DoE/Es-ooo3/l

410896

.

A HISTORY OF THEATOhtlC ENERGY COMMISSION

by:Alice L. Buck

July 19=

U.S. Depa~ment of Energy -Assistant Secreta~, Management and AdministrationOtilce of The Executive SecretariatHistory DivisionWashington, D. C.20W5

..

To W, B. McCOOI, Secretaw to the Commission, adedicated public official whose imaginativeleadership and foresight in administering theOffice of the Secretary; whose initiative inestablishing and supporting within his staff ahistory program for the preparation of anofficial history of the Commission; and whoseskill in developing a highly sucessful manage-ment program for bringing outstanding young menand women into the federal service, allcontributed to making the Executive Secretariata model for administering complex and technicalprograms.

oAvDepartment of Ener~Washington, D.C. 20585

The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 broughttogether for the first time in one department most of the FederalGovernment’s energv programs. ~fi?iththese ~roarams came a score of

organizational entltiesl. .

each with its own history and traditions,from a dozen departments and independent aqencies. The Historv

Division has prepared a series of pamphlets on The InstitutionalOrigins of the Department of Energy. Fach pamphlet explains the

history, qoals, and achievements of a predecessor aqencv of theDepartment of Energy.

One purpose of the series is to provide a handv reference workwhich traces the organizational antecedents of the major programsand offices of the Department. In several instances the search formaterials has resulted in the preservation of valuable historicalrecords that otherwise might have been lost or destroyed. The

preservation of these records in the Departmental Archives is animportant first step in collecting materials for a comprehensivehistory of the role of the Federal Government in both stimulatingand regulating the development of energv resources and systems in theUnited States since World War II.

This nam~hlet traces the history of the Atomic ~nergy Commission’ S

twentv-eight year stewardship of the !Jation’s nuclear energy proqram,from the siqning of the Atomic Energy Act on .~’~qust1, 1946 to thesiqninq of the Enerqy Reorganization Act on October 11, 1974. The~omission’s ear~v concentration on the mi~itarv atom produced

sophisticated nuclear weapons for the ?Jation’s defense and madepossible the creation of a fleet of nuclear submarines and surfaceships. Extensive research in the nuclear sciences resulted in thewidespread a~plication of nuclear technology for scientific, medicaland industrial purposes, while the passaqe of the Atomic Enerqy Actof 1954 made Dossible the ,development of a nuclear industry, andenabled the Ufiited States to share the new technology with othernations.

Alice L. Buck is a trained historian workinq in the HistorvDivision. Although whenever possible she has checked her work withappropriate offices within the Department, the author takes fullresponsibility for the content and conclusions of the study.

It is our hope that this pamphlet will prove useful both toT)epartmental personnel and the public.

t!b-e—-6y . Hellief Historian.

Table of Contents

Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TheFirstCommi=ion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ....... ,,,...$ . . . . . . . ....... ....... . . .

The NuclearAr’Senal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . , , . . . , . . . . . . :, . , . . . . . , . . . , ,

Production Expansion. .,..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Organizingthe National Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .,

Reactor Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Atomsfor Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. s. . .. s. . . . .”...”.’. ““B”” B’ ”. ””””””. . . . .”””””-”” ‘“””-”””

TheAtomicEne.rgy Actof 1954.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

TheFiveYear Plan. . . . . . . . .

CooperationWith Industry. .

International Participation . .

Weapon Testing and Fallout

LimitedTestBan Treaty, . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ........ ........ ,0.t.... m.’”””” ““”

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ..,...

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . . ,. . . ...0 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Civilian Power:The Proliferation of the PeacefulAtomin the Sixties...,.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Private Ownership Legislation.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nuclear PowerCapacity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ss. .o. es.’. ..”o””O

Introduction

Almost a year afier World War II ended, Congressestablished the United States Atomic Energy CommissiontO foster and control the peacetime development of atomicscience and technology. Reflecting America’s postwar op-timism, Congress declared that atomic energy should beemployed not only in the Nation’s defense, but also to promote world peace, improve the public welfare, andstrengthen free competition in private enterprise. Afterlong months of intensive debate among politicians, militawplanners and atomic scientists, President Harry S. Trumenconfirmed the civilian control of atomic energy by signingthe Atomic Energy Act on August 1, 1946.(1 )

The provisions of the new Act bore the imprint of theAmerican plan for international control presented to theUnited Nations Atomic Energy Commission two monthsearlier by U.S. Representative Bernard Baruch. Althoughthe Baruch proposal for a multinational corporation todevelop the peaceful uses of atomic energy failed to winthe necessary Soviet support, the concept of combiningdevelopment, production, and control in one agency foundacceptance in the domestic legislation creating the UnitedStates Atomic Energy Commission.(2)

Congress gave the new civilian Commission extraor-dinary power and independence to carry out its awesomeresponsibilities, Five Commissioners appointed by thePresident would exercise authority for the operation of theCommission, while a general manager, also appointed bythe President, would serve as chief executive officer. Toprovide the Commission exceptional freedom in hiringscientists and professionals, Commission employeeswould be exempt from the Civil Service system. Becauseof the need for great security, all production facilities andnuclear reactors would be government-owned, while alltechnical information and research results would be underCommission control, and thereby excluded from the nor-mal application of the patent system.

In addition, the Act provided for three major advisorycommittees: a Congressional Joint Committee on AtomicEnergy, a Military Liaison Committee, and a General Ad-visory Committee of outstanding scientists.(3)

The First Commission

On January 1, 1947, the fledgling Atomic Energy Com-mission took over from the Manhattan Engineer Districtthe massive research and production facilities built duringWorld War II to develop the atomic bomb. The facilitieswere the product of an extraordinary mission accomp-lished in three years in almost complete secrecy. Under thedirection of General Leslie R. Groves of the Army Corps ofEngineers, the laboratory experiments of Enrico Fermi andother American and European scientists had beentransformed into operating plants capable of producing amilitary weapon of devastating power. When the atomicbomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, andthree days later on Nagasaki, not only was a long and cost-ly war brought to an end, but the world also became awareof a completely new and largely unexpected technology.(4)

As the first chairman of the agency created to controlthe peacetime development of the new technology, Presi-dent Harry Truman appointed David E. Lilienthal, a lawyer

and former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Dur-ing the preceding year, Lilienthal and U rider Secretary ofState Dean Acheson had co-authored the well-knownAcheson-Lilienthal report which had formed the basis forthe American plan for international control of atomicenergy. Serving with Liiienthal on the Commission wereSumner T. Pike, a businessman from New England,William T. Waymack, a farmer and newspaper editor fromIowa, Lewis L. Strauss, a conservative banker and reserveadmiral, and Robert F. Bather, a physicist from LosAiamos and the only scientist on the Commission, CarrollL. Wilson, a young engineer who had helped VannevarBush organize the National Defense Research Committeeduring the war, was appointed general manager. Twofloors of the New War Department Building in Washingtonprovided a temporary home for the Commission. A fewmonths later more permanent headquaners were found at19th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., in the former war-time offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

The new Commission faced a challenging future. WorldWar II was quickly followed by an uneasy internationalsituation commonly referred to as the Cold War, and Lilien-thal and his colleagues soon found that most of the Com-mission’s resources had to be devoted to weapon development and production. The requirements of nationaldefense thus quickly obscured their original goal ofdeveloping the full potential of the peaceful atom. For twodecades military-related programs would command thelion’s share of the Commission’s time and the major POPtion of the budget.(5)

The Nuclear Arsenal

To meet the Nation’s expanding requirements for fis-sionable material the Commission set about refurbishingthe production and research facilities built during the war.A major overhaul of the original reactors and two newplutonium reactors were authorized for the Hanford,Washington plant. Oak Ridge was scheduled for an addi-tion to the existing K-25 plant and a third gaseous diffusionplant for the production of uranium 235. The Commissiondecided to adopt the Army’s practice of hiring private cor-porations to operate plants and laboratories, thereby ex-tending into peacetime the contractor system previouslyused by the Government only in times of nationalemergency.

The first test of new weapons was conducted atEnewetak Atoll in April and May 1946, OperationSandstone explored weapon designs and tested a new fis-sion weapon to replace the clumsy tailor-made modelsused during World War Il. By 1946 the Commission hadboth gun-type and implosion-type non-nuclear and nuclearcomponents in stockpile and was well on the way towardproducing an arsenal of nuclear weapons.

In early September 1949 a special Air Force unitdetected a large radioactive mass over the Pacific, in-dicating that the Soviet Union had successfully detonateda nuclear device. The Soviet detonation not only ended theUnited States’ monoploy of nuclear weapons, but also hadan immediate effect on the Commission’s planned expan-sion program. During the prolonged debate which fol-lowed the announcement of the Soviet event, Commissioner Lewis L. Strauss, supported by fellow Commis-

1

sioner Gordon Dean, urged the commission to take a“quantum jump” by developing a thermonuclear weapon.Strong SUpport for the Strauss’ position came from theCongressional Joint Commltiee on Atomic Energy, andfrom scientists such as Edward Teller, Luis W. Aiverez, andErnest o. Lawrence, who a9r* that the development ofthe superbomb was absolutely essential to the security ofthe United States. The members of the Generai Advi*vCommittee, however, while concurring in the need for giv-ing high priority to the development of atomic weapons fortactical purposes, recommended against an all-out effo~to develop a hydrogen bomb. On JanuaW 31, 1950, Presi-dent Truman settled the issue with his momentous deci-sion that the Commission should expedite work on thethermonuclear weapon.(6)

Production Expansion

Oavid Lilienthal resigned on February 15th after threeyears as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.Although his dream of developing the full potential of thepeaceful atom had not been fulfilled, the Commissionunder his leadership had become an effective governmentinstitution. Indeed, the future held great promise for thepeaceful atom, but for the moment at least the militaryatom would continue to be in the ascendancy.

