Ayers, Jackie

From: [email protected] Sent: Friday, October 13, 2017 10:07 AM To: Logan, Hollie; Ayers, Jackie Subject: City of Richland, WA: 2017 Hotel-Motel Lodging Tax Application Submittal

A new entry to a form/survey has been submitted.

Form Name: Hotel‐Motel Tax Grant Application Date & Time: 10/13/2017 10:07 AM Response #: 49 Submitter ID: 6351 IP address: 209.136.213.2 Time to complete: 12 min. , 20 sec.

Survey Details

Page 1

Each year the City of Richland receives funds from the room tax imposed upon hotels and motels located within the City. These funds can be retained by the City or can be expended for a narrow range of projects and activities established by State law.

To be considered for funding, proposals must meet criteria as established in State law (RCW 67.28.1815) and prohibits use of tax receipts for any other purposes. State law requires these funds be: “…used solely for the purpose of paying all or any part of the cost of tourism promotion, acquisition of tourism‐related facilities, or operation of tourism‐related facilities…”

Tourism promotion is defined in RCW 67.28.080 as “…activities and expenditures designed to increase tourism, including but not limited to advertising, publicizing, or otherwise distributing information for the purpose of attracting and welcoming tourists; developing strategies to expand tourism; operating tourism promotion agencies; and funding marketing of special events and festivals designed to attract tourists.”

In addition, City Council policy requires that proposals comply with the following criteria:

1 1. Events/projects that produce a broad base for hotel/motel occupancy will be given higher priority over the financing of individual festivals, concerts, or shows. 2. The City's hotel/motel tax grant should "leverage" other funds. Unless the requesting agency is sponsoring an event that depends largely on volunteer efforts, hotel/motel grants should consequently not exceed 30% of the function's total cash budget. 3. A priority will be placed in off season programs and to those events which generate maximum economic benefit. Large events requiring overnight hotel stays should therefore be favored over smaller and/or single day events. 4. Given the City Council's desire to establish Richland as a center of athletic and cultural excellence, grants should be focused toward sporting, cultural, and leisure events. Creation and promotion of activities and events directed at young professionals/families that visit the area will strongly be encouraged.

All applications will be reviewed by the Lodging Tax Advisory Committee (LTAC) which will then make recommendations to the City Council. The final funding decision is up to the City Council. The LTAC places an emphasis on the following when evaluating each application:1.

1. How many room nights will the project generate? 2. How reliable is the information provided? 3. Validation of room nights generated will be required and there may be a placement of $5/room night generated cap up to a maximum grant amount. 4. Does the project promote Richland and Richland hotels/motels outside of the Bi‐County area? 5. The Committee favors providing seed money to new events. 6. The LTAC encourages all events and organizations to work towards total self‐sufficiency.

If the award is for co‐sponsorship of an event, all recipients will be required to use the Richland logo in accordance with the logo specifications. If the award is not a co‐sponsored event, the recipient will note on any advertising material that “Tourism support provided by the City of Richland” or “Hotel/Motel funds provided by the City of Richland”, whichever is preferred by the recipient.

Please complete the following application. Please use separate applications for each individual project/event. Applications must be submitted to the Communications and Marketing Office, Richland City Hall, 505 Swift Blvd.,MS 39, Richland, Washington 99352, no later than Friday, September 30, 2017 for 2018 funding. Any questions concerning the application process may be directed to Hollie Logan, Communications and Marketing Manager at 942‐7386 or via e‐mail at [email protected].

Page 2

1. Contact Information: Organization Name: Atomic Heritage Contact Name Cynthia C. Kelly Address 910 17th St. NW Suite

Foundation 408

Phone (202) 293‐0045 Email [email protected] Project to be funded “A Guide to the

Manhattan Project in Washington State” Amount Requested $ 18,000 Project Start Date 11/01/2017 Project End Date 10/31/2018

2 2. Has the organization received Hotel/Motel Tax funding in the past? (○) Yes If yes, for which years and which projects? The Atomic Heritage Foundation has benefited from four recent grants that have supported its work with the B Reactor Museum Association (BRMA) to create interpretive projects for the B Reactor. The City of Richland’s $25,000 grant in 2012 was vital to creating two exhibits for the B Reactor: a large model of the 100‐B area and a display of the core of the reactor. In addition, AHF produced explanatory vignettes for each model.

The City of Richland’s $25,000 grant in 2013 provided support to develop a new website, “Ranger in Your Pocket" (www.rangerinyourpocket.org), and two programs on Hanford. Visitors to the B Reactor can use their own smartphone or tablet to access these programs. One provides a guided tour of the B Reactor and the other, “Life at Hanford,” focuses on housing, social life, and stories of growing up at Hanford. Both can be accessed by audiences worldwide on personal computers as well.

In 2014, the City of Richland’s $25,000 grant enabled AHF to develop another “Ranger in Your Pocket” program, “Hanford’s Pioneers.” This one focuses on Hanford’s prewar history and features interviews with Native Americans and agricultural pioneers. The program includes interviews with the Bruggemann children who grew up on their family’s ranch and discussion of the White Bluffs bank and town site.

In May 2015, the City of Richland provided a $25,000 grant for a new “Ranger in Your Pocket” program, “Know Before You Go,” on the B Reactor and nuclear science and history. The program was developed in partnership with the B Reactor Museum Association and has over 10,000 views. The most popular programs are “Nuclear History,” an overview of the scientific discoveries leading to an atomic bomb, and “Reactor Visit Preview” on how the B Reactor works.

The “Ranger in Your Pocket” programs have proved very successful, generating tens of thousands of views and encouraging tourism to the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. The National Park Service and Department of Energy have been enthusiastic about the programs. As one viewer wrote, “Thank you for keeping this valuable heritage alive! Hats off to Atomic Heritage and BRMA for helping to carry this wonderful piece of history, through generations to come.”

This project will build on the previous projects funded by the City of Richland. Specifically, the proposal entails expanding AHF’s popular “Guide to the Manhattan Project in Washington State” to include information about visiting the Manhattan Project National Historical Park including the B Reactor and other attractions in the Tri‐Cities.

3. Organizational Demographic: Number of full time staff: 3 Number of part time 1

staff: Number of volunteers: 0 Year organization 2002

incorporated: Please list the Names and Titles of your Board Members: Ms. Cynthia C. Kelly: Founder and President, Atomic Heritage Foundation

Mr. Richard Rhodes: Pulitzer Prize‐winning author of "The Making of the Atomic Bomb" and 27 other books

Mr. Robert S. Norris: Senior Fellow at the Federation of American Scientists and author of "Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie. R. Groves, the Manhattan Project’s Indispensable Man"

3

Mr. John Wagoner: former manager of DOE‐Richland Operations Office; currently a consultant on nuclear programs

Ms. Denise Kiernan: Journalist, producer, and bestselling author of "The Girls of Atomic City" and "The Last Castle"

4. Project Description: Please provide a brief description of the event/project, including event schedule. In 2011, the Atomic Heritage Foundation published "A Guide to the Manhattan Project in Washington State." AHF wrote and designed the guidebook in close coordination with the B Reactor Museum Association (BRMA), the City of Richland, the Department of Energy‐Richland, the Washington State Historical Society, the Tri‐ Cities Development and Economic Council, the Tri‐Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau, and other local partners.

Filled with colorful photographs and excerpts from oral histories, the book has sold well over the past six years to tourists and others interested in the history of Hanford and the Tri‐Cities area. Now, AHF is nearly out of stock of the guidebook. This proposal seeks to print an expanded second edition to encourage tourism to the Hanford unit of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park and the Tri‐Cities.

The Washington guidebook is part of AHF’s series of four guides to the Manhattan Project. The other guidebooks highlight Manhattan Project sites in New Mexico (first edition 2010, second edition 2012); Tennessee (first edition 2011, second edition 2015); and Manhattan (first edition 2008, second edition 2012). The proposed second edition to the Washington guidebook is an important opportunity to update and expand it to reflect the new Manhattan Project National Historical Park.

AHF plans to expand the second edition from 60 to 72 pages, and redesign the cover to feature an image of the iconic B Reactor. New sections will highlight the Manhattan Project National Historical Park and historic properties tourists can visit. There will also be additional information on Tri‐Cities museums, the new Wanapum Heritage Center at Priest Rapids Dam, and other attractions with links to the Tri‐Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau and other websites.

The new guidebook will incorporate the National Park Service’s interpretive themes such as the displacement of Native Americans and the role of African Americans and women in the Manhattan Project.

AHF will publish 2,500 copies of the guidebook and promote them to bookstores, tourist organizations, and museum stores, both in the Tri‐Cities and around the country. In addition, complimentary copies will be provided to partner organizations, tourism bureaus, the Washington State Congressional delegation, travel writers, and others. Additional copies of the guidebook will be published as needed. AHF will also publish some parts from the guidebook, including information for visitors, on its website (www.atomicheritage.org).

In August 2017, AHF received a $198,000 grant from the M. J. Murdock Charitable Trust for oral histories and a variety of interpretive projects on Hanford’s Manhattan Project history. As $98,000 of the the grant requires a 1:1 match, a City of Richland lodging tax grant for $18,000 would be doubled, leveraging another $18,000 from the Murdock challenge grant.

5. Is this a capital improvement project? (○) No

6. Is the improvement on City owned property or facility?

4 (○) No

7. If so, has this proposal been presented to the Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) and was it recommended by the PRC? (○) No

Please note these improvements may require federal, state or City permits. Please contact Phil Pianrd at 942‐7463 prior to submitting this application to determine if permits are required for the type of work you are proposing.

8. Is the project you are seeking funding for a collaboration with other agencies? If so, please name the other agencies and describe the relationship. AHF will work closely with the Department of Energy‐Richland (DOE‐RL) as well as members of the City of Richland, Hanford Communities, Tri‐Cities Visitors and Convention Bureau, and Tri‐City Development Council. These groups will help develop strategies for marketing and engaging other members of the Tri‐Cities community in the project. Over the past 15 years, AHF has worked collaboratively with these organizations on several projects including exhibits for the B Reactor and documentary films on the Manhattan Project at Hanford.

