Destroy this report when it is no longer 

needed. Do not return to sender. 

PLEASE NOTIFY THE DEFENSE NUCLEAR AGENCY, 

ATTN: STTI, WASHINGTON, D.C. 20305, IF 

YOUR ADDRESS IS INCORRECT, IF YOU WISH TO 

BE DELETED FROM THE DISTRIBUTION LIST, OR 

IF THE ADDRESSEE IS NO LONGER EMPLOYED BY 

YOUR ORGANIZATION. 


Fact 

Defense Nuclear Agency 

Public Affairs Office 

Washington, D.C. 20305 

Subject: Series 

Operation PLUMBBOB, the sixth series of atmospheric nuclear weapons tests 

conducted within the continental United States, ted of 24 nuclear 

detonations and six safety experiments. The series lasted from April 24, 

to October 7, 1957, and involved about 18,000 DOD personnel participating in 

observer programs, tactical maneuvers, and scientific and diagnostic studies. The 

series tested nuclear weapons for possible inclusion in the defense arsenal. The 

tests were also used to improve military tactics, equipment, and training. The 

safety experiments were conducted to ensure that no nuclear reaction would occur 

if the high explosive components of the device were accidentally detonated during 

storage or transport. 

Department of Defense Involvement 

During Operation PLUMBBOB, the activity with the largest DOD participation was 

Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII, a program involving members of all armed 

services. Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII included training programs, tactical 

maneuvers, and technical service projects. Training programs generally included 

lectures and briefings on the effects of nuclear weapons, observation of a nuclear 

detonation, and a subsequent visit to a display of military equipment exposed to 

the detonation. At shots HOOD, SMOKY, and GALILEO, maneuvers were conducted to 

develop tactics applicable to the nuclear battlefield. At HOOD, the Marine Corps 

conducted a maneuver involving the use of a helicopter airlift and tactical air 

support. At shot SMOKY, Army troops conducted an airlift assault, and at shot 

GALILEO, Army troops were tested to determine their psychological reactions to 

witnessing a nuclear detonation. Technical service projects were designed to 

test equipment and techniques. 

In addition to Desert Rock activities, scientific experiments to assess the 

effects of each nuclear detonation were conducted by four test groups of the 

Nevada Test Organization The Weapons Effects Test Group was sponsored by 

Field Command, Armed Forces Special Weapons Project The two AEC weapons 

development laboratories sponsored the Los Scientific Laboratory and 

the University of California Radiation Laboratory Test Groups. Finally, 

the Federal Civil Defense Administration sponsored the Civil Effects Test Group 

, which evaluated the effectiveness of civil defense measures. Although 

the Weapons Effects Test Group was the only DOD-sponsored test group, DOD personnel took part in the experiments of the other three groups. 

Individuals participating in scientific experiments placed data-collection 

instruments around the point of detonation in the days and weeks preceding the 

scheduled nuclear test. They returned to the test area to recover equipment and 

gather data after the detonation, when the Test Manager had determined that the 

area was safe for limited access. 

1 
Support services for both Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII and the Nevada Test 

Organization included radiological safety, security, transportation, communications, engineering, and logistics. The Air Force Special Weapons Center (AFSWC) 

at Kirtland Air Force Base, New Mexico, provided aircraft and pilots for preshot 

security sweeps, cloud sampling, cloud tracking, and aerial radiological surveys 

conducted for the NTO. During PLUMBBOB, AFSWC also conducted cloud penetration 

studies for the Weapons Effects Test Group to determine Air Force needs in 

monitoring the accumulation of radioactive contaminants on aircraft. 

Safetv Standards and Procedures 

Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII, the test groups, and AFSWC each developed its 

own organization and procedures for ensuring the radiological safety of its 

members based on the established criteria of the Atomic Energy Commission. The 

radiological safety plans were developed to minimize operational exposures to 

ionizing radiation. 

The safety of Desert Rock VII and VIII participants was the responsibility of the 

Desert Rock Exercise Director. A maximum radiation exposure limit of 5.0 

roentgens in any six-month period was established for Desert Rock troops. Of this 

exposure, no more than 2.0 roentgens was to be from prompt radiation. 

Exposure limits for blast pressure and thermal radiation were also established. 

Based on exposure limits and mode of delivery, minimum distance criteria for 

positioning Desert Rock troops and observers were established. For a tower shot 

with a predicted maximum yield of about 10 kilotons, troops in the open were 

positioned at least 4,000 yards from ground zero. Troops in trenches at such a 

shot were positioned no closer than 2,600 yards from ground zero. Troops in 

armored vehicles were positioned no closer than 2,800 yards from ground zero. 

The Desert Rock Radiological Safety Section implemented procedures for Exercise 

Desert Rock during PLUMBBOB. The 50th Chemical Platoon supported the Radiological 

Safety Section by providing materials, equipment, and personnel. 

The Test Manager was responsible for the safety of all test group personnel at the 

Nevada Test Site during the operation. The radiological safety criteria for test 

group personnel was 3.0 roentgens for any 13-week period, and 5.0 roentgens for 

one calendar year. AFSWC pilots were subject to the same exposure limits as the 

test groups. radiological safety operations were performed for the Test 

Manager by AEC personnel. The Air Force Special Weapons Center implemented its 

own radiological safety procedures. 

Although the missions of Exercise Desert Rock, NTO, and AFSWC required different 

types of activities and separate radiation protection plans and staffs, many of 

the procedures were similar and were performed by two or more of the three 

radiological safety groups. These procedures included : 

• Orientation and training preparing radiological monitors for their work and familiarizing participants with 

radiological safety procedures 

2 
-

Personnel dosimetry issuing, processing, developing film badges for participants, and 

ming gamma radiation exposures recorded on film 

badges 

Use of protective equipment providing 

contamination equipment, including clothing and 

respirators 

Monitoring performing radiological surveys and 

controlling access to all contaminated areas 

Briefing informing observers and project 

personnel of radiological hazards and the current 

status of contamination in the test area 

Decontamination detecting and removing 

contaminated material from personnel and equipment. 

Radiation Exposures at 

The following table indicates the findings of the military Services as of April 23, 

1981. 

Air DOD 

Army Navy Marines Force Civilians 

# Participants 7,226 466 2,417 2,505 2,266 

# With Film Badge 7,226 442 540 1,446 2,222 

# With less than 3,194 371 241 893 1,558 

0.1 rem 

Greater than 5 rem 27 3 1 19 0 

Summaries of Nuclear Events 

The 24 nuclear shots and the safety experiments are summarized in the 

accompanying table, and their locations are shown on the accompanying map. Shots 

PRISCILLA, HOOD, SMOKY, and GALILEO are described in the following paragraphs. 

PRISCILLA is significant due to the large number of participants involved and the 

extensive military effects program. HOOD and SMOKY involved large troop tests. 

GALILEO is significant because some personnel had been at the test site for an 

extended period of time awaiting a decision as to whether they would be able to 

participate at SMOKY. For a number of reasons including delays in the scheduling 

of SMOKY, the Army troop test was conducted at GALILEO instead of SMOKY. 

3 
Shot PRISCILLA, a 37-kiloton shot, was detonated from a balloon 700 feet above 

Frenchman Flat at 0630 hours on June 24, 1957. While there was no troop maneuver 

at PRISCILLA, more than 1,700 individuals took part in Exercise Desert Rock 

activities. Most of these individuals were involved in the troop observer 

indoctrination program. The closest troops witnessed the detonation from trenches 

3,500 meters southwest of ground zero. After the detonation, troops toured the 

extensive equipment display area, located directly south of ground zero. At the 

time of the first survey, residual radiation greater than 1 R/h* was confined to 

a circular area within 550 meters of ground zero. Troops were able to view equipment up to the 5 R/h intensity line located 500 meters from ground zero. 

The primary objective of the PRISCILLA event was to correlate the yield and 

characteristics of the device with its effects on military equipment, materiel, 

structures, and ordnance. To fulfill this objective, about 300 Armed Forces 

Special Weapons Project personnel conducted 34 scientific projects at shot 

PRISCILLA, making this shot one of the largest military effects tests ever 

conducted at the Nevada Test Site. In addition, AFSWC aircrew personnel provided 

such services to the Test Manager as cloud sampling, cloud tracking, and security 

sweeps. The principal AFSWC unit involved in the PRISCILLA shot, as at other 

shots in the series, was the 4950th Test Group (Nuclear), with support 

from the 4900th Air Base Group. During shot PRISCILLA, AFSWC also conducted the 

cloud penetration study. 

Shot HOOD, a balloon shot with a yield of 74 kilotons, was fired at 

0440 hours on July 5, 1957 in Yucca Flat. HOOD was the largest atmospheric 

detonation to occur at the NTS. Residual radiation greater than 1 R/h at the time 

of the first survey was confined to a circular area 1,000 meters from ground 

zero. 

Exercise Desert Rock programs included troop observer and indoctrination projects, 

a troop test, radiological training projects and technical service projects. Over 

3,000 DOD personnel participated in these projects, the largest being the Marine 

Brigade Exercise, which involved 2,100 to 2,200 Marines from the Fourth Marine 

Corps Provisional Atomic Exercise Brigade. The principal participating units were 

from the First Marine Divison of Camp Pendleton, California, and the Third Air 

Wing from the Marine Corps Air Station at El Toro, California. 

Originally scheduled to take place during shot DIABLO, the exercise was 

rescheduled for shot HOOD when DIABLO misfired. The Marine exercise had several 

objectives, including the training of personnel in the effects and employment of 

nuclear weapons, the formulation of tactics and techniques relative to nuclear 

war, and the training of personnel in passive defense measures against the effects 

of nuclear weapons. The troop maneuver involved a coordinated air-ground 

assault by a reinforced Marine battalion against a military objective. After 

observing the shot, the Marines were transported by helicopters to landing zones 

near the attack objective. A ground assault on the objective, supported by tactical aircraft, was to follow the airlift. When the objective was obtained at 1100 

hours, more than six hours after the shot, some of the troops viewed an equipment 

display area, located from 240 to 2,170 meters from ground zero. 

*R/h = roentgens per hour 

4 
Another 100 project participants took part in 24 scientific experiments and six

operational training projects at shot HOOD. AFSWC activities included the cloud 

penetration study, as well as such standard support missions as cloud sampling, 

courier missions, cloud tracking, and security sweeps. About 80 AFSWC aircrew 

took part in these activities at shot HOOD. 

Shot SMOKY was fired from a tower in Yucca Flat at 0530 hours on August 

31, 1957. The shot had a yield of 44 kilotons. At the time of the first survey, 

the 1 R/h line extended more than kilometers to the southeast of ground zero. 

Exercise Desert Rock troops observed the detonation from a location 13 kilometers 

southwest of ground zero. The closest approach was 4,100 meters west of ground 

zero. Exercise Desert Rock activities at shot SMOKY included a troop test, the 

troop observer program, technical service projects, and radiological monitoring 

training. The most significant of these activities, an attack and resupply 

maneuver, involved an estimated 1,144 troops. The initial phase of the project 

was conducted two weeks before the shot. Troops prepared defensive positions 

north and west of SMOKY ground zero for inspection after the shot. The troops, a 

reinforced Infantry Company named Task Force WARRIOR, were part of the 1st Battle 

Group, 12th Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division, Fort Lewis, Washington. 

They observed the shot assembly areas some 13 kilometers from ground zero.

Fifteen minutes after the shot, a Pathfinder unit, accompanied by radiological 

monitors, flew into the objective area northwest of ground zero and determined it 

radiologically safe to occupy. At 0550 hours, assault elements of the task force 

had been brought into the objective area. The exercise ended at 0945 hours on 

August 31, 1957. 

About 200 additional participants took part in the scientific experiments at shot 

SMOKY. Another 22 Navy and Air Force crewmen participated in operational training 

projects designed to indoctrinate personnel, practice photographic reconnaissance, 

and test indirect bomb damage assessment equipment and techniques. In addition to 

performing cloud sampling, sample courier returns, security sweeps, and cloud 

tracking missions, AFSWC pilots provided support to Desert Rock, AFSWP, UCRL, and

CETG projects. More than 200 AFSWC aircrew personnel were involved in these 

activities. 

Shot GALILEO, with a yield of 11 kilotons of explosive energy, was detonated from 

a 500-foot tower at 0540 hours on September 2, 1957. At the time of the first 

survey, fallout of 1 R/h was detected as far as 2,750 meters northwest of ground 

zero. Exercise Desert Rock activities at GALILEO, which involved 295 individuals, 

included a troop test and two technical service projects. The troop test, conducted by the Human Resources Research Office was to monitor the 

performance of persons who had witnessed a nuclear detonation for the first time. 

Immediately after witnessing GALILEO, troops performed a rifle disassembly/ 

assembly to test their reactions. They then went to the SMOKY trench area, where they performed the infiltration course test. Film badge records suggest that only 110 of the 167 servicemen scheduled to participate actually took part in the troop 

test. Eighty-six of these were test troops, and seven were troop monitors who were to supplement the HumRRO monitors who had left early. The remaining 17 probably also assisted in the HumRRO team as monitors. 
 

Sa,etv Elpe,,men, 

SUMMARY OF OPERATION PLUMB606 EVENTS 

Actual 

Yield 

Local Height of 

Sponsor Date Time Burst 

AEC April 24 0827 PST Surface 

LASL May 28 0455 PDT Tower 500 

LASL June 2 0455 PDT Tower 300 

Shot 

PROJECT 57 0 

BOLTZMANN 

FRANKLIN tons 

UCRL June 5 0445 PDT Balloon 0 5 tons

UCRL June 18 PDT Balloon 

LASL/DOD June 24 PDT Balloon 

LASL July 1 1030 PDT Surface 0 

WILSON 

PRISCILLA 37KT 

COULOMB A 0 

HOOD UCRL July 5 0440 PDT Balloon 1500 

DIABLO UCRL July 15 PDT Tower 17KT 

JOHN 

I 

DOD 

I July 19 I 

PDT 

I 

to 

I 

18.500 

KEPLER LASL July 24 0450 PDT Tower 500 

OWENS UCRL July 25 PDT Balloon 9 7KT

PASCAL A PDT Shaft 

STOKES LASL Aug 7 0525 PDT Balloon 

SATURN UCRL Aug 9 1800 PDT Tunnel 100 0

*Four safety experiments (PASCAL C, COULOMB VENUS, and URANUS) were conducted at NTS for 58 between the end 

of testing in October 1957 and the start of HARDTACK II September 1958 

6 
SUMMARY OF OPERATION EVENTS (Continued) 

Local Height ofHeight of Actual 

Shot Sponsor Date Time BurstYield 

SHASTA U C R L A u g 1 8A u g 1 8 PDT Tower Tower 500 500 1 7 K T 

DOPPLER L A S L A u g 2 3A u g 2 3 0530 PDT Balloon 1 5 0 0 

PASCAL 8 PASCAL 8 L A S L A u g 2 7A u g 2 7 1535 P D T S h a f tS h a f t -500 

FRANKLIN FRANKLIN L A S L A u g 3 0A u g 3 0 P D T B a l l o o nB a l l o o n 7 5 0 

PRIME 

S M O K YS M O K Y UCRL UCRL Aug 31 Aug 31 0 5 3 0 P D T T o w e rT o w e r 7 0 0 4 4 K T 

GALILEO GALILEO L A S L S e p t 2S e p t 2 PDT T o w e rT o w e r 5 0 0 

WHEELER WHEELER U C R L S e p t 6S e p t 6 0 5 4 5 P D T B a l l o o nB a l l o o n 5 0 0 197 tons 197 tons 

COULOMB COULOMB B 8 L A S L S e p t 6S e p t 6 1 3 0 5 P D T S u r f a c eS u r f a c e 0 tons 

Safety 

L A S L S e p t 8S e p t 8 PDT B a l l o o nB a l l o o n 7 5 0 

FIZEAU L A S L Sept 14 Sept 14 0 9 4 5 P D T T o w e rT o w e r 5 0 0 
NEVADA TEST SITE 

NOTE: THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN AREAS 1 3 AND AREAS 7 IS MERCURY HIGHWAY, THE NORTH-SOUTH 

ROAD SHOWN TRAVERSING THOSE AREAS. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN AREA 2 AND AREA 9 LIES ALONG THE 

CENTER OF THE THREE ROADS SHOWN. 
PREFACE 

Between 1945 and 1962 the Atomic Energy Commission carried out 

some 235 atmospheric nuclear tests, principally in Nevada and in the Pacific. An 

estimated 220,000 Department of Defense (DOD) personnel, military and civilian, 

participated in this testing. 

Until 1977 there was no indication that former test participants were 

experiencing any adverse health effects which might be attributable to exposure to 

ionizing radiation at the tests. In 1977 the Center for Disease Control 

discovered a possible leukemia cluster among participants in shot SMOKY, Nevada, 

1957. By late 1977 a DOD ad hoc committee, working together with CDC, had 

reconstructed a list of those present at SMOKY and identified nine leukemia cases 

from among the DOD participants. CDC calculations showed that the 

expected incidence of leukemia should be three to four cases. CDC undertook an 

epidemiological study to investigate the cause of these leukemias. On a broader 

scale, the CDC data show that among SMOKY participants, the total number of deaths 

from all causes is about that which would be normally expected. 

Responding to this initial indication of a possible health problem, DOD 

in December I977 began a program of wide-ranging actions on behalf of the 

atmospheric nuclear test participants. The Defense Nuclear Agency (DNA) was 

appointed DOD’s executive agent for this effort. The program established by DNA 

to carry out these responsibilities is termed the Nuclear Test Personnel Review 

NTP program. 

NUCLEAR TEST PERSONNEL REVIEW PROGRAM 

First, the NTPR program conducts extensive research to retrieve every 

bit of data about personnel participation and radiation exposure that can be 

recovered from records, archives, repositories, files, etc., throughout the U.S. 

and piece it together into a coherent, personnel-oriented history of the 

atmospheric test program. The result is a bookshelf of volumes, organized by 

*The CDC is a part of the Department of Health and Human Services. 

9 
series and shot, showing who was there, what they were doing, what radiological 

safety precautions were taken, what radiation doses individuals received, etc. 

Second, in the process of this research, the NTPR program declassified 

documents which formerly bore a security classification, and reprinted, 

and assembled historical documents for easy reference by former 

participants, the Veterans Administration and others. 

Third, the NTPR program calculated or estimated atmospheric test 

radiation exposures, both as a check on film badge readings and as a substitute 

for those cases where badges were not worn or readings were not recorded or are 

not retrievable. 

Fourth, the NTPR program established personal contact with as many test 

participants as possible through a nationwide public information program, 

toll-free telephone lines, return letters, interaction with the VA, and development of a permanent, computerized data base. 

Fifth, the NTPR program identified individuals who received doses higher 

than today’s Federal guidelines, notified them of their exposure level, and 

offered them free medical examinations at Government hospitals. 

Sixth, the NTPR program, in conjunction with the Department of Energy 

(DOE), funded an extensive morbidity/mortality study by the National Academy of 

Sciences of about 40,000 test participants selected by the NAS. The purpose 

of this study was to determine whether there was an increased incidence of disease 

among these individuals. It should be noted that even 20-35 years after some 

220,000 DOD personnel participated in the atmospheric test program, the only 

indication that there might have been an increased health risk associated with 

test participation was identification of nine leukemia cases among 

participants in shot SMOKY, where the normal incidence would have been between 

three and four. (And, as stated above, CDC did not attribute this leukemia to 

exposure to ionizing radiation. 

10 
Finally, the NTPR program provided assistance to veterans, the VA, 

other organizations by doing individual research and providing as complete data as 

possible on individual participation and radiation doses. 

Thus, the overall NTPR effort served a major function of assisting test 

participants and other interested parties to ascertain, in as much depth as 

possible, the details of their participation. This report is the history for 

testing programs executed during the Operation test series. Radiation 

control policies, procedures, and requirements are discussed as implemented across 

the series of tests. Also included are references to those individual shot 

volumes which illustrate particular activities. 

METHODS AND SOURCES USED TO PREPARE THIS VOLUME 

The Defense Nuclear Agency compiled information for this volume by 

examining available documents which record the military operations and scientific 

activities performed during Operation PLUMBBOB, the atmospheric nuclear weapons 

tests conducted in 1957. These records, most of which were developed by 

individuals and organizations participating in the tests, are kept in over three 

dozen document repositories throughout the United States . 

In compiling information for this report, teams of historians, health 

physicists, radiation specialists, and information analysts canvassed document 

repositories known to contain materials on atmospheric nuclear weapons tests 

conducted in the southwestern U.S. These repositories include armed services 

libraries, Government agency archives and libraries, Federal repositories, and 

libraries of scientific technical laboratories. The teams examined large amounts 

of both classified and unclassified documents containing information on DOD 

participation in Operation PLUMBBOB. Researchers recorded relevant information 

concerning the activities of DOD personnel during PLUMBBOB, and the 

data sources in an automated database for easy cross-referencing and retrieval. 

The following document repositories held the most information on Operation 

PLUMBBOB. 
• Defense Nuclear Agency Technical Library, Alexandria, 

Virginia 

• Los Scientific Laboratory, Los New 

Mexico 

• Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Las 

Vegas, Nevada 

• U.S. Air Force Weapons Laboratory Archives, Kirtland 

AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexico 

• U.S. Air Force Special Weapons Center (AFSWC) Air 

Force Weapons Laboratory Technical Library, Kirtland 

AFB , Albuquerque, New Mexico 

• Modern Military Branch, National Archives, Washington, 

D.C. 

• Defense Atomic Support Agency Information Center, 

Santa Barbara, California. 

Most documents pertaining specifically to DOD involvement during 

were found in the Defense Nuclear Agency’s Technical Library, the 

Department of Energy’s Nevada Operations Office, the Los Scientific 

Laboratory, and the Modern Military Branch of the National Archives. The 

significant documents (all cited in the Reference List) used in the development of 

this report included : 

• Final Report of Operations for Exercise Desert 

Rock VII and VIII. 

• Report of the Test Director, 

• Report of the Test Manager, 

• Test Director% Operation Plan and schedule of 

events for 

• Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII operation 

orders and After-action Reports 

• Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Troop 

Observers, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII, 

Operation PLUMBBOB, prepared by the Defense 

Nuclear Agency 

12 
• Air Force Special Weapons Center Report of the 4925th 

Test Group (Atomic) at 

• Air Mission Summary Reports 

• Radiological Safety Report, prepared for the 

Nevada Test Organization by Reynolds Electrical 

and Engineering Company, Inc. 

• AFSWP Operation Summary Report 

• Weapons Test Reports for the Armed Forces 

Special Weapons Project 

Compilation of Local Fallout Data from Test 

Detonations 1945-1962. 

Gathering data for this study presented a variety of challenges. Many 

different military and civilian organizations were involved in developing and 

storing records related to Operation PLUMBBOB. Each branch of the armed services 

and each civilian organization had its own system of recording information. Much 

material was never preserved, probably because it was not considered important at 

the time. Other records have been transferred from one repository to another, and 

accounts of the transfer of documents are not always available. 

Frequently, the surviving historical documentation of activities 

conducted during Operation addresses test specifications and technical 

information rather than the personnel data critical to the study undertaken by the 

Nuclear Test Personnel Review. Moreover, instances have arisen in which available 

historical documentation has revealed inconsistencies in factual data, such as the 

number of DOD participants in a certain project at a given shot or their locations 

and assignments at a given time. These inconsistencies in data usually occur 

between two or more documents, but occasionally appear within the same document. 

Efforts have been made to resolve these data inconsistencies wherever possible, or 

to otherwise bring them to the attention of the reader. 

ORGANIZATION OF THE SERIES REPORTS 

This volume details participation by DOD personnel in Operation 

PLUMBBOB, the sixth atmospheric nuclear weapons testing series conducted at the 

Atomic Energy Commission’s Nevada Test Site. Seven other shot volumes address DOD 

activities during the various detonations of the series: 

13 
-

-

• First Four Tests, BOLTZMANN WILSON 

• PRISCILLA 

• HOOD 

• Mid-Series Tests, DIABLO FRANKLIN 

• SMOKY 

• GALILEO 

• Final Eight Tests, WHEELER MORGAN 

All volumes addressing the test events of Operation have been 

designed for use with one another. This series volume, for example, includes a 

description of the historical context of the atmospheric nuclear weapons test 

program in general and the 1957 series in particular, a discussion of the 

operation’s overall objectives, a description of the geographic layout of the 

Nevada Test Site, organizational relationships, general radiation safety proceand an appendix listing of all test programs. It contains information 

which applies to those dimensions of the operation which transcend specific 

events. The shot volumes, on the other hand, contain little of this general 

information on PLUMBBOB, since such matters apply to all events of the series 

rather than to any single shot. Similarly, this volume contains a bibliography of 

all works consulted in the preparation of the eight Operation reports, 

while the shot volumes and multi-shot volumes contain a bibliography only of the 

sources referenced in each of those texts. 

14 






’ * ’ * ’ ’ ’ *

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

PAGE 

FACT SHEET (SUMMARY). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 

PREFACE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 

LIST OF TABLES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31 

1.1 Purpose of this Report .................. 

1.2 Historical Background. .................. 31 

1.3 Purpose of Operation ............. 32 

1.4 Authority. ........................ 35 

1.5 Setting. ......................... 37 

CHAPTER 2 RESPONSIBILITIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS. . . 44 

2.1 Introduction ....................... 44 

2.2 AEC and DOD Components in the 

Nevada Test Organization ................. 48 

2.3 Desert Rock Organization ................. 54 

CHAPTER 3 RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY AT OPERATION PLUMBBOB. . . . . . 60 

3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60 

3.2 AEC/NTO Radiological Safety at 

Operation PLUMBBOB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 

3.2.1 Radiological Safety Standards . 

3.2.2 Organization of Radiological . 

Safety Programs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62 

3.2.3 Radiological Safety 

Procedures and Operations . . . . . . . . . . . 64 

3.3 Desert Rock Radiological Safety at 

Operation PLUMBBOB. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74 

3.3.1 Radiological Safety Standards . . . . . . . . . . . 74 

3.3.2 Organization of Desert Rock 

Radiological Safety. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

3.3.3 Radiological Safety Procedures 

and Operations . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . 76 

21 
 

 

’ ’ ’

PAGE 

CHAPTER 4 EXERCISE DESERT ROCK VII AND VIII PROGRAMS ..... 81 

4.1 Introduction ................... 81 

4.2 Technical Service Projects ............. 81 

4.2.1 Project 50.3 (Evaluation of Medium 

Range Detonation-Detection 

Tracking System) .............. 84 

4.2.2 Project 50.4 (Evaluation of Water 

Decontamination Methods) ........... 86 

4.2.3 Project 50.5 (Evaluation of Shielding 

for Engineer Heavy Equipment). ........ 86 

4.2.4 Project 50.6 (Protection Afforded by 

Field Fortifications) ............. 87 

4.2.5 Project 50.7 (Test of Ordnance Material). .... 87 

4.2.6 Project 50.8 (Detection of Atomic Burst 

and Radioactive Fallout). ........... 92 

4.3 Troop Observer Indoctrination Programs. ....... 96 

4.3.1 Projects 50.2, 52.2, 53.3, and BOBCAT ..... 96 

4.3.2 Operation Coordination Visitors’ Program. .... 97 

4.3.3 Shot JOHN Observer Program ......... 99 

4.4 Troop Maneuvers and Tests ............. 99 

4.5 Training Projects ................. 100 

4.6 Desert Rock Support Activities. ........... 101 

CHAPTER 5 DOD PARTICIPATION IN OPERATIONS ........ 106 

5.1 Introduction ................... 106 

5.2 Department of Defense Operations Within the .... 106 

5.2.1 Armed Forces Special Weapons Project Military 

Effects Programs. .............. 108 

5.2.2 DOD Support Group/Field Command Support Unit . 143 

5.2.3 Air Force Special Weapons Center. ....... 148 

5.3 AEC Operations with DOD Involvement. ........ 161 

5.3.1 Los Scientific Laboratory Programs 166 

5.3.2 University of California Radiation Laboratory 

Programs 172 

5.3.3 Sandia Programs: 174 

5.3.4 Project 57 Programs ............. 176 

5.4 Operational Training Projects ............ 182 

5.4.1 Project 51.3 (Navy Heavy Attack 

Indoctrination ........... 182 
 

 

 

-

PAGE 

5.4.2 Project 52.3 (Marine Fly-by 

Indoctrination . . . . . . . . 184 

5.4.3 Project 53.2 (Ground Motion . . . . . . 

5.4.4 Project 53.5 (Air Crew 

Early Cloud Penetration). . . . . . . . . . . . 184 

5.4.5 Project 53.7 (Indirect Bomb Damage 

Assessment B-58 Evaluation). . . . . . . 185 

5.4.6 Project 53.8 (Indirect Bomb Damage 

Assessment). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 

5.4.7 Project 53.9 (Photographic Reconnaissance 

Training). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 185 

5.4.8 Project 53.10 (Passive Defense). . . . . . . . . 186 

5.5 Support Programs . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . 186 

5.5.1 Air Support Group Programs for the . . . . 188 

5.5.2 Fallout Prediction Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . 188 

5.5.3 Weather Prediction Unit . . . . . . . . . . . . 189 

5.5.4 Blast Prediction Unit . . 192 

5.5.5 DOD Operations Coordination’ , 194 

5.5.6 Assembly and Arming. . , . . . . . . . . . . 194 

5.5.7 Sandia Support . 197 

5.5.8 AEC Support . 198 

5.6 Federal Civil Defense Administration Operations . . . . . 204 

CHAPTER 6 RADIATION ANALYSIS OF DOD PERSONNEL . . . . . . . . 218 

6.1 Introduction ................... 218 

6.2 Characteristics of Exposure Data 

for Personnel .............. 218 

6.3 Data Sources ................... 218 

6.4 General Personnel Groupings. ............ 222 

6.4.1 Before the Detonation. ............ 224 

6.4.2 Detonation Time ........................... 224 

6.4.3 After the Detonation 225 

6.5 Summaries of Personnel Dose Data . 226 

6.6 Summary of Radiological Safety at . 243 

6.6.1 Overall Results of the EDR Radiological 

Safety Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

6.6.2 Overall Results of the Radiological 

Safety Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 244 

REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 247 

APPENDIX 

A Programs and Projects . . . . . . . . , . 275 

23 
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 

FIGURE PAGE 

1 Shot WILSON, 18 June 1957 ............... 15 

2 Shot PRISCILLA, 24 June 1957 ............. 16 

l-l Letter to President Eisenhower from Chairman 

3 Shot HOOD, 5 July 1957 ................ 17 

4 Shot KEPLER, 24 July 1957 ............... 18 

5 Shot OWENS, 25 July 1957 ............... 19 

of AEC, with Presidential Approval for . . . 33 

l-2 Organizational Chart, Operation . . . . . . . 36 

l-3 State of Nevada, Showing Nuclear Testing Area . . . . . 38 

l-4 Nuclear Test Facilities in Nevada . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 

l-5 Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

2-l Test Manager’s Functions and Duties .......... 47 

2-2 Test Manager’s Organization ............... 49 

2-3 Test Director’s Organization ............... 53 

2-4 Exercise Desert Rock Organization . . . . . . . . . . . 56 

3-l Radiological Safety Organization .......... 63 

3-2 AFS WC Radiological Safety Organization ......... 65 

3-3 Special Procedures for Contaminated Aircraft ...... 73 

4-l Standard Observer Grouping, Rostering, and Convoy 

Procedures for Camp Desert Rock . . . . . . . . . . . . 98 

4-2 Trenches in Operational Area, NTS . . . . . . . . . . . 103 

5-l DOD Operations, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107 

5-2 Self-recording Gauge . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 

5-3 Contractor-installed Towers for Old and New Model 

Q-Gauges . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113 

24 
 

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 

(Continued) 

FIGURE PAGE 

5-4 Pressure and Timing System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114 

5-5 Typical Placement of Protective Canister . . . . . . . . 115 

5-6 Project 1.9 Shock Spectra Gauge. . . . . . . . . . . . 115 

5-7 Cross-sectional Diagram of an Exposed Soil Sample . . . 119 

5-8 Overall View of Monitoring Rig . . . . . , . . . . . . . 120 

5-9 M-48 Tank. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121 

5-10 Mounting of Detectors in M-48 Tank . . . . . . , . . . 121 

5-11 Cross-sectional Diagram of Aluminum Sample 

Container . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 

5-12 The 500-yard Station at Shot WILSON Looking Toward 

Ground Zero. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . 123 

5-13 Typical Bunker Installation . . . . . . . . . . . , . . 124 

5-14 Relative Positions for Transmitters and Receivers 

for Shot BOLTZMANN . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . 125 

5-15 Masonite Phantom, Showing Dosimeter Array . , . . . . 126 

5-16 Masonite Phantom Loaded with Standard Depth-Dose 

Ratemeter and Holding Ratemeter Types AN/PDR-43 

(XN-1) and AN/PDR-44 . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 

5-17 Anti-glare Shutter System ............... 130 

5-18 Missile-collecting Trap System ............. 132 

5-19 Principal Dimensions of Model ZSG-3 Airship . . . . . . 134 

5-20 FJ-4 Airplane Instrumented for Operation PLUMBBOB, . 135 

5-21 Relative Disposition of NAROL Nets . . . . , . . . . 140 

5-22 Layout . . . . . . . . . . , . , 140 

5-23 Organizational Chart, DOD Support Group . , . . . . . 146 

5-24 Test Aircraft Unit Organization . . . , . . . . . . . . 153 

5-25 Functional Test Groups, AEC Operations, PLUMBBOB. . 162 

25 
 

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS 

(Continued) 

FIGURE PAGE 

5-26 Nevada Test Site with Station Locations ........ 165 

5-27 Support Groups, AEC Operations, ..... 187 

5-28 Air Weather Service Unit ............. 189 

5-29 Microbarograph Recording Locations .......... 193 

5-30 Visitors’ Bureau Organization ............. 202 

6-l Dose Distribution, Series . . . . . . . 228 

26 
 

LIST OF TABLES 

TABLE PAGE 

l-l Summary of Operation Events . . , . . 41 

2-l Summary of Scientific Programs at PLUMBBOB. . . . . . 45 

3-l AEC and Desert Rock Decontamination Criteria . . . . . 69 

4-l Service-related Projects at PLUMBBOB. . . . . . . . . 82 

4-2 Personnel Participation in Exercise Desert Rock 

................... 83 

4-3 Participation in Project 50.3 ............. 85 

4-4 Preliminary Results of Project 50.5 .......... 88 

4-5 Project 50.7 Participation in ........ 89 

4-6 Project 50.8 Participation in ........ 93 

5-l DOD Test Group Programs at Indicating 

Projects at Each Shot (1957) . . . . . . . . . . . . 109 

5-2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 144 

5-3 Aircraft Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 149 

5-4 Test Aircraft Unit Totals for Operation PLUMBBOB. . . 151 

5-5 Brief Description of Air Operations . . . . . . . . . 152 

5-6 Sample Recovery and Sample Return Operations . . . . 155 

5-7 Statistical Summary 4926th Test Squadron (Sampling). . 156 

5-8 Wright Air Development Center Statistical Summary . . 158 

5-9 U.S. Navy Special Weapons Facility Statistical Summary. 159 

5-10 MB-1 Project Statistical Summary . . . . . . . . . . 160 

5-11 LASL Test Group Projects Conducted at Operation 

Shots . , . . . . . . . . . . . 167 

5-12 UCRL Test Group Projects Conducted at Operation 

Shots . . . . . . . . . , . . . 173 

27 
•••• ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• •

LIST OF TABLES 

(Continued) 

TABLE PAGE 

5-13 Sandia Projects at Operation PLUMBBOB. . . . . . . . 175 

5-14 Air Operation Training Projects (Programmed 

183 

5-15 CETG Projects Conducted at Operation 

 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , 205 

5-16 DOD Participation in CETG Projects by Program. . . . . 207 

6-l Data Sources in NTPR Roster of DOD Participants. . . . 223 

6-2 DOD Personnel Participation by Shot . . . . 227 

6-3 Personnel Participation (Military or 

 . . . . . , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 229 

6-4 Personnel Participation for Major 

Organizations. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 235 

6-5 Personnel Participation by Unit. . . . . . . 236 

28 
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

The following is a list of the acronyms and abbreviations frequently 

cited in this volume: 

AEC 

AFS WC 

AFSWP 

CDR 

CETG 

DASA 

DNA 

DOD 

DOE 

EDR 

FCDA 

FCSU 

FCWT 

GZ 

LASL 

NAS WF 

NTPR 

NTS 

Radex 

Rad-safe 

UCRL 

USAF 

Measurements 

Ci 

D-day 

D-l day 

day 

H-hour 

H-l hour 

hour 

kt 

KT 

M C 

mrem 

R 

R/h 

rem 

Atomic Energy Commission 

Air Force Special Weapons Center 

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project 

Camp Desert Rock 

Civil Effects Test Group 

Defense Atomic Support Agency 

Defense Nuclear Agency 

Department of Defense 

Department of Energy

Exercise Desert Rock 

Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier 

Federal Civil Defense Administration 

Field Command Support Unit

Field Command Weapons Test 

Ground Zero 

Human Resources Research Office 

Los Scientific Laboratory 

U.S. Naval 4ir Special Weapon Facility Nevada Test Organization 

Nuclear Test Personnel Review 

Nevada Test Site (formerly Nevada Proving Ground) 

Radiological exclusion 

Radiological safety

Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company 

University of California Radiation Laboratory 

United States Air Force 

Curie 

cycles per second 

day of detonation 

day before detonation 

day after detonation 

hour of detonation 

hour before detonation 

hour after detonation 

kilotons (lower case = weight)

kilotons (upper case = yield) 

megacycles 

megacuries 

milliroentgen 

milliroent gen hour 

millirem 

roentgen 

roentgen-equivalent-mammal 

micrograms 

29 
30 
1.1 

1.2 

CHAPTER 1 

INTRODUCTION 

PURPOSE OF THIS REPORT 

This report is about Department of Defense (DOD) personnel involvement 

in the atmospheric nuclear weapons test series, Operation PLUMBBOB, which took 

place at the Nevada Test Site in 1957. This volume deals with why the testing 

took place, the activities and safety measures, the procedures used to limit or 

control exposure of personnel to ionizing radiation, the activities that may or 

may not have resulted in personnel exposure to radiation, and an analysis and 

summary of the ionizing radiation exposures received by various military units. 

This report serves to assist test participants and other interested parties in 

ascertaining, to as much depth as possible, details of individual participation. 

Additionally, it is an instrument to assist scientific research, the Veterans 

Administration, and the public as a historical account of the series of 

atmospheric nuclear weapons tests. 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 

From 1945 to 1962, the United States conducted a number of nuclear 

weapons series in the continental United States. The sixth series was Operation 

PLUMBBOB, the first test conducted on 24 April 1957 and the last on 7 October 

1957. 

Progression of the U.S. nuclear test program had a direct link with 

United States defense policy, aimed at keeping the United States competitive in 

the nuclear arena and secure in its place as a world leader. With emergence of 

the USSR as a nuclear rival in 1949, the U.S. had strong motivation for 

continuing, and even intensifying, its test program. 

Despite this impetus, however, a counter-movement was emerging. It 

began in 1954, after some of the inhabitants of the Marshall Islands were 

accidentally exposed to fallout. At that time, Prime Minister Nehru of India 

proposed a cessation of tests The call for a “test ban” figured repeatedly 

*All sources cited in the text are listed alphabetically by author in the 

Reference List, appended at the back of this volume. The number given within the 

citation in the text is the number of the source document in the Reference List. 

31 
in disarmament discussions, most importantly, those of the Disarmament Subcommittee of the U.N. Disarmament Commission. The Disarmament Commission was in 

session from 18 March to 6 September 1957 at the same time that was being 

conducted--May to October 1957. Thus, as the series went forward, the 

international effort was turning toward cessation of future testing. 

However, the test ban did not take place in 1957 because of the 

seemingly irreconcilable differences between the U.S. and the Soviet positions. 

The Subcommittee’s discussions ended in September 1957 with no significant 

movement from either side. As background for test program decisions, however, it 

is important to note that 1957 was a year charged with controversy over the future 

of nuclear testing. 

1.3 PURPOSE OF OPERATION 

On 21 December 1956, after a year of AEC, DOD and FCDA* planning, 

Lewis Strauss , Chairman of the AEC, requested Presidential approval for Operation 

PLUMBBOB, then termed PILGRIM (Figure The letter requesting approval listed 

the primary objectives of PLUMBBOB. (299) In view of the scientific and political 

situation described above, the letter thus indicates how might advance 

the U.S. position. The primary objectives were as follows: 

• To proof test a weapon for desired military 

characteristics before it enters the national 

stockpile. 

• To provide a firm basis for undertaking the 

extensive engineering and fabrication efforts 

which must be expended to carry a “breadboard” 

model to a version satisfactory for stockpile 

purposes. 

• To demonstrate the adequacy, inadequacy, or 

limitations of current theoretical approaches. 

• To explore phenomena which can vitally affect 

the efficiency and performance of weapons but 

which are not susceptible to prior theoretical 

analysis of sufficient certainty. 

*Atomic Energy Commission, Department of Defense, and Federal Civil Defense 

Administration, respectively. 

32 
December 21, 1956 

Dear Mr. President: 

A of nuclear devices for early entry into our defense stockpile, or 

important to the most rapid advancement of later weapons designs, will require 

testing in calendar year 1957. Such tests would include: 

a. The proof-firing of certain air defense and anti-submarine warheads 

scheduled for early production.... 

b. Development tests of components and mockups which provide design 

information for thermonuclear devices, which we plan to test in the 

Eniwetok Proving Ground in 1958. These directed 

toward a higher yield-to-weight ratio. 

C. Exploratory and development tests directed toward achieving more 

efficient use of active material and warheads of smaller size and 

weight. 

d. A deep underground test designed to explore this manner of testing. 

This testing technique would guarantee no off-site fallout and would 

furnish information of importance to several new possible applications 

of atomic weapons. 

In addition, the Department of Defense and the Federal Civil Defense 

Administration have indicated a need to secure from any test series in 1957 

certain effects data important to the protection of our people and military 

forces. A portion of this data can be secured from diagnostic shots. However, 

two special shots designed specifically to secure such effects information may be 

required, one of which would be a Department of Defense test involving an 

air-burst of the nuclear warhead in the new USAF air-to-air rocket following its 

launching from an interceptor aircraft. 

Finally, it will be necessary during the year to conduct certain safety 

tests--tests wherein the high explosive is detonated in an manner to 

prove that no nuclear reaction will occur if the weapon, while safed, is subjected 

to fire or accident, and to determine the extent of local contamination which 

might result from the spread of nuclear material from weapons involved in fire or 

accident. 

Approximately 25 nuclear shots, together with five or more safety tests, may be 

required during the year. The first nuclear device would be detonated on or about 

May 1, 1957, and it is estimated that all nuclear shots would be fired in a period 

of the order of five months. The safety tests! from which no nuclear reaction is 

expected, would be fired on an "as needed" basis throughout the year. 

The operation would be designated PILGRIM. So as to avoid hazard to participants 

or the public, shots will be limited in yield, will be fired only under favorable 

weather conditions and will be so as to minimize local fallout. Larger 

shots of the series will be detonated generally at higher altitudes than those for 

past shots of comparable yield. The expected local fallout from such shots 

be reduced materially thereby. 

It is not possible at the present moment to specify exactly what shots are to be 

fired. This information is now being developed by the laboratories which are 

studying intensively the detailed results from REDWING and laying their plans for 

PILGRIM. It is our intention, however, to finalize a schedule as early as 

possible and thereafter to request your approval for the expenditure 

of the necessary special nuclear material. 

In the meantime, it is necessary that major preparations proceed. These include 

the mobilizing of forces at the proving ground and the inauguration of necessary 

construction. Importantly, too, it should involve the informing of the public in 

the area and others possibly affected, such as the photographic industry, of the 

timing of our series. 

We request your approval, therefore, for the conduct of the tests on the scale and 

in a manner as we have described above. As soon as practical after receipt of 

your approval, it is our intent to issue a brief public announcement as to our 

plan for the conduct of tests at the Nevada Test Site during calendar year 1957. 

Respectfully yours, 

Chairman 

The President 

The White House 

approve the conduct of Operation on the scale and in the manner outlined 

above, and authorize the issuance of a suitable public announcement of plans for 

tests at the Nevada Test Site during calendar year 1957. 

Dwight D. Eisenhower 28 1956 

Figure l-l. LETTER TO PRESIDENT EISENHOWER FROM 

CHAIRMAN OF AEC, WITH PRESIDENTIAL 

APPROVAL FOR PLUMBBOB. 
Operation was to be an integral part of the continuing national 

program for developing the means to conduct nuclear warfare in defense of the 

nation. Largely a joint AEC/DOD operation, the program had objectives which 

ranged beyond those listed in the letter. The AEC needed to test a number of 

nuclear devices scheduled for early production for the defense stockpile or those 

important to the design of improved weapons. One test (RAINIER) was conducted 

underground to contain the radioactive material resulting from the detonation; in 

this way, detonation of the device--and the instrumentation involved with 

it--would be freed from the constraints of weather. (Weather caused a number of 

delays in shots conducted above ground due to concern over the extent of 

fallout. 

One special program should be noted here: the safety tests, which 

arose from the military’s need to handle large numbers of nuclear weapons in the 

field. These tests were planned to ensure that no nuclear reaction will occur if 

the high explosive components in a weapon are accidentally detonated, as in a fire 

or accident . Another part of the program was to determine what contamination 

might result from spread of nuclear materials from such an accident. 

DOD used the test series to continue its study of military weapons 

effects and its training of personnel in nuclear operations. The DOD also planned 

a military weapons effects program involving blast and shock measurements, 

protection of underground structures such as missile launchers, nuclear radiation 

effects, and tests of service equipment. In addition, the various military 

services participated in Exercise Desert Rock to develop operational doctrine for 

use on a nuclear battlefield, provide training in essential physical protective 

measures, observe psychological effects of atomic explosions on individuals, and 

to indoctrinate participating troops and troop observers in the effects of an 

atomic explosion on equipment, material, and emplacements. 

In addition to the AEC and DOD programs, the FCDA (Federal Civil Defense 

Administration) participated in as part of its mission to protect the 

civilian population in the event of nuclear warfare. This program included tests 

of civilian shelters, studies of fallout, biological effects of blast, and other 

related studies. 

34 
1.4 AUTHORITY 

On December 28, 1956, President Eisenhower approved Operation 

(See Figure 1-1). Subsequently, agreements had to be formalized on the following 

issues : 

• Use of the Bombing and Gunnery Range 

Authorization for the expenditure of nuclear 

materials 

• Designation of the Test Manager. 