By mid July 1950 Gordon Oean had become chairman ofthe Commission, and the Nation was no longer in a twilightzone between peace and war. Following an attack byNorth Korean troops across the 38th parallel, PresidentTruman ordered U.S. forces to the aid of South Korea.Suddenly increased milita~ demands, added to the Presi-dent’s decision to develop the hydrogen bomb, threatenedto exhaust the Commission’s production capacity. Begin-ning in October 1950 the Commission embarked on a vsstexpansion program, During the next three years the con-struction of huge plants increased capacity at each step inthe production chain. The new facilities included a feedmaterials production center at Fernald, Ohio; a plant toproduce large quantities of lithium 6 at Oak Ridge; agaseous-diffusion plant at Paducah, Kentucky; a wholenew gaseous diffusion complex at Ponsmouth, Ohio; two“Jumbo” reactors and a separation plant for producingplutonium at Hanford; and five heavy-water reactors at theSavannah River site in South Carolina for producingtritium from lithium 6 as well as plutonium. The three yearthree-billion-dollar expansion program represented one ofthe greatest federal con-struction projects in peacetimehistory.

In addition to having an impact on the Commission’s ex-pansion program, the Korean War also focused attentionon the need for a continental test site. In Oecember 1850,with the approval of the Oepatiment of Oefense and theGeneral Advisory Committee, the Commission selectedthe Las Vegas bombing and gunnery range as the site toconduct the Janu= IY 1951 Ranger test series, the firstatomic tests in the United States since the Trinity detona-tion at Alamogordo on July 16, 1945.(7)

The United States detonated the world’s first thermo-nuclear device in the fall of 1852. Code-named Mike, theshot was part of the Ivy test series conducted at EnewetakBy the end of 1953 more than thirty weapon test deviceshad been successfully fired at Pacific or Nevada sites, the

result of extraordinary efforts by scientists and engineersat the Commission’s Los Alamos weapon laboratory. A se-cond weapon laboratory established at Livermore, Califor.nia in early 1952, soon became the center of a weaponengineering and production network which included theSandia Laborato~ near Albuquerque, New Mexico, as wellas new or expanded facilities in Iowa, Texas, Missouri,Ohio, and Colorado.(8)

Organizing the National Laboratories

Fortunately the concentrated dfOR on wespon produc-tion did not mean a total neglect of the Commission’sresearch laboratories. The Commission recognized theneed to maintain the vitality of the national labs, and to emcourage the university research teams and industry groupswhose research on the peaceful uses of atomic energywould provide the technology of the future. TheMetallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago hadbeen reorganized by the Army in 1946 as the Argonne Na-tional Laboratory. The following year the Commission ob.tained a new site for the lab at Argonne, Illinois and deter-mined that the laboratory should become a large multi.disciplinary research center for the midwest. Under thedirection of Walter H. Zinn, one of Enrico Fermi’s principalassistants in developing the world’s first reactor, Argonnevery quickly became the Commission’s center for reactordevelopment.(9)

The Clinton Laboratories, built during World War 11atOak Ridge, Tennessee, became the regional researchcenter for southeastern United States, Reorganized in1948 as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oek Ridgebecame the Nation’s largest supplier of radioisotopes formedical, industrial and physical research, as well as aregional center for research in chemistw, physics,metallurgy, and biology. The laboratory also conductedthe largest radiation genetics program in the world.

To provide regional research facilities for the northeast,the Commission approved a plan by Associated U diver-sities, Inc. to build and operate a laborato~ at Upton, NewYork. The Brookhaven National Laboratory providedresearch facilities in reactor physics, high-energy ac-celerators, and the biomedical sciences, A fourth center inthe far west was established by expanding the facilities ofthe University of California Radiation Laboratow atBerkeley. In addition to the regional canters the Commis-sion continued to support the wa~ime researchlaboratories at a number of colleges and universities, andawarded and administered hundreds of contracts withresearch institutions, universities and nonprofit organiza-tions for basic research in the physical and biologicalsciences.

Reactor Development

Although by 1953 the vast production complex of theAtomic Energy Commission was almost totally dedicatedto military purposes, the idea of a civilian nuclear powersystem based on American industry was very much alive.As early as 1847, Lilienthal had publicly encouraged a part-nership with induet~ in developing the peaceful uses ofatomic energy. The Commission had supponed a modestbut coherent plan for developing nuclear power and pro-pulsion and had permitted a few industry committees

2

b

behind the Commission’s security barriers to evaluate theopportunities for commercial development. On December20, 1951, at the Commission’s Idaho Test station, Zinn anda group of engineers from the Argonne NationalLaboratow succeeded in producing a token amount ofelectriciw from an experimental fast breeder reactor. Thishistoric accomplishment demonstrated in a practical waythat the atomic nucleus could serve mankind as a sourceofpower.(11 )

Probably the most successful reactor program in the1850s was the navalreactors project established anddirected by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover. On June 14, 1952,at the keel-laying ceremony for the world’s first nuclearpowered ship, Chairman Gordon Dean noted that the pro-pulsion of the submarine Nautilus would be the first prac-tical utilization of atomic power, heretofore used primarilyas an explosive. The Navy project later played a significantrole in the widespread adoption of pressurized-water reac”tors by the nuclear power industry in the United States.( 12)

By the end of 1952, technological developments hadgenerated a broad interest in nuclear power in Congress aswell as in industry, and the election of a Republican presi-dent brought further encouragement. Indeed, there wassoon reason for optimism. Two outstanding accomplishments of the Eisenhower years, the 1853 Atoms-for-Peace plan, and the passage of the 1854 Atomic EnergyAct were to have a significant impact on the Nation’snuclear program.

Atoms for Peace

Speaking before the United Nation’s General Assemblyon December 8, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhowerdeclared that “peaceful power from atomic energy is nodream of the future. . that capability, already proved, ishere today.”( 14) The President’s Atoms-for-Peace pro-posal became a major pronouncement of America’s publicpolicy concerning the international management ofnuclear energy. With a sufficient supply of uranium tosatisfy its own military needs, by 1954 the United Statescould turn its attention to the promotion of the peacefuluses of nuclear energy.

Lewis Strauss had been President Eisenhower’s specialassistant for atomic energy prior to his appointment asCommission chairman in July 1953. Strongly committed tonational security during his early years as a Commissioner,and suppotiive of Truman’s decision to expedite thedevelopment of the thermonuclear weapon, Strauss wasnow in a position to work closely with Eisenhower in pro-moting the peaceful atom on a world-wide basis.

The Atomic Energy Act of 1%4

The President’s Atoms-for-Peace speech also focusedattention on the need for a fundamental revision of theAtomic Energy Act of 1846 to enable the Commission toshare technical and scientific information with foreigngovernments. On February 17, 1854, the President askedCongress to pass legislation “making it possible forAmerican atomic energy development, public and private,to play a full and effective part in leading mankind into anew era of progress and peace.” Exhaustive hearings inthe spring of 1954 and Congressional debate during the

early summer resulted in a new law which opened the doorfor an exchange of nuclear technology with other nations.Although indust~ did not gain the right to own fissionablematerial, liberal licensing provisions, greater access totechnical data, and the right to own reactors provided theessential conditions for the private development of nuclearpower in the United States.

The Five Year Plan

Even before Congress had passed the Atomic EnergyAct of 1954, the Commission had launched a new programfor power reactor development. In early 1954 Strauss an-nounced plans to test the basic designs then under studyby building five experimental reactors within five years. Ofthe five reactor prototypes planned, the one with the mostimmediate impact on nuclear power development was thePressurized Water Reactor (PWR ) at Shippingport, Penn-sylvania. Based on the technology developed for nuclearpropulsion systems for submarines, Shippingport wascompleted on schedule in late 1857 as the Nation’s firstfull-scale nuclear generating station.

The other reactor experiments constructed under thefive year program included the Sodium Reactor Experi-ment built by North American Aviation, a Commissioncontractor in southern California; the Experimental BoilingWater Reactor constructed at the Commission’s ArgonneNational Laborato~; and new models of the fast breederand homogeneous reactor experiments built in the early1950’s at the National Reactor Testing station in centralIdaho, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratow in Ten-nessee. Of the five experiments in the program, the Ship-pingport and the Argonne boiling-water reactors en-countered fewer technical problems, but each experimentcontributed to the development of the technology neededto build full-scale nuclear power plants in the future.

