PPG) in 1954. The PPG, located in the Central Pacific Ocean area, consists of the land areas, lagoons, and waters within 3 miles of two Marshall Islands Atolls, Enewetak and Bildni. Bikini Atoll is about 2200 nautical miles southwest of Hawaii, and Enewetalc Atoll is about 195 nautical miles west of Bilcini Atoll. Enewetalc Atoll and Bikini Atoll consist of 35 and 26 islands, respectively, and each Atoll has a total land area of about 2.7 square miles. The principal objective of Operation CASTLE was to test high-yield thermonuclear devices. (Reference 1) Table I presents shot data on the nuclear shots fired dunog CASTLE. All CASTLE shots were fired at Bildni Atoll except for NECTAR, which was fired at Enewetalc Atoll. Note tact MI is the acronym for "megaton" (References I & 2) l Shot t9S4 Dale Time Type Yicid (Ma) BRAVO 1 Mart 064S =,rhm IS ROMEO 27 March 0630 barge 11 KOOt1 47Apnl 0620 sw~oc 0.11 UNION 26Apsil 060S barge 6.9 YANG 5 M" 0610 barge 13.5 NECIM 14 M" 0620 barge 1.69 Table ?. Operation CASTLE nuclear shot data. l~c veteran was transfcrret from USS B1= E GROVE ~SD 2) to LST-762 [later christened {JSS FLOYD COUNTY (LST 762)1 on 21 January. (Unless otherwise stated, all dates in this assessment are us l9S4.) Dunag CASII~E, the veteran was an Electronics Technician Third Clam U.S. Nary, in LST-762 (Reference 3). PessoMd in that rating maintain and repair shipboard electronic equipment (Reference 4). The veteran was on duller in LST-762 until 29 Fcbn~a~y 1956 (Reference 3). 133

134 THE FIVE SERIES SlrUDY page 2 Dunng CASll~E. LST-762 was assigned to Task Unit 7.3.9, Transport Unit. As part of TO 7.3.9, LST-762 transported shot devices, passengers, and Height between Enewetak Atoll and Bikini Atoll (Reference 1). The easiest known date of LST-762's amval at PPG in conjunction with CASTLE is 20 October 1953. According to the ship's deck log, ST-762 departed PPG OR 27 April enroute to Pearl Harbor. (Reference 3) Film Badge Dasimet~y Radiological safer records for personnel in I-ST-762 include "cohort" Elm badges for the period 10 to id March, individual film badges for one~day periods, and medical record entries. Cohort badge #8787 was issued to one sailor, and that reading was used as a dose of record for eleven LST-762 personnel, including the veteran, for 10 to 16 March. Three individual film badges were issued to the veteran. Data on each of his film hedges arc presented in Table 2. (References I & 5) In accordance with provisions set forth In Reference 6, the film badge return dates, which were not documented, are inferred; and doses entered into medical recorts for LST-762 personnel, which were untended to cover unbadged periods, are disregarded in lieu of reconstructed doses for those periods. rCohoM | Film Badgc# Issue Date Return Date ProcmsDatc 0.33S ~ n/a 0.500 1 Individuall ala 0.245 J Badges | 8787 14903 14104 141 l8 10 March 3 L March 1 April 4 April 16 March n/z 3 1 March 1 April 4 April Table 2. Film badge data. For the lirTused badge periods shown in Table 2 and given the letdown radiation environment in LST-762, the film badge readings are high This analysis regarts the dam iS~ in Table 2 as true, and the film badge reading "excess" will be used to high-side the calculation of the veteran's internal dose. Radiation Environment (Reference 5) The peals fallout intensities in LST-762 dunng CASTLE arc shown in Table 3. Residual contamination in Bildni Lagoon Rom BRAVO contributed to the accrual of dose by personnel in LST-762. Contaminants produced ambient intensity over the surface of the lagoon, adhered to the ship's hull, and were circulated in the ship's sea wet" systems. Because of mechanical difficulties, the ship was unable to make good speed in its passage to Pearl Harbor, ant on 5 May was taken in tow by LST-97S. YANG fallout descended on LST-762 on 6 May, more than one week after He ship departed PPG. _