AEC Staff Paper dated February 8, 1957, cited a memo of agreement between 

the AEC and DOD (139). This February 1953 memo authorized use of the 

Bombing and Gunnery Range, one of the largest tactical fighter training areas in 

the world (some 7.5 million acres). On February 23, 1957, the President 

authorized expenditure of the special nuclear materials necessary to conduct the 

test series. This step was essential in order for the testing to proceed. The 

Test Manager for Operation was designated in a March 13, 1957 letter 

directive from the Albuquerque Operations Office (202). This letter was 

generated by the AEC staff paper cited above. 

To control and guide the actual conduct of the joint operation, the AEC 

and DOD had the organizational relationship shown in Figure l-2. As this figure 

and its explanatory notes show, the Division of Military Application (DMA) and the 

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP) were the executive agents for the AEC 

and DOD, respectively, which established the Nevada Test Site as a joint 

operation. The AEC General Manager directed AL00 to appoint a Test 

Manager and instruct him to conduct the operation. Overall directions to the Test 

Manager came from the AEC/DMA through In similar fashion, the Chief of 

AFS WP instructed the Commander, Field Command, AFSWP, to carry out the DOD mission 

and appointed the Deputy Chief of Staff, Weapons Effects Tests, AFSWP, to execute 

the Field Command functions at the NTO. Chapter 2 will explain both taskings in 

detail. 

35 
AL00 

DESERT ROCK ----------------

----LIAISON AND COORDINATION 

A GENERAL CONDUCT AND EXECUTION OF THE ATOMIC TESTS 

EXECUTION OF DOD PROGRAMS 

C AEC ADMINISTRATIVE AND CONTRACTUAL CONTROL 

EXECUTION OF FCDA PROGRAMS 

NOTE THE DESERT ROCK EXERCISE DIRECTOR, WHO WAS 

RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL ACTIVITIES AT CAMP DESERT 

ROCK, WAS NOT RESPONSIBLE TO THE TEST MANAGER 

INSTEAD, HE WAS RESPONSIBLE TO DOD. HIS CONNECTION WITH THE TEST MANAGER WAS ONE OF LIAISON 

AND COORDINATION IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT 

DESERT ROCK ACTIVITIES DID NOT INTERFERE WITH 

THE EXECUTION OF THE NUCLEAR EVENT. 

Figure ORGANIZATIONAL CHART, OPERATION PLUMBBOB. 
1.5 SETTING 

Nevada was chosen as the site for nuclear weapons testing because it was 

one of the least populated, largest, and most arid regions within the continental 

United States. The Nevada Test Site* was located on tableland 4-5,000 feet above 

sea level. It contained mountain ranges extending several thousand feet above the 

plateau as well as dry alkalai flats. Vegetation consisted mainly of sagebrush 

and other small shrubs. The climate was desertlike and inhospitable: hot during 

the day and cold at night with generally clear skies and slight rainfall or snow. 

The site itself (Figures l-3 and if distinguished from the larger 

military reservation later known as the Air Force Range and Nuclear Testing 

Site, is a rectangular area toward the center of southern Nevada. Its southeast 

extremity is about 65 miles* northwest of Las Vegas (Figure l-5). This map shows 

two settlements at the site: Mercury and Desert Rock, which housed the and 

EDR personnel, respectively. The peak population at Camp Mercury (in Area 

during was 3,500. The living area is a permanent installation, 

registered with the U.S. Post Office as Mercury, Nevada. It was built by the 

Atomic Energy Commission after Operation RANGER in 1951, the first use of the 

Nevada Test Site. By 1957 sixteen dormitories, including two for women, and many 

other buildings had been added. 

A few miles to the southwest was Camp Desert Rock, a temporary base of 

the U . Sixth Army out of Camp Irwin, California. Desert Rock was established to 

accommodate troops during tests. The peak population of the camp during 

was almost 5,000. 

Weapons tests were staged considerably to the north of these living 

areas. As listed in Table l-l, there were 24 nuclear tests and six safety experiments. The black triangles and circles on Figure l-5 represent ground zero 

*Until 1955 the Nevada Test Site was called the Nevada Proving Ground. It 

covered about 900 square miles of the Bombing and Gunnery Range and was 

located in Nye County, northwest of Las Vegas. The site was operated by the 

Atomic Energy Commission for the specific purpose of testing nuclear weapons.

The nuclear weapons test functions of the AEC have been incorporated into the 

Department of Energy. 

37 
I 

, 

38 
W 

a RANGE 

Figure l-4. NUCLEAR TEST FACILITIES IN NEVADA. 
NORTH 

HERCURY HI GHWAY 

. UNDERGROUND SHOT 

FRANKL IN 

c 

WILSON 

HOOD 

OWENS 

WHEELER 

CHARLESTON 

D PRISCILLA 

DIABLO 

JOHN 

G KEPLER 

H STOKES 

\ 

-

-

I

I 

J 

L 

N 

P 

NEVADA TEST SITE 

NOTE: THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN AREAS 1 3 AND AREAS 4 7 IS MERCURY HIGHWAY, THE NORTH-SOUTH 

ROAD SHOWN TRAVERSING THOSE AREAS. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN AREA 2 AND AREA LIES ALONG THE 

CENTER OF THE THREE ROADS SHOWN. 

Figure 1-5. NEVADA TEST SITE. 
 -

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table SUMMARY OF OPERATION EVENTS 

Position 

NTS (Nevada 

Location State Grid) 

Area 13 

Local 

Time 

0627 PST 

LASL May 15 May28 9465 PDT Area 

I 

N 

E Tower 

I 

CM I 

PDT 

PDT 

FRANKLIN LASL May 24 June 2 

UCRL June 3 June 5 

WILSON UCRL June 10 June 18 

I 

PRISCILLA LASL/DOD June 23 June24 I 

0465 PDT 

PDT 

Tower 

Balloon 

Balloon 

Balloon 

146 tons 

500 0.5 tons 

I

I I 

Area 

I E 682,418 

Area F N 746,250 

E 

COULOMB A 

Safety 

LASL July 1 July 1 PDT Area 3 Surface 0 0 

HOOD 

I I I N-868,633 

E 682,418 

N 874.146 

E-662,634 

Balloon 74KT 

17KT 

< 

Balloon 

I 

CM I UCRL 

I 

July 17 July 25 PDT 

PASCAL A LASL July 26 July 26 PDT Area 3 N 838,428 Shaft -500 slight 

E 684,790 

STOKES LASL July Aug 7 0525 PDT Area 7 N 851,125 

E-687,533 Balloon 

SATURN UCRL Aug 9 Aug 9 PDT Area Tunnel -100 0 

Safety 

*Four safety experiments (PASCAL C, COULOMB C, VENUS, and URANUS) were conducted at NTS for Project between the end 

of testing in October 1957 and the start of HARDTACK II in September 1958. 
-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

-

Table l-l. SUMMARY OF OPERATION EVENTS (Continued) 

Position 

Shot Sponsor 

Planned 

Date 

Actual 

Date 

Local 

Time 

NTS 

Location 

(Nevada 

State Grid) 

Height of 

Burst 

Actual 

Yield 

SHASTA UCRL July Aug 18 0500 PDT Area 2 N 866,030 663.322 Tower 500 17KT 

DOPPLER LASL Aug 19 Aug 23 PDT Area 7 N 851,125 E 667,533 Balloon 1500 

PASCAL B LASL Aug 27 Aug 27 1535 PDT Area 3 N 837,440 

E-684.640 

Shaft 

FRANKLIN 

PRIME 

LASL Aug 14 Aug 30 0540 PDT Area 7 N 851,125 

687,533 

Balloon 750 

SMOKY UCRL Aug 28 Aug 31 PDT Area 8 N 674,450 Tower 44KT 

GALILEO LASL Sept 2 Sept 2 0540 PDT Area 1 

(T-1) 

N 838,780 

E-644.589 

Tower 

WHEELER UCRL Sept 6 Sept 6 0545 PDT Area 9 N-868,633 682.418 Balloon 197 tons 

COULOMB 8 LASL Sept 6 Sept 6 1305 PDT Area 3a N 835,204 

E-686,639 

Surface 0 300 tons 

LASL Sept 8 Sept 8 PDT Area 7 N 851,125 687,533 Balloon 750 

LASL Sept 11 Sept 14 0945 PDT Area 3 N 831,773 685,427 Tower 

NEWTON LASL Sept 16 Sept 16 PDT Area 7 N 851,125 

E-687,540 Balloon 12KT 

RAINIER UCRL Sept 19 Sept 19 PDT Area 12 N 890,571 635,003 Tunnel 

WHITNEY UCRL Sept 11 Sept 23 0530 PDT Area 2 (T-2) N 889,283 660,103 

Tower 500 

CHARLESTON UCRL Sept 23 Sept 28 PDT Area 9 N-868,634 682,418 

Balloon 1500 12KT 

MORGAN UCRL 3 7 PST Area 9 N-868.634 682,418 Balloon 500 8KT 
locations used during Operation PLUMBBOB. All were in the northern operational 

areas except for shot PRISCILLA on Frenchman Flat in Area 5. The single shot in 

Area 12 was RAINIER, an underground test. Safety tests are reported in a separate 

volume. 

*No single, standardized set of linear dimensions is used in this report. While 

altitudes are generally given in feet, other distances may be in yards, meters, 

or variations of either. This is because the test data is taken from original 

sources and used exactly as researched. For those who desire different measures, 

the following are conversion factors: 

1 foot = 0.3048 meters 1 meter = 3.2808 feet 

1 yard = 0.9144 meters 1 meter = 1.0936 yards 

1 mile = 1.609 kilometers 1 kilometer = 0.621 miles 

43 
2.1 

CHAPTER ‘2 

RESPONSIBILITIES OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORGANIZATIONS 

The Atomic Energy Commission and the Department of Defense shared 

responsibility for planning and implementing the U.S. atmospheric nuclear weapons 

test program. The AEC was responsible for exploring and developing new areas of 

nuclear weapons technology, while the DOD was subsequently to incorporate the 

weapons into the U.S. military defense program. 

The Nevada Test Organization under AEC, and Exercise Desert Rock VII and 

VIII under DOD, were both organized to manage the many activities associated with 

some 30 nuclear tests of Operation PLUMBBOB. In addition to those personnel from 

the DOD, participants included employees of other Federal agencies, research 

laboratories, and private firms under contract to the Government. Department of 

Defense personnel participated in most of the activities conducted during this 

test series. Chapter 6 of this report lists the chief organized military units 

participating in the Nevada Test Organization and Desert Rock exercises during 

Operation PLUMBBOB. However, appreciable numbers of military personnel came as 

individuals or in small groups from a cross-section of U.S. military installations 

and organizations. Overall, about twenty thousand Department of Defense personnel 

participated in Operation PLUMBBOB. 

INTRODUCTION 

The three main participating agencies in were the AEC, Federal 

Civil Defense Administration and the DOD, which was represented primarily 

by the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project Table 2-l summarizes the 

scientific programs conducted by these agencies at PLUMBBOB. Their responsibilities were : 

• GEC had direct authority to conduct nuclear 

development tests and provided the staff for 

detonating all the shots. 

• The FCDA measured weapons effects important to 

the safety of civilians in the United States 

during nuclear war. 

• DOD, in cooperation with the AEC, measured 

weapons effects of military importance and 

conducted military training maneuvers. 

44 
Table SUMMARY OF SCIENTIFIC PROGRAMS T PLUMBBOB: 

SPONSORING 

AGENCY 

PROGRAM 

NUMBER 

PERFORMING 

AGENCY 

PURPOSE 

AEC 10-19 Los 

Scientific Lab 

Weapons Development 

21-26 Univ. of Cal. 

Radiation Lab. 

Weapons Development 

41 64 Sandia Corporation Weapons Development 

71-74 Project 57 

(Sandia) 

Weapons Development 

(Safety) 

DOD l-9 Field Command 

Weapons Test Group 

(FCWT), AFSWP 

Weapons Effects 

50 U.S. Army Weapons Effects; 

Training; Operations; and 

Observations 

51 U.S. Navy Weapons Effects; 

Training; Operations; and 

Observations 

52 U.S. Marine Corps Weapons Effects; 

Training; Operations; and 

Observations 

53 U.S. Air Force Weapons Effects; 

Training; Operations; and 

Observations 

FCDA 30-39 Civil Effects Test 

Group 

Weapons Effects 

relative to Civil 

Defense 

*For details see Appendix A. 

U.S. Air Force was also involved in Projects 4.1, 39.5, and 39.6. 

45 





















































at times when official observers were present at the Nevada Test Site. Foreign 

observer visitors sponsored by the Department of Defense witnessed four atomic 

detonations during PLUMBBOB: the BOLTZMANN, JOHN, PRISCILLA, and SMOKY shots. 

Observers from local military bases (Indian Springs Air Force Base, Air 

Force Base, and Lake Mead Base) witnessed shots throughout the series. These 

observers were not badged, but entered the test site on a roster basis, were 

escorted as a group to the observation point, and returned to their bases 

immediately after witnessing the shot, This program was highly successful and 

afforded many of the troops, directly and indirectly supporting PLUMBBOB, an 

opportunity to witness a shot. A total of 342 local military observers, not 

including Desert Rock, witnessed shots. 

4.3.3 Shot JOHN Observer Program. 

Commander, Army Air Defense Command, accepting the responsibility , requested and received permission to place six [volunteer] observers at 

ground zero at H-hour for Shot JOHN . . . Prior to the shot, all observers 

attended a combined technical briefing at Indian Springs Air Force Base. No 

adverse effects to the observers were noted.” (200) Since this 2 KT explosion was 

at 18,500 feet altitude, these individuals did not receive any appreciable 

ionizing radiation. 

4.4 TROOP MANEUVERS AND TESTS 

The military services took advantage of the nuclear test series to 

exercise their units in actual nuclear environments. During shot HOOD, the Fourth 

Marine Corps Provisional Atomic Exercise Brigade observed the detonation from 

trenches and then conducted a planned maneuver (Project 52.1) involving the use of 

helicopter airlift and tactical air support. Detailed troop activities are 

discussed in the shot volume for HOOD. 

A unit from the 1st Infantry Regiment, 4th Infantry Division (Fort 

Lewis, Washington) was formed to conduct a military maneuver at shot SMOKY. 

Members of this unit observed shot DOPPLER from trenches, prepared defensive 

positions northwest of the SMOKY GZ, and then, after the SMOKY firing, 

99 
-

conducted the air-lifted assault. This troop exercise (Project 50.1) is described 

and analyzed in detail in the shot volume for SMOKY. 

Members of a provisional company from the 82nd Infantry Division 

(Airborne) were assembled to participate in a test of troop reactions to nuclear 

blasts. These troops were initially scheduled to observe the SMOKY detonation and 

then perform the test. However, the radiological fallout situation predicted for 

SMOKY led to postponement of the testing phase until shot GALILEO. Troops 

observed shot SMOKY from News Nob. A more detailed discussion of this is included 

in the GALILEO shot volume. 

4.5 TRAINING PROJECTS 

In conjunction with the nuclear testing at the Nevada Test Site, three 

radiological training projects were established under the supervision of the 

assistant Rad-safe Officer. These training projects were designed to familiarize 

the participants with radiological monitoring techniques under the tic 

conditions available at the test site. The largest of the three projects was the 

establishment of the Camp Desert Rock Rad-safe School, which trained 417 personnel 

as radiological monitors. 

UNITS PERSONNEL 

Permanent Party 84 

Sixth U.S. Army CBR Survey Teams 89 

4th Marine Provisional Brigade 180 

2nd Bn, 5th Marine Division 16 

Infantry Battle Group 30 

Canadian Infantry (Queens Own Rifles) 3 

XVIII Airborne Corps Pathfinders 14 

AEC 1 

TOTAL 417 

This training course consisted of 18 hours of formal instruction 

followed by several days of practicing monitoring techniques in contaminated areas 

100 
- .-

of the Nevada Test Site. Nine U. S . Sixth Army chemical, biological, radiological 

(CBR) survey teams received field experience in conducting radiological surveys in 

contaminated target areas subsequent to shot days. These exercises were conducted 

from 25 May 1957 to 18 August 1957. The average length of stay for an individual 

was 11 days. 

Another training program run during this period was the 

radiological safety monitoring program (Project 51. sponsored by the Bureau of 

Yards and Docks. Approximately 120 individuals from all parts of the world were 

brought to the Nevada Test Site for training planned to coincide with shot 

BOLTZMANN. This shot was delayed, however, and the training exercises had to be 

held in an area of low contamination containing debris from the 1955 test series 

(TEAPOT). All participants in this project, except for three, had to depart 

without witnessing a shot. 

The Air Force also had a radiological survey project (USAF Radiological

Defense Training, Project 53.4) which was sponsored by the Radiological Defense 

School located at Lowry Air Force Base, Denver, Colorado. Instructors from the 

school were stationed at AFB where they conducted classes in radiological 

survey monitoring. Students from continental air bases attended the classes at 

AFB, after which they viewed a shot at the NTS. The students then 

conducted radiological survey monitoring in the target area of the shot where they 

were participating. Areas to be surveyed were first marked with stakes. Monitors 

then proceeded down the staked sectors toward ground zero, reporting dose rates 

encountered at mileages indicated on vehicle odometers. The dose rate readings 

were radioed to control stations where they were integrated into isodose rate 

maps. Desert Rock Rad-safe monitors were present to enforce the radiological 

safety criteria and provide technical assistance if necessary. 

4.6 DESERT ROCK SUPPORT ACTIVITIES 

The command organization for Camp Desert Rock was shown in Figure 2-4. 

The troops assigned to the Camp Desert Rock organization were called permanent 

party personnel although, with the exception of a small caretaker crew, they were 

only present at Desert Rock during the operational period of a Desert Rock 

exercise. The Camp Desert Rock staff activities included all those functions 

101 
necessary for administration, finance, security, and logistics, and for planning 

the Desert Rock activities to be conducted in the forward area of NTS as an 

adjunct to nuclear tests. The staff also provided supervision for all the various 

related special activities necessary to operate the garrison and support the field 

activities. 

These personnel frequently entered the NTS forward areas--before, 

during, and after the nuclear tests--in support of troop maneuvers, troop tests, 

training projects, and technical service projects. Any occasion for entry into 

the test site posed the same problems in varying degree: Rad-safe support, transportation, communications, medical support, and mess facilities. These problems 

existed whether the entry was made by a monitoring team or by an engineer 

construction battalion. This section illustrates some of the more important 

activities. 

Radiological safety personnel had numerous occasions for providing 

support to operations or for being in the forward area. The Rad-safe section 

provided monitors for any entry into Radex or limited Radex areas. In addition, 

they provided film badges to all Desert Rock personnel entering NTS. In 

exercises, they would be among the first to enter a contaminated area to 

determine, by means of monitoring or radiological survey, the extent of contamIn line with these duties, they were often among the last to leave the 

maneuver or display area to ensure that all other participants had left. They 

also monitored personnel and equipment leaving the areas to determine the need for 

decontamination. Monitors were provided by the 50th Chemical Platoon, which also 

provided the personnel to operate a field decontamination station near News Nob. 

The 84th Engineer Construction Battalion was required to support troop 

maneuvers, tests, and the observer indoctrination program. They constructed 

trenches for observers and project personnel at many of the shots. For example, 

Figure 4-2 shows the trenches located in the northern portion of the test site. 

(The insert shows the trench area for PRISCILLA in Frenchman Flat.) Display areas 

required some engineer construction. Test areas were prepared for troop tests 

such as the test as described in SMOKY and GALILEO shot volumes, which 

required an infiltration course (crawl under barbed wire) and a dummy mine field. 

Although construction sometimes occurred in areas exposed to radioactive 

contamination from earlier tests, the nuclear activity had decayed or had either 

102 
 

 

’ ’

I I -

-. -.

I

KEY TO 

5 PRISCILLA 12 SHASTA 

2 FRANKLIN 

I I I I 116 . 

I 

591 92 93 94 95 

69 

108 

IL 

HEAVY DUTY ROADS 

LIGHT DUTY ROADS 

0 GROUND ZERO LOCATION 

DISPLAY AREA 

HOOD DIABLO OBSERVER AREA 

TROOP& OBSERVER TRENCHES 

WILSON OBSERVER AREA 

MAPS 

30,000 III 

SPRING, 2758 II 

PAPOOSE LAKE, 2858 

CANE SPRING, 2757 I 

FRENCHMAN LAKE, 2857 IV 

L I I 

106 

96 

Figure 4-2. TRENCHES IN OPERATIONAL AREA, NTS. 
been scraped away or covered to the point that these areas were no longer 

designated Radex or limited Radex areas. However, the potential for some degree 

of both external and internal exposure would still exist. The engineer 

construction activities also involved Rad-safe, communications, transportation, 

and medical support. 

Desert Rock communications support in the forward area was provided by 

the 232nd Signal Company and some attached signal units. Support included 

essential fixed and mobile tactical communications, pictorial and photo-dosimetry 

services, plus necessary maintenance and supply of signal items of equipment such 

as meters for Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. Some of the dose received 

by signal equipment repair technicians can be attributed to the radiological 

calibration sources used in conjunction with their equipment. The extensive wire 

communications to numerous points in the NTS forward area required installation of 

more than 1,200 miles of wire during PLUMBBOB. Installing of this wire required 

entry into the NTS forward area before and after nuclear tests, as well as 

troubleshooting and maintenance during shots and their related Desert Rock 

operations (troop maneuvers, inspection of display areas). In addition to wire 

communications, several radio nets supported each shot. These included a Rad-safe 

net, a road guard net, and an ambulance and emergency net. 

Signal units also planned for television coverage of one shot, SMOKY. 

Equipment was installed and calibrated to allow the military maneuver activities 

to be viewed and relayed. A late decision to switch to an alternate maneuver 

area, however, rendered the pre-sited equipment ineffective so that no television 

coverage was obtained. The 2nd Signal Platoon did provide black and white photo 

coverage of activities throughout the various activities in Desert Rock VII and 

VIII. 

Military Police personnel were required to enter the NTS forward area 

frequently throughout Desert Rock VII and VIII. This was to augment the traffic 

control provided by the AEC checkpoints at the main gate and at Yucca Pass. In 

addition, Desert Rock military police were used to man traffic control points on 

entry roads, at maneuver areas, and at motor-park and pick-up points which 

supported troop maneuvers and projects. The traffic control teams accompanied 

monitoring teams into shot areas after the detonation to establish a checkpoint at 

the 20 point on the access roads. No vehicular traffic was permitted beyond 

this point. 

104 
Another permanent party activity requiring frequent NTS entry was the 

public information program. Personnel from this activity were often present 

during reconnaissance, rehearsals, and photographic sorties. They also 

accompanied troop maneuvers, observed shots, and visited trench and equipment 

display areas. 

Transportation Battalion personnel had an opportunity for exposure 

before, during, and after the shots since they were the prime source for personnel 

movement to and from the test areas (See Figure 4-1). 

The 526th Ordnance Company personnel were frequently in the test area. 

Their duties included movement of tanks and other vehicles to the demonstration 

locations before the firings, and some post-shot recovery. 

Quartermaster detachment personnel were responsible for providing field 

rations, gasoline, and water to troops throughout the test site. Consequently the 

forward echelons could be expected to receive some radiation dose. 

The Eighth Field Hospital provided on-scene doctors, first aid 

personnel, and ambulance services. For those who worked with the Desert Rock 

was equivalent to those of the maneuver personnel they were safeguarding. The 

exposure opportunity for those who worked with the Desert Rock troops in the 

forward area was equivalent to that of the maneuver personnel they were 

safeguarding. 

The 21st Helicopter Squadron aviators and crew members were often in the 

test areas to shuttle troops, high priority cargo, and dignitaries. 

Finally, all Desert Rock personnel, even if their duties did not 

normally require leaving the camp area, probably had an opportunity to witness at 

least one shot since it was customary to offer personnel not assigned 

duties g., finance) the opportunity to watch a shot in the test series which 

they supported. 

105 
CHAPTER 5 

DOD PARTICIPATION IN OPERATIONS 

5.1 INTRODUCTION 

The Atomic Energy Commission developed new weapons of requisite yield, 

variety, military utility and deliverability, and manufactured weapons for storage 

in the defense stockpile or for delivery to the Armed Forces. In 1957, to advance 

this effort, the AEC continued to test its designs of nuclear devices in Operation 

PLUMBBOB. Also included were five safety experiments to verify design safeguards 

against accidental nuclear detonations and one non-nuclear detonation to study 

plutonium contamination. Although these AEC programs as such were carried out 

mainly by AEC and AEC contractor personnel, DOD personnel assisted in many of 

them, and in addition, carried out many programs of their own within the NTO. 

These latter, sponsored by AFSWP, concentrated on the military effects of nuclear 

weapons such as blast damage to military equipment and the like. 

5.2 DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE OPERATIONS WITHIN THE 

The DOD was interested in conduct of full-scale tests of the 

output characteristics of nuclear weapons (such as blast and nuclear radiation) 

and their effects on various military targets under varying conditions. Such 

tests were essential for planning the use of weapons, preparing military defenses 

against nuclear weapons, and searching for desired characteristics of new weapons. 

The DOD military effects programs and projects at Operation were planned 

and coordinated by the Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP) (Figure 5-l). 

At Operation PLUMBBOB, AFSWP had several responsibilities : 

• Directing the field conduct of the experiments 

Coordinating all military participation in the 

tests 

• Providing logistical support to the AEC and the 

Armed Forces. 

The Field Command Weapons Test group under AFSWP performed nine programs 

which considered the effects of radiation on military personnel, equipment, and 

structures. AFSWP was represented by the Deputy Test Manager for Military Matters 

106 
 

I

AEC

DOD

AFSWP 

DOD 

I 

FIELD 

COMMAND 

DOD SUPPORT 

DIRECTOR DIRECTOR 

DESERT ROCK 

EXERCISE 

TEST MANAGER 

DEPUTY TEST MANAGER 

DEPUTY FOR MILITARY MATTERS (DOD) DOD 

I I 

FIELD COMMAND FIELD COMMAND SUPPORT 

WEAPONS TEST GROUP UNIT DOD DOD 

LIAISON AND COORDINATION 

Figure 1. DOD OPERATIONS, PLUMBBOB. 
within the joint AEC/DOD test organization. This Deputy for Military Matters 

served under the Test Manager. He represented the Commander, Field Command, 

AFSWP, and provided staff assistance to the Test Manager on subjects involving DOD 

participation and support. He also performed liaison between AEC and DOD agencies 

on policy and operational matters, and was responsible for military administration 

such as management of military property and funds. The Field Command Support Unit 

which came under DOD direction, provided general and technical support to 

the agencies, activities, and participating personnel at Operation PLUMBBOB. The 

Air Force Special Weapons Center the air support group under the Test 

Manager, provided all aviation support. The DOD Coordination Group, acting as a 

staff agency for DOD, coordinated training and observer programs. 

5.2.1 Armed Forces Special Weapons Project (AFSWP) Military Effects Programs 

The Chief, AFSWP (now the Defense Nuclear Agency) planned an integrated 

program of military-effects tests based on the continuing study of the needs of 

the Armed Forces for data on the effects of nuclear weapons. In September 1956 

the Chief, AFSWP directed the Commander, Field Command, AFSWP to do the 

following : 

• Execute the military effects test phases as a 

joint AEC/DOD endeavor 

• Coordinate military assistance and participation 

in support of the AEC 

• Coordinate operational, training, and troop 

observer participation 

Coordinate Federal Civil Defense Administration 

participation in the military-effects program. 

Table 5-l lists the shots on which each project actually 

participated. There were 43 projects in the weapons-effects test program and they 

participated in 24 of the operational shots. Participation was not always as 

planned because of such factors as instrumentation difficulties and changes in 

yield or firing schedules (127). 

108 
Table 5-l. DOD TEST GROUP PROGRAMS AT INDICATING 

PROJECTS AT EACH SHOT 

PROJECT 57 

Blast and Nuclear 

Radiation 

Effects on 

Structures and 

Program 4 

Biomedical 

Program 5 

Effects on 

Aircraft 

Structures 

Program 6 

Electromagnetic 

Effects, 

Service 

Equipment, 

and Material 

Program 8 

Thermal 

Radiation 

Effects 

Program 9 

Support 

Photography 

BOLTZMANN 2.5.2.7. 

2.10 

4.2 

5.4.5.5 

6.4.6.5 9.1 

FRANKLIN 1.1 

2.6 

4.1 

5.5 6.5 

9.1 

2.4.2.5. 

2.6.2.7. 

2.10 

6.4.6.5 

9.1 

WILSON 1.1 

2.10 

4.1.4.2 9.1 

PRISCILLA 

1.7 

3.7.3.8 

4.3 5.5 6.3.6.4 

9.1 

COULOMB A 

Safety 

HOOD 1.1 

2.8.2.10 

4.2 

5.5 6.5 

8.2 9.1 

DIABLO 

2.10 

4.2 5.1.5.3, 

5.4.5.5 

6.2.6.4, 

6.5 

9.1 

JOHN 1.1 5.5 6.4 9.1 

KEPLER 1.1.1.2 

5.5 

6.4.6.5 9.1 

OWENS 

2.3.2.4. 

2.5.2.7. 

2.10 

5.1.5.5 

6.5 

9.1 

PASCAL A 

Safety 

STOKES 1.1.1.9 5.1.5.2, 

5.5 

6.4 9.1 

SATURN 

109 
Table 5-1. DOD TEST GROUP PROGRAMS AT INDICATING 

PROJECTS AT EACH SHOT (Continued) 

Program 1

Blast and

Shock

Effects

Program 2

Nuclear

Radiation

Effects

Program 3

Effects on

Structures and 

Equipment

Program 4

Biomedical

Effects

Program 5

Effects on

Aircraft

Structures

Program 6

Electromagnetic

Effects,

Service

Equipment,

and Material

Program 6

Thermal

Radiation

Effects

Program 9

Support

Photography

SHASTA 1.1 5.3,5.4,

5.5

9.1

DOPPLER 5.3.5.4,

5.5

6.4 9.1

PASCAL B

Safety E*perm?nt

FRANKLIN

PRIME

5.5 6.4 9.1

SMOKY 2.3 4.3 5.3,5.4,

5.5

6.4 8.3b 9.1

GALILEO 1.1,1.9 4.3 6.4 9.1

WHEELER 6.4 9.1

COULOMB B

Safety Ewmmenl -

Program 1 

Blast and 

Shock 

Effects 

Program 2 

Nuclear 

Radiation 

Effects 

Program 3 

Effects on 

Structures and 

Equipment 

Program 4 

Biomedical 

Effects 

Program 5 

Effects on 

Aircraft 

Structures 

Program 6 

Electromagnetic 

Effects, 

Service 

Equipment, 

and Material 

Program 6 

Thermal 

Radiation 

Effects 

Program 9 

Support 

Photography 

SHASTA 1.1 

5.5 

9.1 

DOPPLER 

5.5 

6.4 9.1 

PASCAL B 

Safety 

FRANKLIN 

PRIME 

5.5 6.4 9.1 

SMOKY 2.3 4.3 

5.5 

6.4 9.1 

GALILEO 4.3 6.4 9.1 

WHEELER 6.4 9.1 

COULOMB B 

Safety 

2.0.2.2, 6.4 9.1 

9.1 

NEWTON 1.9 6.4 9.1 

RAINIER 6.4 9.1 

WHITNEY 9.1 

CHARLESTON 6.4 9.1 

MORGAN 1.1 6.5 9.1 

110 

I 
Program 1 Blast and Shock Effects 

Blast and shock measurements were made on 13 events. Eight projects 

dealt with phenomenology, ground motions, loading of structures, and effects of 

terrain. They were fielded by the Ballistic Research Laboratories, the Naval 

Ordnance Laboratory, Stanford Research Institute, Sandia Corporation, the Air 

Force Special Weapons Center, and the Air Force Ballistic Missile Division of the 

Air Research and Development Command. 

The blast and shock program for Operation had the following 

objectives : 

• Thoroughly document the time history of 

pressure in the ground range between 50 psi 

overpressure and ground zero on a typical 

nuclear detonation. 

• Extend that data to the lower pressure 

regions (about 6 psi), in order to have 

continuity for a complete pressure-distance 

curve. 

• Obtain records of overpressure and dynamic 

pressure versus time throughout the precursor 

region on a number of shots. 

• Measure the variation with time, depth, and 

ground range of underground effects resulting 

from overpressures higher than 50 psi incident 

on the ground surface. 

• Measure air-induced underground pressures on 

large, buried objects of different flexibilities 

in the high-pressure region as a function of 

depth and ground range. 

• Obtain data on overpressure and dynamic pressure 

versus time in the region of precursor formation 

over a variety of terrain. 

Obtain measurements of the influence of gullies, 

washes, mounds, etc., and of gross terrain 

features on damage to military equipment. 

111 
Ballistic Research Laboratories measured overpressure and dynamic 

pressures during 12 shots of Operation In these experiments, 233 

overpressure-time measurements were made on self-recording Pt-gauges (as shown 

in Figure 5-2) and 57 dynamic self-recording dynamic pressure time q-gauges were 

used. All the q-gauges were essentially the same used during previous operations 

except for five experimental models. Figure 5-3 shows a typical gauge 

installation. Instrumentation was placed at different locations on the blast 

lines. For each of these locations, accurate surveys were made, holes were dug, 

cement foundations were poured to hold the gauges, the gauges were installed, and 

the calibration checked. Eleven shots were instrumented for precursor waveform 

information. One hundred twenty-seven Pt-gauges were fielded on nine shots to 

record pressure-time and peak pressures. Thirty-one dynamic pressure gauges were 

fielded to record pressure-time data. 

Naval Ordnance Laboratory measured phenomena by means of 

a prototype system consisting of parachute-supported canisters containing a 

self-recording mechanical pressure and timing system as shown in Figure 5-4 (166). 

The systems were deployed on shot OWENS by means of rockets and on shot KEPLER by 

means of a balloon. An account of the activities required for fielding the system 

will be given in the individual shot volumes. 

Air Force Ballistic Missile Division of the Air Research and 

Development Command fielded twelve self-contained shock gauges and 

protective canisters to study the spectra of ground shocks on five 

events (165). After surveying, the following sequence of events took place to 

install the shock gauges: 

• Excavation of a 27-inch to 36-inch cubical hole 

at the desired pressure range 

• Placement of a protective canister (400 pounds 

total weight) (as shown in Figure 

• Placement of backfill around the canister 

• Placement of the gauge, (130 pounds) (as shown 

in Figure in the canister 

• Placement of the polished record plates (two per 

gauge) 

112 



• Careful placement and bolting of the canister 

lid (rough handling might have excited the 

gauges) 

• Placement of three layers of sandbags over the 

lid for thermal and nuclear radiation 

protection. 

Recovery of the records was accomplished by moving or sweeping sandbag debris from 

the cover, unbolting and removing the lid, removing wing-nuts from the gauge, and 

slipping out the polished record plates. 

At shot PRISCILLA, measurement, ground acceleration, stress, 

and strain measurements were made in the high pressure region, while 68 buried 

structures (drums) were fielded to study the factors affecting the transmission of 

air-induced ground pressures and loading An account of the activities 

required for fielding these measurements is given in the PRISCILLA shot volume. 

On shot SMOKY, measurements were made to determine the effects of 

rolling , steep slopes, and rough terrain A summary of the field 

activities is contained in the SMOKY shot volume. 

Program 1 personnel from AFSWC and Sandia (252) participated only 

at shot PRISCILLA; SRI personnel participated on shot PRISCILLA and SMOKY; NOL 

personnel participated only on shots KEPLER and OWENS; AFBMD personnel participated on five shots; and BRL personnel were on 11 shots. Going from one shot to 

another, project personnel and supervisory AFSWP staff personnel worked at various 

tasks throughout the Nevada Test Site. In doing their work--layout, construction, 

installation, dry run operation, and recovery of data or instruments--personnel 

could have passed through or worked in areas with measurable low-level radiation 

from previous events which had only incidental relationship to their participation 

in individual shots. 

Program 2 Nuclear Radiation Effects 

Nuclear radiation effects experiments were installed on twelve of the 

events. The program comprised ten projects in the following five 

areas : 

116 
 Neutron-Induced Radiation. New weapons of major tactical importance introduced amplified nuclear radiation effects. One such amplified effect, 

which is of particular importance to land forces, was the generation of 

induced radiation fields of such intensities as to have a direct influence on 

tactical ground operations. Military planning for the tactical employment of 

nuclear weapons in land warfare created the need for a reliable method of predicting the neutron-induced field from low air burst tactical weapons. As a result, a 

major effort for study of this problem was scheduled for Operation to 

obtain experimental data needed for the development of satisfactory prediction 

methods. Objectives of the neutron-induced soil activity studies on Projects 2.1, 

2.2, 2.3, and 2.5 were to determine the following: 

• The neutron-induced gamma activity in three

types of American soils and in constituent 

soil elements was a significant contributor 

to induced soil activity. 

• The neutron flux and spectra gave rise to the 

induced soil activities both as a function of 

distance from ground zero and as a function 

of depth beneath the surface. 

Initial Nuclear Radiation. This was studied by projects 2.3, 2.5, 

2.9, and 2.10 to measure the following: 

• The neutron flux, spectra and total neutron 

dose for weapons of potential tactical 

interest 

• The initial gamma dose rate as a function of 

time and distance for several events 

• The variation of neutron and gamma dose and 

gamma dose rate with time as a function of 

altitude and distance to determine the effect 

of the air-earth interface 

• The nuclear radiation dose sustained by the 

aircraft crew in the delivery of an MB-l

to-air missile. 

Radio Wave Attenuation. Studies of the radio wave attenuation 

caused by the ionized volume generated about the burst point of a nuclear 

117 
detonation were conducted by Project 2.7 to: 

• Proof test the proposed system for Operation 

HARDTACK nuclear-radiation-data telemeter 

(HARDTACK was conducted the next year). 

• Obtain basic information on the radio wave 

attenuation problem under nuclear burst 

conditions to permit a more complete understanding of this phenomenon. 

Nuclear-Radiation Shielding. Determination of the shielding 

effectiveness of the Program 3 structures was part of the overall program to 

determine the suitability of these structures as shelters in atomic warfare. 

Similarly, the measurement of the shielding afforded by foxholes, machine gun 

emplacements, and personnel shelters was part of the continuing Army program to 

develop improved field fortifications. Nuclear-radiation shielding was studied by 

Project 2.4 through determination of the gamma and neutron shielding characterInstrument Evaluation. As the neutron hazard from newly developed 

weapons increased, the need for a neutron personnel dosimeter became more evident. 

Instrumentation proposed for use in making nuclear radiation measurements at very 

high altitudes during Operation HARDTACK was proof tested. The problem of 

telemetering this data from these altitudes was studied as well. Instrument 

evaluation was performed by Projects 2.6 and 2.8 to evaluate the 

performance of: 

• The IM-93 beta-gamma radiation-survey meter 

under nuclear test field conditions 

Specially shielded and 

dosimeters and standard 

survey meters in the measurement of equivalent 

body dose and dose rate. 

U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Laboratories fielded the experiments 

necessary for the investigation of the induction of gamma-emitting radioisotopes 

in the soil caused by five different nuclear detonations (252). 

118 
 

 

The following three test soils were used on Project 2.1: 

• Dade fine sandy loam, which has a high silicon 

content and low mineral content 

• Chester loam, which has a strong aluminum 

concentration and a fairly high manganese 

content 

• Nevada Test Site soil, which has a large sodium 

component , significant aluminum and manganese 

content, and is the natural terrain over which 

the detonations at Operation took 

place. 

To evaluate the effect of the water in these soils, the moisture content was 

carefully controlled in all specimens. The soils exposed were one yard 

specimens. The exposure station is illustrated in Figure 5-7. 

STEEL 

2’ 0.0 SLEEVE 

Figure 5-7. CROSS-SECTIONAL DIAGRAM OF AN EXPOSED 

SOIL SAMPLE. 

119 

~

C = Commander 

D = Driver 

I 

G = Gunner 

L = Loader 

Figure 5-9. M-48 TANK. 

C Clamp 

Stand 

to 

-U-Bolt

 Gold Detector 

Pocket 

Detector 

All Detectors Taped 

Figure 10. MOUNTING OF DETECTORS IN M-48 TANK. 

121 
Figure 5-l 1. CROSS-SECTIONAL DIAGRAM OF ALUMINUM 

SAMPLE CONTAINER. 

U.S. Army Signal Research and Development Laboratory determined the 

initial-gamma intensity versus time and distance on the ground and in the air for 

Project 2.5 on seven shots (109). A second part of this project measured the 

neutron-induced gamma activity from shot OWENS. Tissue-equivalent tactical 

neutron dosimeters as well as a standard meter were fielded on five 

events by the Army Signal R&D Laboratory in Project 2.6 (115). 

122 

 

1

A- Concrete Culvert Pipe 

I x Long. 

Concrete Culvert Pipe 

I. x Long. 

C- Reinforced Concrete Cover 

Copper Shield Interior 

Surface of Bunker. 

F- Exhaust Fan. 

G- AC. Skw Motor 

Generator. 

Earth Steel Buckets. 

IO” Steel Exhaust Pipe. 

Figure 3. TYPICAL BUNKER INSTALLATION. 

124 
 Transmitter 

Installation 

Tower (GZ) 

:-Building 400, Receiver 

Stat ion 

Installation Area 

Figu re 5-14. RELATIVE POSITIONS FOR TRANSMITTERS 

AND RECEIVERS FOR SHOT BOLTZMANN. 


-

Air Force Special Weapons Center participated in Project 2.9 

with three F-89 all weather interceptor aircraft and successfully delivered a live 

MB-l air-to-air rocket on the JOHN event The JOHN event volume contains 

details of this project. AFSWC also participated in nine events with Project 2.10 

to measure total gamma dose, gamma dose rate, neutron flux, and neutron doses at 

the surface and at heights up to 950 feet to determine the effect of the 

air-ground interface on initial nuclear radiation 

Program 3 Effects on Structures 

The effects on structures were studied only on shot PRISCILLA. Eight 

unmanned structures were instrumented to obtain loading and response data. This 

program had the following objectives 

• To obtain loading and response data on various 

types of and below-ground structures in 

regions of moderately high overpressures (above 

50 psi) (This was the primary objective) 

• To proof-test various underground structures on 

a go/no-go basis 

• To determine the structures’ capacity to provide 

Class I and Class II 

protection as prescribed in the then current DOD 

Protection Construction Policy 

• To obtain loading and response information from 

existing structures, constructed for past tests 

in the Frenchman Flat area, that could be 

recorded and subsequently analyzed. 

Program 4 Biomedical Effects 

Biomedical effects were measured on eight events. Three projects were 

fielded by the Walter Reed Army Institute of Research, the Aero Space Medical 

Research Laboratories, and the Foundation for Medical Education and 

Research. The purposes of Program 4 were: 

• To furnish information on the effects of nuclear 

weapons on large biological specimens (swine) 

• To evaluate the eye protection afforded by an 

electromechanical shutter 

128 
• To evaluate the casualty effect of missiles 

translated by a nuclear detonation. 

Walter Reed Army Institute of Research fielded Project 4.1 (Effects of 

Nuclear Detonations on a Large Biological Specimen (swine)) on shots FRANKLIN, 

WILSON, and PRISCILLA Objectives of this project were: 

• To determine the effectiveness of field medical 

procedures in a mass casualty situation 

• To investigate the effects of combined injuries 

from supralethal to nonlethal ranges 

• To derive the (midlethal dose 

in 30 days) for a large biological specimen 

• To obtain information on blast injuries in a 

large biological specimen 

• To obtain information on thermal injuries in a 

large biological specimen. 

The swine had been determined to be a suitable animal for the project due to size, 

skin and ionizing radiation response similarity to humans. Thermal, pressure, and 

radiation measurement as required were made in support of the project. After 

exposure and as soon as the radiation conditions permitted, the animals were 

recovered and returned to the animal hospital area. Surgical and medical 

treatment was administered and documentary records kept on each animal. 

Aero Space Medical Research Laboratories fielded Project 4.2 (Evaluation 

of Eye Protection Afforded by an Electromechanical Shutter) on five shots. The 

purpose of this project was to evaluate the effectiveness of a high-speed 

electromechanical anti-glare shutter that was coupled with a flash detector and a 

power supply (See Figure 

Service personnel volunteers (mostly from the Tactical Air Command) 

viewed the detonations from a C-47 aircraft and from a trailer exposure station 

with protective shutters. Control rabbits, both with and without protection, were 

subjected to the bomb light. All exposure stations were located at slant ranges 

where the total energy was expected to be between 0.04 and 0.1 so that, 

in case of shutter failure, the eye would not be exposed to more than the safe 
 

Source 

Shutter 

To 

Figure 17. ANTI-GLARE SHUTTER SYSTEM. 

chorioretinal burn threshold. The critical threshold adopted for this project was 

0.004 over the first 0.1 second. 

Immediately after exposure, the subject turned to a visual-testing 

device located slightly to the side of his position. Visual recovery was tested 

on either the stereocamptometer, or nyctometer, or a combination thereof. Time to 

recover useful vision was measured by ability to read aircraft instruments. The 

time of return to mesopic visual acuity was determined and recorded. Upon 

completion of visual recovery testing, all human subjects went to AFB for 

complete evaluation. 

Foundation for Medical Educational and Research jointly fielded 

Project 4.3 for the Department of Defense and Project 33.2 for the Civil Effects 

Test Group on three shots. The objectives were: 

130 
• To determine, for various dynamic pressures, the 

velocities attained by planted missiles, consisting of military debris at different ranges 

from a nuclear detonation 

• To determine the mass and velocities of natural 

missiles 

• To analyze all data in a manner that would aid 

the assessment of secondary blast casualties. 

The DOD test group furnished part of the required funds and minor logistical 

support. One hundred fifty-five traps (See Figure having a total 

collecting area of about 486 were employed in open regions, shelters, and 

houses. In addition, approximately 234 of missile-absorbing material 

cemented to walls was used to study missile behavior in a shelter and in open 

areas. Secondary missiles were studied in open regions where peak overpressures 

ranged from about 4 to 15 psi. The effects of hill-and-dale terrain upon missile 

production were investigated during shot SMOKY. Missiles used in the three shots 

were window glass mounted in frames, marked military debris, marked gravel, marked 

spheres, and native stone. Displacement distances were measured for stones 

(weighing up to 19 kg), which were placed at various ranges from ground zero. For 

shot PRISCILLA, 25 stones were placed at each of seven ranges varying from 2,030 

to 6,120 feet from ground zero. Each group of 25 stones was divided into five 

subgroups, whose average masses ranged from 0.249 to 12,442 kg. 

