DOCSLIB.ORG

Clinton Engineer Work – Central Facilities

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Clinton Engineer Work – Central Facilities v DOOK I - G~ERAL VOLUME ].2.. - CLINTCE mo IN~ /uRKS KAHHATTAK DISTRICT HISTORT '' BOCK I - GENERAL VQUIKS 1 2 - CLIKX0N HKClINBftR WORKS, CENTRAL FACILITIES CLASSIFICATION CANCELLED g f e e » « F ! ' 0 .. .............................. BY AUTHORITY PE DOE/OPC 00 So-/c?.>3 THIS DCCUMEM N£ ISTS OF 3 5 * PAGES N O ... 3 _OF_" f SERIES ./ * _____ ( N o . © * C o p y c-o>'*-e.c.'VeJk wo •fcordawt w,ewto G. H, +o KR.C. *-V J.o(y \,C)4r'j'^ V 1 3 7 5 2 FOREWORD This volume of the Uanh«tt*n L’i»trio t 8ifiW | hi.8 b««rj. prepared to dsfctrlta tt*e purpose, design, construction, development, cost, and func­ tions of the Central Facilities of the Gllnton Engineer Works, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Although the Central Facilities are described at length and in de­ tail In this volume, they may be identified briefly as eabradng the non- industrial features of the Clinton Engineer Works, existing only to pro­ vide the facilities and service;* mere or less common to American urban life. As the Central Facilities exist separately and apart from the in­ dustrial plants, they cannot be described logically in connection with the Manufacturing plants. The Central Facilities are highly important auxiliaries to the manufacturing plants, for without the services and facilities supplied, the resident population necessary for manning the plants could not be maintained. The text of the history of the Central Facilities Is divided into three major parts* A - General Introduction, B - T o m of Oak Ridge, and C - Area Facilities. With reference to this arrangement, the community of Oak Ridge may, In general, be considered to consist of all the Central Facilities, although many facilities, i.e., the electrical, mater, sew­ erage, communications, roads and streets, transportation, and security systems, extend beyond what are considered to be the tomn limits, but exist to serve the residents of the town. N. This history of the Central Facilities has been carried through 31 December 1946, the day before the properties and activities of the Man­ hattan District were transferred to the Atomic Energy Commission. FI , 1946 ' . - J Data ired. Although the Clinton Engineer Works Aren and the town of Oak Ridge both are r o u g h l y rectangular In shape and lie on a northeast - southwest axis, nost maps In use on the Area have been adjusted to a Military g^d> thus, for example, the word "north% as generally used In this volume, Indicates a true northwest direction and the word "west” a true south­ west direction. 28 March 19^7 T2 MANHATTAN DISTRICT HISTORY BOOK I - Q-fiNSRAL VOums 1 ? - CLINTON «NOINm WORKS, OB*TBAL FACILITIES TABLE OF’ coNTRfrrs P a r. Ko. Page No. FOREWORD sum um PART A - O S im a IKTRfiMCriON SSCTION 1 - DESCRIPTION 1-1 Scope 1.1 \-2 Purpose 1.1 1-3 » Loc-tlon 1.1 1-4 Access 1.2 1-5 Facilities Involved 1.2 1-6 Size 1*3 1-7 Pop ulri tlon 1.3 V 8 Development 1.