Page 1 of 33

DOE Review Release 07/25/2016

Summary Site Profile for the 

Pacific Proving Ground

ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Rev. 01

Effective Date: 07/11/2016 

Supersedes: Revision 00

Subject Expert(s): Eugene M. Rollins and Kathy Boothe

Document Owner 

Approval: Signature on File

Eugene M. Rollins, Document Owner

Approval Date: 06/17/2016

Concurrence: Signature on File

John M. Byrne, Objective 1 Manager

Concurrence Date: 06/16/2016

Concurrence: Signature on File

Edward F. Maher, Objective 3 Manager

Concurrence Date: 06/15/2016

Concurrence: Vickie S. Short Signature on File for

Kate Kimpan, Project Director

Concurrence Date: 06/16/2016

Approval: Signature on File

James W. Neton, Associate Director for Science

Approval Date: 07/11/2016

FOR DOCUMENTS MARKED AS A TOTAL REWRITE, REVISION, OR PAGE CHANGE, REPLACE THE PRIOR 

REVISION AND DISCARD / DESTROY ALL COPIES OF THE PRIOR REVISION.

New Total Rewrite Revision Page Change
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 2 of 33

 

PUBLICATION RECORD

EFFECTIVE 

DATE

REVISION 

NUMBER DESCRIPTION

08/30/2006 00 New document to describe the Pacific Proving Ground and other 

oceanic test locations to enable the preparation of dose 

reconstructions. First approved issue of Revision 00. Incorporates 

internal and NIOSH formal review comments. There is no change to 

the assigned dose and no PER is required. Training required: As 

determined by the Task Manager. Initiated by Lori J. Arent.

07/11/2016 01 Revision initiated to update occupational medical and external dose 

information. Added excerpts to Section 1.3 from EEOICPA Bulletin 

No. 06-15 and EEOICPA Bulletin No. 07-05 clarifying that 83 days of 

continuous presence on land or ships would be equivalent to the 

250-workday requirement for eligibility for compensation. Removed 

reference in Section 3.0 to ORAUT-PROC-0061 and added 

evaluation requirements under ORAUT-OTIB-0079. Provided 

additional information about the assignment of X-ray procedures 

based on various DOE responses. Revised Section 6.0 requirement 

to assign 95th-percentile doses from Attachment A for unmonitored 

workers and added requirement to Attachment A for comparison and 

assignment of the larger of missed plus recorded dose to the 

95th-percentile doses. Removed requirement to assume beta-togamma ratios from the Nevada Test Site profile. Added Section 6.1 

to provide beta-to-gamma ratios as a function of time after detonation 

and distance from source plane, which is favorable to claimants. 

Added Section 6.2 to provide methods for reconstructing dose from 

fallout from the GREENHOUSE operation for workers on 

contaminated islands and ships. Added Sections 6.3.1 and 6.3.2 to 

provide methods for determining penetrating and nonpenetrating 

dose. Added Section 6.3.3 for determining penetrating and 

nonpenetrating dose from fallout. Revised Section 7.0 to include all 

dose reconstruction methods. Incorporates formal internal and 

NIOSH review comments. Constitutes a total rewrite of the 

document. Training required: As determined by the Task Manager. 

Initiated by Eugene M. Rollins.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 3 of 33

 

TABLE OF CONTENTS

SECTION TITLE PAGE

Acronyms and Abbreviations ............................................................................................................... 5

1.0 Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 7

1.1 Purpose........................................................................................................................ 8

1.2 Scope........................................................................................................................... 8

1.3 Special Exposure Cohort.............................................................................................. 8

2.0 Site Description........................................................................................................................ 9

3.0 Occupational Medical Dose.................................................................................................... 12

4.0 Occupational Environmental Dose ......................................................................................... 13

5.0 Occupational Internal Dose.................................................................................................... 14

6.0 Occupational External Dose................................................................................................... 14

6.1 Unmonitored Skin Dose Beta-to-Gamma Ratios......................................................... 18

6.2 Unmonitored Skin Dose from Fallout .......................................................................... 20

6.3 Instructions to Dose Reconstructors ........................................................................... 24

6.3.1 Penetrating Dose Determination .................................................................. 24

6.3.2 Nonpenetrating Dose Determination ............................................................ 24

6.3.3 Penetrating and Nonpenetrating Doses from Fallout .................................... 24

7.0 Summary ............................................................................................................................... 25

8.0 Attributions and Annotations .................................................................................................. 25

References ........................................................................................................................................ 26

Glossary ............................................................................................................................................ 29

ATTACHMENT A COWORKER DOSE ....................................................................................... 31
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 4 of 33

 

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

2-1 PPG tests...............................................................................................................................10

6-1 External dosimetry using photon-beta dosimeters, 1946 to 1962 ........................................... 15

6-2 Beta-to-gamma dose ratios for bare skin exposures to mixed fission products at PPG 

test sites at various distances from the source plane ............................................................. 18

6-3 Maximum beta-to-gamma ratios between 12 hours and 2 months after detonation at 

various distances above the source plane.............................................................................. 19

6-4 Anatomical distances to source plane and corresponding beta-to-gamma ratios ................... 19

6-5 Efficiency beta-to-gamma ratios for fresh and weathered fallout ............................................ 20

6-6 Operation Greenhouse fallout exposures for personnel aboard ships for the entire test 

period.....................................................................................................................................24

A-1 Actual film badge readings for Operation Crossroads ............................................................ 32

A-2 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Sandstone ............................... 32

A-3 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Greenhouse............................. 32

A-4 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Ivy............................................ 32

A-5 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Castle ...................................... 33

A-6 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Wigwam................................... 33

A-7 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Redwing .................................. 33

A-8 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Hardtack I................................ 33

A-9 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Dominic I ................................. 33

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE TITLE PAGE

6-1 Cumulative dose for personnel on Parry Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout............ 21

6-2 Cumulative dose for personnel on Enewetak Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout..... 22

6-3 Cumulative dose for personnel on Japtan Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout.......... 23
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 5 of 33

 

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 

AEC U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

AWE atomic weapons employer

cm centimeter

d day

DOD U.S. Department of Defense

DOE U.S. Department of Energy

DOL U.S. Department of Labor

EEOICPA Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000

EG&G Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier

ft foot

GSD geometric standard deviation

H&N Holmes & Narver

hr hour

in. inch

keV kiloelectron-volt

km kilometer

kt kiloton

LANL Los Alamos National Laboratory

LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory

MDL minimum detection limit

mi mile

mo month

MPE maximum permissible exposure

mR milliroentgen

mrem millirem

Mt megaton

NIOSH National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health

NTS Nevada Test Site

ORAU Oak Ridge Associated Universities

PPG Pacific Proving Ground

R roentgen

SEC Special Exposure Cohort

SNL Sandia National Laboratory

SRDB Ref ID Site Research Database Reference Identification (number)

t ton
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 6 of 33

TBD technical basis document

U.S.C. United States Code

wk week

yd yard

yr year

§ section or sections
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 7 of 33

 

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Technical basis documents and site profile documents are not official determinations made by the 

National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) but are rather general working 

documents that provide historical background information and guidance to assist in the preparation of 

dose reconstructions at particular Department of Energy (DOE) or Atomic Weapons Employer (AWE) 

facilities or categories of DOE or AWE facilities. They will be revised in the event additional relevant 

information is obtained about the affected DOE or AWE facility(ies). These documents may be used 

to assist NIOSH staff in the evaluation of Special Exposure Cohort (SEC) petitions and the completion 

of the individual work required for each dose reconstruction.

In this document the word “facility” is used to refer to an area, building, or group of buildings that 

served a specific purpose at a DOE or AWE facility. It does not mean nor should it be equated to an 

“AWE facility” or a “DOE facility.” The terms AWE and DOE facility are defined in sections 7384l(5) 

and (12) of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act of 2000 

(EEOICPA), respectively. An AWE facility means “a facility, owned by an atomic weapons employer, 

that is or was used to process or produce, for use by the United States, material that emitted radiation 

and was used in the production of an atomic weapon, excluding uranium mining or milling.” 42 U.S.C. 

§ 7384l(5). On the other hand, a DOE facility is defined as “any building, structure, or premise, 

including the grounds upon which such building, structure, or premise is located ... in which 

operations are, or have been, conducted by, or on behalf of, the [DOE] (except for buildings, 

structures, premises, grounds, or operations ... pertaining to the Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program);” 

and with regard to which DOE has or had a proprietary interest, or “entered into a contract with an 

entity to provide management and operation, management and integration, environmental 

remediation services, construction, or maintenance services.” 42 U.S.C. § 7384l(12). The Department 

of Energy (DOE) determines whether a site meets the statutory definition of an AWE facility and the 

Department of Labor (DOL) determines if a site is a DOE facility and, if it is, designates it as such.

Accordingly, a Part B claim for benefits must be based on an energy employee’s eligible employment 

and occupational radiation exposure at a DOE or AWE facility during the facility’s designated time 

period and location (i.e., covered employee). After DOL determines that a claim meets the eligibility 

requirements under EEOICPA, DOL transmits the claim to NIOSH for a dose reconstruction. 