Program 5 Effects on Aircraft Structures 

The effects on aircraft structures were studied on 13 events. The 

program consisted of five projects: the HSS-1 helicopter, model ZSG-3 airships, 

FJ-4, and the F-89D aircraft. The overall objective of the 

aircraft-effect studies was to extend the scope of available data in line with 

service requirements by : 

• Obtaining a better definition of aircraft 

safe-delivery criteria for nuclear weapons 

• Obtaining a better definition of thermal inputs 

and dynamic gust loadings resulting from nuclear 

blasts 

131 
-- --

-

-

 and mounts 

Figure 18. MISSILE-COLLECTING TRAP SYSTEM. 
• Obtaining response data from a nuclear blast for 

a HSS-1 helicopter and a ZSG-3 airship. 

Project 5.1 (In-flight Structural Response of the HSS-1 Helicopter to a 

Nuclear Detonation) was under the supervision of the Navy Bureau of Aeronautics 

and Sikorsky Aircraft Division of the United Aircraft Corporation (317). The 

HSS-1 participated in eight events. Objectives of this project were: 

• To measure the overpressure and gust response of 

the HSS-1 helicopter 

• To determine the delivery capabilities of the 

HSS-1 helicopter for antisubmarine warfare 

weapons as limited by blast effects 

• To obtain experimental data for the Departments 

of the Army and Navy related to helicopter 

response to nuclear blast for correlation with 

analytical techniques. 

The flight conditions, aircraft positions, and results of each test are reported 

in the appropriate shot volume. 

Project 5.2 (Structural Response and Gas Dynamics of an Airship Exposed 

to a Nuclear Detonation) was under the supervision of the Navy Bureau of 

Aeronautics and the Aeronautical Structures Laboratory of the Naval Air Material 

Center (151). Four model ZSG-3 airships (Figure participated in two events 

(FRANKLIN and STOKES). The basic objective of Project 5.2 was to determine the 

response characteristics of the model ZSG-3 airship when subjected to a nuclear 

detonation in order to establish criteria for safe escape distances after airship 

delivery of antisubmarine warfare special weapons. Specifically , the test program 

was arranged to secure data in the following major categories: 

• Dynamic response of the entire airship and its 

structural members to various energy input 

levels 

• Temperature rise and distribution in the airship 

envelope as a result of thermal radiation 

• Shock wave propagation in the airship envelope 

133 
 - - 265 

263 34 FT 

100 20 THEORETI CAL BOW TO MAXIMUM 

1.25 2.69 FT-, 

ENVELOPE 

12.00 FT - -

:

_____ 

TIRE INFLATED AND STRUT FULLY EXTENDED 

Figure 19. PRINCIPAL DIMENSIONS OF MODEL ZSG-3 AIRSHIP. 

• Measuring thermal and blast response of the FJ-4

aircraft to the effects of a nuclear explosion 

• Correlating the experimental response data with 

analytic predictions in order to confirm the

delivery capability of the FJ-4 aircraft 

• Obtaining data to help improve methods for 

predicting the blast response of swept wing 

aircraft. 

The atmospheric conditions, flight parameters, flight conditions at the 

time of burst and shock arrival, and the radiation data for each event are in the 

appropriate shot volumes. 

Project 5.4 (In-flight Structural Response of the Aircraft to a 

Nuclear Detonation) was under the supervision of the Douglas Aircraft Company 

The aircraft participated on seven events. Objectives of this 

project were the following: 

• To measure thermal and blast gust response of 

the aircraft to nuclear explosion effects 

• To obtain data to improve the methods of 

predicting blast gust response of aircraft with 

wings of triangular platform 

• To correlate experimental response data for the with analytical methods for use in 

determining its nuclear weapon delivery 

capability. 

The flight parameters, flight conditions at the time of burst and shock 

arrival, and the radiation data pertaining to each event are given in the 

appropriate shot volume. 

Project 5.5 (In-flight Structural Response of the F-89D Aircraft to a 

Nuclear Detonation) was jointly fielded by the Wright Air Development Center 

and the Northrop Aircraft, Inc. The F-89D aircraft participated in 

14 events. The primary purpose of Project 5.5 was to determine the structural 

response of the F-89D aircraft in-flight to the blast and thermal effects of a 

nuclear detonation. An Air Force F-89D was concerned with the critical air-to-air 

delivery problem and the capability of aircraft to deliver weapons with nuclear 

warheads under varying conditions of weapon yield, altitude, and aircraft 

136 
characteristics. In addition, the project provided basic research data for design 

of future USAF aircraft. 

Program 6 Electromagnetic Effects and Tests of Service Equipment 

This program consisting of five projects, was conducted in 22 of the 24 

primary PLUMB BOB events. Program 6 was not involved on shots SHASTA and WHITNEY. 

Objectives of the five projects were to study the following: 

The behavior of pressure-actuated antitank mines 

under loading from a nuclear detonation 

The vulnerability of three types of antitank 

influence-mine fuzes to a nuclear detonation 

The ground contamination pattern of a chemical 

land mine detonated by a nuclear blast 

The magnetic component of the electromagnetic 

(EM) energy radiated from a nuclear detonation 

as measured in the near-field region as a 

function of time and distance 

The effect of radiation from nuclear detonations 

on semi-conductor devices 

The attenuation of EM energy propagated through 

the cloud of a nuclear detonation 

The accuracy and reliability of a short-baseline

NAROL system by using it to locate ground zero 

positions at ranges from 500 to 1,000 miles 

• The characteristics peculiar to these pulses 

that might distinguish them from bomb pulses 

The nuclear radiation effects produced by a 

nuclear detonation on the operational and 

structural characteristics of components and 

materials in the guidance package of the Nike 

Hercules guided missile 

The effects of a nuclear detonation on the 

propagation of signals from the Nike Hercules 

radar system. 

Project 6.1 (Minefield Clearance by Nuclear Weapons) was fielded by the 

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Laboratories and the Midwest Research 

Institute. Its objective was to investigate the behavior of pressure-activated 

137 
antitank mines under loading from a nuclear detonation. This project was 

done only during PRISCILLA. 

Project 6.2 (Measurement of the Magnetic Component of the Electromagnetic Field Near a Nuclear Detonation) was fielded by the Diamond Ordnance Fuze 

Laboratories on six events. The objective of this project was to provide a record 

of the magneticfield component of the electromagnetic field from a nuclear 

detonation as a function of time and distance, including the near-field region 

Two to five instrument stations were established for each participation at 

ranges of 650 to 14,400 feet from ground zero. The stations consisted of 

concrete-lined holes 6 to 12 feet deep in which the instrumentation sets were 

protected from radiation, blast, and thermal effects by burial under sandbags. 

Project (Measurement of the Effects of Nuclear Radiation on 

Semiconductor Devices). The major effort for this project was on shot PRISCILLA 

and details are contained in that shot volume. 

Project 6.3 (Attenuation of Electromagnetic Radiation Through an Ionized 

Medium) was fielded by the U.S. Naval Air Development Center on four events (225). 

Objectives of Project 6.3 were to measure the attenuation of electromagnetic 

radiation of various frequencies due to propagation through an ionized cloud from 

a nuclear detonation, and to compute the rate of removal of electrons by 

recombination and attachment from the attenuation measurements. An aircraft 

carried the airborne pod used to house the electronic equipment on shots FRANKLIN, 

and WILSON. An FJ-4 aircraft was used for the PRISCILLA event. The 

aircraft were based at Indian Springs Air Force Base. 

Project 6.4 (Accuracy and Reliability of the Short-Baseline NAROL 

System) was fielded by the Air Force Cambridge Research Center on 21 of the 24 

primary events and had the following three objectives 

• Determining the position and yield of a nuclear 

burst as a function of distance from ground zero 

• Investigating methods for isolating the electromagnetic pulse of a nuclear burst from lightning 

transients 

Collecting data on the nature of bomb pulse 

distortion which results from overland 

propagation. 

138 
Since the distances of personnel from Ground Zero were several hundred miles (see 

Figures 5-21 and there was no exposure to ionizing radiation by 

participants. 

Project 6.5 (Effects of Nuclear Detonation on Nike Hercules) was done by 

White Sands Missile Range personnel on nine events The principal 

objective was to investigate effects of radiation produced by nuclear-warhead 

detonation on the operational and structural characteristics of components, 

materials, and systems of the Nike Hercules guided-missile system. The specific 

requirements were to: 

• Ascertain the radiation susceptibility of the 

electronic devices, circuits , and allied 

materials which are employed or are to be 

employed in the circuitry of the missile-borne 

guidance system 

• Establish the minimum radius from the center of 

burst, as a function of yield for reliable 

operations of existing systems 

• Establish the maximum radius from the center of 

burst, as a function of yield, for positive 

failure of essential components, the reliability 

of which cannot be feasibly improved by 

employing less-vulnerable materials or 

components 

• Ascertain the effect versus time of induced 

radioactivity for both immediate and permanent 

damage 

• Provide data to establish operational criteria 

for the tactical employment of guided-missile 

systems 

• Validate the extrapolation of laboratory results 

to the magnitude of field-encountered radiation 

levels. 

Another objective was to investigate the effects of nuclear-warhead 

detonation on the propagation of radar signals. In this area, it was specifically 

desired to: 

139 
-------r--- -

I,--- -

--em _-

Figure 5-2 1. RELATIVE DISPOSITION OF NAROL NETS. 

Trigger 

of to Pulse 

Station 

Master Stotion 

Figure 5-22. TYPICAL NAROL NET LAYOUT. 

140 
Determine if attenuation effects exist at X-band 

frequencies about and through the fireball and

convection cloud 

Evaluate the magnitude and duration of these 

attenuation effects 

Determine the degree of reflectivity of the

radar signal from the cloud 

Obtain preliminary and planning information for 

more comprehensive laboratory and field tests 

Provide data to establish operation criteria for

the tactical employment of guided-missile radar 

systems 

Provide design criteria for radar systems. 

Program 8 Thermal Radiation Effects 

This program consisted of three projects that participated in eight 

events. Its objectives were : 

• To investigate thermal protection for the 

individual soldier 

• To determine the effects of thermal radiation on 

a standard reference material 

• To evaluate laboratory methods for determining 

the protection afforded by uniform systems 

• To test instrumentation systems. 

Project 8.1 (Thermal Protection of the Individual Soldier) was fielded 

by the U.S. Army Quartermaster Research and Engineering Command. The major effort 

of this project on the PRISCILLA event and the details are contained in that shot 

volume. 

Project 8.2 (Prediction of Thermal Protection of Uniforms, and Thermal 

Effects on Standard Materials) was fielded by the Naval Material Laboratory 

on four events (136). Its purpose was to determine the adequacy of the laboratory 

methods employed in the study of the effects of intense thermal radiation on 

materials. The primary objectives were to determine the adequacy of physical 
methods for studying thermal damage to materials, and to evaluate by means of a 

physical skin simulant, the protection afforded by clothing to personnel against 

intense thermal radiation. A secondary objective of the project was to compare 

the burns predicted from the temperatures of the skin simulant behind an 

irradiated fabric assembly, and the burns obtained on animals under identical 

exposure configurations. Project 8.2 made basic thermal radiation measurements 

for the use of Projects 4.1, 8.1, and 8.2. 

Project (Performance of a High-Speed Spectrographic System) was 

fielded by the U . Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory in six events 

Its objective was to field-test a high-speed spectrographic system being 

designed for subsequent use during Operation HARDTACK for very-high-altitude 

detonations. NRDL and Naval Research Laboratory high-speed spectrographs 

were tested. Project (Instrumentation for Measuring Effects Phenomena Inside 

the Fireball) was conducted by three groups, Wright Air Development Center, 

University of Dayton Research Institute, and Allied Research Associates, Inc. 

This project had five objectives 

• Instrumenting tests for future use in making 

measurements within the fireballs resulting from 

nuclear detonations 

• Increasing the information available regarding 

the thermonuclear effects of a nuclear detonation 

• Measuring the time history of the pressure, 

acceleration, and temperature of a nuclear burst 

• Determining peak velocities by means of 

mechanical velocity--distance impact gauges 

• Supplementing ablation data obtained in previous 

tests. 

Because Project was active only during shot PRISCILLA and shot 

SMOKY, this project is described in more detail in those volumes. 

Program 9 Support Photography 

This program was primarily of a support nature and consisted of a single 

project which was concerned with: 

142 
 Technical photographic support of the militaryeffects programs 

• The documentation of the overall militaryeffects program and production of an effects 

motion picture 

• The documentation of the detonations for release 

through the Joint Office of Test Information, 

and for historical purposes 

• The general photographic support of DOD 

projects. 

The Lookout Mountain Laboratory Group from Hollywood, California, 

staffed by the 1352nd Motion Picture Squadron, Air Photographic and Charting 

Service, provided motion picture and still photography coverage. This group 

involved about two dozen participants during Operation PLUMBBOB. Program 9 

provided camera instrumentation on ten shots of the test series as shown in Table 

5-2. Approximately 75,000 feet of color motion picture film was taken at the test 

site for the purposes of documentation of the weapons effects program and the 

production of a military effects motion picture report. This footage was planned 

and accomplished to cover the significant features of participation of each DOD 

project. From this footage, a military effects motion picture was produced. To 

document the detonations for historical purposes and for release to the press 

through the Joint Office of Test Information, both color and black-and-white 

coverage of each detonation was done from an airborne camera station and a forward 

area manned camera station. This coverage consisted of both still and motion 

picture photography. Laboratory facilities established at the test site made it 

possible to process, classify, and release coverage to the press within two hours 

after each detonation. In general support of the participating DOD projects, 

approximately 5,000 still photographs were made at the test site. Immediate 

prints were produced for the use of project analysis. 

5.2.2 DOD Support Group/Field Command Support Unit 

The Field Command Support Unit was an organizational element under the 

Test Manager. The Deputy for Military Matters had operational supervision over 

the FCSU through the Officer-in-Charge, Field Command Support Unit. The mission 

of the FCSU was to provide administrative, logistical, and general support to 

143 
 

 

-

T a b 5 2. SUPPORT. 

SHOT PROJECT PURPOSE SHOT PROJECT PURPOSE 

FRANKLIN 5.2 Blimp effects PASCAL A 9.1 Gross-effect views 

6.3 Cloud tracking OWENS 6.3 Cloud tracking 

2.10 Kytoon position and effects 2.10 Kytoon positions 

1.2 Rocket launcher and WILSON 2.10 Kytoon position and effects canister positions 

6.3 Cloud tracking 

JOHN 9.1 Fireball photography 

PRISCILLA 6.3 Cloud tracking 9.1 Cloud tracking 

1.3 Shock-wave photography 

3.6 Dome deflection SMOKY 6.3 Cloud tracking

4.1 Biomedical photography 1.8 Shock-wave photography 

8.1 Thermal effects 1.8 Tank-model photography 

8.2 Skin-simulant effects STOKES 5.2 Blimp effects

HOOD 2.1 Cloud tracking 

8.2 Skin-simulant effects 

DOCUMENTARY PHOTO ELEMENT STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

RC-47 (1) April June July August September Total 

Total Time 8:00 47:oo 

Mission Time 

Take-offs Ldgs ------------------------------------------------- 47 
DOD WP project agencies, activities, and personnel participating in continental 

tests at the Nevada Test Site. The unit was organized as shown in Figure 5-23. 

Limited logistical support was also furnished to the AEC based on the authority 

contained in instructions for implementing Operation to the Commander, 

Field Command, AFSWP Assistance to the AEC primarily consisted of lending 

special items of supply and equipment from available AFSWP material at the site. 

Because most of the support requirements referred to DOD projects, the FCSU 

performed its mission principally by direct telephone and personal contact with 

the Director of the DOD Test Group, the DOD Program Directors, and the Project 

Officers. 

The principal elements and activities of the Field Command Support Unit 

were : 

• The Communications Officer was responsible for 

arranging telephone and other signal services 

for the DOD elements participating in PLUMBBOB. 

The primary mission of the Communications 

Division was to support the test projects for 

‘and under the supervision of the Director, DOD 

Test Group. 

• The DOD motor pool was activated on 1 April 1957 

and was responsible for operational control, 

dispatching, and servicing all DOD-owned 

vehicles at NTS. Dispatch and other administrative functions were accomplished in the 

manner normally prescribed for any military 

motor pool, except that weekly issue of vehicles 

was made to some users on a continuing basis 

when justified. Motor pool vehicles were 

dispatched daily and provided a source of 

vehicles when permanently allocated vehicles 

were in maintenance. The vehicles were also 

extensively used in support of the AEC. 

• The FCSU vehicle maintenance shop provided both 

maintenance service and repair for all DOD 

administrative vehicles and electric generators 

supplied to the Nevada Test Site. Maintenance 

activities included removal of vehicles from 

long term storage at the beginning of the 

operation and placement of vehicles in long term 

storage at the conclusion of the operation. A 

total of 86 generators, ranging in capacity from 

1.5 to 75 kilowatts, were on hand for assignment. During peak periods of operation, a total 

of 38 generators were assigned. Parts support 

for the maintenance activities were provided by 

145 
CONTROL 

I AND COORDINATION 

I 1 

PERSONNEL DIVISION 

VEHICLE TRANS. BRANCH 

MOVEMENTCONTROL 

AUTO GENERAL I 

I I I I 

CHAPLAIN 

DISPENSARY PROVOST MARSHAL FINANCE SPECIAL SERVICE SAFETY CHAPEL AREA I I I I I I I I I I

I I I - - - -

-------

ALL OFFICES LOCATED IN BUILDING 200, NTS. UNLESS OTHERWISE INDICATED 

Figure 5-23. ORGANIZATIONAL CHART, DOD SUPPORT GROUP. 

I 
normal issues and local procurement. The 

maintenance shop was manned by one officer and 

44 enlisted men. 

• The General Supply Branch, Supply Division, 

FCSU, began operations at the NTS on 18 February 

1957 ; it was charged with providing depot-, 

post-, camp-, and station-type supply support to 

DOD/AFSWP-participating agencies and activincluding 50 test projects. Supplies 

were requisitioned from military technical 

service supply sources, the General Services 

Administration, and A purchasing office for an AFSWP account was located in Las Vegas. 

•• The DOD Housing Office assigned accommodations 

to military and civilian participants 

in the operation. All assignments, 

terminations, and related activities were under 

the general supervision of the Director, 

Personnel Division, FCSU. Continuous 

coordination was maintained with the 

housing office. Housing was assigned to the 

personnel of the FCSU and Headquarters, DOD Test 

Group, on a semi-permanent basis. Since they 

were generally on duty at the site during the 

entire operational period, project personnel 

were provided housing as required in 

coordination with the commander of the DOD Test 

Group. Personnel were housed at Mercury, 

Nevada, in dormitories, huts, and trailers. 

•• The Commercial Traffic Branch was organized and

operated in conformity with a military base or 

post traffic section. The branch provided 

courier services to the Las Vegas Municipal 

Airport, DOD Las Vegas Procurement Officer, and Air Force Base; made commercial carrier 

reservations for DOD personnel; handled packing,

crating, and shipping of DOD material; received 

and processed incoming and outgoing shipments, 

and traced and expedited cargo movements. 

• The Public Information Officer, Field Command, 

AFSWP, was placed on temporary duty at the Las

Vegas Branch Office, AEC, so that he could carry 

out the public information mission of AFSWP in 

coordination with the AEC Public Information 

Office. 

• The Deputy Surgeon, Field Command, AFSWP,

directed and monitored the orientation and 

training program for medical officers from the 

147 
Armed Services. A total of 28 medical officers 

participated in this program on the basis of 14 

days temporary duty at the site for each 

officer. 

• In addition to the various groups previously 

mentioned, other elements provided services to 

base personnel. The Military Police Unit 

enforced military directives and civil laws on 

the Nevada Test Site. The unit consisted of one 

Army military police officer and three enlisted 

men. The Special Services Unit provided 

recreational support to all DOD military and 

civilian personnel, and managed facilities both 

on and off the test site for sports and 

educational activities. The Finance Unit provided travel and per diem allowances for all DOD 

and military personnel at NTS, although regular 

monthly pay was not handled by this unit. 

The Field Commander, AFSWP, was able to augment manpower in the FCSU 

with Army, Navy, and Force personnel. A total of 13 officers and 147 enlisted 

men filled specific positions. The Commanding Officer, Sandia Base, provided 

military as well as civilian personnel to perform specialized services. In 

particular, the Finance Office at NTS received six enlisted men and one civilian 

(during the peak operational period) and one typewriter repairman (during the 

closing phase of PLUMBBOB). Four enlisted men reported for duty with the DOD 

Medical Dispensary. 

Based on the responsibilities of the FCSU, few individuals other than 

the military police would be expected to enter areas containing radioactivity. 

5.2.3 Air Force Special Weapons Center 

As field headquarters for Air Force nuclear research and development, 

AFSWC provided air support for the test series. This support was headed 

by the 4950th Test Group (Nuclear), organized at Kirtland AFB, NM, on 1 September 

1956, to plan for and accomplish those portions of the nuclear test programs at 

the Nevada Test Site and the Enewetak Proving Ground for which AFSWC was 

responsible. This group participated heavily in the series (see Table 5-3): 

148 
-

- - - --
 Exercising operational control over aircraft 

participating in or supporting atmospheric 

nuclear testing programs 

• Collecting particulate and gaseous samples 

• Providing support for aircraft of participating 

organizations through the 4935th Air Base 

Squadron, Indian Springs Air Force Base 

NV 

• Satisfying air support requirements of the 

test organization at the Nevada Test Site. 

The 4950th Test Group was composed of a headquarters and four squadrons. 

The group headquarters (4900th Air Base Group, Kirtland AFB, supported 

by providing daily shuttle service between Kirtland AFB and Indian 

Springs AFB. The four squadrons were: 

• The 4926th Test Squadron, stationed at Kirtland 

AFB. The squadron, in support of the AEC, 

collected gaseous and particulate cloud samples 

following nuclear detonations. As noted in 

Chapter 6, members of this group received an 

appreciable radiation dose. 

• The 4935th Air Base Squadron, located at Indian 

Springs AFB, operated the air base and furnished 

the test support aircraft. It provided housing, 

messing, air base operations, security, flying 

time for DOD personnel at the NTS, and limited 

air support missions. Personnel augmentation 

from AFSWC was provided so that the squadron 

could accomplish these services. The normal 

number of personnel was increased to 410 

for PLUMBBOB. 

• The 4951st Support Squadron (Test) at Enewetak 

Atoll may have furnished some support to the 

tests. There is, however, no sure indication 

that this squadron participated in PLUMBBOB. 

The 4952nd Support Squadron, essentially an 

augmentation squadron, provided personnel to the 

buildup for the operational and phases of 

the tests. 

150 
Test participants were required to submit air support requirements 

through an Air Force officer assigned to the Test Director’s staff. By this 

means, any conflicts which arose in the use of the limited number of support 

aircraft were resolved by an individual in the best position to determine relative 

priority. The system also provided a means to ensure that civilian test 

participants were properly authorized to fly in military aircraft. The effectiveness of the planning, the operational procedures, and the flying safety measures 

resulted in 90 percent of the scheduled test missions being flown as planned 

TABLE 5-4 

TEST AIRCRAFT UNIT TOTALS FOR OPERATION 

T.O. Landings Total Flying 

4926th Test Squadron 1932 

NASWF 729 963:00 

Documentary Photo 47 

MB-l Project 62 85:00 

WADC Element 134 125: 10 

Since certain units were based at Kirtland Air Force Base, the limited 

resources available at Indian Springs Air Force Base could be applied to the needs 

of those units which had priority assignment for operational reasons. All units 

participating on an operational and training basis were requested to provide the 

4950th Test Group with copies of their operational plans and the aircrew briefings 

to be used during the test (see Table 5-5). 

Most test and support aircraft operated from Indian Springs AFB. 

Command supervision of the organizations operating from this base was exercised by 

a Deputy Commander of the 4950th Test Group responsible for supervising the 

activities of the 4935th Air Base Squadron and the Test Aircraft Unit (Figure 
Table BRIEF DESCRIPTION OF AIR OPERATIONS. 

1. Location 

a. Indian Springs AFB all helicopters, B-57 sampling aircraft, 

jet fighter types. 

b. Kirtland AFB multi-engine prop-driven aircraft, B-50s. etc. 

2. Security sweep aircraft and certain helicopters were not expected to 

penetrate contaminated airspace and no special procedures taken other 

than pilots, passengers, and observer types wore film badges. 

3. Multi-engine aircraft operating from Kirtland; trackers, long range cloud 

trackers, drop aircraft, etc. also had no special procedures for pre-shot 

operations except as in number 2 above. 

4. Sampling aircraft procedures 

a. Pre-test 

1) Load filter papers 

2) Final mechanical checks 

3) Pilot briefings per plane) as to orbit levels pre-shot, 

expected cloud height, penetration times, other aircraft, etc. 

4) Take off for pre-shot, air set up etc., to be in position at 

H-l hour. 

b. Penetration phase. Underground control for time altitude and number 

of passes before returning to base, Determination of adequacy of sample 

for radiochemistry was based on integrating dosimeter location in 

the aircraft on basis of previous experience. All pilots were on 

full internal oxygen prior to, during, and after penetration. 

Cockpits were pressurized as normally done with no added special 

filters on air intakes pre- or post-compressor. 

c. Landing phase. Aircraft landed as usual. After landing, aircraft 

taxied to east taxi strip (Indian Springs AFB) which is farthest 

strip from operations area, and parked on the east edge of pad in 

located area. Engines were shut but pilots remained on full 

oxygen (internal) and canopies remained closed and latched. 

d. Forklift and pickup truck with sample removal team and R/S monitors 

proceed to aircraft. 

e. Sample removal team removes filter papers (via forklift) and 

same in sample boxes. After removal and placing in sample boxes 

(shielded) in pickup, forklift proceeds to aircraft cockpit. 

f. Oxygen shutdown, canopy opened, and pilots evacuate aircraft via 

forklift without climbing on outside of aircraft and transfer to 

pickup. 

g. Pickup proceeds to decontamination area where pilots off-load, then 

proceeds to sample return aircraft which then departs to UCRL and/or 

LASL with courier and samples. 

h. Pilots monitored at decontamination facility were the to proceed 

through full decontamination (strip down, shower, etc.), even though 

no contamination may have been present. Clothing (normal flight suit) 

handled as necessary. 

i. Aircraft decontamination proceeds at aforementioned parking location. 

crew washes down aircraft externally with water 

hose type) (canopy closed). Engines started and water (firehose) 

allowed to enter engines; waste water soaks into desert off taxi 

strip. Engines shut down; and wipe down of cockpit internally 

necessary done. Aircraft returned to flight line for necessary 

maintenance, preparation for next flight, etc. Decontamination 

levels same as in Rad-Safe operation order for vehicles, etc. 

Helicopter procedures for helicopters expected to be used in areas 

of either contaminated airspace or contaminated ground space. 

1) Pre-test interior of helicopter lined with strippable paper 

this takes 2 days. 

Test use phase Passengers equipped with anti-contamination 

clothing and respirators. Pilots in usual flying attire. 

Monitor on board. Proceeds on mission and returns to chopper 

area. Persons on board dismount, go to decontamination area. 

Proceed through decontamination if necessary. 

3) Chopper checked for contamination external if 

necessary. Internal area stripped of paper if necessary. 

Decontamination levels same as for all vehicles. 

152 
TEST AIRCRAFT UNIT 

WADC ELEM 

NASWF 

ELEMENT

TACTICAL ELEMENT 

HELICOPTERS 

WADC = WRIGHT AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER 

NASWF = NAVAL AIR SPECIAL WEAPONS FACILITY 

Figure 5-24. TEST AIRCRAFT UNIT ORGANIZATION. 

The Test Aircraft Unit headquarters, manned by personnel of the 4926th 

Test Squadron (Sampling), was responsible for the operational control of all 

organizations and aircraft not permanently assigned at Indian Springs. Control of 

these units was effected by conducting aircrew briefings, publishing mission 

execution charts, scheduling flying activities, monitoring personnel radiation 

exposures, operating fixed and mobile ground UHF radio equipment, and maintaining 

a 24-hour operations section which kept all Test Aircraft Unit elements informed 

of pertinent shot schedules. The 4926th Test Squadron (Sampling) deployed the 

majority of their personnel to Indian Springs AFB to accomplish the required cloud 

sampling, personnel dosimet ry , and aircraft decontamination. During Operation 

PLUMBBOB, pilots from the Strategic Air Command and the Air National Guard were 

indoctrinated in cloud sampling techniques. A rear echelon of the 4926th Test 

Squadron accomplished major maintenance and inspections of the Squadron’s aircraft 

at Kirtland Air Force Base. 

153 
4926th Test Squadron (Sampling) 

The 4926th Test Squadron (Sampling) was formed in April 1953 to fulfill 

the AEC requirements for collecting gaseous and particulate cloud samples after 

nuclear detonations (See Table This unit handled all such sampling work 

from Operation CASTLE at Enewetak in 1954 through the Series. 

The unique mission of the 4926th Test Squadron (Sampling) is reflected 

in its organization. In addition to executing the normal functions of a squadron 

operating several different types of mission aircraft, the 4926th maintained a 

Nuclear Applications section, whose primary function was to instrument and prepare 

aircraft for nuclear cloud sampling. This section was also responsible for 

removing the cloud samples from aircraft and preparing them for shipment to the 

appropriate laboratories for analysis. In addition, the Nuclear Applications 

Section operated decontamination and personnel dosimetry facilities. 

During Operation PLUMBBOB, all periodic inspections and controlled major 

maintenance of F-84G and B-57B aircraft were performed at Kirtland Air Force Base. 

The average strength of the Kirtland Air Force Base detachment was one officer and 

40 airmen. The strength of the forward element at Indian Springs Air Force Base 

averaged 26 officers and 130 airmen. 

During Operation PLUMBBOB, the following flight times applied (2): 

Aircraft Flight Time (Hours: 

B-57B 

F-84G 

T-33A 

Total Time 

Of the total flying time, 175 hours were logged during test mission sorties. 

Total number of sorties flown was 1,821, which included 161 test mission sorties. 

A total of 1,932 take-offs and landings were recorded. There were seven aborts 

due to reasons other than shot cancellation. During the entire time of Operation 

PLUMBBOB, the 4926th Test Squadron (Sampling) had no accidents or incidents. 

Table 5-7 is a statistical summary of this squadron’s operations at PLUMBBOB. 

154 
-

-

SAMPLE RECOVERY AND SAMPLE RETURN OPERATIONS. Table 5-6. (This information a copy of Appendix 5 to Annex F of 

Plan l-57) 

1. GENERAL. 

This Appendix outlines the sample recovery and sample return operations to 

be performed by the 4950th.Test Group (Nuclear) during the operation. 

2. RESPONSIBILITIES. (C) 

All cloud sample recovery operations will be the responsibility of the 

4950th Test Group (Nuclear) and will be performed as follows: 

(1) The 4926th Test Squadron (Sampling) will: 

(a) Designate a sample Recovery Officer to supervise all sample 

recovery operations and control the entrance of personnel to the sample recovery 

area. 

(b) Isolate the sample recovery area. 

(c) Park and secure aircraft. 

(d) Assist pilot from aircraft and remove all film 

(e) Provide Rad-Safe monitors for sample recovery operations. 

(f) Provide personnel for the recovery operation. These 

personnel will: 

1. Mark the cloud sample pigs by aircraft number and 

designate whether samples were taken from right or left tanks. 

2. Roll films and insert them in pigs. 

Read and record dose rates from pigs. 

Package pigs in wooden crates as provided by UCRL 

and LASL. 

5. Recover, mark, and crate AFOAT-1 sample bottles. 

In the sample return operation the Commander, 4950th Test Group 

will provide to the Test through its subordinate units as 

follows: 

(1) The 4926th Test Squadron (Sampling) will: 

(a) Provide facilities to transport samples from the sample 

processing compound to the sample return aircraft. 

(b) Load samples on return aircraft. 

(2) The 4900th ABG Support Operations Officer at Indian Springs AFB, 

in conjunction with the Test Director's Sample Return Coordinator, will: 

(a) Brief sample return aircraft crews. 

(b) Insure that top priority is given for the departure of the 

sample return aircraft when released by the Sample Return Coordinator. 

(c) Insure that aircraft commanders understand their 

responsibilities for: 

1. Placement of samples, tie-down, etc. 

2. The expeditious return of samples to destinations, 

consistent with safety. 

3. Observing radio security. 

3. PROCEDURES. 

Special detailed operating procedures for the implementation of the above 

will be prepared by the responsible unit. Copies of these SOP's will be forwarded to the Commander, 4950th Test Group (Nuclear), ATTN: Nuclear Research 

Officer, prior to 15 April 1957. 

155 
-

Table 5-7. STATISTICAL SUMMARY TEST SQUADRON 

(SAMPLING). 

TOTAL 

SORTIES 

MISSION 

SORTIES 

TOTAL AV TIME 

TIME PER ACFT 

MISSION 

TIME 

OTHER 

SORTIES 

T.O. 

LANDINGS 

May

(11) JF-84G

(6) B-57B

(2) T-33 

TOTAL 

168 

76 

5 

4 

17.5 

22.7 

57.6 

163 

72 

68 

168 

76 

76 

June 

JF-84G 

B-57B 

T-33 

TOTAL 

254 

99 

15 

11 

1 

31.9 

33.1 

77.3 

142.3 36.15 

239 

88 

254 

99 

136 

July

JF-84G 

B-57B 

T-33 

TOTAL 

210 

84 

12 

16 

25.7 

26.1 

35.4 

87.2 

198 

68 

39 

210 

84 

59 

353 

August

JF-84G 

B-57B 

T-33 

TOTAL 

237 

92 

19 

16 

27.2 

173:00 28.8 

60.7 

218 

76 

237 

92 

September

JF-84G 

B-57B 

T-33 

TOTAL 

169 

94 

30 

17 

19.3 

20.5 

38.7 

139 

77 

169 

94 

to 7 

JF-84G 

B-57B 

T--33 

TOTAL 

8 

4 

6 

2 

4 

2 

2 

0 

8 

4 

0 

4926th TS 

Totals for 

Test 

1821 161 522.5 1660 1932 

156 
At the request of Headquarters, U.S. Air Force, each of fourteen* Air 

National Guard squadrons having secondary sampling missions was given special 

training . Four officers and six airmen from each squadron were ordered on active 

duty for two weeks and were integrated into the operations, maintenance, and 

nuclear applications sections of the 4926th Test Squadron (Sampling). Orientation 

and familiarization lectures were given and an on-the-job training program 

conducted to provide practical experience in aircraft instrumentation, particulate 

sampling , sample recovery, aircraft decontamination, and personnel dosimetry. 

In the course of normal sampling mission operations, orientation, 

indoctrination, familiarization, and special studies were conducted for various 

U.S. Air Force and Royal Canadian Air Force personnel: 

•• Personnel from the 4935th Air Base Squadron and

from the Test Aircraft Unit were trained in 

personnel dosimetry and precautionary measures. 

• Strategic Air Command pilots from Laughlin Air 

Force Base, Texas, were given lectures on 

nuclear cloud sampling techniques and radiological safety. Twelve pilots participated on 

actual cloud sampling missions as observers. 

• Royal Canadian Air Force personnel, in 

three groups of 25 each, were indoctrinated in

radiological procedures pertaining to the 

sampling mission. They observed the various 

phases of the operation and actually 

participated in aircraft decontamination 

operations. 

Wright Air Development Center (Projects 5.5 and 

The mission of the WADC element was to determine the structural response 

of in-flight F-89D aircraft to the blast and thermal effects of a nuclear 

detonation. This information was required primarily for the purposes of 

correcting or verifying the weapons delivery handbook for the aircraft and for 

defining its delivery capability. The WADC Element was composed of two F-89D 

aircraft, six pilots (two of which were at the Nevada Test Site at a given time), 

one enlisted man (supply sergeant), and seven civilian maintenance men. 

*Montana, New Hampshire, Illinois, New York, Ohio, Texas, Nebraska, 

Oregon, Idaho, California, Arizona, 0 klahoma , Delaware, Wisconsin. 
Both aircraft participated in most of the shots up to and including shot 

SMOKY (31 August 1957). The following flying times apply for the period from 12 

April 1957 to 31 August 1957 

Flying Time 

(Hours) Sorties 

Total 

Actual 

Missions 

Shot Missions 

134 

29 

There was only one abort during the entire period ; it occurred on the STOKES event 

August 1957). No accidents or incidents occurred during the operation. 

TABLE 5-8 

WRIGHT AIR DEVELOPMENT CENTER STATISTICAL SUMMARY (2) 

JF-89D Total Time Mission Time Av 

Mission 

Sorties 

T.O. 

Landing 

April 

26.10 

June 

July 

August 25 

2:oo 

12:oo 

8:00 

17 

13 2 

14: 10 9 

11 

7 

24 

31 

37 

25 

TOTALS 29 134 

Naval Air Special Weapons Facility (Projects 5.3, 5.4 and 6.3) 

The mission of the NASWF detachment was to obtain data on aircraft 

response to nuclear blast and thermal inputs for the FJ-4, and HSS-1 

aircraft. Since these aircraft represent three general types not previously 

investigated (FJ-4, extremely thin swept wing aircraft; very low aspect 

ratio; and HSS-1, rotary wing), basic effects data was obtained in addition to 

158 
specific data on these aircraft types. Generally, the effects prediction systems 

proved reliable. Data was obtained to establish the delivery capabilities of the 

and FJ-4 aircraft for low yield weapons. 

The NASWF detachment consisted of two aircraft, two FJ-4 aircraft, 

one AD-5, one HSS-1, one TV-2 (thirteen officers, 45 enlisted men, and 43 civilian 

contractor personnel). It accomplished its mission without any accidents or 

incidents. An average of 214 hours were flown each month from 15 April 1957 to 31 

August 1957. Of this total, 118 hours per month (average) were logged during 

mission or practice mission flights. There were seven aborts during the test 

period ; one standby mission due to aircraft control difficulties; and three 

and three FJ-4 missions due to radar malfunction or interference from other 

radar stations 

TABLE 5-9 

U.S. NAVY SPECIAL WEAPONS FACILITY STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

Average Monthly Total Time 

Flying Time Hours For Test 

35 

FJ4 45 

HSS-1 38 171 

AD5 58 261 

TV2 38 171 

TOTAL 963 

Average Mission and Practice Time Per Month 118 

Total Mission and Practice Time for Test 531 

Average Total Time per Month 214 

Average T .O. and Landings per Month 162 

Total T.O. and Landings for Test 729 

Average Sorties per Month 143 

Total Sorties for Test 644 

Average Mission or Mission Practice Sorties per Month 94 

Total Mission or Mission Practice Sorties for Test 423 
MB-l Element (Genie) (Shot JOHN) 

The mission of the MB-l Element was to test--scientifically--a 

air- to-air nuclear rocket and to collect radiation data for operational and 

scientific planning. The MB-l Element consisted of two F-89J aircraft, permanent 

project personnel (eight officers, four airmen, and ten civilians from Northrop) 

plus temporary personnel who were on site two weeks or less (two officers, two 

airmen, and four civilians from Douglas, Hughes, and Northrop). The first fighter 

delivery of a live nuclear rocket in U.S. history was achieved on 19 July 1957. 

From 28 May 1957 to 26 July 1957, the two F-89J aircraft assigned to the project 

flew a total of 170 hours. From 14 June to 26 July, each aircraft crew flew two 

sorties per day. A 99.25 percent aircraft-in-commission rate for scheduled 

missions was achieved. One practice mission was aborted. No accidents or 

incidents occurred during the period of the project. 

TABLE 5-10 (2) 

MB-l PROJECT STATISTICAL SUMMARY 

28 May to 26 July 1957 

F-89J 

Total Flying Time 85:00 

Total Mission Time 

Pro-rated Average Monthly Time/Aircraft 22:oo 

Total Sorties 62 

Mission Sorties 2 

Practice Sorties 60 

Total Take-offs and Landings 62 

160 
21st Helicopter Squadron (Detachment 

The mission of this unit was to conduct radiation surveys at the test 

site; recover rockets in remote and otherwise inaccessible areas; provide taxi 

service in support of nuclear tests, handle search and rescue service, and do any 

other necessary, special helicopter flights within operational capabilities. The 

21st Helicopter Squadron was a unit of the 314th Troop Carrier Wing, Medium, 

Air Force Base, Tennessee. The squadron consisted of an average of seven 

H-21 helicopters, eleven officers, seventeen airmen, and one civilian. Squadron 

aircraft and crews flew a total of 737 hours, of which 695 hours were logged 

during mission sorties. A total of 745 mission sorties were flown. Aircraft 

flying time on a 30-day average was hours. There were only two aborts 

during the operation. No accidents or incidents occurred 

4935th Air Base Squadron 

This squadron furnished normal air base operations services to aircraft 

participating in or supporting the test. In addition, flying time was furnished 

to attached rated personnel, while aircraft and crews were furnished for security 

sweeps, rocket nose cone searches, sampler controls, sample returns, cloud 

trackers, and photo missions. The Base Communications section (which was a part 

of operations) provided long distance, Kirtland hotline, teletype, Western Union, 

commercial TWX, and cryptographic facilities for test and test support units. 

5.3 AEC OPERATIONS WITH DOD INVOLVEMENT 

The test programs measured the intrinsic aspects of nuclear 

devices. Their diagnostic measurements were directly related to the problems of 

weapon development. Generally, weapon (or device) diagnostics are considered in 

totality. Of primary importance is, of course, yield. Yield is, in final 

analysis, a measure of the efficiency of the system. During Operation PLUMBBOB, 

there were four main test groups active with AEC test programs (Figure 5-25): Los 

Scientific Laboratory, University of California Radiation Laboratory, 

Livermore Sandia Laboratory, and Project 57. 

161 
TEST MANAGER 

I 

TEST DIRECTOR 

ASSOCIATE TEST DIRECTOR 

MILITARY ASSISTANT TO THE TEST DIRECTOR 

LASL UCRL TEST GROUP DIRECTOR 57 

TEST GROUP DIRECTOR TEST GROUP DIRECTOR ASST. TEST GROUP DIRECTOR 

Figure 5-25. TEST GROUPS, AEC OPERATIONS, PLUMBBOB. 
The AEC weapons laboratories, LASL and UCRL,* utilized the test site for 

field testing nuclear devices, nuclear weapon proof-testing, and special tests of 

nuclear materials regarding theory and safety. These laboratories primarily 

developed nuclear weaponry for incorporation into militarily useful systems. To 

develop systems for nuclear weapons it is necessary to consider the functional 

aspects of the weapon itself. Within their various programs, LASL and UCRL 

measured and analyzed their nuclear devices or weapons. Both LASL and UCRL 

measured yield with proven methods, including fireball photography, bhangmeter 

measurements, alpha measurements, and radiochemistry. 

In addition to the usual measurements made for yield determination, each 

laboratory had specific experiments tailored to a specific detonation. In 

general, these experiments involved the nuclear reaction history. The 

laboratories utilized both their own personnel as well as those of subcontractors 

and other organizations. For example, LASL used the Naval Research Laboratory in 

one group of studies. Similarly, the UCRL effort was concerned with the same 

investigations. The final analysis of the experimental results was a function of 

the laboratory itself using the measurements made internally or by a laboratory 

contractor. The overall list of AEC projects for is given in Appendix 

A. 

Many of these projects required recovery operations. These were 

usually conducted by laboratory and associated personnel under the control of the 

Test Director% Rad-safe organization. Most were non-DOD civilian laboratory 

personnel whose recorded exposures are not a part of this document. Some DOD 

personnel, on assignment to the laboratories, were involved in these recovery 

operations. In general the only measurement (other than radiochemistry) that 

required prompt entry into radioactive areas was the pickup of films for 

estimation of alpha radiation. In cases where radiation dose rates were too high, 

the films could not be recovered immediately. 

and UCRL were both operated for the AEC by the University of California. 

UCRL is now Lawrence Livermore National Laboratories. Both are operated for DOE 

by the University of California at Berkeley. 

163 
After a weaponry system has been conceived, there must be a merger of 

the nuclear device and system components to produce an efficient and practical 

weapon. Building this system into a practical weapon is the primary concern of 

the Sandia Laboratory at Albuquerque* which concentrated on the non-nuclear 

components of weapons. Through the use of fireball studies and weapons 

vulnerability tests, Sandia tested the reliability and adequacy of the design of 

weapon components. 

The first concern with the development of nuclear weapons and weaponry 

systems is safety. During Operation PLUMBBOB, LASL and UCRL sponsored certain 

safety tests to verify the weapons’ reliability with respect to safety. 

In December of 1956, the AEC Albuquerque Operations Office, with the 

sanction of the Division of Military Application asked Sandia Corporation 

to arrange an extensive experimental program to evaluate plutonium contamination 

from a non-nuclear one-point detonation--a test where a particular nuclear device 

is detonated at one warhead location rather than at multiple locations. Plutonium 

is a serious radiological hazard when deposited internally in much smaller amounts 

than would cause chemical damage to tissues as a “heavy metal poison.” Sandia 

accepted and set up Project 57 to perform the experiment. Sandia also appointed 

the Test Director; he called together representatives of participating 

organizations to rule on a choice for the test site and to formulate the first 

experimental plans for this Project 57. 

An area adjacent to and northeast of NTS, (just northeast of Area 10, 

Figure was borrowed from the Air Force for a 200-day period and designated 

as Area 13. Seventy square miles of the valley area and 100 square miles total 

were surveyed for instrument and fallout collector locations. Radiochemical 

analysis of earth samples confirmed the belief that there was an insignificant 

plutonium background from previous test operations. The one-point detonation was 

made at 0627 24 April 1957 in Area 13. A non-nuclear device was detonated to 

create conditions for conducting studies in Plutonium contamination, 

biological effects, and alpha decontamination procedures. The device had no 

was operated for the AEC by the Sandia Corporation, a unit of the Bell 

System. 

164 
NOR’T 

•••••••

. CONTROL 

. STATION 

ERCURY 

MILES 

STATIONS 

NEVADA TEST SITE 

NOTE: 

MERCURY HIGHWAY, THE NORTHSOUTH ROAD SHOWN TRAVERSING 

THOSE AREAS. THE BOUNDARY BETWEEN AREA 2 AND AREA9 LIES 

ALONG THE CENTER OF THE THREE ROADS SHOWN. 