-4 1-9 Municipal Administration, Services, and Facilities 1.5 a. General 1.5 b. Development 1.6 c. Administrative and Service Buildings 1.6 SECTION 2 - SITS SSLBCTIOH AND P^ITARATION 5-1 General 2.1 2-2 Requirements 2.1 a. Location 2.1 b. Are« 2.2 c. Power 2.2 d. Water ftipply y 2.2 e. Transportation 2.3 f. Land Values 2.3 g. Topography 2.3 h. Town Site 2.4 i. Labor Supoly 2.4 2-3 Previous Investigations 2.4 a. General 2.4 b. Sites in TVA Area 2.4 c. Sites in Chicago Area 2.5 2-4 Site? Considered 2.5 a. General 2.5 b. Illinois 2.5 i , %. rape No. e. California 2.5 d. Washington 2.5 e. TVA Area 2.$ 2-5 Selection of Cf? Site 2.6 a. Location 2.6 b. rower ' 2.7 c. % t e r Supply 2.7 d. Topography 2.7 e. Drainage 2.7 f* Geology 2.6 g. Climate 2.8 h. Transportation 2.8 i. Loc«.l Population 2.8 J. Appral»#a, Selection, and Acouisitlon 2.8 / 2-6 Site Preparation 2.9 a. Initial ®or3c 2.9 b„ Later Work 2.9 SECTION 3 _ BASIC COKSIDSHATIOKS 3-1 Author! za tlons 3.1 a. General 3.1 b. Specific 3.1 (1) Report of 13 June 1942 3.1 (2) Delegation of Authority 3.1 (3) Appolntaent of the Military Policy Comalttee 3.2 3-2 Security ' 3.2 3-3 ^peed 3.3 3-4 Off-Aree Development 3.3 3-5 Relationship with Other Interests 3.3 a. The Tennessee Valley Authority 3.3 b. Federal Housing Agencies 3.4 c. Federal Works Agency 3.4 d. State of Tennessee 3.4 e. County Governments 3.4 f. Municipalities 3.5 3-6 Organisation 3.5 a. General 3.5 b. Planning 3.5 c. Construction 3.7 d. Central Facilities Advisory Committee 3.8 PARI B - TOWN OF OAK RIDGS SECTION 4 - PLANNING AND DESIOU 4-1 Development 4.1 a. General 4.1 ii ar. Bo. Pare N< b. First Phase 4*2 c. Second Phase 4,2 d. Third Phase 4.3 e. Additional Work 4.4 4-2 Design Criteria 4.4 a. Minimum Construction 4.4 b. Statutory Limitations 4.5 c. Critical Materials 4.5 d. Labor 4.5 4-3 Preliminary Work 4.5 4—4 Architect-Engineer Services 4.6 a. John B. Pierce Foundation 4.6 b. Skidmore, Owing(3 & Merrill 4.6 4-5 Incidental Improvements 4.7 4—6 Kay Personnel 4.7 SSCTIGK 5 - CONSTRUCTION 5-1 General 5.1 5-2 Method of Construction 5.2 a. General Policy 5.2 b. Managerial System 5.2 5-3 Contractual Arrangements 5.3 5-4 Operations 5.3 a. Accomplishments 5.3 b. Problems 5.3 (l) Labor 5.3 (2) Supply 5.4 (3) %>ead 5.4 5-5 Construction Costs 5.4 5-6 Key Personnel 5.6 aseno# 6 - o p e r a t i o n s 6-1 ' General 6.1 6—2 Controlling Policies 6.1 a. Minimum Services 6.1 b. Subsidies 6.2 o. Security 6.2 6-3 Operation by Government Forces 6.2 6-4 Selection of Operating Contractor 6.3 a. Organisations Considered 6.3 b. Negotiation o f Contract 6.4 6-5 Contractual Arrangements 6.4 s. Costs and Contractor’s Fee 6.4 b. Statement of Work 6.4 c. Collections 6.5 d. Estimated Revenue 6.5 e. Construction ^ork 6.6 ill Par. No Page Ko. f. Payment? 6.6 g. Guarantee 6.6 h. Other Provisions 6.6 6-6 Performance of Operating Contractor 6.6 a, General 6.6 b. Assumption of Operating Responsibility 6.7 Ci Employment 6.7 d. Reimbursable Cash Costs 6.7 (1) By Purpose 6.8 (2) Breakdown of Preceding Costs by Administrative Units 6.8 6-7 Decentralisation of Operations 6.9 SSCTIQK 7 - HOUSING 7-1 General 7.1 7-2 # Planning and Design 7.1 a. Family-Type Dwellings 7.1 (1) Cemesto Type Houses 7.1 (?) Multi-Family Houses 7.2 (3) Prefabricated Houses 7.3 (a) TV A and Related Types 7.3 (b) Hutment Apartments 7.4 (4) Demountable Units 7.4 (5) Victory Cottages 7.4 b. „ Apartaents - 7 . 