EEOICPA provides, among other things, guidance on eligible employment and the types of radiation 

exposure to be included in an individual dose reconstruction. Under EEOICPA, eligible employment 

at a DOE facility includes individuals who are or were employed by DOE and its predecessor 

agencies, as well as their contractors and subcontractors at the facility. Unlike the abovementioned 

statutory provisions on DOE facility definitions that contain specific descriptions or exclusions on 

facility designation, the statutory provision governing types of exposure to be included in dose 

reconstructions for DOE covered employees only requires that such exposures be incurred in the 

performance of duty. As such, NIOSH broadly construes radiation exposures incurred in the 

performance of duty to include all radiation exposures received as a condition of employment at 

covered DOE facilities in its dose reconstructions for covered employees. For covered employees at 

DOE facilities, individual dose reconstructions may also include radiation exposures related to the 

Naval Nuclear Propulsion Program at DOE facilities, if applicable. No efforts are made to determine 

the eligibility of any fraction of total measured exposure for inclusion in dose reconstruction.

NIOSH does not consider the following types of exposure as those incurred in the performance of 

duty as a condition of employment at a DOE facility. Therefore these exposures are not included in 

dose reconstructions for covered employees (NIOSH 2010):

• Background radiation, including radiation from naturally occurring radon present in 

conventional structures

• Radiation from X-rays received in the diagnosis of injuries or illnesses or for therapeutic 

reasons
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 8 of 33

1.1 PURPOSE

The purpose of this document is to provide guidance for dose reconstruction of non-SEC cancers and 

those presumptive cancer claims that have less than 250 days of employment for EEOICPA claimants 

who participated in Pacific Proving Ground (PPG) operations.

1.2 SCOPE

This site profile consists of the following sections: Introduction, Site Description, Occupational 

Medical Dose, Occupational Environmental Dose, Occupational Internal Dose, Occupational External 

Dose, and Summary. Attributions and annotations, indicated by bracketed callouts and used to 

identify the source, justification, or clarification of the associated information, are presented in 

Section 8.0.

1.3 SPECIAL EXPOSURE COHORT

The designated SEC class for the PPG includes all employees of DOE, DOE contractors, or 

subcontractors who worked at the PPG from 1946 through 1962 who were monitored or should have 

been monitored for exposure to ionizing radiation (as a result of nuclear weapons testing) at the PPG 

(NIOSH 2005, 2006). This SEC class applies to workers with covered cancers who were employed 

for a number of workdays aggregating at least 250 workdays occurring either solely under this 

employment or in combination with workdays within the parameters (excluding aggregate workday 

requirements) established for other classes of employees included in the SEC (Leavitt 2006).

The 250-workday requirement for PPG workers was subsequently interpreted by DOL in two separate 

bulletins. EEOICPA Bulletin No. 06-15 states (DOL 2006): 

1. This new addition to the SEC affects DOE employees and DOE contractor employees 

or subcontractor employees employed at the PPG from 1946 through 1962 for a number 

of work days aggregating at least 250 work days, either solely under this employment or 

in combination with work days established for other classes of employees included in the 

SEC.... This new SEC designation is established for workers who were “monitored or 

should have been monitored” while employed at the PPG. Using the current standards 

for monitoring of workers at a nuclear facility site, DOL is interpreting “monitored or 

should have been monitored” as including all employees who worked at the PPG during 

the period from 1946 to 1962.... 

Please note that for this new SEC class, the 250 work day calculation includes any time 

spent at any of the islands or atolls that make up the PPG during its SEC time period. 

This includes time spent working or living at the PPG during the SEC time period. In 

addition, employees were evacuated to ships from the PPG prior to nuclear weapons 

tests being performed. Time spent on ships just prior to a nuclear weapons test is 

counted toward meeting the 250 work day requirement. For any 24-hour period that the 

employee was present (either worked or lived) on the PPG or on ships (evacuated prior 

to a nuclear weapon testing), the CE would credit the employee with the equivalent of 

three (8-hour) work days. If there is evidence the employee was present at the PPG or 

on ships for 24 hours in a day for 83 days, the employee would have the equivalent of 

250 work days and would meet the 250 work day requirement. 

Since continuous time spent at this site is credited toward the calculation of 250 work 

days, it is important the CE establish any period when the employee was not present at 

the site and exclude these periods from the 250 work day calculation. In determining the 

actual employment period, the CE must have clear and convincing evidence of a 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 9 of 33

beginning date (hire) and end date (termination) of employment at the PPG. Where the 

evidence is not clear and convincing or consists only of film badge date(s) without a 

beginning date or end date, the CE must await further policy guidance before proceeding 

with the verification of covered SEC employment at the site. The National Office of 

DEEOIC continues to explore methods by which confirmation of employment can occur 

for workers alleging employment at the PPG.

EEOICPA Bulletin No. 07-05, states (DOL 2007): 

1. This bulletin is in addition to the guidance specifically referenced in Item 5 of Bulletin 

06-15.... 

Absent evidence of hire and end dates of employment, the CE may utilize external film 

badge (dosimetry) records to establish covered employment at PPG. As confirmed by 

DEEOIC, employees working at PPG during its SEC period were issued individual film 

badges to monitor for radiation exposure. These individual film badges were generally 

issued for one day, one week or a month depending on potential exposure to the 

individual. Typically, film badge records would include the issue date and the end (return) 

date which can be used to document employment periods at the PPG. 

As noted for this SEC class in Bulletin 06-15, continuous time spent (including working 

or living) at PPG is credited toward the calculation of 250 work days. If the film badge 

records include an issue date and end (return) date within the PPG SEC time period, the 

CE is to credit the employee with the equivalent of three (8-hour) work days for each 

date the employee was badged, inclusive of the issue date and end (return) date. For 

example, an employee with a film badge with the issue date of 3/27/1954 and the end 

(return) date of 3/31/1954 would be credited with 15 (8-hour) work days.

2.0 SITE DESCRIPTION

Between 1946 and 1962, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC; a DOE predecessor agency) 

conducted over a hundred atmospheric and underwater nuclear weapon tests at sites at the PPG 

(DOE 2000). In the Pacific, 29 atolls and 5 islands spread over 770,000 mi2 with a total land area of 

about 70 mi2 make up the Marshall Islands. Enewetak Atoll, Bikini Atoll, and Johnston Island in the 

Marshall Islands, and Christmas Island in the Indian Ocean are known collectively as the PPG 

(NIOSH 2005).

Oceanic nuclear testing by the United States consisted mostly of the unconfined detonation of nuclear 

devices in the atmosphere. An operation includes one or more individual tests, typically designed and 

conducted for a common purpose. Table 2-1 summarizes the PPG tests, including test name, date, 

sponsor(s), location, type, purpose, and yield.

Personnel who worked on the PPG tests were based at various DOE sites and traveled to the test 

location for part or all of an operation. Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL, previously known as 

the Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory), Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL, previously 

known as the University of California Research Laboratory), Sandia National Laboratory (SNL, 

previously known as Sandia Corporation), and the Nevada Test Site (NTS) were the main work 

locations for most civilian participants during the various operations. However, DOE contractors such 

as Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier (EG&G) and Holmes & Narver (H&N) for example, provided 

civilian participants who usually worked at other locations. The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) 

cosponsored some tests with the national laboratories.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 10 of 33

Table 2-1. PPG tests.

a

Test Dateb Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Operation Crossroads – To determine effects on ships

Able 06/30/46 LANL/DOD Bikini Airdrop Weapons effects 21 kt

Baker 07/24/46 LANL/DOD Bikini Underwater Weapons effects 21 kt

Operation Sandstone – AEC scientific tests to proof-test improved design

X-ray 04/14/48 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 37 kt

Yoke 04/30/48 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 49 kt

Zebra 05/14/48 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 18 kt

Operation Greenhouse – Thermonuclear weapon development and observation of physical and biological 

effects of nuclear weapons

Dog 04/07/51 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 81 kt

Easy 04/20/51 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 47 kt

George 05/08/51 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 225 kt

Item 05/24/51 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 45.5 kt

Operation Ivy – Thermonuclear weapon development

Mike 10/31/52 LANL Enewetak Surface Weapons related 10.4 Mt

King 11/15/52 LANL Enewetak Airdrop Weapons related 500 kt

Operation Castle – To gage military effects of the explosions (i.e., measure power and efficiency of devices)

Bravo 02/28/54 LANL Bikini Surface Weapons related 15 Mt

Romeo 03/26/54 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 11 Mt

Koon 04/06/54 LLNL Bikini Surface Weapons related 110 kt

Union 04/25/54 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 6.9 Mt

Yankee 05/04/54 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 13.5 Mt

Nectar 05/13/54 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 1.69 Mt

Operation Wigwamc – To determine lethal distances for nuclear effects vs. submerged submarines; one 

detonation was conducted in 16,000 ft of water

Wigwamc 05/14/55 LANL/DOD Pacific Underwater Weapons effects 30 kt

Operation Redwing – High-yield thermonuclear tests to gage military effects and measure power and 

efficiency of devices

Lacrosse 05/04/56 LANL Enewetak Surface Weapons related 40 kt

Cherokee 05/20/56 LANL Bikini Airdrop Weapons related 3.8 Mt

Zuni 05/27/56 LLNL Bikini Surface Weapons related 3.5 Mt

Yuma 05/27/56 LLNL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 190 t

Erie 05/30/56 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 14.9 kt

Seminole 06/06/56 LANL Enewetak Surface Weapons related 13.7 kt

Flathead 06/11/56 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 365 kt

Blackfoot 06/11/56 LANL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 8 kt