APPENDIX A page ; | Shot mRlhour H + hoes [BRAVO 10 l6 ROhEO 8.5 71.5 YANKEE 39.7 35.3 Table 3. Peak fallout intensives, LST-762. Assumptions & Exposure Scenario The veteran is assumed to have participated in the activities listed below, which resulted in his potential accrual of dose Rom CliS=E residual contamination. He was in LST-762 during that ship's tour of duty in PPG from 19 January to 27 April, and he remained a member ofthe ship's crew through 29 Febn~ary 1956. He was a generic crew member in LST-762. Dose From Initial Radiation (References 5 & 7) Personnel in LST-762 were too distant from any CASTLE shot to have accrued from them a measurable initial neutron or gamma radiation dose. Dose From External Emitters (Reference S) Rho reconstructed external gamma dose Dom fallout for generic persoMe1 who were topside 40°/O~and below decks 60°/e, of the time from I March to 25 July, when the dose rate fell to less than 0.001 rem per day, is 1.068 rem. Because the veteran's film badge readings cover part of that period, reconstructed doses will be applied only for the unbadged periods. Table 4 provides details about the veteran's gamma (y) dose from his participation in CASTING Dose From Internal Emitters (References 5, 8, & 9) In calculating the veteran's (50-year) committed dose equivalent to the kidneys Rom internally deposited radionuclides, the following scenarios and potential path Pays were considered: He inhaled descending BRAVO, ROMEO, and YANKEE Fallout throughout each period of deposition He inhaled resuspended fallout in LST-762 for 100 hours after cessation of deposition. Because ~ ST-762 employed its washdown system only after the descent on the ship of YANKEE fallout, this assessment assumes that the BRAVO and ROMEO fallout that was resuspended by walking on weather decks or in enclosed spaces in LST-762 is 135

136 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY page ~ characterized by a resuspension factor of I~5mi. In this case, the appropriate resuspension factor for YANKEE fallout is 104m-~. Me veteran's breathing rate throughout periods of inhalation of descending and resuspended flout is assumed to have been 1.2 m3 hr -I. As stated above, the veteran's film badge readings are higher than the reconstructed doses for personnel in I~ST-762 for the same periods. To high-side the calculation of his internal dose, the "excess" film badge reading is assumed to have been accrued concurrently untie his inhalation of resuspended fallout. Table 4 presents the fallout sources and "excess" doses for each film badge. , . Film Badge Number ~Excess" Reading (R) Fallout Source I l 8787 0.28? BRAVO 14903 0.454 ROMEO 14104 0.211 ROMEO 141 18 0.392 ROMEO - The veteran's (50-year) committed dose equivalent to the kidneys ~om inhaling descending sad resuspended fallout, as described above, is 0.028 rem External Dose ~ Participation Summary Based on the foregoing facts and assumptions, the veteran's gamma (r) dose by date period for his participation in Operation CASTLE is presented in Table 5. Elis neutron dose for CASTLE is zero rem. _ 1 Dates (~~mmdd) Y Dose (ran) Rat .. . . 540119-Si0228 0 ~~ S40301 - S40309 0.198 S40310 - S40316 0.33S S403 t7 - S40330 0.13S S40331 O.SOO S~40t 0.24S 440 S02 - S40403 0.048 S~404 0.4lO 54()40S ~ S40703 O.S16 No Export Potential Reconsm~on film Badge Rocomnumon Fllm Badge film Badge ROCODS~O~ Film Badge R~on 1 Totals 2.4 UpperBount- 3.S=m 1 Table 5. Extemal dose and palpation summary. Internal (kidney) Dose Summ~sq 50-year comaut~cd dose equivadalt: <0 15 rem.