Cooperation with Industry

The terms of the Atomic Energy Act enabled the Com-mission to encourage private industry to build its ownnuclear plants, using fissionable material Ieased from theGovernment. Industry responded to the Commission’sJanuary 1855 Power Demonstration Reactor Program withfour proposals covering all but one of the Commission’sfive prototypes. Thus by the end of 1957, the Commissionhad seven experimental reactors in operation andAmerican industry was participating in nine independentor cooperative projects capable of producing almost800,000 kilowatts of electricity by the mid.?960’s. For themoment at least, prospects for the future of the peacefulatom were extremely encouraging.(17)

International Participation

In his Atoms-for-Peace proposal of December 8, 1853,President Eisenhower had proposed that the nuclearpowers contribute portions of their stockpiles of normaluranium and fissionable materials to an internationalatomic energy agency, which would then allocate thesematerials toward peaceful uses. After three years of pa-tient diplomatic negotiations, the International AtomicEnergy Agency (IAEA) was formally inaugurated in Vienna,Austria on October 1, 1857. As head of the United States

3

delegation to the first IAEA “.rg~ce, Lewig strau~

delivered the President’s me$ f hope that the fis-

sioned atom would now be tra ned from a symbol of

fear to one of hope. The new spirit of internationalcooperation had been in evidence even earlier when morethan 1400 scientists from 73 natiOnS attended the firstUnited Nations sponsored International Conference on thePeaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, held in Geneva,Switzerland in August 1965. Similar conferences were heldin 1958, 1964 and 1971.

In addition to sponsoring the International AtomicEnergy Agency, the United States gave strong support toEuratom, the European atomic energy community con-sisting of West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, theNetherlands and Luxembourg. Formally inaugurated inJanuary 1956, Euratcvn undertook to establish an in-tegrated program for developing an atomic energy in-dustry in Europe similar to the European Coal and SteelCommunity. Prior to the establishment of either the inter-national Atomic Energy Agency or Euratom, the AtomicEnergy Commission had negotiated a series of bilateralagreements to provide research reactors, power reactorfuel and technical information to friendly nations, as wellas training programs for nuclear scientists and technicians.Although no bilateral agreements were made with theSoviet Union, Commission Chairman John A. McConeand his Soviet counterman, Professor Vasily S. Emelyanov,signed a Memorandum on Cooperation on November 24,1859, covering exchanges of visits and information onseveral unclassified areas of peaceful nuclear application.Similar memoranda in the 1960’s and early 1970’s coveredjoint experiments in the fields of high energy physics, con-trolled thermonuclear research and fast breeder reac-tors.( 18)

Weapon Testing and Fallout

The detonation of the first shot in the Castle weapontest series in the spring of 1954, however, had threatenedto cast a shadow over the glowing prospects for thepeacefu( atom, so recentlykindled by Eisenhower’s atomsfor-peace’ proposal. At the time of the Bravo shot onMarch 1, a Japanese fishing vessel had been within 82nautical miles of the test area, close enough to receive aheavy dusting of radioactive fallout. By the time the ship,the Fukuryu Maru (or Lucky Dragon) returned to Japan theeffects of the radiation exposure had become evident, andseveral members of the crew required hospitalization. TheAmerican and Japanese press accounts of the incidenthad made the public aware, probably for the first time, ofthe worldwide dangers of radiation from fallout.( 19)

On February 15, 1955, with the approval of the Presi-dent, Strauss released a major report on the “Effects ofHigh-Yield Nuclear Explosions. ” The report did little tocalm public apprehension, and mounting concerns foundexpression in numerous articles on radiation and fallout inscientific journals and other public media. Both the Com-mittee on Armed Services and the Joint Committee onAtomic Energy held hearings in the spring of 1955 on pro-blems associated with radioactive fallout. The followingDecember the United Nations established a ScientificCommittee on Radiation with the former director of theCommission’s Division of Biology and Medicine, ShieldsWarren, as United States’ representative, (20)

tn Januaw 1856 Commissioner Willard F. Libby revealedthe existence of Project Sunshine, a study of global falloutfrom weapon testing which Libby had initiated in the fall of1953 while serving on the General Advisow Committee.Commission laboratories and contractors had been analyz-ing data collected through a worldwide network monitor-ing the presence of strontium 90 in humans, foods andsoils. Prior to 1953 public concern with radiation had fo-cused primarily on workers in atomic energy projects. In1957 the Joint Committee’s hearings on the nature ofradioactive fallout revealed for the first time the extent ofthe Commission’s radiation research program. Millions ofdollars were involved in more then 300 Commission-sponsored projects on various aspects of radiation andfallout. {21)

Testing of nuclear devices by the United States con-tinued throughout the 1850’s, although the EisenhowerAdministration repeatedly expressad its willingness to sus-pend nuclear tests as part of a disarmament agreement.When the Conference of Experts convened in Geneva inthe summer of 1958, the President announced that theUnited States was prepared to negotiate a test ban agree-ment and would voluntarily suspend all weapon testingafter the completion of the Hardtack series in the fall. As aresutt an unpoliced moratorium period began on October31, 1956, during which both the United States and theSoviet Union refrained from nuclear weapon ex-periments.

Limited Test Ban Treaty

Three years later the Soviet Union abruptly ended themoratorium by announcing, on August 31, 1961, that theyintended to resume testing. Oy now John F. Kennedy wasin the White House, and Glenn Seaborg had succeededJohn McCone as chairman. One of the original membersof the General AdvisoW Committee and the first scientistappointed as chairman of the Commission, Seaborgserved during the entire decade of the 1960s.

Although the Soviet Union tested a large number ofhigh-yield weapons in the atmosphere during the autumnof 1961, President Kennedy limited the Commission’sweapon laboratories to underground tests until April 25,1862, when the first shot in the Dominic series was con-ducted at Christmas Island in the Pacific. With technicalsupport from Seaborg and the Commission, the Presidentat the same time had been earnestly pursuing a test banagreement with the Soviet Union. It had been a long andarduous task bearing little fruit. [n an address to the Nationon March 2, 1962, Kennedy had explained that he deploredthe necessity of beginning atmospheric testing again, but“a nation which is refraining from tests obviously cannotmatch the gains of a nation conducting tests. “{23)

Finally, after months of negotiations, a limited test bantreaty was signed in Moscow on August 5, 1863, pro-hibiting nuclear explosion tests in the atmosphere, outerspace, or under water, but permitting undergrounddetonations provided no radioactive debris crossed theborders of the country in which the test was being con-ducted.

In the absence of further success in negotiating a com-prehensive test ban treaty, President Kennedy, and laterPresidents Johnson and Nixon, continued to authorize

4

underground tests in acc %nce with the 1S33 treaty.

Although the limitations treaty imposed severe

technical problems, part in testing high-yield

warheads, the Commiesiofi .% laboratories neverthelesswere highly successful in devising waya to improve and up-date nuclear weapons by testing underground.

Civilian Power: The Proliferation of the PeacefulAtom in the Sixties

The signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in August1963 also had an impact on the civilian power program.The cessation of weapon testing in the atmosphere gavenew hope that the peaceful atom might soon command aslarge a share of the Commission’s time and budget as themilitary atom had for so many years.

Although the imminence of economic nuclear powerhad been a main theme at the 1868 Geneva Conference,recurring technical diticulties in many of the prototypeand demonstration plants in several European countriescontinued in the next few years to frustrate hopes for apractical new source of electrical power. In the UnitedStates, however, prospects were somewhat more en-couraging. In March 1852 President Kennedy had re-quested the Atomic Energy Commission to take a “newand hard look at the role of nuclear power” in the Nation’seconomy. In submitting the Commission’s repoti saveralmonths later, Seaborg noted optimistically that the Corn.mission’s ten-year civilian power program, adopted in1958, was on the threshold of attaining its primary objec-tive of competitive nuclear power by 1988. Suggestedgoals for the future included a concentration of resourcesin the most promising reactor svstems, the early establish-ment of a self-sufficient and growing nuclear power in-dustry, and increased emphasis on the development of im-proved convener or breeder reactors which would con-serve natural uranium resources. The report was broadlycirculated and stimulated public confidence in theeconomic prospects for civilian nuclear power.(24)

On November 22, 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson becamePresident of the United States. One of Johnson’s first andprobably most significant acts was to order a 25 percentcutback in production of enriched uranium and the shutdown of four plutonium piles, with the expectation thatother nations might be challenged to do the same.Although verification was difficult, Chairman Khruschevlater announced production cutbacks in the Soviet Union.

Another milestone in- civilian power development oc-curred on December 12, 1983, when the Jersey CentralPower and Light Company announced that it had con-tracted for a large nuclear power reactor to be built atOyster Creek near Toms River, New Jersey. According tothe company’s own evaluation, the plant would be com-petitive with a fossil fuel plant. For the first time anAmerican utility company had selected a nuclear powerplant on purely economic grounds without governmentassistance and in direct competition with a fossil-fuel plant.In a commencement address at Holy Croee College onJune 10, 1884, President Johnson called it an “economicbreakthrough.’’(25) Two months later private industryreceived further encouragement from Congress in theform of new legislation.