The B Reactor Museum Association (BRMA), the REACH Interpretive Center, Indian Eyes, and the African American Community Cultural and Educational Society (AACCES) will be active partners in shaping the guidebook. BRMA will provide current photographs of sites for the guidebook and ensure that site and visitor information included is up to date. AHF will work closely with the National Park Service, DOE‐RL, Washington State University‐Tri‐Cities, and other members of the Hanford History Partnership.

Page 3

9. Projected Budget: Amount Requested: $18,000 As a percent of total 50% Total Project Budget: $36,000

project cost: Revenue: Sources Revenue Amount City of Richland Lodger’s Tax grant (requested) City of Richland: $18,000 City of Richland: $18,000

M. J. Murdock Charitable Trust grant (awarded) – 1:1 match required Murdock: $18,000 Murdock: $18,000

=$36,000 total =$36,000 total Expenditure: Descriptions Expenditures Amount Writing and editing for 2nd edition Writing : $14,000 Writing : $14,000

Design costs Design: $6,000 Design: $6,000

5 Printing and binding costs for 2,500 books Printing: $12,000 Printing: $12,000

Shipping costs Shipping: $1,000 Shipping: $1,000 B Reactor Museum Association project costs BRMA: $3,000 BRMA: $3,000

=$36,000 total =$36,000 total

10. Projected Tourism Benefits Overall Attendance 25,000 annually in 2019 to 100,000 annually by 2029 Expected number of out‐ 21,250 annually in 2019 to 85,000 by 2029. Based on

of‐town attendee (those the last few years, approximately 85 percent of who have traveled more visitors were from more than 50 miles away. Part of than 50 miles): our goal is to encourage people from around the country and the world to visit Hanford, its historic sites, and the Tri‐Cities. Expected number of 21,250 annually in 2019 to 85,000 by 2029 Expected number of 4,750 annually in 2019 to 15,000 by 2029 attendees paying for attendees using unpaid accommodations: accommodations:

Expected number of 10,000 room nights annually over the next 2‐5 years. If this is a capital N/A lodging nights: improvement project,

what is the expected number of increased participants/spectators from out‐of‐town? How many increased N/A room nights are expected to be generated?

11. Explain how this project meets the above guidelines and criteria for Hotel/Motel Tax funding: The second edition of "A Guide to the Manhattan Project in Washington State" will inspire people from around the country and the world to visit the Tri‐Cities area. Heritage tourists and families will be encouraged to visit the world’s first full‐scale nuclear production reactor, the prewar Manhattan Project properties, the “Alphabet” houses, and other sites. The guidebook and information on AHF’s website will direct tourists to the Reach Interpretive Center and other local attractions. Links in the guidebook and online to websites such as that of the Tri‐Cities Visitors and Convention Bureau will help people find places to stay and plan a multi‐day visit.

As one of the three sites of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park, Hanford will be receiving an influx of tourists over the next decade. The guidebook is designed to offer visitor fulfillment, providing a satisfying and balanced presentation illustrated by colorful photographs and drawings. The guidebook will place Hanford’s story in the larger historical context of World War II. Oral history excerpts from a variety of participants will help convey the human dimensions of the project. In short, the guidebook should make Hanford attractive and accessible to a broad range of potential visitors.

12. Explain how your organization will collect and verify the above information (i.e., surveys, registrations, hotels, etc.)

6 AHF will work with tourism bureaus, local hotels, the REACH, the Tri‐Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau, the Department of Energy, and the National Park Service to track visitors to the Hanford sites. AHF will also monitor the sale of guidebooks and send a survey to some customers asking whether they visited Hanford after purchasing the guide. The B Reactor Tour Headquarters currently tracks the number and home state or country of visitors to B Reactor.

National parks across the country are important economic engines. A National Park Service report in April 2016 explained, “Visitor spending in 2015 supported 295,000 jobs, provided $11.1 billion in labor income, $18.4 billion in value added, and $32.0 billion in economic output to the U.S. economy. The lodging sector provided the highest direct contributions with $5.2 billion in economic output to local gateway economies and 52,000 jobs. The restaurants and bars sector provided the next greatest direct contributions with $3.4 billion in economic output to local gateway economies and 65,000 jobs.” These reports depend upon data collected by local governments, chambers of commerce, hotels, motels, bed and breakfasts, and other participating organizations. In 2014, the National Park Service calculated that for every $1 American taxpayers invested in the National Park Service there was a return of $10 to the local economies around the parks.

13. Provide a detailed outline of the Marketing Plan for the event to be funded by Hotel/Motel Tax funds. Please include the different types of media by name and location of service. When the guidebook is published in 2018, press releases will notify local, regional and national press and other media including travel writers. The guidebook will be distributed to tourism bureaus in the Tri‐Cities area, Seattle, and other nearby cities in Washington, Oregon, and Idaho. AHF will market the guidebook to Manhattan Project and World War II museum shops around the country. For example, the National Museum for Nuclear Science and History in Albuquerque and the Los Alamos History Museum currently carry the first edition of the Washington guidebook.

AHF will work with our partners at Hanford, including BRMA and the Reach Interpretative Center, to publicize the guidebook through newsletters, website articles, and social media. We will feature the guidebook prominently in our newsletters, website, annual report, and Facebook and Twitter feeds. Parts of the guidebook will be published online on AHF’s website to aid tourists in planning their trip to the Tri‐Cities.

14. You may use additional sheets of paper if necessary to complete the application. You may also attach any additional information about your organization or project you think is relevant to this application. File Upload Letters of Support.pdf

15. I understand the Washington State limitations placed on use of Hotel/Motel Tax funds, and certify that the requested funds will be used only for purposes described in this application or as approved by the City. I understand use of funds is subject to audit by the State of Washington. (○) I Agree Name Cynthia C. Kelly

Title President

Thank you, City of Richland, WA

This is an automated message generated by the Vision Content Management System™. Please do not reply directly to this email.

7

Hanford History Project

October 11, 2017

To Whom It May Concern:

The Hanford History Project is writing to support a proposal from the Atomic Heritage Foundation (AHF) to develop a colorful, engaging guidebook for visitors to the Manhattan Project National Historical Park at Hanford and other area attractions. AHF is proposing to revamp and expand its guidebook of 2011 to add significant content, a new cover, and helpful information for visitors.

A new section will be devoted to the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. In addition, the guidebook will feature many new first-hand accounts from a cross-section of participants including engineers and scientists, African American recruits, and women. The Hanford History Project, B Reactor Museum Association, AACCES and other local groups will contribute materials and expertise to ensure the guidebook is accurate and up-to-date.

The guidebook will also highlight local historic resources, museums and other attractions. To aid visitors, the revised guidebook will include links to websites of the City of Richland, Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau and others.

The guidebook has a national audience. The Atomic Heritage Foundation sells copies online either singly or as a package of three guidebooks for the Manhattan Project National Historical Park sites. Museum shops at Los Alamos, NM, Albuquerque, NM and Oak Ridge, TN also carry all three guidebooks.

The $18,000 grant requested from the City of Richland will leverage another $18,000 in matching funds from the M. J. Murdock Charitable Trust. We believe this initiative will produce a valuable educational resource and interpretive guide for visitors to Richland and the Tri-Cities.

Thanks very much for your consideration of this project.

Sincerely,

Michael Mays Director, Hanford History Project

2710 Crimson Way, Richland, WA 99354-1671 509-372-7447 • Fax: 509-372-7309 • www.tricity.wsu.edu

“Hanford and Washington State played a critical role in the Manhattan Project. We need to ensure that future generations can re�lect on and learn from this history.” —Senator Patty Murray

A Guide to the MANHATTAN PROJECT

in

CYNTHIAW C. ���������KELLY with an introduction by RICHARD RHODES S���� Author Cynthia C. Kelly

Design and Editing Mark Donaldson Monika Adamczyk

Contributors Kirk Christensen Connie Estap Russel Fabre Pam Brown Larsen Ellen Low Nick Low Tom Marceau Clay Perkins Maynard Plahuta Burt Pierard Richard Rhodes John Wagoner

Special thanks to our funders Crystal Trust M. J. Murdock Charitable Trust

Much appreciation to our many collaborators B Reactor Museum Association City of Richland Columbia River Exhibition of History, Science & Technology Hanford Communities Tri-Cities Visitor and Convention Bureau Tri-Cities Development and Economic Council U.S. Department of Energy-Richland Washington State Historical Society

COPYRIGHT © 2011 by the Atomic Heritage Foundation.

All rights reserved. No part of this book, either text or illustration, may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechan- ical, including photocopying, reporting, or by any information storage or retrieval system without written permission from the publisher. A GUIDE TO THE MANHATTAN PROJECT IN WASHINGTON STATE

Cynthia C. Kelly President, Atomic Heritage Foundation

Introduction by Richard Rhodes

1 Introduction

In 1942, when the physicist J. Robert Oppen- heimer was recruiting scientists for the U.S. atomic-bomb program, secrecy prevented him from revealing to them what their work would be. He told them instead that the outcome, if successful, would probably end the war—the Second World War then raging—and might, he said, end all war.

The atomic bomb did contribute to ending the Pacific War, and fear of its destructiveness has limited major war now for more than six decades. What began as a desperate effort of defense—invent an atomic bomb before Nazi Ger- many got there first—became a major new force in human affairs.

The work of physics, chemistry, metallurgy and engineering that led to the new invention was accomplished in requisitioned or makeshift buildings, laboratories and factories all over the United States. Some of the largest industrial facilities in the vast project were built and op- erated in eastern Washington, where the open space provided pro- tection from a large radioactive accident if one should occur (none did) and where the Columbia River provided pure water for cooling.

What needed to be cooled were industrial-scale nuclear reactors that bred kilograms of a newly-discovered man-made element, plutoni- um, from tons of uranium. One of the reactors still stands as a monu- ment to that pioneering work. The automated metallurgical refineries where the plutonium was extracted loomed over the flat desert along the river like beached ocean liners.

The scale speaks to the scale of the last world war. And now the land is peaceful.

