Conclusion

Chapter 11: Footnotes

2 . U.S. Congress, General Accounting Office, Examples of Post World War II Radiation Releases (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1993) (ACHRE No. DOE-042894-B-1).

3 . The Committee did not undertake to review in detail the general development of radioecology, which began during the Manhattan Project with research on the radiosensitivity of aquatic life around the Hanford Reservation and extended to research on flora and fauna in and around other AEC sites. For an introductory overview, see "Survey of Radioecology: Environmental Studies Around Production Sites," in J. Newell Stannard, Radioactivity and Health: A History (Springfield, Va.: Office of Science and Technical Information, 1988).

4 . General Dwight D. Eisenhower, to Commanding General, Army Air Forces, 16 September 1947 ("Long Range Detection of Atomic Explosions") (ACHRE No. DOD-011595-A).

5 . Charles A. Ziegler and David Jacobson, Spying Without Spies: Origins of America's Secret Nuclear Surveillance System (Westport, Conn.: Praeger, 1995), 133.

6 . Ibid., 203-204. R. H. Hillenkoetter, Rear Admiral, USN, Central Intelligence Agency, 9 September 1949 memorandum ("Samples of air masses recently collected over the North Pacific . . .") (ACHRE No. CIA-011895-A).

7 . Jack W. Healy, interview by Marisa Caputo (Department of Energy, Office of Human Radiation Experiments), transcript of audio recording, 28 November 1994 (ACHRE No. DOE-120894-D), 7. Nuclear explosions release larger quantities of short-lived fission products than do nuclear reactors, so the radioactive fallout from a nuclear test decays much more rapidly than emissions from a reactor.

8 . "Statement by the President on Announcing the First Atomic Explosion in the USSR, 23 September 1949," reprinted in Robert C. Williams and Philip L. Cantelon, eds., The American Atom: A Documentary History of Nuclear Policies from the Discovery of Fission to the Present, 1939-1984 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1984), 116-117.

9 . For example, krypton 85 in the atmosphere comes entirely from atmospheric testing and nuclear fuel reprocessing. Chemically unreactive, with a half-life of roughly eleven years, it is well mixed in the atmosphere, so the concentration of Kr-85 measured at random sites on the globe will provide a rough measure of the total production of plutonium production over time. See Frank von Hippel, Barbara G. Levi, and David H. Albright, "Stopping the Production of Fissile Materials for the Weapons," Scientific American 253, no. 3 (September 1985): 43, 45.

10 . Charles A. Ziegler and David Jacobson, Spying Without Spies, 181.

11 . F. J. Davis et al., Department of Energy, 13 April 1949, ORNL-341, declassified with deletions as ORNL-6728, 2 September 1992 ("An Aerial Survey of Radioactivity Associated with Atomic Energy Plants") (ACHRE No. DOE-122194-B), 7, 13, 156-157. Pages 136 and 148 refer to the possibility of tracking a "really strong source" from the Hanford stacks.

12 . [Deleted] to Commander, Military Air Transport Service, 10 November 1949 ("In furtherance of the research and development program . . .") (ACHRE No. DOD-032395-A); [deleted] to Dr. S. C. Schlemmer, Manager, Hanford Operations Officer, 10 November 1949 ("This letter will confirm the arrangements made . . .") (ACHRE No. DOD-032395-A). The name of the author of these memorandums remains classified.

13 . GAO, Examples of Post World War II Radiation Releases, 9.

14 . H. M. Parker, Department of Energy, 6 January 1950, HW-15550-E DEL ("Health Instruments Divisions Report for the Month of December 1949") (ACHRE No. DOE-050394-A-4); H. J. Paas and W. Singlevich, Department of Energy, 2 March 1950, HW-17003 ("Radioactive Contamination in the Environs of the Hanford Works for the Period October, November, December, 1949") (ACHRE No. DOE-050394-A-6). These two reports were among more than 19,000 pages of documents on Hanford's early operations released by the Department of Energy in 1986.

15 . Lieutenant W. E. Harlan, D. E. Jenne, and Jack W. Healy, Hanford Works, Atomic Energy Commission, 1 May 1950, HW-17381 ("Dissolving of Twenty Day Metal at Hanford") (ACHRE No. DOD-121494-C). This document was originally classified Secret, Restricted Data, but has been declassified in several stages; this citation is to the version that was declassified most recently and completely, on 13 December 1994. The GAO report Examples of Post World War II Radiation Releases also relies on interviews with several people connected with the Green Run, including one who was involved directly in the intelligence aspects of the Green Run, but who has since died.

16 . Harlan, Jenne, and Healy, "Dissolving of Twenty Day Metal," 26.

17 . Ibid., 7.

18 . Hanford workers managing the Green Run estimated the release at 7,780 curies. Ibid., 28. Subsequent estimates have ranged from 7,000 curies to 11,000 curies. Maurice Robkin, "Experimental Release of 131I: The Green Run," Health Physics 62 (June 1992): 487-495. Roughly 20,000 curies of xenon 133 were also released, but because this gas does not concentrate in the food supply or in the thyroid, it posed relatively little danger. The section "Reconstructing, Comparing, and Understanding Risks" discusses the significance of these numbers.

19 . M. S. Gerber, Department of Energy, May 1994, WHC-MR-0452 ("A Brief History of the T Plant Facility at the Hanford Site") (ACHRE No. DOE-112294-A), 25-32.

20 . Harlan, Jenne, and Healy, ""Dissolving of Twenty Day Metal," 10-11.

21 . Ibid., 12-14. See also 8, 32.

22 . Healy, interview with Caputo (Office of Human Radiation Experiments), 28 November 1994, 12; Jack Healy, interview with Mark Goodman (ACHRE staff), 8 March 1995 (ACHRE Research Project Series, Interview Program File, Targeted Interview Project), 26-27. Healy has compared the contamination with that resulting from the 1957 Windscale nuclear reactor accident in the United Kingdom. Although Windscale released a greater quantity of radioiodine, the Green Run contaminated an area five to ten times as large. Healy attributed the high levels of contamination to the weather.

23 . Normally the temperature of the atmosphere falls with increasing altitude. An inversion occurs when the temperature near the ground rises before falling at higher altitudes. This traps contamination in the lower levels of the atmosphere.

24 . F. J. Davis et al., "An Aerial Survey of Radioactivity Associated with Atomic Energy Plants," 112-116. The Air Force had found it difficult to track radioactivity from

Oak Ridge's operations in the hills and valleys of Tennessee.