APPENDIXA pO8C j References "CASTLE Series - 1954," DNA 603 5F, 1 Apn! 1982. 2. "Announced United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 Through December lacy," DOEINV 209 (Rev. 13 ), May 1993. A. Documents located in the veteran's PAR file. 4. The Blue3acket's Manual," Fourteenth Edition, U.S. Naval Institute, 1950. Hi. "Analysis of Radiation Exposure For Naval Personnel at Operation CASTI~E," ONA- TR-84-6, 28 February 1984. 6. "Operation CAS=E Dosimetry Purification Procedures, Revision 1,~ Ret nolds Electrical & Engineering Co., Inc., May 1993. 7. "Neutron Exposure For DOD Nuclear Test Personnel," DNA-TR-84405, 15 August ~ 985. 8. "FIlDOS A Computer Code For the Computation of Fallout Inhalation and Ingestion to Organs." DNA-TR-84-315, l2 December 1985. 9. Shot-specific radiochemical data. 137

138 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. I). Michael Schaeffer May IS, 1995 Page H-1 H Example of Traceability of Dose Data Appendix H-1 is a printout (4 pages) from the database for an individual who participated in the BUSTER-JANGLE, CASTLE, CROSSROADS and UPSHOT- KNOTHOLE test series. For BUSTER-JANG}~E, this individual participated from November 26 through December 1, 1951. Envies for individual days (H-1 #1) indicate the dose (H-1 #2), the type of dosimetry device [H-1 #31, and the badge number (H-1 #4). The lack of entries in the last column (H-1 Ifs) indicated that these are initial entries with no subsequent changes. This individual also participated in the CASTLE series (H-1, #6) from February 11 through May 14, 1954, with a personal badge worn for ten periods and a cohort badge reading assigned for March 11 (H-1 #7). All of these entries, which account for 1,270 mrem, were either newly entered or changed on 29 March 15~94 (H-1 #a), following the dose reconstruction dated 27 February 1994 (Appendix lI-2). From the database, it is not possible to know what dose information was contained in the computer record prior to this recent dose reconstruction; that is, were badge data for CASTLE included and, if so, why were they changed? This individual was not badged during four time intervals for which reconstructed doses are shown (H-1 #a). The database indicates that this individual participated in the UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE series from 30 March through 5 June 1953 (H-1 #10). Personal film badges were issued for 11 intervals (H-1 #11), but several intervals are not included, including 1 April through 11 May, which is not fully covered in the dose reconstruction document (Appendix H-2).

APPENDIX A Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page H-2 139 H-1 Personal Information Form-Dose Assignment, NTPR Database

140 | ~8a!~i ~8~ ~ Cola ~ 1e c ~ ~^ lo, ~ ~ - ~.. ~ .. . ~...~P ~;. i

141 4 4, ~¢,, ~I D . ! * . . ! . , $ . . . Zl , , , · S · 1 ~ , ; 4 44, ! ~ 4. , _ _ _ _ 11 Zl 3 ~4 ;u J w __. .~ Q I ~ nnn r' Ri! ~ oe4 8: c. n _ ~1 n n ~ ~ _ _ - 4 oOO C~ n n ;; r° _ 8 ;S n n ~ ~ n ~ ~ _ ~ dd ___ oo n~n - _ 1 ~ 0~ ~06~/~0 ~1 ~_ C~ r4 r t4 r4 r4 rd r4 r4 r4 r4 t4 1 ~ l' nnnn~n~nnnn ~ F - C, COOOOOOOOOO 1 a; - D ~r · ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, a, ~UI ~o..o~o~Po~o~.o. ~, ~ | 'I ~ ! _ - _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _U r~ _ V o. ~ r. g ~ L. 1 ;r 1 =1 l _ 0 w 1 dYI ~1 v n r. ~ 0 0 n 5 ~ ~4 n n g oo^6ooo-_nn n n n n n ~ ;; n n n ;: . ~ ~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ ooooooooooo .. ~a ~es c~ a a) u' D C~ z - c .= ao 11 o - C o X i a, Q q~ 0 -° O ~ 5 Zl 1 01 , ~ i 1 _ I l 1 # It zl ~ I >l ~ i c~o g"3 ~ a ~ w ~ ~Zl CJ 1 o u w 0 z c W C41 1 ~_ t t ~ t r. I 1 ~ t °' 0 t 9 1 l' . ~ ~ ~C ·. ~' ~, · : . · · .,

142 1 o o ~0 D ~ ~IL . ~ ~ g ~ a ~ . ~ _ _.