Richard Rhodes, author, The Making of the Atomic Bomb

2 Table of Contents

Map 4 Welcome 5

ATOMIC BASICS 6 EARLY HISTORY 8 BEFORE WORLD WAR II 13 White Bluffs 14 Bruggemann Ranch 16 Hanford 17 Winds of Change 18 MANHATTAN PROJECT 21 Race for the Bomb 22 DuPont Company 27 LIFE IN THE ATOMIC CITIES 29 New Arrivals 30 Alphabet Houses 32 HANFORD ENGINEER WORKS 35 The Site 36 Construction 37 Fuel Fabrication 40 Reactor Operations 41 Transporting the Fuel 45 Chemical Separation 46 WORLD WAR II & BEYOND 49 Boeing’s Superfortress 50 Naval Construction 51 Pasco Naval Air Station 52 Submarine Sail 53 Nike Missile Site 54 Japanese Internment 55

Sources 56 Chronology 58 Places to See 60

3 4 Welcome ATOMIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION

When Colonel Kenneth “Fritz” Nichols first saw Hanford from a small plane in December 1942, he was convinced that he had found the perfect site. The project needed vast open spaces to locate the top- secret production plants for the world’s first atomic bombs. The newly completed Grand Coulee dam and the Columbia River would supply abundant electricity and water. Within months, the Hanford Construction Camp had 50,000 workers.

The Manhattan Project quickly transformed the Columbia Basin. This guidebook invites you to visit Pasco where bewildered recruits arrived by train in the middle of the night. Most expected the “Ev- ergreen State” to have forest-covered mountains but instead found sagebrush-covered steppe-desert.

Downtown Richland’s Gold Coast neighborhood along the river still has dozens of “alphabet houses” built for DuPont’s officers, engineers and their families. You can get a map at the Columbia River Exhibition of History, Science & Technology (CREHST) museum and see exhibits which tell the story of the Manhattan Project at Hanford.

Visit the B-Reactor Tour Headquarters and if possible, take a tour of the B Reactor, the world’s first plutonium production reactor. Near the reactor is the Bruggemann warehouse where one of the many pio- neering farming families settled in the early 1900s.

We are hopeful that Congress will soon pass legislation creating a Manhattan Project National Historical Park at Hanford, WA, Los Ala- mos, NM and Oak Ridge, TN. In the meantime, there are plenty of Man- hattan Project and World War II sites to see in the Tri-Cities and Wash- ington State which are highlighted here. Enjoy your trip!

Cynthia C. Kelly President

5 Atomic Basics THE SCIENCE BEHIND THE BOMB

Everything around us is made of atoms. Atoms are the smallest units that make up elements. At the heart of the atom is the nucleus, which is made up of two kinds of subatomic particles: protons, with a posi- tive electric charge, and neutrons, with no charge. Electrons, with a negative charge, orbit around the nucleus.

Image courtesy of Colin M. L. Burnett, The nucleus is bound together by an in- Wikimedia Commons. credibly strong energetic force. When the nucleus splits, nuclear energy is released.

Isotopes are different forms of the same element. They have the same number of protons and electrons but a different number of neutrons. Two naturally-occurring isotopes of uranium are urani- um-235 with 143 neutrons (235 heavy particles) and uranium-238 with 146 neutrons (238 heavy particles).

Those extra three neutrons make all the difference. U-235 is much more unstable than U-238 and easily splits apart (“fissions”) when hit by another neutron.

FAT MAN AND LITTLE BOY In order to detonate a nuclear weapon, you need a critical mass of fissionable material to ensure that the neutrons released by fission will strike another nucleus and release its neutrons, producing a chain reaction. The more fissionable material you have, the greater the odds that such an event will occur. The U.S. developed two types of atomic bombs during the Second World War using different fissionable materials--enriched uranium (U-235) and plutonium (Pu-239). Each bomb was designed to bring subcritical masses together to produce a critical mass. “Little Boy,” dropped on Hiroshima, was a gun-type weapon with two pieces of enriched uranium. “Fat Man,” dropped on Nagasaki, was an implo- sion-type device with a single plutonium core. See diagrams, opposite.

6 ATOMIC PARTICLES: AN OVERVIEW Atom: building block of matter; made up of a small, dense nucleus surrounded by a cloud of negatively-charged electrons. Nucleus: makes up the center of the atom; consists of a number of positively-charged protons and neutral neutrons. An atom is classified by the number of protons and neutrons in its nucleus. Isotope: Isotopes of an element possess the same number of pro- tons in their nuclei but have different numbers of neutrons. Fission: the process by which an atom’s nucleus is split into smaller pieces; results in the release of neutrons and lots of energy.

The atoms of most elements—like hydrogen, oxygen, iron, or lead—are stable. Their nuclei tend to stay together rather than break apart. But uranium-235 is different. When a nucleus of this isotope is hit by a speeding neutron, it fissions, or splits, into two smaller nuclei plus one to three extra neutrons—and releases a lot of energy. The extra neutrons smash into more nuclei, releas- ing even more neutrons in a cascade of incredible energy.

This is called a nuclear chain reaction. When used in a bomb, a massive explosion results. When controlled inside a re- actor, a chain reaction can use a small amount of uranium (U-235) or plutonium (Pu-239) fuel to generate massive amounts of useful energy.

Fat Man and Little Boy at the Albuquerque National Nuclear History Museum. Photo courtesy of http://www.atomicarchive.org

7 Early History THE COLUMBIA BASIN

The Columbia Basin presents unique challenges for human inhabitants. Situated between the Cascade Mountains to the West and Idaho’s Bit- terroot Range to the East, the region receives little rain and heavy winds. The rug- ged landscape and devastat- ing dust storms discouraged many early settlers.

Approximately 18,000 years ago, the last of Ice Age floods reached its peak. Glacial Lake Missoula, covering much of western Montana, frequent- ly burst its glacial dam. For 2,000 years, the lake periodi- Map of the Columbia River cally caused massive floods Photo courtesy of Karl Musser via Wikimedia Commons across Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The flood waters created the Columbia River Gorge and shaped many other geological features in Washington. In 2009, Con- gress designated the Ice Age Floods National Geologic Trail to tell the story of these floods and the landscape they left behind.

The Columbia River Gorge, a product of the Columbia Basin’s ice age floods Photo courtesy “Cacaphony” via Wikimedia Commons

8 Native American tribes were the earliest known inhabitants of the Co- lumbia Basin. The area was known for its excellent salmon fishing. The Wanapum tribe, whose name means “River People,” called the Columbia River “Ci Wana.” The tribe has many important cultural and spiritual sites on the Columbia River and left beautiful petroglyphs which can be seen today at the Gingko/Wanapum State Park.

The Wanapum provided valuable assistance to Meriwether Lewis and William Clark, explorers commissioned by President Thomas Jefferson

LEWIS AND CLARK EXPLORE THE COLUMBIA BASIN “The hills on both sides of the river are about two hundred and fifty feet high, generally abrupt and craggy, and in many places present- ing a perpendicular face of black, hard, and solid rock. From the top of these hills, the country extends itself in level plains to a very great distance, and…produces an abundant supply of low grass, which is an excellent food for horses. This grass must indeed be unusally nutri- tious, for even at this season of the year…many of these horses are perfectly fat….” Lewis, Clark, and Biddle, History of the Expedition Under the Command of Captains Lewis & Clark…, page 61

This 1905 painting by Charles Marion Russell, Lewis and Clark on the Lower Columbia, depicts the explorers near the Columbia basin Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

9 to explore the Pacific Northwest (1804-06). Clark visited the mouth of the Yakima River, near the future site of Richland, on October 17, 1805. Though the Wanapum was the only tribe to settle in the Hanford area, the Nez Perce, Yakama and Umatilla relied on the Columbia Basin for hunting, fishing and ceremonial purposes. Today artifacts associated with their campsites or burial grounds can be found on the Hanford site.

The Hudson Bay Company was established under a British royal char- ter in 1670 to promote the fur trade in North America. From 1792 to 1812, British explorer David Thompson traveled 55,000 miles mapping the course of the Columbia River and most of the northwest territory, establishing outposts along the way. Later, the Hudson Bay Company built a trading post along the Columbia River at the White Bluffs landing (1826-1846). The building below was used as a trading post, way station, saloon and residence.

The Hudson Bay Company Trading Post at White Bluffs, WA Painting courtesy of Donald Crook Christian missionaries followed quickly to minister to both the Native Americans and the traders. Though relations between these early set- tlers and the Native Americans were generally friendly, there were peri- ods of violence.

In 1850, agricultural settlement of the Columbia Basin increased consid- erably in response to the Donation Land Claim Act. This law provided

10 WHAT DOES THE LAND MEAN TO US? “The Hanford area was our wintering ground, the Palm Springs of the area, with milder win- ters…. With the Treaty of 1855, we thought that we would forever have the right to gather the natural foods and medicines and to hunt and fish in our customary places. We lived in har- Photo still from documentary film Arid Lands mony with the area, the river, fish, deer, elk and 70 different types of food that sustained us for centuries.” Russell Jim (member of Yakama Indian Nation), AHF oral history, September 5, 2003 320 acres to each homesteader who agreed to settle in the Oregon Ter- ritory (now Oregon, Washington and Idaho) for four years. Not surpris- ingly, this led to further clashes with the Native Americans.

To solve the disputes with the tribes, in 1855 the United States entered into treaties that recognized the Nez Perce, Yakama and Umatilla as sov- ereign nations. The treaties provided important rights concerning fish- ing, hunting and access to sacred sites. The Wanapum did not enter into a treaty but maintained cultural rights on the Hanford site.

Soon more settlers began to arrive in the Columbia Basin. Some were drawn by the discovery of gold in Colorado, Idaho and British Columbia. Others prized the large tracts of grassy land. Their ingenuity and per- severance allowed them to prosper despite adversity, making it only harder when they were evicted.