Figure 5-26. NEVADA TEST SITE WITH STATION LOCATIONS. 
-

nuclear yield. Sandia Corporation provided direct operational support to Project 

57 before and after detonation, as well as normal Rad-safe support to all test 

personnel, until completion of the experiment. provided all Rad-safe 

support to Project 57 in Area 13 (and considerable operational support to Sandia). 

Project 57 performed four safety programs, 71 (Particulate Physics), 72 

(Biomedical Field Study of Plutonium Inhalation), 73 (Plutonium Monitoring), and 

74 (Surface Alpha Monitoring). 

5.3.1 Los Scientific Laboratory Programs 

The following list summarizes the LASL programs that were active during 

Operation (see Table 5-11). A more detailed description is precluded by 

the classified nature of these projects. Most of the station locations mentioned 

are shown in Figure 5-26. 

• Program 10 Hydrodynamics. This program 

consisted of two projects: 10.1 (Fireball 

Analysis) and 10.2 (Time of Arrival). It 

consisted of fireball studies in which photographic techniques were used to determine yield. 

carried out this work for LASL. Stations 

were fixed and used as necessary for a 

particular event. Recovery was required and may 

have taken place in radiological exclusion 

areas, depending on post-shot survey results. 

Program 10 was active for the following shots 

and at the following stations. 

BOLTZMANN Sta 9-356 372; G-15-5006 

FRANKLIN G-15-5007; 3-356; 372 

372 

WILSON 372 

PRISCILLA F 361; F 362; 372 

HOOD 372 

DIABLO 372 

KEPLER 4-357; 7-357; 372 

OWENS 372 

STOKES 9-356; 7-357; 372 

SHASTA 372 

DOPPLER 70357; 9-356; 372 

FRANKLIN PRIME 7-357; 372 

166 
Table 5-11. LASL TEST GROUP PROJECTS CONDUCTED AT OPERATION 

SHOTS 

Program 12 Program 14 

10 11 Diagnostic 13 Program 16 Program 19 

15 magnetic Vulnerability 

Development Measurements Studies 

PROJECT57 

BOLTZMANN 10.1 11.1 12.1 13.1 14 15.1 16.2 17.1 18.1 

10.2 11.2 12.2 13.2 15.2 18.2 

12.4 13.3 18.3 

18.4 

FRANKLIN 10.1 11.1 12.2 13.1 14 15.1 16.2 17.1 18.1 

10.2 11.2 12.4 13.2 15.2 18.2 

18.3 

18.4 

10.1 16.2 17.1 

10.2 

WILSON 10.1 14 16.2 17.1 

10.2 

PRISCILLA 10.1 11.1 12.2 13.1 15.1 16.2 17.1 18.1 19.1 

10.2 11.2 12.4 13.2 15.2 18.2 

18.3 

18.4 

COULOMB A 11.1 12.3 13.1 15.1 17.1 

11.2 13.2 15.2 

HOOD 10.1 11.1 13.1 16.2 17.1 

10.2 11.2 13.2 

DIABLO 10.1 11.1 13.1 14 16.2 17.1 

10.2 11.2 13.2 

JOHN 11.1 16.2 17.1 

11.2 

18.4 

OWENS 10.1 

10.2 

16.2 17.1 

12.3 13.1 17.1 

13.2 

STOKES 10.1 

10.2 

11.1 

11.2 

12.2 

12.4 

13.1 

13.2 

15.1 

15.2 

16.2 17.1 18.1 

18.2 

18.3 

18.4 

SATURN 

"Bold print indicates projects with DOD participation. 

167 
SHASTA 

Program 10 

10.1 

10.2 

Program 

11.1 

11.2 

12 

Program 13 

Gamma-Ray 

Program 14 

14 

Program 

16.2 

Program 17 

17.1 

Thermal 

Program 19 

Vulnerability 

DOPPLER 10.1 

10.2 

11.1 

11.2 

12.2 

12.4 

13.1 

13.2 

15.1 

15.2 

16.2 17.1 

PASCALB 12.3 13.1 

13.2 

17.1 

FRANKLIN 

PRIME 

10.1 

10.2 

11.1 

11.2 

12.2 

12.4 

13.1 

13.2 

15.1 

15.2 

16.2 17.1 

SMOKY 10.1 

10.2 

11.1 

11.2 

16.2 17.1 

GALILEO 10.1 

10.2 

11.1 

11.2 

12.2 

12.4 

13.1 

13.2 

14 15.1 

15.2 

16.1 

16.2 

17.1 

WHEELER 13.1 

13.2 

17.1 

COULOMBB 10.1 

10.2 

11.1 

11.2 

12.3 13.1 

13.2 

15.1 

15.2 

10.1 

10.2 

11.1 

11.2 

12.4 13.1 

13.2 

15.1 

15.2 

16.2 17.1 

10.1 

10.2 

11.1 

11.2 

12.2 

12.4 

13.1 

13.2 

15.1 

15.2 

16.2 17.1 

NEWTON 10.1 11.1 12.2 13.1 15.1 16.2 17.1 

Table 5-11. LASL TEST GROUP PROJECTS CONDUCTED AT OPERATION 

SHOTS (Continued) 

I , 10.2 , 11.2 , 12.4 , 15.2

RAINIER 

WHITNEY 14 16.2 

CHARLESTON 16.2 

MORGAN 10.1 16.2 

168 

1 
-

- -

SMOKY 372 

GALILEO l-355; l-356; 372 

COULOMB B 3-357 

7-357; 9-356; 372 

FIZEAU 3-356; 3-357; 372 

NEWTON l-355; 3-355; 372 

MORGAN 372 

• Program Radiochemistry: This program 

consisted of Project 11.1 (Radiochemistry 

Analysis) and 11.2 (Radiochemistry Sampling). 

AFS WC performed the sampling and LASL performed 

the analysis, which resulted in the final 

determination of yield. The AFSWC portion of 

this report describes the Air Force 

sampling efforts which supported this program. 

Program 11 was active at 17 shots. 

Program 12t Diagnostic Neutron Measurements 

consisted for four projects. Project 12.1 and 

12.2 were reaction studies which required 

personnel to enter contaminated areas to recover 

the experiments. Special measurements were 

required on BOLTZMANN and KEPLER. In these 

cases, a special cable extended 2,000 yards from 

ground zero. The cable was pulled from the 

point to an area of sufficiently low 

radiation intensity so that retrieval was 

possible. Project 12.3, a special study 

performed at safety shots only, gave some 

estimate of yield. Project 12.4 was another 

reaction study but, unlike Projects 12.1 and 

12.2, it presented no recovery problems. 

Program 12 was active for 15 shots. 

Program Gamma Ray Measurements provided 

basic early yield estimates and reaction 

history. Project 13.1 (Alpha Yield Estimates 

and Reaction History) was supported by and 

required personnel to enter contaminated areas 

to recover experiments. Neither Projects 13.2 

(Telemetry) nor 13.3 (J-13 Explorations), both 

supported by Sandia, required recovery efforts 

in contaminated areas. 

*Reference LASL J-11 letter reports. 

LASL J-12 letter reports. 

Measurements on Operation LAMS 2772. 

169 
-

The stations used by consisted of detector locations, which were 

serviced both before and after events, and blockhouses permanently installed from 

which post-shot recoveries were required. Station identification was : 

l-300 

4-300 

7-300 Blockhouses 

F-300 

3-300 

l-480 Collimated blockhouses 

4-480 

7-300 

F-301 Detector locations 

3-301 

T-3 Tower detector location 

U-3d Underground detector location 

U-3j 

Surface detector locations 

3 A-304 

All telemetry information obtained from Sandia measurements of reaction history 

was received at Station 311. In addition, there were other experiments that fell 

under Program 13; certain LASL experiments were placed in Program 13 even though 

in specific cases they involved neutron diagnostics. Of interest in this respect 

are the special gamma ray studies by LASL at BOLTZMANN and DOPPLER. Program 13 

was active at 18 shots. 

• Program 14 was involved with new instrument 

development by LASL which had to do with radiological monitoring. This did not require entry 

into contaminated areas. Program 14 was active 

at eight shots. 

• Program 15 Photophysics analyzed the nuclear 

reactions using photographic techniques and 

required no recovery efforts in contaminated 

areas. It consisted of Project 15.1 

Photophysics) and Project 15.2 

Photophysics). Photos were made from existing 

stations and bunkers. This involved recovery of 

film. These stations were: 

170 
-

BOLTZMANN Station 7-15-5006 

FRANKLIN Station 3-15-5011 

KEPLER Station 7-15-5005 

KEPLER Station 4-380 

KEPLER Station 4-390 

DOPPLER Station l-390 

GALILEO Station l-390 

Station l-355 

NEWTON Station l-355 

Naval Research Laboratory personnel participated in this program for shot KEPLER. 

Program 15 was active for 13 shots. 

• Program 16 Bhangmeter Measurements produced 

yield measurements and required no recovery 

operations. Project 16.1 involved Area 1 

Measurements; Project 16.2 involved Portable 

recorders;* and Project 16.3 involved Area 4 

Measurements. Information was obtained from the 

bhangmeter station at the CP, which 

operated at all events. Additionally, station 

locations varied from the CP to 

Arizona ; Los New Mexico; and other 

remote areas. Personnel participating and 

operating the telemetry equipment were military. 

This program was active for all shots with the 

exception of Project 57, COULOMB A, PASCAL A, 

SATURN, PASCAL B, COULOMB B, WHEELER, and 

RAINIER. 

Program 17 Electromagnetic Measurements 

concerned the long-range effects of electromagnetic pulses and consisted of one 

project, 17.1. Experimentation was conducted at 

long distances and required no recovery efforts 

in contaminated areas. Program 17 was active at 

all shots except Project 57, SATURN, COULOMB 

RAINIER, WHITNEY, CHARLESTON, and 

MORGAN. 

• Program 18 Thermal Radiation and Spectroscopy 

consisted of four projects. Project 18.1, 18.2, 

and 18.3 were performed by NRL for LASL. 

Project 18.4 was performed by LASL personnel. 

Recording for this program was done at Station 

*Reference LASL J-16 letter reports. 

171 
311 and at a second (unknown) station. This 

program was accomplished at some distance from 

the contaminated areas, and so required no 

recovery efforts in contaminated areas. Program 

18 was active for five shots. 

Program 19 Vulnerability entailed a specific experiment on the proximity of one weapon to 

her. It presented no recovery problems. 

This program was active for shot PRISCILLA 

only. 

5.3.2 University of California Radiation Laboratory Programs 

The following list summarizes the UCRL programs during Operation 

(see Table 5-12). A more detailed description is precluded by the 

classified nature of these projects. The station locations mentioned are shown in 

Figure 5-26. 

• Program 21 Radiochemistry had the same 

objectives as the LASL Program determine 

the yield of the device. It consisted of 

Projects 21.1 Analysis 21.2 (Sample 

Collection, and 21.3 (Rocket Sampling). The 

procedures were exactly the same as for LASL

except that sample measurement was done at UCRL 

rather than at LASL. In addition, UCRL used 

rocketry to collect samples from the JOHN event. 

Program 21 required no ground recovery near GZ. 

It was active for 14 shots. 

• Program 22 Reaction History/Electronic was 

divided into four projects: 22.1 (Nuclear 

Radiation Measurements) ; 22.2 (Remote Technique 

Development) ; 22.3 (Telemetry) and 22.4 

(Development Experiments). This program 

required personnel to enter contaminated areas 

in order to recover experiments. UCRL methods 

were somewhat different from LASL methods. The 

only station identified is the CP bhangmeter 

station. Program 22 was active for 12 shots. 

• Program 23 Reaction History/Photo required personnel to enter contaminated areas to recover 

experiments. It consisted of three projects 

23.1 (Flow and Capacity), 23.3 (Ball and Fire, 

Bhangmeter, and 23.4 (Cloud Photography, 

UCRL methods were somewhat different 

than LASL methods. The fireball results were 

obtained at station 372 and possibly other 

locations. Program 23 was active for 12 shots. 

172 
Table 5-12. UCRL TEST GROUP PROJECTS CONDUCTED AT OPERATION 

SHOTS 

PROGRA 

SHOT 

Program 21 

Program 

Photo 

Program 

SHOT 

Program History. 

Photo 

Program 

Underground 

PROJECT 57 SHASTA 23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

BOLTZMANN DOPPLER 21.1 

21.2 

FRANKLIN PASCAL B 

Experiment 

21.1 

21.2 

22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

FRANKLIN 

PRIME 

21.1 

21.2 

WILSON 21.1 

21.2 

22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

SMOKY 21.1 

21.2 

21.3 

22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

PRISCILLA 22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

GALILEO 21.1 

21.2 

COULOMB A WHEELER 21.1 

21.2 

22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

HOOD 21.1 

21.2 

21.3 

22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

COULOMB B 

DIABLO 21.1 

21.2 

22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

JOHN 21.1 

21.2 

21.3 

FIZEAU 

NEWTON 

21.1 

21.2 

22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

RAINIER 22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

A WHITNEY 21.1 

21.2 

21.3 

22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

STOKES CHARLESTON 21.1 

21.2 

21.3 

22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

MORGAN 21.1 

21.2 

21.3 

22.1 

22.2 

22.3 

22.4 

23.1 

23.3 

23.4 

‘Bold print indicates projects with DOD participation. 
-

-

• Program 251Program 26 -Underground Yield/ Underground Effects measured yield and effects of 

underground shots. These programs involved only 

the RAINIER event. They were UCRL programs but 

were performed primarily by Sandia Corporation 

and were the Armour Research Foundation under 

the auspices of UCRL. Recovery was on a delayed 

basis depending on the radiological situation. 

(Some recovery work took months to perform.) 

The following civilian agencies participated in 

Program 26 : U.S. Geological Survey, Broadview 

Research Corporation, Sandia Corporation, 

Stanford Research Institute, and U.S. Coast and 

Geodetic Survey. The following military 

agencies participated in Program 26: U.S. Army 

Engineer Research and Development Laboratories 

and Ballistics Research Laboratory. (Methodology checks for Projects 26.1 and 26.4 were 

performed on shot SATURN). 

5.3.3 Sandia Programs 

During Operation PLUMBBOB, both functional and support programs were 

sponsored and performed by Sandia Corporation (Table Those functional 

projects performed by Sandia were grouped under Program 41 which consisted of 

three projects : 4 1.1 (Fireball Studies) , 41.2 (Weapons Vulnerability), and 41.3 

(Neutrons versus Altitude). Those projects for which Sandia provided a support 

function were grouped under Program 64 (discussed later). 

Project 41.1 Fireball Studies (209; 

Project 41.1, which was active for shots BOLTZMANN, SHASTA, and 

FIZEAU, had the following objectives: to explore material properties in the 

vicinity of a fireball, to explore weapon component properties in the vicinity of 

a fireball, and to advance the basic understanding of fireball physics. Recovery 

operations were not required. 

Project 41.2 Weapons Vulnerability 

The objectives of Project 41.2 were to increase the general knowledge of 

the possible vulnerability of nuclear weapons to nuclear bursts and to demonstrate 

the ability of Sandia Corporation to build a tough nuclear device as similar as 

174 
Table 5-13. PROJECTS AT OPERATION 

PASCAL B 

‘Bold print indicates projects with DOD participation 
-

possible to an operational nuclear device. Project 41.2 was active for shots 

SHASTA and FIZEAU and was intimately connected with Project 41.1. For FIZEAU, the 

toughened devices were located atop television towers within several hundred feet 

of the FIZEAU device. For this project, the recording station was located on Red 

Rock butte. 

Project 41.3 Neutrons versus Altitude 

The objective of Project 41.3 was to determine the effect of ground 

terrain on the measurements of free-field neutron flux during the WILSON event. 

The experiment was conducted by attaching foil detectors on the ground and on the 

vertical mooring cables of polyethylene balloons. This project required 

shot recovery of foils suspended from balloon cables at the following locations: 

900 feet from ground zero to a 700-foot altitude 

1,800 feet from ground zero to a altitude 

2,700 feet from ground zero to a altitude 

3,600 feet from ground zero to a altitude. 

5.3.4 Project 57 Programs 

Project 57 performed one non-nuclear special shot during Operation 

It had four programs: 71 (Particulate Physics), 72 (Biomedical 

Field Study of Plutonium Inhalation), 73 (Plutonium Monitoring), and 74 (Surface 

Alpha Monitoring). DOD personnel were deeply involved in Project 57 activities. 

• AFSWP, through supplied Rad-safe 

monitors 

• Military supplied veterinarians for Program 72 

• AFSWC conducted Program 73 while Desert 

Rock Rad-safe personnel participated in Program 

73 (286). 

• Military organized Program 74 personnel 

These DOD personnel entered areas contaminated by the Project 57 detonation while 

performing program-related activities. A review of the special Rad-safe 

procedures for Project 57 follows the program descriptions. 

176 
Program 71 - Particulate Physics (260; 121) 

This program was intended to: 

• Measure the levels of plutonium on the surface 

and in the air as a function of time after 

detonation 

Construct a fallout pattern/ model for the 

particular nuclear device used so that it might 

be used for any wind pattern 

• Check and compare fractionation characteristics 

of plutonium fallout with uranium fallout 

• Consider the physical nature of the fallout 

particulate--size, shape, and distribution. 

The experimental approach used was the distribution of more than 4,000 sticky pans 

over an area of about 43 square miles. Air samplers, balloon-borne precipitators, 

soil samples, and photographic methods were used to satisfy the objectives. As a 

result of Program 71, isoconcentration contours of alpha contamination were 

inferred. The sticky pan contours were deemed of sufficient quality to permit 

planning for accidental situations. The maximum air concentration levels of alpha 

contaminants were at 5,000 feet from the detonation. The nature of the 

measurements suggested that the spatial width of the region of high air 

concentration was small and that only a very narrow spike-like region could have 

received significant airborne contamination beyond 5000 feet. 

Program 72 Biomedical Field Study of Plutonium Inhalation 

This program studied environmental short-term and chronic rates and 

persistency of plutonium debris resulting from subcritical bursts. It also 

studied the rate of environmental decay of plutonium in selected areas of 

contamination. This program required the exposure of a group of aninals to the 

radioactive cloud to test the effects of acute exposure. To examine the effects 

of chronic exposure, a larger group of 70 to 80 animals was placed in the 

contaminated zone. Autopsies of the animals suggested that acute exposure is a 

much more significant factor than chronic exposure, at least for dusty desert 

areas. This conclusion was suspect, however, since the air samples and wind data 

taken had not been analyzed. 

177 
-

Program 73 Plutonium Monitoring 

This program studied and developed methods and techniques for decontamination of large surface areas contaminated with Plutonium as a result of a 

one-point detonation. In particular, decontamination techniques were investigated 

with regard to plutonium removal from large land surface areas in the test areas, 

concrete and asphalt pads of reasonable size, and materials used in equipment and 

building construction such as concrete, wood, stucco, brick, aluminum, and steel. 

Several decontamination techniques were used such as washing, vacuuming and steam 

cleaning, plowing, leaching with water, and fixation with subsequent removal of 

land surface areas. The results of the program suggested that natural factors 

caused rapid decreases in contamination levels. Repeated surface monitorings 

suggested that the contamination level of smooth surfaces decreased by a factor of 

10 by days. Soil contamination decreased by a factor of 15 by days and 40 

by days. Sampling stations north of ground zero indicated an average 

concentration of 35,000 disintegrations per minute per cubic meter at hours. 

Samples taken at hours suggested that the airborne contamination was reduced 

by as much as a factor of 100 by hours. The numerous decontamination 

techniques used had varying degrees of success. 

Program 74 Surface Alpha Monitoring 

This program correlated alpha monitoring data from sticky pan 

experiments with field survey data from broom-finished concrete slabs placed 

throughout Area 13 adjacent to the sticky pan collectors. The sticky pan 

collectors were used as uniform monitoring surfaces and principal survey 

references. Measurements were made on the soil and brush as well. 

Rad-safe Procedures for Project 57 

A precise estimate of degree of hazard likely to exist the detonation 

area was unknown, but it was recognized that this could be severe, particularly at 

locations close to the detonation point and at times shortly after the detonation. 

Of particular concern was the possibility of breathing airborne weapon material 

which posed an internal alpha radiation hazard. In addition, it was expected that 

a great deal of physical labor would be required to accomplish the tasks of the 

178 
Test Group. Consequently, the radiation safety requirements specified that the 

minimum degree of personnel protection necessary until the levels of hazard 

decreased, would be : 

• Full protective clothing 

• All openings in the clothing taped to the skin 

• Full-face respirators with high efficiency filters. 

A problem with the heavy respiratory protection was the difficulty in 

breathing during hard physical labor. Consequently, it was decided that field 

crews would receive supplied-air respirators for Program 72. Air supplied to the 

crews had a higher pressure than the ambient atmosphere. Therefore, any leaks in 

the protective garb would be outwards and would prevent breathing of contaminated 

air. After information was accumulated regarding the extent of hazard in the 

target area, it was decided that use of supplied-air respirators was no longer 

required. Field personnel were given the option of supplied-air respirators or 

full-face filter respirators. Most personnel chose the latter. As restrictions 

were further reduced, half-face respirators with high efficiency filters were 

considered acceptable except for areas in which the plutonium contamination 

exceeded 100 micrograms per square meter. The supplied-air respirators were the 

sole responsibility of Program 72, but REECo allowed full use of facilities to the 

extent of supplying air and equipment decontamination. In all other aspects of 

radiation safety control, Program 72 made complete use of full protective 

clothing, monitoring, and decontamination facilities. 

REECo provided direct operational Rad-safe support to Project 57. Prior 

to D-Day for the safety shot, a temporary personnel decontamination building was 

erected beside the access road into the test area. The basic facilities of the 

building duplicated those of CP-2. Supplies of radiation detection instruments, 

protective clothing, and equipment were stocked. The building also contained an 

issue room, shower stalls, and a dressing room with benches and clothes hangers. 

All personnel entering or leaving the area were required to pass through the 

building. A diagram of the decontamination building is shown in the REECo 

Radiological Safety Reports (334). A two-foot wide wooden approach walk was 

constructed and covered with Kraft paper. Containers were provided for the 

disposal of protective clothing. Parking lots for contaminated vehicles were 

established inside the area northwest of the building. A parking space for 

179 
 

uncontaminated vehicles was available south of the building. West of the building 

on the contaminated side of the barbed wire fence, three tables were installed for 

packaging fallout trays and soil samples for shipment off site. A 350-gallon hot 

water supply was installed to provide the necessary hot water for the personnel 

decontamination facility. 

Area surveys by REECo were performed with the following portable 

instruments : Beckman MX-5, AN/PDR 34, Eberline PAC l-A, and Nuclear 

2111 (Pee Wee). Sampling equipment consisted of air samplers, impactors, and 

fallout trays. The problem of possible cross-contamination and contamination of 

personnel who collected the steel fallout trays was solved by using magnetic 

pickup devices with long handles. These pickup devices were actuated by six-volt 

storage batteries. 

REECo provided a major support function through the placement of trays 

coated with fresh adhesive and the replacement of aged trays in order to provide 

maximum particle collection efficiencies. Approximately 15,000 trays were sprayed 

and set out. These trays were unflanged nine-inch squares of sheet steel coated 

with an adhesive. The area covered by the tray placement teams measured approximately 8 by 13 miles. Trays were placed and recovered during a period of 22 days 

from D-20 to days. The area covered by the map was divided into four zones 

(A, B, and A fallout tray stake and platform was established at each 

intersection of grid lines in all four zones. In Zone A, the zone of ground zero, 

the tray platforms were installed at 25-foot intervals; in Zone B at 250-foot 

intervals; in Zone C at 500-foot intervals, and in Zone D at intervals. 

Teams of two men were used in the placement and replacement of trays. The 

extremely dusty conditions and shot delays led to the requirement of tray replacement with freshly sprayed trays. In the two-week period prior to D-Day, old trays 

were replaced with freshly sprayed trays. An average 50 percent replacement was 

necessary each day. The tray recovery after the one-point detonation was begun at 

hours. The fallout tray collection procedure consisted of picking up a clean 

tray with the magnetic device and placing it over the contaminated tray. The two 

trays were then lifted up together, placed in a container, and covered with a 

cardboard separator. The collection of the fallout trays in Zones A and B was 

accomplished by personnel from Sandia Corporation. REECo personnel collected the 

trays from Zone C immediately after the detonation. Only those Zone D trays which 

were in the projected fallout path were collected. The Zone D collection process 

180 
was completed by the end of day. The percentage of desired trays recovered 

was 100 percent in Zone A, 90 percent in Zones B and C, and 80 percent in Zone D. 

Incomplete recovery was also affected by loss of trays in high wind. All the 

fallout trays recovered between April 24 and April 26 were packaged for shipment 

to Sandia Corporation. 

REECo assisted Sandia Corporation in the placement and setting of timers 

and batteries at 46 stations. Impactors were collected by REECo for 

Sandia on D-Day. Recovery of the batteries and pumps from the stations 

was completed on days. Along with air filter and fallout trays, pads 

and approximately 126 soil samples were packaged and shipped to Sandia 

Corporation. 

A mobile rest station for personnel working in Zones C and D was manned 

by REECo personnel. A monitor with first aid training was a member of the 

operating crew. Clean clothing, washing and drinking water, soap, towels, and 

nose swipes were carried. Nasal swabs were taken of all personnel leaving the 

contaminated area and analyzed by REECo personnel. Urine samples were packaged 

and shipped off site for analysis. This rest station operated through days. 

Daily radiological surveys were made inside the decontamination building and in 

surrounding “clean” areas using alpha survey instruments, filter paper swipes, and 

air samplers. Air samples collected on the north side of the decontamination 

building indicated activity of less than 32 decays per minute per cubic meter from 

April 24 to April 30. Surveys inside the building indicated no significant alpha 

contamination. 

Surveys of the ground zero area after the shot indicated extensive alpha 

contamination, but no significant beta or gamma activity. Full anti-contamination 

clothing was worn by all Project 57 personnel along with the following respiratory 

devices : 

Area Designation Device 

A Air-supplied or full-face mask 

fume, and mist canister 

with dust, 

B Full-face mask 

canister 

with dust, fume and mist 

C and D Ultra-filter respirator 

181 
Personnel contamination was maintained as low as possible. All personnel participating in Project 57 received bioassay tests. These were primarily 

nasal swabs, although some individuals had urinalysis done also. Decontamination 

was deemed necessary when any positive indication of alpha contamination was 

measured on skin. (One hundred alpha counts per minute per 55 square centimeters 

of probe area was the average background instrument reading-- any reading above 

this was considered positive. Vehicles above 500 counts per minute per probe 

area were decontaminated to this level or less. Equipment and devices were buried 

at a specified location if decontamination was not successful. 

5.4 OPERATIONAL TRAINING PROJECTS 

The primary aims of the operational training projects were to test 

service tactics and operational equipment and to train and indoctrinate aviation 

personnel. These projects were planned and conducted so as not to interfere with 

the AEC diagnostic and AFSWP military effects tests. Table 5-14 summarizes the 

planned and actual participation, by events, for the air projects. These projects 

are described in the following paragraphs (Project 53.6, SAC Aircrew Training, is 

not described. This provided for orientation of crews who were allowed to observe 

shots while flying a corridor located 30 nautical miles northwest of NTS. 

Additional details are included in shot volumes). 

5.4.1 Project 51.3 (Navy Heavy Attack Indoctrination 

This project was established to provide an opportunity for AJ and 

combat crews to observe an atomic detonation in the near vicinity of a burst. 

These aircraft came from naval air stations at San Diego, California and Whidby 

Island , Washington. The were scheduled to participate in four events. 

Due to radio trouble, however, the aircraft aborted on the PRISCILLA and HOOD 

shots before reaching the test area. (The Test Manager’s report at SMOKY 

indicates that three aircraft were substituted for that event; however, 

analysis of conflicting evidence indicates that these aircraft were not used. 

The aircraft were to fly on a simulated bomb run on a target offset from the 

ground zero position. They were to execute a escape maneuver to arrive at 

H-hour at a position five miles from ground zero on a True heading. 

182 
183 
5.4.2 Project 52.3 (Marine Fly-by Indoctrination 

This project was established to provide an opportunity for Marine Corps 

combat to observe an atomic detonation in the near vicinity of an atomic 

burst. The crews were to participate in the HOOD event with aircraft at 

21,000 to 24,000 feet and at 11,000 feet. The aircraft came from El Toro Marine 

Air Station, Santa California. The aircraft aborted before entering the 

test area because of communication failure. The aircraft successfully 

participated. They were to be in a left-hand race track between Lathrop Wells and 

Desert Rock, 31 nautical miles from GZ , bearing True at H-hour. 

5.4.3 Project 53.2 (Ground Motion Studies) 

The purpose of this project was to collect strong-motion data concerning 

the amount of energy introduced into the ground from the detonation of nuclear 

devices. This was accomplished using aerial photography. 

5.4.4 Project 53.5 (Air Crew Indoctrination-Early Cloud Penetration) 

This project was established to provide an opportunity for Air Defense 

Command aircrew members and commanders to witness an atomic detonation in 

the near vicinity of the burst and to penetrate an atomic cloud. These aircraft 

were staged out of Indian Springs and Air Force Base and originated at the 

various installations throughout the Air Defense Command Aircraft participating in the various events included F-86-H, F-102, T-33, and C-131 aircraft. 

The principal ADC participation was in the JOHN shot where four T-33 type aircraft 

flew in formation with the delivery aircraft. Interested ADC commanders watched 

the detonation from a C-131 aircraft positioned 15 nautical miles south of ground 

zero in an east-west orbit at 14,500 feet MSL. In the other events, aircraft 

orbited over the Las Vegas Visual Omni Range at an altitude of 35,000 feet 

in a left orbit until the sample controller ordered them to proceed into the 

atomic cloud. After cloud penetration, the aircraft proceeded to recovery bases. 

184 
5.4.5 Project 53.7 (Indirect Bomb Damage Assessment B-58 Evaluation) 

The objective of this project was to evaluate B-58 IBDA equipment. The 

equipment was installed on an F-89 test aircraft staged at Indian Springs Air 

Force Base. Several different flight patterns were flown for each event. For 

each event, however, data was obtained by the instrumentation as the aircraft flew 

approximately 67 statute miles, horizontal range, from ground zero at an altitude 

of 35,000 feet. 

5.4.6 Project 53.8 (Indirect Bomb Damage Assessment) 

This project was established to test, as far as possible, the 

suitability of indirect bomb damage assessment equipment and techniques 

under simulated bomb drop and actual burst conditions. The aircraft were to 

operate between 10,000 and 16,000 feet MSL and start their orbit at Indian 

Springs, using a right-hand race track pattern oriented east and west, 35 nautical 

miles short of ground zero. They were to be on a heading of at H-hour and 

execute a standard breakaway maneuver. This project was to determine the 

effectiveness of the P-Z camera, A-5 control, and the O-15 scope cameras. 

5.4.7 Project 53.9 (Photographic Reconnaissance Training) 

This project was established to provide an opportunity for Air National 

Guard tactical crews to observe an atomic detonation in the near vicinity of a 

burst and make a damage assessment photo run over the target. Air National Guard 

units from 14 states participated during (see footnote page 162). These 

units (two RF-84F aircraft for each shot) participated on a rotational basis, 

staging out of George Air Force Base, California. Prior to the detonation, the 

aircraft flew from George AFB to a holding point where they orbited in a 

race-track-shaped pattern at 31,000 feet from Beatty to Lathrop Wells. About 10 

minutes after the detonation, the aircraft were cleared to make a 

photo-reconnaissance run over ground zero at an altitude of approximately 10,000 

feet. 
5.4.8 Project 53.10 (Passive Defense) 

The purpose of this Air Force project was to develop a passive means of 

detecting large scale disturbances in the upper atmosphere, such as might be 

caused by detonation of fission or fusion bombs or by passage of supersonic or 

hypersonic vehicles or missiles. 

5.5 SUPPORT PROGRAMS 

There were eight main support groups: 

• Air Support Group 

• Fallout Prediction Unit 

• Weather Prediction Unit 

• Blast Prediction Unit 

• DOD Operations Coordination Group 

• Assembly and Arming 

Sandia Support 

• Support Group. 

(Figure 5-27 illustrates the organizational breakdown of these support groups 

under the Test Manager and Test Director.) The Air Support Group and the three 

prediction units (concerned with the shot-environment interface) came under the 

direction of the Test Manager. Both the Assembly and Arming as well as Sandia 

Support Groups were involved with the firing of the device based on its location 

(e.g., balloon) . These came under the direction of the Test Director. The AEC 

Support Group, which provided back-up support and various services for the test 

series, was answerable immediately to the AEC Support Director and ultimately to 

the Test Manager. 
 

AEC SUPPORT 

TEST DIRECTOR 

ASSOCIATE 

TEST DIRECTOR 

MILITARY ASSISTANT TO 

TEST DIRECTOR 

SECURITY 

TRANSPORTATION 

TEST MANAGER 

DEPUTY TEST MANAGER 

DEPUTY FOR MILITARY MATTERS 

AIR SUPPORT GROUP WEATHER PREDICTION 

UNIT 

ADMINISTRATION 

COMMUNICATIONS 

RAD-SAFE I I 

ENGINEERING AND 

CONSTRUCTION 

VISITORS BUREAU 

ASSEMBLY&ARMING 

G SUPPORT 

SUPPORT 

F i g u e 5 2 7. SUPPORT GROUPS, AEC OPERATIONS , 
5.5.1 Air Support Group Programs for the 

The Air Support Group, a portion of the 4950th Test Group (Nuclear) was 

responsible for coordinating all aviation activities required by the AEC, DOD, and 

FCDA projects during PLUMBBOB. See Section 5.2.3 and associated tables. 

5.5.2 Fallout Prediction Unit 

The Fallout Prediction Unit served on the Test Manager’s staff to 

brief the Test Manager, his Scientific Advisor, the Advisory Panel, and any other 

interested groups on the predicted fallout locations and intensities for each 

shot. (The FOPU did not directly participate in Project 57 but was on the 

advisory panel primarily to help restrict the amount of plutonium reaching 

various areas on the Nevada Test Site.) Forecasts of cloud height and, to a 

limited extent, air concentration were also furnished. Forecasts of air 

concentration were used to evaluate possible hazards to aircraft. Before and 

after a shot, the FOPU coordinated as closely as possible with and 

Rad-safe and CETG, Program 37. The FOPU also collected post-shot fallout data for 

use in the evaluation of the prediction. The FOPU was composed of either four or 

five individuals at any one time from Sandia, LASL, UCRL, and the United States 

Weather Bureau (US WB) . Most of the FOPU members had performed the same function 

during previous operations. 

At each formal meeting, a member of the FOPU presented the predicted 

fallout pattern and cloud height, and commented on the effect of possible wind 

shifts away from the predicted or observed situation. The briefer was available 

during the last two hours before a shot to evaluate the effect of the observed 

winds on fallout. Any change in the forecast wind direction or velocity could 

result in a postponement. The formulae for predicting the intensity and location 

of significant fallout, on site and off site, were matched to the varying weather 

forecasts throughout the night. The Atomic Energy Commission’s guide for public 

radiation exposure--3.9 roentgens per series--was a determining factor in 

evaluating fallout forecasts. The shot would be postponed if radiation 

exposure caused by fallout from the present shot or present fallout, plus fallout 

from a previous shot, approached 3.9 roentgens. As a series progressed, the 

188 
direction and velocity of acceptable wind may have become more restricted. Based 

on the techniques used by the FOPU to predict fallout its personnel had no 

need to enter the radioactive areas. 

5.5.3 Weather Prediction Unit 

The U.S. Air Force Weather Service established a weather unit at NTS, 

which included personnel of the U.S. Weather Bureau. Organization of the Weather 

Prediction Unit (also called the Air Weather Service Unit) is shown in 

Figure 5-28. Operational control over all weather activities and personnel was 

handled by the commander of the Air Weather Service Unit. He not only assisted 

the chief of the Weather Prediction Unit and the weather prediction team chiefs 

with the various aspects of the forecasts (e.g., precipitation, cloud cover, 

temperature, temperature inversions, and wind directions and velocities) but he 

also served as the member of the Advisory Panel to the Test Manager and 

occasionally gave the weather briefing. Although he maintained close liaison with 

CHIEF-WEATHER PREDICTION UNIT I 

LIAISON OFFICER 

ADMINISTRATION 

UPPER AIR 

STATIONS 

WEATHER PREDICTION WEATHER DETACHMENT 

INDIAN SPRINGS AFB 

F i g u r e 5 2 8. AIR WEATHER SERVICE UNIT. 

189 
the Test Manager on requirements and schedules, the Chief of the Weather 

Prediction Unit primarily handled specific weather requirements and coordination 

for the Test Director. Forecasters and observing personnel furnished a forecaster 

for each of the three forecasting shifts, and conducted observational studies of 

both surface and low-level wind conditions in the vicinity of the underground 

shot. 

The average strength of the forecast team, with the exception of the 

last two shots, consisted of four forecasters and six observers. The average 

strength of the rawinsonde* group was seven observers, two technicians, and three 

additional personnel at Mercury for use in checking records. A team 

consisted of three observers. All observing sections supplemented the 

liaison officer of the Sixth Weather Squadron, Mobile, Tinker Force Base, 

Oklahoma. 

The Mercury weather station began normal forecasting functions on 15 May 

1957; however, station observers and forecasting personnel were present for duty 

by 16 April 1957. Personnel and equipment provided by the Sixth Weather Squadron 

were in place and operating by 12 April 1957. The locations and types of stations 

and the methods of communication were as follows: 

PIBAL Stations Method of Communication 

Arizona 

Beatty, Nevada 

Nevada 

Caliente, Nevada 

Indian Springs, Nevada 

Lincoln Mine, Nevada 

Austin, Nevada 

Long Distance Telephone 

Long Distance Telephone 

Long Distance Telephone 

Long Distance Telephone 

Direct Telephone 

Rad-safe Radio Net 

Long Distance Telephone 

(later relocated to Shoshone, California) 

*Rawinsonde is an electronic balloon-borne device tracked by a direction-finding 

device to determine velocity and direction of winds aloft, in this case primarily 

winds at high altitude. 

is a system for determining low-level (altitude) wind information. 

190 
Rawinsonde Stations 

Yucca, Nevada Direct Telephone and 

Pony Teletype Circuit 

St. George, Utah Long Distance Telephone 

Baker, California Long Distance Telephone 

Stead AFB , Nevada Weather Teletype Net 

Additional stations were manned by the U.S. Weather Bureau and consisted of: 

PIBAL Stations 

Milford , Utah Long Distance Telephone 

Bishop, California Long Distance Telephone 

Rawinsonde Stations 

Tonopah, Nevada Pony Teletype Circuit 

Las Vegas, Nevada Pony Teletype Circuit 

Besides the specifically designed supporting stations, the following Weather 

Bureau stations supplied weather information: Arizona (Phoenix and Winslow), 

California (Fresno, Oakland, San Diego, Santa Maria, and Santa Monica), Colorado 

(Grand Junction), Nevada and Winnemucca), Oregon Utah (Salt Lake 

City). 

Weather briefings consisted of a formal presentation of the forecast by 

the forecasting shift on duty. Responsibility for the preparation of the forecast and the necessary briefing aids was delegated to the individual shift 

chiefs. Formal weather briefings were scheduled at 1600 hours Pacific Daylight 

Time (PDT) on D-l. The winds and temperature forecasts were prepared and 

disseminated to the Fallout Prediction and Blast Prediction Units by 1430 Pacific 

Daylight Time on D-l in order that this information might be incorporated in their 

briefings. 

Weather affects aircraft operations, the direction and intensity of 

radioactive fallout and blast, scientific data gathering, and the successful 

conduct of an entire technical operation. If the weather was satisfactory for 

both technical experiments as well as and safety, the shot remained 

scheduled and the WPU continued to make checks on the weather. If the forecast 

was unfavorable, shot preparations were discontinued and the shot was rescheduled. 

Thus, the weather conditions were of paramount importance in determining whether 

the test was fired. 

191 
Military personnel actively participated in the Weather Prediction Unit. 

Based on the description of the unit in the Test Manager’s Report, it is not 

apparent that entry into radiologically contaminated areas was required of WPU 

members other than certain PIBAL teams. 

5.5.4 Blast Prediction Unit 

Personnel from Sandia Corporation Weapons Effects Department manned the 

Blast Prediction Unit a part of the Test Manager’s staff. Both the Blast 

and Fallout Prediction Units were project units in the Sandia Test Organization 

for administration purposes. Microbarograph equipment, operated by under 

the technical direction provided by the BPU, recorded the blast pressure. 

field test organization loaned microbarograph equipment and maintenance 

assistance to the BPU. 

The BPU staff consisted of the unit chief and an engineering assistant 

for computer maintenance who remained at NTS for the entire operation. Two 

assistants used for prediction and briefings rotated on shorter tours at NTS. 

Seven other Sandia Corporation personnel were attached to the Sandia Corporation 

project unit at various times to work with FOPU. The microbarograph program 

utilized ten station operators and two high explosive experts from 

The microbarograph equipment was used to record the blast noise off 

site. Eight stations were regularly operated at the CP: California (Bishop and 

Inyokern), Nevada (Boulder City, Las Vegas, Lund, and Tonopah), Utah (St. George). 

Four mobile stations were on call and operated at various times at the following 

locations : California and Red Mountain), Nevada (Camp Mercury, Coaldale, 

Indian Springs, Lincoln Mine, Sodaville, Yucca Flat). The operating locations 

with distances and bearings from NTS are shown in Figure 5-29. 

blast prediction was mainly concerned with the possible transmission of pressure waves through the jet streams to communities at distances 

greater than 20 miles from the burst. The range and intensity of the blast waves 

that were predicted required detailed knowledge of atmospheric conditions well 

into the ionosphere. High-explosive shots were made at various times (H-l, H-2, 

or H-3 hours) and the results were checked with predictions. Both shots CHARLESTON and MORGAN were delayed twice because of predicted blast effects. 

192 
SDV NEVADA 

COALOALE TONOPAH 

CDL TPH 

LINCOLN MINE 

SPRINGS 

CALIFORNIA 

INY 

+ RED 

GOV’T PEAK 

GVT STATIONS

+ - STATIONS 

UTAH 

ST. 

EORGE 

ARIZONA 

DAGGETT 

DAG 

Figure 5-29. MICROBAROGRAPH RECORDING LOCATIONS 

193 
On site, the blast prediction was dependent on the atmospheric structure 

to about 2,000 feet above ground level. Often on site, various agencies requested 

locations for pressures ranging between 6.1 and 2 pounds per square inch. These 

predictions were used in tower construction, balloon, blimp, helicopter, and radar 

trailer operations. 

It is uncertain whether any military personnel were involved in the 

Blast Prediction 

5.5.5 DOD Operations Coordination Group 

Prior to Operation PLUMBBOB, the DOD Operations Coordination Group 

functioned as a staff agency under the direction of the Deputy Chief of Staff, 

Weapons Effects Test Group, Field Command, AFSWP. During PLIJMBBOB, it became 

part of the Test staff and was responsible for coordinating all DOD 

training activities as the single official liaison point for the Desert Rock 

activities. The group also supervised and planned the troop observer program and 

maintained liaison between the DOD personnel and the Test Manager in order to 

ensure that all training and observer programs could be fitted into the overall 

program of the operation without interfering with the technical tests. The DOD 

Operations Coordination Group contained about a hundred DOD personnel. Normal 

staff activities would not require these personnel to enter NTS forward 

operational areas. However, activities related to coordination of Desert Rock 

exercises, observer programs, and training projects could have required 

reconnaissance or operational review during actual exercises which would have 

required entry into forward areas of NTS. Thus, although not specifically 

documented, some potential for exposure to ionizing radiation existed for these 

individuals. 

5.5.6 Assembly and Arming 

The Assembly and Arming Organization was responsible for assembly, 

arming, and disarming the nuclear devices. Other associated responsibilities were 

to ensure the overall reliability of the components required for arming and firing 

and to prevent the accidental firing of nuclear devices after their installation 

at the burst site. Duties of the Assembly and Arming Organization required close 

liaisor with LASL, UCRL, Sandia, and DOD. 

194 
Work of the Assembly and Arming Organization was divided into several 

parts : pre dry run tests, zero area installation, dry runs, interlock checks, 

monitor checks, arming operations, and disarming operations. Pre dry run tests, 

conducted at Sandia security compound with a representative of each concerned 

organization, were compatibility checks of equipment. At their conclusion, the 

equipment was ready for installation at the zero area. Installation involved 

placement of arming and firing components at the burst site by the responsible 

organizations. Upon completion of the installation, the arming and firing 

personnel operated the equipment locally (if required) for test purposes prior to 

the regular dry runs. Dry runs were conducted to ensure that equipment would 

operate properly while connected in the same manner as at shot time. During all 

dry runs, both the arming and firing components as well as the interlock and 

monitoring indicators at the control point were carefully observed by a 

representative of the Assembly and Arming Organization in order to ensure proper 

operation. Interlock checks involved personnel who individually checked 

interlocks in the gas, arming, or firing signal lines; these checks were made 

after a number of dry runs proved that all equipment was operating properly. 

Personnel had to be present at the timing distribution station, the signal pit, 

and the zero area in order for the interlocks to be checked properly. Monitor 

checks were carefully made on the monitoring devices associated with the arming 

and firing equipment. If the monitors were found to be malfunctioning, the shot 

would be delayed until the monitors were functioning correctly. Arming 

operations, which involved an arming party and salvage party, made final checks 

and connections to the nuclear device and associated equipment in preparation for 

the firing. Final arming connections were made as close to H-hour as possible and 

only with the permission of the Test Director or the Associate Test Director. 

Timing of the final arming connections permitted experimenters maximum time to 

secure stations and vacate the forward areas. Timing of the final connections 

also permitted the weather panel to analyze data nearer to shot time in order to 

evaluate weather conditions. 

The arming party was composed of personnel from several organizations, 

each having specific responsibilities in relation to the arming component, the 

nuclear device, or associated experiments. The arming party assembled at the 

control point (where the monitoring devices were carefully checked) to verify that 

the arming and firing equipment was in safe condition. From the control point, 

the arming party proceeded to the timing distribution station where the monitors 

195 
were again checked for proper indications. The Test Director was called for 

permission to complete the final connections for arming and firing. Final 

connections were never made until the Test Director was sure the forward area was 

clear of people not required during or following the arming. 

Following arming operations at the device, the salvage party removed 

both the elevator hoist and the power transformer for tower shots. The party 

removed an AC power generator and a crane for balloon shots. Upon completion of 

these salvage operations, both arming and salvage parties, along with security 

inspectors, evacuated the area and proceeded toward the control point. The arming 

party stopped at the timing distribution station to the control point and 

prepared it for the shot. At the control point, the arming party made final 

monitor checks to ensure that the device was ready to be fired and they reported 

back to the Test Director. 