143 . . . ~ C Z! 1' D D US U' ~ §l ,[ W I I ~ ' I a t I ~ 1 1 ! ' ~8 a) - ~n Q C) Q it as .= U) 8 a: o n ~ n n ~ ~ n n n ~ n E O n nO 3 2 8 _ _ ~ N ~ 0 60 o o o o 3000 n ~O _ 0h ~ 8 8 8 , ~_ w Q Q ax: o o -

144 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page H-3 H-2 Memorandum from SAIC to DNA-RAEM/NTPR Subject: Dose Reconstruction: <NAME> 0perationCROSSROADS(1946), BUSTER-JANGLE, (1951), UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE (1953), CASTLE (1954) Date: 27 February 1994

APPENDIXA DNA-RAEM/NIPR (hi. Owais) Memorandum For Record Dose Reconstruction for Operations CROSSROADS (1946), BUSTER-JANGLE (1951), UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE (1953), CASTE (1954) Introduction: At the time of Operation CROSSROADS, (then) Motor Machinist's Mate 2nd Class was a crew member on the USS SYLVANIA (AKA 44). The Standard Engineering Dose applies, and is available from the data in References 9 and 10. Dunag BUSTER-JANGLE, UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, and CASTLE, the veteran was a civilian working for For B-J and U-K, film badge data is available for all periods during which Tic veteran would have been exposed. For CASTLE, some film badge data is available, and dose reconstruction is used here for the reminder of He time. Operation CROSSROADS: The veteran was a Motor Machinist's Mate 2nd Class aboard the SYLVANIA, and is assigned Tic Standard Engineering Dose. From the methodology and data contained in References 9 and 10, for the SYLVANIA this dose is 0.723 rem. Operation BUSTER-.lANGLE. During Operadon BUS-~-IANGLE, the veteran was a civilian working for Few badge data for the veteran are available for the dates 26, 27, 28 November, and 1 December 1951. References 11, 12, and 13 show that was only involved at Shot UNCLE. Reference 14 indicates that personnel were not allowed into the display area before 1 Dee 1951, two days after the detonadon. Thus, it would appear Hat He available film badge data covers Al times Hat Tic veteran might have been exposed to radiation dunog Operation BUSTER-JANGLE. The first three film badge dates are for equipment SCt-Up prior to Shot UNCLE. The reason that there was non-zero exposure is that the UNO Few display area lay in the fallout field of the previous shot, Shot SUGAR The cu~nulatiYc total of Tic four badge readings Is 0.630 rem. Operation UPSHOT-KNOT}IOLE During Operation UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE, the veteran was t civilian worldog for Film badge data for the veteran are available for the dates 31 March and 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 25, 27, 29 May and 1 June l9S3. E'cpenence has shown that the UPSHOT-KNOTlIOI"E film badge data is reasonably complete, ant that the film badge records of any one individual usually covers the cadre dose that the individual received during the whole of UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE. Aftcrexa~nining the veteran film badge records, along with those of the other personnel involved with UPSHOT- KNO~IOLE, it appears that those badges dated 1 June were actually worn during Tic recovery operations following Shot CLrMAX on 4 June. Among the personnel film badge records, there is no record 145