TRAINS TO PROSPERITY In the early 1900s, trains such as the Chicago, Milwaukee, and St. Paul Railroad accelerated the im- migration to the Hanford area. Some trains vigorously encour- aged agricultural settlers, sup- plying seed and farming tools along with train tickets. For ex- isting farmers, the railroad was a boon, providing a means to ship their produce to new markets. Train at Pasco Photo courtesy of Washington State Historical Society

11 The interior of the Bruggemann Ranch building, a pre-war structure that was part of a large family ranch.

12 BEFORE WORLD WAR II

13 White Bluffs

The first Euro-American settlers arrived in White Bluffs in 1861, estab- lishing a town on the east bank of the Columbia River near what is now the 100-H area of the Hanford site. Many others passed through the area on their way to British Columbia for the gold rush, taking a ferry from White Bluffs across the Columbia. The Hudson Bay Com- pany post facilitated trading with the local Native American tribes.

The White Bluffs ferry crossed the Columbia River Painting courtesy of Donald Crook

Before World War II, the White Bluffs community had a population of about 1,000 with tree-lined streets and white clapboard homes and stores. Other buildings included an elementary and a high school, the White Bluffs Inn, railroad depot, White Bluffs Motor Company, bank and ice cream parlor.

A PRETTY HARD THING “Some of them ended up at Medical Lake [a state mental hospital], you know, couldn’t quite face it. My mother never really adjusted to it. The fact that the government could come in and take your home away….It was really sad….They only knew it was for the war effort.” Kathleen Hitchcock, Working on the Bomb, pg. 23

14 REMEMBERING WHITE BLUFFS “Gone are those peaceful autumns; gone, in fact, is White Bluffs itself. It cannot even be called a ghost town, because the buildings too are gone, except for the remains of a few foundations which stand like teeth whose fillings have dropped out…. White Bluffs was a victim of the age of the atom; it is a ghost which marks man’s ‘progress’.” M.P. Harris, Goodbye White Bluffs, pg 1. Today, there are just a few indicators that White Bluffs even existed. Almost all of the buildings were demolished. Even the surrounding orchards were chopped down to stumps. The only remaining struc- ture in the townsite is the White Bluffs bank. The bank was supposed to be impervious to robberies, but the wooden roof of the vault was exploited by bank robbers on at least one occasion. Now the weather is its biggest threat.

WHITE BLUFFS BANK This photo shows the interior of the White Bluffs bank, which had only one employee. The bottom photo shows the state of the bank today, fenced off but slowly deteroriating.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

15 Bruggemann Ranch

About 1,000 people in unincorporated areas on the Columbia River were also evicted by the Manhattan Project. Virtually all of these prop- erties are now gone except for traces of irrigation ditches, foundations, curbstones and the stumps left from former orchards.

One remarkable exception is the Bruggemann ranch building near White Bluffs. The building is a sturdy structure, constructed from riv- erstones from the nearby Columbia held together with concrete. It is all that remains of the 540-acre farm belonging to the Bruggemann family. The ranch contained orchards of cherries, peaches, pears and apricots, as well as livestock and large vineyards of grapes.

The family was preparing for their first major fruit harvest in 1943 when the eviction notice came. Like many of the other displaced fami- lies, Paul Bruggemann felt that the government’s compensation for his ranch was far too little. Being a German citizen at the height of World War II, however, he decided not to raise an objection and resettled his family in Yakima.

In 2009, the Tri-City Herald documented the Bruggemann family’s first visit to the farm site in over 60 years. Paul Bruggemann’s two chil- dren, Ludwig and Paula, were only five and three years old when their family was forced to leave. Sixty-six years later, they returned

The Bruggemann Ranch Building Photo courtesy of Debbie Holm, Bruggemann Family member

16 The Bruggemann ranch grew cherries and many other agricultural products Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy and identified the remaining building from family photos. Like their family home and other structures, the cobblestone architecture was unique with decorative arches, faces on the chimneys, horizontal ac- cent wainscot and other interesting details.

Today, the Bruggemann building remains an impressive example of the ingenuity of the area’s early agricultural settlers. It is near the Ver- nita Bridge and within two miles of the B Reactor.

The plan is to restore the building and construct an additional one pat- terned after the original farmhouse. The properties could be a gateway to the Hanford site and an interpretive center for the history of those who lived along the Columbia River before the Manhattan Project.

The Bruggemann stone structure today

17 Hanford

The town of Hanford, after which Hanford Engineer Works was named, was settled in 1907 on land purchased by the Priest Rap- ids Irrigation and Power Company. In 1913, the Chicago, Milwau- kee, and St. Paul Railroad provided a vital means of shipping local agricultural products to market and spurred Hanford’s prosper- ity.

When the government took over Hanford, the town’s population was about 300. By April 1943, the townspeople were gone and the Hanford Camp opened with trailers, barracks, and other fa- cilities. Eventually the Hanford construction camp would be the third largest city in Washington State with 50,000 residents.

Constructed in 1916, the Hanford High School had art deco-style architecture, unusual for a small farming town. Its gymnasium had highest-quality hardwood floor. In early 1943, it was used as of- fices by the Manhattan Project. Later, the building was reportedly used for bombing practice and SWAT team training, damaging the building until only the outer shell, as pictured below, remains.

The Hanford High School as it appears today.

18 Winds of Change

In December 1942, the Army Corps of Engineers worked with DuPont to establish criteria for the selection of a site for plutonium production facilities. The project needed at least 190 square miles of secure space located at least 20 miles from any sizable town and 10 miles from a major highway. Most importantly, the project needed a water supply of at least 25,000 gallons per minute and an electrical supply of at least 100,000 kilowatts.

In late December 1942, three men came on a secret mission that would permanently transform the area. Colonel Franklin T. Matthias and two DuPont engineers had already explored five other possible sites. The Hanford area was the last site they visited. They were quickly convinced that the site was the right one.

COLONEL MATTHIAS “I remember when Colonel Mat- thias called a mass meeting out- side at White Bluffs in the spring of 1944. Thousands came. He wanted to get it across to every- body how important the work was…it gave us all a shot in the arm. When we left there we were ready to build a plant.” The Manhattan Project, pg. 193 Photo courtesy of the U.S Department of Energy

The Columbia River provided abundant water and the Grand Coolee Dam, just completed in 1942, could supply electricity. The area was isolated with only about 2,000 residents within 580 square miles.

On January 16, 1943, General Leslie Groves officially endorsed Hanford as the proposed plutonium production site. Most resi- dents of the affected area, including those living in Hanford, White Bluffs, and Richland, were given 90 days notice to aban- don their homes. Homeowners were compensated based on the

19 appraised value of their homes, excluding the value of improve- ments, crops, and equipment. Most of the buildings were de- molished and the orchards cut down, leaving fields studded with stumps, as pictured below. Today, they are haunting reminders of the pre-war settlements.

The Native American tribes were also displaced. The Wanapum lost access to their traditional home on the Columbia River, and the tribe resettled in Priest Rapids. Access to their traditional fish- ing areas was at first restricted and then revoked altogether.

As one chapter of the region’s history ended, a new one began. Within three years, the Columbia Basin became a place of global significance.

THE WANAPUM REMOVED FROM THEIR ANCESTRAL HOME Rex Buck, Jr. is one of the remaining mem- bers of the Wanapum tribe. When asked about the tribe’s relationship to the site today, he said: “We are provided the opportunity to have tours, but there’s something miss- ing. The tours…it’s not like going out there and sitting along the river and lis- tening to the elements and identifying those things that are important to us.” Rex Buck, AHF oral history, September 4, 2003

20 THE MANHATTAN PROJECT

21 The Race for the Bomb

In a letter dated August 2, 1939, Albert Einstein warned President Franklin D. Roosevelt that Germany was probably working to pro- duce an “extremely powerful” bomb. Einstein hoped the prospect that Hitler would be first to develop such a weapon would galvanize efforts by the United States.

Albert Einstein meets with Leo Szilard to compose letter to FDR. Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

In response to Einstein’s letter and the urging of British prime min- ister Winston Churchill, President Roosevelt authorized a top-secret effort to build an atomic bomb. Organized as a military effort un- der the Army Corps of Engineers, scientists were recruited to work on the project from the leading universities and laboratories across the United States. In addition, scientists from Great Britain and Canada came as part of the British Mission led by Sir James Chadwick, who was awarded the Nobel Prize for his 1932 discovery of the neutron.

Dozens of refugees from Europe, many of them also Nobel Prize-win- ning scientists, were part of the project. Together, physicists, chem- ists, engineers, mathematicians and other scientists designed, built and tested the world’s first atomic bombs. Their drive to uncover na- ture’s innermost secrets was combined with a sense of patriotic duty to contribute to the war effort.

22 Research related to an atomic bomb began long before World War II. As early as 1933, Hungarian Leo Szilard conceived of the possibility of a chain reaction, the explosive force that powers an atomic bomb. In 1934, Italian physicist Enrico Fermi turned up further evidence that atomic fission or splitting the nucleus of the atom in multiple frag- ments and starting a chain reaction was possible. The question was, which element had a nucleus that could be easily split?

At the Kaiser Wilhelm Institute in Berlin, Austrian physicist Lise Meit- ner and German chemists Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann studied Fermi’s data. By accident, the German chemists discovered that urani- um atoms bombarded by neutrons broke into lighter particles. Otto Hahn was so disturbed by the possible military implications of his dis- covery that he contemplated suicide.

LISE MEITNER: REFUGEE FROM THE NAZIS Being Jewish, Lise Meitner was subject to the increasingly repressive anti-Se- mitic laws. Because so many Jewish intellectuals had already fled, German authorities forbade academics to emi- grate in July 1938. Leaving Berlin by train, Meitner barely escaped when Nazi officials inspected her expired Austrian passport at the Holland bor- der. She continued her study of urani- um atoms in exile in Sweden. Though slim and shy, Lise was a formidable physicist and found in her work an es- Lise Meitner & Otto Hahn Photo courtesy of the cape from her loneliness in exile. U.S. Department of Energy

In December 1938, Lise Meitner correctly read the Hahn-Strassmann experiments as evidence that the uranium nuclei had been split into new particles. Meitner, along with her nephew Otto Frisch, coined the term “fission” to describe what had occurred with the uranium nucleus. They drew an analogy to a water drop dividing in two. Meit- ner and Frisch also theorized the potential for a chain reaction and thus, an atomic bomb.