25 . Harlan, Jenne, and Healy, "Dissolving of Twenty Day Metal, 5-6.

26 . Healy, interview with Caputo (Office of Human Radiation Experiments), 28 November 1994, 13.

27 . Harlan, Jenne, and Healy, "Dissolving of Twenty Day Metal," 20-25; Bruce Napier, Battelle Pacific Northwest Laboratory, to John Kruger (ACHRE staff), 18 August 1995.

28 . Harlan, Jenne, and Healy, "Dissolving of Twenty Day Metal," 70. Also, W. E. Harlan, interview by Mark Goodman (ACHRE staff), transcript of audio interview, 10 April 1995 (ACHRE Research Project Series, Interview Program File, Targeted Interview Project). Harlan recalls no plans to track the plume to greater distances.

29 . The "permanent tolerance value" at the time was 0.009 microcuries per kilogram ( Ci/Kg) of vegatation. Harlan, Jenne, and Healy, "Dissolving of Twenty Day Metal," 3. Readings from the Green Run were as high as 4.3 uCi/kg. The current intervention level is .013 uCi/kg. Al Conklin, Washington Department of Health, 7 November 1994, personal communication with Mark Goodman (ACHRE staff).

30 . In mid-1949, the standard was lowered from 0.2 Ci/kg to 0.1 Ci/kg. Manager, Health Instruments Division, Hanford, to AEC, Hanford Operations Office, 8 November 1950 ("Radiation Exposure Data"), which is still ten times higher than described in Harlan, Jenne, and Healy, "Dissolving of Twenty Day Metal," 3. A footnote in the November 1950 report suggests that the lower level (0.01 Ci/kg) was still controversial and considered by the author to be overly cautious.

31 . H. M. Parker, "Health Instruments Divisions Report for December 1949," 2; Harlan, Jenne, and Healy, "Dissolving of Twenty Day Metal," 3, 65.

32 . Healy, interview with Caputo, 28 November 1994, 8-9. The largest hazard is now known to come from drinking milk from cows that graze on pastures contaminated with radioiodine. The earliest reference from Hanford to the milk pathway is H. M. Parker, "Radiation Exposure from Environmental Hazards," presented at the United Nations International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, August 1955, reprinted in Ronald L. Kathren, Raymond W. Baalman, and William J. Bair, eds., Herbert M. Parker: Publications and Other Contributions to Radiological and Health Physics (Richland, Wash.: Battelle Press, 1986), 494-499. A reference to concern over milk contamination in Utah from a 19 May 1953 atmospheric test appears in "Transcript of Meeting on Statistical Considerations on Field Studies on Thyroid Diseases in School Children in Utah-Arizona, December 3, 1965, Rockville, MD" (ACHRE No. HHS-022395-A), 4.

33 . Herbert Parker, Chief Supervisor, to S. T. Cantril, Assistant Supervisor, 11 December 1945 ("Xenon And Iodine Concentration in the Environs of the T and P Plant") (ACHRE No. IND-120294-A-1); Herbert Parker to File, 17 December 1945 ("Proposed Revision of Tolerances for I 131") (ACHRE No. IND-120294-A-2); Herbert M. Parker, Department of Energy, 14 January 1946 ("Tolerance Concentration of Radio-Iodine on Edible Plants") (ACHRE No. IND-120294-A-3). This was confirmed by later dose reconstructions. The estimated doses range up to several hundred rad (a few tens of rem) to the thyroid. Technical Steering Panel, Department of Energy, 10 February 1990 ("Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project: Finding the facts about people at risk.") (ACHRE No. DOE-050694-B-3).

34 . Estimates from ARH-3026, by J. D. Anderson as cited in the Technical Steering Panel of the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project, Department of

Energy, March 1992 ("The Green Run") (ACHRE No. ORE-110794-A).

35 . Parker, "Tolerance Concentration of Radio-Iodine on Edible Plants," Kathren, Baalman, and Bair, Herbert M. Parker: Publications and Other Contributions to Radiological and Health Physics, art. IV-7.

36 . "Report of Safety and Industrial Heath Advisory Board," as cited in Daniel Grossman, A Policy History of Hanford's Atmospheric Releases (Ph.D. diss., Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1994), 169.

37 . F. A. R. Stainkan to R. S. Ball, "Stack Gas Conference--Washington, D.C.," 8 September 1948, HW-10956. Michele S. Gerber, On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 89.

38 . Parker, "Health Instrument Divisions Report for Month of December, 1949," 3.

39 . Healy, interview with Caputo, 28 November 1994, 8.

40 . [Deleted] to Dr. Schlemmer, 10 November 1949, 2.

41 . "Green Run," an Air Force official noted in a 1995 comment on this omission, "was beset by numerous technical and meteorological problems that significantly compromised the value of the results obtained. In our view, then, this omission implies the Green Run was not useful, rather than unnecessary." Major Meade Pimsler, USAF, to ACHRE Staff, 19 June 1995 ("Comments on 5th Set of Review Chapters").

42 . ACHRE Research Project Series, Mark Goodman Files, 6-21. The device in question was the atmospheric Conductivity Apparatus; it was used in Operation Fitzwilliam, at the radiation survey flights at Oak Ridge and Hanford, at the Green Run, and in radiation survey flights at the Los Alamos radiolanthanum tests described in this chapter.

43 . Grossman, A Policy History of Hanford's Atmospheric Releases, 230-232 (references 24 and 35).

44 . Neal D. Hines, Proving Ground: An Account of the Radiobiological Studies in the Pacific 1946-61 (Seattle: University of Washington Press, 1962).

45 . Stannard, Radiactivity and Health: A History, 761-762.

46 . Decision on AEC 180/1 and 180/2, as cited in Grossman, A Policy History of Hanford's Atmospheric Releases, 244-245.

47 . AEC 180/1; Ibid., 245.

48 . Herbert Parker, 19 August 1954 ("Columbia River Situation--A Semi-Technical Review") (ACHRE No. DOE-053095-A), 5.

49 . William Bale, Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine, transcript of proceedings of 13-14 January 1950 (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-A). The ACBM decided at this meeting that it might be possible to publish a sanitized version of the report to aid scientists studying the contamination problem. It is unclear whether the report was published.

50 . Lynne Stembridge, Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, transcript of proceedings of 21 November 1994 (Spokane, Wash.).

51 . For the perspective of a government-sponsored expert involved in the reconstruction of the risk at Hanford and other nuclear weapons sites on the necessity of public participation in dose reconstruction activities, see John Till, "Building Credibility in Public Studies," American Scientist 83, no. 5 (September-October 1995).