Kickapoo 06/13/56 LLNL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 1.49 kt

Osage 06/16/56 LANL Enewetak Airdrop Weapons related 1.7 kt

Inca 06/21/56 LLNL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 15.2 kt

Dakota 06/25/56 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 1.1 Mt

Mohawk 07/02/56 LLNL Enewetak Tower Weapons related 360 kt

Apache 07/08/56 LLNL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 1.85 Mt

Navajo 07/10/56 LANL Bikini Barge Weapons related 4.5 Mt

Tewa 07/20/56 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 5 Mt

Huron 07/20/56 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 250 kt

Hardtack I – Three parts to test: (1) continued development of nuclear weapons with detonation of 

experimental devices from various AEC laboratories, (2) underwater tests to improve understanding of effects 

on underwater explosions on ships and material, and (3) nuclear weapons in air and ballistic missile defense 

(first high-yield rocket tests)

Yucca

(Operation Newsreel)

04/28/58 LANL/DOD Pacific Balloon Weapons effects 1.7 kt

Cactus 05/05/58 LANL Enewetak Surface Weapons effects 18 kt

Fir 05/11/58 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 1.36 Mt
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 11 of 33

Test Dateb Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Butternut 05/11/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 81 kt

Koa 05/12/58 LANL Enewetak Surface Weapons related 1.37 Mt

Wahoo 05/16/58 LANL/DOD Enewetak Underwater Weapons related 9 kt

Holly 05/20/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 5.9 kt

Nutmeg 05/21/58 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 25.1 kt

Yellowwood 05/26/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 330 kt

Magnolia 05/26/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 57 kt

Tobacco 05/30/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 11.6 kt

Sycamore 05/31/58 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 92 kt

Rose 06/02/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 15 kt

Umbrella 06/08/58 LANL/DOD Enewetak Underwater Weapons effects 8 kt

Maple 06/10/58 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 213 kt

Aspen 06/14/58 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 319 kt

Walnut 06/14/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 1.45 Mt

Linden 06/18/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 11 kt

Redwood 06/27/58 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 412 kt

Elder 06/27/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 880 kt

Oak 06/28/59 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 8.9 Mt

Hickory 06/29/58 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 14 kt

Sequoia 07/01/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 5.2 kt

Cedar 07/02/58 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 220 kt

Dogwood 07/05/58 LLNL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 397 kt

Poplar 07/12/58 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 9.3 Mt

Scaevola 07/14/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Safety experiment 0

Pisonia 07/17/58 LANL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 225 kt

Juniper 07/22/58 LLNL Bikini Barge Weapons related 65 kt

Olive 07/22/58 LLNL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 202 kt

Pine 07/26/58 LLNL Enewetak Barge Weapons related 2 Mt

Teak

(Operation Newsreel)

08/01/58 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects 3.8 Mt

Quince 08/06/58 LLNL/DOD Enewetak Surface Weapons related 0

Orange

(Operation Newsreel)

08/12/58 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects 3.8 Mt

Fig 08/18/58 LLNL/DOD Enewetak Surface Weapons related 20 tons

Argusc – Tests in upper regions of atmosphere to test Christofilos theory, which argued that high-altitude 

nuclear detonations would create radiation belt in upper regions of Earth’s atmosphere that would include 

degradation of radio and radar transmissions, etc.

Argus Ic 08/27/58 LANL/DOD S. Atlantic Rocket Weapons effects 1-2 kt

Argus IIc 08/30/58 LANL/DOD S. Atlantic Rocket Weapons effects 1-2 kt

Argus IIIc 09/06/58 LANL/DOD S. Atlantic Rocket Weapons effects 1-2 kt

Dominic – Primarily high-altitude air bursts with little fallout

Adobe 04/25/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 190 kt

Aztec 04/27/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 410 kt

Arkansas 05/02/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 1.09 Mt

Questa 05/04/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 670 kt

Frigate Bird 05/06/62 LLNL/DOD Pacific Rocket Weapons related 200–1,000 

kt

Yukon 05/08/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 100 kt

Mesilla 05/09/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop

Muskegon 05/11/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop

Weapons related 100 kt 

Weapons related 50 kt 

Swordfish 05/11/62 LANL/DOD Pacific Underwater Weapons effects Low

Encino 05/12/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 500 kt

Swanee 05/14/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 97 kt

Chetco 05/19/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 73 kt
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 12 of 33

Test Dateb Sponsor Location Type Purpose Yield

Tanana 05/25/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 2.6 kt

Nambe 05/27/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 43 kt

Alma 06/08/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 782 kt

Truckee 06/09/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 210 kt

Yeso 06/10/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 3 Mt

Harlem 06/12/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 1.2 Mt

Rinconada 06/15/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 800 kt

Dulce 06/17/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 52 kt

Petit 06/19/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 2.2 kt

Otowi 06/22/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 81.5 kt

Bighorn 06/27/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 7.65 Mt

Bluestone 06/30/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 1.27 Mt

Operations Fishbowl and Dominic (AKA Dominic I)

Starfish Prime 

(Operation Fishbowl)

07/09/62 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects 1.4 Mt

Sunset

(Operation Dominic)

07/10/62 LANL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 1 Mt

Pamlico

(Operation Dominic)

07/11/62 LLNL Christmas Airdrop Weapons related 3.88 Mt

Androscoggin

(Operation Dominic)

10/02/62 LLNL Johnston Airdrop Weapons related 75 kt

Bumping

(Operation Dominic)

10/06/62 LLNL Johnston Airdrop Weapons related 11.3 kt

Chama

(Operation Dominic)

10/18/62 LANL Johnston Airdrop Weapons related 1.59 Mt

Checkmate

(Operation Fishbowl)

10/20/62 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects Low

Bluegill 3 Prime 

(Operation Fishbowl)

10/26/62 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects Sub Mt

Calamity

(Operation Dominic)

10/27/62 LLNL Johnston Airdrop Weapons related 800 kt

Housatonic

(Operation Dominic)

10/30/62 LLNL Johnston Airdrop Weapons related 8.3 Mt

Kingfish

(Operation Fishbowl)

11/01/62 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects Sub Mt

Tightrope

(Operation Fishbowl)

11/04/62 LANL/DOD Johnston Rocket Weapons effects Low

a. Prepared from Weary et al. (1981), Martin and Rowland (1982), Jones et al. (1982), Gladeck et al. (1982a, 1982b), 

Bruce-Henderson et al.1982, Berkhouse et al. (1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1984), and DOE (2000).

b. Dates based on Greenwich Mean Time rather than local time.

c. This operation and its tests are not considered to have occurred as part of PPG operations. These data should be used 

to estimate dose only if this oceanic testing location becomes recognized as a covered DOE facility.

3.0 OCCUPATIONAL MEDICAL DOSE

Multiple organizations based at various sites in the DOE complex sponsored and took part in the 

operations. Based on records from DOE, the dose reconstructor must, if possible, determine the 

facility or facilities in the complex with which the employee was associated during participation in an 

oceanic test or operation.

LANL, LLNL, SNL, and NTS provided many of the civilian scientific, research, and support participants 

during these operations. H&N and EG&G provided support personnel (e.g., cafeteria workers, 

electronics technicians, construction workers, etc.). The assignments were for all or part of an 

operation and lasted from 2 to 4 months for most civilian participants. Employees of some 

contractors, such as EG&G and H&N, were associated with more than one DOE facility. The dose 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 13 of 33

 

reconstructor should use the occupational medical dose technical basis documents (TBDs) for the 

participant’s employers and associated DOE sites to determine X-ray dose.

For most participants, specific guidance for occupational medical dose can be found in the current 

published revision of:

• ORAUT-TKBS-0008-3, Nevada Test Site – Occupational Medical Dose (ORAUT 2012); 

• ORAUT-TKBS-0010-3, Los Alamos National Laboratory – Occupational Medical Dose

(ORAUT 2010a); and

• ORAUT-TKBS-0035-3, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory – Occupational Medical Dose

(ORAUT 2010b). 

While these sites provided many participants, other sites across the complex also provided 

participants or workers who might have been hired from the local population as support personnel. 

Other employers might have been associated with only one DOE facility or none at all. If an 

employee’s records cannot be associated with a DOE facility for which a TBD is being developed at 

the time of the dose reconstruction, dose reconstructors should use the guidance in ORAUT-OTIB0006, Dose Reconstruction from Occupational Medical X-Ray Procedures (ORAUT 2011).

NIOSH has concluded it is feasible to determine maximum potential occupational medical exposures. 

