Consensus Study Report

NATIONAL ACADEMIES PRESS 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001

This activity was supported by contracts between the National Academy of Sciences and the Department of Veterans Affairs (36C24518D0171/36C24523N0613). Any opinions, findings, conclusions, or recommendations expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of any organization or agency that provided support for the project.

International Standard Book Number-13: 978-0-309-99504-7
Digital Object Identifier: https://doi.org/10.17226/28585
Library of Congress Control Number: 2025944624

This publication is available from the National Academies Press, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Keck 360, Washington, DC 20001; (800) 624-6242; https://nap.nationalacademies.org.

The manufacturer’s authorized representative in the European Union for product safety is Authorised Rep Compliance Ltd., Ground Floor, 71 Lower Baggot Street, Dublin D02 P593 Ireland; www.arccompliance.com.

Copyright 2025 by the National Academy of Sciences. National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine and National Academies Press and the graphical logos for each are all trademarks of the National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.

Printed in the United States of America.

Suggested citation: National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2025. Evaluation of Manhattan Project records for veteran health and exposure assessments. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/28585.

The National Academy of Sciences was established in 1863 by an Act of Congress, signed by President Lincoln, as a private, nongovernmental institution to advise the nation on issues related to science and technology. Members are elected by their peers for outstanding contributions to research. Dr. Marcia McNutt is president.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to bring the practices of engineering to advising the nation. Members are elected by their peers for extraordinary contributions to engineering. Dr. Tsu-Jae Liu is president.

The National Academy of Medicine (formerly the Institute of Medicine) was established in 1970 under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences to advise the nation on medical and health issues. Members are elected by their peers for distinguished contributions to medicine and health. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president.

The three Academies work together as the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine to provide independent, objective analysis and advice to the nation and conduct other activities to solve complex problems and inform public policy decisions. The National Academies also encourage education and research, recognize outstanding contributions to knowledge, and increase public understanding in matters of science, engineering, and medicine.

Learn more about the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine at www.nationalacademies.org.

Consensus Study Reports published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine document the evidence-based consensus on the study’s statement of task by an authoring committee of experts. Reports typically include findings, conclusions, and recommendations based on information gathered by the committee and the committee’s deliberations. Each report has been subjected to a rigorous and independent peer-review process, and it represents the position of the National Academies on the statement of task.

Proceedings published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine chronicle the presentations and discussions at a workshop, symposium, or other event convened by the National Academies. The statements and opinions contained in proceedings are those of the participants and are not endorsed by other participants, the planning committee, or the National Academies.

Rapid Expert Consultations published by the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine are authored by subject-matter experts on narrowly focused topics that can be supported by a body of evidence. The discussions contained in rapid expert consultations are considered those of the authors and do not contain policy recommendations. Rapid expert consultations are reviewed by the institution before release.

For information about other products and activities of the National Academies, please visit www.nationalacademies.org/about/whatwedo.

COMMITTEE TO CONDUCT A FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT OF VETERAN HEALTH EFFECTS OF MANHATTAN PROJECT (1942–1947)–RELATED WASTE

LINDA A. MCCAULEY (Chair), Emory University

MICHAEL BELLAMY, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center

SARAH S. COHEN, DLH, LLC

JASON KRUPAR, University of Cincinnati

NICOLE E. MARTINEZ, Clemson University

GURUMURTHY RAMACHANDRAN, Johns Hopkins University

JEFFREY S. REZNICK, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health

DAVID B. RICHARDSON, University of California, Irvine

JEANNE MAGER STELLMAN, Columbia University

GAYLE E. WOLOSCHAK, Northwestern University

Study Staff

ANNE N. STYKA, Study Director, Senior Program Officer

DANIEL J. MULROW, Program Officer

ALEXANDRA McKAY, Research Associate

CRYSTAL J. BELL, Program Officer (from June 2024)

KATIE PETERSON, Senior Program Assistant (from December 2024)

OLIVIA LOIBNER, Senior Program Assistant (until August 2024)

ROSE MARIE MARTINEZ, Senior Board Director, Board on Population Health and Public Health Practice

This page intentionally left blank.