52 . Scott Davis, Ph.D., et al., Fred Hutchinson Research Center, 24 January 1995 ("Hanford Thyroid Disease Study: Final Report") (ACHRE No. DOE-061295-A).

53 . Tom Bailie, Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, transcript of proceedings, 21 November 1994 (Spokane, Wash.), 121-122.

54 . Quoted in Richard Rhodes, The Making of the Atomic Bomb (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1986), 365. See also Henry DeWolf Smyth, Atomic Energy for Military Purposes (Stanford, Calif.: Stanford University Press, September 1, 1945), 71. Princeton physicists Henry DeWolf Smyth and Eugene Wigner reported later that year that the fission products produced in one day's operation of a 100-megawatt reactor could render a large area uninhabitable. Eugene Wigner and Henry D. Smyth, National Academy Project, 10 December 1941 ("Radioactive Poisons") (ACHRE No. NARA-033195-A).

55 . J. Robert Oppenheimer to Enrico Fermi, 25 May 1943, reproduced in Barton Bernstein, "Oppenheimer and the Radioactive Poison Plan," Technology Review 88, no. 14 (May 1985).

56 . These included Dr. Joseph Hamilton of Berkeley, who had performed pioneering studies of the fate of radioactive materials in the bodies of animals and humans (see chapter 5). Joseph Hamilton, M.D., to K. D. Nichols, 31 December 1946 ("Radioactive Warfare") (ACHRE No. DOD-010395-C-1); Lee Bowen, U.S. Air Force ("A History of the Air Force Atomic Energy Program, 1943-1953, volume IV: The Development of Weapons") (ACHRE No. SMITH-120994-A-1), 323.

57 . Joseph Hamilton to D. T. Griggs, Project Rand, Douglas Aircraft Co., 7 April 1948 ("I wish to thank you . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-34).

58 . For example, General Douglas MacArthur proposed in 1950 to lay down a line of highly radioactive cobalt 60 to block a Chinese return to the Korean Peninsula. Bruce Cummings, The Origins of the Korean War, volume II: The Roaring of the Cataract, 1947-1950 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1981), 750.

59 . The Armed Forces Special Weapons Project, the Air Force, and the Army's Chemical Corps were interested in both offensive and defensive radiological warfare, while the Naval Radiological Defense Laboratory focused on defense.

60 . This research program, led by Dr. Franklin McLean, used animals to test the toxicity of various candidate radiological warfare agents. The Advisory Committee's research has uncovered no evidence that human subjects were used in any of these studies. The Toxicity Laboratory also performed studies using human subjects on the inhalation of aerosols, but available documents do not indicate any use of radioactive material as tracers or otherwise. These studies may have been related to the Chemical Corps's programs in chemical and biological warefare. Frank C. McLean to Shields Warren, Director, Division of Biology and Medicine, 5 October 1948 ("Program of Chicago Toxicity Laboratory") (ACHRE No. DOE-082294-B-18); Walter J. Williams, Acting General Manager, to Major General A. H. Waitt, Chief, Chemical Corps, 12 April 1948 ("For some time we have been considering ways and means of enlarging programs . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-012595-B-2); Shields Warren to Frank C. McLean, 4 May 1950 ("In light of our conversations of January 25, 1950 . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-012595-B-1).

61 . Joint AEC-NME Panel on Radiological Warfare, 20 November 1950 ("Radiological Warfare Program Status Report: Sixth Meeting of the Joint AEC-NME Panel on Radiological Warfare") (ACHRE No. CORP-010395-A-2). See also, Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Military Application, 26 December 1950 ("Conclusions and Recommendations of the Sixth Meeting of the RW Panel") (ACHRE No. DOE-092694-B-3).

62 . Major Thomas A. Gibson, Chemical Corps, Radiological Branch, to Chief of Staff, AFSWP, 23 April 1952 ("A Technical Study Group to Review the Technical Aspects of Radiological Warfare") (ACHRE No. NARA-033195-A).

63 . These two tests appear in the Advisory Committee's charter. One test involved three sources of roughly 1,280, 100, and 20 curies of radioactive lanthanum; Karl Z. Morgan and C. N. Rucker, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 23 July 1948 ("Single Source Lanthanum Test--AHRUU Program") (ACHRE No. DOE-051094-A-122). The other used 156 tantalum sources of roughly 100 millicuries each distributed in an uniform grid; Karl Z. Morgan, Oak Ridge National Laboratory, 11 August 1948 ("Uniformly Distributed Source, AHRUU Program") (ACHRE No. DOE-051094-A-118).

64 . R. W. Cook to Brigadier General James McCormack, Division of Military Applications, 4 May 1949 ("Irradiation of Tantalum for RW Tests") (ACHRE No. DOE-120994-A-24).

65 . Atomic Energy Commission, Division of Military Application, 26 December 1950 ("Conclusions and Recommendations of the Sixth Meeting of the RW Panel"), 3.

66 . AFSWP to Chief, Chemical Officer, Department of the Army, 31 December 1952 ("Re-evaluation of the Research and Development Program on Offensive Radiological Warfare") (ACHRE No. CORP-010395-A-5); this memo makes reference to the proposed production of zirconium and niobium radioisotopes.

67 . Joseph Hamilton had written in 1948: "In concluding, I would like to emphasize that all of the potentialities, including the rather repellent concepts of the use of fission products and other radioactive materials as internal poisons, should be explored up to and including a level of pilot experiments on a fairly large scale. I feel very strongly on the point that unless we ourselves learn all we can about the use and possible methods of protection against these agents and a wide variety of their potential applications as military weapons, we shall have failed to explore the necessary measures which may be desperately needed for the protection of our own people." Joseph Hamilton to D. T. Griggs, Project Rand, Douglas Aircraft Co., 7 April 1948 ("I wish to thank you very much for . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-34), 3.

68 . C. B. Marquand, Secretary, Test Safety Panel, to Joseph Hamilton, Director, Crocker Laboratory, 24 August 1949 ("Meeting of the Test Safety Panel at Dugway Proving Ground on August 2, 1949") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-29), 3.

69 . Joseph Hamilton to C. B. Marquand, Office of the Chief, Chemical Corps Advisory Board, 6 July 1949 ("I am sorry not to have had some more definitive information . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-3).

70 . C. B. Marquand, Secretary, Test Safety Panel, and S. C. Hardwick, Assistant Secretary, Test Safety Panel, Atomic Energy Commission, 5 August 1949 ("Preliminary Report of the Test Safety Panel Meeting at Dugway Probing Ground--August 2, 1949") (ACHRE No. CORP-010395-A-1).