5 c. Dormitories 7.5 d. Trailers 7.7 e. Hutments 7.8 f. Cantonment 7.9 g. Farm House® 7.10 7-3 Construction, Contract, and Cost Data 7.10 a. Houses 7.10 (1) Oeneral 7.10 (2) Cemesto Type 7.11 (3 ) Multi-Family Type 7.11 (4) Prefabricated House® 7.11 (a) TVA and Related Types 7.11 (b) Hutment Apartments 7.12 (5) Demountable Units 7.12 (6) Viotory Cottages 7.12 b. Apartments 7.12 c. Dormitories 7.13 d. Trailer Camps 7.13 e. Hutments 7.13 f. Cantonment 7.14 g. Farm Houees 7.14 h. Furniture 7.14 7-4 Operation and Maintenance 7.14 iv Per. No. ffage N o . a. General 7.14 b. Houses 7.15 c. Dormitories 7.17 d. Apartments 7. IB e. Trailers 7.19 f. Hutment Apartments 7.20 g. Hutments 7.20 h. Cantonment 7.21 1. Farm Houses 7.21 7-5 Assignments 7.21 7-6 Mentals 7.23 MOTION 8 - COMMERCIAL FACILITIES 8-1 Scope 8.1 8-2 Initial Planning 8.1 6-3 Secondary Planning 8.2 8-4 Additional Planning 8.2 8-5 Construction 8.3 8-6 Operating Policies 8.4 8-7 Selection of Concessionaires 8.4 8—8 Concession Operations 8.4 a. General 8.4 b. Receipts and Revenue 8.5 c. Types and Kumbere of Concessions and Other Activities 8.5 8-9 Hired Labor Operations 8.6 a. Cafeterias 8.6 (1) Initial Period 8.6 (2) Roane-Anderson Operations 8.7 b. Laundries 8.8 c. Guest House and Hotels 8.8 8-10 Special Operating Arrangements 8.9 a. Banking Facility 8.9 b. Telegraph Service 8.9 8-11 Construction Costs 8.30 SSCTIOK 9 - SCHOOL Sl&tm 9-1 Basic Features 9*1 a. Policy 9.1 b. Operation 9.1 c. Standards of Education 9.2 9-2 Development 9.2 a. Initial Period 9.2 b. School Buildings 9.3 9-3 Description of School Buildings 9.3 a.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy And
    The Development of Military Nuclear Strategy and Anglo-American Relations, 1939 – 1958 Submitted by: Geoffrey Charles Mallett Skinner to the University of Exeter as a thesis for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in History, July 2018 This thesis is available for Library use on the understanding that it is copyright material and that no quotation from the thesis may be published without proper acknowledgement. I certify that all material in this thesis which is not my own work has been identified and that no material has previously been submitted and approved for the award of a degree by this or any other University. (Signature) ……………………………………………………………………………… 1 Abstract There was no special governmental partnership between Britain and America during the Second World War in atomic affairs. A recalibration is required that updates and amends the existing historiography in this respect. The wartime atomic relations of those countries were cooperative at the level of science and resources, but rarely that of the state. As soon as it became apparent that fission weaponry would be the main basis of future military power, America decided to gain exclusive control over the weapon. Britain could not replicate American resources and no assistance was offered to it by its conventional ally. America then created its own, closed, nuclear system and well before the 1946 Atomic Energy Act, the event which is typically seen by historians as the explanation of the fracturing of wartime atomic relations. Immediately after 1945 there was insufficient systemic force to create change in the consistent American policy of atomic monopoly. As fusion bombs introduced a new magnitude of risk, and as the nuclear world expanded and deepened, the systemic pressures grew.