146 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Page 2 dated 4 June, when substantial recovery activity took place folIov~ng the CLIMAX detonation. All personnel, on the other hand, have records date 1 June, and all are in the range 255 to 285 mR. Reconstruction shows this to be about what they would have received on 4 June, and there is no possibility of anyone receiving this dose on 1 June. The total film badge dose of the veteran for U-K is 1.370 rem. the veteran accrued an additional 0.060 rem in November 1953. ()peration CASTING The attached table s =es the locations and doses used for the veteran dose reconstruction. There arc fit badge records for the veteran for most of the period in question. For the rounder of the time, the use of she Rcfcrencc 3 wformadon and reasonable assumptions is considered to lead to reliable results. For instance, Reference 3 could not establish whether or not the veteran remained on the IJSNS AINSWORTH (TAP 181) during the period of March 2 - 4, when the ship was anchored at Enewctak Atoll. Since the veteran was a civilian, not a crew member, one might normally assume that he Ad the other civilians spent those days ashore at Eneweta~ R. - ation safety is an additional consideration in support of this assumption. Comparing Reference 5, pages 80 and 119 shows that the radiation intensity aboard the AINSWORTH was higher than that on Enewetak by roughly a factor of 3 or so. Ibus, the assumption that He civilians stayed ashore during this period is reasonable. Rcfcrencc 3 shows the A~SWORTH skiing at Bikini Atoll at 0900 on 5 Mas 54. Rcfercncc 6 lists one boat mission (LCU #638) with Project 3.2 people for Hat date, but the names listed do not include He Deter. The radiation levels at Bikini locations Nan and Tare for that day a`,erage about 1 and 0.15 R/hr, respectively (Reference 7, p.76). These intensities arc much higher that the intensity on the AINSWORTH (Rcferenec 5, p.80), so that red-safe considerations would have dictated that personnel stay aboard ship except at times when necessary dunes dictated otherwise. Thus, when neither film badge records nor any other indication of the veteran' presence elsewhere can be found, it is assumed Hat he remained aboard ship at Bikini. Refcrencc 6 shows him on a helicopter on March 7, a day for which a film-badec reading is available. For March 11, Rcfercsce 6 shows the veteran and Coworkers on a helicopter mission. There is no badge reading assailable for the veteran for that day, but there is one for [coworicer3 (Refcrcoce 3). Therefore, [cowor~cer]'s badge reading is used. Rcfercacc 3 has the prc-KOON and prc-UNION surreys taking place prior to 1 April. In case these acti~vides did not fall on days covered by the VCtC~' known fit badge mc~ a septets day for each pre shot survey was assumed. The fallout field plot in Reference 7, p. 99, was used as a basis for derermilung the radiation intensity to which the veteran was exposed. A time of about 2 hours was assumed for He rime duration of each survey. The period of May 6 ~ 14 is without documentation. The assumption Hat the veteran spent this dmc at Enewetak is not critical, sines he would have recopied about the same dose had he remained aboard He A~SWORTH.

APPENDIX A Page 3 Dose Summary: Neutron: < 0.001 rem Gamma lime ocuod 31 Mar - 12 May - 13 May - 14 May - 15 May - 16 May - 18 May -25 May - 27 May 53 -29 May53 - 01 Jun 53 - 03 Nov 53 - 04 Nov 53 - llFebS4 1 Memamndu~ ~ Dose Reconstruction. . i i- Hi. . ~. Dosc(rem) Moths 01Jul 46- 07Dec46 0.723 26 Non 51 - 26 Nov 51 0.060 27 Nor 51 - 21 Nov 51 0.120 28 Nov 51 - 28 Nov 51 0.080 OlDec Sl-OlDec 51 0.370 31 Mar 53 - 31 Mar 53 0.020 12 May 53 - 12 May 53 0.240 13 May 53 - 13 May 53 0.000 14 May 53 - 14 May 53 0.2S5 15 May 53 - 15 May 53 0.190 16MayS3- 16MayS3 0.130 18 May 53 - 18 May 53 0.130 25 May 53 - 25 May 53 0.020 27 May 53 - 27 May 53 0.130 29 May 53 - 29 May 53 0.000 01 Jun 53- 01 Jun 53 0.255 03 Nov 53 - 03 Nov 53 0.020 04 Nov 53 - 04 Nov 53 0.040 11 Feb 54- 11FebS4 0.000 01 Mar 54 - 05 Mar 54 0.349 06 Mar 54 - 06 Mar S4 0.120 06 Alar 54 - 07 Mar 54 0.260 07 Mar 54- 08 Mar S4 test) 0.160 09 Mar 54 - 09 Mar 54 0.000 09 Mar 54 - 11 Mar 54 0.049 lOMar 54- lOMarS4 0.110 ~_~ 11 Mar 54- 11 Mar54 0.180 12Mar 54- 16MarS4 0.060 17 Mar 54 - 27 hIas 54 0.180 28Mar54- 31MarS4 0.509 30Apr54-OlMay54 0.150 01 May 54 - 05 May S4 O.OSO _ 06 May 54 - 14 May 54 0.034 Reconstrucdon Total = 5.0 rem (upper bound 6.7) Reference' Reconstrucdon Few Badge (651 F) Film Badge (203 G) Film Badgc (527 H) Film Badge (1189 n him Badgc (000017) him Badge (014318) film Badgc (01264 film Badge (029310) film Badge (013805) film Badge (013693) film Badge (012668) film B - ge (015985) Film Badge (016173) film Badge (016853) film Badgc (017070) film Badge (018329) film Badge (018014) him Badge (00485) Rccons~cton him Badgc (06639) him Badge (08076) Film Badgc (06795) film Badgc (09296) Rcconstrucdon Elm Badgc (09824) Elm Badgc (09292)(msh [cowo~erl) Film Badgc (17810) film Badgc (18951) Recons~on Elm Badgc C3?469) Flute Badge (3821O " I. Kcsselman, JAYCOR, 06 July 1993. 2. NUCLEAR JEST PERSONNEL REVIEW, Telephone Infom~adon Few, . 27 January 92. Be "Chronology of she Vcsc~an's Movements," unsigned but apparently Mom JAYCOR, 16 July 92. 4. "Operation CASTLE, Prioicot 3.2, Crater Survey," HQ Weld Command, AFSWC. Sandia Base, Albuquerque NM, WT-920 (ED), June l9SS. 147