Disarming operations were essentially the reverse of arming operations 

but without the exhaustive checks required for arming. Routine disarming was 

accomplished during Operation because of adverse weather conditions, 

technical difficulties, and a possible misfire. The normal or routine disarming 

function was accomplished at least once for most tower shots and several times for 

those delayed for long periods after their first ready date. At one balloon shot 

(CHARLESTON) routine disarming was necessary because of weather delay. The 

disarming of CHARLESTON was accomplished essentially the same way as the 

disarmament of tower shots except that the salvaged equipment did not have to be 

replaced before disarming could proceed. Disarming as a result of technical 

difficulties was also performed for shot WHITNEY. The type of disarming procedure 

was very similar to that used for routine disarmament, but careful consideration 

had to be given to the probable cause of failure and its possible consequences. 

Disarming due to a “misfire” was accomplished once when DIABLO failed to fire at 

the completion of the timing sequence. For shot JOHN, the nuclear device was 

assembled and checked at Indian Springs Air Force Base under the scrutiny of an 

arming representative of the Test Director. Only a few DOD personnel were 

involved in the Arming Organization. If these DOD personnel were in close 

proximity to the nuclear devices and if they entered radioactive contaminated 

areas, they could have been subjected to radioactive exposure. 

196 
-

5.5.7 Sandia Support 

Project 64.1 (Balloon Suspension Systems) 

Sandia Corporation was assigned responsibility for suspending nuclear 

test devices from balloons. Project 64.1 personnel were responsible for the 

balloon suspension system. This system was active in 13 shots. Balloon 

installations were constructed in Areas 7, 9, and F (See map, Figure Each 

installation consisted of three guy winches 3,000 feet from ground zero. These 

winches were housed in concrete shelters covered with earth in order to prevent 

blast damage. A main winch was housed with a guy winch in one of the shelters. 

The main cable ran along the ground to through a sheave, and then to the 

balloon cab. The guy cables ran directly from each winch shelter to the balloon 

cab. All winches were capable of being run remotely as well as from ground zero. 

Two television cameras were mounted at ground zero and pointed upward. All remote 

controls were combined into one operational console located in the control room at 

the control point (CP-1). Here a console operator could run the winches, observe 

cable footages, observe cable tensions, and monitor the balloon’s position by 

television. All balloon areas could be monitored from the one console. 

Project 64.2 (High Time Resolution Telemetry) 

Project 64.2 made high time resolution measurements on every test event 

of Operation except JOHN, SATURN, and RAINIER. In 

addition, project personnel supplied, installed, and operated release time 

equipment for the JOHN shot. During some UCRL events, a fiducial time marker 

system was also installed and operated on some UCRL events. The largest project 

effort was to monitor certain neutron sources used to initiate a fission-type 

weapon. 

Project 64.3 (Neutron Sources) 

Project 64.3 personnel were responsible for supplying certain neutron 

sources to the LASL and UCRL weapon assembly groups. This project was active for 

all shots except JOHN, and had special test equipment mounted on racks in an 

H-trailer and in an adjacent tent. The test equipment was used in preparing the 

sources prior to their installation in the vicinity of ground zero. 

197 
Project 64.4 (Balloon Cabs) 

Project 64.4 personnel supported the balloon suspension system by 

constructing a device support structure. A Project 64.4 representative at 

Albuquerque coordinated the assembly for LASL cabs while Sandia representatives at 

Livermore coordinated the assembly for UCRL cabs. A plywood shelter was used to 

house the device cab in the vicinity of ground zero. This shelter was usually 

ready four days before the event; at that time, the device was moved to the zero 

area. Dry runs and checkouts were conducted prior to the shot. Approximately 

three hours before zero time, the device cab was transferred to the balloon, and 

arming began. One member of the balloon crew stayed at GZ as a member of the 

arming party. When arming was completed, all personnel returned to the control 

point and the balloon, remotely started, began to gain altitude. 

5.5.8 AEC Support Group 

This section describes the AEC Support Director% responsibilities in 

the Nevada Test Organization, including those in security, communications, 

engineering and construction, transportation, camp management, and the Visitor’s 

Bureau. (The Support Director’s responsibilities concerning radiological safety 

were described earlier in Chapter 

S ecuritv 

The security staff under the Office of Assistant Manager for Test 

Operations, handled the pre-operational planning for security operations. 

Among the activities preceding was the development of an instruction 

manual, “Joint Security Instructions for Arrivals at Nevada Test Site,” 

which was normally furnished to each test participant upon arrival at NTS. These 

instructions emphasized basic security rules and regulations and provided 

information concerning NTS security ground rules. A contractor, Federal Services, 

Inc. was responsible for physical security at the site. The hiring 

techniques used by FSI suggest that DOD personnel were probably not involved 

in FSI operations. In addition to their activities at the Nevada Test 

Site, FSI personnel provided security for the JOHN device at Indian Springs Air 

Force Base. Security was maintained AEC and FSI security personnel even when 

the JOIIN device was transferred to the aircraft. L-20 aircraft from Indian 

198 
Springs Air Force Base participated in security ground sweeps and air sweeps of 

the NTS perimeter on D-l days. 

Communications 

The communication service was sponsored by the Atomic Energy 

Commission% Communications Division, and provided by the support contractor, 

Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. DOD provided some of 

the mobile and fixed stations used in the communications networks. (There were 29 

mobile and 24 fixed stations, for a total of 53.) Among the various stations, a 

U . Air Force communication trailer was located at Smoky Mountain, Jr., and a 

microwave site was located on Smoky Mountain, Sr. The microwave site was used by 

the Air Operations Center at CP-1 for communications with Lookout Mountain Air 

Force radar personnel located eight miles to the west. A Sixth Army repeating 

station was also in operation at this location with maintenance performed by site 

technicians. Due to interference problems, this station was eventually relocated 

to Smoky Mountain, Jr. Off site, a U.S. Air Force Air Weather Operations station 

was located at Lincoln Mine. In addition to the 53 DOD stations, DOD personnel 

may have been involved in the communication efforts of other groups (e.g., CETG, 

Project 57, etc. 

Engineering and Construction 

This activity provided for the design, fabrication, and installation of 

special support facilities in addition to those already available as part of the 

NTS complex. Major scientific stations designed by the AEC contractor, Holmes 

Narver , included balloon launching facilities, seven towers (300 to 700 feet), 

line-of-sight , open and closed detector stations, coaxial cable connection pits, 

special purpose detector pits, and effects conduits. The construction of these 

facilities was accomplished mainly through contracts with Holmes Narver, 

Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc., and Silas-Mason*. Construction of the tower presented the most significant problem. The phases for each 

*Silas Mason Company, an AEC contracting firm, provided construction services for 

the Weapons Development Test Group and Civil Effects Test Group projects at the 

NTS. These services included constructing shot towers and building bunkers to 

house AEC diagnostic instruments. 

199 
tower included the following steps: foundation, steel erection, platform fabrication and erection, coaxial cable installation, cab installation , vacuum pipe 

installation, check-out period, and user occupancy period. 

Transportation 

The transportation group rented 804 vehicles in addition to using 469 

AE C-owned vehicles. All requests for vehicles were made through and approved by 

the Las Vegas Branch Office, Atomic Energy Commission. 

Camp Management 

The AEC Support Group managed Camp Mercury which included housing, 

messing , medical, and other facilities to accommodate the personal needs of 

participants. In addition, the AEC Support Group provided office facilities, 

motor and equipment pools for security, engineering, and other support operations. 

During PLUMBBOB, peak population at Camp Mercury for the shot execution period 

(May-October 1957) fluctuated between 2,400 and 3,007. The peak was reached on 23 

June 1957, and tapered off to between 1000-2000 for the last month of that period. 

At maximum population, the Test Director’s organization comprised about 34 percent 

of the Mercury population, the Test Manager’s staff was nine percent, and the 

contractors’ was 47 percent, with the remaining 10 percent comprised of the more 

transient personnel, such as visitors and VIPs. 

Visitor’s Bureau 

The Visitor’s Bureau was organized as a joint AEC/DOD activity reporting 

to the Support Director. The NTO, AEC, and DOD mutually agreed upon the staffing, 

which consisted of each organization’s personnel plus their contractors. As the 

activity in charge of conducting the observer program and coordinating it with the 

other test activities, the Visitor’s Bureau was responsible for the reception, 

security, messing, billeting, and radiological safety of all official observers. 

Briefings, tours, and transportation to the forward area were also provided to 

employee observers, FCDA observers, and the news media. 
-

-

-

-

The Visitor’s Bureau organization, illustrated in Figure 5-30, was 

mutually agreed upon by the AEC and AFSWP Field Command. Reynolds Electrical and 

Engineering Company, Inc., and Federal Services, Inc. handled the administrative 

workload and the security liaison work. The Special Weapons Training Group, 

Sandia Base, assigned officers to the Visitor’s Bureau on temporary duty 

status to help handle large official observer groups. The following list shows 

personnel used in the Visitors Bureau: 

Mercury 

AEC 1 civilian 

DOD 3 officers, 2 enlisted men 

3 civilians 

FSI 1 inspector 

Indian Springs Air Force Base 

DOD 1 officer, 1 enlisted man 

Las Vegas AEC Office 

DOD 1 officer, 1 enlisted man 

2 civilians 

With the Visitor’s Bureau activation at the Nevada Test Site on 1 April 

1957, planning and forward area construction began. Work consisted of the 

selection and construction (or rehabilitation) of observer areas in both Yucca 

Flat and Frenchman Flat. This involved painting benches, constructing telephone 

and power systems, and building snack bar shacks, etc. 

Several visitor’s programs were extremely active during PLUMBBOB. -- The 

official observer program was made up of personnel from the Army, Navy, Air Force, 

AEC, and representatives of Congress. These observers were usually housed at 

Indian Springs Air Force Base and were transported from the base to briefings, 

forward area tours, and the scheduled shots. Details of the official observer 

program, such as transportation, clearances, and rosters, were coordinated by 

AFSWP Headquarters. The number of official observers attending the various shots, 

as administered and billeted by the Visitor’s Bureau of Indian Springs Air Force 

Base, were: 

201 
-

-

I 

LAS VEGAS OFFICE REECO LIAISON I 

SECURITY LIAISON I 

INDIAN 

1 

SUPPORT I BRIEFING I 

JOINT VISITOR’S BUREAU 

CHIEF AEC 

DEPUTY-DOD 

ESCORT POOL 

FROM SANDIA BASE” 

CHIEF ESCORT 

OFFICER 

I 

I 

I 

“THESE OFFICERS WERE SECURED TEMPORARILY AS NEEDED. 

THEY WERE REQUESTED 10 DAYS BEFORE THEY WERE NEEDED AND 

WERE TO REPORT 2 DAYS BEFORE THE TEST. 

MERCURY PERSONNEL 

Figure VISITORS’ BUREAU ORGANIZATION. 
SHOT DATE NO. FORECAST NO. WITNESSING SHOT 

PRISCILLA 77 68 

DIABLO 86 48 

JOHN 100 93 

STOKES 66 44 

SMOKY 75 59 

GALILEO (Late arrivals for SMOKY) 2 

FIZ EAU (Bonus shot for early 48 

NEW TON arrivals 

NEWTON 86 32 

Foreign observers included 130 representatives invited by DOD from all 

foreign countries with whom the U.S. had any formal defense agreements at that 

time. These witnessed BOLTZMANN, SMOKY, and NEWTON. 

The Federal Civil Defense Administration observer program 

consisted of three different types, the first group (VIPs, headquarters personnel) 

received some classified information related to PRISCILLA, the military effects 

test shot at Frenchman Flat in which FCDA had several foreign test projects. 

second group in the FCDA program consisted of members of the NATO Civil Defense- ,

Committee and the Swedish Civil Defense Director. French and German shelter 

designers were given the opportunity to observe the structures before and after a 

shot in which the structures were to be tested. The third group was composed of 

national, state, and local civil defense personnel whose attendance was considered 

beneficial to the civil defense program. 

U.S. public news representatives and some foreign news representatives 

were permitted to attend those shots in which uncleared observer groups 

participated. Some of the AEC operations offices established an employee observer 

program for personnel connected with the weapons program. The AEC also invited 

certain individuals from related industries to attend events at NTS. DOD invited 

a hundred senior USAF personnel to attend the JOHN air rocket shot, while DOD 

invited Field Command and Headquarters personnel from AFSWP. 

The Visitor’s Bureau arranged programs which included appropriate 

briefings for official groups and for some special employee observer groups. The 

Department of Defense was normally represented by a colonel in these briefings. 

203 
_

--

Pre-shot tours of the Nevada Test Site were arranged for all observers. 

Tours included visits to the military effects test area and the FCDA test area 

plus inspection of a typical tower and some instrumentation staff. Post-shot 

tours were arranged as necessary and depended upon both Radex conditions and 

visitor schedules. 

Transportation for observers was furnished jointly by AEC and DOD. The 

AEC furnished bureau vehicles, while occasionally DOD provided drivers and 

additional sedans. Both the AEC and DOD furnished buses and drivers. 

DOD personnel were clearly involved in Visitor’s Bureau activities and 

so had the opportunity for exposure to radioactivity related to entry into NTS 

forward operational areas. 

5.6 FEDERAL CIVIL DEFENSE ADMINISTRATION OPERATIONS 

The FCDA studies were conducted through the FCDA Operations 

Office at the test site by the Civil Effects Test Group, which was formed for that 

purpose. The CETG projects were organized under Programs 30-39 (see Table 

Approximately 60 projects were conducted under these programs in support of the 

principal FCDA objective, to protect the civilian population of the United States 

from the effects of nuclear weapons. Most such studies fell under one of six 

major categories : fallout studies; biomedical and physical aspects of prompt 

gamma and neutron radiation; blast effects on structures; biomedical effects of 

blast ; radiological contamination , decontamination, and training ; and 

instrumentation and support services. DOD participation for these is summarized 

in Table 5-16. 

Fallout Studies 

The CETG fallout studies were conducted by means of aerial monitoring 

and ground survey methods. Fallout patterns were surveyed and mapped in detail up 

to 600 miles from ground zero. The gamma measurements made by aerial survey agree 

with those made by ground survey to within 25 percent. These fallout maps 

assisted in refining the deposition activity forecast by the Fallout Prediction 

Unit during pre-detonation briefings. For each shot studied, 200 to 300 fallout 

204 
-

Table 5-15. CETG PROJECTS CONDUCTED AT OPERATION PLUMBBOB* 

PROGRAM 

SHOT 

Nuclear 

Program 

Effects I Program 

Program 31 

Equipment. 

Devices. and 

Components 

a 

for Civil 

Population 

Radiological 

PROJECT 57 

37.2 

37.6 

36.3 39.1 

FRANKLIN 39.1 

39.5 

39.6 

39.7

39.6 

39.5 

WILSON 37.2 

37.6 

39.1 

39.5 

39.6 

39.6 

39.1 

36.2 

36.3 

39.1 

39.5 

39.9 

PRISCILLA 30.1 

30.2 

30.3 

30.4 

30.5 

31.1 

31.2 

31.4 

31.5 

32.4 33.2 37.2

33.3 

33.4 

34.1 36.1 

36.2 

COULOMB A 

Safety 

HOOD 37.2 

DIABLO 37.2 

37.6 

JOHN 

KEPLER 37.2 

37.6 

39.1 

39.5 

39.1

39.1 

39.5 

OWENS 

PASCAL A 

STOKES 

SATURN 

Experiment 

‘Bold print indicates projects with DOD participation. 

205 
Table 5-15. CETG PROJECTS CONDUCTED AT OPERATION (Continued) 

37 

Program Program 33 Program 33 Program 34 Program 34 Program Program 

Program Program Program 32 Biological Biological PhysicalPhysical Program Program Program Program Ecological Effects Effects 

SheltersShelters Equipment. Equipment. Radiological Radiological Radiological Radiological Aspects of Aspects of Radioactive Radioactive 

Devices. and to Defense Nuclear Fallout and 

Components measures Components measures loading Technologies Technologies Operations Operations Fallout 

SHASTA 31.1 32.1 37.2 37.2 39.1 39.1 

32.3 32.3 

32.4 32.4 37.6 37.6 

DOPPLER DOPPLER 37.5 39.1 

3 9 . 5 

PASCAL 

FRANKLIN FRANKLIN 37.5 39.1 

P R I M EP R I M E 3 9 . 5 

SMOKY 3 6 . 5 31.1 33.2 34.2 35.2 36.1 37.1 36.1 

33.3 34.3 35.3 37.2 

30.7 

37.45 

37.6 

GALILEO 33.1 34.3 35.2 37.1 

33.2 34.4 35.3 37.2 36.3 

33.4 

37.3 

37.4 

37.5 

37.6 

WHEELER WHEELER 

COULOMB COULOMB 

Safety 

LAPI-ACE LAPI-ACE 36.1 

32.1 39.1 

36.5 

36.6 

NEWTON 37.2 

RAINIER RAINIER 

WHITNEY 32.1 37.2 

CHARLESTON CHARLESTON 36.1 

36.5 

39.6 

MORGAN 36.6 

I 
TABLE 5-16 

DOD PARTICIPATION IN CETG PROJECTS 

BY PROGRAM 

No. DOD 

No. DOD Personnel 

Personnel w/Non-zero Non-zero DOD Exposures (m/R) 

Program Involved Exposure Min Max Mean 

30 0 0 0 0 0 

31 0 0 0 0 0 

32 39 22 75 2595 998 

33 0 0 0 0 0 

34 1 1 1670 1670 1670 

35 0 0 0 0 0 

36 3 2 370 385 378 

37 8 7 20 830 452 

38 1 1 940 940 940 

39 26 13 35 1910 453 

TOTALS 77 46 

collecting trays were exposed and later processed in the laboratory. The 

following data were obtained from these studies: 

• Beta and gamma energy spectra and decay 

properties of debris calculated by particle size 

and fallout time 

• Radioactivity per particle relation as a function of particle size and time 

Certain physical and chemical characteristics 

relative to particle size and time of fallout. 

Biomedical and Aspects of Prompt Gamma and Neutron Radiation 

Associated with these fallout studies were biomedical experiments to 

determine the persistence of fission products in the tissues of native rodents. 

One balloon detonation and one tower detonation of approximately the same yield 

were utilized for this purpose. In addition, measurement of the directional 

distribution of radiations at various distances from the hypocenter resulted in 

valuable data for determining the amount of shielding afforded by any type of 

structure against prompt bomb radiations. In conjunction with making precise 

measurements of radiation dosages, a number of large and small animal species were 

207 
exposed to prompt radiations. Mice, monkeys, swine, and burros were used to 

develop inter-species relationships showing reactions to prompt radiations. The 

data obtained was also correlated with the results of tests prior to PLUMRBOB. 

Blast Effects on Structures 

The CETG structures tests were largely FCDA-sponsored projects. The 

resulting data made important contributions to the development of designs for 

reinforced concrete dome shelters, a dual-purpose garage shelter, a family 

shelter, and a modular reinforced brick unit. Generally, the results of tests on 

structural environments were used to develop shelters which would be safer and 

more habitable in a nuclear target area. An array of fourteen and 

German-designed and financed shelters was also tested. Overpressures ranging from 

75 psi to 200 psi were measured during these tests. More elaborately designed 

than comparable U . S . structures, these shelters were exposed to higher 

overpressures than the U.S. structures had been exposed to previously. 

Biomedical Effects of Blast 

Along with the structures test, a study was made of the biological 

environment produced inside shelters by blast effects. Data gathered concerning 

this study also included the biological response to different patterns of 

overpressure; the characteristics of blast-induced missiles (how objects are 

thrown against personnel), and the possible physical displacement of personnel by 

blast-induced winds (how personnel would be thrown by the blast). 

Radiological Contamination, Decontamination, and Training 

CETG personnel conducted a radiological defense experiment in which they 

occupied a protective region in an area of heavy fallout. The experiments 

effectively demonstrated the magnitude of the radiation field and procedures for 

leaving the shelter and recovering a working area. The CETG also sponsored a 

series of training exercises for radiological defense leaders selected from state 

and local civil defense organizations. 

208 
A system of remote gamma radiation monitoring was conducted at stations 

from 30 to 300 miles away. Personnel could determine radiation 

intensities resulting from fallout simply by dialing the station through the 

telephone network. The station would automatically reply with a coded signal 

giving the radiation level. This experiment showed that early data on close-in 

radiation levels could be obtained without exposing personnel to contamination. 

The CETG studies involved both and activities. Many 

studies required that equipment be recovered as early as practicable after a 

nuclear detonation. This needed a means of minimizing the danger to personnel 

tasked with the recoveries. One of the CETG studies (Project 39.9) was directed 

to this purpose. It provided continuous, remote monitoring of radiation at 

various points of interest on shots in which CETG projects were active. 

locations were selected on the basis of early recovery requirements and the data 

obtained was utilized to determine safe recovery routes. Project 39.9 thus 

supplemented the normal Rad-safe procedures employed during PLUMBBOB. 

DOD participation in CETG projects was generally light as indicated in 

Table The exceptions were Programs 32 and 39 where certain projects were 

conducted by military organizations, and Program 37 where the activities of the 

military participants are uncertain but may have occurred through participation in 

a training program. 

The program and project descriptions which follow will describe the 

activities and movement of DOD personnel when known. When this information is 

not available, then the intent is to describe the activities required of project 

participants if a significant number of DOD personnel were involved. If DOD 

participation was not appreciable, then only general objectives are mentioned. 

Programs 30, 31, and 34 were primarily concerned with the mechanical 

response of various structures, materials and devices to nuclear blast effects. 

Tests involving several different civilian shelters including some elaborate 

French and German (113) designs were conducted in Program 30. Programs 31 

and 34 were concerned with the performance of various structures, structural 

elements, and devices in response to nuclear blasts. Program 34 was generally 

209 
interested in the performance of higher strength materials and structural elements 

in the higher overpressure regions than Program 31. the devices tested in 

these two programs were cameras, filters, and antiblast valves. The data 

resulting from these studies made important contributions to the development of 

design for reinforced concrete dome shelters, a dual-purpose garage-shelter, a 

family shelter, and a modular reinforced brick unit. 

Program 32. Four projects were conducted. The performing agency for 

Projects 32.3 and 32.4 was NRDL, and DOD personnel involvement was correspondingly 

heavy. Program 32 was primarily concerned with radiological countermeasures in 

terms of protection offered by shelters, simple structures, distance from the 

point of de (vertical and horizontal), and the effect of terrain 

attenuation. Due to the involvement of military personnel (See Table the 

projects are described individually. 

In Project 32.1 a reinforced building was exposed to fallout from 

two shots and the resulting dose rates and fallout deposition inside and outside 

the structure were measured with various instruments and techniques. 

Participation was scheduled for a third shot, but was cancelled because of heavy 

fallout in an area the recovery team would have had to pass through. Protection 

factors and roof and ground contributions to the total dose rates at points within 

the structure were determined from the measurements. Comparisons were made with 

the results of theoretical and experimental studies. The equipment utilized for 

obtaining this data included remote monitoring systems affording continuous time 

measurements, film packs to provide integrated dose measurements, portable survey 

instruments, and sequential air samplers. These devices were mounted inside and 

outside the building prior to the shots. There were periodic recoveries in which 

film packs were exchanged, portable survey meters were read, and filters in the 

air samplers were changed. 

The first recovery for shot DIABLO apparently occurred at and for 

shot SHASTA at These times are deduced from the data rather than being 

explicitly stated. No special Rad-safe considerations are mentioned, but it seems 

likely they were required. DOD participation is not evident. 

The objective of Project 32.2 was to test the calibration and utility of 

a high-level aerial survey system designed for civil defense applications (119). 
Aircraft flew in orbits over areas of known activity (levels of interest start at 

20 to 100 Two types of scintillation detectors were used in the aircraft. 

Ground and aircraft readings were compared to allow correlation of the two 

monitoring systems. 

Project 32.3 (System Operation Exercise and Evaluation) was performed in 

and around an underground radiological shelter located within the fallout zone 

beyond the region of significant blast damage The first phase involved 

evaluation of shelter performance and the ability of simple devices to predict the 

radiological environment outside the shelter. It was performed from within the 

shelter. The second phase involved precise determination of the exterior 

radiological environment by personnel outside the shelter. Personnel from NRDL 

were involved in both phases of this project. Phase II activities began 45 

minutes after the detonation. Those active in Phase II are known to have worn 

special clothing and respirators. 

The objectives of Project 32.4 were to provide documentary support for 

Project 32.3 and to study the following (290): 

• The attenuation of gamma radiation emitted from 

a fallout field due to surface roughness of the 

terrain 

Comparison of fallout material from tower- and 

balloon-supported shots of equal-scaled height 

• The use of small balloons as instrument 

platforms, and the stability of a new fallout 

collector. 

The terrain attenuation study required both ground and aerial surveys to 

obtain measurements of radiation intensity vs. height. A helicopter was utilized 

for shot SHASTA. For shot DIARLO, a crane was utilized because a 

helicopter was not available. These measurements began on for shot SHASTA and 

on for shot DIABLO. Radiation levels were generally less than 300 

The remaining objectives involved collection of fallout. Recovery (by 

helicopter) as early as minutes is documented. The extent of DOD participation is unknown, but is known to have analyzed the fallout samples, and was 

listed as the performing agency. 

211 
Program 33 was conducted to assess biomedical effects from nuclear 

blasts. Included were studies to determine the biological environment produced 

within shelters by blast effects, biological response to different patterns of 

overpressure, characteristics of blast-induced missiles, and displacement of 

personnel due to blast-induced winds. Involvement by the DOD in Program 33 was on 

a funding basis to the Foundation. 

Programs 35 and 36 were primarily concerned with civilian radiological 

defense operations and technologies. Program 35 was concerned with advancing the 

state of the art while Program 36 was involved in providing personnel with background and experience in field operations. General activities included monitoring 

radiation fields, evaluation and testing of radiological instruments, and study of 

aerial and ground recovery methods. A study of gamma intensity as ‘a function of 

shielding geometry was also conducted to provide data on attenuation and build-up 

factors for thick shields. 

Program 37. Five of the seven projects conducted studies to assess the 

biological hazards associated with radioactive fallout from nuclear detonations. 

These studies were divided into three primary areas: 

The delineation and characterization of fallout 

patterns 

• The radiological, physical , and chemical 

properties of the fallout debris within these 

patterns 

• The evaluation of biological availability and 

accumulation of radionuclides in plants and 

animals. 

The delineation and characterization of fallout patterns was the primary 

responsibility of Projects 37.2 (Laboratory Analysis) and (Field Surveys). 

Laboratory analysis was conducted by approximately 30 personnel at Mercury. In 

addition, certain specific fission-product analyses were conducted by the Chemical 

Analysis Group at AEP/UCLA and data reduction required a five-man group. The 

field survey group of Project consisted of as many as 15 two-man teams who 

were responsible for installation, operation, and recovery of sampling and 

monitoring equipment. 

212 
 

Four teams of four men each conducted field persistence studies as part 

of Project 37.1, which was concerned with the longer term aspects of biological 

accumulation of the fission products on and in plants and native rodents. Project 

37.3 utilized a single two-man team to obtain data on biological accumulation in 

agricultural environments. 

Project 37.6 was a training program. Personnel from various scientific 

disciplines were trained in the techniques of environmental assessment with 

practical application under fallout conditions. Rotating project assignments were 

an integral part of their training. Among the mentioned participants in the 

training program were USAF veterinarians. 

A description of pre-shot activities follows 

The program’s activities for fallout studies for a 

detonation routinely began at 1500 hours on each 

scheduled D-1 day and consisted of a review of the 

weather forecast, of the possible uncertainties in 

the forecast, and of their probable influence on 

the predicted direction of the fallout pattern. 

This information was prepared by the NTS Weather 

Group and the Fallout Prediction for 

the formal weather briefings of the Test 

Advisory Panel usually scheduled at 1600 hours, D-l 

day. If the Advisory Panel’s recommendations were 

to proceed with the detonation, Project teams 

were assigned rendezvous (standby) locations along 

the predicted pattern and were dispatched from 

NTS. 

In general, five to ten field teams were assigned 

standby locations near the and 

120-mile sampling arcs along the fallout patterns 

predicted by FOPU. Communications with these teams 

were maintained by telephone and radio. Specific 

station assignments were transmitted between H-3.5 

hours and hours, depending on the wind speed 

forecast (fallout time-of-arrival). Each team 

required 2.5 to 5 hours for the placement of 

twenty sampling stations and safe retirement from 

the area of potential contamination to a standby 

location. 

213 
Post-shot activities for these teams and for a U.S. Geodetic Survey team 

that conducted aerial surveys began on The Project field teams 

conducted road surveys and recovered samples. Laboratory processing usually began 

at approximately hours. If hot spots were indicated by the initial surveys, 

they were investigated and documented by two aerial teams from the Raw Materials 

Division of the AEC on On two shots, special teams recovered samples at 

hours and immediately returned them to Mercury for processing. 

Project 37.1 recovery teams did not enter the field until (data for 

earlier times were provided by Project recovery teams). Data from Project 

teams were also utilized to direct Project 37.3 recovery teams to 

farms exhibiting a dose rate of at least 2 at hours. 

In Project 37.4 laboratory and field tests were conducted on germanium 

dosimeters to determine whether better knowledge of the characteristics of these 

devices could be utilized to improve accuracy and sensitivity of fast-neutron 

dosage measurements obtained near nuclear detonations The expected 

improvements were not realized. DOD participation was not evident. 

Chemical dosimetry studies to estimate human exposures to prompt and 

residual radiations from nuclear detonations were performed in Project 37.5. On 

and activities were required fallout measurements were 

made in conjunction with Project Close cooperation with the dosimetry 

studies conducted by Projects 39.1 and 39.16 is indicated. 

Program 38 ted of four projects concerned with possible 

contamination of foodstuffs by radioactive fallout. One project (223) studied the 

ability of glass containers to withstand the effects of nuclear blasts. Another 

was concerned with the effectiveness of various packaging materials and 

subsequent decontamination procedures. A similar study (226) of contamination of 

raw agricultural products considered post-harvest contamination of produce in bulk 

storage or processing situations, practical methods of decontamination, and the 

possible influence of processing operations on removal of contamination. The 

fourth was a field training course. 

Program 39. Several of the projects involved outside instrumentation 

and support services for the various CETG programs. The other projects were 

214 
oriented toward assessing the biological effects of radiation on various animals 

for the ultimate purpose of extrapolation to man. DOD participation was heavy as 

suggested in Table 5-15. Most DOD personnel were from various military medical 

organizations. 

The objective of Project 39.1 was to utilize film dosimetry techniques 

to measure gamma radiation from nuclear detonations. Two types of chemical 

dosimeters were utilized Pre- and post-exposure measurements were taken at 

NTS by USAF School of Aviation Medicine personnel. Installation and recovery of 

the dosimeters were apparently accomplished by personnel of the projects which 

required the dosimetry measurements. This included Projects 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 4.1, 

30.1, 30.2, 30.3, 30.4, 39.1, 39.6, 39.7, and 39.8. 

In Project a film-taping technique designed and used by was 

utilized to measure integrated gamma dose at points along the ground and in 

selected structures for 15 shots The data was taken primarily in support 

of CETG projects from Programs 30, 35, 37, and 39, but some fallout measurements 

and other special data were supplied to other projects (2.1, for example). The 

objective of Project was to furnish neutron-dose measurements for other CETG 

projects. Personnel involved in this effort were the same as those involved in 

Project 39.5. 

Project 39.2 provided instrumentation for measuring static and dynamic 

pressures in support of CETG Projects 32.1, 33.1, 33.2, and 34.4. Most of the 

instrumentation was self-recording (237). The remainder was apparently electronic 

recording. Three methods of remote actuation of these devices were discussed. 

Details of location, mounting, and installation during pre-shot periods were 

given. Recovery procedures are not discussed. 

The objective of Part I of Project 39.3 was to measure transient air 

temperature at selected locations in the blast-biology underground shelter in Area 

1 during shot (161). Due to problems with the recorders, this objective 

was not met. The objective of Part II (conducted by the University of Rochester) 

was to evaluate thermal burns from a nuclear explosion on biological receivers. 

Pigs were used for the test. The original intent was to correlate the results 

from Parts I and II, but this could not be accomplished because of the recording 

problems. Recovery of one recorder at hours was indicated. High levels of 

215 
radiation limited exposure time to six or seven minutes, and the second recorder 

was recovered later. The instrumentation was provided by NRDL. 

Project 39.4 was scheduled but later cancelled. 

The objective of Project 39.5 was to gain information on the characteristics of neutron and gamma radiation at various distances from selected nuclear 

devices as a step in evaluating the doses received by the survivors of the 

bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki The project complemented Projects 39.6, 

and 39.7, which involved animal exposure to irradiation. The ultimate goal 

of these projects was to provide reasonable estimates of the chronic effects of 

radiation on man. The experiments required placing detection devices as near as 

500 yards from ground zero and recovering them soon after the detonations. Care 

was taken in mounting these devices to allow rapid recovery. DOD involvement 

included several members of the U.S. Air Force School of Aviation Medicine; they 

provided instrumentation for measuring gamma irradiation. 

The main objective of Project 39.6 was to correlate neutron and gamma 

measurements with biological response. The program was conducted by the USAF 

School of Aviation Medicine (254 ; 346). It involved exposing monkeys to neutron 

and gamma radiation such that a range of radiation doses was received by the 

different groups. All animals were monitored for short-term, acute radiation 

effects, and where mortality did not occur, they were monitored for long-term 

effects. Considerable data was obtained relating to symptoms shown during 

post-irradiation periods vs. radiation dose. The data was considered especially 

important due to of the monkey to man in certain physiological 

responses. 

The objective of Project was to expose a large animal (burro) to a 

nuclear detonation under conditions identical to the exposure of a smaller 

laboratory animal (monkey) It was hoped these comparisons eventually 

be extrapolated to man for use in estimating the response of humans to whole body 

irradiation. Considerable data was made available and, to this extent, the 

experiment was successful. There was substantial military involvement in this 

program. Many participants are known. The project interfaced with Projects 39.6, 

39.1, and It utilized the animal facilities provided for Project 4.1 and 

216 
the laboratory facilities of Project 57. The study continued at the shot site for 

two months prior to moving to the University of Tennessee. 

Long-term study of the delayed effects of acutely delivered nuclear 

radiation on small animals (mice) was the original objective of Project 39.7. A 

chronic infection in the animal colony caused this objective to be abandoned. The 

objective of Project was to collect and evaluate information on the neutron 

effects on several species and sizes of mammals in internally controlled fields. 

This involved cooperation with Projects 39.5, 39.6, 39.7, and 39.8. 

Project 39.8 was conducted by the Naval Medical Research Institute 

Its objectives were to determine (in tissue-equivalent phantoms 

approximating the size of man) the relation of the air exposure or the incident 

dose to the absorbed dose in tissue-equivalent material, and the distribution of 

absorbed dose through the tissue-equivalent material. Both studies were made for 

initial neutron and gamma radiation from an atomic detonation. Several members of 

the military services were involved, and one served as Field Supervisor. 

Project 39.9 utilized telemetering techniques for recording radiation 

data to supplement and Rad-safe. The monitoring provided 

data in areas not otherwise covered, while the monitoring provided 

information needed for early recovery parties. locations were usually 

unmanned and were accessed by telephone to automatic equipment. locations 

were unmanned, but those in high-radiation, early recovery areas utilized direct 

coupling to provide continuous readings to the control area. The stations 

were housed in blast-protected units and were located in or adjacent to structures 

being studied by various CETG projects. Locations were selected on the basis of 

early recovery requirements of these projects. were utilized to ascertain 

Rad-safe routes for early recovery in hot areas, to determine time of recoveries, 

and to determine the necessity for countermeasures. 

217 
 

CHAPTER 6 

ANALYSIS OF DOD PERSONNEL 

6.1 INTRODUCTION 

This chapter addresses data available on recorded exposures to ionizing 

radiation for approximately 18,000 DOD participants at Operation It 

reflects information available as of 23 April 1981. 

6.2 CHARACTERISTICS OF EXPOSURE DATA FOR PERSONNEL 

During this test series, the principal device for recording and 

monitoring individual radiation exposures was the DuPont Type 559 badge. 

This had both low and high range components. The low range component measured 

intensities of 0.02 to roentgens, and the high range component recorded 

radiation levels of to roentgens. This packet of films, which had a lead 

shield covering both sides, was enclosed in a waterproof plastic covering, which 

comprised the film badge itself. Each film badge had an alligator clip for 

fastening it to clothing. In addition to film badges, self-reading pocket 

dosimeters were also used as exposure indicators for some personnel working in 

radiation areas. Film badges were processed by the Army’s Lexington Blue Grass 

facility for Desert Rock personnel; other participants were serviced by 

Individuals were issued a numbered badge; record was kept of his name and his 

film badge number. After badges were worn in contaminated areas, participants 

returned the badges for processing to determine their radiation exposure received. 

Each film badge reading was then recorded on a form for later transcription onto 

the individual’s cumulative exposure card; this provided a permanent record of the 

his total radiation exposure. 

6.3 DAT.4 SOURCES 

The military services developed the information pertaining to both 

identification of the individuals as well as the ionizing radiation dose they 

received. This data was obtained from a variety of sources: 

218 
• Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company 

(REECo) was the principal source of dosimetry 

data. REECo is the DOE contractor charged with 

radiological safety support at the Nevada Test 

Site and has maintained a master file of 

dosimetry data for the Department of Energy 

since 1955. Most data is either on microfiche, 

microfilm, or summarized computer tapes indexed 

for retrieval. REECo has on file the original 

processed film badges for activities at NTS and 

has been provided supplementary material from 

various other repositories of dosimetry 

information. REECo also has microfilm records 

of a variety of source documents, such as 

contaminated area entry logs. 

• Lexington-Blue Grass Signal Facility (located in 

Lexington, Kentucky), is an important source of 

dosimetry information for military personnel who 

participated in Exercise Desert Rock VII and 

VIII during Operation This 

information is on microfilm but only covers the 

year 1957, when Lexington provided dosimetry 

services for Desert Rock. The Lexington films 

also provide identification of personnel by 

military unit. 

• Information from the public contributed 

to the identification of participants. In 

February 1978, the public was invited via mass 

media to call in by toll-free telephone to the 

Defense Nuclear describing their 

participation in nuclear tests. Over 50,000 

responses were received for further checking by 

the military services. The public provided 

identification and other helpful information for 

further research and verification. 

• The General Services Administration (GSA) has 

been involved in both the identification of 

individuals and dose information. GSA operates 

the National Personnel Records Center 

located in St. Louis, Missouri. This is the 

main repository for medical and personnel 

records of individuals separated from the Armed 

Services. The determination of dose information 

from Army medical records was hampered by the 

fire that, in July 1973, destroyed 13-17 million 

Army records for personnel discharged between 1 

November 1912 and 31 December 1959, and for 

members of the Army Air Corps/Air Force 

discharged between 31 December 1947 and 31 

December 1963. The GSA also operates records 

storage facilities which provided some 

219 
operational data, principally supporting 

identification information with only limited 

dose information. The most useful of these were 

at Laguna Niguel, CA; San Bruno, CA ; and 

Suitland, MD. 

• The Veteran’s Administration (VA) is a source of 

some dose information in that it maintains file 

copies or originals of medical or personnel 

records for personnel separated from the 

Services. These records are required to 

substantiate an individual’s eligibility for 

medical or dental care, as well as 

disability compensation, claims, and other 

authorized veteran benefits. The VA obtains 

files from the NPRC in St. Louis and usually 

only retains an individual% file while a case 

is under consideration. However, the VA does 

maintain a master computer file which 

can provide some information on cases previously 

considered. 

• DOD Nuclear Information and Analysis Center 

formerly Defense Atomic Support 

Information and Analysis Center) provided 

information relative to identification of 

individuals and military units by identifying 

and reviewing a large body of reports available 

or listed in this bibliographic data base. 

Some personnel identification and dose information is contained in 

official reports written relative to Operation PLUMBBOB. These include: 

• AEC Test Manager’s Report provided some 

generalized dose information and total numbers 

of participants, but no specific data relative 

to individuals by name. 

• AEC Test Director’s Report provided some 

individual identification data, but no dose 

data. 

• The Rad-Safety Report 

provided some data on exposures, but no 

individual identification on dose data. This 

source also included radiation exclusion 

contours, residual radiation measurements, and 

some non-specific decontamination data. 

220 
• Technical after-action reports were written by 

project or program leaders. Some of these name 

individuals or list participants, but provide no 

other identification information and no dose 

data. These reports 

neutron-induced and 

also provide 

fallout radiation 

information for those projects concerned with 

such measurements. 

• The Desert Rock VII and VIII Final Report 

provides numbers of personnel participating in 

projects and total numbers. However, this 

report contains no identification data. 

• The AFSWC Final Report (2) provides 

some dose data on pilots in the sampling program 

and some total numbers for project 

participation. 

• Operation orders and schedules of events furnish some names and numbers of participants. 

The above sources provided information of general applicability to the 

DOD participants in Operation PLUMBBOB. In addition, the Armed Forces have 

Service-unique sources : 

• Morning reports, unit diaries, muster rolls, and 

ships’ deck logs provide identification data on 

personnel assigned to participating units, 

absent from their home unit, or in transient 

status for the purpose of participating in a 

nuclear weapons test. 

• Official travel or reassignment orders provide 

further identification information relative to 

transient or assigned personnel participating in 

the nuclear weapons tests. 

• Discharge records are maintained by all Services 

and aid in identification. 

• Military personnel records for individuals still 

on active duty provide information relative to 

that individual’s assignment to participating 

units or attendance in transient status at the 

nuclear weapons test. 

• Medical records for participating DOD personnel 

provide dose information in some cases (about 

221 
• Each Service also has an Adjutant General (or 

similar) concerned not only with the administration of its Service but also with the 

maintenance of records and the preservation of 

unit histories. 

reports, security rosters, and 

vehicle loading rosters related to the military 

exercises provide identification information on 

participants. 

• The Services’ Reserve personnel activities provide both identification information on participants who may still be carried on active or 

inactive reserve roles, and dose information in 

medical records of some individuals. 

Table 6-l summarizes NTPR data sources which relate to the identification of personnel and the determination of dose. 

GENERAL PERSONNEL GROUPINGS 

Regardless of the organization to which an individual was administratively assigned, his possible exposure depended on the capacity in which he was 

physically operating at the time. There were three general groupings: 

Scientific project personnel. This 

includes personnel concerned with the placement, 

recovery and evaluation of experimentation 

conducted at the shots. Personnel involved were 

generally assigned to the design 

laboratories LASL, and 

AFS WP personnel, and those Desert Rock personnel 

who were involved in the technical service and 

air operational training projects. 

• Maneuver elements. This group includes units 

conducting planned troop maneuver activities and 

their transportation; the requisite field 

support elements such as communications, 

military police, etc. , to accompany the maneuver 

troops; and whatever observers, controllers, 

evaluators and Rad-safe personnel were required 

during maneuver activities in the NTS 

operational areas. 

222 
--

--

---------

--

- --

SOURCE IDENTlFtCATlON DATA DOSE DATA

REECo X X

Lexington Microfilm X X

GSA Repositories

 Personnel Records (Separated) X

X X

Veterans Administration X X

DASIAC X

Defense Nuclear Agency X

Armed Services

Rolls, Deck Logs

 Orders X

 Discharge Records X

 Personnel Records (Active Duty) X

 Medical Records (Active Duty) X

 Administrative Service X

 After-Action Reports, Rosters X

 Reserve Affairs X X

Other Sources

 Internal Revenue Service X

 Defense Documentation Center X

 Department of Energy X

Table 6-1. DATA SOURCES IN NTPR ROSTER OF DOD 

PARTICIPANTS. 

SOURCE DATA DOSE DATA 

X X 

Lexington Microfilm X X 

GSA Repositories

 Personnel Records (Separated) X

 Medical Records (Separated1 Medical Records (Separated] X X

Veterans Administration X X 

DASIAC X 

Defense Nuclear Agency X 

Armed Services

 Morning Reports, Diaries, Muster Morning Reports, Diaries, Muster X X

Rolls, Deck Logs

 Orders X

 Discharge Records X

 Personnel Records (Active Duty) X

 Medical Records (Active Duty) X

 Administrative Service X

 After-Action Reports, Rosters X

 Reserve Affairs X X 

Other Sources

 Internal Revenue Service X

 Defense Documentation Center X

 Department of Energy X 

I I 
• Support elements. This group includes all other 

personnel who were necessary to support the 

test, but were not usually required to go into 

the operational areas with the project personnel 

or maneuver elements. 

6.4.1 Before the Detonation 

• Scientific project personnel were involved in 

the layout, construction, equipment placement, 

installation and dry runs for the scientific 

projects and could have been exposed to ionizing 

radiation prior to the shots. Areas of the NTS 

were already contaminated by prior nuclear 

detonations and by earlier shots. 

Although entry into Radex areas was controlled, 

residual radiation in non-Radex areas (less than 

10 could have contributed to exposure over 

a period of time. 

• Maneuvers by troops required entry into operational areas at NTS for orientation, training 

and rehearsal purposes. Although these 

activities did not involve entry into any Radex 

area, there was an opportunity for exposure to 

low-level radiation from previous nuclear tests. 

Rehearsals also provided the opportunity for 

exposure prior to the shots. It should be noted 

that the troops needed to support the maneuver 

units during rehearsals included some personnel 

who were not a part of the actual maneuver 

itself, such as those necessary to help dig the 

defensive positions. 

Detonation Time 

• Scientific project personnel on the ground were 

usually located well distant from surface ground 

zero, and few were exposed to initial radiation 

from the burst. Aircraft involved in air 

operational training and AFSWP projects were 

closer to the burst. None of the cloud sampler, 

cloud tracker or National Guard crews were 

exposed to appreciable initial radiation from 

the burst. 

• Maneuver elements were located safely distant 

from surface ground zero. None were exposed to 

appreciable initial radiation from the burst. 

Helicopter support aircraft were in this 

category. 

224 
• Support elements at Camp Desert Rock or Indian 

Springs were all far distant from surface ground 

zero. None were exposed to initial radiation 

from the burst. 

6.4.3 After the Detonation 

All the numbered operational areas around ground zero were closed until 

initial surveys of the area were completed. At that time controlled access to all 

areas were established. This time was delineated as R-hour. 