    [Show full text]
  • WM2015 Conference, March 15 – 19, 2015, Phoenix, Arizona, USA
    WM2015 Conference, March 15 – 19, 2015, Phoenix, Arizona, USA Management of Technetium Contaminated Demolition Debris from the Gaseous Diffusion Plants at the East Tennessee Technology Park – 15422 Scott Anderson *, J Lane Butler *, Michael Ferrari *, Annette Primrose *, John Wrapp * *URS|CH2M Oak Ridge LLC ABSTRACT The demolition of the final section of the gaseous diffusion plant (GDP) facility formerly known as K-25 at the East Tennessee Technology Park was completed in December of 2013, with the final shipment of waste completed only six months later in June 2014. While most of the radioactive waste shipments would be considered "routine" by today's standards (lower activity waste was disposed onsite at the Environmental Management Waste Management Facility [EMWMF] and at some offsite commercial disposal facilities with higher activity waste making its way across country to the Nevada National Security Site [NNSS] disposal facility) the final section of K-25, consisting of six cascade "units", presented some unique technical and stakeholder challenges. Portions of this final section of K-25 were presumed to be heavily contaminated with Technetium-99 (Tc-99) based on sampling and analysis activities conducted during facility deactivation. Tc-99 is known to be highly mobile under a variety of environmental conditions, and is suspected to be potentially mobile in unmitigated landfill conditions, resulting in the need to implement additional engineered controls during facility demolition as well as throughout the management of the resultant waste. A variety of controls were implemented to ensure Tc- 99 mobility was controlled and possible consequences mitigated, including isolation and offsite shipment of highest Tc-99 concentration components, as well as construction of a "cell within a cell" at the EMWMF.
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix A-2 Pdf Icon[741 KB (239 Pages)]
    Appendix A-2 Residual Radioactivity Evaluations for Individual Facilities FACILITY NAME: AC Spark Plug Flint, Michigan TIME PERIOD: 1946-1947; Residual Radiation 1948-July 2006 FACILITY DESCRIPTION: DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security Website: AC Spark Plug performed beryllium work for the AEC. Records indicate that approximately 10 men worked with beryllium at this location in 1947. Information about AC Spark Plug is found in health hazard surveys, shipping reports and in a MED history. The company continued to receive hundreds of pounds of beryllium for use under government contract into the 1960's. It is possible that some or all of this beryllium was being used for other, non-AEC projects. There was also a small amount of thorium procurement related to AC Spark Plug in the 1946-1947 timeframe. DISCUSSION: A memo from March 11, 1947, states that AC Sparkplug received 30 pounds of ThO3 and 960 grams of U3O8. Additionally, specific activities conducted with this material, final accountability or disposition and/or decontamination efforts are not contained within the reviewed documentation. Based on a lack of documentation it can only be assumed that residual contamination exists outside the listed period. INFORMATIONAL SOURCES: Sources of information reviewed during this evaluation included: DOE Office of Health, Safety and Security Website Memo from March 11, 1947, Shipments to AC Sparkplug EVALUATION FINDINGS: Documentation reviewed indicates that there is a potential for significant residual contamination outside of the period in which weapons-related production occurred. PERIOD OF POTENTIAL RESIDUAL CONTAMINATION 1948 - present. Page 1 of 239 Appendix A-2 Residual Radioactivity Evaluations for Individual Facilities FACILITY NAME: Aeroprojects, Inc.
    [Show full text]
  • Alfred O. C. Nier
    CHEMICAL HERITAGE FOUNDATION ALFRED O. C. NIER Transcript of Interviews Conducted by Michael A. Grayson and Thomas Krick at University of Minnesota Minneapolis, Minnesota on 7, 8, 9, and 10 April 1989 (With Subsequent Corrections and Additions) ACKNOWLEDGMENT This oral history is one in a series initiated by the Chemical Heritage Foundation on behalf of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry. The series documents the personal perspectives of individuals related to the advancement of mass spectrometric instrumentation, and records the human dimensions of the growth of mass spectrometry in academic, industrial, and governmental laboratories during the twentieth century. This project is made possible through the generous support of the American Society for Mass Spectrometry Upon Alfred O.C. Nier’s death in 1994, this oral history was designated Free Access. Please note: Users citing this interview for purposes of publication are obliged under the terms of the Chemical Heritage Foundation Oral History Program to credit CHF using the format below: Alfred O.C. Nier, interview by Michael A. Grayson and Thomas Krick at the University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota, 7-10 April 1989 (Philadelphia: Chemical Heritage Foundation, Oral History Transcript # 0112). Chemical Heritage Foundation Oral History Program 315 Chestnut Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19106 The Chemical Heritage Foundation (CHF) serves the community of the chemical and molecular sciences, and the wider public, by treasuring the past, educating the present, and inspiring the future. CHF maintains a world-class collection of materials that document the history and heritage of the chemical and molecular sciences, technologies, and industries; encourages research in CHF collections; and carries out a program of outreach and interpretation in order to advance an understanding of the role of the chemical and molecular sciences, technologies, and industries in shaping society.