148 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Page 4 5. '`Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Naval Personnel at Operation CASTLE," DNA TR-84-6 Defense Nuclear Agency, 28 February 1984. . 6. "Bikini Daily Dianes," Operation CAST, 1 March 19S4 - 14 May 1954. 7. "Dis~nbudon Ed Intensity of Fallout," Project 2.5a, Operation CAST AL Steton, et al, WT-915, January 1956. 8. Letter lo the veteran, 98113FD/2008, from W. H. I~oeffler, Captain USN, Navy Nuclear Test Personnel Review, 17 February 1984. 9. "Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Naval Units of Operation Crossroads, Volume I Basic Repon," DNA-TR-82~5V1, Defense Nuclear Agency, 3 March 198~ 10. "Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Naval Units of Operation Crossroads Volume m (Appendix 8) Support Ships," DN\TR-82~5-V3, Defense Nuclear Agency, 3 March 198i 11. "Operation BUS1ER-JANGLE, 1951," Defense Nuclear Agency, DNA 6023F, 21 Junc 1982. 1~ "Shots ABIE to EASY, Tic First Five Shots of die BUS1ER-JANGLF Senes," DNA 6024F, Defense Nuclear Agency, 22 Junc 1982. 13. "Shore SUGAR and USA F. The Final Tests of the BUSTER-JANGLE Scnes," DNA 6025F, Defense Nuclear Agency, 23 June 1982. 14. "Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Military Participants, Exercises Desert Rock I, I:E, & m, Operation BUSTER-JANGlE'" DNA-TR-87-116, DcScasc Nuclear Agency, 22 December 1987. IS. "Analysis of Radiation Exposure for troop Observers, Exacise Desert Rock V, Operation UPSHOT- KNOTHOLE," DNA 5742F, Defense Nuclear Agency, 28 April 1981. 16. "Operation UPSHOT-KNOlHOI~, 1953," DNA 6014F, t 1 January 1982. 17. "Shots ANNE to RAY The Hat F~vc Tests of the UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE Scnes, 17 March - 11 April 1953," DNA 60171:, lit January 1982. 18. "Shot BADGER, A Test of the UPSHOT-KNOTHOI-E Series, 18 April 1953," DNA 6015P, 12 January 1982. 19. "Shot SIMON, A Test of tic UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE Senes, 2S April 19S3," DNA 6016P, 13 January 1982. 2Q "Shots ENCORE to CLIMAX The Final Four Tests of the UPSHOT-=OTHOLE Senes, 8 May - 4 June 1953," DNA 6018F, 15 January 1982. 21. "Operation UPSHOT-KNOTlIOLE, Radiological Safes Opmadon," Tom. D. CotLison, AFSWP, WT-702 (REF.), June l9S3.