Because most civilian participants spent the interval of the operation (or part of the operation) at the 

test location and then returned to the United States, the use of site-specific information (for example, 

the documents listed above for NTS, LANL, and LLNL) for the participant is reasonable. Occupational 

medical exposures for participants that were hired on location or do not have available X-ray records 

linked to a covered site (e.g., NTS, LANL, and LLNL) should be evaluated in accordance with 

ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Guidance on Assigning Occupational X-Ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-Rays 

Administered Off Site (ORAUT 2016). 

Participants who have been linked to a covered site but for whom records are not available fall into 

three categories according to the DOE response (or lack of response): (1) records are not readily 

available, (2) records do not exist, or (3) no DOE response was provided. In the first and third cases 

where DOE indicated that the records are not readily available (or not retrieved) or no response was 

provided, X-ray procedures should be applied in accordance with the occupational medical TBD for 

that site if a best estimate is not required. If a best estimate is required, the case should be put on 

hold and a request should be sent to the covered site to provide the X-ray records. For the second 

case, in which DOE indicated that the X-ray records do not exist, dose from X-ray procedures should 

not be assigned.

4.0 OCCUPATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL DOSE

Participants with the potential for radiological exposure received dosimeters during the tests (see 

Table 6-1 later in this document). Starting with Operation Castle, LANL film badge dosimetry 

procedures were adopted (Lalos 1989). According to ORAUT (2006), external onsite ambient dose 

does not need to be assigned for employees who were monitored under LANL procedures. Beginning 

in 1955 with Operation Wigwam, all participants were issued permanent film badges. In addition, 

some participants were issued mission badges in addition to film badges with longer exchange 

frequencies. For these individuals, the mission badge dose was subtracted from the permanent 

badge dose; the difference became the dose of record. Therefore, beginning in 1955, external 

ambient dose does not need to be applied. For PPG operation participants, coworker doses have 

been developed using summary data (see Attachment A). Because of the large uncertainties, 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 14 of 33

 

coworker doses should be assigned to workers at the 95th-percentile level as described in Section 6.0 

in lieu of other environmental doses.

The primary source of occupational environmental dose was exposures to fallout. Assignment of 

potential fallout dose is discussed in Section 6.2.

5.0 OCCUPATIONAL INTERNAL DOSE

NIOSH determined in the SEC Petition Evaluation Report (NIOSH 2005, 2006) that it lacks sufficient 

personnel monitoring, air monitoring, or source term data to adequately reconstruct the internal 

exposures at the PPG. As a consequence, NIOSH finds that it is not feasible to estimate with 

sufficient accuracy the radiation doses from internal exposures during PPG operations.

6.0 OCCUPATIONAL EXTERNAL DOSE

A review of the records from DOE and application of the operation-specific parameters in Table 6-1 

will provide a dose estimate for the employee. Before universal badging in 1955, because of 

deficiencies in the film badge dosimetry data and procedural practices that were identified by Lalos

(1989) and Perkins and Hammond (1980), available DOE records might be incomplete, inaccurate, or 

might not include unmonitored exposures associated with employee badging. To account for these 

large uncertainties, the 95th-percentile coworker doses in Attachment A should be assigned for cases 

in which the data are incomplete or nonexistent. If, before 1955, the employee had recorded dose, 

the dose reconstructor should compare that recorded dose with the 95th-percentile doses in 

Attachment A and assign the larger of the two doses. NIOSH considers the available data and these 

methods adequate for performing external photon dose reconstruction for PPG activities. 

NIOSH determined in the SEC Petition Evaluation Report (NIOSH 2005, 2006) that it lacks sufficient 

information to adequately reconstruct neutron doses at the PPG. The following specific guidance is 

provided for external dose reconstruction:

• Energy distribution. Assume an energy distribution of 100% 30 to 250 keV for photons. This 

is very favorable to claimants because it is likely that participants present during the events 

were exposed to photons >250 keV. Beta dose was not evaluated from the film dosimeters 

used during these operations. For methods to assign beta dose, see Section 6.1 below.

• Missed dose. Assign missed dose based on the number of exchanges in the dosimetry 

records. For after 1955, compare the recorded dose plus the missed dose with the 

95th-percentile dose in Attachment A and assign the larger dose. It should be noted that 

before universal badging 1955, it is not possible to reconstruct missed dose because of 

deficiencies in film badge dosimetry data and procedural practices identified by Lalos (1989) 

and Perkins and Hammond (1980). During these tests there were operation badges that were 

worn for the entire test sequence or some other established interval of the operation and there 

were mission badges that were worn for the duration of a specific task. Because both badges 

were to be worn at the same time, only one zero should be assigned.

• Uncertainty and bias. Assign uncertainty to the measured photon dose. As an assignment 

that is favorable to claimants, bias has been defaulted to 1.0 for both the missed and 

measured doses. According to the information in Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric 

Nuclear Tests (Lalos 1989), the dose of record was to be divided by the bias, however it is 

favorable to claimants to assign as discussed above.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 

07/11/2016 Page 15 of 33

Table 6-1. External dosimetry using photon-beta dosimeters, 1946 to 1962.

a

Year Operation Dosimeter Description Issue and exchange MPE Biasb Uncertainty MDL

1946 Crossroads

(2 events)

Dental film 

packet

Single component type K doubleemulsion dental film packet 

covered by 0.020-in.-thick lead 

cross filter. This filter was not 

totally effective in correcting overresponse caused by photons of 

lower energy. Plastic envelope 

was used to minimize damage to 

film from moisture. Exposure range 

0 to 2 R.

Issued to RadSafe 

monitors or a few RadSafe 

monitors in groups 

(approximately 1 to 2 

monitors with dosimeters 

for 100 participants –

cohort badging). Also 

issued to aircrews. 

Exchanged daily but 

record indicates some 

were worn up to 9 d. Used 

during decontamination of 

ships and for unloading 

ammunition at Kwajalein 

after August 1946.

Photon exposure 

with objective of 

keeping daily 

exposure below 

0.1 R, not to 

exceed 50–60 

R/2 wk. Employee 

withdrawn from 

operation at 10 R/d 

or 60 R/2 wk.

1.1 1.7 40 mR

1948 Sandstone

(3 events)

Eastman 

types K and 

A film

Type K exposure range (0.06 to 

2 R). Type A exposure range (1 to 

10 R). Covered by 0.020-in.-thick 

lead cross filter. This filter was not 

totally effective in correcting the 

over-response caused by photons

of lower energy. Plastic envelope 

was used to minimize damage to 

film from moisture.

Issued for single-day use 

to all personnel with 

exposure potential. 

Example: on 04/24/1948, 

9 d after test “X-ray,” all 

participants who were 

expected to come closer 

than 530 yd of ground zero 

were issued dosimeters.

Exposure to be 

below 0.1 R/d or 

3 R for certain 

missions

1.1 1.8 60 mR

1951 Greenhouse

(4 events)

DuPont 553 

packet

DuPont 553 packet, including 

Type 502 low-range element (0.05 

to 10 R), type 510 high-range 

element (1 to 50 R), and type 606 

high-range element (10 to 300 R). 

No measurable density above 

background was reported for type 

606 element. Lead filters 0.020 in. 

thick. This filter was not totally 

effective in correcting overresponse caused by photons of 

lower energy. 

Cohort representative, 

aircrews, and ground 

crews maintaining 

contaminated aircraft. 

Originally recorded dose 

probably reflects 

subtraction for fallout.

3.9 R/13 wk; 

0.1 R/d not to 

exceed 0.7 R/wk

1.1 1.9 40 mR
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 

07/11/2016 Page 16 of 33

Year Operation Dosimeter Description Issue and exchange MPE Biasb Uncertainty MDL

1952 Ivy

(2 events)

DuPont 558 

packet

DuPont 558 packet including 

type 508 low-range element (0.05 

to 10 R) and type 1290 high-range 

element (10 to 750 R). Lead filters 

0.020 in. thick. This filter was not 

totally effective in correcting overresponse caused by photons of 

lower energy. 

Issued to aircrews, ground 

crews assigned to working 

on contaminated aircraft, 

and reentry parties. 

Badges were usually 

issued on mission basis 

and worn for approximately 

1 d.

3.9 R/operation for 

gamma only

1.1 1.5c 40 mR

1954 Castle

(6 events)

DuPont 509 

packet

DuPont 509 packet including 

type 502 low-range element (0.02 

to 10 R) and type 606 high-range 

element (10 to 300 R). Lead filters 

0.028 in. thick, (symmetrical 

coverage on both sides with open 

area). This change in thickness 

from previous filter caused 20% 

change in response to 120- and 

70-keV photons.

Issued to all aircrews in air 

at time of detonation within 

185 km of the shot site. 

Also, all participants likely 

to receive a significant 

amount of radiation 

exposure and a 

representative 10% of 

other personnel.

3.9 R/13 wk 

augmented with 

0.3 R/wk after that

1.0 2.1 40 mR

1955 Wigwamd

(1 event)

DuPont 559 

packet

DuPont 559 packet including 

type 502 low-range element (0.02 

to 10 R) and type 606 high-range 

element (10 to 300 R). Lead filters 

0.028 in. thick (symmetrical 

coverage on both sides with open 

area).