23 On January 26, 1939, Danish physicist Niels Bohr announced the discoveries of Lise Meitner and her German colleagues to a phys- ics conference at the George Washington University in Washington, DC. After learning about “atomic fission,” using uranium, some at- tendees immediately set up an experiment to replicate the results at the nearby Carnegie Institution of Science. The race for the bomb began.

At the same time as these uranium experiments, scientists were working to harness the atomic powers of a newly discovered ele- ment: plutonium. The element was first produced in December 1940 by Dr. Glenn Seabord and a team of scientists at the University of California, Berkeley. The new element’s fissionable properties made it another possible fuel for an atomic weapon.

A RACE WITH HITLER’S SCIENTISTS Glenn Seaborg was motivated by the urgency of World War II: “Lots of signs made us think that we were in a losing race with Hitler’s sci- entists. We understood full well what it would have meant if Adolf Hitler had got the atomic bomb before the Allies did. “ Interview with Academy of Achievement, September 1990

The project’s pace quickened with the selection of hard-driving U.S. Army Corps of Engineers General Leslie R. Groves to direct the proj- ect in September 1942. Groves had been in charge of all domestic Army construction needed to mobilize for the war, including the mammoth Pentagon building.

Groves was supremely self-confident, extraordinarily decisive and insightful. He was also an astute judge of people. Despite J. Robert Oppenheimer’s past communist associations and lack of manage- ment experience, Groves recognized that Oppenheimer was critical to the success of the project and hired him as its scientific director.

24 GENERAL GROVES: COOL, CONFIDENT AND DECISIVE “My emotional graph is a straight line. I never worried. This job would never have been done if I had. I never had any doubts. Not having any doubts, I could not feel very surprised or elated by our success.” General Leslie R. Groves “If I can’t do the job, no one man Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy can.” Interview in the October 1945 issue of Collier’s magazine.

Enrico Fermi, Leo Szilard and other top physicists joined the Manhat- tan Project effort at the Metallurgical Laboratory or “Met Lab” housed at the University of Chicago. Under the bleachers of Stagg Field, a university stadium, the world’s first controlled, self-sustaining nuclear chain reaction took place in a squash court on December 2, 1942.

The Manhattan Project began as a small research program. At the out- set, J. Robert Oppenheimer estimated that 100 scientists could do the research, design and testing at Los Alamos. But the endeavor proved to be far more complex, involving not just scientific research but a gar- gantuan engineering and industrial effort.

Chicago Pile 1, known as “CP-1,” on December 2, 1942 Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

25 Mammoth first-of-a-kind factories were built to produce the fissile material at the core of the bombs, enriched uranium and pluto- nium. Nothing was left to chance as several approaches were tried in parallel.

At Oak Ridge, TN, three different techniques were used to produce enriched uranium. The hulking K-25 plant at Oak Ridge, TN, was a mile long, built to separate the isotopes of uranium using a top-se- cret gaseous diffusion process.

The K-25 Gaseous Diffusion Plant at Oak Ridge, TN Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

A second, totally different approach at Oak Ridge involved huge “Calutrons,” named after the University of California’s newly invent- ed “cyclotrons.” These used electro-magnetic forces to separate the isotopes. A third technique, thermal separation, required a third huge facility to produce enriched uranium. Eventually, all three techniques were needed to produce enough enriched uranium for the atomic bomb dropped on Hiroshima, Japan on August 6, 1945.

At Hanford, WA, three huge reactors and chemical separation fa- cilities were constructed to produce plutonium. In addition, there were dozens of other sites where small manufacturers, major cor- porations and universities contributed. As Danish physicist Niels Bohr predicted, the entire country became a “huge factory.”

26 The DuPont Company

After the decision to produce plutonium was made, the govern- ment needed to draw upon the talent and resources of corporate America to get the job done. General Leslie Groves was familiar with the E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Company, the major chemi- cal and munitions company founded by Eleuthère Irénée du Pont in 1802. DuPont’s manufacturing history and capabilities were im- pressive.

In the late 1930s, DuPont made news by introducing nylon, the first synthetic polymer. Nylon dresses, stockings and other goods swept the fashion in- dustry. Behind DuPont’s suc- cess was a new technique for continuous operations with the ingredients at one end and the product at the other. The pro- cess was revolutionary, a vast improvement over earlier step- by-step approaches. Groves was convinced that DuPont could apply the same ingenuity to the plutonium production process and went after DuPont at the end of October 1942. DuPont’s creation of Nylon, 1939 Photo courtesy of DuPont Magazine Despite Groves’ urging, it took a call from President Roosevelt to convince DuPont’s president to sign up for this uncertain venture. Most of all, the company did not want to be branded as “war profi- teers” as they had been after World War I for producing gunpowder. This time DuPont insisted that its fee would only be one dollar and all patents would belong to the U.S. government.

DuPont’s managers knew that mass-producing plutonium was to be unlike any challenge they had previously faced. Enrico Fermi’s

27 experimental reactor in Chicago had to be scaled it up thousands of times. Many technical questions, from how to cool the reactor to how to safely extract plutonium from the spent fuel rods, remained unanswered. There was no time for rigorous testing or a long-term pilot-scale facility. DuPont engineers had to use their best judge- ment to choose an approach and make it work.

CRAWFORD GREENEWALT (1902-1993) After graduating from MIT in 1922 with a degree in chemical engi- neering, Crawford Greenewalt began what became a long and illus- trious career with DuPont. By the late 1930s, he proved to be instru- mental in perfecting the production process for nylon. When DuPont signed on to the Manhattan Project in late 1942, Greenewalt was sent to investigate. In Chicago, he witnessed Enrico Fermi’s first chain reaction. Just two weeks later he was assigned to be the liai- son between the physicists at Chica- go and the engineers at Wilmington, DE. The challenge was to translate the scientists’ theoretical ideas into workable blueprints for the produc- tion of plutonium on a massive scale

at Hanford. Photo courtesy of the Hagley Museum At the outset, Greenewalt was quoted as saying “Our chances of putting it over on time are not much better than one in four.” Undaunted, Greenewalt devoted himself to mak- ing the ambitious project successful. When the B reactor unexpect- edly shut down shortly after starting up on September 26, 1944, Greenewalt stayed at the reactor until 2 o’clock in the morning work- ing on solving the mystery. It was xenon poisoning (see page 43). In 1948, Crawford Greenewalt became president of the DuPont Company and served for 15 years. He was legendary for the skill he showed in managing, entertaining debates but concluding them decisively. Intelligent, energetic and dedicated, Greenewalt is a ster- ling example of why the Manhattan Project succeeded.

28 LIFE IN THE ATOMIC CITIES

29 New Arrivals PASCO

Pasco, Washington got its start as a railroad town, receiving an in- flux of settlers when the Northern Pacific Railway was built in the 1880s. Most of the tens of thousands of workers who came to work at the Hanford Engineer Works arrived by train, passing over the railroad bridge over the Columbia River into Pasco.

The Northern Pacific Railroad Bridge Photo courtesy of Washington State Historical Society Pasco saw a boom in population. Among the new comers were African-American and Hispanic workers who were not welcome in other communities. Richland was strictly for permanent work- ers and most African Americans had temporary construction jobs. Kennewick had racially restricted covenants. While Pasco allowed black residents, they were restricted to living east of the railroad tracks.

ARRIVING IN THE EVERGREEN STATE “The trains came through Pasco, where the railroad station was lo- cated, about 2:00 in the morning. I’m not sure if they had come dur- ing the daylight hours whether passengers would have bothered to get off the train. The recruiting posters said: ‘Come to the Evergreen State of Washington: sparkling rivers, snow-capped peaks, wonder- ful fishing and hunting.’ What do they come to? The desert.” Steve Buckingham, AHF oral history, Sept. 4, 2003

30 While the Hanford site was still under construction, some scien- tists covertly began their work in a nondescript office building in downtown Pasco. Scientists wasted no time waiting for the new facilities.

SECRET SCIENCE Dorothy Myers came to Pasco to work for DuPont and caught a glimpse of the secret scientific project: “We arrived at a heavy door appearing to be part of the wall. [My supervisor] pushed it open wide enough to peek inside where I wit- nessed two or three figures hovering over a glowing flame and test tube-like structures about.” Dorothy Myers, Franklin Country Flyer, Vol. 43 No. 1, March 2010

Throughout the Manhattan Project, Pasco played a vital role. The train station was the primary point of entry for new employees. To- day, the station is one of the only pre-Manhattan Project sites re- maining in Pasco. The Hotel Pasco had just been built in 1940 and offered a respite from the dust, winds and severe sand storms.

Recruiters warned, “Life here is a little on the rugged side.” DuPont’s photographer Robley Johnson made over 145,000 ID photos as new hires kept quitting and being replaced. The combination of isolation, separation from family members, and fierce dust storms led many to take the next train home.

Hotel Pasco in the 1940s

31 Alphabet Houses RICHLAND

Before the war, Richland was a modest settle- ment of 300 people. In 1943, the Army Corps of Engineers took over the town and evicted the original residents. Rich- land was soon trans- formed. Original “Alphabet House,” modified General Groves ordered new housing to be built “as cheaply as possible,” but DuPont wanted better accommodations for its engineers, operators and administra- tors. Many had been recruited from DuPont’s plants across the coun- try and DuPont wanted to retain them after the war.

Hundreds of standardized “alphabet houses” lined dusty streets with no street signs or numbers. Named after the letters of the alphabet, 25 different housing designs were created for a variety of single-fam- ily homes and duplexes. The houses were allocated based on salary or position, marital status and family size. By the end of the war, there were 4,300 houses for a population of nearly 25,000.

Although Richland was owned and managed by the Army Corps of Engineers, it was not fenced in. Only workers at Hanford could live in the town, and visitors were closely monitored and questioned.

ALPHABET BLUES When I was eight years old, my mother and I moved to Richland from Danville, IL to join my Dad. On my first day of third grade, I remember getting dropped off by the school bus and looking around for our house. All of the houses up and down the street were identical. In a moment of panic, I real- ized that I had no idea which house was mine. Herb Depke, telephone conversation, July 7, 2011 Herb Depke, 1943

32 Officials went to great lengths to protect the secrecy of the project. The town’s phone book was stamped as classified. Mail was censored, phones were frequently tapped, and undercover counterintelligence officers watched for suspicious activity. Signs warned of “loose talk” and “careless conversation.”