Private Ownership Legislation

On August 26, lW, President Johnson brought to anend an eighteen-year mandatory government monopoly ofspecial nuclear matarials by signing into law the “privateOwnership of Special Nuclear Materials Act.” Enricheduranium for power reactor fuel would no longer have to beleased from the government. private entities would be per-mitted to assume title to special nuclear materials.Atthough the new law provided for a transition period forthe changeover from government to private ownership,after June 20, 1973 private ownership of power reactorfuels would become mandatory. The Act also authorizedthe Commission to offer uranium enriching services toboth domestic and foreign customers under long-termcontracts, beginning on January 1, 1889. Moat of theAtomic Energy Commision’s literature on reactortechnology had been declassified as early as 1955. Withthe adoption of the Private Ownership Act in 1884, fis-sionable materials as well aa reactors now entered thepublic domain, and a full-fledged nuclear indust~ becamea possibility.

But how would a full-fledged nuclear industry beregulated? Could one agency continue to regulate a singleenergy technology in a time of increasing energy needs? Ina few years the energy crisis of 1973 would bring thesequestions into sharp focus.

Nuclear Power Capacity

The Commission’s 1982 report on civilian power hadprojected 5,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity by1970 and 40,000 by 1980, Within five years the outlook hadchanged so dramatically that in March 1987 the Commission issued a supplementary report doubling its previouspredictions. Within a few years, however, even these revised statistics were exceeded. (By the end of 1974 twohundred and thi~-three nuclear central-station generatingunits, with a capacity of 232,000 megawatts, were either inoperation, under construction, or on order in the UnitedStates. X27)

The Breeder Reactor

In addition to predicting dramatic increases in megawattcapacity, the Commission’s 1887 report on civilian nuclearpower reaffirmed the promise of the breeder reactor formeeting long-term energy needs, and gave the LtquidMetal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) the highest priorityfor civilian reactor development. A major boost was givento the program four years later by President Richard Nixon.In his “clean energy” message to Congress on June 4,1971, the President called for the commercial demonstra-tion of a breeder reactor by 18B0, stating that “The breederreactor could extend the life of our natural uranium fuelsupply from decades to centuries, with far le~ impact onthe environment than the power plants which areoperating today.’’(~)

The fast breeder project included a demonstration piantin Oak Ridge, Tenne~— the clinch River Breeder Reac-tor (CRBR)– and a test reactorWashington– the Fast Flux Test Facility

in Richland,(FFTF). Clinch

5

River promised to be a major meP in the transition fromtechnology to Iargeacale demonstration of the fast

breeder concept. The project was launched in August 1972with the signing of a memorandum of undemanding ~tween the Commia40n and the principal utility par-ticipants, the Commonwealth Edison Company and theTennessee Valley AuthofitY. The Commission would beresponsible for research and development of thedemonstration plant while the Commonwealth EdisonCompany and the Tenna=a Valley Authority wouldengineer, manufacture and proof test equipment andsystems.

Licensing and Regulation

Under the terms of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Con-gress had given the Atomic Energy Commission theresponsibility for regulating and licensing commercialatomic activities. As the Nation’s electric power industryincreasingly turned toward nuclear plants, the Commissionfound it necessary to modify its organizational structure toseparate regulatow from non-regulatory functions. In 1961the regulatov staff was separated from the GeneralManager’s office and placed under a Director of Regula-tion who reportad directly to the Commissioners. Twoyears later the regulatory and operational functions wereseparated physically when the regu~tov @aff was movedfrom the headquanem building in Germantown, Marylandto offices in Bethesda.

Licensing procedures involved a series of technicalreviews and public hearings, including an independenttechnical safety evaluation by the Advisory Committee onReactor Safeguards. The Commission itself sewed as afinal review board for all licenses granted, and maintainedcontinuous surveillance of licensed reactors throughouttheir operating lifetime.

Research

The weapon requirements for national defense in theearly years had forced the Commission to postpone goalsfor an all-out program of research on the peaceful atom.As seen i,n the development of the power reactor,however, there was a gradual shift in emphasis during theEisenhower era, and the trend continued to gain momen-tum during the Kennedy and Johnson Years. In 1966 theAEC budget for the first time was divided about equally ba-tween weapons and peaceful uses.

Research and developnient programs in the”1960’s andearly 1970s produced a significant fund of knowledgeabout radiation and its effects, and provided basic dataneeded to determine radiation protection standards and toassess the environmental impact of nuclear technology.Advances in medical diagnostic techniques based on theuse of radioisotopes and radiation machines added to theskills of the medical profession, while immunological‘esearch provided the knowledge needed for successful

ansplants. Other medical breakthroughs included the‘atment of Parkinson’s Disease, the preservation of cells- transfusion, and the introduction of small acceleratorsproduce shon-lived radioisotopes for immediate use in

,atients. Although Oak Ridge produced virtually all of theradioisotopes available for physical and biomedical as wellas for industrial applications, the Commission gradually

bansferrad production, packaging, and shipping to com-mercial suppliers, while continuing to SUPPORresearch onnew applications. (31)

During the 1960’s the Commission produced a series ofradioisotope-powered and reactor-powered elactrical-generating units for space applications. The first such unitwas launched into space from Vandenberg Air Force Baaain California on April 3, 1965, under the Systems forNuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP) program. Newlydiscovered heavy isotope% such as Caiifornium-252, werefound useful in both research and indust~. In addition,significant progress was made in developing cardiacpacemakers for human use and ultimately atiificial heartsusing radioisotopic-power sources.(=)

Major research facilities such as high energy ac-celerators were constructed and operated by the AEC.Building on the accomplishments of the Berkeley Bevatronand the Brookhaven Cosmotron in the 1950’s, the Com-mission supportad even larger accelerators in the 1%0’sand 1970s, including the Alternating Gradient Syn-chrotronsat Brookhaven, the Zero Gradient SynchrotronsatArgonne, and the twomila long Stanford Linear Ac-celerator. The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratovtcompleted in 1972, contained the world’s most powerfulproton synchrotrons. The principal centers for research oncontrolled thermonuclear (fusion) reactors were OakRidge, Los Alamos, Livermore, and Princeton, althoughmany universities and industrial facilities were involved ona smaller scale.

Applied Technology

As nuclear technology developed, the Commissionperfected special applications of nuclear power, such asnuclear explosives for eatth moving and for extractingresources deep underground. Gnome, the first experimentin the Plowshare series, was conducted in December 1961in a thick salt bad deposit near Cadsbad, New Mexico,while the first nuclear cratering experiment, Project Sedan,was completed the following July at the Nevada Test Site.Project Gasbuggy in 1967, Ruliaon in 1%9, and Rio Blancoin 1973, tested methods for extracting natural gas from im-permeable rock. In the early 1970s, the Commissiondirected applied technology projects toward environmen-tal research, energy storage and transmission systems,synthetic fuels, and nonnuclear energy.

Nonnuclear Research

The scientific and technological expe~isa gained by thenational laboratories in developing nuclear energy madethe Commission a logical contender for a strong role indeveloping new energy options. The doora of the nationallabs first opened to nonnuclear research in 1960 when theCommission, in a special repofi to the Joint Committee onAtomic Energy, acknowledged “that the strongcapabilities of the laboratories are not the exclusivereaources of the atomic energy field; they are held in trustfor the Nation as a whole.” Accordingly, work from otherfederal agencies would be accommodated whenever theskills of the national laboratories were needed.

On August 11, 1971, largely in response to President Nix-on’s energy message of June 4, Congress authorized theAtomic Energy Commission to unde~ake research and

6

development projects geared to providing a variety of alter-natives for meeting the Nation’s energy needs. As a resultthe Commission’s industrial contractors and nationallaboratories became involved in the areas of super-conducting power transmission systems, energy storage,solar energy, geothermal resources, and coal gasifica-tion.

Reorganization

James R. Schlesinger took over the helm of the AtomicEnergy Commission in August 1971, as its twenty-fifth yearas an agency was drawing to a close. American troopswere still in Vietnam and anti-war protests werewidespread. The Nation faced increasing demands forenergy, a leveling out of domestic oil production, limita-tions on coal use due to environmental concerns, inade-quate natural gas supplies, and field delays in the licensingand construction of nuclear power plants. The rapidgrowth in atomic energy activities in the previous decadeand changing perspectives in nuclear technology clearlypointed to the need for a substantial reorganization of theCommission’s operational and regulato~ functions. Fornearly a quarter of a century the Commission had focusedresearch and development toward responding to nationaldefense requirements, funding and developing new usesfor atomic energy, and fostering the growth of a com-petitive and viable nuclear industry. The next few yearswould see increasing attacks on the Commission’s role asa regulatov overseer of the nuclear industry, particularly inthe areas of quality of product and public safety.

As a first order of business, Schlesinger led the Commis-sion in a comprehensive review of the agency’s functionsand organization. An economist and former assistantdirector of the Bureau of the Budget, Schlesinger an-nounced the results of the review in December 1971. Thefirst broad reorganizaton in ten years would bring togethervarious related programs previously scattered throughoutthe agency. Developmental and operational functionsformerly under the jurisdiction of the general managerwould now bt under six assistant general managers forEnergy and Del ?Iopment Programs, Research, Productionand Management of Nuclear Materials, Environment andSafety Programs, National Security, and Administration.Reflecting expanding areas of Commission involvementwere new divisions of Controlled ThermonuclearResearch, International Security Affairs, and AppliedTechnology. The second half of 1971 aiso saw a majorrevamping of the regulato~ organization and functions.