    [Show full text]
  • M-1392 Publication Title: Bush-Conant File
    Publication Number: M-1392 Publication Title: Bush-Conant File Relating to the Development of the Atomic Bomb, 1940-1945 Date Published: n.d. BUSH-CONANT FILE RELATING TO THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE ATOMIC BOMB, 1940-1945 The Bush-Conant File, reproduced on the 14 rolls of this microfilm publication, M1392, documents the research and development of the atomic bomb from 1940 to 1945. These records were maintained in Dr. James B. Conant's office for himself and Dr. Vannevar Bush. Bush was director of the Office of Scientific Research and Development (OSRD, 1941-46), chairman of the National Defense Research Committee (NDRC) prior to the establishment of OSRD (1940-41), chairman of the Military Policy Committee (1942-45) and member of the Interim Committee (May-June 1945). During this period Conant served under Bush as chairman of the National Defense Research Committee of OSRD (1941-46), chairman of the S-1 Executive Committee (1942-43), alternate chairman of the Military Policy Committee (1942-45), scientific advisor to Maj. Gen. Leslie R. Groves (1943-45), and member of the Interim Committee (May-June 1945). The file, which consists primarily of letters, memorandums, and reports, is part of the Records of the Office of Scientific Research and Development, Record Group (RG) 227. The Bush-Conant File documents OSRD's role in promoting basic scientific research and development on nuclear fission before August 1942. In addition, the files document Bush and Conant's continuing roles, as chairman and alternate chairman of the Military Policy Committee, in overseeing the army's development of the atomic bomb during World War II and, as members of the short-lived Interim Committee, in advising on foreign policy and domestic legislation for the regulation of atomic energy immediately after the war.
    [Show full text]
  • Early Planning for Construction of Y-12
    Early planning for construction of Y-12 Last week we examined the interactions and influences leading to a full scale electromagnetic separation production plant in East Tennessee. We noted that James B. Conant, President of Harvard University and a strong member of the S1 Committee, was a key factor in getting the electromagnetic separation technology selected as one of the three main approaches to getting enough uranium 235 or plutonium 239 for atomic weapons. One story I heard just this last week from a local Oak Ridger, Harold McCurty, who shared some historical documents with me and who is a member of the ’43 Club, fit right in line with the research I have been doing on how the decision to construct Y-12 was made. He said he recalled hearing the story that Ernest O. Lawrence had become discouraged because he could not seem to get the right people to understand the electromagnetic separation process well enough to support it over the other methods to separate uranium. McCurty’s recollection of the story has Conant taking Lawrence for a walk where they agreed to try one more time to convince the decision makers that Lawrence’s calutrons would do the job. Both of them were convinced that Lawrence’s calutrons likely could separate enough uranium 235 for a bomb well ahead of gaseous diffusion or any other separation method. When he returned to the meeting, Conant made a strong defense of Lawrence’s research and first agreed to a smaller facility than Lawrence wanted built. However, this got their foot in the door with the calutrons and later the Y-12 construction effort was expanded several times, finally installing 1152 calutrons in nine major buildings! Earlier in 1942, the experimentation at Berkeley by Lawrence and his staff had been expanded to include the giant 184-inch magnet - the largest magnet in existence at the time.