71 . G. Failla, Columbia University, to Joseph Hamilton, 13 May 1950 ("In answer to your letter of May 10th, I . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-4).

72 . Karl Z. Morgan to Joseph Hamilton, 9 September 1949 (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-5).

73 . Joseph Hamilton to Albert Olpin, President, University of Utah, 10 May 1950 ("Please find enclosed my report and recommendations for . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-7); Failla to Hamilton, 13 May 1950; Albert Olpin to Joseph Hamilton, 17 May

1950 ("It was good to hear from you again . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-55); Joseph Hamilton to C. B. Marquand, 1 June 1950 ("At long last I have received agreement from . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-21); Joseph Hamilton to C. B. Marquand, 4 August 1949 ("This letter is to confirm") (ACHRE No.CORP-010395-A-1).

74 . Joseph Hamilton to C. B. Marquand, 18 November 1952 ("Last week, I spent a profitable two days . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-23). See also, Joseph Hamilton to John Bugher, Director, Division of Biology and Medicine, 25 February 1953 ("In my opinion . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-49).

75 . Department of Defense, 11 May 1953 ("An Evaluation of the Airborne Hazard Associated with Radiological Warfare Tests") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-50), iii.

76 . Brigadier General William M. Creasy to Chief Chemical Officer, Department of the Army, 24 June 1953 ("Minimum Fund Requirement") (ACHRE No. DOD-030895-F-3); U.S. Army Chemical Corps, 31 December 31 1953 ("RDB Project Card: Progress Report, Project No. 4-12-30-002") (ACHRE No. NARA-112294-A-1); Joseph Hamilton to C. B. Marquand, 23 July 1953 ("I regret to hear that the RW Program has been so drastically reduced . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-51).

77 . Lee Bowen, United States Air Force Historical Division, "A History of the Air Force Atomic Energy Program, 1943-1953, vol. 4: The Development of Weapons" (ACHRE No. SMITH-120994-A-1), 331-332.

78 . Merril Evans, 3 June 1953 ("RW Decontamination and Land Reclamation Studies") (ACHRE No. DOD-062494-A-11); also Chemical Corps, 1952 ("Testing of RW Material for Detection, Protection and Decontamination") (ACHRE No. NARA-112294-A-5).

79 . Lee Bowen, "The Development of Weapons," 333-337.

80 . The Chemical Corps recognized Hamilton's support for the radiological warfare program. A 1952 Chemical Corps memorandum, Lieutenant Colonel Truman Cook to Secretariat, Chemical Corps Advisory Council, 7 April 1952 ("Radiological Warfare Test Saftey Panel") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-46), noting the greater risk associated with planned large-scale tests, including possible plutonium contamination from the use of fission products, recommended that the test safety panel should be dissolved and Hamilton and someone chosen by him be retained as a consultant.

81 . Joseph Hamilton's papers, including those dealing with the radiological warfare test safety panel, were declassified in 1974, but the GAO report provided the first opportunity for most people to learn about it.

82 . Atomic Energy Commission, Ad Hoc Panel on Radiological Warfare, proceedings of 23 May 1948 (ACHRE No. CORP-051894-A-1). Restricted Data are atomic energy secrets as classified by statute under the Atomic Energy Act. Information may also be classified Confidential, Secret, or Top Secret, depending on its importance to national security, under the authority of an executive order by the President. See chapter 13 on secrecy for details.

83 . Chemical Corps, 1 January 1948 ("Quarterly Technical Progress Reports") (ACHRE No. NARA-121594-B).

84 . Joint NME-AEC Panel on Radiological Warfare, 29 August 1948 ("Radiological Warfare Report--Second Meeting") (ACHRE No. DOD-041295-A), 72.

85 . Atomic Energy Commission, Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine, proceedings of 11-12 June 1948 (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-A). The ACBM reiterated this recommendation at its next meeting on 11 September 1948. Atomic Energy Commission, Advisory Committee for Biology and Medicine, proceedings of 11 September 1948 (ACHRE No. DOE-082294-B-15), 15.

86 . The eight members included future President Dwight D. Eisenhower, who was president of Columbia University at the time, and New York lawyer John Foster Dulles, who would serve as secretary of state in the Eisenhower administration. See James Hershberg, James B. Conant: Harvard to Hiroshima and the Making of the Nuclear Age (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1993), 378-383. The story of the Conant Committee is told in chapter 20 of Hershberg's book.

87 . Ibid., 390.

88 . Ibid., 383. The members of the majority opposed to further release included Eisenhower and Dulles.

89 . Marshall Stubbs to Joseph Hamilton, 30 August 1949 ("Following your suggestion that we prepare . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-1). Stubbs concluded by reporting, "Both Colonel Cooney and Captain Winant reiterated that regardless of the actions noted above, such a release is not desirable."

90 . William Webster to Secretary Johnson, Department of Defense, 11 May 1949 ("Memorandum for the President: This memorandum is to inform you of planned activities . . .") (ACHRE No. DOD-071194-A-4).

91 . Joseph Hamilton to C. B. Marquand, Secretary, Test Safety Panel, 4 August 1949 ("This letter is to confirm the decisions . . .") (ACHRE No. CORP-010395-A-3).

92 . Ibid., 3.

93 . The proposed press release falsely described the program as intended only "to determine a proper defense," involving "the distribution of small amounts of radioactive materials on various types of simulated targets in the field." Marshall Stubbs to Joseph Hamilton, 30 August 1949 ("Following your suggestion . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-072694-B-1), 2.

94 . Ibid.

95 . Colonel William M. Creasy, Chief, Research and Engineering Division, U.S. Army Chemical Corps, to Director of Logistics, U.S. Army General Staff, 3 October 1949 ("Public Release On R[adiological] W[arfare] Tests at Dugway Proving Ground") (ACHRE No. DOD-071194-A-1). The letter notes the draft press release contains "no reference to the general RW program or to the use of radioactive materials as agents of warfare. It does indicate the use of radioactive materials in the Dugway area for the purpose of formulating defensive doctrine."

96 . C. G. Helmick, Deputy Director for Research and Development, to Robert LeBaron, Chairman, Military Liaison Committee, 3 January 1950 ("Public Release on RW Tests at Dugway Proving Ground") (ACHRE No. DOD-071194-A-1); Robert LeBaron to C. G. Helmick, 19 January 1950 ("Public Release on RW Tests at Dugway Proving Ground") (ACHRE No. DOD-071194-A-1).