RED SQUARE IN RICHLAND “I came in June of ‘44…Mac got a little house in Richland and fixed it up with draperies and everything until he thought it was perfect…. At 3 o’clock in the morning Mac picked me up at the Pasco train sta- tion and we drove to Richland. It was a bright moonlight night. Here sat this little red square thing in the middle of piles of dirt that were much higher than it was. I died laughing. I thought that was the funniest thing I ever saw in my life. Mac was mad; he was proud of our new house. It was a long way from Alabama but soon I loved it, too. “ Interview with Vera Jo MacCready in S.L. Sanger, Working on the Bomb, pg. 182

Today, you can see many of the World War II-era alphabet houses in the Gold Coast Historical District. This neighborhood was added to the National Register of Historic Places in 2005 and gives visitors a chance to imagine what it might have been like to live here during the Manhattan Project.

A “B” house or duplex in Richland today

33 Makeshift barracks for 50,000 construction workers at Hanford site (Top) A fleet of trucks used during construction (Middle) B Reactor and its surrounding facilities in 1945 (Bottom) All photos courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

34 HANFORD ENGINEER WORKS

35 The Site HANFORD ENGINEER WORKS

Stretching over 670 square miles, the site was a vast expanse of sage brush and desert. This allowed the different operations to be widely separated and far from the village of Richland.

Only 10 percent of the 670 square mile Hanford site was used.

In 1943, understanding of the health and environmental effects of different types and levels of radiation exposure was limited. How- ever, precautions were taken to minimize exposures. As part of this, tall stacks were built to help disperse emissions and dilute the gases to safe levels of radioactivity. Monitoring of the atmosphere, environment and workers was conducted to analyze exposure lev- els and determine if there were any adverse effects.

Producing plutonium at Hanford involved three major operations— fuel fabrication, reactor operations, and chemical separation to ex- tract the plutonium. Closest to Richland in the southeast corner of the site were the fuel fabrication operations in the 300 area.

The reactors were in the 100 area in the northern portion of the site, as far as possible from the town of Richland or about 25 miles away. The chemical separations plants were about 10 miles south of the re- actors in the 200 area. Even after 50 years of operations, only ten per- cent of the site had been used. The rest remained as pictured above.

36 Construction HANFORD ENGINEER WORKS

Building the first-of-a-kind production facilities at the Hanford En- gineer Works was a formidable management challenge, requiring a massive workforce. During the construction period, 50,000 workers lived in the Hanford Construction Camp. At first they were housed in rows upon rows of tents. By summer 1945, over 1,175 buildings provided housing in 190-person barracks, 20-person huts, trailer camps and service buildings. The camp was the third largest city in Washington.

DuPont attempted to make life for the workers as tolerable as pos- sible. Eight mess halls served fresh baked bread, pies, pastries along with balanced meals. The food was served family style and the workers took about 10 minutes to eat a meal. There was no linger- ing over a second cup of coffee as there were up to 19,500 diners to serve.

BUILDING HANFORD “The building effort at Hanford from 1943 to 1945 can only be mea- sured in superlatives…. The various construction teams built 386 miles of highways, 158 miles of track, poured 780,000 cubic yards of concrete, and erected housing for 4,000 women and 24,000 men…. The overall cost was $350 million. Building Hanford was like con- structing seven major industrial plants at the same time.” S. L. Sanger, Working on the Bomb, p. 3

37 Saturday nights the workers drank beer from the “Patriot Brewery,” constructed specifically for the Hanford workers. Liquor was ra- tioned but there was always some available. Surrounded by barbed wire, men separated from women, the Hanford Camp felt almost like a prison. Many people suffered from depression and homesickness and there were a number of nervous breakdowns.

Construction proceeded at breakneck speed. Each workday was di- vided into multiple shifts around the clock. Many employees worked overtime and weekends. The complex production facilities and hun- dreds of support buildings were completed in less than 18 months, a great work of human collaboration.

JIM CROW IN THE TRI-CITIES Like many workplaces in the 1940s, Hanford was segregated and ex- perienced flare-ups of racial tension. “In 1943, Hanford had 110 barracks for white men, 21 for black men, 57 for white women, and 7 for black women. Later in the war, Hanford created a sepa- rate black trailer camp on site. Interestingly, the toilets at this site were not segre- gated. This angered some white workers, who oc- casionally placed ‘Whites Only’ signs on them. A worker at Hanford Engineer Works Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy On at least one occasion, some black workers overturned one of the buildings, along with its white occupant, who was not physically injured, but was, of course, morally disorganized. The battle over toilets at Hanford reflected the larger conflict over racial segregation in the workplace.” Robert Bauman, “Jim Crow in the Tri-Cities, 1943-1950”

38 TERMINATION WINDS “People would come here, take on the job, and not realize the weather conditions in this area. They’d work here for a while and everything was rosy until the wind would start to blow, and you’d get one of those ter- rific dust storms. They’d say, ‘This is enough for me, I’m leaving,’ and they would terminate.” Monty Stratton from the 105-B Reactor HAER, p. 16

A “Dupus Boomer” cartoon on Termination Winds Courtesy of Dick Donnell

One of the construction camp’s eight massive mess halls Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

39 Fuel Fabrication 300 AREA

Tens of thousands of fuel elements were needed for the reactors. These fuel elements or slugs were cylindrical, about eight inches long and an inch and five-eighths in diameter. The ura- nium had to be sealed inside its aluminum jacket with no air space Metallurgical Engineering Lab (314) or leaks. Thirty-two fuel elements fit inside each of the 2,004 process tubes that ran through the reactor.

The fuel elements had to be made to exacting specifications and withstand the extreme heat and radioactivity inside the reactor core. The smallest defect could allow water to leak in and react with the uranium. The fuel element might then swell or rupture, blocking the process tube and potentially forcing a shutdown of the reactor.

DuPont engineers were still perfecting the process for creating fuel elements as construction of the reactor neared completion. SEARCHING FOR THE PERFECT SLUG “In the summer of 1944, the reactor was shaping up but we had not figured out how to make a fuel element [slug] that did not leak. Without the fuel elements, the reactor could not run. Earl Swens- son declared, ‘It’s a statistical matter. We need to make a thousand a day, examine and test them all, and learn how to perfect the pro- cess.’ The first day a thousand failed, but there were 10 better than the others. The next day they had 18 that were better. After about three weeks we had 20,000 cans and one perfect one. After a while, out of a thousand we were making 500 and 600 a day.” Interview with Walter O. Simon, Working on the Bomb, pg. 154

40 Reactor Operations 105-B REACTOR

B Reactor was the first of three plutonium reactors constructed in the 100 area during the Manhattan Project. The design was based on the success of Enrico Fermi’s “Chicago Pile I” in December 1942 and a pilot plant, the X-10 graphite reactor, in Oak Ridge, TN that began producing plutonium in November 1943. B Reactor was a 36-foot cube built of graphite blocks with a matrix of holes for the process tubes that held the uranium fuel and the control rods.

B Reactor was designed to produce 250 million watts, more than a million times the Chicago Pile I. While the X-10 pilot plant was air cooled, B reactor was water cooled. There was no time to build an- other pilot plant or rigorously test engineering solutions to the many first-of-a-kind problems. DuPont engineers had to work quickly to translate the Chicago physicists’ ideas into blueprints to keep ahead of the construction crews at Hanford.

The fuel elements were loaded into the reactor. At full capacity, workers had to load over 60,000 fuel elements into the reactor’s 2,004 process tubes.

The front face of B Reactor Photo courtesy of CREHST Museum

41 After an average of 100 days in the reactor, a fuel element would be sufficiently irradiated to be removed . The fuel elements were ejected from the rear face of the reactor where they fell into a 20-foot pool of water. Here they cooled off for about 90 days until they were ready to be shipped to the chemical separations plant in the 200 area.

B Reactor was equipped with multiple redundant safety systems. Dur- ing routine operation, the reactor was controlled using nine neutron- absorbing control rods inserted horizontally into the reactor. B Reactor also had 29 vertical safety rods that could be quickly dropped into the reactor if the horizontal control rods were insufficient. As a last resort, a mechanism above the reactor could drop small boron balls into the reactor. These balls would stop the reaction and could be vacuumed out later so as to not permanently damage the reactor.

Operators had to constantly monitor more than 5,000 instruments, most of which were located in the control room. Many of these devices had CHERENKOV RADIATION When fuel that has been irradiated in a reactor cools off in the pool of water, it gives off a blue glow caused by a phenomenon known as Cherenkov radiation. On the left, a worker fishes fuel out of B Reactor’s glowing pool. A modern reactor pool in Idaho (right) shows the phenomenon in full color.

Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy Photo courtesy of Matt Howard via Wikimedia Commons

42 never been used in an in- dustrial setting before. The main control panel was staffed around the clock.

The reactor core generat- ed a tremendous amount of heat. Water pumped from the Columbia River was filtered, treated and stored in facilities near the reactor. To cool the reactor, some 30,000 gallons of wa- ter were pumped through the reactor every minute. The water was channeled through thin passages be- tween the process tube and fuel elements.

B Reactor Control Panel

THE XENON PROBLEM DuPont’s exacting, conservative approach to the design of B Reactor had an unexpected benefit. Only hours after it was brought to full power, B Reactor’s power output slowly and in- explicably dropped to almost zero. Crawford Greenewalt traced the declining level of power on log paper. Physicists John Wheeler, Enrico Fermi, Leona Woods Marshall and others identified the culprit as xenon-135, which was absorb- ing neutrons at a tremendous rate and halting the reaction. Fortunately, DuPont’s George Graves had insisted that B Reactor be constructed with room for 504 additional process tubes to hedge against unexpected problems. The additional fuel successfully overcame the xenon poisoning. Otherwise, the plutonium-based atomic bomb dropped on Japan would probably not have been ready.