    [Show full text]
  • Oak Ridge Secret City PHOTOGRAPHIC HISTORY EXHIBIT
    Oak Ridge Secret City PHOTOGRAPHIC HISTORY EXHIBIT Provided By Y-12 NATIONAL SECURITY COMPLEX PURPOSE INTRODUCTION This photographic exhibit tells the story of world-changing events, people and places in Before the Manhattan Project, Bear Creek Valley was a peaceful slow-moving farming East Tennessee. The story begins in 1942 at a most unusual place first called the Kingston community. Some families had been there more than 150 years, having settled along the Demolition Range, then Clinton Engineer Works and finally known as Oak Ridge. Many of Clinch River in the late 1700s in violation of Cherokee treaty language. By 1942, they were the exhibit photographs were taken by Ed Westcott, the official photographer of the Manhattan settled in and felt their home place was secure. Little did they know their world was about Project in Oak Ridge. Ed’s eye for exceptional photography produced an enduring body of to change forever, and this part of East Tennessee would never be the same. work and one of the world’s best photographic historical records. In late 1942, the Manhattan Project created a unique place named Oak Ridge. What started Without his photographs, East Tennessee’s contribution to what many consider the most as an effort to win the war that came to be known as World War II turned into the world’s significant scientific and industrial accomplishment in the history of the world would not most significant joint military and industrial scientific achievementand resulted in untold be so well documented. technological advances. This booklet supplements the photographic exhibit and provides additional details for Oak Ridge was the location selected images.
    [Show full text]
  • Manhattan Project “The Effects Could Well Be Called Unprecedented, Magnificent, Beautiful, Stupendous and Terrifying
    Quickwrite Mind Map: War Background: The Manhattan Project “The effects could well be called unprecedented, magnificent, beautiful, stupendous and terrifying. No man-made phenomenon of such tremendous power had ever occurred before. The lighting effects beggared description. The whole country was lighted by a searing light with the intensity many times that of the midday sun. It was golden, purple, violet, gray and blue. It lighted every peak, crevasse and ridge of the nearby mountain range with a clarity and beauty that cannot be described but must be seen to be imagined. It was the beauty the great poets dream about but describe most poorly and inadequately.” -- Brigadier General Thomas F. Farrell, Deputy Commander to General Leslie R Groves "We knew the world would not be the same. A few people laughed, a few people cried, most people were silent. I remembered the line from the Hindu scripture, the Bhagavad-Gita. Vishnu is trying to persuade the Prince that he should do his duty and to impress him takes on his multi-armed form and says, ‘Now, I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds.’ I suppose we all felt that one way or another." -- J. Robert Oppenheimer, Scientific Director of the Manhattan Project 1 The United States detonated the world’s first technology for producing fissionable material atomic bomb at Trinity Site in the southern New on anything greater than a laboratory scale was Mexico desert at 5:29:45 AM mountain time on unknown, and methods for using the material to July 16, 1945. The detonation was the key test make a bomb were largly unexplored by of a top secret effort, code named the Manhattan American scientists.
    [Show full text]
  • An Atomic History Chapter 2
    An Atomic History 0-3 8/11/02 7:31 AM Page 18 Chapter Two 19 THE FERMI-SZILARD PILE AND URANIUM RESEARCH The first government funding for nuclear research was allocated to purchase graphite and uranium oxide for the chain reaction experiments being organized by Fermi and World War II and the Manhattan Project Szilard at Columbia University in February 1940.2 This work, which began in New York 2 City, soon spread to Princeton, the University of Chicago, and research institutions in California.3 Even at this stage, the scientists knew that a chain reaction would need three major components in the right combination: fuel, moderator, and coolant. The fuel would contain the fissile material needed to support the fission process. The neutrons generated by the fission process had to be slowed by the moderator so that they could initiate addi- tional fission reactions. The heat that resulted from this process had to be removed by the coolant. Fermi’s initial research explored the possibility of a chain reaction with natural urani- The 1930s were a time of rapid progress in the development of nuclear physics. um. It was quickly determined that high-purity graphite served as the best neutron moder- Research accelerated in the early years of the Second World War, when new developments ator out of the materials then available.4 After extensive tests throughout 1940 and early were conceived and implemented in the midst of increasing wartime urgency. American 1941, Fermi and Szilard set up the first blocks of graphite at Columbia University in government interest in these developments was limited at first, but increased as the war September 1941.