97 . Louis N. Ridenour, "How Effective Are Radioactive Poisons in Warfare?" Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 6 (1950): 199-202. On the birth of Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists and, more generally, the history of the physics community that worked on the bomb, see Daniel J. Kevles, The Physicists: The History of the Scientific Community in Modern America (New York: Vintage, 1979), 351.

98 . Atomic Energy Commission, Declassification Branch, 30 September 1949 ("Classification Guide for Radiological Warfare") (ACHRE No. DOE-070695-C).

99 . U.S. Department of Defense, Semiannual Report of the Secretary of Defense and the Semiannual Reports of the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Air Force, July 1 to December 31, 1949 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1950), 65-69; Samuel Glasstone, executive editor, The Effects of Atomic Weapons (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1950), 287-290.

100 . U.S. Department of Defense, Semiannual Report of the Secretary of Defense and the Semiannual Reports of the Secretary of the Army, Secretary of the Navy, Secretary of the Air Force, January 1 to June 30, 1951 (Washington, D.C.: GPO, 1951) (ACHRE No. DOD-052695-A), 36. In an August 1951 letter to AEC Chairman Dean, Acting Secretary of Defense Rovert Lovett noted: "The Director of Public Information, Department of Defense, has been directed to undertake a program of public information in this field as recommended by the [Noyes] Panel."

A further memo to the Director, Office of Public Information, the author of which is unclear, cited the Noyes panel's recommendation that civil defense agencies and the public be apprised "concerning the nature and possibilities of radiological warfare as well as possible countermeasures so as to avoid the possibility of panic should an enemy carry out an attack . . . and that studies be made of the psychological effects to be expected." Robert Lovett to Gordon Dean, 6 August 1951 ("The Final Report of the Joint AEC-NME Panel . . .") (ACHRE No. DOD-081695-A); memorandum to Director, Office of Public Information, undated ("Public Information Program on Radiological Warfare") (ACHRE No. DOD-021095-A).

101 . U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Declassification, Drawing Back the Curtain of Secrecy: Restricted Data Declassification Policy, 1946 to the Present (RDD-1) (1 June 1994), 82.

102 . Human Studies Project Team, Los Alamos National Laboratory, March 1995 ("The Bayo Canyon Radioactive Lanthanum [RaLa] Program [draft]") (ACHRE No. DOE-031095-B-1). This report lists 254 RaLa tests, but 1 planned test was never fired, and the last 9, conducted for different purposes, did not release radiolanthanum into the environment.

103 . D. P. MacDougall to N. E. Bradbury, 22 June 1961 ("RaLa Shots in Bayo") (ACHRE No. DOE-040695-A-13), concludes that the RaLa program should not be dismantled until the replacement procedure, Phermex, was operating. Jane H. Hall to Distribution, 8 February 1963 ("Subject: Rala") (ACHRE No. DOE-040695-A-8), reports that "RaLa may no longer be released into the Bayo Canyon atmosphere."

104 . GAO, Examples of Post World War II Radiation Releases, 16.

105 . The fourth experiment was not an intentional release; like the Oak Ridge radiological warfare experiments, it involved a sealed source of radiation that was later returned to the laboratory. Samuel Coroniti, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 19 July 1950 ("Radiation Test Conducted at Los Alamos, New Mexico on 19 July 1950") (ACHRE No. DOE-051095-B).

106 . Human Studies Project Team, Los Alamos National Laboratory, March 1995 ("The Bayo Canyon/Radioactive Lanthanum RaLa Program [draft]"), 6. The GAO report states that the Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories and Los Alamos jointly performed the explosions; Samuel C. Coroniti, Air Force Cambridge Research Laboratories, 26 May 1950 ("Report on the Atmospheric Electrical Conductivity Tests Conducted in the Vicinity of Los Alamos, Scientific Laboratories, New Mexico") (ACHRE No. DOD-120294-A-1). S. V. Burriss, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, to Colonel Benjamin G. Holzman, Research and Development, Pentagon, 11 October 1949 ("Cloud Studies at Los Alamos") (ACHRE No. DOE-060295-B), indicates that the Air Force simply took advantage of releases that occurred for other purposes.

107 . L. H. Hempelmann to David Dow, 29 June 1944 ("Safety of Radiolanthanum Experiment in Bayo Canyon") (ACHRE No. DOE-051094-A-15); Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Safety Committee, proceedings of 7 March 1945 (ACHRE No. DOE-052395-B-1).

108 . Ralph G. Steinhardt, Jr., to Joseph Hoffman, 19 June 1945 ("Summary Report on Health Conditions in RaLa Program") (ACHRE No. DOE-052395-B-2).

109 . T. L. Shipman to R. E. Cole, Atomic Energy Commission, Office of Engineering and Construction, through N. E. Bradbury, 4 April 1950 ("Health Hazards--Guaje Canyon and Vicinity") (ACHRE No. DOE-052395-B), 1.

110 . If the wind was blowing toward the main access road to the Los Alamos mesa, tests could not be conducted in the late afternoon. T. L. Shipman to Donald Mueller through N. E. Bradbury and Duncan MacDougall, 28 April 1949 ("Precaution for Bayo Canyon Shots") (ACHRE No. DOE-042495-C).

111 . Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 8 March 1952 ("H-1 Program for Bayo Canyon Shots") (ACHRE No. DOE-042495-C); Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 23 July 1952 ("H-1 Program for Bayo Canyon Shots") (ACHRE No. DOE-042495-C); Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 1 April 1958 ("H-1 Program for Bayo Canyon Shots") (ACHRE No. DOE-042495-C); and C. D. Montgomery, D. W. Mueller, R. O. Niethammer, 30 June 1954, revised 15 January 1960 ("Clearance, Firing, and Monitoring Procedures for Bayo Canyon Site") (ACHRE No. DOE-040695-A-14), 8, all describe the continuing requirements for weather forecasting. N. E. Bradbury to Distribution, 8 March 1956 ("Meteorological Forecasting Service") (ACHRE No. DOE-040695-A-12), notes the continuing need for weather forecasting in the context of an Air Force threat to withdraw two meteorologists.

112 . Tyler Mercier, Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, transcript of proceedings of 30 January 1995, Santa Fe, N.M., 35.

113 . Glenn Vogt, General Monitoring Section, Los Alamos, to Dean Meyer, Group Leader, 20 April 1956 ("Bayo Canyon Activities, April 12, 16, 18, 1956") (ACHRE No. DOE-041295-C).