Reviewers

This Consensus Study Report was reviewed in draft form by individuals chosen for their diverse perspectives and technical expertise. The purpose of this independent review is to provide candid and critical comments that will assist the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine in making each published report as sound as possible and to ensure that it meets the institutional standards for quality, objectivity, evidence, and responsiveness to the study charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process.

We thank the following individuals for their review of this report:

Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they were not asked to endorse the conclusions of this report nor did they see the final draft before its release. The review of this report was overseen by ROGER J. LEWIS, University of California, Los Angeles and Los Angeles County Department of Health Services, and

MARYELLEN L. GIGER, University of Chicago. They were responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with the standards of the National Academies and that all review comments were carefully considered. Responsibility for the final content rests entirely with the authoring committee and the National Academies.

Acknowledgments

The committee wishes to acknowledge the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) staff who presented an overview of its charge at its January 10, 2024, information gathering session: Patricia Hastings, chief consultant, Health Outcomes Military Exposures (HOME), Danny McClung, health physicist and radiological consultant, HOME, Peter D. Rumm, director of policy, HOME; and Aaron Schneiderman, director, HOME Epidemiology Program. Additionally, the committee would like to thank the Honorable Cori Bush for sharing the origin for the congressional language requiring this feasibility assessment.

The committee is grateful to the many experts who presented and provided materials during and after its information-gathering sessions. The following individuals presented at the committee’s March 7, 2024, session (in order of presentation): Robin Elgart, director of the Office of Domestic and International Health Studies within the Office of Environmental, Health, Safety, and Security at the Department of Energy (DOE); Mishelle Hugues, National Nuclear Security Administration agency records officer, who presented an overview of NNSA and its records; Gregory Lewis, director of DOE’s Office of Worker Screening and Compensation Support, who gave an overview of the Energy Employees Occupational Illness Compensation Program Act (EEOICPA) and the ways his organization performs records research management; Timothy Taulbee, associate director of science for the Division of Compensation Analysis and Support, who gave an overview of the National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health; and Jay Bosanko, deputy archivist of the United States, who gave an overview of the National Archives and Records Administration (NARA) and described the processes

of searching for, identifying, and accessing records related to the committee’s task.

At the committee’s May 8, 2024, open session, presentations were made by the following: Jennifer G. Hamilton, senior program analyst for the Records, Directives, and Technical Standards Programs, and the Science Management System at the Office of Science Lead Records Management in Oak Ridge; Wensday R. Henderson, task lead at the Consolidated Service Center Records Management Library who presented on the Energy Employees Records held there that may be related to the committee’s task; Michael W. Stafford, director of the Nuclear and Radiological Protection Division, UT-Battelle; Dave Whittaker, records analyst and Oak Ridge National Laboratory Freedom of Information Act coordinator who provided historical background for assessing the laboratory’s staff exposure records 1942–1947; and Ashley Pedigo Golden, senior director of Oak Ridge Institute of Science and Education (ORISE) Health Studies Program at Oak Ridge Associated Universities (ORAU), accompanied by Sara Howard, an epidemiologist in the same program, who gave a review of the ORISE epidemiologic studies and the legacy DOE Health and Mortality Studies program.

At the committee’s July 18, 2024, information-gathering session in Richland, Washington, the following individuals made presentations: Meg Milligan, records management field officer at the Richland Operations/Office of River Protection; Lorna Zaback, management and program analyst at the EEOICPA, Workers Compensation, Hanford Workforce Engagement Center, accompanied by Gail Splett, retired EEOICPA program manager, Workers Compensation and Office of Chief of Staff, DOE, who presented about the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Hanford Site Records Research; Robert R. Franklin, assistant director of the Hanford History Project, who presented on the Manhattan Project–era military presence at Hanford and surrounding area; Bruce Napier, retired chief scientist of the Hanford Environmental Dose Reconstruction Project, who presented on the historic use of records for Hanford site dose reconstruction and analyses; Stacey McComish and Maia Avtandilashvili at the U.S. Transuranium and Uranium Registries, who presented on military veterans in this program; and Joyce Tsuji, principal scientist at Exponent, who presented on considerations in reconstruction of nonradiological exposures for veterans at Hanford in 1942–1947.