Issued to almost all 

participates with extra 

exchanges for those 

involved in posttest 

sampling and recovery of 

test instruments. Badge 

indicated beta to gamma 

ratios ranged from 1:1 to 

3:1.

3.5 R/operation; 

20 R/operation 

hands and feet

1.0 1.4 40 mR

1956 Redwing

(17 events)

DuPont 559 

packet

DuPont 559 packet including 

type 502 low-range element (0.02 

to 10 R) and type 606 high-range 

element (10 to 300 R). Lead filters 

0.028 in. thick (symmetrical 

coverage on both sides with open 

area).

Permanent badges were 

issued to all participants. 

Cellulose acetate holder 

was found to be defective, 

so after first 6 wk film 

packets were dipped in 

ceresin wax to keep out 

moisture. Mission badges 

(exchanged daily) were 

issued to personnel 

entering contaminated 

areas.

3.9 R/13 wk 1.0 1.5 40 mR
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 

07/11/2016 Page 17 of 33

Year Operation Dosimeter Description Issue and exchange MPE Biasb Uncertainty MDL

1958 Hardtack 

and 

Newsreel

(35 events)

DuPont 559 

packet

DuPont 559 packet including 

type 502 low-range element (0.02 

to 10 R) and type 834 high-range 

element (5 to 800 R). Lead filters 

0.028 in. thick (symmetrical 

coverage on both sides with open 

area). Film was wax covered and 

housed in rigid polyvinylchloride 

case. Designed to be worn for 

several months, no significant 

failure observed with up to 6 mo of 

use.

Film badges were called in 

at 60-d intervals. All 

participants were to wear 

dosimetry at all times.

3.75 R/13 wk; 

5 R for operation

1.2 1.4 40 mR

1958 Argusd

(3 events)

DuPont 559 

packetd

Uncertain which film badge was 

used. Possibly same as Operation 

Plumbbob at NTS [i.e., type 502 

low-range element (0.02 to 10 R) 

and type 606 high-range element 

(10 to 300 R)].

4,000 film badges were 

provided but, due to 

classified nature of tests 

only 264 film badges were 

assigned, all to personnel 

with knowledge of the 

tests. No records of the 

dosimetry are available. 

Highest exposure recorded 

by individual’s packet was 

0.010 R.

3 rem/13 wk and 

5(N – 18)e rem/yrf

1.09g 1.4g 40 mR

1962 Dominic 

(Dominic I) 

and 

Fishbowl 

(36 events)

DuPont 556 

packet

DuPont 556 packet including 

type 508 low-range element (0.02 

to 10 R) and type 834 high-range 

element (5 to 800 R). Lead filters 

0.028 in. thick (symmetrical 

coverage on both sides with open 

area). Film was wax covered and 

housed in rigid polyvinylchloride 

case.

Aircrews and all 

participants with exception 

of certain remote locations.

3 rem/13 wk and 

5(N – 18) rem/yr

1.2 1.4 40 mR

a. Prepared from Weary et al. (1981), Martin and Rowland (1982), Jones et al. (1982), Gladeck et al. (1982a, 1982b), Bruce-Henderson et al. (1982), Berkhouse et al. 

(1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1984), and Lalos (1989).

b. For the purpose of providing an assignment of dose that is favorable to claimants, the bias will default to 1.

c. Bias is 1.4 for flight personnel.

d. This test is not considered part of the PPG cohort. These data should be used to estimate dose only if this oceanic testing location is recognized as a covered DOE 

facility.

e. N equals the age of the participant.

f. Routine maximum permissible exposure (MPE) is from IEER (2000).

g. Information is from Operation Plumbbob at NTS.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 18 of 33

6.1 UNMONITORED SKIN DOSE BETA-TO-GAMMA RATIOS

Beta dose was not evaluated from the film dosimeters used during PPG operations. In the absence of 

shallow dose measurements from beta radiation from fallout, dose reconstructors should use the 

beta-to-gamma ratios in Table 6-2 to derive appropriate ratios to apply for each cancer location.

Table 6-2. Beta-to-gamma dose ratios for bare skin exposures to mixed fission products at PPG test 

sites at various distances (cm) from the source plane (Barrs and Weitz 2006).

Time after 

detonation

Raw Distance From Source Plane (cm)

1 20 40 80 100 120 160 200

0.5 hr 36.4 24.2 17.7 11.9 10.4 9.1 7.0 5.4 

1 hr 32.5 21.4 15.5 10.3 8.9 7.8 5.9 4.5 

2 hr 32.0 20.8 15.0 9.9 8.5 7.4 5.5 4.2 

4 hr 40.3 25.9 18.5 12.0 10.3 8.9 6.7 5.0 

6 hr 51.1 32.6 23.1 14.9 12.7 11.0 8.2 6.2 

12 hr 65.6 41.0 28.6 17.8 15.0 12.8 9.3 6.8 

1 d 65.1 38.7 25.8 14.9 12.2 10.0 6.8 4.7 

2 d 64.4 35.2 22.1 11.8 9.3 7.4 4.7 2.9 

3 d 62.8 32.2 19.3 9.8 7.6 6.0 3.6 2.1 

1 wk 62.3 29.0 16.3 7.7 5.8 4.5 2.5 1.4 

2 wk 65.5 30.5 17.1 8.1 6.2 4.7 2.7 1.6 

1 mo 72.4 34.7 19.9 9.8 7.6 6.0 3.7 2.2 

2 mo 85.7 39.8 22.8 11.8 9.5 7.8 5.1 3.3 

4 mo 907 40.4 23.0 12.5 10.5 9.0 6.4 4.4 

6 mo 94.6 42.5 24.5 13.9 11.9 10.4 7.7 5.5 

9 mo 116.7 54.5 32.5 19.6 15.4 15.4 11.8 8.8 

1 yr 166.1 81.2 50.3 31.7 25.6 25.6 20.1 15.2 

2 yr 494.2 251.9 160.5 104.2 85.3 85.3 68.0 52.3 

The factors that determine a favorable to claimant ratio include the time after detonation and the 

distance the skin cancer location is from the source plane. To determine a reasonable maximum time 

after detonation, the frequency of the detonations must be considered as well as the elapsed time 

between separate operations. For example, during some PPG operations detonations occurred on a 

daily basis while other operations involved weekly or biweekly detonations. Because the dose rate for 

both gamma and beta radiation diminishes exponentially with time after detonation, the relative 

importance of the dose from older fallout is significantly less than the importance of fresh fallout to 

total dose. Therefore, the maximum “effective” age of the fallout during PPG operations is probably 

no more than 2 months.

However, the time between operations varied between 1 and 4 years. Therefore, if participants were 

exposed, for example, in the first quarter of 1958 before the start of Operation Hardtack-1, according 

to Tables 6-3 and 6-4, a beta-to-gamma ratio as high as 85 would be expected for exposure to a skin 

cancer on the upper arm because the fallout from the previous operation (REDWING) would have 

been the likely source of the exposure and that fallout would have aged more than 2 years. However, 

empirical studies at the NTS (ORAUT 2012) indicate that for fallout that has been exposed to 

weathering for more than 6 months (atmospheric testing at the NTS ceased in July of 1962), the 

actual measured beta-to-gamma ratio was much lower. The NTS data showed that, for the period 

from 1966 to 1987, the 50th-percentile beta-to-gamma ratio from 369 data pairs of measured shallow 

and penetration dose was 1.04 and that the 95th-percentile ratio was 4.59 with geometric standard 

deviations (GSDs) of 2.41. These measurements were performed with badges on the chest (i.e., 

120 cm from source plane). Therefore, for exposures to fallout that has weathered for the length of 

time between different operations, the ratios shown in Table 6-3 for weathered fallout should be 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 19 of 33

Table 6-3. Maximum beta-to-gamma ratios between 

12 hours and 2 months after detonation at various 

distances above the source plane.

Distance above 

source plane (cm)

Maximum beta-to-gamma ratio 

from 12 hours to 2 months

20 41

40 28.6

80 17.8

100 15

120 12.8

160 9.3

200 6.8

applied. The shallow doses that were derived using the weathered ratios should be applied as a 

lognormal distribution with a GSD of 2.41.

In relation to the minimum time of exposure to fallout after detonation, inspection of the data in 

Table 6-2 shows a peak effect at 12 hours. Therefore, to derive a beta-to-gamma ratio that is 

favorable to claimants, the largest ratio between 2 months and 12 hours was chosen for each of the 

distances in Table 6-2. These ratios are shown in Table 6-3.

Table 6-4 provides the approximate distances for various body locations for the average man (5 ft,

8 in. tall). Using linear interpolation, beta-to-gamma ratios at these distances can be derived and are 

also provided in Table 6-4. Shallow dose derived from application of the fresh fallout beta-to-gamma 

ratios should be applied as a constant.

Table 6-4. Anatomical distances to source plane and corresponding beta-to-gamma 

ratios.

Location

Distance from source 

plane (cm)

Beta-to-gamma ratio,

fresh fallouta

Beta-to-gamma ratio,

weathered falloutb

Lower leg 25 37 13

Upper leg 69 21 8

Hand 65 22 8

Wrist 84 18 7

Lower arm 97 16 6

Upper arm 125 12 4

Shoulder 142 11 4

Neck 151 10 3

Head 162 9 3

Scalp 173 8 3

a. Calculated doses using these ratios should be entered as constants.

b. Calculated 95th-percentile doses using these ratios should be entered as a lognormal distribution with 

a GSD of 2.41.

As an efficiency method when a best estimate is not required, the beta-to-gamma ratios in Table 6-5 

may be used.

Another consideration in the assignment of beta dose is attenuation. Beta dose should not be 

assigned to locations below the ankles because the workers always wore shoes during the recovery 

and decontamination operations. Further, photographic records indicate these activities often 

involved only short pants and shoes because of the heat and humidity. Therefore, attenuation factors 

should not be applied except for cancer locations from the waist down to just above the knees. For 

cancer locations from the waist to just above the knees, the best-estimate attenuation factor of 0.855 

(ORAUT 2005) should be applied.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 20 of 33

Table 6-5. Efficiency beta-to-gamma ratios for fresh and weathered fallout.

Location

Beta-to-gamma ratio, 

fresh fallouta

Beta-to-gamma ratio, 

weathered falloutb

Lower leg 40 13

Upper leg/hand/wrist/lower arm/chest 20 8

Upper arm/shoulder/neck/head/scalp 10 3

a. Calculated doses using these ratios should be entered as constants.

b. Calculated 95th-percentile doses using these ratios should be entered as a lognormal distribution with 

a GSD of 2.41.

6.2 UNMONITORED SKIN DOSE FROM FALLOUT

Exposure to ionizing radiation during atmospheric nuclear testing is the sum of exposures from 

activities that required personnel to undertake missions in radioactive areas, or to deal with 

radioactive materials, and of exposures from increased background radiation in normally 

nonradioactive areas that might be caused, for example, by fallout. All nuclear testing had some 

exposures of the first type, but Operation Greenhouse in 1951 also had fallout exposures. Three 

shots of the series deposited radioactive fallout over the base islands at Enewetak and six nearby 

ships, exposing personnel to radiation.

Before 1955, film badges were almost exclusively used for personnel on missions that had the 

potential for radiation exposure. Only a portion of the personnel in areas where exposure was not 

expected were badged. Therefore, radiation from the unexpected fallout was unrecorded for the large 

majority of Operation Greenhouse participants. However, fallout radiation was recorded by 

instruments used to monitor background radiation on film badges staked outside of buildings on 

Parry Island as well as by sample badges issued to selected personnel working in the areas affected 

by fallout. These basic background measurements and sample badges were used by radiation safety

personnel at the time of Operation Greenhouse to estimate the maximum possible exposures from the 

fallout. Estimates were made for personnel on the base islands of Enewetak, Parry, and Japtan as 

well as the support ships (DNA 1983). 

Cumulative radiation exposure data were used to produce a matrix of the estimated doses in rem for 

the entire Operation Greenhouse test period for Parry, Enewetak, and Japtan Islands as shown in 

Figures 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3, respectively.

About 70% of the 2,952 U.S. Navy personnel at Operation Greenhouse were badged. These included 

the boat pool personnel who were expected to enter radioactive areas as they ferried scientific parties 

to the shot islands. The air patrol squadron personnel who could have flown in the vicinity of the 

radioactive clouds and air transport personnel who flew radioactive samples to Hawaii and the U.S. 

mainland were also badged.

A search of Navy medical records indicates that 1,609 doses were assigned immediately after the 

tests to nearly all personnel aboard the USS Curtiss (AV-4), USS Sproston (DDE-577), USS Walker

(DDE-517), USS Cabildo (LSD-16), the USS LST-859, and those in the boat pool, for the period they 

were not badged. These doses accounted for fallout exposure. The documentation for these 

calculations has not been found. However, a 1981 scientific reconstruction of the probable fallout 

exposures for these ships is consistent with the assigned levels (DNA 1983). Assignments for the 

Cabildo and the boat pool appear to have considered individual assignment or work area and the 

number of days not badged because the same assignment was not made for all crewmembers of 

these units.

The fallout exposure to personnel aboard ships should be considerably lower than that for land-based 

personnel. Not only were ship structures more effective radiation shields than the light aluminum and 

canvas shelters on the islands, but decontamination of the ships during and after fallout removed 
 

Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 

0

7/11/2016 Page 21 of 33

Figure 6-1. Cumulative dose (rem) for personnel on Parry Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout (Example: personnel arriving April 

26 and departing May 26 received a dose of 0.94 rem) (DNA 1983).
 

Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 

0

7/11/2016 Page 22 of 

Figure 6-2. Cumulative dose (rem) for personnel on Enewetak Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout (Example: personnel arriving 

33

April 28 and departing May 26 received dose of 0.97 rem) (DNA 1983).
 

Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 

0

7/11/2016 Page 23 of 33

Figure 6-3. Cumulative dose (rem) for personnel on Japtan Island due to Operation Greenhouse fallout (Example: personnel arriving April 

28 and departing May 26 received dose of 0.89 rem) (DNA 1983).
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 24 of 33

radiating particles from the ships. Unless particles on the islands were covered, leached into the soil, 

or blown away, they continued to retain exposure potential until completely decayed.

The assigned fallout exposures in the Navy medical records for personnel who were aboard ships for 

the entire test period are shown in Table 6-6.

Table 6-6. Operation Greenhouse fallout 

exposures for personnel aboard ships for the 

entire test period.

a

Ship Exposure (R)

USS Curtiss (AV-4) 1.043

CTG 3.3 Staff (USS Curtiss) 1.043

USS Cabildo (LSD-16) 0.700–1.100b

USS Sproston (DDE-577) 1.000

USS Walker (DDE-517) 0.433

USS LST-859 0.334

Boat pool 0.700–2.100b

a. For dose reconstruction, 1 R is assumed to be 

equivalent to 1 rem.

b. For dose reconstruction, apply the higher value.

6.3 INSTRUCTIONS TO DOSE RECONSTRUCTORS

6.3.1 Penetrating Dose Determination

Before 1955, covered employees who were not badged should be assigned the 95th-percentile doses 

in Attachment A. If, before 1955, the employee had recorded dose, the dose reconstructor should 

compare that recorded dose with the 95th-percentile doses in Attachment A and assign the larger of 

the two doses. These doses should be converted to organ doses using exposure (R) DCFs and be 

applied as constants.

6.3.2 Nonpenetrating Dose Determination

Shallow or beta dose is determined for susceptible cancers (e.g., skin, breast, testes, penis, and lips) 

by multiplying the penetrating dose (Section 6.3.1) by the appropriate beta-to-gamma ratio 

(Section 6.1). The use of the efficiency method in Section 6.1 is allowed for cases where a best 

estimate is not required. These doses should be assigned as constants.

6.3.3 Penetrating and Nonpenetrating Doses from Fallout

For cases where occupation on the various islands and ships (for the period April 8, 1951, through 

May 14, 1951) is documented in the dosimetry records and the covered employee stay times are 

known, additional penetrating dose should be assigned (1) in accordance with Figures 6-1, 6-2, and

6-3 or (2) in accordance with Table 6-5. The additional dose should be added to the dose as derived 

in Section 6.3.1. This new summed penetrating dose should then be multiplied by the appropriate 

beta-to-gamma ratio in Section 6.1 to determine the beta dose for susceptible cancers. The derived 

penetrating dose should be assigned as a constant. The nonpenetrating dose derived from fresh 

fallout should be applied as constants and the nonpenetrating dose derived from weathered fallout 

should be applied as a lognormal distribution with a GSD of 2.41. Nonpenetrating dose should be 

evaluated in accordance with the ORAUT (2005) with respect to organ dose conversion factors and 

other modifying factors. Penetrating dose should be evaluated in accordance with NIOSH (2007) with 

regard to organ dose conversion factors. For penetrating dose, AP geometry an AP-to-ROT geometry 

comparison for bone surfaces, red bone marrow, esophagus, and lung, should be considered as 

favorable to the claimant with ISO geometry assumed for cases requiring a best estimate. The 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 25 of 33

 

penetrating dose derived from Figures 6-1, 6-2, and 6-3 should be converted to organ doses using the 

H*10 DCFs from NIOSH (2007) while the penetrating dose derived from Table 6-5 should be 

converted to organ dose using the exposure (R) DCFs.