114 . D. W. Mueller to RaLa Committee, 22 September 1952 ("RALA Shots") (ACHRE No. DOE-071095-B).

115 . Steinhardt to Hoffman, 19 June 1945.

116 . The National Reactor Testing Station was established near Idaho Falls in 1950, and plans to process Ba-140 for Los Alamos at Idaho Chemical Processing Plant were made on 5 November 1952. Dick Duffey, Atomic Energy Commission, to W. B. Allred, Chief, Reactor Division, Oak Ridge Operations Office, and H. Leppich, Idaho Operations Office, 5 November 1952 ("This will confirm our telephone conversation . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-040695-A).

117 . The third test had taken place two days earlier, on 14 October 1944. Human Studies Project Team ("The Bayo Canyon [RaLa] Program"), appendix A-1.

118 . Louis Hempelmann, M.D., to Colonel Stafford Warren, 16 October 1944 ("Enclosed is an excerpt of my report about the health hazards . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-071494-A-10).

118 . Louis Hempelmann to Norris E. Bradbury, 30 August 1946 ("Excessive Exposures at Bayo Canyon") (ACHRE No. DOE-062295-A-1).

120 . E. R. Jette, Acting Director, to Technical Board Members, 3 September 1946 ("The main topic for discussion at the Technical Board meeting . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-062295-A-2) .

121 . Ibid.

122 . Norman Knowlton, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, "Changes in the Blood of Humans Chronically Exposed to Low Level Gamma Radiation," LA-587, 1948 (ACHRE No. DOE-033095-A-2); Robert Carter and Norman Knowlton, "Hematological Changes in Humans Chronically Exposed to Low-Level Gamma Radiation," LA-1092, 1950 (ACHRE No. DOE-030695-A); Robert E. Carter et al., Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, July 1952, LA-1440 "Further Study of the Hematological Changes in Humans Chronically Exposed to Low-Level Gamma Radiation" (ACHRE No. DOE-033095-A).

123 . Thomas Shipman, Health Division Leader, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, to Gordon Dunning, Division of Biology and Medicine, 21 July 1954 ("When we finally decided to issue LA-1440 . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-020795-D-4).

124 . Samuel J. Glasstone, ed., The Effects of Atomic Weapons (Washington, D.C.: Atomic Energy Commission, 1957), 342.

125 . This dosimetry appears to have been a subject of some care. See Louis Hempelmann to Stafford Warren, 16 October 1944 ("Enclosed is an excerpt . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-071494-A-10), and William C. Inkret, Human Studies Project Team, Los Alamos National Laboratory, to Michael Yuffee, Office of Human Radiation Experiments, Department of Energy, 16 May 1995 ("This letter is a follow-up to the other materials we have sent . . .") (ACHRE Request No. 032995-C).

126 . For example, organic solvents such as benzene and toluene can cause depressed white blood cell counts. The first of the Los Alamos reports (Knowlton, LA-587, 1948) notes that the control group was not exposed to organic solvents, suggesting that the researchers were aware of this fact, but does not consider this as a factor in the chemists' blood counts.

127 . J. F. Mullaney to N. E. Bradbury, 3 January 1946 ("Biological Effects of July 16th Explosion"), 1. See also Bradbury to Mullaney, 7 January 1946.

128 . Clyde Wilson, Chief, Insurance Branch, to Anthony C. Vallado, Deputy Declassification Officer, 20 December 1948 ("Review of Document by Knowlton") (ACHRE No. DOE-120894-E-32).

129 . Leon Tafoya, interview with Mark Goodman (ACHRE staff), 10 March 1995 (ACHRE Research Project Series, Interview Program File, Targeted Interview Project).

130 . "Bye Bye Bayo Site," LASL News, 23 May 1963 (ACHRE No. DOE-051094-A-622), 7.

131 . William C. Inkret, Los Alamos Human Studies Project Leader, to Mark Goodman and Dan Guttman (ACHRE staff), 17 April 1995 ("Attached are the answers to questions 6 and 7 of . . .") (ACHRE No. DOE-042495-C), 4-5.

132 . Leon Tafoya, interview with Mark Goodman (ACHRE staff), 10 March 1995; and Gilbert Sanchez, interview with Mark Goodman (ACHRE staff), 9 March 1995 (ACHRE Research Project Series, Interview Program File, Targeted Interview Project).

133 . Leon H. Tafoya, "Biocultural Dimension of Health and Environment," Hazardous Waste and Public Health (1994): 245-252.

134 . Sanchez, interview with ACHRE staff, 9 March 1995.

135 . Dr. George Voelz, Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, transcript of proceedings of 30 January 1995, Santa Fe, N.M., 43.

136 . Department of Energy, Human Radiation Experiments: The Department of Energy Roadmap to the Story and the Records (Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service, February 1995), 214-222.

137 . The story of this early Hanford research is told in Hines, Proving Ground. See also, Stannard, Radioactivity and Health, 745-1368.

138 . Daniel O'Neill, The Firecracker Boys (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994), 28, 31-46. Some tests were designed to see whether nuclear explosions could stimulate the release of deep deposits of natural gas. Others were conducted in Nevada to test the ability to conduct massive civil engineering projects using nuclear explosions. The possibility of using nuclear explosions to excavate a second Panama Canal received serious theoretical attention.

139 . Ibid., 239-257.

140 . The Soviet test site at Novaya Zemla lies north of the Arctic Circle and was responsible for most of the fallout in Alaska and other Arctic locations.

141 . Wayne Hanson, interview by Daniel O'Neill, 4 May 1988, transcribed by ACHRE staff, 9 March 1995 (ACHRE No. ACHRE-031395-A), 56.

142 . Nevada Environment Restoration Project, Department of Energy, Project Chariot Site Assessment and Remedial Action Final Report (Springfield, Va.: National Technical Information Service, 1994), 1-5. See also Arthur Piper and Donald Eberlein to John Phelps, Director, Special Projects Division, 9 October 1962 ("Your letter of September 27, 1962, to . . . ") (ACHRE No. DOE-050295-E), 3-4.

143 . Ray Emens, Director, Support Division, to John Phillip, Director, Special Projects Division, 10 April 1963 ("Radioactive Waste Mound At Project Chariot Site") (ACHRE No. CORP-013095-A-1), 1.

144 . Nevada Environmental Restoration Project, Project Chariot Site Assessment and Remedial Action Final Report, 1-2.

145 . Caroline Cannon, Advisory Committee on Human Radiation Experiments, transcript of proceedings of 30 January 1995, Santa Fe, N.M., 136.

