Document text
Machine-read from the scan, so expect some errors. Lines that couldn’t be read are left out.
Page 1
s f9r CY 1957 “ which recommended that Operation PILGRIM be conducted as one continuous operation at the Nevada Test Site from May 1957 to October 1957 in acc~rdance with Plan III as outlined in the staff paper. Mr, Fields said that in accordance with the Commissions ~. 1 fallout in the vicinity of NTS from PILGRIIi. He said two alternatives were ~utlined in the staff paper to accomplish this: (a) Transferal qr a part of and/or (b) redesigning the test devices and firing some of them suspended from balloons. In response to a question by Mr. Murray, General Starbird said that the Class A weapon referred to in the staff ~ ~:4 ,.? either a clean or normal weapon. General Starbi”kd
Page 2
and that the status of the weapon was still that of a feasibllity study. He added that the praposed test would be a developmental test of either a clean or normal weapon, depending on the stated DOD developmental requiremen.tjand that if a clean weapon were required, it would actually be - . less than 60megat~ns. Mr. Murray asked General Starbird if he believed the AEC h~ a requirement for a 60 megaton normal‘... weaprm, and General’~tarbird replied that he believed the AEC had a requirement for a study of the feasibility of 60 megaton Mr. Murray asked about the difference, in terms of fallout, between the test series as ~utlined in the staff PaPer under consideration and as ~utlined in AEC 944 which had been discussed at Meeting 1246. General Starbird said that the estimated fallout frcm the test series outliriedin AEC 944 was
Page 3
;>’ General Starbird then commented cm the work of the “ planning’’b;~~dwhich had heen established to consider radiological safety criteria RS well as means of reducing local fallout. He said that in view of the Commission discussion at Meeting 1246, an accelerated review had been made ~f each shots could be reduced and that the 11,000megacurie figure was the result of this review. Mr. Libby said that In accordance with C~mmissiOn discussion at Meeting 1246, he had reviewed radiation effects data. He then c~mmented m the basis of the calculations made ~f the radiation doses received by individuals in the vicinity of NTS and observed that the actual radiation doses received by these ?e~ple are pr3bably less by a fact~r of two than the measured values. ‘Therefore,he said he believed the 10 in which radiation doses had been mea~ured at NTS. Mr. Libby suggested that although the fi~u~>e~used at NTS are conoervati in the communit:~essurrounding LNTS. He said that the new figu would he valuable in an exami.nati~n~f the fallout prob:l.emat NTS prior to the next tect series after Operation PILGRIM. some of the proposed slmts such as the GO !{ilotonshot, to t,h Eniwetok Proving Ground. He said that th;.sactim might preclude any adverse publf.creaction which wau?.daffect the
Page 4
‘? and Mr. Salisbury the public relations aspects of conducting the conservative nature of the figures on rad!.atlcmdoses received by individuals in communities !.nthe vicinity of NTS did affect the Commission’s previous posit.!-’,non the transfer of some large shots to the pacific> ~lc}.e~ieveflthis question should be discussed. Mr. Libby said the.’cirif~rmationreceived after Operation PILGRIM 3n fallout would confirm whether his position cm the 10 roentgen figure WP.?correct but that he did not believe there is any possihilitj-thct the 10 roentgen f!.gWe w~uld be achieved by a single sh~t. Mr. Graves then commented on the conservative nature 3i’esti.matecof fallout as well as his questions cfltmnsferrjng XITC sh~ts to the Pacific, he would like to rezerve his position m ~,~cgJ+lI/~until he had reviewed the staff paper a~ain. He then asked about the length of the period oet for the tests, and General Starbird d~.scussed commented on the need to compress the length of the proposed After further discussion, Mr. Libby and Mr. Vance approved the recommendations of AEC 944/2, subject to a