z c - · ~ A c - c, c c`: - Cs3 - cl: ~ ~3 c 'E ~ ''3~\ ~ ~X 4,) == ~ . ~ "X ~X== en, . ~$. m. ~ ~ ~I. l 4, ~ ;~ - G ~m I ~;~ ^ - arcs mm- ~lo- ~-~ it} o ~ 8 ~ 8 8 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ t~ _ _ _ _____ _____ ___ o~o~o*~= c~= Orion == o. 5855 5855 55 ~ ~ ~ Is ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ =~=mmmm~mmmm=C~Xo:mmc: x '' V`_~0880~0080~0000o-- I_ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ~ 11 ~ o3BYB3~88°_39~. t\d, ~ 1~iI]~]It]I]'I°~ ~ ~6 149

150 THE FIVE SERIES STUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page I-1 Potential for Bias due to Differential Methods of Dose Assignment Comparison of Doses Assigned to Atomic Test Paruc~pants Who Had Individual Dose Reconstructions and Those Who Did Not The Dosimetry Working Group of the Committee to Study the Mortality of Military Personnel Present at Atmospheric Tests of Nuclear Weapons (Five-Series Study) attempted to quantify the effect of differences in dose assignment methodologies between those who had an individual dose reconstruction and those who did not. It is impossible to do this directly, since exact individual doses are unknown. Adopting an indirect approach, the Working Group first assembled dose data on Five-Series participants who had individualized reconstructions. who: The Working Group used, as a benchmark, the doses that had been entered for these individuals in the original Five-Series Study (NRC 1985). Because these benchmark doses could have a tendency to increase or decrease over time within the Five-Series cohort as a whole, a comparison group was also assembled. Changes in dose assignments for the comparison group presumably reflect the updating and cleaning activities that have been carried out by the DNA and its contractors since the creation of the 1985 NRC analysis file. The Working Group identified 277 participants (members of the Five-Series cohort) · had a dose in the 1985 data file, · had been referred to SAIC for dosunetry, and · could be matched to a person in the current (May 1994) data file. For comparison, the Worldag Group randomly selected 415 participants who had an entry in both 1985 and current data files, but whose dose had not been referred for Individualized reconstruction. In this set of individualized reconstructions and controls, a robber of individuals were fouled to have missing dose values. Those individuals were eliminated from further consideration, leaving l9S individualized reconstruction cases and 269 nonindividualized reconstn~ction cases. To he included in this comparison, an individual had to hare nonmissing external gamma dose data for each of the five test series in which he participated. These nonm~ssing components were sunned to give a total gamma dose. Doses from tests other than those included in the Fi~c~erics Study were not considered, because those data were not available in the 1985 data set. The differences between the paired dose entries (1985 data matched to Tic current data) arc summarized in Table 2. The currently assigned doses tend to be higher than their 198S

APPENDIX A SIr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page I-2 counterparts, and the tendency is highly statistically significant within each group (p < .0001, sign test). Also, the pattern of the changes is different between the individualized vs. nonindividualized doses, that Is the nvo categorized distributions of paired differences are dissimilar (%2(3) > 70, p ~ .0001). Despite the highly significant difference between the dose changes experienced by the individualized vs. nonindividualized groups, one can see Mat the primary source of the discrepancy is the relatively greater tendency for the non~ndividualized dose estimates to stay the same. If one repeats the comparison, removing participants whose doses stayed the same, thereisno difference atall(z2(2) = l.9,p > .3)inthepatternof the charges. Thus,these data suggest that when the dose was changed by the individualized reconstruction methods, there was not a tendency for the change to be greater or less than that for a participant whose dose also changed because of alterations in the unit-based assignments. Table 2. Numbers of Participants Categorized by the Difference, AD = (l)c Do), Between Their Current Dose (Dc) and Original Dose Assigned in 1985 (DO) for Each Dose Assignment Method (individualized and nonindividualized) 7~; ~Dose Increased, Dose Increased, Method AD < 0 mrem AD = 0 mrem 0 < AD < 1,001 AD ~ 1,000 mrem mrem . Individually 12 60 88 35 reconstructed (6 DO) (31 %) (45 O (18 O Not 7 191 44 27 individually (3 %) (71 %) (16 %) (10 %) reconstructed This evaluation was not an exhaustive study of potential biases in the NTPR dose database. In fact, there arc several notable caveats to consider. First, the NIPR database is constantly being updated. This study used dose data from the Fivc-Serics Study frozen at two moments in time, separated by about 10 years. Clean up of the current dose data for the Five- Senes Study is still in progress and will not be completed until 1996. The results presented here should not be interpreted as a demonstration that there are no systematic differences htwecn individualized and nonindividualized dose assignments. We do not know the true dose for any participant, and thus have no direct means to assess bias. Moreover, participants were to some extent self-selected to have an individualized reconstruction, and their real doses may be higher or lower on average than those for the remainder of the cohort. Also, doses assigned to the same participants for series other than Me five might have revealed a very different pattern, as the dose data for over series have not been cleaned as completely. These other series doses would be relevant to computing a tote Baja dose for analysis of potential health effects. 151