146 . North Slope Borough Science Advisory Committee, April 1994, "A Preliminary Review of the Project Chariot Site Assessment and Remedial Action Final Report" (ACHRE No. DOE-121494-E-2).

147 . C. A. Hawley et al., Health and Safety Division, AEC, Idaho Operations Office, "Controlled Environmental Radioiodine Tests at the National Reactor Testing Station," IDO-12035, June 1964 (ACHRE No. DOE-060794-B-37), 6. After 1968, a variety of radioisotopes were used, and the name of the series was changed to the Controlled Environmental Release Tests.

148 . Ibid., iii.

149 . Ibid., 31. The exposure limits at the time were 30 rem to the thyroid per year. Richard Dickson, Idaho National Engineering Laboratory, to Bill LeFurgy, Office of Human Radiation Experiments, 16 May 1995 ("Comments on Draft Advisory Committee Report").

150 . Data on tests 2, 7, 10, and 11 are contained in C. A. Hawley, Jr., ed., Idaho Operations Office, AEC, "Controlled Environmental Radioiodine Test at the Nuclear Rector Testing Station: 1965 Progress Report," IDO-129457, February 1966, (ACHRE No. DOE-060794-B-37); D. F. Bunch, ed., Idaho Operations Office, AEC, "Controlled Environmental Radioiodine Tests: Progress Report Number Two," IDO-12053, August 1966, (ACHRE No. DOE-060794-B-39), 26-30; D. F. Bunch, ed., Idaho Operations Office, AEC, "Controlled Environmental Radioiodine Tests: Progress Report Number Three," IDO-12063, January 1968 (ACHRE No. DOE-101194-B-3), 14.

151 . Dr. George Voelz, interview with Marisa Caputo (DOE Office of Human Radiation Experiments), transcript of audio recording, 29 November 1994 (ACHRE No. DOE-061495-A), 16-18. Members of the INEL's Human Radiation Experiments Team state that the identities of these subjects could be determined from records.

152 . [Deleted] Senior Engineer to R. F. Foster (PNL-9370), 1 August 1963 ("Monthly Report: July 1963 [handwritten draft]") and PNL-9369-DEL, 23 August 1963 ("Monthly Report: August 1963"). A proposal for a second Hanford iodine 131 field release test was never implemented. E. C. Watson, BWWL-CC-167, 22 July 1965 ("Proposal for a Second Iodine-131 Field Release Test") (ACHRE No. DOE-033095-A-1). A handwritten notation on the cover sheet reads: "This test was not run. D Gydesen. 3/24/86." The DOE interview with Jack Healy includes descriptions of his role in a study involving iodine uptake through milk. Jack Healy, interview with Mark Goodman (ACHRE staff), 8 March 1995, transcript of audio recording (ACHRE No. DOE-050295-A), 32.

153 . The exposures at Hiroshima and Nagasaki came primarily from acute exposure to gamma and neutron radiation, rather than from radioactive fallout.

154 . U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Estimating Radiogenic Cancer Risks, EPA, 402-R-93-076, June 1994 (DOE-061195-A). One person-rem corresponds to an aggregate dose of 1 rem spread over any number of people. The result from BEIR V is roughly one cancer fatality for every 1,120 person-rem (see chapter 4, "BEIR V"), but this is from a single exposure to gamma radiation.

155 . This project has since been transferred to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

156 . The Committee has not attempted to estimate the range of uncertainty in this estimate. Some of the relevant figures are the estimated maximum 600-mrad thyroid dose from Hanford emissions in 1949, the more typical 180-mrad dose for residents of Richland and the roughly 30,000 population of the Richland area at the time, suggesting a total population exposure of roughly 5,400 person-rad to the thyroid. See W. T. Farris et al., Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project, PWWD-2228 HEDR, April 1994, ("Atmospheric Pathway Dosimetry Report, 1944-1992 [draft]"), C. 6. Using NCRP risk estimates of 7.5 excess cancer deaths per million person-rad to the thyroid, this leads to an estimate of 0.04 excess thyroid cancer deaths. The corresponding estimate for nonfatal thyroid cancer is a factor of 10 higher. There are many uncertainties in this estimate, but they do not consistently overstate or understate the risk. For example, we have ignored the smaller exposures to other population centers and the relatively high doses and risks to children, as well as the offsetting facts that the Green Run represented only about 80 percent of Hanford's I-131 emissions in 1949 and occurred in December when the food pathway was suppressed.

157 . Meteorological and fallout data are more or less complete after 1950. A total of roughly 250,000 curies of radiolanthanum were released (remarkably, less than half a gram) from 1944 to 1960, with releases peaking in 1955 and 1956 at roughly 40,000 curies a year. Strontium 90 was a minor contaminant, with total releases of about 200 millicuries. Los Alamos Human Studies Project Team (draft, 9 March 1995) ("Bayo Canyon/[RaLa] Program"), 15, appendix A.

158 . D. H. Kraig, Human Studies Project Team, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1995 ("Dose Reconstruction for Experiments Involving La140 at Los Alamos National Laboratory, 1944-1962") (ACHRE No. DOE-091495-A).

159 . General Accounting Office, Examples of Post World War II Radiation Releases, 16. Los Alamos Human Studies Project Team, "Bayo Canyon/RaLa Program," 9-10. In tandem with its historical reconstruction, the Human Studies Project Team at Los Alamos is preparing a report estimating radiation exposures to the general population.

160 . According to LA-1440, ten workers were exposed to an average exposure of at least 34 R, and the total exposure was at least 340 person-R, corresponding to roughly 0.2 fatal cancers. Knowlton reports that ten men received an average of 16.21 R over a 77-week period. Knowlton, LA-587, 2.

161 . Barton C. Hacker, Elements of Controversy: The Atomic Energy Commission and Radiation Safety in Nuclear Weapons Testing, 1947-1974 (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1994), chapters 4 and 5.

162 . Richard Elliott, Director, Public Information Division, San Francisco Office, AEC, to Public Information Officers, Division Offices, AEC, 2 December 1953 ("The Public Relations of Atmospheric Nuclear Tests") (ACHRE No. DOE-030195-C), 2. Hacker, in Elements of Controversy, provides some of the background for the discussion of Elliott's paper, including high levels of fallout observed in communities in southern Utah and injuries and death to livestock that had grazed in the fallout area.