At the September 19, 2024, information-gathering session in Los Alamos, New Mexico, the committee heard from Nicholas Lewis, historian at the National Security Research Center at Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL), who presented on the history of the military of Project Y; Katie Gregonis, program manager at the Institutional Records Management, and Patty Templeton, collections manager at the National Security Research Center, LANL, who both presented on LANL’s environmental hazards and health outcomes records and were accompanied by Brye Ann Steeves,

director, National Security Research Center, LANL; and Steve Simon, health physicist consultant at the National Security Research Center, who presented on using historical data for estimating past radiation exposures.

The committee heard from Theresa Fitzgerald, director of the Personnel Records Division, National Archives at St. Louis at its November 4, 2024, virtual information-gathering session regarding the military records held within this division. It also appreciates her time in responding to its several follow-on requests for clarifications and other information held by this division of NARA.

At its December 16, 2024, information-gathering session in St. Louis, Missouri, the committee heard presentations from Randy Hansen, radiological risk assessor for Leidos/AVESI, accompanied by Charles D. Finkenbine, certified health physicist and project manager at Leidos/AVESI, who presented on the Formerly Utilized Sites Remedial Action Program and St. Louis dose and risk assessments; Kathryn Vicat, account executive at Footsteps Researchers, LLC, who presented on how to conduct research using NARA archives; and Gwendolyn Verhoff, professor at St. Louis Community College, who presented on uranium production in St. Louis and impacts on the St. Louis community.

The committee would like to acknowledge the many individuals, too numerous to list, who also helped with responses to its many information requests, provided sources for its consideration, spoke with National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine staff about specific records and topics, and helped guide its information gathering.

This page intentionally left blank.

Contents

PREFACE

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

SUMMARY

1 BACKGROUND, POLICY CONTEXT, AND STATEMENT OF TASK

Brief History of the Manhattan Project

Origin of the Request

Statement of Task

Committee Composition and Deliberation Period

Organization of the Report

References

2 COMMITTEE’S APPROACH TO ITS STATEMENT OF TASK

Interpretation of the Statement of Task

Overall Approach

Synopsis

References

3 LOCATIONS SPECIFIED IN THE STATEMENT OF TASK AND OTHER MANHATTAN PROJECT MILITARY SITES

Selective Historiography of the Manhattan Project Sites

Primary Manhattan Project Sites

Research Laboratories

Mining and Milling

Component Fabrication

Waste Storage

Select Manhattan Project Sites Not Included in the Statement of Task

Synopsis

References

4 IDENTIFYING THE VETERAN POPULATION

Describing the Military Population

Potential Sources and Methods for Creating a Roster of Manhattan Project Military Veterans

Synopsis

References

5 MANHATTAN PROJECT EXPOSURES AND ASSOCIATED RECORDS

Overview of Exposure and Dose Assessment

Tiers of Exposure and Dose Assessment

Evolution of the Manhattan Project Dosimetry Program

Examples of Manhattan Project Exposures

Databases and Sources Containing Exposure Information

Synopsis

References

6 SOURCES OF HEALTH OUTCOME INFORMATION

Overview of Health Outcomes of Radiological and Chemical Exposures

Potential Sources and Methods to Identify Health Outcomes

Synopsis

References

7 FEASIBILITY ASSESSMENT: OVERARCHING THEMES AND CONCLUSIONS

Assessment of Feasibility

Risk Assessment as a Potential Alternative Study Design

Final Observations

References

Appendixes

A Public Law 117-168

B Public Meeting Agendas

C Committee Member and Staff Biographies

D Selected Epidemiologic Studies of Radiological and Chemical Exposures

This page intentionally left blank.

Boxes, Figures, and Tables

BOXES

1-1 Statement of Task

7-1 Chapter-Specific Key Findings and Conclusions

FIGURES

3-1 Map of selected Manhattan Project sites

3-2 Overall nuclear weapons manufacturing process and where statement of task sites contributed to the process

4-1 1467th Service Command Unit roster for October, 1943 at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia, p. 3

4-2 1467th Service Command Unit morning report of action for May 1943 at Fort Oglethorpe, Georgia: p. 3

5-1 Example of how a job-exposure matrix is used to determine a dose–response relationship between an exposure and a health outcome

5-2 Example of how early dosimeters were worn

5-3 Three examples of individual dosimetry records at Clinton Engineer Works (Oak Ridge) demonstrating the change in record format during the early period of the Manhattan Project