    [Show full text]
  • The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb” Is a Short History of the Origins and Develop- Ment of the American Atomic Bomb Program During World War H
    f.IOE/MA-0001 -08 ‘9g [ . J vb JMkirlJkhilgUimBA’mmml — .— Q RDlmm UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY ,:.. .- ..-. .. -,.,,:. ,.<,.;<. ~-.~,.,.- -<.:,.:-,------—,.--,,p:---—;-.:-- ---:---—---- -..>------------.,._,.... ,/ ._ . ... ,. “ .. .;l, ..,:, ..... ..’, .’< . Copies of this publication are available while supply lasts from the OffIce of Scientific and Technical Information P.O. BOX 62 Oak Ridge, TN 37831 Attention: Information Services Telephone: (423) 576-8401 Also Available: The United States Department of Energy: A Summary History, 1977-1994 @ Printed with soy ink on recycled paper DO13MA-0001 a +~?y I I Tho PROJEOT UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY F.G. Gosling History Division Executive Secretariat Management and Administration Department of Energy ]January 1999 edition . DISCLAIMER This report was prepared as an account of work sponsored by an agency of the United States Government. Neither the United States Government nor any agency thereof, nor any of their employees, make any warranty, express or implied, or assumes any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any information, apparatus, product, or process disclosed, or represents that its use would not infringe privately owned rights. Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or otherwise does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by the United States Government or any agency thereof. The views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of the United States Government or any agency thereof. I DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. 1 Foreword The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 brought together for the first time in one department most of the Federal Government’s energy programs.
    [Show full text]
  • Manhattan Project National Historical Park Brochure
    National Park Service THE MANHATTAN PROJECT U.S. Department of the Interior NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK MANHATTAN PROJECT NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARK D. Roosevelt, warning that an “extremely powerful bomb” might be constructed. Building the bombs was not an easy task; it required extensive experimentation Fearing ongoing research and development by Nazi Germany, Roosevelt initiated and precise calculations to obtain the optimum specifications. In early 1943, The Manhattan Project National Historical Park is one of the nation’s newest federal funding for uranium research. General Groves set up a bomb design and development laboratory, with some of national parks. Established in November 2015, the park preserves portions of the the world’s foremost scientists under the leadership of J. Robert Oppenheimer, at World War II-era sites where the United States developed the world’s first atomic By 1942, with the United States at war, officials concluded that an atomic bomb the isolated Los Alamos site in northern New Mexico. The uranium bomb used a weapons. This unique park, managed in partnership by the National Park Service could be designed, built, and used in time to influence the outcome of the war. To fairly straightforward gun method for creating a critical mass and nuclear explosion. and the Department of Energy, will provide visitors the opportunity to walk in the accomplish this task, the US Army Corps of Engineers established the Manhattan However, in 1944, scientists determined that the gun method would not work for footsteps of J. Robert Oppenheimer at Los Alamos, New Mexico; visit Hanford, Engineer District, headed by Brigadier General Leslie Groves.
    [Show full text]
  • Memories of Secret City Days1
    MEMORIES OF SECRET CITY DAYS1 William J. (Bill) Wilcox Jr., Oak Ridge City Historian Retired Technical Director for the Oak Ridge Y-12 & K-25 Plants [During the Manhattan Project (from May 25, 1943) a Jr. Chemist, Tennessee Eastman Corp., Y-12 Plant] A Guest Column for the Newspaper Based on the Memoirs Paper, June, 19991 We need to go back to the early days of 1939 for a little background in telling why Oak Ridge came to be in World War II and to appreciate better the remarkable things that were done here. PRELUDE In January of 1939, two brilliant chemists over in Germany proved that if you bombard the heavy ele- ment uranium with neutron radiation, some of the uranium atoms split in two and become entirely different elements of about half the weight of uranium, like barium and lanthanum. And when the atom's nucleus splits, a huge amount of energy is released-10 million times the energy released in chemical reactions we are familiar with, like burning coal and gasoline, or exploding dynamite and TNT. The physicists in those days were working with only microscopic amounts of uranium, but could detect the energy released easily. Nu- clear energy is the energy of the universe-God’s way- the energy of the sun that keeps us warm. On the grand scale, nuclear energy is the most common kind; the chemical energy that we humans know is a rare thing only known on planets such as ours! Now a significant aspect of this finding was that the world in January 1939 was still at peace, so this exciting development was immediately published in a scientific journal read by scientists in every country all over the world.
    [Show full text]