43 GUESSING AT HANFORD’S MISSION Manhattan Project engineer Roger Rohrbacher did not know exactly what was being produced at Hanford, but rumors were rampant: “There were a lot of rumors about what was go- ing on at Hanford. Everything was coming in, nothing was going out. Some people said, ‘Oh, that’s a sandpaper factory. They hold up a glued sheet of paper and the dust coats it.’ Others said that the gigantic facilities rising from the desert were going to be FDR’s winter palace. At a show- and-tell session at school, a kid says, ‘I know what they’re making. Toilet paper! My dad brings home two rolls in his lunch bucket every day.’” Roger Rohrbacher, AHF oral history, September 4, 2003

Afterwards, the cooling water was stored for up to four hours in basins to cool down and then discharged back into the Columbia. Nearly 75 percent of the electricity in the 100 Area went to pumping and processing water for cooling.

B Reactor, once threatened with demolition, is an icon of the Man- hattan Project at Hanford. Today visitors can tour the original reactor and listen to Manhattan Project veterans describe the facility and their experiences there. HANFORD’S SECRET REVEALED The vast majority of the employees at Hanford had no idea what the mission of the facility was until the morning of August 6, 1945. That day, President Truman announced that the world’s first atomic bomb had been dropped over Hi- roshima, Japan. The press release explained that the atomic bomb was a “harness- ing of the basic power of the universe.” Hanford was one of three primary sites where the “greatest achievement of organized science“ took place in secret.

44 Transporting the Fuel CASK CARS

After the fuel had cooled off in the storage basin for about 90 days, workers used twenty-foot long tongs to place the irradiated fuel into buckets. To transport the fuel to the chemical separation plants, engineers designed special lead-lined cask cars.

A cask car used to transport irradiated fuel to the T-plant Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

The fuel elements were loaded, under water, into a cask car which was sealed with a lid. A locomotive pulled the cask cars for their ten-mile journey to the chemical separations plant (T Plant) enter- ing it through a railroad tunnel.

Two 125-ton lo- comotives and two cask cars are on display at B Reactor. A bucket with fake slugs illustrates the once “hot” cargo. The locomotives pulled the fuel- laden cars to the T Plant for processs- ing. Locomotive used to transport fuel to the T-plant Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

45 Chemical Separation 221-T PLANT

The final step in the plutonium production process, in which plutonium was removed from the irradiated fuel elements, was also one of the most innovative. This was the first time any process had been developed that was completely run by remotely controlled equipment.

The chemical separation plants in the 200 Area were nicknamed “Queen Marys” after a British ocean liner for their enormous scale. Each was 800 feet long, 65 feet wide, and 80 feet high, with an additional 20 feet be- low ground.

SIZING UP THE QUEEN MARY The chemical separation plants were nicknamed “Queen Marys,” but how deserving were they of the moniker? As it turns out, the T Plant was almost 80% as long as the massive RMS Queen Mary, and slightly less than half of its height. The diagram below compares the two massive creations.

Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons

The T Plant processed the first batch of irradiated fuel slugs on De- cember 26, 1944. The interior was a “canyon” that contained a series of “cells” connected to an elaborate system of pipes and tubes. Work- ers were shielded behind thick walls three stories above the chemical baths. Operators manipulated cranes that held cables, wrenches and other tools. They watched what they were doing indirectly, through a series of mirrors and periscopes, or listened with microphones. Many skilled operators could identify problems by sound.

46 With its thick concrete walls, the T Plant is currently being used to store radioactive wastes. The building and its remote handling pro- cess is a testament to the Manhattan Project’s remarkable ingenuity. As veteran Harry Kamack recalled, “The real genius was that it was designed so that any piece of equipment or pipe could be discon- nected, unbolted, pulled out, and a new piece put in and bolted up by an operator working safely behind thick shielding walls.... And this actually worked!”

The T-Plant under construction in 1944 Photo courtesy of the U.S. Department of Energy

PRECIOUS CARGO The first shipment of plutonium produced at the T Plant was entrusted to Lieutenant Colonel Franklin Matthias, who drove to Portland, Ore- gon and then boarded a train to Los Angeles. In Los Angeles, he met an Army officer who was to take it the rest of the way back by train. “At the railroad station this officer came up and I said ‘Well, have you got a locked room to go back to New Mexico?’ and he said ‘No, I had trouble getting it so I have a berth, an upper berth.’ So I said ‘Well, you know what you’re going to be carrying?’ And he didn’t know, so I said, ‘Well it cost $350,000,000.’ That was the cost of our project [Hanford] up to that point. So he kind of got a little bit shaky and went back to the station and came back with a locked room that he could use to get back.” Franklin Matthias, quoted in 105 B Reactor HAER, pg. 77

47 Washington responded by turning out ships, planes and trained pilots in addition to plutonium for the atomic bomb. Steven Dohanos, US Government Printing Office, 1942 Courtesy of Robert D. Farber University Archives & Special Collections, Brandeis University

48 WORLD WAR II & BEYOND

49 Boeing’s Superfortress RENTON, WA

The workers at the Boeing factory in Renton, WA likely had no idea about the atomic bomb or the work going on less than 200 miles away at Hanford. But their work would be instrumental to the even- tual use of the atomic bombs on Japan.

The Boeing factory at Puget Sound manu- factured the B-29 Su- perfortress. This long- range bomber was instrumental in World War II, flying a total of 380 missions in both the European and Pa- cific theaters consisting of over 31,000 sorties. The Enola Gay in Washington, DC In addition, the “Enola Courtesy of Wikimedia Commons Gay” and “Bockscar” planes that dropped the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, respectively, were specially rigged B-29s.

STRATEGIC BOMBERS CHANGED WAR Freeman Dyson, who worked for the Royal Air Force during WWII, be- lieves that the long range B-29 bombers and their British counterparts brought about a change in the way that wars were fought: “After experiencing devastating losses in World War I, the British de- cided in 1936 that World War II should be an air war not a ground war. The big money was put into bombers....The question was: what do you do with them? ....They quickly discovered that you couldn’t fire on the Germans in the daytime and if you went at night, you couldn’t hit anything smaller than a city. So the answer was decided quite early in the war: it had to be a night bombing campaign and one against cit- ies, not factories or other military targets. That was how it went, and it dictated how the war should be fought. Once you’d decided your main weapon was to be strategic bombers, that was all you could do.” Freeman Dyson, AHF oral history, March 26, 2008

50 Naval Construction BREMERTON, WA

Bremerton, Washington, had been BEYOND ROSIE THE RIVETER home to the Puget Sound Navy Yard since its founding. During World War II, its population nearly tripled as demand for shipbuild- ing and repair skyrocketed. At the height of the war, Bremerton had 80,000 residents, which quickly fell to 27,678 after the war.

Photo courtesy of Naval History and During the war, the shipyard pri- Heritage Command marily repaired ships that were In 1942, only eighty women damaged in the Pacific. Notable worked in the industrial areas ships that came through the ship- of the Puget Sound Navy Yard. yard include the USS Saratoga, By 1945, that number had ris- the Navy’s first fast aircraft carri- en to 4,266, with a few women er, and the USS Mississippi, which being promoted to leading- participated in the last battleship men or even quartermen. engagement in history at Surigao Strait.

The USS Mississippi at dry dock in Bremerton during World War II Photo courtesy of Rod Kirk

51 Pasco Naval Air Station PASCO, WA

The year before people began arriving at the Pasco train station to work at Hanford, hundreds of men and women were reporting into the new Pasco Naval Air Station. In February 1942, the Navy approved the relocation of Seattle’s Sand Point Naval Air Station to Pasco.

The dry climate offered clear skies for flying. Soon the Pasco station had 70 buildings and over 300 training air- craft. By the end of the war, it was the third- largest naval training base in the United States.

Pasco Naval Air Base during World War II Built with wartime ur- Photo courtesy of Tri Cities Business News gency, construction of the base was complet- ed in only five months. Opened in July 1942, the facility trained large numbers of pilots and mechanics for aircraft carriers. The pilots and crew played important roles in Iwo Jima, Okinawa and other battles in the Pacific. In addition, Pasco had one of the largest contingents of the Navy’s WAVES, or Women Accepted for Volunteer Emergency Service, who had technical and administrative roles. PRESERVING THE TOWER In 1963, the Port of Pasco purchased the un- used airbase for one dollar, and the property became today’s Tri-Cities Airport. The tower was the airport’s only control tower for many years. In June 2011, the Port of Pasco ap- proved restoration of the tower as a remind- er of Pasco’s important contribution to World War II. Advocates of preservation hope to of- fer tours of the tower in the future. Photo courtesy of Tri Cities Business News

52 Submarine Sail PORT OF BENTON, WA

Washington’s coastal waters were a hub of submarine activity dur- ing World War II. At the Port of Benton in Rich- land, WA, the USS Triton Memorial Park honors the United States Na- vy’s nuclear fleet and its sailors.

At the time of her com- missioning in 1959, the Triton was the largest, most powerful subma- USS Triton (SSRN/SSN-586) rine ever built. Powered Photo courtesy of Wikimedia Commons by two nuclear reactors, the submarine was the first to circumnavi- gate the world under water.

After only two years as a radar picket submarine, airborne early warn- ing aircraft made her role obsolete. The Triton was decomissioned in 1968, and remained berthed in Virginia until 1993 when she was towed to Washington do undergo recycling.

The submarine’s 66-foot-long, 23-foot-tall sail or conning tower, where the officer of the deck stood watch, is currently on display at the Port of Ben- ton. Inside the conning tower is a small room with an array of instruments to control parts of the submarine. The sail of the USS Triton Photo courtesy of Tri City Business News

53 Nike Missile Site HANFORD, WA

Once part of a series of four sites to protect the Hanford reservation, the Nike site at Rattlesnake Mountain alone still exists. The site was constructed in 1955 for Nike Ajax anti-aircraft missiles designed to shoot down Soviet bombers. Nationally, there were more than 200 sites around 24 areas.

The intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) system soon made the short-range Nike mis- siles largely obsolete. In 1961, the missiles were removed from the Hanford sites.

In the early 1970s, the Entrance to the Nike missile site Rattlesnake Mountain Nike site became the emergency relocation center for high-level Hanford personnel and community members. In the aftermath of the Cher- nobyl nuclear accident in 1986, the bunker became an emergency control center for the Hanford Site.