5-3 (a) December 1943

5-3 (b) January 1944

5-3 (c) June 1944

5-4 Two examples of individual dosimetry records at Hanford and Oak Ridge demonstrating a standard format between sites

5-4 (a) Example pencil and film dosimetry card from a Hanford Employee in 1945

5-4 (b) Example pencil and film dosimetry card from a Clinton Engineer Works (Oak Ridge) employee in 1947

5-5 Example of a pencil and film dosimetry card from a Clinton Engineer Works (Oak Ridge) employee in 1947, with key to terminology

5-6 Example urinalysis for plutonium from a Hanford worker in 1946

5-7 Example of film dosimetry measurement card from Oak Ridge, 1945, indicating military status of workers

TABLES

S-1 Availability of Each Statement of Task Element by Specified Site

2-1 Selected Key Elements of an Epidemiologic Study

4-1 Unit Records and Morning Reports by Year for Manhattan Project Military Personnel

5-1 Summary of the Committee’s Tiers of Exposure and Dose Assessments

5-2 Number of Chemicals Reported at Statement of Task Sites in the SEM Database

7-1 Availability of Each Statement of Task Element by Specified Site

7-2 Manhattan Project Sites and Department of Energy Offices That Oversee Records and Records Management

Preface

The Manhattan Project was a vast, secretive, fast-paced military initiative to develop a nuclear weapon during World War II. The 13 sites listed in the statement of task are only a few of the many locations throughout the United States that directly or indirectly supported the project, although not all of them had a documented military presence. As we discuss in the report, the sites purposefully had different roles in the weapons manufacturing process, which affected the types of military personnel at them and the potential exposures they experienced.

The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (the National Academies) has a long history of issuing independent reports on exposures and health outcomes associated with military service. Reconstructing the military populations at risk and their potential exposures and possible health outcomes has been a challenge in all these reports, but this committee faced distinct obstacles given that the military activities that are the subject of this report occurred more than 75 years ago, during and shortly after World War II.

We are grateful to all the historians (on the committee and elsewhere) who educated the committee and staff on the immensity of the Manhattan Project, the secrecy of the work, and possible sources of information to reconstruct the identity of those who served. The committee’s attempt to assess available exposure and health records highlights the complexity of record management across federal agencies and other entities for the Manhattan Project. Our committee engaged with many experts on the effort and time that goes into maintaining, organizing, and, at times, reconstructing records for their use in exposure and public health studies.

The compartmentalization of the Manhattan Project is reflected in the records—there is no central repository, and stewardship of many records remains at individual sites, often administered by a federal contractor. The committee was disconcerted to learn that, in many cases, the records had been purposefully or accidentally destroyed and no copies were available.

Although the committee’s work took place decades after the Manhattan Project, it shows how historical information, such as personnel records, can be used to inform research. All veterans deserve accurate records of the exposures they encountered during their military service. We hope that this report becomes a resource for greater public justice, for not only the veterans who participated directly in the Manhattan Project, but also for individuals who continue to experience its legacies in their daily lives. These veterans were unique, real individuals whose experiences are more than merely the statistics that may or may not represent them. While the voices of the veterans who served on the Manhattan Project were not available to the committee, the historians presented a collection of resources giving voice to this cohort and the risks they assumed in serving their country.

Finally, I want to acknowledge the hard and collaborative efforts of all our committee members, who worked diligently within the time frames required and the limits of this assessment. And, of course, the committee members all recognize the work of National Academies study staff who made this report possible: director and responsible staff officer, Anne Styka, and her extremely capable and conscientious colleagues, Daniel Mulrow, Alexandra McKay, and Crystal Bell. They provided a critical understanding of veterans and military health research, health physics, agency organization for submitting information requests; kept the committee focused on fully responding to its charge, and, more broadly, informed and guided its work without constraining its deliberations. We also thank Olivia Loibner, Mia Saltrelli, and Katie Peterson for providing administrative and logistical support to the committee during and between its meetings. A thank you is also extended to Roberta Wedge, who performed technical editing and fact checking, and the many other National Academies staff who contributed behind the scenes to this report.

Linda McCauley, Chair
Committee to Conduct a Feasibility Assessment of Veteran Health Effects of Manhattan Project (1942–1947)–Related Waste
June 2025

Acronyms and Abbreviations

This page intentionally left blank.