Scientific project personnel. There was 

specific, pre-programmed entry into contaminated 

areas prior to R-hour for retrieval of 

sensitive data, although most entries did not 

occur until after R-hour. Subsequent to D-Day, 

the scientific project personnel had recurrent 

opportunities for exposure to ionizing radiation 

depending on the number of entries required to 

gather data or to recover equipment. 

• Maneuver elements. Troop maneuvers were not 

controlled by R-hour. In this case the Radex 

monitors accompanying the troops established the 

limits of troop penetration into contaminated 

areas. When the Rad-safe monitors with the 

troops determined that each maneuver element had 

advanced to a safe limit, the exercises were 

terminated. Troops from maneuver elements were 

also involved in subsequent entries into the 

area to recover equipment, inspect defensive 

positions, and visit the display areas; these 

entries provided recurrent opportunity for 

exposure. 

Support elements. These personnel did not 

normally enter the contaminated areas on D-Day 

although activities associated with the maneuver 

elements and scientific project personnel did 

require some exposure of some of the support 

elements in other operational areas. One 

example was the ground transportation required 

to remove maneuver elements following the 

exercise. After D-Day, such support elements as 

decontamination teams, construction engineers 

and signal personnel had recurring opportunity 

for exposures when they entered the Nevada Test 

Site areas to recover or to service the support 

equipment. 

225 
6.5 SUMMARIES OF PERSONNEL DOSE DATA 

The personnel dose data available as of 23 April 1981 have been analyzed 

to address the following topics: 

• Total person-rem. 

• The personnel present at each series, subdivided 

by Service, organization and unit (if known). 

• Who, among DOD participants at the nuclear 

tests, were film badged. 

• The ionizing radiation dose as measured by film 

badges. 

• The distribution of dose subdivided by service, 

organization and unit. 

Table 6-2 gives the number of participants by shot for based on 

historical reports. For comparison, dose distribution is provided for those 

participants whose names have been matched with dose records: Figure 6-l provides 

an overall look at dose distribution; Table 6-3 examines known participants by 

military service; the total number of known participants for is divided 

by major organizations in Table 6-4; in similar fashion this number of known 

participants is subdivided by unit in Table 6-5. There will be some differences 

in personnel numbers among the shot volumes, this series volume, and the census 

volume because their contents are based on successively later studies and data. 

However, the differences are not considered statistically significant. 

The total number of personnel in Table 6-2 is obviously larger than 

those in the subsequent tables. There are several reasons for this difference: 

• Many personnel who participated at a project in 

one shot were the same ones who conducted that 

project at another shot. 

• Some of the participants were not badged. Thus 

any numbers taken from the dosimetry records 

will automatically be lower than those from 

other sources. 

• Identification of participants is not absolute. 
 

I

/

I

L

I

I I

1

I

i/

I

1

! /

i I

/ /1

I I 1

- -

Table 6-2. DOD PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION BY SHOT* 

(Estimated Totals) 

57 

FRANKLIN 300 

50 

170 

PRISCILLA 300 

0 

100 

D 40 

50 

KEPLER 70 

90 

0 

40 

, 

SATURN 0 

30 

DOPPLER 35 

0 

PRIME 20 

320 

120 

2 0 I 

0 

30 

F 60 

15 

RAINIER I 10 

150 

60 

350 80 

30 70 

240 60 

870 70 

1720 90 

0 10 

2760 280 

1340 100 

690 60 

1560 100 

720 70 

560 0 

1360 70 

590 0 

610 80 I 

1210 70 

0 0 

1080 50 

2230 190 , 

320 60 

140 50 

0 15 

130 50 

140 60 

80 60 

30 20 

30 60 

30 60 

2180 18820 1935 

Support Personnel 51000 Support Personnel Support 

for Series for Series Personne 1 for 

Series 

* If one eliminates the obvious duplications shot to shot, the 

estimated total number of personnel participating in the 

series reduces a total of 25,600 to about 18,000. 

227 
6000 

5000 

4000 

3000 

2000 

1000 

CO.1 rem 0.1-l rem l-3 rem 3-5 rem rem 

DOSE (REM 

Figure 6 -1. DOSE ‘LUMBBOB SERIES. 
Table 6-3. PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION (MILITARY OR CIVILIAN) 

: 

NAVY 

AIR 

CIVILIANS 

PARrI CIPANIS 

BY NAME 

7,226 

466 

2,505 

2,417 

2,266 

14,880 

IDENTIFIED BY 

7,226 

442 

1,446 

540 

2,222 

11,876 

Less than 

0.1 rem 

3,194 

371 

893 

241 

1,558 

6,257 

to to 

3rem 

3,401 542 

52 14 

411 100 

214 81 

533 110 

4,611 847 

3rem 

to 

5rem 

62 

2 

23 

3 

21 

111 

Greater thar 

5 ran 

27 

3 

19 

1 

50 

*In recording doses, only doses greater than 0.1 rem have been considered to be This 

definition of a “significant recorded dose” as being above 0.1 rem is somewhat arbitrary. It is intended 

to exclude badge data which indicate either no exposure or minimal exposure. In addition, there are 

uncertainties regarding exposure to natural and other sources of radiation not related to testing, 

uncertainties in film response, and the like. 
TROOP UNIT ABBREVIATIONS 

The following is a list of the abbreviations used for troop units in 

Tables 6-4 and 6-5. (Names in brackets indicate home stations of participating 

units. 

ABBREVIATION UNIT 

1st MARINE DIV 1st Marine Division Camp Pendleton, CA] 

1st RSSU 1st Rad-safe Support Unit [Ft. McClellan, AL] 

2 SIG PLT (PHOTO) 2nd Signal Platoon (Photo) [Ft. Huachuca, AZ1 

2 TR CO (TRUCK) 2nd Transportation Company (Truck) 

26 BN 26th Transportation Battalion Ord, CA] 

3 MAW HQ 3rd Marine Air Wing Headquarters [El Toro, CA] 

3rd LT SUPPORT CO 3rd Light Support Company, 1st Service 

1st SERVICE BN Battalion, 1st Marine Division [Camp 

Pendleton, CA] 

8 FIELD HOSP 8th Field Hospital [Ft. Lewis, WA] 

8 TRANS CO 8th Transportation Company [Ft. Benning, GA] 

21st SQDN 21st Helicopter Squadron [Ft. Benning, GA] 

26 BN (HQ HQ CO) 26th Transportation Battalion (Headquarters 

and Headquarters Company) [Ft. Ord, CA1 

31 TRANS CO 31st Transportation Company, 3rd Transportation Battalion [Ft. Benning, GA] 

38 TR CO 38th Transportation Company (Heavy) [Ft. Ord, 

50 CHEM PLT 50th Chemical Platoon [Ft. Ord, CA] 

53 QM SUB/SUP CO 53rd Quartermaster Detachment Ord, CA1 

82nd AIRBORNE 82nd Airborne Division [Ft. Bragg, NC] 

84th ENG BN 84th Engineer Battalion (Company [Ft. 

Ord, CA] 

138 TRANS DET 138th Transportation Detachment, 3rd 

Transportation Battalion [Ft. Benning, GA] 

230 
 

ABBREVIATION 

140 TRANS DET 

163 QM (LAUNDRY) 

232 SIGNAL CO 

293 MP CO 

526 ORD CO (HAM) 

531 TR CO 

656 QM (PET SUP CO) 

802nd AIR DIV 

3395th C/C TRNG 

4925th TG 

4926th T SQDN 

4927th T SQDN 

4935th AIR BASE GP 

4950th TG 

4952nd SUPP SQDN 

AFSWC 

AFSWP 

AFSWP 

AF HQ 

AG SECT 

UNIT 

140th Transportation Detachment, 3rd 

Transportation Battalion [Ft. NC] 

163rd Quartermaster Detachment [Ft. 

Lewis, WA] 

232nd Signal Company [Ft. Huachuca, AZ1 

293rd Military Police Company [Ft. 

526th Ordnance Company (Helicopter and 

Maintenance) 

531st Transportation Company (Medium) 

656th Quartermaster (Petroleum 

Supply Company) [Ft. Lee, VA1 

802nd Air Division 

3395th Combat Crew Training Support Squadron 

4925th Test Group (Atomic) [Kirtland AFB, NM] 

4926th Test Squadron [Kirtland AFB, NM] 

4927th Test Squadron [Kirtland AFB, NM] 

4935th Air Base Group [Indian Springs 

4950th Test Group (Nuclear) Kirtland AFB, 

Squadron [ Kirtland AFB, NM] 

Air Force Special Weapons Center 

(Headquarters) Kirtland AFB, NM] 

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project 

(Headquarters) [Washington, D Cl 

Armed Forces Special Weapons Project 

(Field Command) Base, 

Albuquerque, NM] 

Air Force Headquarters 

Adjutant General Section, U.S. Army 

231 
ABBREVIATION 

ARMY ENG R&D 

AVIATION SECT 

CDR HQ 

CDR STAFF 

CETG 

CO A 

CO B 

CO E 

CO F 

CO G 

CO H 

DOFL 

ENGINEER SECT 

ESL 

EVALUATION GP 

FINANCE SECT 

UNIT 

Army Engineer Research and Development Laboratory [Ft. Helvoir, VA 1 

Section [Camp Desert Rock] 

Camp Desert Rock (headquarters) 

Camp Desert Rock (staff) 

Civil Effects Test Group 

Company A, 1st Anti-tank Battalion, 

1st Marine Division [Camp Pendleton, CA] 

Company B, 1st Motor Transportation 

Battalion, 1st Marine Division Camp Pendleton, 

Company C, 3rd Transportation 

Battalion, 1st Marine Division [Camp Pendleton, 

Company E, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine 

Regiment, 1st Marine Division [Camp Pendleton, 

Company F, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine 

Regiment, 1st Marine Division [Camp Pendleton, 

Company G, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine 

Regiment, 1st Marine Division [Camp Pendleton, 

Company 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine 

Regiment, 1st Marine Division [Camp Pendleton, 

Chemical Warfare Laboratory Ft. McClellan, AL 

Diamond Ordnance Fuze Laboratory [Maryland 1 

Engineer Section [Camp Desert Rock] 

Evans Signal Laboratory [Ft. Monmouth, 

Evaluation Group, Task Force WARRIOR 

Finance section [Camp Desert Rock] 

232 
ABBREVIATION 

FOPU 

HQ HQ CO 3rd 

TRANS BN 

H&S CO 2nd BN 5th M 

HUMRRO GP 

INSTRUCTOR GP 

ISAFB 

LEX SIG DEPOT 

MAG 15 

MAG 33 

MAG 36 

MISC GARRISON CDR 

NAU (Sandia) 

NAS WF 

NAS WP 

NML 

NOL 

NRDL 

NRL 

PATHFINDERS 

UNIT 

Fallout Prediction Unit 

Headquarters and Headquarters Company, 3rd 

Transportation Battalion Ft. Benning , GA 

Headquarters and Support Company, 2nd Battalion, 5th Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division 

Camp Pendleton, 

Human Resources Research Office 

ment of the Army] 

Instructor Group 

Indian Springs Air Force Base [Indian Springs, 

Lexington Signal Depot [Lexington, KY] 

Marine Attack Squadron 223, Marine Aircraft 

Group 15, 3rd Marine Aircraft Wing, (El Toro,

Marine Air Group 33 [El 

Marine Air Group [El Toro, CA1 

Miscellaneous U.S. Army Garrison, Camp 

Desert Rock Camp Irwin, CA1 

Naval Administrative Unit (Sandia) [Sandia Base, 

Albuquerque, NM1 

Naval Air Special Weapons Facility [Sandia Base, 

Albuquerque, NM] 

Naval Air Special Weapons Project [Sandia Base, 

Albuquerque, NM] 

Naval Material Laboratory (Naval Shipyard, 

Brooklyn, NY 

Naval Ordnance Laboratory [Washington, DC] 

Navy Radiological Defense Laboratory (San 

Francisco, CA] 

Naval Research Laboratory Washington, D Cl 

506th Pathfinder team for Task Force 

WARRIOR [Ft. Bragg, NC] 

233 
ABBREVIATION UNIT 

PI0 Public Information Office 

Quartermaster Research and Development

[Natick, MA] 

Quartermaster Section [Camp Desert Rock1 

RAD-SAFE SECT 

SAM USAF 

SIG SECT 

SRI 

Radiological Safety Section [Camp Desert Rock] 

School of Aero Space Medicine, U.S. Air

Force [Brooks AFB, TX] 

Signal Section [Camp Desert Rock] 

Office of Surgeon General DC1 

Stanford Research Institute [Menlo Park, CA] 

UNK CDR 

USWB 

Unknown Badged at Camp Desert 

Rock 

United States Weather Bureau [Greensboro, 

Army Ballistics Research Laboratory [Aberdeen

Proving Ground, MD] 

WADC 

WSPG 

Wright Air Development Center 

Patterson AFB, OH1 

White Sands Proving Ground [New Mexico] 

234 
E

.@-I 

c 

235. 
Table 6-5. PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION BY UNIT. 

AFSWP 

PART1 CIPANIS 

IDENTIFIED 

BY 

PART1 

BY Less than 

0.1 

0.1 rem 

to 

1 rem 

to 

3 ran 

to 

5 

Greater 

5 rem 

19 19 13 4 2 

407 407 336 63 ‘8 

NAU 59 59 46 10 3 

1st 47 47 14 14 12 7 

USA/ BRL 66 61 18 10 26 7 

179 179 100 77 2 

50 49 11 18 6 

ESL 27 27 10 8 8 1 

91 89 49 15 21 4 

28 24 15 7 2 

44 38 26 2 10 

59 56 37 18 1 

21 21 19 2 

36 36 9 22 5 

SRI 26 26 12 2 12 

39 39 21 14 1 3 

15 15 13 1 1 

SAM 13 11 8 2 1 
 

 

 

 

 

Table 6-5. PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION BY UNIT 

(Continued) 

IDENTIFIED 

BY 

WIT 4 

163 27 

232 373 

26 BN 

88 

293 MP 113 

2 SIG PLT 34 

26 BN 94 

26 92 

50 PLT 88 

526 153 

531 

26 BN 110 

53 59 

656 SUP 21 

8 67 

AG 27 

AVIATION 37 

70 

NufmEx a? 

BY 

4 

27 

373 

88 

113 

34 

94 

92 

88 

153 

110 

59 

21 

67 

27 

37 

70 

Less than 

0.1 rem 

27 

144 

57 

33 

19 

22 

16 

10 

113 

51 

45 

14 

36 

11 

18 

36 

0.1 rem 1 rem 

to to 

31-m 

4 

202 24 

21 10 

75 3 

8 6 

69 2 

67 9 

41 24 

22 14 

55 4 

14 

7 

25 6 

16 

19 

26 7 

3rem 

to 

5rem 

1 

1 

1 

9 

4 

1 

Greater 

5 rem 

2 

2 

4 
Table 6-5. PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION BY UNIT 

(Continued) 

IN RANGE 

DESERT 

UNITS 

SECT 

SIG 

GARRISON 

IDENTIFIED IDENTIFIED 

NAME FILM 

 

5 

21 

14 

9 

1 

18 

14 

13 

13 

13 

83 

312 

128 

Less than 

0.1 rem 

1 

16 

13 

4 

11 

8 

2 

11 

8 

45 

148 

78 

0.1 rem 

to 

7 

6 

3 

2 

5 

38 

152 

42 

to 

3 rem 

3 

1 

1 

3 

11 

6 

3rem 

to 

5 rem 

2 

2 

Greater 

5 

1 

3 

1 
Table 6-5. PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION BY UNIT 

(Continued) 

50.1 

WITS 

TASK 

PATHFINDERS 

3rd BN 

138 

140 

31 

82nd AIRBORNE 

BY 

555 

15 

20 

39 

54 

47 

148 

136 

176 

12 

0.1 rem 

473 

1 

16 

16 

3 

3 

45 

71 

39 

2 

1 rem 

3 rem 

53 

13 

1 

8 

2 

102 

2 

3 rem 

Greater 

5 rem 5 rem 

1 

2 

1 
1 

Table 6-5. PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION BY UNIT 

(Continued) 

0.1 rem 

52.1 

PART1 

IDENTIFIED BY Less to to Greater

BY NAME 0.1 rem 5rem 5

1st DIV 515 155 32 61 2

H S 2nd 

BN 5th M 300 10 9

3rd LT 

1st SERVICE EN 66 3 2 1 

10 1

CDB 24 1 1

43 0 

140 11 3 6 

186 23 2 20 

195 16 2 14 

192 14 13 

36 226 44 21 21 

33 16 0

3 26 2 1 

15 162 9 3 6 

1 
Table 6-5. PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION BY UNIT 

(Continued) 

PART1 0.1 1 3rem 

FIED BY Less to to to Greater thar 

KNITS BY NAME 0.1 rem 3rem 5rem 5

4925th 159 3 2 1 

57 57 38 19 

4950th 126 51 23 14 6 5 3 

4926th T 252 192 54 78 34 11 14 

4927th T 217 5 4 1 

4935th AIR GP 311 67 64 3 

ISAFB 448 448 343 66 32 5 2 

21st 6 6 3 3 

4952nd SUPP 214 44 32 12 

AND 

95 95 91 1 3 

27 27 26 1 

62 62 48 12 2 

AFH? 20 20 18 2 

AIR DIV 14 4 3 1 

AIR 59 43 18 18 7 

3395th C/C 73 65 36 26 33 
Table 6-5. PERSONNEL PARTICIPATION BY UNIT 

(Continued) 

UNITS 

138 138 

54 54 

IDENI’IFIED IDENI’IFIED BY 

BY 

0.1 rem 

Less than to 

0.1 rem 1 rem 

85 44 

38 16 

1 rem 

to 

3rem 

8 

3 rem 

to Greater than 

5 rem 5 rem 

1 

OBSERVER 

UNITS 

OFFICIAL 

OFFICER & 

OBSERVER 

PAR-I-1 PART1 

IDENTIFIED BY 

BY NAME 

2284 

383 

68 

58 

357 

2284 

383 

68 

34 

357 

0.1 rem 1 rem 3rem 

Less than to to to Greater tha 

0.1 rem 1 rem 3 rem 5rem 5 rem 

972 1242 70 

347 36 

40 18 10 

22 12 

317 40 
6.6 SUMMARY OF RADIOLOGICAL SAFETY AT 

This analysis of the radiation safety program considers only 

the Department of Defense personnel (including those assigned to the AEC and its 

laboratories). As a result of the safety measures instituted at the time 

• The total person rem was approximately 5,200. 

Assuming some 14,880 badged participants, this 

results in a mean dose of 0.35 rem. 

• Out of 14,880 dose records, only 111 individuals 

(0.78 of all participants) exceeded 3R for the 

13-week limit; of these 50 exceeded 5 R for the 

yearly limit. 

6.6.1 Overall Results of the EDR Radiological Safety Program 

The final report of Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII contains no 

overall assessment of the Rad-safe program except to say that a total of 33,000 

film badges were processed. Some additional results are quoted in the “After 

Action Reports’* written by the responsible officers The 50th Chemical 

Platoon, which provided Rad-safe monitors and decontamination services, reported 

the following results: 

Personnel monitored 5,725 

Personnel requiring decontamination 7 

Vehicles monitored 867 

Vehicles requiring decontamination 166 

This platoon (which could expect higher than average doses because of its employment during the exercises) also reported on its cumulative dose for each man in 

the platoon : only two persons received R or greater.” The Signal Officer, 

whose personnel processed and read the film badges, reported that “this operation 

was highly successful and the statistics accumulated will provide adequate basis 

upon which to render scientific data for study. 

For the period encompassed by shots ROLTZMANN, FRANKLIN, 

and WILSON (7 May to 20 June one member of the 84th Engineer Battalion 

243 
 

(Company showed a reading of 4.9 roentgens. Other troops received 

level” exposures, but because of the regulations regarding film badge issue and 

turn-in, a period of one week could elapse before report of the film badge reading 

was made. Thus it is difficult to assign a reading to a particular shot. (291) 

The equipment display officer at shot HOOD, who made several return 

trips to the display area in the days following the shot, received 7.2 roentgens. 

This is the only reading detected so far among Project 52.1 participants at shot 

HOOD in excess of the established Exercise Desert Rock criterion of five 

roentgens. 

From 8 July to 30 July 1957, the period encompassing shots DIABLO, JOHN, 

KEPLER, and OWENS, available film badge readings for Project 50.8 participants 

indicate that five cases exceeded the five roentgens-per-year exposure limit; 

three in the survey platoon, one in the 495th AAA Missile Battalion and 

one in the air section. A member of the Radiological Safety Section showed a 

reading of 5.7 roentgens from 19 July to 24 July 1957, the period encompassing 

shots JOHN and KEPLER. The troops received “warning-level” exposures, but because 

of the usual one-week reporting delay, it is difficult to assign a reading to a 

particular shot. 

One member of the 50th Chemical Platoon showed a reading of 5.5 

roentgens from 15 July to 25 July 1957, the period for shots DIABLO to OWENS. 

Other troops received “warning-level” exposure, but because of the usual one-week 

reporting delay, it is difficult to assign a reading to a particular shot. 

6.6.2 Overall Results of the Radiological Safety Program 

The results of the Rad-safe program are best described in the 

words of the Test Manager’s Report (extracted on the following page, pp. 73 and 

74, reference 260; note that this does not differentiate between DOD and AEC 

personnel) : 

Personnel Gamma Overexposure 

Of the total of 9,000 individual radiation 

dosage records maintained by the Support 

Contractor, Nevada Test Organization, there were 22 

individuals that exceeded the 3 R for the 13-week 

244 
guide with only 2 exceeding the 5 R yearly limit. 

These over-exposures can be summarized as follows: 

Three men received their dosage in small 

portions over the 13-week period and were over the 

3 R guide by only a few milliroentgens. 

Four men performed recovery operations in 

about a 10 R/h field and failed to provide proper 

shielding for their samples while returning to the 

Two men on separate recovery operations 

miscalculated their stay time. 

Three men violated Rad-safety regulations and 

entered a radiation field in excess of 10 R/h 

without permission of the Test Director. 

Three men on initial helicopter radiological 

survey became overexposed when the pilot failed to 

pull out of the radiation field on instruction from 

the monitor. 

Seven helicopter pilots received over 3 R for 

13 weeks performing initial radiation surveys and 

recovery missions. Two of these exposures were 

over 5 R for the operation .* 

There were some 17 personnel from the 4950th 

Test Group (Nuclear) performing cloud sampling 

missions that received over 3 R for 13 weeks or 5 R 

for the operation. These had previously been authorized to receive 7.5 R for the operation. 

There were 3 men from the U.S. Naval Air 

Special Weapon Facility, Kirtland Air Force Base, 

who received over 3 R for 13 weeks and 5 R for the 

operation. These men had previously been 

authorized to receive 15 R for the operation. 

For Project 5.5 at shot JOHN, dosimeters in the pilot’s cockpit of an 

F-89D aircraft measured 3.55 roentgens of gamma radiation. Those in the 

observer’s cockpit recorded 2.44 roentgens of gamma radiation. 

*This item on seven helicopter pilots was apparently placed in the Internal 

Exposure section of the reference in error. These seven cases when placed in 

Gamma Overexposure” category, bring the total up to 22, as previously mentioned. 

245 
 Personnel Internal Exposure 

Several incidents occurred during the series which could have led to 

internal exposures. Laboratory analysis of body fluid indicated that no 

significant exposures occurred. These exposures can be summarized as follows: 

During the Project 57 experiment one person 

removed his respiratory protective device while 

in the area of surface plutonium contamination. 

Twelve personnel were exposed to radioactive gas 

in a tower cab. 

Several personnel were exposed while removing 

and cutting a piece of plutonium-contaminated 

cable. 

Four personnel without respiratory protection 

entered a plutonium-contaminated tunnel. They 

left immediately after detecting the plutonium 

contamination. 

246 
REFERENCE LIST 

The following list of references represents all the documents consulted 

during the preparation of the volumes. documents used in writing 

this volume are cited in the text. The reference lists in the shot volumes contain only documents cited in those volumes. 

AVAILABILITY INFORMATION 

An availability statement has been included at the end of the reference 

citation for those readers who wish to read or obtain copies of source documents. 

The following addresses are being provided for that purpose. 

Source documents, bearing an availability statement of DOE CIC, may be 

reviewed at the following address: 

Department of Energy 

Coordination and Information Center 

(Operated by Reynolds Electrical Engineering Co., Inc.) 

ATTN : Mr. Richard V. Nutley 

2753 S. Highland 

Box 14100 Phone : 734-3194 

Las Vegas, Nevada 89114 FTS: 598-3194 

Source documents, bearing an availability statement of NTIS, may be 

purchased from the National Technical Information Service. When ordering by mail 

or phone please include both the price code and the NTIS number. 

National Technical Information Service 

5285 Port Royal Road Phone : 487-4650 

Springfield, Virginia 22161 (Sales Office) 

Additional ordering information or assistance may be obtained by writing to the 

NTIS, Attention: Customer Service or calling 487-4660. 

247 
REFERENCES 

1. Helicopter Squadron. "Special Orders Number 48."

AFB, SC: USAF. 1 page.*** 

Donaldson 

2. 4950th Test Group (Nuclear). "Final Report: Operation PLUMBBOB." Kirtland

AFB, NM: AFSWC. 167 pages. AD/A 995 

3. 4950th Test Group (Nuclear). "Operation Plan l-57, Operation PLUMBBOB."

Kirtland AFB, NM: AFSWC. April 1957. 200 pages. AD/A 995 

4. 4950th Test Group (Nuclear). [Film Badge Requirements.] Kirtland AFB, NM:

AFSWC. 02125157. 2 pages.** 

5. 4950th Test Group (Nuclear). Contamination Study.] Kirtland AFB, NM:

AFSWC. 7 pages.** 

6. 4th Marine Corps Provisional Atomic Exercise BDE.

l-57." Desert Rock VIII. Camp Pendleton, CA: 

80 pages.** 

"Administrative Plan 

4th MCPAE BDE. 

7. 4th Marine Corps Provisional Atomic Exercise BDE. "Administrative Plan 

l-57," Desert Rock VII, Marine Corps, Annex G: Equipment

Demonstration. Camp Pendleton, CA: 4th MCPAE BDE. 06105157. 20 

pages.** 

8. 79th Congress of the United States, 2nd Session. Public Law 585: 

Energy Act of 1946. Washington, DC: GPO. 24 

Atomic 

pages. 

9. 83rd Congress of the United States, 2nd Session, Public Law 703: Atomic 

Energy Act of 1954. Washington, DC: GPO. 16 pages. 

10. AFSWP Field Command Training Division. "Principals of Radiation 

Albuquerque, NM: AFSWP. 02115156. 36 pages.*** 

Detectors." 

11. AFSWP Field Command. "Operation PILGRIM, Operational Planning Guide."

Albuquerque, NM: AFSWP. January 1957. 23 pages.*** 

12. 

Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, DASA. 02123160. 73 pages. WT-1444.

AD/B 951 

13. AFSWP. [Participation of Military Personnel Assigned to Nevada Test

Organization in Exercise Desert Rock. 1 Mercury, NV: AFSWP. 

07110157. 2 pages.** 

Available from NTIS; order number appears before the asterisk.

at DOE CIC. 

Not Available. 

248 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

14. Air Force NTPR Program/SGPR. [Lists of Air Force Personnel at PLUMBBOB, 

Their Job Titles, Present Whereabouts; and Dose Rates.“] Washington, 

DC: USAF, SGPR. 1978. 200 pages.*** 

15. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary for Shot 

FRANKLIN Mercury, NV : AFSWC, Air Support Group. 5 

pages.*** 

16. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary for GALILEO 

Event . Mercury, NV : AFSWC, Air Support Group. 3 pages.** 

17. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary for 

Event Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 5 pages.*** 

18. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary Report for 

CHARLESTON Event.” Mercury, NV: AFSWC,AirSupportGroup. 

3 pages.*** 

19. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary Report for HOOD 

Event. Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 6 pages.** 

20. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary Report for 

MORGAN Event . Mercury, NV : AFSWC, Air Support Group. 2 

pages 

21. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary Report for 

NEWTON Event Mercury, NV : AFSWC, Air Support Group. 3 

pages.*** 

22. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary Report for 

RAINIER Event.” Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 2 

pages.*** 

23. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary Report for 

WHEELER Event Mercury, NV : AFSWC, Air Support Group. 6 

pages.*** 

24. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary Report for 

WHITNEY Event. Mercury, NV : AFSWC, Air Support Group. 3 

pages.*** 

25. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary Report. 

Mercury, NV : AFSWC, Air Support Group. 4 pages.** 

26. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary COULOMB A.” 

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 2 pages.*** 

27. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. “Air Mission Summary, COULOMB B.” 

Mercury, NV : AFSWC, Air Support Group. 2 pages 

249 
-

REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

28. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary, PASCAL A."

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 09128157. 2 pages.*** 

29. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary, SATURN."

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 2 pages.*** 

30. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary, Shot 

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 11 

pages.*** 

31. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Summary, Shot DIABLO." 

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 4 pages.*** 

32. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary. Shot 

DOPPLER." Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. October 1957. 4

pages.*** 

33. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary, Shot FRANKLIN

PRIME." Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. October 1957. 4

pages.*** 

34. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary, Shot JOHN."

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 4 pages.*** 

35. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary, Shot KEPLER."

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group.. 4 pages.*** 

36. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary, Shot

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 2 pages.*** 

37. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary, Shot OWENS."

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 4 pages.*** 

38. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary, Shot SHASTA."

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. October 1957. 4 pages.*** 

39. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary, Shot STOKES."

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 4 pages.*** 

40. Air Force Special Weapons Center, ASG. "Air Mission Summary, Shot WILSON."

Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 4 pages.*** 

41. Force Special Weapons Center, "Air Mission Summary Report for

Event." Mercury, NV: AFSWC, Air Support Group. 

42. Air Operations Center. Air Operations Center History for the Month of

August 1957. Kirtland AFB, NM: USAF. 1957. 5 pages.*** 

43. Albright, G; Beck, E; Ledoux, J; et "Evaluation of Buried 

Steel Arch Structures and Associated Components." Project 3.3. 

Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, DASA. 112 pages. 

WT-1422. AD 615 
..

REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

44. Albright, G; Ledoux, J; Mitchell, R. “Evaluation of Buried Conduits as 

Personnel Structures, Project 3. ‘2” Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, 

DASA. WT-1421. AD 691 

45. Allardice, C. ; Trapnell, E. The Atomic Energy Commission. New York: 

Praeger Publishers. 1974. 236 pages. 

46. Anonymous. Seconds of Atomic Explosion on the Nevada Desert Milwaukee 

Sentinel. Milwaukee, WI: 1 page. 

47. Anonymous. “Biggest A-Blast in U.S. Jolts California Areas.” San Diego 

Union. San Diego, CA: 2 pages. 

48. Anonymous. “Fourth Marine Corps Provisional Exercise Brigade Holds Maneuvers 

After Biggest ‘A’ Bomb.” Camp Desert Rock: July 1957. 1 page. 

49. Anonymous. “Gigantic Atomic Blast is Set Off in the Desert.” (Unknown 

Newspaper). Nevada Test Site, NV: July, 1957. 1 page. 

50. Anonymous. “Tired After Climb” and “HOOD Shot Set for July 3rd 

with Marine Brigade.” Las Vegas Sun. Las Vegas, NV: 3 

pages. 

51. Anonymous. [Collection of Newspaper Articles on the Weapons Test 

Series. 1957. 230 pages. 

52. Anonymous. [List of AF Unit Participation in and OCEANIC Series 

1945-1962.1 San Antonio, TX: Air Force NTPR. 12 pages.*** 

53. Armed Forces Radiobiology Research Institute. The Medical Effects of Nuclear 

Weapons. Washington, DC: AFRRI. October, 1977. 300 pages.*** 

54. Armed Forces Special Weapons Project. [First] History of AFSWP 1947-1954, 

Volume VI; 1953 Chapter 3: Headquarters AFSWP: 1960. 900 pages.*** 

55. Army Artillery and Guided Missile School. Detection of Atomic Burst and 

Radioactive Fallout, Plan of Troop Test. Fort Sill, OK: U.S. Army. 

132 pages.*** 

56. Army Artillery and Missile School. Detection of Atomic Burst and Radioactive 

Fallout, Final Report. Fort Sill, OK: U.S. Army. 364 

pages.*** 

57. Atomic Energy Commission, “Status of Nuclear Test Reports.” Oak Ridge, TN: 

AEC. 107 pages. TID-9534 

58. Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Military Application. [Participation 

of Navy Test Aircraft.] AEC, DMA. (Undated) 5 pages. MR A7, Vol. 

251 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

59. Atomic Energy Commission. “Continental Atomic Tests: Background Information 

For Observers: Operation Mercury, NV:AEC.June 1957. 52 

pages. AD/A 080 

60. Atomic Energy Commission. “Draft Press Release on National Academy of 

Sciences Radiation Study. Washington, DC : AEC, Secretariat . 

17 pages. 

61. Atomic Energy Commission. “Outline Test Manager’s Report; Operation 

PLUMBBOB.” Mercury, NV: AEC. 6 pages.** 

62. Atomic Energy Commission. “PLUMBBOB CTDN-22, Test Director’s Operation 

Plan.” Mercury, NV : AEC, 1957. (undated). 995 

63. Atomic Energy Commission. “Annex G to Test Director’s Operation Plan 

CTDN-22; Special Instructions, PRISCILLA.” Mercury, NV : AEC. 

06120157. (undated) 

64. Atomic Energy Commission. “Annex J to Test Director’s Operation Plan 

CTDN-22; Special Instructions, HOOD.” Mercury, NV: AEC 

65. Atomic Energy Commission. “Annex M to Test Director’s Operation Plan No. 

CTDN-22: Special Instructions, JOHN.” Mercury, NV: AEC. 

4 pages.*** 

66. Atomic Energy Commission. “Annex P to Test Director’s Operation Plan No. 

CTDN-22 : Special Instructions, SHASTA.” Mercury, NV : AEC. 

4 pages.*** 

67. Atomic Energy Commission. “Annex V to Test Director’s Operation Plan No. 

CTDN-22 : Special Instructions, WHEELER.” Mercury, NV: AEC. 

4 pages. 

68. Atomic Energy Commission. “Annex W to Test Director’s Operation Plan 

CTDN-22; Special Instructions, GALILEO.” Mercury, NV: AEC. 

69. Atomic Energy Commission. [Joint AEC/DOD Security Instructions for Arrivals 

at Nevada Test Site.] Mercury, NV: AEC 1957. 8 pages.*** 

70. Atomic Energy Commission. “Schedule of Events for PRISCILLA.” Mercury, NV: 

AEC, OTD. 10 pages 

71. Atomic Energy Commission. “The Effects of Nevada Atomic Tests.” 

[Washington, DC]: AEC. March 1957. 46 pages.** 

72. Atomic Energy Commission. Four Maps of Radiological Safety Activities, 1958 

to 1960. Las Vegas, NV : AEC 1960. 4 pages.*** 

73. Atomic Energy Commission. [General Correspondence. Atomic Energy 

Commission. 1957. 6 pages.** 

252 
 

REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

74. Atomic Energy Commission. [Program and Project Participation in Operation 

PLUMBBOB.] Washington, DC: AEC. 13 pages. 

75. Atomic Energy Commission. [Schedule of Events, D-Day, FRANKLIN Mercury, 

NV: AEC, OTD. 1 page. 

76. Atomic Energy Commission. [Test MH and Las Vegas, NV: AEC. 

1957. 

77. Atomic Energy Commission. [Test PLUMBBOB; NV: AEC. 

1957 .** 

78. Atomic Energy Commission. [Test-NTS-MR and A 7; Project 58.1 Las Vegas, NV: 

AEC. 

79. Atomic Energy Commission. [Test-PLUMBBOB July 1957 through June 1958.1 

Las Vegas, NV: AEC. (undated) 

80. Atomic Energy Commission. [Test-PLUMBBOB MH Radiation No. 1956 through 

June 1958.1 Las Vegas, NV: AEC. 50 pages. 

81. Atomic Energy Commission; Department of Defense. “Joint Public Education and 

Information Plan for Operation AEC. (undated) 10 pages.** 

82. Babers, F. [Personal Journal Account of Project 8.11. Natick, M.A.: U.S. 

Army Quartermaster% Research and Development Branch. 1957. 200 

pages.*** 

83. Babers, F.; A. “Thermal Protection of the Individual Soldier, 

Project 8.1.” Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, DASA. 48 

pages. WT-1440. AD 460 

84. Baldwin, R. “Experiences at Desert Rock VII and VIII.” Washington, DC: 

March 1958. AD/A 044 440, AD 995 069 .* 

85. Ballard, G. [Notes from SAI Interview with George Ballard, USMC 

(Ret.), Subject: Shots HOOD and PRISCILLA.] Houston, TX: U.S. 

Marine Corps. 4 pages.*** 

86. Ballistic Research Laboratories. “Army Ordnance Test, Exercise VII and VIII, 

Project 50.7.” Aberdeen, MD: BRL. 35 pages. AD/A 995 

87. Bastian, C. ; Robbiani, R. “Radar Detection and Observation of Nuclear 

Clouds, Part Desert Rock VII and VIII, Operation PLUMBBOB, 

Project 50.3. Fort Monmouth, NJ. 50 pages. AD 344 

88. Becquerel, H.; Curie, P. Compte Rendu Hebdomadaire des Seances de 

des Sciences. Paris, France: 1901. 1 page.*** 

253 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

89. I.; Franklin, M; Fletcher, E; et al. “Secondary Missiles Generated by 

Nuclear-Produced Blast Waves, 33.2.” Albuquerque, NM: LFMER. 

480 pages. WT-1468. AD 436 

90. Breslin, A.; Loysen, P.; Weinstein, M. “Protection Against Fallout Radiation 

in a Simple Structure, Project 32.1.” Washington, DC: FCDA. 

63 pages. WT-1462. AD 611 

91. Bridgman, L., Ed. Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft. 1955-1956. New York: 

(1956.) 

92. Bridgman, L., Ed. Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft, 1956-1957. New York: 

McGraw-Hill. (1956.) 

93. Bridgman, Ed. Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft, 1951-1952. New York: 

McGraw-Hill. (1951.) 

94. Bridgman, L., Ed. Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft, 1952-1953. New York: 

McGraw-Hill. (1952.) 

95. Bridgman, L., Ed. Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft, 1953-1954. New York : 

McGraw-Hill. (1953.) 

96. Bridgman, L., Ed. Jane’s All the World’s Aircraft, 1957-1958. New York: 

McGraw-Hill. (1957). 

97. Broyles, C.D., et , “Fireball Studies, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 

Albuquerque, NM: Field Command AFSWP. April, 1959. 82 

pages. WT-1517. AD/B 951 

98. Bryant, E.J.; Day, J.D. “Effects of Rough Terrain on Drag-Sensitive Targets, 

Operation PLUMBBOB; Project Ballistic Research Laboratories 

28 pages. WT-1408. AD 344 

99. Bryant, E.J.; Keefer, J.H.; Swift, L.M.; et al. “Effects of Rough and Sloping 

Terrain on Phenomena, Projects and 

Ballistic Research Laboratories; Stanford Research Institute. 

230 pages. WT-1407. AD 452 

100. Bryant, E. ; Keefer, J.H. “Basic Phenomena, Project 1.1.” 

Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, DASA. 202 pages. 

WT-1401. AD 344 

101. Bultmann, E.; Morrison, T.; Johnson, M.R. “Full-Scale Field Tests of Dome 

and Arch Structures, Project 3.6.” Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, 

DASA. 168 pages. WT-1425. AD 355 

102. Bultmann, E; G.; Sinnamon, G. “Loading on Simulated Buried 

Structures at High Incident Overpressures, Project 1.7.” Albuquerque, 

NM: Field Command, DASA. 108 pages. WT-1406. AD 356 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

103. Bultmann, E.; Sevin, E.; Schiffman, T. “Blast Effects on Existing 

UPSHOT-KNOTHOLE and TEAPOT Structures, Project 3.4.” Albuquerque, 

NM: Field Command, DASA. 130 pages. WT-1423. 

AD 460 

104. S. [Letter of Inquiry to Shot HOOD Participants.] Washington, DC: 

Marine Nuclear Test Personnel Review. 1978. 2 pages.*** 

105. S. [Letter of Response to Participants, Subject: Inquiry About 

Desert Rock VII at Shot HOOD.] Washington, DC: Marine Corps Nuclear 

Test Personnel Review. 2 pages.*** 

106. Butler, R.E.; Miller, H.M. “Surface Alpha Monitoring as a Method of 

Measuring Plutonium Fallout.” Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, DASA. 

January, 1961. 39 pages. WT-1513. AD 611 

107. Brady, B. [Notes from SAI Interview with Lt.Col. Byron Brady, USMC, 

Subject: Shots HOOD and PRISCILLA.] 5 pages.*** 

108. Canterbury, W .M., Brig. Gen., USAF. [Radiation Dosage Limitations for 

Atomic Cloud Samplers. Kirtland AFB , NM: AFSWC. 4 

pages.** 

109. Carp, G.; Johnson, 0.; Baldwin, T.; et al. “Initial-Gamma Radiation 

Intensity and Neutron-Induced Gamma Radiation of NTS Operation 

PLUMBBOB, Project 2.5.” Fort Monmouth, NJ: Field Command DASA. 

WT-1414. AD/A 995 

110. Cassen, B.; Gass, H.C. “Measurement and Permanent Recording of Fast 

Neutrons by Effects on Germanium Dosimeters, Project 37.4.” 

University of California, Atomic Energy Project. 18 Pages. ITR-1492. 

AD/A 078 

111. Electronics. Instruction Book and Maintenance Manual for 

Radiological Survey Meter FCDA Item No. CD V-F20. Livingston, N.J: 

Electronics. Undated. 15 pages 

112. Chiment, J.; Goetz, J.; G.C. “Neutron and Gamma Radiation From Shot 

L 4PLA CE , Operation PLUMB BOB, Program 2. 9 pages. 

113. Cohen, E.; Boettenhofer, A. “Test of German Underground Personnel 

Shelters,” Project 30.7. and Whitney. July, 1960. 295 pages. 

WT-1454. AD 691 

114. Cohen, E.; Dobbs, N. “Test of French Underground Personnel Shelters, 

Project 30.6. and Whitney. June, 1960. 295 pages. WT-1453. 

AD 611 
 

REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

115. Cohen, A.; Jachter, M.H.; Koehler, D.K.; et al. "Evaluation of New Types of

Instruments, Project 2.6." Albuquerque, NM: Field Command,

DNA. 75 pages. WT-1415-Ex. AD/B 951 

116. Considine, B. "A-Blast Seen 1,000 Miles Away." Yucca Flat, NV: 

1 page.*** 

117. Coogan, J. SATURN Shot Report. 

118. Cook, C.; Thompson, W.E.,; Tomnover, F.M.; et al. "Neutron-Induced

Activities in Elements, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 2.2."

Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, DNA. 82 pages.

WT-1411-Ex. AD/A 995 

119. Corsbie, R. "Operation PLUMBBOB, Effects Test Group Project 

Summaries," Mercury, NV: FCDA. May 1957. 114 pages.

AD/B 951 

120. Cosenza, C.; Coy, R.; Kahle, D.; et al. "Instrumentation for Measuring

Effects Phenomena Inside the Fireball, Project Albuquerque,

NM: Field Command, DNA. 224 pages. WT-1443-Ex. 

AD/A 995 

121. Cowan, M. "Plutonium Contamination from One-Point Detonation of an XW-25." 

Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, DASA. 138 pages. 

122. Cramer, J.W., CWO, USA, Adjutant Gen. [Form Letter, AMCML 201,

Subject: Exposure to Ionizing Radiation with Hdqrs., Camp Desert Rock 

Memos 9 and 10.1 Presidio, San Francisco: Sixth U.S. Army. 

(Undated.) 10 pages.*** 

123. Cruise, R.; T.; Johnson, G. [General Correspondence Concerning

Radiological Safety.] Los NM: Los Scientific 

Laboratory. 1957. 4 pages.*** 

124. Davis, N.J. "Protection Afforded by Field Fortifications Against Nuclear

Weapons Effects, Project 50.6." Fort Belvoir, VA: ERDL.

61 pages. AD 860 

125. Deeds, F.; Fleming, F.; Stump, R. "Mine-Field Clearance by Nuclear Weapons,

Project 6.1." Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, DASA. 112 

pages. WT-1435. AD 358 

126. DELETED 

127. Defense Atomic Support Agency, Field Command. "Technical Summary of

Military Effects, Albuquerque,NM:

Field Command, DASA. 08115162. 230 pages. WT-1445.

AD 995 

256 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

128. DELETED 

129. C. “Reporter Near Site Likens A-Blast to Raging Tornado.” Yucca 

Flat, NV: 1 page.*** 

130. Department of State, Bureau of Public Affairs, “Documents on Disarmament 

Washington, DC: GPO. August 1960. 

131. Department of the Air Force. 

1956. 150 pages.*** 

“PLUMBBOB Correspondence.” U.S. Air Force. 

132. Department of the Army. “Atomic 

AGO. 145 pages. 

Energy Indoctrination.” 

PAM 20-110 

Washington, DC: 

133. Department of the Army. Radiac Set AN/PDR-27. 

August 1952. 116 pages. 

Washington, DC: AGO. 

134. Department of the Army. 

1956. 54 pages. 

Radiac Set AN/PDR-39. Washington, DC: AGO. July 

135. Department of the Army. “Supplement to Radiac Training Sets 

and and Radiac Set AN/PDR-39.” 

Washington, DC: AGO. 84 pages.*** 

136. Derksen, W. ; T. ; Bracciaventi, J. ; et al. “Prediction of Thermal 

Protection of Uniforms, and Thermal Effects on a Standard Reference 

Material, Project 8.2. Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, DASA. 

50 pages. WT-1441. AD 360 

137. Dick, J.L., Maj., USAF; Baker, T. “Monitoring and Decontamination 

Techniques for Plutonium Fallout on Large Area Surfaces . 

Albuquerque, NM : AFSWC. 03103167. 61 pages. WT-1512. 

AD 810 

138. Diianni, E.; F.C. “Evaluation of Military Radiac, Project 2.8.” 

Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, DASA. 58 pages. WT-1417. 

AD 360 

139. Director of Military Application. [Atomic Energy Commission Proposed Test 

Plans for CY 1957, Report to the General Manager by the DMA. AEC. 

19 pages. AEC 

140. Distenfel, D.; Weaver, C.; R. “Final Report Unit 260 Mobile Off-site 

Radiation Data Collection.” Santa Fe, NM: AEC, OTM. October 1957. 