Calveti Cliffs Decision

The Nixon Administration beiieved that nuciear power,as an environmentaliy “ciean” fuei, could heip the Nationproduce the increasing suppiy of energy needed for thefuture. On the other hand ponderous licensing proceduresand increasing environmental considerations lengthenedthe time necessary to bring nuclear power piants on line,and increased costs to the industry, and ultimately to theconsumer. As Commissioner Doub informed the Atomicindustrial Forum in October 1971, the Commission har-bored no iiiusions as to the magnitude of the task of tryingto match “the capabilities of a dynamic and compiextechnology to the urgent energy and environmental needsof the country.’’

The Federal Court of Appeals’ August 4, 1971 iandmarkdecision concerning the Caivert Ciiffs nUCiear power piantbecame a pivot point for a major revamping of the Com-mission’s iicensing procedures. The Court ruied that theAtomic Energy Commission’s regulations for implement-ing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in licens-ing procedures did not compiy in saverai respects with theAct, and that the Commission shouid make an indepen-dent review and evacuation of ai( environmental effects atevery decision point in the nuclear power piant licensingprocess.

Moving swiftly to impiement the Court’s ruiing, theCommission made substantive changes in environmentalreview procedures. Both the Commission and the iicenseappiicant wouid now be required toconsider the totai im-pact of the proposed piant on the environment, includingwater quaiity. in addition, a cost-benefit analysis wouldbalance the benefits of buiiding the faciiity against a varie-ty of alternatives. These changes in procedures af-fected virtually ail nuclear power piants whether iicensadfor operation or under review.

To expedite the additional procedures which the CaivertCiiff’s decision required, Schlesinger made significantchanges in the Commission’s regulatory organization, andadded additional personnel to the staff to heip with the ex-panded reactor licensing workioad. Additional changes in1972 further streamlined the raguiatory staff. Three dirac-tors consolidated the functions previously performed byseven divisions. Aii iicensing activities were centered in thelargest of the three, the Directorate of Licensing, headedby John F. O’Leary, former Director of the Bureau ofMines.(39)

The Commission’s Last Days

Schlesinger left the Atomic Energy Commission inJanuary 1973 tobecome head of the Centrai intelligenceAgency. He was succeeded as chairman by Dr. Dixy LeeRay, a marine biologist from the state of Washington whohad been appointed to the Commission by President Nixonin August 1972. The first woman to be chairman of theAtomic Energy Commission, Ray took over at a time whenthe Nation was faced with the monumental task of recon-ciling energy needs, environmental concerns andeconomic goais. More importantly for the Commission,criticism had begun to mount against an agency thatregulated the very same energy source that it helped toproduce and operate.

In June 1973, President Nixon directed the chairman ofthe Atomic Energy Commission to undertake an im-mediate review of federal and private energy research anddevelopment activities and to recommend an integratedprogram for the Nation. The President’s energy pro-Posais to Congress the foliowing Janua~ refiected therecommendations submitted by Chairman Ray in theDecember 1, 1973 report on “The Nation’s EnergyFuture.” Because of the energy crisis resuiting from theOctober Arab oii embargo, the President had chosen tobreak tradition and present his energy request to Congressbefore delivering his State of the Union address, Both hisPrOpOSSl for a five-year $10 biiiion energy research and

7

development program, and his determination to double thetotal federal commitment to energy research and development for fiscal year 1975, were in line with the recommen-dations made by the Commission chairman. The Rayrepoti also suppomd the president’s recommendation toestablish an Energy Research and Development Ad-ministration. (41)

Reactor Safety

In December 1973 the Commission announced new re-quirements for the performance of the emergency corecooling systems (ECCS) installed in light-water-cooledpower reactors. Such systems provided the capability foremergency removal of heat from the reactor core in theevent of a loss of the normal reactor coolant water. TheCommission’s action concluded a two-year public rule-making hearing which had served as a focal point forpublic discussion of opposing viewpoints on the safety ofnuclear power plants. Six months of hearing sessions, be-tween Januaw 27, 1972 and July 25, 1973, had produced avoluminous transcript, a clear witness to the complexity ofthe technical issues involved in nuclear safety. A constantadvocate of the public’s right to know and fully understandthe possible dangers of radiation, the Joint Committee onAtomic Energy had also held a hearing in early 1973 on thesafety of nuclear power plants.

Clearly the handwriting on the wall was spelling out thenumbered days of the AEC in 1973. Although nuclearpower constituted a significant part of the answer to theNation’s need for additional sources of energy, it was byno means the only answer as had been predicted in theearly decades of the Commission’s existence.

Summary

When President Ford signed the Energy ReorganizationAct of 1974 on October 11, the Atomic Energy Commis-sion’s twenty-eight year stewardship of the Nation’snuclear energy program came toan end. On January 19,1975, the Commission’s research and development respon-sibilities were assumed by the Energy Research andDevelopment Administration, and the regulatory and licen-sing functions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Sixthousand, three hundred and twenty Commissionemployees went to ERDA while one thousand nine hun-dred and seventy former regulatory personnel became partof the new Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ‘

In the preceding Menty-eight years the Atomic EnergyCommission had accomplished a large portion of the mis-sion established by the Congress in 1946. First, through itsweapon laboratories and production contractors, it haddeveloped and stockpiled an array of sophisticated nuclearweapons which for nearly three decades had served as anirnpofiant element in national defense. Also in the area ofdefense, the Commission had supported the developmentof nuclear propulsion reactors which made possible thecreation of a fleet of reliable nuclear submarines and sur-face ships.

Although for many years military related programs com-manded the major portion of the budget, the Commissionhad initiated and supported extensive research in thenuclear sciences. The research contract and the nationallaboratory had become key instruments in the widespread

development and application of nuclear technology forscientific, medical, and industrial purposes. Through par-ticipation in the International Atomic Energy Agency, inter-national conferences and bilateral agreements, the UnitedStates shared the new technology with other nations.

The congressional mandate of 1946 also called for theuse of atomic energy in a way that would strengthen freecompetition in private enterprise. Although the severerestrictions of the 1%8 Act made atomic energy virtually agovernment monopoly, the Commission in less than adecade advanced nuclear technology to the point whereindustrial participation was feasible, and then encouragedthe passage of new legislation in 1954 which made anuclear industry possible. By the early 1970s nuclearpower offered a promising option for meeting national andworld energy needs.

In carrying out the Congressional mandate of 1948, theAtomic Energy Commission essentially worked its way outof existence. After concentrating on defense com-mitments in the early years, the Commission then focusedon the development of a viable nuclear industry, only tocome under fire in the late 1800’s and 1970’s for being inthe position of regulating the same industry it helped tocreate.

This difficulty had been foreseen in 1981 when the func-tions of the agency were divided between the GeneralManager and the Director of Regulation, Then in 1963 thetwo functions were physically separated by being housedin different geographical locations. Finally, the legalseparation of the developmental and regulatory functions,requested in 1973 by the Commission itself, was ac-complished by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. Theregulatory and licensing responsibilities became the ex-clusive focus of a new agency headed by a five-memberboard, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, while thedevelopmental functions were placed under a single ad-ministrator in a second agency, the Energy Research andDevelopment Administration.

In the preceding decade the Atomic Energy Commissionhad lost much of its privileged status with Congress andthe American public. The exclusive monopoly and themantle of secrecy had bean largely removed, and no longerdid atomic energy seemingly provide the perfect formulafor both military defense and civilian energy needs.Regulatory restrictions and environmental concerns were alarge part of the reason for the demise of the AEC, butmore imponant was the recognition that a singletechnology should not be the exclusive focus of one agen-cy. The energy crisis would now require the coordinationof all major energy programs in a new research anddevelopment agency, whose primary purpose would be toassist the Nation in achieving energy independence.

As a legacy to the new agency, the Atomic Energy Com-mission passed on its unique production facilities, itsvaluable network of national laboratories, and the proventechnological skills, resourcefulness, and experience of itspersonnel. Three years later the Energy Research andDevelopment Administration, like the Atomic Energy Com-mission before it, became part of an even larger organiza-tion. On October 1, 1977 Congress created a cabinet-levelDepartment of Energy to coordinate Federal energypolicies and programs.

8

FOOTNOTES

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

sect, l(a), A mmic Energy Act of. 1* (pub~c Law~] 78th Congo lSt 5eSS.

Corbin Allardice and Edward R. Trapnell, The A tornicEnergy Commission (New York: Praeger Publishers,1974), pp. 31-32 (hereafter cited as Allardice andTrapnell, The AEC).

Dr. Richard G. Hewlett, former Chief Historian of theAEC, believes that the most influential group in theearly years was not the Commission itself but itsGeneral AdvisorY Committee consisting of suchfamous scientists as J. Robert Oppenheimer, JamesB. Conant, Enrico Fermi and Ieedor 1. Rabi. RichardG. Hewlett, “The Advent of Nuclear Power, 1845”1966” (Paper delivered before the American Associa-tion for The Advancement of Science, Dallas, TX,Dec. 28, 1966), p. 4 (hereafter cited as Hewlett, “TheAdvent of Nuclear Power”).