In 1997, after plutonium production at Hanford had ceased, access to the bunker was granted to Tunnel connecting the two bunkers physicists from the University of Washington and the University of California, Berkeley. The physicists were seeking an isolated facility in which to perform experiments on gravity. With the experiments com- pleted, the site could be preserved to tell the multiple layers of Cold War history that it represents.

54 Japanese Internment BAINBRIDGE ISLAND, WA

After the attack on Pearl Harbor on December 7, 1941, President Roos- evelt issued an executive order (E.O. 9066) that allowed people of Jap- anese ancestry to be excluded from the Pacific Coast. From 1942 to 1945, over 1,200 Japanese Americans were forced from their homes in California, Oregon and Washington and sent to one of ten ‘reloca- tion’ centers or to other facilities across the nation.

Since 1883, Bainbridge Island, located in Puget Sound, had been home to a Japanese immigrant community. In 1943, soldiers rounded up the island’s Japanese-American residents and took them to the Man- zanar Relocation Camp in the California desert. Many had to sell their homes and businesses at a great loss or simply abandoned them.

In 1988, the Civil Liberties Act provided redress for Japanese-Ameri- cans and each living survivor was paid $20,000 for their loss and suf- fering. Today, a memorial wall stands on Bainbridge Island, bearing the names of the 277 Japanese-Americans from the island who were interred. The message written on the memorial is in Japanese: “Ni- doto Nai Yoni,” which means “Let It Not Happen Again.”

The Bainbridge Island Japanese American Exclusion Memorial Photo courtesy of Minidoka Pilgrimage

55 Sources AND FURTHER READING

MANHATTAN PROJECT HISTORY AT HANFORD

Bird, Kai and Martin J. Sherwin. American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy of J. Robert Oppenheimer. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2005. Coster-Mullen, John. Atom Bombs: The Top Secret Inside Story of Little Boy and Fat Man. Privately published, 2010. Donnell, Dick. Dupus Boomer. Richland: Columbia River Exhibition of History, Science and Technology, 2001. Gerber, Michele Stenehjem. On the Home Front: The Cold War Legacy of the Hanford Nuclear Site. Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 1992. Harvey, David. History of the Hanford Site: 1943-1990. Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. Hevly, Bruce and John M. Findlay, eds. The Atomic West. Washington: University of Washington Press, 1998. Kelly, Cynthia, B Reactor: First in the World, Atomic Heritage Founda- tion, 2007. Rhodes, Richard. The Hanford Engineer Works and the Atomic Bomb: A Brief History. Unpublished manuscript. Sanger, S. L. Working on the Bomb: An Oral History of WWII Hanford. Portland: Continuing Education Press. 1995. U.S. Department of Energy. Historic American Engineering Record: B Re- actor (105-B Building). Richland, Washington, May 2001. U.S. Department of Energy, History of the Plutonium Production Facili- ties at the Hanford Site Historic District, 1943-1990. Washington: GPO, 2002.

56 Sources AND FURTHER READING

GENERAL MANHATTAN PROJECT HISTORY

Groeuff, Stephane. Manhattan Project: The Untold Story of the Making of the Atomic Bomb. Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967. Groves, Leslie R. Now It Can Be Told: The Story of the Manhattan Project. New York: Harper, 1962. Hales, Peter Bacon. Atomic Spaces: Living on the Manhattan Project. Ur- bana and Chicago: University of Illinois Press, 1997. Hasegawa, Tsuyoshi. Racing the Enemy: Stalin, Truman, and the Surren- der of Japan. Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 2005. Howes, Ruth and Caroline Herzenberg. Their Day in the Sun: Women of the Manhattan Project. Philadelphia: Temple University, 1999. Jones, Vincent C., Manhattan: The Army and the Atomic Bomb: United States Army in World War II Special Studies. Center of Military History, United States Army,1988. Kelly, Cynthia C., ed. The Manhattan Project: The Birth of the Atomic Bomb in the Words of Its Creators, Eyewitnesses and Historians. New York: Black Dog & Leventhal, 2007. Nichols, Kenneth D. , The Road to Trinity, Morrow, 1987. Norris, Robert S., Racing for the Bomb: General Leslie R. Groves, the Man- hattan Project’s Indispensable Man. Vermont: Steerforth Press, 2002. Rhodes, Richard. The Making of the Atomic Bomb. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1986. U.S. DOE, The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb.,1994. Wilson, Jane S., ed. All In Our Time: The Reminiscences of Twelve Nuclear Pioneers. Chicago: Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1975.

57 Chronology THE MAKING OF THE ATOMIC BOMB

1905 Albert Einstein defines the relationship between energy and mass as E=mc2.

1933 Hungarian physicist Leo Szilard first conceives of a nuclear chain reaction and the potential for an atomic bomb.

1934 Italian physicist Enrico Fermi and his team in Rome split the uranium atom but do not realize it.

1938 Otto Hahn and Fritz Strassmann, German physicists, split uranium in two; Austrian physicists Lise Meitner and Otto Frisch coin the term “nuclear fission.”

Aug. 2,1939 Einstein sends a letter to President Franklin D. Roosevelt warning about the prospect of an atomic bomb.

Sept.1, 1939 Nazi Germany invades Poland; World War II begins.

June 1940 The National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) is established to organize U.S. scientific resources for war including research on the atom and the fission of uranium.

Feb. 24, 1941 American scientist Glenn T. Seaborg’s research team discovers plutonium.

Dec. 7, 1941 Japan attacks Pearl Harbor.

Jan. 19, 1942 Roosevelt approves the production of an atomic bomb.

Aug.13, 1942 The Manhattan Engineer District (MED) is established for construction of an atomic bomb. On September 17, Colonel Leslie R. Groves takes over command of the MED.

Sept. 19, 1942 Groves selects Oak Ridge, TN, as the site for a pilot plant for uranium isotope separation.

Nov. 25, 1942 Groves selects Los Alamos, NM, as the site for a scientific research laboratory, codenamed “Project Y.” J. Robert Oppenheimer is chosen as laboratory director.

58 Dec. 2, 1942 Fermi’s team produces the first sustained nuclear fission chain reaction under the bleachers at University of Chicago’s Stagg Field.

Jan. 16, 1943 Groves selects Hanford, WA, as a site for plutonium production.

Sept. 26, 1944 Official startup begins on the B Reactor. It will take over four months to begin operating at full power.

April 12, 1945 Franklin D. Roosevelt dies and Harry S. Truman becomes President.

April 25, 1945 Groves and Secretary of War Henry Stimson brief Truman on the Manhattan Project.

May 7, 1945 Nazi Germany surrenders to the Allies.

June 1945 The Franck Report and a petition drafted by Leo Szilard, urging demonstration of the bomb before military use, begin circulating among scientists.

June 21, 1945 The Interim Committee rejects the Franck Report and recommends the atomic bomb be used without warning.

July 16, 1945 Trinity test, the first nuclear explosion, is successfully conducted in Alamogordo, NM.

July 21, 1945 Truman approves the order for the use of atomic bombs.

July 24, 1945 Truman informs Stalin that the United States has developed a powerful new weapon.

July 26, 1945 Potsdam Declaration asks Japan for unconditional surrender and warns of “prompt and utter destruction.” Japan rejects it three days later.

Aug. 6, 1945 The Little Boy uranium bomb is dropped on Hiroshima, Japan.

Aug. 9, 1945 The Fat Man plutonium bomb is dropped on Nagasaki, Japan.

Aug. 14, 1945 Japan surrenders.

59 Places to See

TRI-CITIES, WASHINGTON U.S.S. TRITON SUBMARINE B REACTOR MEMORIAL PARK B Reactor Tour Headquarters North Richland, WA 2000 Logston Boulevard [email protected] Richland, Washington 99354 (800) 254-5824 (509) 373-2774 (509) 735-8486 www.hanford.gov/publictours HANFORD REACH COLUMBIA RIVER EXHIBITION INTERPRETIVE CENTER OF HISTORY, SCIENCE & The future gateway to the Han- TECHNOLOGY (CREHST) ford Reach National Monument 95 Lee Boulevard, Richland, WA Columbia Park West (509) 943-9000 Richland, WA www.crehst.org (509) 943-4100 www.visitthereach.org EAST BENTON COUNTY HISTORICAL MUSEUM WASHINGTON STATE 205 Keewaydin Drive Kennewick, WA THE MUSEUM OF FLIGHT (509) 582-7704 9404 East Marginal Way S. [email protected] Seattle, WA 98108-4097 (206) 764-5720 PASCO NAVAL AIR STATION www.museumofflight.org/ Tri-Cities Airport (PSC) 3601 N 20th Ave. WASHINGTON STATE HISTORY Pasco, WA MUSEUM [email protected] 1911 Pacific Avenue (800) 254-5824 Tacoma, WA 98402 (509) 735-8486 (253) 272-3500 www.washingtonhistory.org/ wshm

60 B Reactor in Hanford, WA

61 GUIDE TO THE MANHATTAN PROJECT IN WASHINGTON “This guide will help current and future generations understand both the scientific contributions and enormous sacrifices made by those who labored at the B Reactor during its remarkable run.” Senator Maria Cantwell

“Like no other place, Hanford’s B Reactor serves as a monument to our nation’s ingenuity and determination, and as a reminder to the impact and devastation of war.” Governor Chris Gregoire

“This guide captures Hanford’s pivotal role in creating an atomic bomb and winning World War II. From these beginnings, Hanford continued to provide nuclear deterrence to win the Cold War.” Congressman Doc Hastings

“Visitors to the Tri-Cities from all over the world can use this guide book to make the most of the region’s historic sites, and help them appreciate the world-changing events that took place here.” Gary Peterson, Vice-President, TRIDEC

“Wherever one stands on the use of nuclear weapons, Hanford represents a significant chapter in the history of engineering.” David Nicandri, President, Washington State Historical Society

“This guide tells the story of the creativity, patriotism and hard work and the first-of-a-kind facilities that helped win the war.” Maynard Plahuta, President, B Reactor Museum Association

ATOMIC HERITAGE FOUNDATION 910 17th St. NW, Suite 408, Washington, DC 20006 (202) 293-0045 • www.atomicheritage.org

62