10 pages.*** 

141. W.K.; et al. “Effects on Materials Exposed to a Nuclear Detonation, 

Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 41. Albuquerque, NM: Field Command 

DASA. November 1964. 142 pages. WT-1519. AD 369 

257 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

142. Edgerton, Germeshausen Grier, Inc. “Gamma Dosimetry by Film-Badge 

Techniques, Project 39. la. Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, DASA . 

103 pages. WT-1466. AD 339 

143. Elder, G. “Effects of Nuclear Detonations on Nike Hercules, Operation 

PLUMBBOB, Project 6.5.” 1960. *** 

144. Elmgren, J. [Letter to the Office of Test Director, Subject: Recovery 

Crews for WHITNEY, with Layout Sketches and Records. Mercury, NV: 

Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. 14 

pages.** 

145. Essington, E.; “Distribution of Radioactivity in and near the 

RAINIER Rubble Chimney.” Las Vegas, NV : Teledgne Isotopes. 

September, 1971. 81 pages. AD/A 076 

146. Evans, R.D. The Atomic Nucleus. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill Publishing Co. 

972 pages. 

147. Evans, W .A. “History of 4950th Test Group (Nuclear) in Operation 

Kirtland AFB, NM: AFSWC. 128 pages. 

148. Flathau, W. ; Breckenridge, R.; Wiehle, C. “Blast Loading and Response of 

Underground Concrete-Arch Protective Structures, Project 3.1. 

Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, DASA. 144 pages. 

WT-1420. AD/B 001 

149. General Electric Company TEMPO. “Compilation of Local Fallout Data from 

Test Detonations, 1945-1962.” Vol. I: Continental U.S. Tests, 

Extracted from DASA 12. Washington, DC: Defense Nuclear Agency. 

1979. 600 pages. Ex] 

150. Gerster, M. “The Special Weapons Center and Atomic Testing.” Kirtland, NM: 

AFSWC. 305 pages. ‘January, 

151. Gilstad, D.; Weeber, C.G.; Kviljord, A.; et al. “Structural Response and 

Gas Dynamics of an Airship Exposed to a Nuclear Detonation, Operation 

PLUMBBOB, Project 5.2.” Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, DASA. 

99 pages. WT-1431. AD 360 

152. Gise, L. [Memorandum for Test Manager, Subject: AEC Unofficial Observers, 

with Attachment. 1 Washington, DC: AEC, Division of Military 

Application. 4 pages.** 

153. Gise, L.P., Ass’t Director, [Memo to: R.F. Hertford, Manager, 

Subject: USAF-AEC Agreement on Use of Lookout Mountain Lab at 

Washington, DC: Atomic Energy Commission, DMA. 

29 pages. 

154. Glasstone, S.D.; Dolan, P.H. The Effects of Nuclear Weapons. Washington, 

DC: GPO. 1977. 653 pages. 
 

REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

155. Goetz, J.; Kaul, D.; et al. “Analysis of Radiation Exposure for Task Force 

Warrior, Shot SMOKY, Washington, DC: Defense Nuclear Agency. 

112 pages. DNA-4747F. AD/A 070 

156. Goetz, J. ; Kaul, D. ; Klemm, J. ; et al. “Analysis of Radiation Exposure for 

Task Force BIG BANG, Shot GALILEO, Exercise Desert Rock VII-VIII, 

Operation Washington, DC: Defense Nuclear Agency. 

97 pages. DNA-4772F. AD/A 085 

157. Goetz, J. [Calculations on Scaling DIABLO Equipment Display Area for HOOD.] 

McLean, VA : Science Applications, Inc. 2 pages. *** 

158. Goldizen, V.C., et al. “Missile Studies with a Biological Target, Project 

33.4.” Albuquerque, NM: Foundation; CETG. 1960. 64 

pages. AD/A 077 

159. Goode, T. ; Shockley, W. ; Cunny, R. ; et al. “Soil Survey and Backfill 

Control in Frenchman Fiat, Project 3.8 Albuquerque, NM : Field 

Command, DASA. 174 pages. WT-1427. AD 460 

160. Greene, W. ; Minge, W.; Yost, “History of the AFSWC for 1 

31 December 1957,” Volume 1: Narrative; and Volume 2: Appendix. 

Kirtland AFB, NM: AFSWC. June, 1958. 212 pages. 

161. Greig, A.; Pearse, II. “Thermal Radiation Measurements (Parts I and II), 

Project 39.3. [Washington, DC]: AEC. January, 1958. 38 pages. 

ITR-1502. 078 

162. W. ; Metcalf, R.; Wilson, M; et al. “Evaluation of Eye Protection 

Afforded by an Electromechanical Shutter , Project 4.2. Albuquerque, 

NM: Field Command, DASA. 54 pages. WT-1429. 

AD 615 

163. P.; Shaull, J.; Behrens, W. “Effect of Nuclear Radiation on 

Devices, Project Albuquerque, NM : Field 

Command, DASA. 22 pages. WT-1489. AD 339 

164. P.; Wimenitz, F.; Hoadley, J.; et al. “Measurement of the Magnetic 

Component of the Electromagnetic Field Near a Nuclear Detonation, 

Project 6.2.” Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, DASA. 68 

pages. WT-1436. AD/B 951 

165. Halsey, J.; Barton, M. “Spectra of Ground Shocks Produced by Nuclear 

Detonations, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 1.9 Albuquerque, NM : 

Field Command, 99 pages. WT-1487. AD 491 

166. Hanlon, P. ; Cooper, S.E. ; Ives, ; et al. “Field Test of a System for 

Measuring Blast Phenomena by Airborne Gauges, Operation PLUMBBOB, 

Project 1.2.” White Oak, MD: Naval Ordnance Lab. 20 

ITR-1402. AD/B 951 

259 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

167. Hanscome, T.; P. ; Gorbics, S. ; et al. “Investigation of Effects 

of Nuclear Detonations on Propagation and Nuclear 

Radiation Detector Design, Project 2.7. Albuquerque, NM : Field 

Command, DNA. 102 pages. WT-1416-Ex. AD/A 995 

168. Harner, E.L. “Summary of Technical Experiments to Determine Effects of 

Atmospheric Nuclear Test Series on Military Targets,” Washington, DC: 

DNA. May, 1976. 114 pages. DASIAC 

169. Headquarters, Camp Desert Rock. Action Reports by Technical Services 

Chiefs, Operation PLUMBBOB, Camp Desert Rock VII and VIII. Camp 

Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs. Camp Desert Rock. 1957. 100 pages. 

AD 080 

170. Headquarters, Camp Desert Rock. [Memoranda, May-June 1957 Camp 

Desert Rock, NV : Hdqrs., Camp Desert Rock. 57. 107 pages. 

AD 080 

171. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII VIII. Operation Order Number 7, 

Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII, Shot HOOD. Camp Desert Rock, NV: 

Hdqrs., Camp Desert Rock. 39 pages.** 

172. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. ‘Report of Test, Infantry 

Troop Test, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII.” Camp Irwin, CA: 

Hdqrs., Ex. Desert Rock. 90 pages. AD/A 075 

173. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order 17 ; 

Desert Rock VII and VIII; SMOKY.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs., 

Camp Desert Rock. 60 pages. AD/A 995 

174. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 1, 

Desert Rock VII, BOLTZMANN.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs., Camp 

Desert Rock. 23 pages. AD/A 080 

175. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 

10, Desert Rock VII and VIII, PASCAL A.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: 

Hdqrs., Camp Desert Rock. 11 pages. AD 080 

176. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 

11, Desert Rock VII and VIII, JOHN.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs., 

Camp Desert Rock. 23 pages. AD/A 080 

177. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 

12, Desert Rock VII and VIII, KEPLER,” Camp Desert Rock, NV: Camp 

Desert Rock. 25 pages. AD 080 

178. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 

13, Desert Rock VII and VIII, SHASTA.” Camp Desert Rock. 

31 pages.*** 

260 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

179. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 

14, Desert Rock VII and VIII, STOKES.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: 

Hdqrs. , Camp Desert Rock. 22 pages.*** 

180. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 

15, Desert Rock VII and VIII, SATURN Camp Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs., 

Camp Desert Rock. 11 pages.*** 

181. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 

16, Desert Rock VII and VIII, FRANKLIN PRIME.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: 

Hdqrs., Camp Desert Rock. 15 pages.*** 

182. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 

18, Desert Rock VII and VIII, DOPPLER.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: Camp 

Desert Rock. 25 pages 

183. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 2, 

Desert Rock VII and VIII, FRANKLIN.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs., 

Camp Desert Rock. 23 pages. AD/A 080 

184. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 20 

and 21, Desert Rock VII and VIII; WHEELER and LAPLACE.” Camp Desert 

Rock, NV: Hdqrs., Camp Desert Rock. 30 pages 

185. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 3, 

Desert Rock VII, Camp Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs., Camp Desert 

Rock. 8 pages. AD/A 080 

186. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 4, 

Desert Rock VII and VIII, WILSON.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs., 

Camp Desert Rock. 26 pages. 080 

187. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 5, 

Desert Rock VII and VIII, PRISCILLA.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs., 

Camp Desert Rock. 40 pages. AD/A 080 

188. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 6, 

Desert Rock VII and VIII, DIABLO.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs., 

Camp Desert Rock. 55 pages. 080 

189. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 8, 

Desert Rock VII and VIII, OWENS Camp Desert Rock, NV : Hdqrs., Camp 

Desert Rock. 55 pages.** 

190. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. “Operation Order Number 9, 

Desert Rock VII and VIII, DIABLO.” Camp Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs., 

Camp Desert Rock. 16 Pages. 

191. Headquarters, Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII. Annex C: Rad-safety Plan 

for Opn. 07 [Desert Rock VII.] Camp Desert Rock, NV: Hdqrs., Camp 

Desert 4 pages.*** 

261 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

192. Headquarters, Lexington Blue Grass. Letter to: S.E. Weary 

Subject: Film Badge Information. Lexington, KY: SDSRR-LQCP, Army 

Depot. 2 pages.** 

193. Headquarters, Sharpe General Depot. [Correspondence File, Subject: Monthly 

Cost Reports. 1 Lathrop, CA. 1957. 7 pages.*** 

194. Headquarters, S harpe General Depot. [Memorandum, Subject : Request and 

Authorization for Civilian Travel at Government Expense.] Lathrop, CA. 

1957. 3 pages.*** 

195. Headquarters, harpe General Depot. [Miscellaneous Telegrams 19571. 

Lathrop, CA. 1957. 12 pages 

196. Headquarters, Sharpe General Depot. [Special Orders, March-August, 19571. 

Lathrop, CA. 1957. 25 pages 

197. Headquarters, Sixth Army, OCG. “Camp Desert Rock Information Book, U.S. 

Army, 1957. Presidio, San Francisco: Sixth U.S. Army. (Undated) 

14 pages.*** 

198. Headquarters, Sixth Army. “Directive for Exercise Desert Rock VII and 

VIII.” Presidio, San Francisco: Sixth U.S. Army. 35 

pages. AD/A 995 

199. Headquarters, Sixth Army. Change 1 to Directive for Exercise Desert Rock 

VII and VIII. Presidio, San Francisco: Hdqrs., Sixth Army. 

30 pages. 

200. Headquarters, Sixth Army. Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII: Final Report 

of Operations. Presidio, San Francisco: Sixth U.S. Army. 

107 pages. AG-S-9531. AD/A 077 

201. Headquarters, Sixth Army. Letter of Instruction, Subject: Use of Camp 

Desert Rock, Nevada, to Support Special Field Exercises, with 1 encl. 

Presidio, San Francisco: Sixth U.S. Army. 4 pages. 

AD/A 080 

202. Hertford, K. , Manager, Albuquerque Operations. [Memorandum to Test Manager, 

Subject: Directive for Operation Albuquerque, NM: Atomic 

Energy Commission. ETP : CLL-3492. 5 pages.*** 

203. Houghten, R.; Harvey, R. “Accuracy and Reliability of a Short-Baseline 

NAROL System, Project 6.4.” Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, AFSWP. 

81 pages. ITR-1438. AD/A 995 

204. Hunter, W .A., Col., USAF. [Letter to J .E. Reeves, Director, Test Division, 

Subject: Future Cloud Sampling Requirements. Kirtland AFB, NM: 

AFSWC, Operations Division 1 page.*** 

262 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

205. Hurst, G.S Ritchie, R.H. “Radiation Dosimetry for Human Exposures, 

Project 39.5. Oak Ridge, Tennessee: ORNL. March 1958. 147 pages. 

WT-1504. AD/B 951 

206. DELETED (See Reference 

207. Hynes, R.J., Lt. Col., USAF. [Letter to Test Manager, Subject: Film Badge 

Requirements.] Kirtland AFB, NM: Air Force Special Weapons Center. 

3 pages.*** 

208. Imirie, G.W.; et al. “Depth Dose Studies in Phantoms with Initial Bomb and 

Neutron Radiation. Naval Medical School; Brookhaven National 

Laboratory. October 1958. 61 pages. WT-1508. AD/B 951 

209. Johnson, Gerald “Test Director’s Report on Operation Livermore, 

CA: University of California Radiation Laboratory. 90 

pages. UCRL 5166. AD/A 995 

210. Johnson, G. [Memo to J.E. Reeves, Test Manager, Subject: Retention of 

Aircraft. Mercury, NV : Atomic Energy Commission, . 

1 page.*** 

211. Joint Board on Future Storage of Atomic Weapons. “Safety Criteria for 

Storage Handling of Plutonium Bearing Weapons. Washington, DC: 

Defense Atomic Support Agency. 1959. 25 pages 

212. Jones, T.H. “A Prediction System for the Neutron-Induced Activity 

Contribution to Fallout Exposure Rates.” San Francisco, CA: Naval 

Radiological Defense Laboratory. October 1956. 50 pages. 

NRDL-TR-1056. AD 639 

213. Julian, A. “In-flight Structural Response of FJ-4 Aircraft to Nuclear 

Detonations, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project Washington, DC: 

Bureau of Aeronautics. WT-1432. AD 360 

214. Kaericher, K. C. ; Martin, T.P. ; Banks, J.E. “Nuclear Radiation Received by 

Firing the MB-I Rocket, Operation PLUMBBOB, Project 2.9.” 

Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, DASA. 18 pages. WT-1418. 

AD/B 951 

215. Kennedy, E. “Documents to be Released at Senate Health Subcommittee Hearing 

Held in Salt Lake City on Health Effects of Nuclear Tests.” 

Washington, DC: U.S. Senate. 80 pages. 

216. Kennedy, E . “Statements on Introduced Bills and Joint Resolutions 

Washington, DC : U.S. Senate. 5 pages. Vol. 125, No. 

135. 

217. B.; Emmons, A. “Field Radiological Defense Technical Operations,” 

Washington, DC : Department of Commerce, OTS. 32 pages. 

WT-1482. AD 611 

263 
 

REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

218. Krey, P.; E., J.; e t al. “Soil Activation by Neutrons, 

Project 2.1.” Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, DASA. 116 

pages. WT-1410. AD/A 995 

219. Kuhn, U.; Kyner, R. “Large-Animal Neutron-Gamma Irradiation Experiment, 

Project Oak Ridge, Tennessee: AEC. May 1958. 55 pages. 

ITR-1476. AD/A 077 

220. Lapp, E. ; Andrews, H .L. Nuclear Radiation Physics. 2nd Edition. New 

York, NY: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1954. 532 pages. 

221. Lariviere, P.D.; Brown, S .L; Sartor, J.D.; et al. “Local Fallout from 

Nuclear Test Detonations, in Transport and Distribution of Local 

(Early) Fallout From Nuclear Weapon Tests Arsenal, MD: 

Army Nuclear Defense Laboratory May, 1965. 579 pages. DASA 1251. 

Vol. 

222. Larson, K.H. “Distribution, Characteristics, and Biotic Availability of 

Fallout, Operation PLUMBBOB, Projects 37.1, 37.2, 37.3, and 37.6.” 

University of California. 07126166. 276 pages. WT-1488. 

AD/A 077 

223. Laug, E.; Leininger, H. “Blast Effects on Glass Vacuum Containers, Project 

38.1-11.” Battle Creek, MI.: FCDA. March 1958. 14 pages. WT-1461. 

AD 611 

224. Laursen, H . The Use of Balloons to Suspend Nuclear Test Devices, Project 

63.1.” Albuquerque, NM : Sandia Corporation. 71 pages. 

WT-1522. 995 

225. Lee, W.; Krumboltz, H.; Glimber, G. “Attenuation of Electromagnetic 

Radiation Through an Ionized Medium, Project 6.3.” Albuquerque, NM: 

Field Command, DASA . 60 pages. WT-1437. AD 311 

226. Leininger, H . Laug, E.; Chapman, R.; et al. “Effect of Fallout 

Contamination on Raw Agricultural Products, Project 38.1” Battle 

Creek, MI: FCDA. March 1958. 18 pages. WT-1497. AD 607 

227. Leininger, H.; Laug, E.; McConnell, H.; et al. “Effect of Fallout 

Contamination on Processed Foods, Containers and Packaging, Project 

Battle Creek, MI: FCDA. March 1958. 19 pages. WT-1496. 

AD 611 

228. Leya, Charles, Jr. [Notes From SAI Interview with Former 1st Lt. Charles 

Leya, USMC, on Shot HOOD and Project 52.1, and Shot PRISCILLA and 

HOOD.] NY: 4 pages.*** 

229. M. “Radiological Defense Operations Photography, Project 36.3.” 

Washington, DC: FCDA. 42 pages. WT-1484. AD/A 995 

264 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

230. Lock, H. “HOOD Shot” [One Marine’s Personal Recollection.] Washington, D.C.: Marine Nuclear Test Personnel Review. 1979. 2 pages .*** 

231. Marine Corps Nuclear Test Personnel Review. Operation : List of 

Participation Units. Washington, DC: Marine Nuclear Test Personnel 

Review. 1979. 1 page.** 

232. R.L. “Chance Observations of Fallout Cloud Transit Radiation at 

Operation PLUMBBOB.” San Francisco: NRDL. 16 pages. 

Rev. AD 239 

233. McConnell, H.; Chapman, R.; Spiher, A.; et al. ‘Measuring and Monitoring 

Training Exercise : Foodstuffs, 38.3. Battle Creek, MI: 

FCDA. December, 1959. 28 pages. WT-1498. AD 611 

234. McDonnell, G.; Crosby, W.; Tessmer, C. “Effects of Nuclear Detonations on a 

Large Biological Specimen (Swine), Project 4.1.” Albuquerque, NM : 

Field Command, DASA. 200 pages. WT-1428. AD 460 

235. J.H.; et al. “External Neutron Measurements, 1952 through 1958.” 

Arsenal, MD : U . S . Chemical Warfare Laboratories. March, 

1968. 135 pages. CWLR-2377 .*** 

236. Meszaros, 6.; Burden, H.; Day, J. “Instrumentation of Structures for 

and Ground-Shock Effects, Project 3.7.” Albuquerque, NM: 

Field Command, AFSWP. 62 pages. ITR-1426. AD/B 951 598, 

AD 611 

237. Meszaros, J.; Keefer, J.; Day, J. ‘Blast Measurements for CETG Projects, 

Project 39.2. Washington, DC: OTS. April 1960. 96 pages. 

WT-1501. AD 350. 

238. Metzger , H . The Atomic Establishment. Simon and Schuster: New York. 

1972. 318 pages. 

239. Miller, C.F. “Analysis of Radiological Decontamination Data Obtained from Field Tests.” San Francisco, CA: NRDL. 80 pages. TR-321. AD 219 

240. Miller, C.F. “Some Properties of Radioactive Fallout : Balloon-Mounted Shot 

PRISCILLA San Mateo, CA: URS Research Co. September 1969. 16 

pages. URS7574 

241. Miller, C.F. Properties of Radioactive Fallout: Surface Detonation 

COULOMB C: Final Report. San Mateo, CA: URS Research Co. 

September 1969. 23 pages.*** 

242. Milligan, M.; Salop, J.; Weaver, C. [Letters to AEC and NRL, Subject: 

Results of Radiation Exposure. Los NM: Los 

Scientific Laboratory. 3 pages.** 

265 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

243. Morgan, K.Z. “Cancer and Low Level Ionizing Radiation.” Bulletin of the 

Atomic Scientists. Chicago, Illinois: September 1978. 12 pages. 

Vol. 34, 

244. Morgan, K.Z.; Turner, J.E. Principles of Radiation Protection: A Textbook 

of Health Physics. New York, NY: R.E. Krieger Publishing Co. 1973. 

622 pages. 

245. Morgenthau, M.; Meieram, H.B.; Showers, R.; et al. “Vol II: Compilation of 

Fallout Patterns and Related Data. Part 2: Through HARDTACK 

Arsenal MD: Army Nuclear Defense Laboratory. August 

1963. 456 pages. DASA1251 Vol. II 

246. National Bureau of Standards. “Maximum Permissible Radiation Exposures to 

Man” (Addendum to National Bureau of Standards Handbook 

Washington, DC: NBS. 7 pages. Handbook 

247. Negron, R. ; Murphy, H. [Notes of Telephone Interviews to Reconstruct Marine 

Activities at Shot HOOD.] Washington, DC: Marine NTPR. April 1978. 

21 pages.*** 

248. Obermiller, S. ; Lowery, C. Jordan, C; et al. “Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons 

Tests : Exposure Badge, and Decontamination 

Summary. Washington, DC: Defense Nuclear Agency. 65 

pages.*** 

249. Office of Test Information. “Background Information of Nevada 

Tests.” Las Vegas, NV: AEC. 75 pages.*** 

Nuclear 

250. Office of the Deputy Director. “Plan for the U.S. Army Infantry Battle 

Group Test, for Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII.” Camp Desert Rock, 

NV: Hqdrs., Camp Desert Rock. 1957. 125 pages. Ex Memo 

251. Pearce, G. [Notes from SAI Interview with Lt. Col. Gary Pearce, USMC 

(Ret.), Equipment Officer, 4th McLean, VA. 1 

page.*** 

252. W. “Ground Motion Studies at High Incident Overpressure, Project 

1.5.” Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, DASA. 85 pages. 

WT-1405. AD 611 

253. Pickering, J. [Memo to AMDIRDR, Subject: USAF School of Aero Space 

Medicine Involvement in Atmospheric Nuclear Weapons Tests. Brooks 

AFB, TX: US Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine. 4 

pages.*** 

254. Pickering, J. Williams, D.; Melville, G. “Biological Effects of Nuclear 

Radiation on the Monkey: Two-Year Evaluation, Project 39.6,” 

(Supplement Oak Ridge, TN: ORNL. June, 1959. 51 pages. 

WT-1542. AD 611 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

255. Placak, O., Carter, M. ; R; et al. “Operation PLUMRBOB 

Radiological Safety Report.” Mercury, NV: REECo. 1957. 194 pages. 

AD/A 075 

256. Plum, W. “Performance of a High-Speed Spectrographic System, Project 

San Francisco, CA: NRDL. 200 pages. ITR-1442. AD/A 077 

257. Reed, J. “Operation : Blast and Prediction Units. Albuquerque, 

NM: Sandia Laboratory. 12 pages. 

258. Reeves, J. [Letter to Col. P.R. Wignall, 4950th Test Group (Nuclear), 

Subject: Crew Dosage, MG-1 Shot.] Albuquerque, NM: Atomic Energy 

Commission. 2 pages.*** 

259. Reeves, J. [Memo to Test Director, Subject: Participation of Military 

Personnel Assigned to the Nevada Test Organization in Desert Rock 

Exercises] Mercury, NV: 2 pages.*** 

260. Reeves, J. [Selected Extracts From: Report of the Test Manager, Operation 

PLUMBBOB.] Nevada Test Site. AD/A 995 

261. Reeves, J. [Telex Concerning Shots SMOKY and GALILEO.] Mercury, NV: Nevada 

Test Organization. 1957. 6 pages.** 

262. Reeves, J. [Telex to Distribution, Subject: Shots JOHN and OWENS.] 

Mercury, NV: Atomic Energy Commission. 3 pages.*** 

263. Reeves, J. [Telexes from Test Manager to Division of Military Applications 

Following Detonations. Mercury, NV: Atomic Energy Commission. 

1957. 20 pages.** 

264. Reinhardt, G.C., Col., USA; Kintner, W.R., Lt. Col. USA. in 

Land Combat. Harrisburg, PA : Military Service Publishing Co. 

August 1954. 243 pages.*** 

265. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. Rad-safe Support, 

Shot MORGAN.” Mercury, NV: REECo. 1957. 12 pages 

266. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. Rad-safe Support, 

Shot PRISCILLA.” Las Vegas, NV: REECo. 1957 

267. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. Rad-safe Support, 

Shot HOOD.” Mercury, NV: REECo. 1957. 7 pages.** 

268. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. Rad-safe Support: 

Shots DIABLO through FRANKLIN PRIME”. Mercury, NV: REECo. 

269. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. Rad-safe Support, 

COULOMB A.” Mercury, NV: REECo. 10 pages.** 

267 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

270. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. Rad-safe Support, 

Shot FRANKLIN.” Mercury, NV: REECo. 10 pages.** 

271. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. Rad-safe Support, 

Shot Mercury, NV: REECo. 10 pages.** 

272. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. Rad-safe Support, 

Shot WILSON.” Mercury, NV: REECo. 10 pages.** 

273. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. “Photographic Dosimetry, 

Third Supplemental Evaluation.” Mercury, NV: REECo. 7 

pages.** 

274. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. [Access Permits, PASCAL 

A.1 Mercury, NV: REECo. 6 pages.** 

275. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. 

Survey and Recovery Operations Access Permits. 

1957. 20 pages.** 

FIZ EAU Radiological 

Mercury, NV : REECo. 

276. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. [Rad-safe Division Files, 

Subject: Radiological Safety Division Monitoring and Recovery Parties 

Access Plans. 1 Mercury, NV : Reynolds Electrical and Engineering 

Company, Inc. 9 pages.** 

277. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. 

PASCAL B Mercury, NV: REECo. 1957. 

Recovery Operations, 

3 pages.** 

278. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. REECo Dosimetry Records, 

31 August 1957 and 1 August 31 August 1957.1 Mercury, NV: REECo. 

279. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company. “Monitor’s Maze and 

Information Bulletins. Mercury, NV : REECo. (Undated. 300 pages 

280. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company. 

GALILEO Las Vegas, NV : REECo. 1957 

Rad-safe Support, Shot 

281. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company. Radiological Safety Handbook 

for Nevada Test Site 1957. Mercury, NV: REECo. 1957. 29 pages.** 

282. Reynqlds Electrical and Engineering Company. [Access Permits for 

Recovery Operations. Mercury, NV: REECo. 1957. 16 pages.** 

283. Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company, Inc. Rad-safe Division 

Files, Subject: NEWTON Radiological Survey Access Permits and Isodose 

Maps.1 Mercury, NV: Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Company. 

1957. 11 pages.** 

284. Richards, W. ; Watson, B . 

Fort Monmouth, NJ: 

“Operations of the Fallout Group of Project 50.3.” 

U.S. Army. 77 pages. AD 252 

268 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

285. Richmond, D .R. ; et al. “Blast Biology A Study of the Primary and Tertiary 

Effects of Blast in Open Underground Protective Shelters.” Oak Ridge, 

TN: ORNL. February, 1959. 68 pages. WT-1467. AD/A 077 

286. Richmond, D.; White, C.; Sanchez, R. Internal Environment of 

Underground Structures Subjected to Nuclear Blast. II Effects of Mice 

Located in Heavy Concrete.” Oak Ridge, TN.: ORNL. 48 

pages. WT-1507. AD 611 

287. Rigotti, D.; 

Nuclear 

DASA. 

H.; 

Devices, 

H.; et al. “Neutron Flux From Selected 

Project Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, 

63 pages. WT-1412. AD/A 995 

288. G.G. ; Woodward, R.L. Muschler, W.K. “Water Contamination in 

Fallout Areas.” Cincinnati, OH Robert A. Taft Engineering Center. 

May, 1958. 50 pages.*** 

289. Saunders, David I., MAJ., USA. Report, Radiological Safety Section, 

Exercise Desert Rock VII and VIII,” with 6 encls. Camp Desert Rock, 

NV: Hdqrs., Camp Desert Rock. 1957. pages 

290. E.A. “Fallout Studies and Assessment of Radiological Phenomena, 

Project 32.4.” Washington, DC: DNA. October 1979. 112 pages. 

WT-1465 AD/A 995 

291. Science Applications, Inc. Film Badge Dosimetry Analysis : Exercise 

VII-VIII. McLean, VA: SAI. 345 pages.*** 

Desert 

292. Sherwood, A.M., Maj., USAF. [Letter to J.E. Reeves, Test Manager, Subject: 

Air Photographic and Charting Service United States Air Force.] Los 

Angeles, CA : 1352nd Motion Picture Sqdn., USAF. 2 pages.** 

293. Sigoloff, S . “Remote Radiological Monitoring, Project 39.0.” Mercury, NV 

Civil Effects Test Group. 1960. 50 pages. WT-1509. AD/A 077 

: 

294. Sigoloff, S.; Logie, L.; H.; et al. “Radiation Measurements 

Utilizing the USAF Chemical Dosimeters, Project 39.1. Albuquerque, 

NM: Field Command, AFSWP. 1958. 66 pages. WT-1500. AD 339 

295. Smith, R.J.; et al. “Initial Gamma Data from Nuclear Weapons Tests 1940-

1962. Arsenal, MD : U.S. Army Nuclear Defense Laboratory. 

July 1965. NDL-TR-53.*** 

296. Sobsey, C. “Biggest Blast of Series Damages Control House,” Los Angeles 

Examiner. Los Angeles, CA: 2 pages. 

297. Stalk, G.; Gee, R.; Bednar, J.; et al. “In-flight Structural Response of an 

F-89D Aircraft to a Nuclear Detonation, Project Albuquerque, 

NM: Field Command, DASA. 56 pages. WT-1434. AD 357 

269 
 

REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

298. S A. to: J.E. Reeves, Test Manager, Subject: Classified 

Report for Operation PLUMBBOB. Washington, DC: Atomic 

Energy Commission. 5 pages.** 

299. Strauss, Lewis. “Letter to President Eisenhower from Chairman of the AEC.” 

AEC. 2 pages.** 

300. Strope, W. “Project 32.3: Evaluation of Countermeasure System Components 

and Operational Procedures San Francisco, CA: Civil Effects Test 

Group. 159 pages. WT-1464. AD 611 

301. Suhosky, R. “Biggest Shot. Marine Corps, DOD. September 1957. 6 pages.*** 

302. Swift, L. “Project 1.4 : Stress and Strain at High Incident Overpressures.” 

Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, DASA. 136 pages. 

WT-1404. AD 491 

303. Swift, L.; Sachs, D.; Kriebel, A. “Air-blast Phenomena in the High-Pressure 

Region, Project 1.3.” Albuquerque, NM: Field Command, DASA . 

15160. 134 pages. WT-1403. AD 611 

304. Taplin, G. ; Malin, K. ; ; et al. “Chemical Dosimetry of Prompt 

and Residual Radiations from Nuclear Detonations, Project 37.5.” Oak 

Ridge, TN: ORNL. July 1960. 34 pages. WT-1493. AD 611 

305. Taylor, L.B. History of the Air Force Atomic Cloud Sampling Volume 1 

Narrative and Volume 2, Appendix. Kirtland AFB, NM: AFSWC. January 

1963. 330 pages. 

306. Taylor, L. “Radiation Protection 

May 1977. 110 pages 

Standards.” Cleveland, OH : CRC Press. 

307. Tomnovec, F.M. “Review of Neutron-Induced Activity Studies.” ST : The Fields 

of Calculated Neutron-Induced Radiation Fields San Francisco, 

CA: Naval Research Defense Lab. October, 1965. 76 pages. NRDL 

TR 

308. Tompkins, R.; Weaver, C.; Peterson, G. “Neutron and Initial-Gamma 

Shielding, Project 2.4.” Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, DASA. 

120 pages. WT-1413. 995 

309. Tschirgi, H. [Statement by Brig. Gen. Harvey Tschirgi, USMC (Ret.), former 

C.G., 4th MCPAEB, to Capt. James . Washington, DC: 

Marine Corps NTPR. 1979. 1 page.*** 

310. United States Department of Commerce. “Local Climatological Data. 

[Readings Taken at Field, Las Vegas, from March to October, 

1957.1 Washington, DC: USGPO. 1957. 24 pages 

270 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

311. U.S. Army, Office of the Chief of Military History. “Chapter 26: The Army 

and the New Look.” (In: American Military History.) Washington, DC: 

Department of the Army. 1969. 18 pages. 

312. USAF, NTPR Brooks AFB. [Historical Files, Reading File, Nevada 

Test Site, Subject: Air Force Personnel in Operation 

Brooks AFB, TX:] U .S . Air Force. 1978. 5 pages.*** 

313. Vaile, R. “Isolation of Structures from Ground Shock, Project 

Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, DASA. 68 

WT-1424-l.*** 

pages. 

314. Van Horn, W.H. “Protection of Engineer Heavy Equipment 

Radiologically Contaminated Areas. Fort Belvoir, VA : 

69 pages. 

Operators in 

Army, ERDL. 

315. Walker, E. ; Wignall, P. Correspondence from USAF Commands 

Subject: Sampler Crew Dosage. United States Air Force. 

pages.** 

to AEC, 

1957. 4 

316. Walls, J. “In-flight Structural Response of the Model Aircraft to a 

Nuclear Explosion, Project 5.4. Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, 

DASA. 186 pages. WT-1433. AD 355 562 .* 

317. Walls, J.; Heslin, N. “In-flight Structural Response of an HSS-1 Helicopter 

to a Nuclear Detonation, Project 5.1.” Albuquerque, NM : Field 

Command, DASA. 88 pages. WT-1430. AD 360 

318. DELETED 

319. Weary, S.; Ozeroff, W.; Nelson, A.; et al. Shot SMOKY, A Test of the 

Series, 31 August 1957. Washington, DC: Defense Nuclear 

Agency. DNA Report: 6004F. 154 pages.* 

320. Werdig, G. “Public Health Activities Conducted by the Public Health 

Service.” USPHS. June, 1964. 24 pages.*** 

321. Wignall, P.R., Col., USAF. [Letter to G.W. Johnson, OTD, Subject: 

Contamination Build-up Study, with encl.] Camp Mercury, NV: 

U.S. Air Force, Air Support Group. 7 pages 

322. Wignall, P.R., Col., USAF. [Letter to J.E. Reeves, Test Manager, Subject: 

Operating Procedures for Cloud Tracking with Attachments.] Camp 

Mercury, NV : USAF, Air Support Group. 06104157. 7 pages.** 

323. Wignall, P.R., Col., USAF. [Memorandum to 

Dosage, MB-l Shot.] Kirtland AFB, NM: 

4 pages.*** 

Test Manager, Subject: Crew 

4950th Test Group (Nuclear). 

271 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

324. Wilcox, F. Shot COULOMB Mercury,NV: REECo.

46 pages.** 

325. Wilcox, F. Rad-safe Support, Shot PASCAL Mercury, NV: REECo.

45 pages.** 

326. Wilcox, F. "Qualified Monitors." Mercury, NV: REECo. 3 pages. 

327. Wilcox, F. "Radiological Safety Training: Instructor's Handbook." Mercury, 

NV: REECo. January 1961. 145 pages.** 

328. Wilcox, F.; et al. Subject: URANUS Event, March 

1958.1 AEC, Office of the Test Manager. Mercury, NV. March 1958. 

19 pages.** 

329. Wilcox, F.; et al. [REECo File, Subject: VENUS Event, and 

February -June 1958.1 AEC, Office of the Test Manager. Mercury, NV.

37 pages.*** 

330. Wilcox, F. [Memos: Radiological Data, Shot BOLTZMANN.] Mercury, NV: 

REECo. 24 pages.** 

331. Wilcox, F. [Memos: Radiological Data, Shot COULOMB Mercury, NV:

REECo. 09109157. 25 pages.** 

332. Wilcox, F. [Notes and Records, Subject: Radiological Data, Shot WHEELER.]

Mercury, NV: REECo. 1957. 20 pages.** 

333. Wilcox, F. [Post-shot Activity Plans and Access Permits.] Mercury, NV: 

REECo. 6 pages.** 

334. Wilcox, F.; R.; Weaver, C. "Operation Radiological

Safety Support Report." Albuquerque, NM: REECo. 1957. 250 pages.

335. Wilcox, F.; [Ed.] "Emergency Radiation Monitoring Team Training Manual,

1959. Mercury, NV: REECo. November 1959. 67 pages.*** 

336. Wilson, R.H.; Thomas, R.G.; Stannard, J.N. "Biomedical and Aerosol Studies 

Associated with a Field Release of Plutonium." University of 

Rochester Atomic Energy Project. November 1960. 70 pages. WT-1511.

AD/A 077 

337. Winograd, "Gain in Information in the Desert Rock A-Bomb 

Maneuvers." Washington, DC: March, 1954. 19 pages.*** 

338. York, Herbert F. (Compiler). Arms Control: Readings from Scientific

American. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman Co. 1973. 427 pages. 

272 
REFERENCES 

(Continued) 

339. York, E.; Boyd, R.; Blaylock, J. “Initial Neutron and Gamma Air-Earth 

Interface Measurements, 0 peration PLUMBBOB, Project 2.10.” 

Albuquerque, NM : Field Command, DASA. WT-1419. 

AD 464 

340. [Continent and Pacific Historical Records, 19571, rolls 16, 17, and 19 

(Boxes 40-44 and 47) Microfilmed Records. Nevada Test Site, NV: 

Reynolds Electrical and Engineering Co., Inc. 

341. [List of SMOKY Participants], (Undated). Department of Army.*** 

342. Military Participation in PLUMBBOB, Department of Defense OTI-57-3 through 

OTI-57-114. Washington, DC: Office of Public Information. May 

343. and Regulations. Federal Register. 4 pages. 

344. [Department of the Army, NTPR.] 

Washington, DC: 1979. 17 pages.*** 

Report of Army Review.” 

345. Marine Nuclear Test Personnel Review. [Dosimetry Data for Exercise Desert 

Rock VII and VIII.] Washington, DC: 1979. 2 pages.*** 

346. Pickering, J.E. ; et al. “Biological Effects of Nuclear Radiation on the 

Monkey Mulat ta) , Project 39.6. Washington, DC: DNA. 

50 pages. WT-1505. AD/B 951 

273 
274 
APPENDIX A 

INDEX TO PROJECTS AT 

275 
APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

DOD Program/Project 

PROGRAM 1 

Project 1.1 

Project 1.2 

Project 1.3 

Project 1.4 

Project 1.5 

Project 1.7 

Project 1.8 

Project 1.9 

Title 

Blast and Shock Effects 

Basic Phenomena 

Field Test of a System for Measuring Blast Phenomena by Airborne 

Gauges 

Phenomena in the High 

Pressure Region 

Ground Acceleration, Stress, 

and Strain at High Incident 

Overpressures 

Ground Motion Studied at 

Incident Overpressures 

Loading on Simulated Buried Structures at High Incident 

pressures 

Effects of Rough and Sloping 

Terrain on Phenomena 

Spectra of Ground Shocks Produced 

by Nuclear Detonations 

Sponsor Page 

111 

Ballistic 

Research 

Laboratories 112 

U.S. Naval Ordnance 

Laboratory; 

American Machine 

and Foundry Company and EG&G 112 

Stanford Research 

Institute 116 

Sandia Corporation 

116 

Sandia Corporation 

116 

Air Research and 

Development 

Structural 

Laboratory 

University 

Illinois 

Command; 

Research 

of the 

of 

112 

Ballistic 

Research 

Laboratories and 

Stanford Research 

Institute 112 

Air Research and 

Development Command; 

Ramo-Woolridge Corporation 112 
DOD Program/Project 

PROGRAM 2 

Project 2.0 

Project 2.1 

Project 2.2 

Project 2.3 

Project 2.4 

Project 2.5 

Project 2.6 

Project 2.7 

Project 2.8 

Project 2.9 

Project 2.10 

APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at (Continued) 

Title 

Nuclear Radiation Effects 

Neutron and Gamma Radiation 

Soil Activation by Neutrons 

Neutron Induced Activity in 

Soil Elements 

Neutron Flux from Selected Nuclear 

Nuclear Radiation Shielding 

Studies 

Initial Gamma Radiation Intensity 

and Neutron Induced Gamma Radiation 

of NTS Soils 

Evaluation of New Radiac Instrument 

(IM-93) 

Radiowave Attenuation Studies 

Evaluation of Military Dosimeters 

and Radiac Instruments 

The Nuclear Radiation Dose Received 

by Firing the MB-l 

Missile 

Initial Neutron and Gamma Air-Earth 

Interface Measurements 

Sponsor Page 

116 

NRDL and U.S. Army 

Chemical Warfare 

Laboratories 117 

U.S. Army Chemical 

Warfare Laboratories. 

Evans Signal 

tory 118 

U.S. Naval Radiological Laboratory 120 

U.S. Army Chemical 

Warfare Laboratories 120 

U.S. Army Chemical 

Warfare Laboratories; 

Evans Signal Laboratory 120 

Evans Signal Laboratory 122 

U.S. Army Signal 

Research and Development Laboratory 122 

U.S. Naval Research 

Laboratory 123 

U.S. Naval Material 

Laboratory 123 

AFSWC 

128 

Air Defense Command 

(AFSWC); General Mills 

Company 128 
APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

DOD Program/Project 

PROGRAM 3 

Project 3.1 

Project 3.2 

Project 3.3 

Project 3.4 

Project 3.5 

Project 3.6 

Title 

Effects on Structures and Equipment 

Blast Loading and Response Underground Concrete Arch Protective 

Shelters 

Evaluation of Buried Conduits as 

Personnel Shelters 

Evaluation of Earth-Covered Prefabricated Ammunition Storage 

Magazines as Personnel Shelters 

Blast Effects on Existing 

KNOTHOLE and TEAPOT Structures 

Isolation of Structures from 

Ground Shock 

Full-scale Field Tests of Dome and 

Arch Structures 

Sponsor Page 

128 

U.S. Army 

Waterways 

Engineer 

Experiment 

Station and U.S. Naval 

Civil Engineering 

Laboratory; Ballistic 

Research Laboratories 

and U.S. Army Chemical 

Warfare Laboratories 128 

Defense Atomic Support Agency; U.S. 

Bureau of Yards and 

Docks, Naval Civil 

Engineering Laboratory; 

Ballistic Research Laboratories; Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station; Air 

Force Lookout Mountain 

Laboratory; 

Foundation 128 

U.S. Navy of 

Yards and Docks and 

Naval Civil Engineering Laboratory 128 

Armour Research 

Foundation, Structure 

Division of Headquarters Research 

Directorate; AFSWC, 

Kirtland AFB, NM I28 

Stanford Research 

Institute I28 

AFSWC; American 

Machine and Foundry 

Company; Ballistic 

Research Laboratories 128 

278 
DOD Program/Project 

Project 3.7 

Project 3.8 

PROGRAM 4 

Project 4.1 

Project 4.2 

Project 4.3 

PROGRAM 5 

Project 5.1 

Project 5.2 

APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

Title 

Instrumentation of Structures for 

and Ground Shock Effects 

Soil Survey and Backfill Control 

in Frenchman Flat 

Biomedical Effects 

Effects of Nuclear Detonation on a 

Large Biological Specimen (Swine) 

Evaluation of Eye Protection Afforded by an Electromechanical 

Shutter 

Secondary Missiles Generated by 

Nuclear-Produced Blast Waves 

Effects on Aircraft Structures 

In-flight Structural Response of 

the HSS-1 Helicopter to a Nuclear 

Detonation 

Sponsor Page 

Ballistic Research 

Laboratories 128 

U.S. Army Engineer 

Waterways Experiment 

Station 128 

128 

Walter Reed Army 

Institute of 

Research 129 

Aero Space Medical 

Research Laboratories; 

Tactical Air Command, 

USAF School of Aviation Medicine; U.S. 

Navy Radiological 

Defense 

Wright 

Medical 

Laboratory; 

Patterson Aero 

Laboratory,

 AFB Hospital 129

 Foundation 

for Medical Education 

and Research; Civil 

Effects Test Group 130 

131 

U.S. Navy Bureau of 

Aeronautics; Naval 

Air Special Weapons 

Facility 133 

Structural Response and Gas Dynamics U.S. Navy Bureau of 

of an Airship Exposed to a Nuclear Aeronautics and 

Detonation nautical Structures 

Laboratory of Naval 

Air Material Center 133 
DOD Program/Project 

Project 5.3 

Project 5.4 

Project 5.5 

PROGRAM 6 

Project 6.1 

Project 6.2 

Project 

Project 6.3 

Project 6.4 

APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

Title 

In-flight Structural Response of 

the FJ-4 Aircraft to a Nuclear 

Detonation 

In-flight Structural Response of 

the Aircraft to a Nuclear 

Detonation 

In-flight Structural Response of 

the F-89D Aircraft to a Nuclear 

Detonation 

Electromagnetic Effects, Service 

Equipment, and Material 

Minefield Clearance by Nuclear 

Weapons 

Measurement of the Magnetic Component of the Electromagnetic Field 

near a Nuclear Detonation 

Measurement of the Effects of 

Nuclear Radiation on Semiconductor 

Devices 

Attenuation of Electromagnetic 

Radiation Through an Ionized Medium 

Accuracy and Reliability of the 

Short-Baseline NAROL System 

Sponsor Page 

U.S. Navy Bureau of 

Aeronautics and North 

American Aviation, 

Inc.; Naval Air Special Weapons Facility 158 

Douglas Aircraft Co.; 

AFSWC; and Naval Air 

Special Weapons 

Facility 158 

Wright Air Development Center; Northrop 

Aircraft, Inc. 136 

137 

U.S. Army Engineer 

Research and Development Laboratory; 

Engineer Battalion Fort 

Belvoir Picatinny 

Arsenal; Diamond 

Ordnance Fuze Laboratory; U.S. Army Chemical Warfare Laboratories; United Kingdom 137 

Diamond Ordnance 

Fuze Laboratories 

138 

Diamond Ordnance 

Fuze Laboratories 

138 

U.S. Naval Air Development Center; AFSWC 158 

Air Force Cambridge 

Research Center 138 

280 
APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

DOD Title Sponsor Page 

Project 6.5 Effects of Nuclear 

Nike Hercules 

Detonation on White Sands 

Range, Bell 

Laboratories 

Missile 

Telephone 

139 

PROGRAM 8 Thermal Radiation Effects 141 

Project 8.1 Thermal Protection 

ual Soldier 

of the Individ- U.S. Army Quartermaster 

Research and Engineer 

Command; Atomic Energy 

Project at University 

of Rochester; Walter 

Reed Army Institute of 

Research 141 

Project a.2 Prediction of Thermal Protection 

of Uniforms, and Thermal Effects 

on Standard Materials 

U.S. Naval 

Laboratory 

Material 

141 

Project Performance of 

Spectrographic 

a High-Speed 

System 

Navy Radiological 

Defense Laboratory 142 

Project Instrumentation for Measuring 

Effects Phenomena Inside the Fireball 

Wright Air Development Center; University of Dayton Research Institute; 

Allied Research 

Associates 142 

PROGRAM g Support Photography 142 

Project 9.1 Support Photography Military Air Transport System, AFSWC; 

AFSWP Photographers 

(Joint Office of Test 

Information) 143 
APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

AEC Program/Project Title Sponsor Page 

PROGRAM 10 Hydrodynamics 

Project 10.1 Fireball Analysis LASL 166 

Project 10.2 Time of Arrival LASL 166 

PROGRAM 11 Radiochemistry 169 

Project 11.1 Radiochemistry Analysis LASL/AFSWC 169 

Project 11.2 Radiochemistry Sampling LASL/AFSWC 169 

PROGRAM 12 Diagnostic Neutron Measurements 169 

Project 12.1 Reaction Studies (PINEX) LASL 169 

Project 12.2 Diagnostic Neutron Measurements (ANNEX) LASL 169 

Project 12.3 Reaction Studies (PHONEX) LASL 169 

Project 12.4 LASL 169 

PROGRAM 13 Gamma Ray Measurements 169 

Project 13.1 Alpha Yield Estimates and Reaction History 169 

Project 13.2 Telemetry LASL/EG&G 169 

Project 13.3 J-13 Explorations LASL 169 

PROGRAM 14 New Instrument Development LASL 170 

166 
-

APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

AEC Program/Project 

PROGRAM 15 

Project 

Project 

15.1 

15.2 

PROGRAM 16 

Project 

Project 

16.1 

16.2 

Project 16.3 

PROGRAM 17 

Project 17.1 

PROGRAM 18 

Project 

Project 

Project 

Project 

18.1 

18.2 

18.3 

18.4 

PROGRAM 19 

Title Sponsor Page 

Photophysics 170 

EG&G Photophysics 170 

LASL Photophysics LASL 170 

Bhangmeter Measurements 171 

Area 1 Measurements LASL 171 

Temperature Measurements Portable 

Recorder LASL 171 

Area 4 Measurements LASL 171 

Electromagnetic Measurements 171 

Electromagnetic Measurements LASL 171 

Thermal Spectroscopy 171 

Thermal Radiation 171 

Thermal Radiation and Spectroscopy LASL/NRL 171 

Thermal Radiation and Spectroscopy LASL/NRL 171 

Thermal Radiation and Spectroscopy LASL 171 

Vulnerability Studies 172 
APPENDIX 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

AEC Program/Project Title Page 

PROGRAM 21 Radiochemistry 

Project 21.1 Radiochemistry Analysis 

Project 21.2 Radiochemistry Sampling 

Project 21.3 Rocket Sampling 

PROGRAM 22 Reaction History, Electronic 

Project 22.1 Nuclear Radiation Measurements 

Project 22.2 Remote Technique Development 

Project 22.3 Telemetry 

Project 22.4 Development Experiments 

PROGRAM 23 Reaction History, Photographic 

Project 23.1 Flow and Capacity 

Project 23.3 Ball of Fire and Bhangmeter 

Project 23.4 Cloud Photography 

PROGRAM 25 Underground Yield 

PROGRAM 26 Underground Effects 

172 

UCRL 172 

UCRL/AFSWC 172 

UCRL 172 

172 

UCRL 172 

UCRL 172 

UCRL 172 

UCRL 172 

172 

UCRL 172 

172 

UCRL/EG&G 172 

UCRLIARF 174 

174 
CETG Program/Project 

PROGRAM 30 

30.1 

30.2 

30.3 

30.4 

30.5 

30.6 

30.7 

PROGRAM 31 

31.1 

31.2 

31.3 

31.4 

31.5 

PROGRAM 32 

32.1 

APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

Sponsor Page 

Shelters for Civil Population 208 

Pilot Test Reinforced-Concrete Dome 

Mass Shelter CETG/FCDA 208 

Response of Dual-Purpose 

Concrete Mass Shelter CETG/FCDA 208 

Resistance of Family Shelters to Nuclear 

Effects CETG/FCDA 208 

Response of Protective Vaults to Blast 

Loadings CETG/FCDA 208 

Shelter and Structure Blast Instrumentation CETG/FCDA 208 

Structural Test--French Shelters CETG/FCDA 208 

Structural Test--German Shelters CETG/FCDA 208 

Structures, Equipment, Devices, 

and Components 209 

Thermal-Activated Air-Zero Locators CETG,'FCDA 209 

Effects on Reinforced-Masonry Construction CETG/FCDA 209 

Nuclear Effects on Civil Air Transport CETG/FCDA 209 

Behavior of Doors Under Blast Loading CETG/FCDA 209 

Test and Evaluation of Pressure Sensitive 

Valves and Ventilation Equipment CETG/FCDA 209 

Radiological Countermeasures 210 

Attenuation Factors-Shielding and 

Decontamination CETG/FCDA 210 
APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

CETG Program/Project Title Sponsor Page 

32.2 Field Use and Development of Aerial 

Radiological Monitoring System CETG/FCDA 210 

32.3 System Operation Exercise and Evaluation CETG/NRDL 211 

32.4 Fallout Distribution and Radiation Contours CETG/NRDL 211 

PROGRAM 33 Biological Assessment of Blast Effects 212 

33.1 Primary and Tertiary Blast Effects 

lace Foundation 212 

33.2 Missiles Secondary to Nuclear Blast 

lace Foundation 212 

33.3 Displacement Potential of Blast 

lace Foundation 212 

33.4 Missile Studies of Biological Target 

lace Foundation 212 

PROGRAM 34 Physical Response to Blast Loading 209 

34.1 Effects of a Non-Ideal Shock Wave on 

Blast Loading CETG/Sandia 209 

34.2 Comparison Tests of Reinforcing Steels CETG/Sandia 209 

34.3 Comparative Responses of Static and 

Dynamic Loadings 209 

34.4 Blast Effects on AEC Absolute Filters CETG/Sandia 209 
APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

CETG Program/Project Title 

PROGRAM 35 Radiological Defense Technologies 

35.1 Shielding from Fallout Gamma Radiation 

35.2 Decontamination Procedures in Residential 

Areas 

35.3 Radiological Defense Monitoring Techniques 

35.4 Evaluation of Civil Defense Radiological 

Instructions 

PROGRAM 36 Radiological Defense Operations 

36.1 Field Radiological Defense Technical 

Operations 

36.2 Radiological Defense Monitoring and 

Data Evaluation 

36.3 Radiological Defense Operations Photography 

36.4 Aerial Monitoring Operations Development 

36.5 Radiological Defense Training Operation 

PROGRAM 37 Radio-Ecological Aspects of Nuclear Fallout 

37.1 Biological Accumulation of Fission 

Products Fallout 

37.2 Biophysical Aspects of Fallout 

Phenomenology 

Sponsor Page 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

212 

UCLA 213 

UCLA/AFSWC, 

Chemical Analysis Group at 

the Atomic 

Energy Project; 

UCLA Air Weather Service 212 
-

APPENDIX 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

CETG Program/Project Title 

Identification and Documentation 

Physical Aspects of Fallout 

37.3 Biological Accumulation of Fission 

Products in Agricultural Environments 

37.4 Measurement of Fast Neutron 

by Germanium Dosimeters 

Doses 

37.5 Measurement 

by Chemical 

of Ionizing 

Methods 

Radiation 

37.6 Application 

Techniques 

of Radio-Ecological 

PROGRAM 38 Effects of Radioactive Fallout 

on Foodstuffs 

38.1 (I) Effect of Fallout Contamination 

on Processed Foods, Containers, 

and Packaging 

38.1 Blast Effects on Glass Vacuum 

Containers 

PROGRAM 39 Instrumentation and Dosimetry 

39.1 Gamma and Neutron Radiation 

Measurements 

Gamma Dosimetry by Film Badge 

Techniques, 

Neutron Dosimetry by the 

Detector Technique 

39.2 Measurement of Static and Dynamic 

Pressures in Support of Other CETG 

Projects 

Sponsor Page 

UCLA/AFSWC 212 

UCLA 213 

University of CA 

Atomic Energy Project 214 

UCLA 214 

UCLA/AFSWC 213 

214 

CETG(FDA); FCDA; HEW 

214 

CETG(FDA); FCDA; HEW 

214 

214 

Air Force/School of 

Aero Space Medicine, 

Brooks AFB, TX 215 

215 

215 

215 
APPENDIX A 

CETG Program/Project 

39.3 

39.4 

39.5 

39.6 

39.7 

39 .a 

39.9 

AEC Program/Project 

PROGRAM 41 

Project 41.1 

Project 41.2 

Project 41.3 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

Title 

Thermal Radiation Measurements in 

Underground Shelters 

Cancelled 

Radiation Dosimetry for Human 

Exposures 

Correlation of Neutron and Gamma 

Measurements with Biological 

Response 

Exposure of Large Animal (Burro) 

to Nuclear Radiation for Use in 

Extrapolating the Response of 

Humans to Whole Body Radiation 

Long-term Study of the Delayed 

Effects of Acutely Delivered 

Nuclear Radiation on Small Animals 

Neutron Effects on Animals 

(Tentative) 

Depth-Dose Studies with Initial 

Gamma Radiation 

Remote Radiological Monitoring 

Title 

Fireball Studies 

Fireball Studies 

Weapon Vulnerability 

Neutrons vs. Altitude 

Page 

215 

216 

Oak Ridge Laboratory; 

USAF School of Aero 

Space Medicine; EG&G; 

General Electric 216 

USAF/School of Aero 

Space Medicine, 

Brooks AFB, TX 216 

AEC, Agricultural 

Research Labs 

216 

217 

217 

217 

Naval Medical Research 

Institute 217 

USAF School of Aviation Medicine 217 

Sponsor 

174 

Sandia Corporation 174 

Sandia Corporation 174 

Sandia Corporation 176 
DOD Program/Project 

Program 50 

Project 50.1 

Project 

Project 50.3 

Project 50.4 

APPENDIX A 

Index to at 

(Continued) 

Title 

U.S. Army 

Infantry Troop Tests (Task Force 

WARRIOR) 

Troop Observers 

Evaluation of Medium Range Detonation-Detection and Cloud Tracking 

system 

Evaluation of Water Decontamination 

Methods 

Sponsor 

U.S. Army (Continental 

Army Command) 

U.S. Army (Continental 

Army Command) 

U.S. Army Signal Research and Development 

Laboratories; 865th 

Aircraft Control and 

Warning Squadron 

U.S. Army Engineer Research and Development Laboratories 

Page 

81 

100 

96 

84 

86 

Project 50.5 Evaluation of Shielding for Engineer U.S. Army Engineer 

Heavy Equipment 

Project 50.6 Protection Afforded by Field 

Fortifications 

Project 50.7 Test of Ordnance Material 

Project 50.8 Detection of Atomic Burst 

Program 51 Navy 

Project 51.1 Radiological Safety Monitor 

Training 

Project 51.2 Navy Aircrew Indoctrination 

search and Development 

Laboratories 86 

U.S. Army Engineer 

search and Development 

Laboratories 87 

Aberdeen Provinq 

Ground and Ballistics 

Research Laboratories 87 

Army Artillery 

Guided Missile School; 

Chemical Corps; Air 

Defense Board; Artillery Board and Air 

Weather Service 92 

101 

USN Bureau of Yards 

and Docks 101 

COMAIR Plant. 

Virginia Sauadron 182 
APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

DOD 

Project 51.3 

Program 52 

Project 52.1 

Project 52.2 

Project 52.3 

Program 53 

Project 53.1 

Project 53.2 

Project 53.3 

Project 53.4 

Project 53.5 

Project 53.6 

Project 53.7 

Title 

Navy 

ation 

Heavy Attack IndoctrinU.S. Marine Corps 

Marine Brigade Exercise 

Marine Corps Observers 

Marine Fly-by Indoctrination 

U.S. Air Force 

Aerial Sampling Mission 

Ground Motion Studies 

Aircrew Observers 

Radiological Defense Training 

Aircrew Indoctrination (Early 

Cloud Penetration) 

Aircrew Training 

Indirect Bomb Damage Assessment 

IBDA 

Sponsor Page 

COMAIRPAC 

182 

99 

U.S. Marine Corps, 4th 

Marine Corps Provisional Atomic Exercise Brigade 99 

U.S. Marine Corps 96 

FMF PAC Aircraft 

184 

183 

U.S. Air Force 149 

U.S. Air Force 184 

U.S. Air Force, Air 

Defense Command 96 

Radiological Defense 

School, Lowry Air 

Force Base, Denver, CO 

Air Training 101 

Air Defense Command 

184 

Strategic Air Command 182 

Wright Air Development Command 185 
DOD Program/Project 

Project 53.8 

Project 53.9 

Project 53.10 

AEC Program/Project 

PROGRAM 64 

Project 64.1 

Project 64.2 

Project 64.3 

Project 64.4 

PROGRAM 71 

PROGRAM 72 

Program 73 

Program 74 

APPENDIX A 

Index to Projects at 

(Continued) 

Title 

Indirect Bomb Damage Assessment 

IBDA 

Photographic Reconnaissance 

Training 

Passive Defense 

Title 

Sandia 

Special 

Balloon Support and 

Studies 

Balloon Suspension Systems 

High Time Resolution Telemetry 

Neutron Sources 

Device Support Structures 

Physics 

Plutonium 

Plutonium Inhalation 

Plutonium Decontamination 

Sponsor Page 

Strategic Air 

mand 185 

Tactical Air 

mand, Air National 

Guard Tactical Reconnaissance Unit 185 

U.S. Air Force Office of Scientific 

Research (USAF Air 

Research and Development Command) 186 

Sponsor Page 

197 

Sandia 197 

Sandia 197 

Sandia 197 

Sandia 198 

Project 57 177 

Project 57 177 

Project 57 178 

Project 57 178 

292 
DISTRIBUTION LIST 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (Continued1 

Armed Forces Staff College James Carson Breckinridge Library 

ATTN: Library Department of the Navy

ATTN: Library Div 

Assistant Secretary of Defense, Public Affairs 

ATTN: Marine Corps Nuclear Test Personnel Review

ATTN: Code 

Defense Nuclear Agency Merchant Marine Academy ATTN: ATTN: Director of Libraries ATTN: GC 

ATTN: BA Naval Aviation School ATTN: TISI ATTN: Library 5 cy ATTN: NTPR 

25 cy ATTN: TITL Naval Hospital Corps School 

ATTN: Library Defense Technical Information Center 

12 cy ATTN: DD Naval Ocean Systems Center 

ATTN: Library Field 

Defense Nuclear Agency Naval Oceanographic Office ATTN: FCLS ATTN: Code 025, Historian ATTN: FCTMO 

Naval Postgraduate School Interservice Nuclear Weapons School ATTN: Code 1424, Library ATTN: TTV 

Naval Research Laboratory National Defense University ATTN: Library ATTN: ICAF Tech Library 

Naval School DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY Naval Construction Battalion Center 

ATTN: Officer Library 

ATTN: Military Naval School of Health Sciences 

ATTN: Library Nuclear Test Personnel Review 

ATTN: DAAG-AMR-R Naval Sea Systems 

ATTN: Nuclear Technology Oiv U.S. Army Center of Military History 

ATTN: DAMH Naval Surface Weapons Center 

ATTN: Library U.S. Army Chemical School 

ATTN: ATZN-CM-CS Naval War College ATTN: ATZN-CM-AL ATTN: Professor Libraries 

U.S. Army Comd General Staff College Naval Weapons Center ATTN: Library ATTN: Code 233 

U.S. Army Nuclear Chemical Agency Naval Weapons Evaluation Facility ATTN: Library ATTN: Library 

U.S. Army War College Navy Dept Library ATTN: Library ATTN: Librn 

DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY Navy Nuclear Power School 

ATTN: Library Aviation History Unit 

Department of the Navy Navy Nuclear Test Personnel Review ATTN: Library 2 cy ATTN: W. Loeffler 

Bureau of Medicine and Surgery U.S. Naval Academy Department of the Navy Nimitz Library ATTN: Asst for Med Surgery ATTN: Documents Reports Dept 

Engineering Duty Officer School 

Department of the Navy 

ATTN: Library 

293 
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY (Continued) 

Office of the Judge Adv Gen 

Department of the Navy 

ATTN: Code 73 

U.S. Marine Corps Cmd Staff College 

ATTN: Library 

U.S. Merchant Marine Academy 

ATTN: Librn 

U.S. Naval Air Station Library 

Department of the Navy 

ATTN: Library 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE

Academy Library DFSELD 

U.S. Air Force Academy 

ATTN: Library 

Aerospace Defense 

ATTN: Historian 

Air Force Service 

ATTN: Historian 

Air Force Institute of Technology 

ATTN: Library 

Air Force Logistics Command 

ATTN: Historian 

Air Force Nuclear Test Personnel Review 

ATTN: HQ 

Air Force School of Aerospace Medicine 

ATTN: Strughold Library 

Air Force Systems 

ATTN: Historian 

Air Force Technical Applications Center 

ATTN: Historian 

Air Force Weapons Laboratory 

Air Force Systems 

ATTN: Tech Library 

Air National Guard 

ATTN: Historian 

Air Training Command 

ATTN: Historian 

Air University Library 

Department of the Air Force 

ATTN: AUL-LSE 

Military Air Lift Command 

ATTN: Historian 

Conander-in-Chief 

Pacific Air Forces 

ATTN: Historian 

Strategic Air 

Department of the Air Force 

ATTN: NRI-STINFO Library 

ATTN: Historian 

DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE (Continued) 

Tactical Air Command 

Department of the Air Force 

ATTN: Historian 

U.S. Air Force Occupational Env Health Lab 

ATTN: NTPR 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Department of Energy 

ATTN: OMA 

Department of Energy 

Nevada Operations Office 

ATTN: Health Physics Div 

2 cy ATTN: R. Nutley 

Department of Energy 

Human Health Assessments Division 

ATTN: EV-31 

OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES 

Centers for Disease Control 

U.S. Public Health Service 

ATTN: G. 

Central Intelligence Agency 

ATTN: Office of Medical Services 

Department of Health Human 

ATTN: Office of General Counsel 

Exec of The President 

Management Budget Off Lib 

ATTN: Librn 

Library of Congress 

ATTN: Library Service Division 

ATTN: Science Technology 

ATTN: Serial Govt Publication 

National Atomic Museum 

ATTN: Historian 

Department of Commerce 

National Bureau of Standards 

ATTN: Librn 

National Technical Information Service 

12 cy ATTN: Customer Services 

Occupational Safety Health Admin 

ATTN: C. Wright 

Office of Health Disability 

ATTN: R. 

of Workers Compensation Program 

Department of Labor 

ATTN: R. Larson 

U.S. Coast Guard Academy Library 

ATTN: Librn 

U.S. House of Representatives 

ATTN: Committee on Armed 
OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Continued) OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Continued) 

U.S. House of Representatives 

on Interstate & Foreign 

ATTN: on Health Envir 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Atlanta, GA 

ATTN: Director 

U.S. Military Academy 

ATTN: Director of Libraries 

U.S. Senate 

on Armed Services 

ATTN: on Veterans Affairs 

U.S. Senate 

ATTN: Committee on Veterans Affairs 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Providence, RI 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Montgomery, AL 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Juneau, AK 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Anchorage, AK 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Phoenix, AZ 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Little Rock, AR 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Los Angeles, CA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

San Francisco, CA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Denver, CO 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Hartford, CT 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Wilmington, DE 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-CO 

Washington, D. C. 

ATTN: Dept Veterans Benefit, Central 

ATTN: Director 

ATTN: Board of Veteran Appeal 

Veterans Administration-R0 

St. Petersburg, FL 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Honolulu, HI 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-RD 

Chicago, IL 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Seattle, WA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Indianapolis, IN 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Des Moines, IA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Wichita, KS 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Louisville, KY 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

New Orleans, LA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

ME 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Baltimore, MD 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Boston, MA 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

St. Paul, MN 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Jackson, MS 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Huntington, WV 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 

St. Louis, MO 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-RD 

Ft. Harrison, MT 

ATTN: Director 
OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Continued) OTHER GOVERNMENT AGENCIES (Continued) 

Veterans Ackninistration-RO Veterans Administration-R0 

Lincoln, NE Columbia, SC 

ATTN: Director ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 Veterans Administration-R0 

Reno, NV Sioux Falls, SD 

ATTN: Director ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 Veterans Administration-R0 

Manchester, NH Houston, TX 

ATTN: Director ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 Veterans Administration-R0 

Newark, NJ Waco, TX 

ATTN: Director ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 Veterans Administration-R0 

Milwaukee, WI Salt Lake City, UT 

ATTN: Director ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 Veterans Administraiton-RO 

Albuquerque, NM White River Junction, VT 

ATTN: Director ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 Veterans Administration-R0 

Buffalo, NY Roanoke, VA 

ATTN: Director ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 Veterans Administration-R0 

New York, NY Cheyenne, WY 

ATTN: Director ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 Veterans Administration-R0 

Winston-Salem, NC San Diego, CA 

ATTN: Director ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 Veterans Administration-R0 

Fargo, ND Boise, ID 

ATTN: Director ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 Veterans Administration-R0 

Cleveland, OH Detroit, MI 

ATTN: Director ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 Veterans Administration-R0 

Muskogee, OK 

ATTN: Director 

Nashville, TN 

ATTN: Director 

Veterans Administration-R0 The White House 

Portland, OR ATTN: Domestic Policy Staff 

ATTN: Director 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY CONTRACTORS 

Veterans Administration-R0 

Pittsburgh, PA 

ATTN: Director 

Lawrence National Lab 

ATTN: Tech Info Dept Library 

Veterans Administration-R0 Los National Scientific Lab 

Philadelphia, PA 

ATTN: Director 

ATTN: Library 

ATTN: MMS 195 

Veterans Administration-R0 Sandia National Lab 

San Francisco, CA 

ATTN: Director 

ATTN: W. Hereford 

ATTN: Central Library 

Veterans Administration-R0 Reynolds Electrical Engr Co., 

San Juan, Puerto Rico 

ATTN: Director 

ATTN: CIC 

ATTN: W. Brady 
OTHER 

Adams State College 

ATTN: Librn 

Akron Public Library 

ATTN: Libm 

Alabama State Dept of Archives History 

ATTN: Military Records Div 

University of Alabama 

ATTN: Reference Dralier 3 

ATTN: Director of Libraries (Reg) 

University of Alaska Library at Anchorage 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Alaska 

ATTN: Director of Libraries 

Albany Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Alexander City State Jr College 

ATTN: Librn 

Allegheny College 

ATTN: Librn 

Allen County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Public Library 

: 

American Statistics Index 

Congressional Info Service, Inc 

ATTN: Cathy Jarvey 

Anaheim Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

College of Wooster 

ATTN: Gov 

Angelo State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Angelo Iacoboni Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Anoka County Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Appalachian State University 

ATTN: Library 

Arizona State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Arizona 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

Library 

: Library 

Brooklyn College

ATTN: Div 

THER (Continued) 

Arkansas Library 

ATTN: Library 

Arkansas State University 

ATTN: Library 

University of Arkansas 

ATTN: Gov Div 

Austin College 

ATTN: Librn 

Atlanta Public Library 

ATTN: Ivan Allen Dept 

Atlanta University 

ATTN: Librn 

Auburn University Library at 

ATTN: Librn 

C. W. Post Ctr Long Island University 

ATTN: Librn 

Bangor Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Bates College Library 

ATTN: Libm 

Baylor University Library 

ATTN: Dept 

Beloit College Libraries 

ATTN: Serials Dept 

Bemidji State College 

ATTN: Library 

State University College, B. F. Feinberg Lib 

ATTN: Gov 

Akron University 

ATTN: Gov 

Boston 

ATTN: 

Bowdoin College 

ATTN: Librn 

Bowling Green State University 

ATTN: Lib Gov Services 

Bradley University 

ATTN: Librn 

Brandeis University Library 

ATTN: Section 

Brigham Young University 

ATTN: Librn 

Brigham Young University 

ATTN: Collection 

Brookhaven National Laboratory 

ATTN: Tech Library 
 

 

 

 

OTHER 

Broward County Library Sys 

ATTN: Librn 

Brown University 

ATTN: Librn 

Bucknell University 

ATTN: Reference Dept 

Buffalo Erie Co Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

State University Library of California at Fresno 

ATTN: Library 

University Library of California at Los Angeles 

ATTN: Pub Affairs Serv U.S. 

University of California at San Diego 

ATTN: Dept 

State College Library of California at Stanislaus 

ATTN: Library 

California State Polytechnic University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

California State University at Northridge 

ATTN: Gov 

California State Library (Reg) 

ATTN: Librn 

California State University at Long Beach Library 

ATTN: Librn 

California State University 

ATTN: Librn 

California State University 

ATTN: Librn 

California University Library 

ATTN: Gov Pub Dept 

California University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

California University Library 

ATTN: Gov Dept 

California University Library 

ATTN: 

University of California 

ATTN: Gov 

Calvin College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Kearney State College 

ATTN: Gov Dept 

Cambria County Library Sys 

ATTN: Librn 

Carleton College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

OTHER (Continued] 

Carnegie Library of Pittsburgh 

ATTN: Librn 

Carnegie Mellon University 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Carson Regional Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs Unit 

Case Western Reserve University 

ATTN: Librn 

Casper College 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Central Florida 

ATTN: Library Dept 

Central Michigan University 

ATTN: Library 

Central Montana State College 

ATTN: Gov 

Central State University 

ATTN: Lib 

Central Washington University 

ATTN: Lib 

Central Wyoming College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Charleston County Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Charlotte Mechlenburg County Public Library 

ATTN: E. 

Chattanooga Hamilton County, Bicentennial Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Chesapeake Public Library System 

ATTN: Librn 

Chicago Public Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs Dept 

State University of Chicago 

ATTN: Librn 

Chicago University Library 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

ATTN: Processing 

Cincinnati University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Citadel, Daniel Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Claremont Colleges Libraries 

ATTN: Collection 

Clemson University 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 
 

-

OTHER (Continued)

Cleveland Public Library 

ATTN: Collection 

Cleveland State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Coe Library 

ATTN: Div 

Colgate University Library 

ATTN: Ref Lib 

Colorado State University Libraries 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Colorado Libraries 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Col'umbia University Library 

ATTN: Svc Ctr 

Columbus Franklin Cty Public Library 

ATTN: Gen Div 

Compton Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Connecticut State Library (Reg) 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Connecticut 

ATTN: Gov't of Connecticut 

University of Connecticut 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Cornell University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Corpus State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Culver City Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Curry College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of North Carolina at Asheville 

ATTN: Librn 

Dallas County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Dallas Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Dalton Junior College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Dartmouth College 

ATTN: Librn 

Davenport Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Davidson College 

ATTN: Librn 

THER (Continued)

Dayton Montgomery City Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Dayton 

ATTN: Librn 

Library 

: Librn 

Dekalb Community College SO CPUS 

ATTN: Librn 

Delaware Pauw University 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Delaware 

ATTN: Librn 

Delta College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Delta State University 

ATTN: Librn 

Denison University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Denver Public Library (Reg) 

ATTN: Div 

Dept of Library & Archives (Reg) 

ATTN: Librn 

Detroit Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Dickinson College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Dickinson State College 

ATTN: Librn 

Alabama Agricultural Mechanical University 

ATTN: Librn 

Drake University 

ATTN: Cowles Library 

Drew University 

ATTN: Librn 

Duke University 

ATTN: Pub Dept 

Duluth Public Library 

ATTN: 

East Carolina University 

ATTN: Lib Dept 

East Central University 

ATTN: Librn 

East Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 
THER (Continued) 

East Orange Public Library 

ATTN: U.S. Gov't Depository 

East Tennessee State University Sherrod Library 

ATTN: Dept 

East Texas State University

ATTN: Library 

Monmouth County Library Eastern Branch 

ATTN: Librn 

Eastern Illinois University 

ATTN: Librn 

Eastern Kentucky University 

ATTN: Librn 

Eastern Michigan University Library 

ATTN: Library 

Eastern Montana College Library 

ATTN: Dept 

Eastern New Mexico University 

ATTN: Librn 

Eastern Oregon College Library 

ATTN: Libm 

Eastern Washington University 

ATTN: Librn 

El Paso Public Library 

ATTN: Genealogy Dept 

Elko County Library 

ATTN: Librn 

College 

ATTN: Libm 

Elon College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Pratt Free Library 

ATTN: 

Enory University 

ATTN: Librn 

Cty Public Library 

Everett Public Library 

ATTN: Libm 

Fairleigh Dickinson University 

ATTN: Depository Dept 

Florida A M University 

ATTN: Librn 

Florida Atlantic University Library 

ATTN: Div of Pub 

OTHER (Continued) 

Florida Institute of Technology 

ATTN: Library 

Florida International University Library 

ATTN: 

Florida State Library 

ATTN: 

Florida State University 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Florida 

ATTN: Dir of Library (Reg) 

ATTN: Dept 

Fond Du Lac Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Ft Hays State University 

Ft Hays Kansas State College 

ATTN: Libm 

Ft Worth Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Free Public Library of Elizabeth 

ATTN: Librn 

Free Public Library

ATTN: Librn 

Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Fresno Cty Free Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Gardner Webb College 

ATTN: Library 

Gary Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Geauga Cty Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Georgetown University Library 

ATTN: Gov Room 

Georgia Institute of Technology 

ATTN: Librn 

Georgia Southern College 

ATTN: Librn 

Georgia Southwestern College 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

University Library 

: Librn 
OTHER (Continued) 

University of Georgia 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

Glassboro State College 

ATTN: Librn 

Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Graceland College 

ATTN: Librn 

Grand Forks City-County Library 

ATTN: 

Grand Rapids Public Library 

ATTN: Dir of Lib 

Greenville County Library 

ATTN: Librn 

College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Guam RFK Memorial University Library 

ATTN: Fed Depository 

University of Guam 

ATTN: Librn 

College 

Librn 

South Dakota University 

ATTN: Librn 

University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Hartford Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Harvard College Library 

ATTN: Dir of Lib 

Harvard College Library 

ATTN: Serials Div 

University of Hawaii Library 

ATTN: Gov 

Hawaii State Library 

ATTN: Fed Unit 

University of Hawaii at 

ATTN: Dif of Libraries 

University of Hawaii 

Campus Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Burns Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Hennepin County Library 

ATTN: Gov 

Henry Ford Community College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

OTHER (Continued) 

Herbert H. Lehman College 

Lib Div 

Hofstra University Library 

ATTN: Dept 

Hollins College 

ATTN: Librn 

Hopkinsville College 

ATTN: Librn 

Wagner College 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Houston Library 

Div 

Houston Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Tulane University 

ATTN: Dept 

Hoyt Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Humboldt State College Library 

ATTN: Dept 

Huntington Park Library

ATTN: Librn 

Hutchinson Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Idaho Public Library Information Center 

ATTN: Librn 

Idaho State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Idaho State University Library 

ATTN: Dept 

University of Idaho 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

University of Illinois Library 

ATTN: 

Illinois State Library (Reg) 

ATTN: Gov Br 

Illinois University at Urbana-Champaign 

ATTN: P. Watson Lib 

Illinois Valley College 

ATTN: Library 

Indiana State Library

Serial 

Indiana State University 

ATTN: Library 

301 
OTHER (Continued) 

Indiana University Library 

ATTN: Dept 

Indianapolis Marion County Public Library 

ATTN: Social Science Div 

Iowa State University Library 

ATTN: Gov Dept 

Iowa University Library 

ATTN: Gov Dept 

Butler University 

ATTN: Librn 

Isaac Delchdo College 

ATTN: Librn 

James Madison University 

ATTN: Librn 

Jefferson County Public Library 

Regional Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Jersey City State College 

ATTN: F. A. Irwin Library Periodicals 

John Hopkins University 

ATTN: Library 

La College 

ATTN: Librn 

Johnson Free Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Kalamazoo Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Kansas City Public Library 

ATTN: Div 

Kansas State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Kansas State University Library 

ATTN: Dept 

University of Kansas 

ATTN: Dir of Library (Reg) 

University of Texas 

ATTN: Lyndon B. Johnson School of Public 

Affairs Library 

Maine Maritime Academy 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Maine 

ATTN: Librn 

OTHER (Continued) 

Kent State University Library 

ATTN: Div 

Kentucky Dept of Library Archives 

ATTN: 

University of Kentucky 

ATTN: Gov Pub Dept 

ATTN: Dir of Lib (Reg) 

Kenyon College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Lake Forest College 

ATTN: Librn 

Lake Sumter College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Lancaster Regional Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Lawrence University 

ATTN: Dept 

Brigham Young University 

ATTN: Map 

Lewis University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Library and Statutory Dist Svc 

2 cy ATTN: Librn 

College 

ATTN: Librn 

Little Rock Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Long Beach Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Los Angeles Public Library 

ATTN: Serials Div U.S. 

Louisiana State University 

ATTN: Gov Dept 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

Louisville Free Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Louisville University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

302 
 

OTHER (Continued) 

Manchester City Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Mankato State College 

ATTN: Gov Pubs 

University of Maine at Farmington 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Marathon County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Principia College 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Maryland 

ATTN: Library Div 

University of Maryland 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Massachusetts 

ATTN: Gov 

Maui Public Library 

Kahului Branch 

ATTN: Librn 

State University 

ATTN: Librn 

Memphis & Shelby County Public Library 

Information Center 

ATTN: Librn 

Memphis Shelby County Public Library 

Information Center 

ATTN: Librn 

Memphis State University 

ATTN: Librn 

University 

ATTN: Librn 

Mesa County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Miami Dade Community College 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Miami Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs 

Miami Public Library 

ATTN: Div 

Miami University Library 

ATTN: Dept 

University of Santa Clara 

ATTN: Div 

Michigan State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Michigan State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

OTHER (Continued) 

Michigan Tech University 

ATTN: Lib Dept 

University of Michigan 

ATTN: Acq Unit 

Middlebury College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Millersville State College 

ATTN: Librn 

State University of New York 

ATTN: Librn 

Milwaukee Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Minneapolis Public Library 

ATTN: Cibrn 

University of Minnesota 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

Minot State College 

ATTN: Librn 

Mississippi State University 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Mississippi 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Missouri University at Kansas City General 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Missouri Library 

ATTN: Gov 

M.I.T. Libraries 

ATTN: Librn 

Mobile Public Library 

ATTN: Gov Info Div 

Midwestern University 

ATTN: Librn 

Montana State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Montana State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Montana 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

Montebello Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Morhead State College 

ATTN: Library 

Mt Prospect Public Library 

ATTN: Info Ctr 

Murray State University Library 

ATTN: Lib 
-

OTHER (Continued) 

Nassau Library System 

ATTN: Librn 

Natrona County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Nebraska Library 

Nebraska Public 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Nebraska at Omaha 

ATTN: Univ Lib 

Nebraska Western College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Nebraska 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

University of Nebraska Library 

ATTN: Acquisitions Dept 

University of Nevada Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs Dept 

University of Nevada at Las Vegas 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

New Hampshire University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

New Hanover County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

New Mexico State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

New Mexico State University 

ATTN: Lib Div 

University of New Mexico 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

University of New Orleans Library 

ATTN: Gov Div 

New Orleans Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

New York Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

New York State Library 

ATTN: Control Cultural Ed Ctr 

State University of New York at Stony Brook 

ATTN: Main Lib 

State University of New York Memorial Lib 

at Cortland 

ATTN: Librn 

State University of New York 

ATTN: Lib 

North Texas State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

OTHER (Continued) 

State University of New York 

ATTN: Librn 

New York State University 

ATTN: Ctr 

State University of New York 

ATTN: Dept 

New Library 

: Dept 

Newark Free Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Newark Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Niagara Falls Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Nicholls State University Library 

ATTN: Div 

Nieves M. Flores Memorial Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Norfolk Public Library 

ATTN: R. Parker 

North Carolina Agricultural Tech State 

University 

ATTN: Librn 

University of North Carolina at Charlotte 

ATTN: Atkins Lib Dept 

University Library of North Carolina at Greensboro 

ATTN: Librn 

University of North Carolina at Wilmington 

ATTN: Librn 

North Carolina Central University 

ATTN: Librn 

North Carolina State University 

ATTN: Librn 

University of North Carolina at Wilmington 

ATTN: Librn 

University of North Carolina 

ATTN: BA SS Div 

North Dakota State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of North Dakota 

ATTN: Librn 

University of North Dakota 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

North Georgia College 

ATTN: Librn 
 

THER 

Northeast Missouri State Univeristy 

ATTN: Librn 

Northeastern Oklahoma State University 

ATTN: Librn 

Northeastern University 

Dodge Library 

Northern Arizona University Library 

ATTN: Gov Dept 

Northern Illinois University 

ATTN: Librn 

Northern Michigan University 

ATTN: 

College Library 

: Librn 

Northwestern Michigan College 

ATTN : Librn 

Northwestern State University 

ATTN: Librn 

Northwestern State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Northwestern University Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs Dept 

Norwalk Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Northeastern Illinois University 

ATTN: Library 

University of Notre Dame 

ATTN: Ctr 

Oakland College 

Librn 

Library 

: Librn 

Oberlin College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Ocean County College 

ATTN: Librn 

Ohio State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Ohio State University 

ATTN: Lib Div 

Ohio University Library 

ATTN: Dept 

Oklahoma City University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Oklahoma City University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

OTHER (Continued) 

Oklahoma Department of Libraries 

ATTN: U.S. Gov 

University of Oklahoma 

ATTN: Div 

Old Dominion University 

ATTN: Univ Lib 

Olivet College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Omaha Public Library Clark Branch 

ATTN: Librn 

Onondaga County Public Library 

ATTN: Gov 

Oregon State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Oregon 

ATTN: 

Ouachita Baptist University 

ATTN: Librn 

Pan American University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Passaic Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Queens College 

ATTN: Dept 

Pennsylvania State Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs 

Pennsylvania State University 

ATTN: Lib 

University of Pennsylvania 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

University of Denver

ATTN: Penrose Library 

Peoria Public Library 

ATTN: Business, Science Tech 

Free Library of Philadelphia 

Gov Pubs 

Philipsburg Free Public Library 

ATTN: Library 

Phoenix Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Pittsburgh 

ATTN: Office, 

Plainfield Public Library 

ATTN: 
 

OTHER (Continued) 

Popular Creek Public Library District 

ATTN: Librn 

Association of Portland Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Portland Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Portland State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Pratt Institute Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Louisiana Tech University 

ATTN: Librn 

Princeton University Library 

ATTN: Div 

Providence College 

ATTN: Librn 

Providence Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Public Library Cincinnati Hamilton 

ATTN: Librn 

Public Library of Nashville and Davidson County 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Puerto Rico 

ATTN: Maps Room 

Purdue University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Quinebaug Valley College 

ATTN: Librn 

Auburn University 

ATTN: Microforms Dept 

Rapid City Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Reading Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Reed College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Augusta College 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Rhode Island Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs 

University of Rhode Island 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Rice University 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Louisiana College 

ATTN: Librn 

OTHER tiM. 

County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Riverside Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Rochester Library 

ATTN: 

University of Rutgers Camden Library 

ATTN: Librn 

State University of Rutgers 

ATTN: Librn 

Rutgers University 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries (Reg) 

Rutgers University Law Library 

ATTN: Fed Dept 

Salem College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University 

ATTN: Librn 

San Antonio Public Library 

ATTN: Bus Science Tech Dept 

San Diego County Library 

ATTN: C. Jones, Acquisitions 

San Diego Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

San Diego State University Library 

ATTN: Gov Pubs Dept 

San Francisco Public Library 

ATTN: Gov Dept 

San Francisco State College 

ATTN: Gov Pubs 

San Jose State College Library 

ATTN: Dept 

San Luis Obispo City-County Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Savannah Public Effingham Liberty Regional 

Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Scottsbluff Public Librarv 

ATTN: Librn 

Scranton Public Librarv 

ATTN: Librn 

Seattle Public Librarv 

ATTN: Ref Asst 

306 
OTHER (Continued) 

Selby Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Shawnee Library System 

ATTN: Librn 

Shreve Memorial Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Silas Public Library 

: Librn 

Sioux City Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

College 

ATTN: Librn 

Slippery Rock State College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

South Carolina State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of South Carolina 

ATTN: Librn 

University of South Carolina 

ATTN: Gov 

South Dakota School of Mines Technical Library 

ATTN: Librn 

South Dakota State Library 

ATTN: Fed Dept 

University of South Dakota 

ATTN: Oocs Librn 

South Florida University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Southeast Missouri State University 

ATTN: Librn 

Southeastern Massachusetts University Library 

ATTN: 

University of Southern Alabama 

ATTN: Librn 

Southern California University Library 

ATTN: Oocs 

Southern Connecticut State College 

ATTN: Library 

Southern Illinois University 

ATTN: Librn 

Southern Illinois University 

ATTN: Ctr 

Southern Methodist University 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Southern Mississippi 

ATTN: Library 

THER (Continued) 

Southern Oregon College 

ATTN: Library 

Southern University in New Orleans Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Southern Utah State College Library 

ATTN: Dept 

Southwest Missouri State College 

ATTN: Library 

University of Southwestern Louisiana Libraries 

ATTN: Librn 

Southwestern University 

ATTN: Librn 

Spokane Public Library 

ATTN: Ref Dept 

Springfield City Library 

ATTN: 

St Bonaventure University 

ATTN: Librn 

St Johns River Junior College 

ATTN: Library 

St Joseph Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

St Lawrence University 

ATTN: Librn 

St Louis Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

St Paul Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Stanford University Library 

ATTN: Gov Dept 

State Historical Library 

ATTN: Serials 

State Library of Massachusetts 

ATTN: Librn 

State University of New York 

ATTN: Librn 

Stetson University 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Steubenville 

ATTN: Librn 

Stockton San Joaquin Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Stockton State College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Albion College 

ATTN: Gov Librn 
OTHER (Continued) 

Superior Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

College Library

: Ref Dept 

Syracuse University Library 

ATTN: Oiv 

Tacoma Public Library 

ATTN: Libm 

Hillsborough County Public Library at Tampa 

ATTN: Librn 

Temple University 

ATTN: Librn 

Tennessee Technological University 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Tennessee 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

College of Idaho 

ATTN: Librn 

Texas A University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Texas at Arlington 

ATTN: Library Oocs 

University of Texas at San Antonio

ATTN: Library 

Texas Christian University 

ATTN: Librn 

Texas State Library 

ATTN: U.S. 

Texas Tech University Library 

ATTN: Gov Dept 

Texas University at Austin 

ATTN: 

University of Toledo Library 

Librn 

Toledo Public Library 

ATTN: Social Science Dept 

Torrance Civic Center Library

ATTN: Librn 

Traverse City Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Trenton Free Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Trinity College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Trinity University Library 

ATTN: Oocs 

OTHER (Continued1 

Tufts University Library 

ATTN: Dept 

University of Tulsa 

ATTN: Librn 

UCLA Research Library 

ATTN: Pub Affairs 

Uniformed Services University of the Health 

Sciences 

ATTN: LRC Library 

University Libraries 

ATTN: Dir of Lib 

University of Maine at 

Librn 

University of Northern Iowa 

ATTN: Library 

Upper Iowa College 

Utah State University 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Utah

Special Collections 

University of Utah 

Dir of Library 

Utica Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Valencia Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University 

: 

Vanderbilt University Library 

ATTN: Gov 

University of Vermont 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Virginia University 

ATTN: Librn 

Virginia Military Institute 

ATTN: Librn 

Virginia Polytechnic Institute Library 

ATTN: 

Library 

: Serials 

University of Virginia 

ATTN: Pub 

Volusia County Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

308 
OTHER (Continued) 

Washington State Library 

ATTN: 

State University 

: Lib 

Washington University Libraries 

ATTN: Dir of Lib 

University of Washington 

ATTN: Div 

Wayne State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Wayne State University Law Library 

ATTN: Dept 

Weber State College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Wesleyan University 

ATTN: Librn 

West Chester State College 

ATTN: Dept 

West Covina Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Univeristv of West Florida 

Librn 

West Georgia College 

ATTN: Librn 

West Hills College 

ATTN: Library 

West Texas State University 

ATTN: Library 

West Virginia College of Grad Studies Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of West Virginia 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Westerly Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Western Carolina University 

ATTN: Librn 

Western Illinois University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Western Washington University 

ATTN: Librn 

Western Wyoming College Library

ATTN: Librn 

Westmoreland City Community College 

ATTN: Learning Resource Ctr 

OTHER (Continued1 

Whitman College 

ATTN: Librn 

Wichita State University Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Williams Mary College 

ATTN: Dept 

Emporia Kansas State College 

ATTN: Gov Div 

William College Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Williamantic Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Winthrop College 

ATTN: Dept 

University of Wisconsin at Whitewater 

ATTN: Gov Lib 

University of Wisconsin at Milwaukee 

ATTN: Lib 

University of Wisconsin at Oshkosh 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Wisconsin at Platteville 

ATTN: Unit Lib 

University of Wisconsin at Stevens Point 

ATTN: 

University of Wisconsin 

ATTN: Gov Pubs Dept 

University of Wisconsin 

ATTN: Acquisitions Dept 

Worcester Public Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Wright State University Library 

ATTN: Gov Librn 

Wyoming State Library 

ATTN: Librn 

University of Wyoming 

ATTN: Div 

Yale University 

ATTN: Dir of Libraries 

Yeshiva University 

ATTN: Librn 

Yuma City County Library 

ATTN: Librn 

Simon Mem Lib, Columbus 

ATTN: Librn 
DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTORS DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE CONTRACTORS (Continued) 

Advanced Research Applications Corp Kaman Tempo 

ATTN: H. Lee ATTN: C. Jones 

JAYCOR National Academy of Sciences 

ATTN: A. Nelson ATTN: C. Robinette 

5 cy ATTN: C. Lowery ATTN: Med Follow-up Agency 

10 cy ATTN: Health Environment Div ATTN: Mat Advisory Bd 

JRB Associates Pacific-Sierra Research Corp 

cy ATTN: L. Novotney ATTN: H. Brode 

Kaman Tempo R D Associates 

ATTN: DASIAC ATTN: P. 

ATTN: E. Martin 

Science Applications, Inc 

Kaman Tempo ATTN: Tech Lib 

ATTN: R. Miller 

310