Richard G. Hewlett, “Nuclear Power in the Public in-terest: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954” (Paperdelivered before the American Historical Association,Dallas, TX, Dec. 1977), PP. 1-3.

Richard G. Hewlett, “The AEC in Retrospect” (un-published ins., Historian’s Office, Feb. 10, 1976), p.12 (hereafter cited as Hewlett, “The AEC inRetrospect”).

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States:Harry S. Truman 1950 lWashington: Governmentprinting OffIce, 1965), P. 138. For a detailed pre=rnta-tion of the decision on the hydrogen bomb, seeRichard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan, AtomicShield, 1947-1952, Vol. 1~of A History of the UnitedStates Atomic Energy Commission (University Park:Pennsylvania State University Press, 1868), pp. 382-409 (hereafter cited as Hewlett and Duncan, AtomicShield).

Hewlen and Duncan, Atomic Shield, pp. 534-36,663-64.

Hewlen and Duncan Atomic Shield, pp. 411,424-30,441; “The Eisenhower Imprint,” unpublished ins.,Department of Energy Historian’s Office, pp. 3-4; “AHistow of the 13pansion of AE~ ProductionFacilities,” Repoti-by the General Manager, Aug. 16,1863, pp. 13-20.

Hewlen and Duncan, Atomic Shield, p. 432 RichardG. Hewlen and Francis Duncan, Nuclear Navy 1946-I$M2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974),pp. 54-55 (hereafter cited as Hewlett and Duncan,Nut/ear Navy).

Atomic Shield, pp. 222-227,432.

Proposal for Industrial Development of AtomicEnergy, enc. C.A. Thomas to S. Pike, June 20, 1960David Liiienthal, Speech before the Economic Club,Detroit, Ml, Oct. 6, 1947; AEC Press Release 59, Oct.6, 1947; Hewlen and Duncan, Atomic Shield, PP.495-%.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

Hewlett and Duncan, Nuclear Navy, PP. 176-79,23557; Dean Diary, June 14, 1962.

Hewlett, “The Advent of Nuclear Power”, p. 12.

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States,1953, l)wight D. Eisenhower (Washington: Govern-ment Printing Office, lWO}, pp. 813-22.

For a discussion of Atoms for Peace as an instrumentof foreign policy, see Jack M. Hell, “Eisenhower’sPeaceful Atomic Diplomacy: Atoms for Peace in thePublic Interest” (Paper delivered before theAmerican Historical Association, Dellas, TX, Dec. 23-30, 1977), p. 1 (hereafter cited as Hoi!, “Eisenhower’sPeaceful Diplomacy”).

“Message from the President of the United States,“House Document, 63 Cong., 2 sees., no. 328 (M.17, 1864); Richard G. Hewlett, “Industry and theAtomic Energy Commission, 1947-1864” {Paperdelivered at a joint session of the Society for theHistory of Technology and the Organization ofAmerican Historians, Chicago, IL, April 27, 1967), PP.21-22.

Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Current Statement of the A tomic Energy Commiw”on on the Five-Year Reactor Development Program, May 4, 1965(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955).

Hell, “Eisenhower’s Peaceful Diplomacy” PP. S18AEC, Twenty-third Semiannual Repoti, January 1968(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1956), PP.189-221.

Robert A. Divine, Blowing on the Wind, the NuclearTest Ban Debate If&& 1%0 (New York: OxfordUniversity Press, 1978), pp. 3-18; AEC, SixteenthSemiannual RepoR, July W54 (Washington: Govern-ment printing Office, 1858), pp. 51-5; Richard G.Hewlen and Jack M. Hell, “Nuclear Weapons: ANew Reality” (unpublished ins., Historian’s Office,1961), pp. 61-63.

“A RepoR by United States Atomic Energy Commis-sion on Effect of High-Yield Nuclear Explosions,” Ap-pendix 7, Eighteenth Semiannua/ Report of theAtomic Energy Commis@on Ju/y IX5 (Washington:Government Printing Office, 1855), PP. 147-%Senate Committee on Armed Services, Civil DefenseProgram, 84th Cong., 1st Sees., Feb. 22, 1955, p. 2Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Health andSafety Problems Associated with Atomic Explosions,April 15, 1%5; AEC, Major Activities in The AtomicEnergy Programs, January-June 1955, p. 16.

Willard F. Libby, “Radioactive Fallout and Radioac-tive Strontium,” Northwestern University, Evanston,IL, Jan. 19, 1956; Joint Committee on Atomic EnergyPress Release No. 80, April 18,1957.

AEC, Twenty- fifih Semi-Annual Rapoti of theAtomic Energy Commission, January 1959(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1860), PP.

9

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

179-80. Richard G. Hew1e~~ “Nuclear ‘caponTesting and Studies Related to Health Effects: AnHistorical Su~i~mary” (unpublished ins., Oct. 1%0),pp. 43-44.

Major Activities in the Atomic Energy Program,Jarruary-Oecember I* I (Washington: Governmentprinting Office, 1962), PP. 161-62 AEC# Major Ac-tivities in the Atomic Energy Programs, January-@cember I$M2 (Washington: Government PrintingOffice, 1953), p. 234 Public Papers of Presidents ofthe United States: John F. Kennedy 1*2(Washington: Government printing OffIce, 1~), PP.186-92.

AEC, Civilian Nuclear Power– A Report to the Presi-dent– 1%2, Nov. 20, 1962.

“Annual Message to the Congress on the State ofthe Union,” Jan. 8, 1964; “Commencement Addressat Holy Cross College,” June 10, 1864, both in PublicPapers of the Presidents: Lyndon 8. Johnson,(Washington: Government printing ofice, 1955), PP.117,763-764.

AEC, Annual f?eporY to Congress for 1964,(Washington: Government printing Office, 1965), PP.12-14; Hewlett, “The AEC in Retrospect,” p. 18;“Remarks Upon Signing Bill permitting priVateOwnership of Nuclear Materials,” public Papers ofthe Presidents: Lyndon 8. Johnson, (Washington:Government Printing Office, 1955), p. 1006.

AEC, Civilian Nuclear Power, The ?%7 Supplementto the 1S2 Report to the President, Februaty, 1967;AEC, 1974 Annual Report to Congress, p. 239.

Richard M. Nixon, “A Program to Insure an Ade-quate Supply of Clean Energy in the Future,” June 4,1971, as reprinted in Executive Energy Documents,published by the Senate Committee on Energy andNatural Resources, July 1978, pp. 1-12 (Hereaftercited as Executive Energy Documents).

“Operating and Developmental Functions,” AEC1972 Annual Repoti to Congress, pp. 10-12; “AECContinues Developmental Push for Breeder Reac-tor,” AEC Announcement 0-10, January 29, 1971.

AEC, Major Activities in the Atomic. Energy Pro-grams, January-Qecember 1951 (Washington:Government Printing OffIce 19621, pp. 337-38;Richard G. Hewlett, “The Development of theNuclear Power Industry” (unpublished ins.,Historian’s Office, 1974), pp. 13-14; AEC, Major Ac-tivities in the Atomic Energy Programs, Jarruary -Oecember 1931, P. 337-38.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

AEC, 1974 Annuat Report to Congress, (Washington:Government Printing Office, 1974). PP. 2426.

A EC Annual Report to Congre= for I*,(Washington: Government Printing Ofice, 1966), P.151; Annual Reporl to CongreS for f=,(Washington: Government Printing Ofice, 1967), P.211; AEC, 1974 Annua/ Report to Congress, p. 114.

“Atomic Energy Research in the Life and PhysicalSciences- 1960,” A Special Repofi of the UnitedStates Atomic Energy Commission, Januaw 1961,(Washington: Government Printing OffIce, 1861);AEC, Annual Report to Congress for 1960,(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961L p.156-57.

Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1972 (PL. 92-84,Sections 31-33, Aug. 11, 1971; Richard G. Hewlett,“Nonnuclear Energy Research in the Atomic EnergyCommission” (unpublished ins., Historian’s Ofice,1974).

Corbin Allardice and Edward R. Trapnell, The AtomicEnergy Commission (New York: Praegar Publishers,1974), pp. 131-32.

“Reorganization of Atomic Energy Operating Func-tions,” AEC Announcement 216, Dec. 7, 1971.

“The Right to be Heard- Laying [t on the Line,”Remarks given by AEC Commissioner William O.Doub (at 1971 Annual Conference of the IndustrialForum, Oct. 18, 1971); President Richard M. Nixon,Message to the Congress on “A Program to Insurean Adequate Supply of Clean Energy in the Future,”June 4, 1971 in Executive Energy Documents, p. 1.

“Statement by the A EC on Court of Appeals Deci-sion in Calvert Cliffs Litigation,” AEC Announcement0-134, Aug. 4, 1971; AEC Annual Repotl to Congressfor 1971 (Washington: Government Printing Office,1972) pp. 1-2,21-23.

“AEC Makes Organizational Changes to StrengthenIts Regulatory Program,” Press Release 0-207, Nov.11,1971.

Richard M. Nixon, “Statement,” June 29, 1973 in Ex-ecutive Energy Documents, pp. 48-55; Statement byDixy Lee Ray, Chairman of the AEC, AEC PressRelease R-274, June 29,1973.