7.0 SUMMARY

This site profile provides guidance for dose reconstruction of non-SEC cancers and those 

presumptive cancer claims that represent less than 250 days (or 83 days if assignment was 

continuous duty) of employment for EEOICPA claimants who worked at the PPG. NIOSH finds that 

the external monitoring records and operational histories available with other methods described in 

this TBD are sufficient to complete photon and beta external dose reconstructions for these 

employees. For participants with available X-ray records that are linked to a covered DOE site, dose 

reconstructors should use existing NIOSH TBDs and procedures to estimate possible occupational 

medical exposures. Occupational medical exposures for participants who were hired on location or 

who do not have available X-ray records linked to a covered site (e.g., NTS, LANL, LLNL, etc.) should 

be evaluated in accordance with ORAUT (2016). Coworker doses should be assigned to workers at 

the 95th-percentile level as described in Section 6.0 in lieu of other environmental doses. NIOSH 

lacks access to source term data, bioassay data, or internal monitoring data to estimate internal doses 

associated with potential inhalation of radionuclides.

8.0 ATTRIBUTIONS AND ANNOTATIONS

All information requiring identification was addressed via references integrated into the reference 

section of this document.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 26 of 33

REFERENCES

Barrs, N. M., and R. L. Weitz, 2006, “Reconstruction of External Dose from Beta Radiation Sources of 

Nuclear Weapon Origin,” Health Physics, volume 91, number 4, pp. 379–389. [SRDB Ref ID: 

26776]

Berkhouse, L., S. E. Davis, F. R. Gladeck, J. H. Hallowell, C. B. Jones, E. J. Martin, R. A. Miller, F. W. 

McMullan, and M. J. Osborne, 1983a, Operation Dominic I—1962, DNA 6040F, Defense 

Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., February 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1672]

Berkhouse, L., S. E. Davis, F. R. Gladeck, J. H. Hallowell, C. B. Jones, E. J. Martin, R. A. Miller, F. W. 

McMullan, and M. J. Osborne, 1983b, Operation Greenhouse—1951, DNA 6034F, Defense 

Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., June 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 1658]

Berkhouse, L., S. E. Davis, F. R. Gladeck, J. H. Hallowell, C. B. Jones, E. J. Martin, F. W. McMullan, 

M. J. Osborne, and W. E. Rogers, 1983c, Operation Sandstone: 1948, DNA 6033F, Defense 

Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., December 19. [SRDB Ref ID: 1655]

Berkhouse, L., S. E. Davis, F. R. Gladeck, J. H. Hallowell, C. B. Jones, E. J. Martin, F. W. McMullan, 

and M. J. Osborne, 1984, Operation Crossroads—1946, DNA 6032F, Defense Nuclear 

Agency, Washington, D.C., May 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1652]

Bruce-Henderson, S., F. R. Gladeck, J. H. Hallowell, E. J. Martin, F. W. McMullan, R. H. Miller, W. E. 

Rogers, R. H. Rowland, C. F. Shelton, P. Sturman, L. Berkhouse, S. Davis, H. DeSantis, P. 

Dean, M. K. Doyle, and D. S. Patterson, 1982, Operation Redwing: 1956, DNA 6037F, 

Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., August 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1664]

DOE (U.S. Department of Energy), 2000, United States Nuclear Tests, July 1945 through September 

1992, DOE/NV--209-REV 15, Nevada Operations Office, Las Vegas, Nevada, December. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 2433]

DOL (U.S. Department of Labor), 2006, Processing Claims for the Pacific Proving Grounds SEC 

Class, 1946 - 1962, EEOICPA Bulletin No. 06-15, Washington, D.C., September 27. [SRDB 

Ref ID: 155208]

DOL (U.S. Department of Labor), 2007, Supplemental Guidance for Processing Claims for the Pacific 

Proving Grounds SEC Class, 1946–1962, EEOICPA Bulletin No. 07-05, Washington, D.C., 

January 11. [SRDB Ref ID: 131050]

DNA (Defense Nuclear Agency), 1983, Operation Greenhouse–1951, DNA 6034F, Washington, D.C., 

June 15. [SRDB Ref ID: 1658]

Gladeck, F. R., K. G. Gould, J. H. Hallowell, E. J. Martin, F. W. McMullan, R. A. Miller, M. J. Osborne, 

C. F. Shelton, L. Berkhouse, and F. S. Calhoun, 1982a, Operation Hardtack I—1958, DNA 

6038F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., December 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1667]

Gladeck, F. R., J. H. Hallowell, E. J. Martin, F. W. McMullan, R. H. Miller, R. Pozega, W. E. Rogers, 

R. H. Rowland, C. F. Shelton, L. Berkhouse, S. Davis, M. K. Doyle, and C. B. Jones, 1982b, 

Operation Ivy: 1952, DNA 6036F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., December 1. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 1662]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 27 of 33

IEER (Institute for Energy and Environmental Research), 2000, Summary of Historical Annual 

Regulatory Dose Limits for the United States, Takoma Park, Maryland, December. [SRDB Ref 

ID: 33222]

Jones, C. B., M. K. Doyle, L. H. Berkhouse, F. S. Calhoun, E. J. Martin, and K. Tempo, 1982, 

Operation Argus 1958, DNA 6039F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington, D.C., April 30. 

[SRDB Ref ID: 1671]

Lalos, G., editor, 1989, Film Badge Dosimetry in Atmospheric Nuclear Tests, National Academy of 

Sciences, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. [SRDB Ref ID: 1905]

Leavitt, M. O., 2006, HHS Designation of Additional Members of the Special Exposure Cohort under 

the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act, Designating a Class 

of Employees from Pacific Proving Grounds, Enewetak Atoll, U.S. Department of Health and 

Human Services, Office of the Secretary, Washington, D.C., June 26. [SRDB Ref ID: 142698]

Martin, E. J., and R. H. Rowland, 1982, Castle Series, 1954, DNA 6035F, Defense Nuclear Agency, 

Washington, D.C., April 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1661]

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2005, SEC Petition Evaluation Report, 

Petition SEC-00020, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, 

October 20. [SRDB Ref ID: 26384]

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2006, SEC Petition Evaluation Report 

Supplement, Petition SEC-00020, Office of Compensation Analysis and Support, Cincinnati,

Ohio, January 19. [SRDB Ref ID: 142703]

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2007, External Dose Reconstruction 

Implementation Guideline, OCAS-IG-001, Rev. 3, Office of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, November 21.

NIOSH (National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health), 2010, Radiation Exposures Covered 

for Dose Reconstructions Under Part B of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness 

Compensation Program Act, DCAS-IG-003, Rev. 1, Division of Compensation Analysis and 

Support, Cincinnati, Ohio, October 5.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005, Application of Internal Doses Based on 

Claimant-Favorable Assumptions for Processing as Best Estimates, ORAUT-OTIB-0033, Rev.

00, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, April 20.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2006, Occupational Onsite Ambient Dose 

Reconstruction for DOE Sites, ORAUT-PROC-0060, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

June 28.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2005, Technical Information Bulletin:

Interpretation of Dosimetry Data for Assignment of Shallow Dose, ORAUT-OTIB-0017, Rev 

01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, October 11.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2010a, Los Alamos National Laboratory –

Occupational Medical Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0010-3, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

September 14. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 28 of 33

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2010b, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory 

– Occupational Medical Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0035-3, Rev. 01, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

August 27. 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2010c, Occupational Medical X-Ray Dose 

Reconstruction for DOE Sites, ORAUT-PROC-0061, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, 

March 3.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2011, Dose Reconstruction from Occupational 

Medical X-Ray Procedures, ORAUT-OTIB-0006, Rev. 04, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, June 20. 

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2016, Guidance on Assigning Occupational 

X-Ray Dose Under EEOICPA for X-Rays Administered Off Site, ORAUT-OTIB-0079, Rev. 01, 

Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team, Cincinnati, Ohio, March 18.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2012, Nevada Test Site – Occupational Medical 

Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0008-3, Rev. 02, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 26.

ORAUT (Oak Ridge Associated Universities Team), 2012, Nevada Test Site – Occupational External 

Dose, ORAUT-TKBS-0008-6, Rev. 03, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, November 9.

Perkins, W.W., and R. R. Hammond, 1980, Navy Film Badge Review: DOMINIC, Navy Nuclear Test 

Personnel Review Program, NOSC TR 583, Naval Ocean Systems Center, San Diego, 

California, May 28. [SRDB Ref ID: 156605] 

Weary, S. E., W. J. Ozeroff, J. L. Sperling, B. Collins, C. W. Lowery, and S. K. Obermiller, 1981, 

Operation Wigwam (Series Volume), DNA 6000F, Defense Nuclear Agency, Washington,

D.C., September 1. [SRDB Ref ID: 1586]
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 29 of 33

GLOSSARY

beta radiation

Charged particle emitted from some radioactive elements with a mass equal to 1/1,837 that of 

a proton. A negatively charged beta particle is identical to an electron. A positively charged 

beta particle is a positron.

dose

In general, the specific amount of energy from ionizing radiation that is absorbed per unit of 

mass. Effective and equivalent doses are in units of rem or sievert; other types of dose are in 

units of roentgens, rad, rep, or grays.

dosimeter

Device that measures the quantity of received radiation, usually a holder with radiationabsorbing filters and radiation-sensitive inserts packaged to provide a record of absorbed dose 

received by an individual. See film dosimeter.

exposure

(1) In general, the act of being exposed to ionizing radiation. See acute exposure and chronic 

exposure. (2) Measure of the ionization produced by X- and gamma-ray photons in air in units 

of roentgens.

film dosimeter

Package of film for measurement of ionizing radiation exposure for personnel monitoring 

purposes. A film dosimeter can contain two or three films of different sensitivities, and it can 

contain one or more filters that shield parts of the film from certain types of radiation. When 

developed, the film has an image caused by radiation measurable with an optical 

densitometer. Also called film badge.

neutron (n)

Basic nucleic particle that is electrically neutral with mass slightly greater than that of a proton. 

There are neutrons in the nuclei of every atom heavier than normal hydrogen. 

nonpenetrating dose

Dose from beta and lower energy photon (X-ray and gamma) radiation that does not penetrate 

the skin. It is often determined from the open window dose minus the shielded window dose. 

See dose.

penetrating dose

Dose from moderate to higher energy photons and neutrons that penetrates the outer layers of 

the skin. See dose.

radiation

Subatomic particles and electromagnetic rays (photons) with kinetic energy that interact with 

matter through various mechanisms that involve energy transfer. 

radioactive

Of, caused by, or exhibiting radioactivity.

radioactivity

Property possessed by some elements (e.g., uranium) or isotopes (e.g., 14C) of spontaneously 

emitting energetic particles (electrons or alpha particles) by the disintegration of their atomic 

nuclei. 
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 30 of 33

rem

Traditional unit of radiation dose equivalent that indicates the biological damage caused by 

radiation equivalent to that caused by 1 rad of high-penetration X-rays multiplied by a quality 

factor. The sievert is the International System unit; 1 rem equals 0.01 sievert. The word 

derives from roentgen equivalent in man; rem is also the plural.

roentgen (R)

Unit of photon (gamma or X-ray) exposure for which the resultant ionization liberates a positive 

or negative charge equal to 2.58 × 10-4 coulombs per kilogram (or 1 electrostatic unit of 

electricity per cubic centimeter) of dry air at 0 degrees Celsius and standard atmospheric 

pressure. An exposure of 1 R is approximately equivalent to an absorbed dose of 1 rad in soft 

tissue for higher energy photons (generally greater than 100 kiloelectron-volts).

shallow dose equivalent

Dose equivalent in units of rem or sievert at a depth of 0.07 millimeters (7 milligrams per 

square centimeter) in tissue equal to the sum of the penetrating and nonpenetrating doses.

skin dose

See shallow dose equivalent.

uncertainty

Standard deviation of the mean of a set of measurements. The standard error reduces to the 

standard deviation of the measurement when there is only one determination. See accuracy, 

confidence interval or level, and error. Also called standard error.

X-ray

See X-ray radiation.

X-ray radiation

Electromagnetic radiation (photons) produced by bombardment of atoms by accelerated 

particles. X-rays are produced by various mechanisms including bremsstrahlung and electron 

shell transitions within atoms (characteristic X-rays). Once formed, there is no difference 

between X-rays and gamma rays, but gamma photons originate inside the nucleus of an atom.
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 31 of 33

 

ATTACHMENT A 

COWORKER DOSE

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE TITLE PAGE

A-1 Actual film badge readings for Operation Crossroads ............................................................ 32

A-2 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Sandstone ............................... 32

A-3 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Greenhouse............................. 32

A-4 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Ivy............................................ 32

A-5 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Castle ...................................... 33

A-6 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Wigwam................................... 33

A-7 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Redwing .................................. 33

A-8 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Hardtack I................................ 33

A-9 Film badge readings for non-DOD participants for Operation Dominic I ................................. 33
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 32 of 33

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DOSE (continued)

The following information is available in the Defense Nuclear Agency radiation reports for the various 

PPG operations (Weary et al. 1981; Martin and Rowland 1982; Jones et al. 1982; Gladeck et al. 

1982a, 1982b; Bruce-Henderson et al.1982; Berkhouse et al 1983a, 1983b, 1983c, 1984; and DOE 

2000). Using the summary data from the reports, Equation A-1 determined the 50th or 95th percentile 

of each distribution and then multiplied it by the number of non-DOD participants or badges (for the 

Operation Crossroads data) that hypothetically received that mid-point dose. These were summed 

across all distributions and then divided by the total. This provides the 50th- or 95th-percentile dose 

for each operation that can be used as coworker dose, until such time as coworker data is available.

 ( ) n n 50% or 95% dose A B / C =∑ (A-1)

where

A = 50th or 95th percentile of the dose for each distribution

B = total non-DOD participants or badges within the distribution

C = total non-DOD participants or badges

Table A-1. Actual film badge readings for Operation Crossroads (R gamma).

Month Total badges 0 to 0.04 0.04 to 0.1 0.101 to 1.0 1.001 to 3.720

July totals 3,767 2,843 689 232 3

% of badges 100 75 18 6 <0.1

August totals 6,664 3,947 2,139 570 8

% of badges 100 59 32 9 0.1

The highest dose during Operation Crossroads was to a radiation safety monitor at 3.72 R. The 

calculated dose at 50% is 0.192 rem, and that at 95% is 0.365 rem.

Table A-2. Film badge readings for non-DOD participants (119 badged) 

for Operation Sandstone (R gamma).

April/May 0 to 0.06 0.06 to 1 1 to 2 2 to 17

Total non-DOD participants 18 83 6 12

Eleven individuals from the Radiation Safety group received doses above the imposed standard of 

3 R. The highest dose received was 17 R. The average dose for all participants (including DOD) was 

0.25 R with 65% receiving a zero recorded exposure. The calculated dose at 50% is 1.236 rem, and 

that at 95% is 2.348 rem.

Table A-3. Film badge readings for non-DOD participants (551 badged) 

for Operation Greenhouse (R gamma).

April/May 0 to 0.04 0.04 to 1 1 to 3 3 to 8.6

Total non-DOD participants 110 325 82 34

The average dose was 0.5 R. The highest dose received was 8.6 R. The calculated dose at 50% is 

0.787 rem, and that at 95% is 1.813 rem.

Table A-4. Film badge readings for non-DOD participants (367 badged) for 

Operation Ivy (R gamma).

November 0 to 0.04 0.04 to 0.999 1 to 2.999 3 to 3.2

Total non-DOD participants 45 245 74 3
Document No. ORAUT-TKBS-0052 Revision No. 01 Effective Date: 07/11/2016 Page 33 of 33

ATTACHMENT A

COWORKER DOSE (continued)

90% of all exposures from Operation Ivy were all less than 1 R. The highest dose received was 3.2 

R. The calculated dose at 50% is 0.652 rem, and that at 95% is 1.238 rem.

Table A-5. Film badge readings for non-DOD participants (2,175 badged) for Operation 

Castle (R gamma).

March/April/May 0 to 0.04 0.04 to 1 1.001 to 3 3.001 to 5 5.001 to 10

Total non-DOD participants 86 1,221 323 292 81

The average dose was 1.7 R for Operation Castle. The calculated dose at 50% is 1.114 rem, and that 

at 95% is 2.117 rem.

Table A-6. Film badge readings for non-DOD participants (146 badged) for Operation 

Wigwam (R gamma).

May 0 to 0.04 0.04 to 0.165 0.2 to 0.280 0.315 to 0.385 0.425

Total non-DOD participants 6,141 329 19 13 1

NOTE: Operation Wigwam is not considered to have occurred as part of PPG operations. 

These data should be used to estimate dose only if this oceanic testing location becomes 

recognized as a covered DOE facility.

The average non-zero exposure was 0.129 R for Operation Wigwam. Some badges were not 

available. The calculated dose at 50% is 0.024 rem, and that at 95% is 0.046 rem.

Table A-7. Film badge readings for non-DOD participants (3,847 badged) for Operation 

Redwing (R gamma).

May–July 0 to 0.04 0.04 to 0.999 1 to 2.999 3 to 4.999 5 to 6.8

Total non-DOD participants 426 1,237 844 1,038 2,224

The average non-zero exposure was 1.7 R for Operation Redwing. Some badges were not available. 

The highest dose to a non-DOD participant was 6.8 R. The calculated dose at 50% is 2.089 rem, and 

that at 95% is 3.969 rem.

Table A-8. Film badge readings for non-DOD participants (5,067 badged) for Operation 

Hardtack I (R gamma).

April–August 0 to 0.04 0.04 to 0.999 1 to 2.999 3 to 4.999 5 to 5.26

Total non-DOD participants 1,050 1,623 2,266 126 2

The average non-zero exposure was 0.87 R for Operation Hardtack I. The highest dose to a nonDOD participant was 5.26 R. The calculated dose at 50% is 0.898 rem, and that at 95% is 1.707 rem.

Table A-9. Film badge readings for non-DOD participants (4,620 badged) for Operation 

Dominic I (R gamma).

April–August 0 to 0.04 0.04 to 1 1 to 3 3 to 7.15

Total non-DOD participants 2,041 2,555 23 1

The overall mean exposure of 0.2 R for Operation Dominic I. The highest dose to a non-DOD 

participant was 7.15 R. The calculated dose at 50% is 0.294 rem, and that at 95% is 0.558 rem.