163 . We should emphasize that public notification does not mean that members of the public would need to or could take precautionary actions that would not otherwise be taken. Given the relatively low risk posed by the intentional releases, evacuation could have had costs greater than the possible benefits. In the case of the Green Run, a warning not to eat certain foods might have been useful; however, the food pathways were not known at the time. On the other hand, the prospectors around the Dugway site and the Pueblo Indians around Los Alamos could have been warned not to wander into certain areas that may have posed some hazard, however small.

164 . Both statutes have since been amended by subsequent legislation. The relevant provisions of the Clean Air Act are the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (42. U.S.C. 7412), and those of the Atomic Energy Act are 42 U.S.C. 2114, 2133. Other environmental statutes either explicitly exempt most radioactive materials (the Clean Water Act) or are less directly relevant to intentional releases (the Safe Drinking Water Act, the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, and the Comprehensive Environmental Compensation, Response, and Liability Act).

165 . As noted in the Introduction, radiation standards were initially established as recommendations by two private advisory bodies: the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP) and the U.S. National Committee on Radiation Protection, now the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (NCRP). Over time federal and state agencies have based regulatory standards on these recommendations.

166 . As noted above, this standard was a recommendation by the NCRP, later adopted as policy by the AEC. Carroll Wilson to Lauriston Taylor, 10 October 1947, as cited in Gilbert Whittemore, "The National Committee on Radiation Protection, 1928-1960: From Professional Guidelines to Government Regulation" (Ph.D. diss., Harvard University, 1986), 326-327.

167 . This standard took the form of guidance issued by the Federal Radiation Council in 1960, "Radiation Protection Guidance for Federal Agencies," in Fed. Reg. 25, 4402-4403 (1960); and Fed. Reg. 26, 9057-9058 (1961). See also, D. C. Kocher, "Perspective on the Historical Development of Radiation Standards," Health Physics 61, no. 4 (October 1991).

168 . The EPA was established by President Nixon. The NRC was formed in 1974 under the Energy Reorganization Act to take over the regulatory functions of the AEC. See 42 U.S.C. 5801 et seq.

169 . U.S. General Accounting Office, Consensus on Acceptable Radiation Risk to the Public is Lacking, GAO/RCED-94-190, summarizes the existing radiation protection standards in the federal government (see especially table 1, p. 5).

170 . Committee on the Biological Effects of Ionizing Radiation, BEIR V, 18. Table 1-3 provides a comparison on typical exposure to natural and artificial sources of ionizing radiation.

171 . 54 Fed. Reg. 51657; 54 Fed. Reg. 51655; 56 Fed. Reg. 33080, as cited in David O'Very and Allan Richardson, unpublished, "Regulation of Radiological and Chemical Carcinogens: Current Steps Toward Risk Harmonization," 1995.

172 . Some regulations already take the population dose into account. The DOE and NRC use the population dose in implementing the principle that radiation exposures be made as low as reasonably achievable (a principle that goes by the acronym ALARA), applying cost-benefit analysis to reduce population doses from the operation of a given facility. As another example, releases of Kr-85 from nuclear power plants are limited on the basis of population doses. 40 C.F.R. 190.10(b).

173 . The national security interest exemption to the Clean Air Act is provided in 42 U.S.C. 7412(i)(4): "The President may exempt any stationary source from compliance with any standard or limitation under this section for a period of not more than two years if the President determines that the technology to implement such standard is not available and is in the national security interest of the United States to do so." Other environmental statutes have similar exemptions.

174 . AEC 132/64, 7 January 1964, cited in J. Samuel Walker, Containing the Atom (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1992), 11-12. Except for such circumstances, the AEC declared its intention to ensure that "reactor facilities are designed, constructed, operated, and maintained in a manner that protects the general public, government and contractor personnel, and public and private property against exposure to radiation from reactor operations and other potential health and safety hazards."

175 . The ability to delay any report to Congress by as much as a year greatly limits the effectiveness of this reporting requirement. There also remains the possibility that the information provided to Congress would be classified, and so the report would not be made public.

176 . See 42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.

177 . The basic requirements for environmental impact analyses appear at 40 C.F.R. part 1500 et seq. As a preliminary step, an environmental assessment may be done to determine whether the "significant impact" threshold is met and a full EIS is necessary. This EIS must include an analysis of the environmental impact alternatives to the proposed action. Normally, a draft EIS must be made available for public information and comment, and the agency must respond to any comments of the public.

178 . The regulations implementing NEPA provide that "environmental assessments and environmental impact statements which address classified proposals may be safeguarded and restricted from public dissemination in accordance with agencies' own regulations applicable to classified information." 40 C.F.R. 1507.3(c). This provision for secret procedures does not relieve an agency of the obligation to inform itself of the environmental impacts of its actions, nor does it relieve EPA of the requirement to review those impacts.

179 . On 11 February 1994, President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, "Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations," which requires each federal agency to address disproportionate human health or environmental effects of its policies. This includes requirements to assess those impacts and to seek greater public participation in environmental planning and policymaking. Executive Order 12898, 59 Fed. Reg. 7629 (16 February 1994).

180 . Richard Sanderson, Director, Office of Federal Activities, EPA, to Donald Weightman (ACHRE Staff), 22 March 1995 ("NEPA Oversight of Classified Documents"). Such programs are offically referred to as Special Access programs.

181 . See Helen Frost et al. v. William Perry, Secretary of the United States Department of Defense et al., Civil Action no. CV-S-94-795-PMP (RLH), filed August 15, 1994 (ACHRE No. 5WU-041495-A), and John Doe et al. v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, Civil Action no. CV-S-94-795-DWH (LRL), both of which were filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada.

182 . Craig Hooks, Associate Director, Federal Facilities Enforcement Office, EPA, to Donald Weightman (ACHRE staff), 11 April 1995 ("Please find enclosed . . .") (ACHRE No. EPA-041395-A).

183 . Gary Vest, Deputy to the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environmental Security, interview with Mark Goodman (ACHRE staff), 13 December 1994, staff notes (ACHRE Contact Database).

184 . Mark Hamilton, USAF, telephone interview with Mark Goodman (ACHRE staff), 4 January 1995, staff notes (ACHRE Contact Database).

185 . Richard Sanderson, Director, Office of Federal Activities, EPA, to Donald Weightman (ACHRE Staff), 22 March 1995 ("NEPA Oversight of Classified Documents").

186 . The Supreme Court has ruled that the question of an agency's compliance with NEPA is "beyond judicial scrutiny" when a trial of the case would "inevitably lead to the disclosure of matters which the law itself regards as confidential, and respecting which it will not allow the confidence to be violated." Weinberger v. Catholic Action of Hawaii/Peace Education Project, 454 U.S. 139, 146 (1981).