The Nation’s Energy Future, A Report to PresidentRichard M. Nixon, December 1973 (Washington:Government Printing OffIce, 1973) P. ix; “propo~lsto Deal with the Energy Crisis,” Jan. 23, 1974, in ~-ecutive Energy Documents, PP. 1191* WhiteHouse Fact Sheet, “Energy Research and Development,” Oct. 11, 1973.

10

APPENDIX 1

(Personnel)

Joint Committee on Atomic EnergyCHAIRMEN DATES OF SERVICE

Briert McMahonBurke B. HickenlooperBrien McMahonCarl T. Durham (Acting)W. Sterling ColeClinton P. AndersonCarl T. DurhamClinton P. AndersonChet HolifieldJohn O. PastoreChet HolifieldJohn O. PastoreChet HolifieldJohn O. PastoreMelvin Price

1946-1947-19461949-1952 (d, 7/26/52)1352-1953-19541954-19561956-19561959-1%0- 19611962-19641965-19661967-13661969-19701970-19721973-

Military Liaison Committee

CHA/RMEN DATES OF SERVICE

Lt. Gen. Lewis H. Brereton, U SAF 1946-1946Donald F. Carpenter 1946-William Webster 1948-1949Robert F. LeBaron 1949-1954Herbert B, Loper 1954-1960Gerald W. Johnson 1%1 -1962W.J. Howard 1963-1965Carl Walske 1966- 1*9Chet Holifield 1970-Carl Walske 1971-1972Donald R, Cotter 1973-

General Advisory CommitteeCHAIRMEN DATES OF SERVICE

J. Robert Oppenheimer 1946-1952Isidor 1.Rabi 1952-1956Warren C. Johnson 1%6- 1959Kenneth S. Pitzer 1960-1961Manson Benedict 1962-1963L.R, Hafstad 1964-1967Norman F. Ramsey 1968-Howard G. Vesper 1969-1972Lombard Squires 1973-

AEC Commissioners

Sumner T. PikeDavid E. Lilienthal, ChairmanRobert F. BatherWilliam W. WaymackLewis L. Strauss

ChairmanGordon Dean

ChairmanHenry DeWolf SmythThomas E. MurrayThomas Keith GlermanEugene M. ZuckertJoseph CampbellWillard F. LibbyJohn Von NeumannHarold S. VanceJohn S. GrahamJohn Forrest FlobergJohn A. McCone, ChairmanJohn H. WilliamsRobert E. WilsonLoren K. OlsonGlenn T. Seaborg, ChairmanLeland J. HaworthJohn G. PalfreyJames T, RameyGerald F, TapeMary 1. BuntingWilfred E. JohnsonSamuel M. NabritFrancesco CostagliolaTheos J. ThompsonClarence E. LarsonJames R. Schlesinger, ChairmanWilliam O. DoubDixy Lee Ray

ChairmanWilliam E. Kriegsman “William A. Anders

Carroll L. WilsonMarion BoyerKenneth D. NicholsKenneth F. FieldsPaul F. FosterA. R. LuedeckeR. E. HollingsworthJohn A. Erlewine

From

Oct. 31, 1946Nov. 1, 1946NOV. 1, 1946Nov. 5, 1946Nov. 12, 1946July 2, 1953May 24, 1949July 11, 1950May 30, 1949May 9, 1950Oct. 2, 1950Feb. 25, 1952July 27, 1353Oct. 5, 1954Mar. 15, 1955Oct. 31, 1955Sept. 12, 1957Oct. 1, 1957July 14, 1958Aug. 13, 1959Mar. 22, 1960June 23, 1960Mar. 1, 1961Apr. 17, 1961Aug. 31, 1962Aug. 31, 1962July 15, 1963June 29, 1964Aug. 1, 1966Aug. 1, 1966Oct. 1, 1968June 12, 1969Sept. 2, 1969Aug. 17, 1971Aug. 17, 1971Aug. 8, 1972Feb. 6, 1973June 12, 1973Aug. 6, 1973

General Managers

Dec. 31, 1946Nov. 1, 1950Nov. 1, 1953May 1, 1955July 1, 195$Dec. 1, 1958Aug. 11, 1964Feb. 15, 1974

To

Dec. 15, 1951Feb. 15, 1950May 10, 1949Dec. 21, 1948Apr. 15, 1950June 30, 1958June 30, 1953June 30, 1963Sept. 30, 1954June 30, 1957NOV. 1, 1952June 30, 1954Nov. 30, 1954June 30, 1959Feb. 8, 1957Aug. 31, 1959June 30, 1962June 23, 1960Jan. 20, 1961June 30, 1960Jan. 31, 1964June 30, 1962Aug. 16, 1971June 30, 1963June 30, 1966June 30, 1973Apr. 30, 1969June 30, 1965June 30, 1972Aug. 1, 1967June 30, 1969NOV, 25, 1970June 30, 1974Jan. 26, 1973Aug. 17, 1974

Jan. 18, 1975Jan. 18, 1975Jan. 18, 1975

Aug. 15, 1950Oct. 31, 1953Apr. 30, 1955June 30, 1958Nov. 30, 1958July 31, 1964Dec. 31, 1973Dec. 31, 1974

APPENDIX I

12

DATE

August 1, 1846

Januaw 1,19$7

September 1947

March 1,1948

April-May 1848

March 1,1849

August 29, 1848

Januaw 31, 1850

June 27,1850

December 20,1851

June 14, 1852

November 1952

December 8,1953

March 1, 1954

August 30, 1954

January 10, 1955

August 8-20, 1855

October 1,1957

December 23, 1957

August 22, 1958

November 24, 1959

March 1981

August 31, 1961

December 10, 1961

April 25,1982

August 5,1863

August 28, 1W4

October 1884

APPENDIX II

ChronologyEVENTS

Atomic Energy Act of 1946 signed by President Truman.

Atomic energy program transferred from the Manhattan Engineer District to the Atomic EnergyCommission.Start of construction on first of two new Hanford reactors.

Oak Ridge National Laboratory officially established to continue work of Clinton Laboratoriesestablished in 1843.

Operation Sandstone, the first AEC nuclear test series conducted at Enewetak Atoll.

Announcement by AEC of selection of a site for the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho.

Soviet Union detonated nuclear device.

President Truman directs Commission “to continue work on all forms of weapons, includingthe so-called hydrogen or super-bomb.”

Truman orders U.S. forces to aid of South Korea.

Experimental 8 reader Reactor No. 1 (EBR-1) first reactor to produce electric power from nuclearenergy.

Keel of the world’s first nuclear-powered ship, the submarine Nautilus, laid at Groton, Connec-ticut.

World’s first thermonuclear device detonated by U.S. at Enevvetak.

Announcement by President Eisenhower of the Atoms-for-Peace program and proposal toestablish an international agency to promote peaceful applications of atomic energy.

First shot in Castle weapon test series fired in Pacific.

President Eisenhower signed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, a major revision of the 1946 Act.The new law made possible greeter panicipation by private indust~ and more cooperation withother countries in developing the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

Announcement by the AEC of the Power Demonstration Reector Program, under which theAEC and industry would cooperate in the construction and operation of experimental powerreactors.

First United Nations International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, inGeneva, Switzerland.

International Atomic Energy Agency inaugurated in Vienna, Austria. AEC Chairman LewisStrauss announced U.S. offer to make 5,000 kilograms of uranium 235 available to the agency.

Full-power operation of the Ship~ingport Atomic Power Station, the world’s first full-scalenuclear power plant, at Shippingport, Pennsylvania..

President Eisenhower announced moratorium on weapon testing to begin on October 31.

AEC Chairman John A. McCone and Professor Vasily S. Eme{yanov signed Memorandum ofCooperation between, U.S. and U,S.S. R.

Regulatory functions separated from General Manager’s Office and placed under a Director ofRegulation.

Soviet Union broke moratorium and began testing nuclear weapons.

Project Gnome, the first Plowshare nuclear detonation, conducted in New Mexico.

First shot in Dominic series conducted at Christmas Island in the Pacific.

Limited test ban treaty between U. S., U. K., and U.S.S.R. signed in Moscow.

President Johnson signed Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials Act.

The nuclear-powered surface ships, Enterprise, Long Beach and Bainbridge, completed“Operation Sea Orbit,” a round-the-world cruise without logistic suPPort of any kind.

13

i4PAGE ‘

OF DOCUMENT ~iojfq~

WAS NOT PROVIDED

APPENDIX Ill

~~ooratories and Production

Atomic Energy Commission

AEC facility

Multiprogram LaboratoriesArgonne National Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Brookhaven National Laboratow . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Lawrence Livermore Laboratory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Los Alamos Scientific Laboratow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Oak Ridge National Laboratory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pacific Northwest Laboratom’. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Engineering DevelopmentBettis Atomic Power Laboratory. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hanford Engineering Development Lab. . . . . . . . . .Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Liquid Metal Engineering Center. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Idaho National Engineering Lab.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Naval Reactors Facility, lNEL . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sandia Laboratories . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Savannah River Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Shippingporl Atomic Power Station . . . . . . . . . . . .