152 THE FIVE SERIES SlrUDY Mr. D. Michael Schaeffer May 15, 1995 Page I-3 The process of generating these data revealed some perplexing results for individuals in the database. These included significant differences between assigned doses in the current (May 1994) data file and corresponding SAIC dose reconstructions. There were numerous instances in which the database does not seem to reflect SAIC reconstructions completed several years ago. In some cases, the current dose data are missing despite the existence of individualized reconstructions. As noted above, these could be the result of Me incomplete cleanup of the dose values in the current data set or there may be other reasons for the disparities. The Working Group attempted to quantify possible bias in the FiYe-Series dose data that could have resulted from different treatment of those who had individualized reconstructions and those who did not. This was done by comparing the dose entered in the data file for the 1985 Five Series Study (NRC, 1985b) with that in the current data file, for all participants whose name had been referred to SAIC for an individualized dose reconstruction and for a comparison group of participants who had not had an individualized reconstruction. Participants with individualized reconstructions were more likely than those without individualized reconstructions to have had their doses modified between 1985 and 1994. In both groups, when there was a change in the assigned dose, it was much more likely to be an increase than a decrease. When individuals whose doses did not change over time were eliminated from consideration, no differences were found in the pattern of changes in dose between the individualized and nonm.dividualized groups. That is, between these two groups, no difference was detected in the proportion of participants who fell into categories defined by whether their doses went down, went up by a little (up to 1 rem), or went up by a lot (more than 1 rem). Thus, for those individuals whose dose did change, it did not appear to make a difference whether they received an individual reconstruction or not. This suggests that the individualized dose reconstruction methodology was not systematically biased relative to the generic "cleanings of the data. These findings do not, however, allay one of the Worldag Group's most serious concerns over differential dose assignment-that individualized doses could have experienced a significantly different pattern of change than nonindividualized doses. For those individuals whose doses did change, it did not appear to make a difference whether they received an individual reconstmction or not. Nevertheless, the patterns of change shown in the above table of differences (Table 2) do suggest that those with individualized reconstructions will tend to have higher assigned doses than those without individualized reconstructions. This could bias any dose-response analysis based on the existing data.

Next: Appendix B: National Association of Atomic Veterans Medical Survey »
The Five Series Study: Mortality of Military Participants in U.S. Nuclear Weapons Tests Get This Book
×
Buy Paperback | $67.00 Buy Ebook | $54.99
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

More than 200,000 U.S. military personnel participated in atmospheric nuclear weapons tests between 1945 and the 1963 Limited Nuclear Test Ban Treaty. Questions persist, such as whether that test participation is associated with the timing and causes of death among those individuals. This is the report of a mortality study of the approximately 70,000 soldiers, sailors, and airmen who participated in at least one of five selected U.S. nuclear weapons test series1 in the 1950s and nearly 65,000 comparable nonparticipants, the referents. The investigation described in this report, based on more than 5 million person-years of mortality follow-up, represents one of the largest cohort studies of military veterans ever conducted.

  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. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

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

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    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!