Specialized Physical Research LaboratoriesAmes Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory . . . . . . . . . .Notre Dame Radiation Lab . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. , . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~Stanford Linear Accelerator Center . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Specialized Biomedical Research LaboratoriesComparative Animal Research

Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Franklin McLean Memorial Research Inst,

(formedy Argonne Cancer Res. HosP.). . . . . . . . .inhalation Toxicology Res. inst. . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . .

.

Laborato~ of Nuclear Medicine&Radiobiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Laboratory of Radiobiology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .MSU/AEC Plant Research Lab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .ORAU Research Facilities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Puerto Rico Nuclear Center . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Radiobiology Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Radiobiology Laboratory . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Savannah River Ecology Lab, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .U.of Rochester Med. Lab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Location

Chicago,lll. . . . . . . . .

Upton, NAY. . . . . . . . .Berkeley, Ca. . . . . . . .Livermore, Ca. . . . . . .Los Alamos, N. Mex..Oak Ridge, Term.. ., .

Richland, Wash. . . . .

Pittsburgh, Pa.. . . . . .Richland, Wash, . . . .Schenectady, N.Y. . .Santa Susana, Ca.. . .

Idaho Falls, Id. . . . . . .Idaho Falls, Id. . . . . . .Albuquerque, N. Mex.

& Livermore, Ca. . .Aiken, SAC.. . . . . . . . .Shippingpoti, Pa. . . .

Ames, lowa . . . . . . . .Batavia, Ill. . . . . . . . . .South Bend, Ind.. . . .Princeton, N.J.. . . . . .Palo Alto, Ca.. . . . . . .

Oak Ridge, Term.. . . .

Chicago,lll . . . . . . . . .Albuquerque, N. Mex.

Los Angeles, Ca.. . . . .San Francisco, Ca. . .E. Lansing, Mich.. . . .Oak Ridge, Term.. . . .

Mayaguez and RioPiedras, P.R.. . . . . .

Davis, Calif. . . . . . . . .Salt Lake City, Utah .Aiken, SAC. . . . . . . . . .Rochester, N. Y.. . . . .

Contractor-operator

Univ. of Chicago andArgonne Universities Assn.

Associated Universities, Inc.University of CaliforniaUniversity of CaliforniaUniversity of CaliforniaNuclear Div., Union Carbide

Corp.Pacific Northwest Div.

Battelle Memorial Inst.

Westinghouse Electric Corp.Westinghouse Hanford Co.General Electric Co.Atomics International Div.

Rockwell Int’1 Corp.Aerojet Nuclear Co.Westinghouse Electric Corp.Sandia Corp. (Western

Electric-Bell System)El. du Pent de Nemours & CoDuquesne Light Co.

Iowa State U. of Sci. & Tech.Universities Research Assn.Univ. of Notre DamePrinceton UniversityStanford University

University of Tennessee

University of ChicagoLovelace Foundation of Medical

Education and Research

Univ. of Calif. at L.A. (UCLA)Univ. of Calif. Medical CenterMichigan State UniversityOak Ridge Associated

Universities

University of Puerto RicoUniversity of Calif. (Davis)University of UtahUniversity of GeorgiaUniversity of Rochester

15

Production, Development, and Fabrication Centers

Burlington. AEC Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., ... .,,.

F@ Materials plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Feed Materials plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fead Materials Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hanford Works . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

ldaho Chemical processing plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Kansas City Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mound LaboratoV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nevada Test Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

OakRidgeGaseous Diffusion Plant.. . . . . . . . . . . .

Paducah Gaaeous Diffusion Plant.. . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant.. . . . . . . . . . .Pantex Plant . . . . . . . . . ...+.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Pinellas Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Rocky Flats Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Savannah River Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Y-12 Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Burlington, lowa .,,.

Ashtabula, Ohio. . . . .Fernald, Ohio.... . . .Paducah, Ky. . . . . . . .

Richland,Wash. . . . .

lNEL, ldaho . . . . ..t.KansasCity, Mo. . . . .Miamisburg, Ohio . . .Mercury, Nev. . . . . . .

Oak Ridge, Term.. . . .

Paducah, Ky. . . . . . . .

Portmouth,Ohio . . . .Amarillo, Texas. . . . .

ClearWater, Fla. . . . . .Golden, Cola..... . . .

Aiken, SAC. . . . . . . . . .OakRidge, Term.. . . .

Mason&Hanger-Silas MasonCo.,Inc.

Reactive Meta{s, lnc.National LeadCo.Nuclear Div., Union Carbide

Corp.Atlantic-Richfield Hanford Co.

andUnited Nuclear, Inc.Allied Chemical Corp.Bendix Corp.Monsanto Research Corp.Reynolds Electrical &Engineer-

ing Co.; EG&G, Inc.;andHolmes& Narver Inc.

Nuclear Div., Union CarbideCorp.

Nuclear Div., Union CarbideCorp.

Goodyear Atomic Corp.Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason

Co. Inc.General Electric Co.Atomics International Div.

Rockwell International Corp.E.L du Pent de Nemours & Co.Nuclear Div., Union Carbide

corm

1974 Annual Repoti to Congress

16

APPENDIX IV

Organization ChaRs

Uj3

i

1iimz30w

I J

au

u

Lmz0cuaUJL0

n

:’L

1

I

ccou’

..

aou

,+ ,

I I {

4-

1

l--

-U I

20

[I

I

I

APPENDIX IV-3$~

‘a

m1-m

21 APPENDIX IV-4

-i+ d.9. -7’: \m\A

● ‘\

UJ

. ●6

>“+7 T ‘I

i WIm

r

?----+ I

—

22 APPENDIX IV-5

APPENDIX VUnited States Announced Nuclear

Detonations and Early Stockpile Data

Event or Series Name

Trinity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Hiroshima . . . . . . . . . . . . .Nagasaki . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Crossroads . . . . . . . . . . . . .Sandstone . . . . . . . . . . . . .Ranger . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Greenhouse . . . . . . . . . . . .Buster-Jangle. . . . . . . . . . .Tumbler-Snapper . . . . . . .Ivy . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Upshot-Knothole . . . . . . . .Castle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

1945-1974

Description

Firsttestofan atomic . . .bomb

Firstuseincombat. . . . . .Second usain combat . . .,...,. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..,.....! . . . . . . . ....... . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mike,experimental . . . . . .

thermonuclear device.,..!.. . . . . . . . . . . ...! ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bravo, experimental . . . . .

thermonuclear device. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Teapot . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wigwam . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Redwing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Plumbbob . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hardtack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Argus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Hardtack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Dates

July 16,1945

August6,1945August9,1945June-July1946April-May1848January-February 1951April-May1951October-November 1951April-June 1952October-November 19520ctober31,1952

March-June 1853February- May1854February28,1954

February-May1955May14,1855May-July1856May-0ctober1957April-August1958August-September 1958September-October 1958

NOTESTSCONDUCTED FROM OCTOBER 30, 1858toSEPTEMBER 1961

Nougat . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ~~p;emberl*l-June

Dominic I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 1962-June1962

Storax . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4. . . . . . . ...0. July1862-June1963Sedarr, excavation . . . . . . JuIY6,1962

experimentDominic 11. . . . . . . . . . . . . Three above ground tests. JuIY1962

.LIMITEDTESTBAND TREATY,AUG.5, 1963,PROHIBITED NUCLEARDETONATIONSIN ATMOSPHERE,OUTER SPACEANDUNDER WATER

Niblick . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Wtletstone d. hi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..) . . ..O..Flintlock . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Latchkey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Crosstie . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ...04.....0.0..Bowline . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Mandrel . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Emery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Grommet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Toggle . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Arbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Bedrock . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

August1863-June 1964July 1964-June1865July1865-Junel%6July1966-Junel%7July1967-Junel%8July1868-June1869July1969-June19700ctober1970-June 1971July 1971 -May 1972July 1972-June1973October 1973-June 1974July1974-

23

II Announced Detonations by Year

3lM5 . . . ..”” ””’” ”’’”’’”’q1946....”””””””’’”’” :lw7........”””””oo”””~1948.....””’”””’””’”””~1%9.....”’’”’’””””’””1%0 . . . . . . ..” ’””” ’”””’l.1%1, . . . . . . .. ’. ’.”” ”””101%2, ,, . ., . . ..”””....1953. . . . . ...””””....”.)1954. . . . . . ..”” ”””” ”’”.51955. .,, . . . . . . . . . ..””’171~6 . . . . . . . . ..”.241*7 . . . . . . . . . . ..” ’””551958....’””’” 01%9........”””””””””” o1%0.......’”””””””””

1%1..........’’’’’’””:1%2.

APPENDIX VI

Financial Statistics

U.S. Government Investment in theAtomic Energy Program

(From June 1840 Through January 18, 1975)

(in millions)

Appropriation Expenditure*National DefenSe Research Council. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Offlceof Scientific Research and Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .War Department (including Manhattan Engineer District) ., . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . . .

Atomic Energy Commission:Fiscal years prior tol~ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .Fiscal year l* . . . . . . . . . . . ...” ““. ”. . . .. s. DO”-

-J

*

-1

26,983-o-381-060/b?

,u.~. ~.fEI?NMENT PRINTING omIcE: