DoE/Es-ooo3/l

410896

.

A HISTORY OF THE ATOhtlC ENERGY COMMISSION

by: Alice L. Buck

July 19=

U.S. Depa~ment of Energy - Assistant Secreta~, Management and Administration Otilce of The Executive Secretariat History Division Washington, D. C.20W5 . . To W, B. McCOOI, Secretaw to the Commission, a dedicated public official whose imaginative leadership and foresight in administering the Office of the Secretary; whose initiative in establishing and supporting within his staff a history program for the preparation of an official history of the Commission; and whose skill in developing a highly sucessful manage- ment program for bringing outstanding young men and women into the federal service, all contributed to making the Executive Secretariat a model for administering complex and technical programs. ovA Department of Ener~ Washington, D.C. 20585

The Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 brought together for the first time in one department most of the Federal Government’s energv programs. ~fi?iththese ~roarams. . came a score of organizational entltiesl each with its own history and traditions, from a dozen departments and independent aqencies. The Historv Division has prepared a series of pamphlets on The Institutional Origins of the Department of Energy. Fach pamphlet explains the history, qoals, and achievements of a predecessor aqencv of the Department of Energy.

One purpose of the series is to provide a handv reference work which traces the organizational antecedents of the major programs and offices of the Department. In several instances the search for materials has resulted in the preservation of valuable historical records that otherwise might have been lost or destroyed. The preservation of these records in the Departmental Archives is an important first step in collecting materials for a comprehensive history of the role of the Federal Government in both stimulating and regulating the development of energv resources and systems in the since World War II.

This nam~hlet traces the history of the Atomic ~nergy Commission’ S twentv-eight year stewardship of the !Jation’s nuclear energy proqram, from the siqning of the Atomic Energy Act on .~’~qust 1, 1946 to the siqninq of the Enerqy Reorganization Act on October 11, 1974. The ~omission’s ear~v concentration on the mi~itarv atom produced sophisticated nuclear weapons for the ?Jation’s defense and made possible the creation of a fleet of nuclear submarines and surface ships. Extensive research in the nuclear sciences resulted in the widespread a~plication of nuclear technology for scientific, medical and industrial purposes, while the passaqe of the Atomic Enerqy Act of 1954 made Dossible the ,development of a nuclear industry, and enabled the Ufiited States to share the new technology with other nations.

Alice L. Buck is a trained historian workinq in the Historv Division. Although whenever possible she has checked her work with appropriate offices within the Department, the author takes full responsibility for the content and conclusions of the study.

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

—-6t!b- y . Hell ief Historian e . Table of Contents

Introduction...... 1

TheFirstCommi=ion ...... ,,,...$ ...... 1

The NuclearAr’Senal ...... , . . , , . . . , ...... :, . , . . . . . , . . . , , 1

Production Expansion. .,...... 2

Organizingthe National Laboratories ...... , 2

Reactor Development ...... 2

Atomsfor Peace ...... s. . .. s. . . . .”...”.’. ““B”” B’ ”. ””””””. . . . .”””””-”” ‘“””-””” 3

TheAtomicEne.rgy Actof 1954...... 3

TheFiveYear Plan...... ,0.t.... m.’”””” ““” 3

CooperationWith Industry...... 1 ...... 3

International Participation ...... 3

Weapon Testing and Fallout ...... , ..,... 4

LimitedTestBan Treaty, ...... , ...... ,...... 0 ...... 4

Civilian Power:The Proliferation of the PeacefulAtomin the Sixties...,...... 5

Private Ownership Legislation...... 5

Nuclear PowerCapacity ...... ss. .o. es.’. ..”o””O<”. ””o< ..””” 5

The Breeder Reactor ...... o..o.ssss”’o”oooos.”.. “’.”-””” 5

Licensing and Regulation ...... 6

Research ...... ”” .. ”. . . .. S.”.S.. ...”-... 6

Applied Technology ...... o...... o S”CCC.’S”C...... 6

Nonnuclear Research ...... ,“o”c”c 6

Reorganization ...... -...... ’...... 7

Culvert Cliffs Decision ...... mm...... ”.... “ 7

The Commission’s Last Days...... ’””.”. ..,”. 7

Reactor Safety ...... - -.”....”. .“..” 8

Summary ...... -. m... -. .. ’” ..”” ss. ”.o”o.. o 8

Footnotes ...... s...... s...... ”. .-”””.”” 9

Appendix l Personnel ...... ccs. ..c.. “.”.” 11

Appendix llChronoiogy ...... o. ”.c. ”...c ““ 13

Appendix 111Laboratories and Production Facilities ...... 15

Appendix lVOrganization Chafis ...... ‘“.... 17

Appendix VNuclear Detonations and Early Stockpile Data ...... 23

AppendixVI Financial Statistics ...... ”.... 25

Appandix Vlllnstitutionat Origins of the Department of Energy ...... 26 and former head of the Tennessee Valley Authority. Dur- Introduction ing the preceding year, Lilienthal and U rider Secretary of Almost a year afier World War II ended, Congress State Dean Acheson had co-authored the well-known established the United States Atomic Energy Commission Acheson-Lilienthal report which had formed the basis for tO foster and control the peacetime development of atomic the American plan for international control of atomic science and technology. Reflecting America’s postwar op- energy. Serving with Liiienthal on the Commission were timism, Congress declared that atomic energy should be Sumner T. Pike, a businessman from New England, employed not only in the Nation’s defense, but also to pro William T. Waymack, a farmer and newspaper editor from mote world peace, improve the public welfare, and Iowa, Lewis L. Strauss, a conservative banker and reserve strengthen free competition in private enterprise. After , and Robert F. Bather, a physicist from Los long months of intensive debate among politicians, militaw Aiamos and the only scientist on the Commission, Carroll planners and atomic scientists, President Harry S. Trumen L. Wilson, a young engineer who had helped Vannevar confirmed the civilian control of atomic energy by signing Bush organize the National Defense Research Committee the Atomic Energy Act on August 1, 1946.(1 ) during the war, was appointed general manager. Two The provisions of the new Act bore the imprint of the floors of the New War Department Building in Washington American plan for international control presented to the provided a temporary home for the Commission. A few United Nations Atomic Energy Commission two months months later more permanent headquaners were found at earlier by U.S. Representative . Although 19th and Constitution Avenue, N.W., in the former war- the Baruch proposal for a multinational corporation to time offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. develop the peaceful uses of atomic energy failed to win The new Commission faced a challenging future. World the necessary Soviet support, the concept of combining War II was quickly followed by an uneasy international development, production, and control in one agency found situation commonly referred to as the , and Lilien- acceptance in the domestic legislation creating the United thal and his colleagues soon found that most of the Com- States Atomic Energy Commission.(2) mission’s resources had to be devoted to weapon develop Congress gave the new civilian Commission extraor- ment and production. The requirements of national dinary power and independence to carry out its awesome defense thus quickly obscured their original goal of responsibilities, Five Commissioners appointed by the developing the full potential of the peaceful atom. For two President would exercise authority for the operation of the decades military-related programs would command the Commission, while a general manager, also appointed by lion’s share of the Commission’s time and the major POP the President, would serve as chief executive officer. To tion of the budget.(5) provide the Commission exceptional freedom in hiring scientists and professionals, Commission employees The Nuclear Arsenal would be exempt from the Civil Service system. Because To meet the Nation’s expanding requirements for fis- of the need for great security, all production facilities and sionable material the Commission set about refurbishing nuclear reactors would be government-owned, while all the production and research facilities built during the war. technical information and research results would be under A major overhaul of the original reactors and two new Commission control, and thereby excluded from the nor- plutonium reactors were authorized for the Hanford, mal application of the patent system. Washington plant. Oak Ridge was scheduled for an addi- In addition, the Act provided for three major advisory tion to the existing K-25 plant and a third gaseous diffusion committees: a Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic plant for the production of uranium 235. The Commission Energy, a Military Liaison Committee, and a General Ad- decided to adopt the Army’s practice of hiring private cor- visory Committee of outstanding scientists.(3) porations to operate plants and laboratories, thereby ex- tending into peacetime the contractor system previously The First Commission used by the Government only in times of national On January 1, 1947, the fledgling Atomic Energy Com- emergency. mission took over from the Manhattan Engineer District The first test of new weapons was conducted at the massive research and production facilities built during Enewetak Atoll in April and May 1946, Operation World War II to develop the atomic bomb. The facilities Sandstone explored weapon designs and tested a new fis- were the product of an extraordinary mission accomp- sion weapon to replace the clumsy tailor-made models lished in three years in almost complete secrecy. Under the used during World War Il. By 1946 the Commission had direction of General Leslie R. Groves of the Army Corps of both gun-type and implosion-type non-nuclear and nuclear Engineers, the laboratory experiments of Enrico Fermi and components in stockpile and was well on the way toward other American and European scientists had been producing an arsenal of nuclear weapons. transformed into operating plants capable of producing a In early September 1949 a special Air Force unit military weapon of devastating power. When the atomic detected a large radioactive mass over the Pacific, in- bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, and dicating that the had successfully detonated three days later on Nagasaki, not only was a long and cost- a nuclear device. The Soviet detonation not only ended the ly war brought to an end, but the world also became aware United States’ monoploy of nuclear weapons, but also had of a completely new and largely unexpected technology.(4) an immediate effect on the Commission’s planned expan- As the first chairman of the agency created to control sion program. During the prolonged debate which fol- the peacetime development of the new technology, Presi- lowed the announcement of the Soviet event, Commis dent Harry Truman appointed David E. Lilienthal, a lawyer sioner Lewis L. Strauss, supported by fellow Commis-

1 sioner , urged the commission to take a result of extraordinary efforts by scientists and engineers “quantum jump” by developing a . at the Commission’s Los Alamos weapon laboratory. A se- Strong SUpport for the Strauss’ position came from the cond weapon laboratory established at Livermore, Califor. Congressional Joint Commltiee on Atomic Energy, and nia in early 1952, soon became the center of a weapon from scientists such as , Luis W. Aiverez, and engineering and production network which included the Ernest o. Lawrence, who a9r* that the development of Sandia Laborato~ near Albuquerque, , as well the superbomb was absolutely essential to the security of as new or expanded facilities in Iowa, Texas, Missouri, the United States. The members of the Generai Advi*v Ohio, and Colorado.(8) Committee, however, while concurring in the need for giv- ing high priority to the development of atomic weapons for Organizing the National Laboratories tactical purposes, recommended against an all-out effo~ Fortunately the concentrated dfOR on wespon produc- to develop a hydrogen bomb. On JanuaW 31, 1950, Presi- tion did not mean a total neglect of the Commission’s dent Truman settled the issue with his momentous deci- research laboratories. The Commission recognized the sion that the Commission should expedite work on the need to maintain the vitality of the national labs, and to em thermonuclear weapon.(6) courage the university research teams and industry groups whose research on the peaceful uses of atomic energy Production Expansion would provide the technology of the future. The Oavid Lilienthal resigned on February 15th after three Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago had years as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission. been reorganized by the Army in 1946 as the Argonne Na- Although his dream of developing the full potential of the tional Laboratory. The following year the Commission ob. peaceful atom had not been fulfilled, the Commission tained a new site for the lab at Argonne, Illinois and deter- under his leadership had become an effective government mined that the laboratory should become a large multi. institution. Indeed, the future held great promise for the disciplinary research center for the midwest. Under the peaceful atom, but for the moment at least the military direction of Walter H. Zinn, one of Enrico Fermi’s principal atom would continue to be in the ascendancy. assistants in developing the world’s first reactor, Argonne By mid July 1950 Gordon Oean had become chairman of very quickly became the Commission’s center for reactor the Commission, and the Nation was no longer in a twilight development.(9) zone between peace and war. Following an attack by The Clinton Laboratories, built during World War 11at North Korean troops across the 38th parallel, President Oak Ridge, Tennessee, became the regional research Truman ordered U.S. forces to the aid of South Korea. center for southeastern United States, Reorganized in Suddenly increased milita~ demands, added to the Presi- 1948 as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oek Ridge dent’s decision to develop the hydrogen bomb, threatened became the Nation’s largest supplier of radioisotopes for to exhaust the Commission’s production capacity. Begin- medical, industrial and physical research, as well as a ning in October 1950 the Commission embarked on a vsst regional center for research in chemistw, , expansion program, During the next three years the con- metallurgy, and biology. The laboratory also conducted struction of huge plants increased capacity at each step in the largest radiation genetics program in the world. the production chain. The new facilities included a feed To provide regional research facilities for the northeast, materials production center at Fernald, Ohio; a plant to the Commission approved a plan by Associated U diver- produce large quantities of lithium 6 at Oak Ridge; a sities, Inc. to build and operate a laborato~ at Upton, New gaseous-diffusion plant at Paducah, Kentucky; a whole York. The Brookhaven National Laboratory provided new gaseous diffusion complex at Ponsmouth, Ohio; two research facilities in reactor physics, high-energy ac- “Jumbo” reactors and a separation plant for producing celerators, and the biomedical sciences, A fourth center in plutonium at Hanford; and five heavy-water reactors at the the far west was established by expanding the facilities of Savannah River site in South Carolina for producing the University of California Radiation Laboratow at tritium from lithium 6 as well as plutonium. The three year Berkeley. In addition to the regional canters the Commis- three-billion-dollar expansion program represented one of sion continued to support the wa~ime research the greatest federal con-struction projects in peacetime laboratories at a number of colleges and universities, and history. awarded and administered hundreds of contracts with In addition to having an impact on the Commission’s ex- research institutions, universities and nonprofit organiza- pansion program, the Korean War also focused attention tions for basic research in the physical and biological on the need for a continental test site. In Oecember 1850, sciences. with the approval of the Oepatiment of Oefense and the General Advisory Committee, the Commission selected Reactor Development the Las Vegas bombing and gunnery range as the site to Although by 1953 the vast production complex of the conduct the Janu= IY 1951 Ranger test series, the first Atomic Energy Commission was almost totally dedicated atomic tests in the United States since the detona- to military purposes, the idea of a civilian tion at Alamogordo on July 16, 1945.(7) system based on American industry was very much alive. The United States detonated the world’s first thermo- As early as 1847, Lilienthal had publicly encouraged a part- nuclear device in the fall of 1852. Code-named Mike, the nership with induet~ in developing the peaceful uses of shot was part of the Ivy test series conducted at Enewetak atomic energy. The Commission had supponed a modest By the end of 1953 more than thirty weapon test devices but coherent plan for developing nuclear power and pro- had been successfully fired at Pacific or Nevada sites, the pulsion and had permitted a few industry committees

2

b behind the Commission’s security barriers to evaluate the early summer resulted in a new law which opened the door opportunities for commercial development. On December for an exchange of nuclear technology with other nations. 20, 1951, at the Commission’s Idaho Test station, Zinn and Although indust~ did not gain the right to own fissionable a group of engineers from the Argonne National material, liberal licensing provisions, greater access to Laboratow succeeded in producing a token amount of technical data, and the right to own reactors provided the electriciw from an experimental fast breeder reactor. This essential conditions for the private development of nuclear historic accomplishment demonstrated in a practical way power in the United States. that the atomic nucleus could serve mankind as a source ofpower.(11 ) The Five Year Plan Probably the most successful reactor program in the Even before Congress had passed the Atomic Energy 1850s was the navalreactors project established and Act of 1954, the Commission had launched a new program directed by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover. On June 14, 1952, for power reactor development. In early 1954 Strauss an- at the keel-laying ceremony for the world’s first nuclear nounced plans to test the basic designs then under study powered ship, Chairman Gordon Dean noted that the pro- by building five experimental reactors within five years. Of pulsion of the submarine Nautilus would be the first prac- the five reactor prototypes planned, the one with the most tical utilization of atomic power, heretofore used primarily immediate impact on nuclear power development was the as an explosive. The Navy project later played a significant Pressurized Water Reactor (PWR ) at Shippingport, Penn- role in the widespread adoption of pressurized-water reac” sylvania. Based on the technology developed for nuclear tors by the nuclear power industry in the United States.( 12) propulsion systems for submarines, Shippingport was By the end of 1952, technological developments had completed on schedule in late 1857 as the Nation’s first generated a broad interest in nuclear power in Congress as full-scale nuclear generating station. well as in industry, and the election of a Republican presi- The other reactor experiments constructed under the dent brought further encouragement. Indeed, there was five year program included the Sodium Reactor Experi- soon reason for optimism. Two outstanding ac ment built by North American Aviation, a Commission complishments of the Eisenhower years, the 1853 Atoms- contractor in southern California; the Experimental Boiling for-Peace plan, and the passage of the 1854 Atomic Energy Water Reactor constructed at the Commission’s Argonne Act were to have a significant impact on the Nation’s National Laborato~; and new models of the fast breeder nuclear program. and homogeneous reactor experiments built in the early 1950’s at the National Reactor Testing station in central Idaho, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratow in Ten- Speaking before the United Nation’s General Assembly nessee. Of the five experiments in the program, the Ship- on December 8, 1953, President Dwight D. Eisenhower pingport and the Argonne boiling-water reactors en- declared that “peaceful power from atomic energy is no countered fewer technical problems, but each experiment dream of the future. . that capability, already proved, is contributed to the development of the technology needed here today.”( 14) The President’s Atoms-for-Peace pro- to build full-scale nuclear power plants in the future. posal became a major pronouncement of America’s public policy concerning the international management of Cooperation with Industry nuclear energy. With a sufficient supply of uranium to The terms of the Atomic Energy Act enabled the Com- satisfy its own military needs, by 1954 the United States mission to encourage private industry to build its own could turn its attention to the promotion of the peaceful nuclear plants, using fissionable material Ieased from the uses of nuclear energy. Government. Industry responded to the Commission’s Lewis Strauss had been President Eisenhower’s special January 1855 Power Demonstration Reactor Program with assistant for atomic energy prior to his appointment as four proposals covering all but one of the Commission’s Commission chairman in July 1953. Strongly committed to five prototypes. Thus by the end of 1957, the Commission national security during his early years as a Commissioner, had seven experimental reactors in operation and and suppotiive of Truman’s decision to expedite the American industry was participating in nine independent development of the thermonuclear weapon, Strauss was or cooperative projects capable of producing almost now in a position to work closely with Eisenhower in pro- 800,000 kilowatts of electricity by the mid.?960’s. For the moting the peaceful atom on a world-wide basis. moment at least, prospects for the future of the peaceful atom were extremely encouraging.(17) The Atomic Energy Act of 1%4 The President’s Atoms-for-Peace speech also focused International Participation attention on the need for a fundamental revision of the In his Atoms-for-Peace proposal of December 8, 1853, Atomic Energy Act of 1846 to enable the Commission to President Eisenhower had proposed that the nuclear share technical and scientific information with foreign powers contribute portions of their stockpiles of normal governments. On February 17, 1854, the President asked uranium and fissionable materials to an international Congress to pass legislation “making it possible for atomic energy agency, which would then allocate these American atomic energy development, public and private, materials toward peaceful uses. After three years of pa- to play a full and effective part in leading mankind into a tient diplomatic negotiations, the International Atomic new era of progress and peace.” Exhaustive hearings in Energy Agency (IAEA) was formally inaugurated in Vienna, the spring of 1954 and Congressional debate during the Austria on October 1, 1857. As head of the United States

3 delegation to the first IAEA “.rg~ce, Lewig strau~ tn Januaw 1856 Commissioner Willard F. Libby revealed delivered the President’s me$ f hope that the fis- the existence of Project Sunshine, a study of global fallout sioned atom would now be tra ned from a symbol of from weapon testing which Libby had initiated in the fall of fear to one of hope. The new spirit of international 1953 while serving on the General Advisow Committee. cooperation had been in evidence even earlier when more Commission laboratories and contractors had been analyz- than 1400 scientists from 73 natiOnS attended the first ing data collected through a worldwide network monitor- United Nations sponsored International Conference on the ing the presence of strontium 90 in humans, foods and Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, held in Geneva, soils. Prior to 1953 public concern with radiation had fo- Switzerland in August 1965. Similar conferences were held cused primarily on workers in atomic energy projects. In in 1958, 1964 and 1971. 1957 the Joint Committee’s hearings on the nature of In addition to sponsoring the International Atomic radioactive fallout revealed for the first time the extent of Energy Agency, the United States gave strong support to the Commission’s radiation research program. Millions of Euratom, the European atomic energy community con- dollars were involved in more then 300 Commission- sisting of West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, the sponsored projects on various aspects of radiation and Netherlands and Luxembourg. Formally inaugurated in fallout. {21) January 1956, Euratcvn undertook to establish an in- Testing of nuclear devices by the United States con- tegrated program for developing an atomic energy in- tinued throughout the 1850’s, although the Eisenhower dustry in Europe similar to the European Coal and Steel Administration repeatedly expressad its willingness to sus- Community. Prior to the establishment of either the inter- pend nuclear tests as part of a disarmament agreement. national Atomic Energy Agency or Euratom, the Atomic When the Conference of Experts convened in Geneva in Energy Commission had negotiated a series of bilateral the summer of 1958, the President announced that the agreements to provide research reactors, power reactor United States was prepared to negotiate a test ban agree- fuel and technical information to friendly nations, as well ment and would voluntarily suspend all weapon testing as training programs for nuclear scientists and technicians. after the completion of the Hardtack series in the fall. As a Although no bilateral agreements were made with the resutt an unpoliced moratorium period began on October Soviet Union, Commission Chairman John A. McCone 31, 1956, during which both the United States and the and his Soviet counterman, Professor Vasily S. Emelyanov, Soviet Union refrained from ex- signed a Memorandum on Cooperation on November 24, periments. 1859, covering exchanges of visits and information on several unclassified areas of peaceful nuclear application. Similar memoranda in the 1960’s and early 1970’s covered Limited Test Ban Treaty joint experiments in the fields of high energy physics, con- Three years later the Soviet Union abruptly ended the trolled thermonuclear research and fast breeder reac- moratorium by announcing, on August 31, 1961, that they tors.( 18) intended to resume testing. Oy now John F. Kennedy was in the White House, and Glenn Seaborg had succeeded Weapon Testing and Fallout John McCone as chairman. One of the original members The detonation of the first shot in the Castle weapon of the General AdvisoW Committee and the first scientist test series in the spring of 1954, however, had threatened appointed as chairman of the Commission, Seaborg to cast a shadow over the glowing prospects for the served during the entire decade of the 1960s. peacefu( atom, so recentlykindled by Eisenhower’s atoms Although the Soviet Union tested a large number of for-peace’ proposal. At the time of the Bravo shot on high-yield weapons in the atmosphere during the autumn March 1, a Japanese fishing vessel had been within 82 of 1961, President Kennedy limited the Commission’s nautical miles of the test area, close enough to receive a weapon laboratories to underground tests until April 25, heavy dusting of radioactive fallout. By the time the ship, 1862, when the first shot in the Dominic series was con- the Fukuryu Maru (or Lucky Dragon) returned to Japan the ducted at Christmas Island in the Pacific. With technical effects of the radiation exposure had become evident, and support from Seaborg and the Commission, the President several members of the crew required hospitalization. The at the same time had been earnestly pursuing a test ban American and Japanese press accounts of the incident agreement with the Soviet Union. It had been a long and had made the public aware, probably for the first time, of arduous task bearing little fruit. [n an address to the Nation the worldwide dangers of radiation from fallout.( 19) on March 2, 1962, Kennedy had explained that he deplored On February 15, 1955, with the approval of the Presi- the necessity of beginning atmospheric testing again, but dent, Strauss released a major report on the “Effects of “a nation which is refraining from tests obviously cannot High-Yield Nuclear Explosions. ” The report did little to match the gains of a nation conducting tests. “{23) calm public apprehension, and mounting concerns found Finally, after months of negotiations, a limited test ban expression in numerous articles on radiation and fallout in treaty was signed in Moscow on August 5, 1863, pro- scientific journals and other public media. Both the Com- hibiting tests in the atmosphere, outer mittee on Armed Services and the Joint Committee on space, or under water, but permitting underground Atomic Energy held hearings in the spring of 1955 on pro- detonations provided no radioactive debris crossed the blems associated with radioactive fallout. The following borders of the country in which the test was being con- December the United Nations established a Scientific ducted. Committee on Radiation with the former director of the In the absence of further success in negotiating a com- Commission’s Division of Biology and Medicine, Shields prehensive test ban treaty, President Kennedy, and later Warren, as United States’ representative, (20) Presidents Johnson and Nixon, continued to authorize

4 underground tests in acc %nce with the 1S33 treaty. Private Ownership Legislation treaty imposed severe Although the limitations On August 26, lW, President Johnson brought to an in testing high-yield technical problems, part end an eighteen-year mandatory government monopoly of warheads, the Commiesiofi .% laboratories nevertheless special nuclear matarials by signing into law the “private were highly successful in devising waya to improve and up- Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials Act.” Enriched date nuclear weapons by testing underground. uranium for power reactor fuel would no longer have to be leased from the government. private entities would be per- Civilian Power: The Proliferation of the Peaceful mitted to assume title to special nuclear materials. Atom in the Sixties Atthough the new law provided for a transition period for The signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in August the changeover from government to private ownership, 1963 also had an impact on the civilian power program. after June 20, 1973 private ownership of power reactor The cessation of weapon testing in the atmosphere gave fuels would become mandatory. The Act also authorized new hope that the peaceful atom might soon command as the Commission to offer uranium enriching services to large a share of the Commission’s time and budget as the both domestic and foreign customers under long-term military atom had for so many years. contracts, beginning on January 1, 1889. Moat of the Although the imminence of economic nuclear power Atomic Energy Commision’s literature on reactor had been a main theme at the 1868 Geneva Conference, technology had been declassified as early as 1955. With recurring technical diticulties in many of the prototype the adoption of the Private Ownership Act in 1884, fis- and demonstration plants in several European countries sionable materials as well aa reactors now entered the continued in the next few years to frustrate hopes for a public domain, and a full-fledged nuclear indust~ became practical new source of electrical power. In the United a possibility. States, however, prospects were somewhat more en- But how would a full-fledged nuclear industry be couraging. In March 1852 President Kennedy had re- regulated? Could one agency continue to regulate a single quested the Atomic Energy Commission to take a “new energy technology in a time of increasing energy needs? In and hard look at the role of nuclear power” in the Nation’s a few years the energy crisis of 1973 would bring these economy. In submitting the Commission’s repoti saveral questions into sharp focus. months later, Seaborg noted optimistically that the Corn. mission’s ten-year civilian power program, adopted in 1958, was on the threshold of attaining its primary objec- Nuclear Power Capacity tive of competitive nuclear power by 1988. Suggested The Commission’s 1982 report on civilian power had goals for the future included a concentration of resources projected 5,000 megawatts of nuclear power capacity by in the most promising reactor svstems, the early establish- 1970 and 40,000 by 1980, Within five years the outlook had ment of a self-sufficient and growing nuclear power in- changed so dramatically that in March 1987 the Commis dustry, and increased emphasis on the development of im- sion issued a supplementary report doubling its previous proved convener or breeder reactors which would con- predictions. Within a few years, however, even these re serve natural uranium resources. The report was broadly vised statistics were exceeded. (By the end of 1974 two circulated and stimulated public confidence in the hundred and thi~-three nuclear central-station generating economic prospects for civilian nuclear power.(24) units, with a capacity of 232,000 megawatts, were either in On November 22, 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson became operation, under construction, or on order in the United President of the United States. One of Johnson’s first and States. X27) probably most significant acts was to order a 25 percent cutback in production of enriched uranium and the shut The Breeder Reactor down of four plutonium piles, with the expectation that other nations might be challenged to do the same. In addition to predicting dramatic increases in megawatt Although verification was difficult, Chairman Khruschev capacity, the Commission’s 1887 report on civilian nuclear later announced production cutbacks in the Soviet Union. power reaffirmed the promise of the breeder reactor for Another milestone in- civilian power development oc- meeting long-term energy needs, and gave the Ltquid curred on December 12, 1983, when the Jersey Central Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) the highest priority Power and Light Company announced that it had con- for civilian reactor development. A major boost was given tracted for a large nuclear power reactor to be built at to the program four years later by President . Oyster Creek near Toms River, New Jersey. According to In his “clean energy” message to Congress on June 4, the company’s own evaluation, the plant would be com- 1971, the President called for the commercial demonstra- petitive with a fossil fuel plant. For the first time an tion of a breeder reactor by 18B0, stating that “The breeder American utility company had selected a nuclear power reactor could extend the life of our natural uranium fuel supply from decades to centuries, with far le~ impact on plant on purely economic grounds without government the environment than the power plants which are assistance and in direct competition with a fossil-fuel plant. In a commencement address at Holy Croee College on operating today.’’(~) June 10, 1884, President Johnson called it an “economic The fast breeder project included a demonstration piant breakthrough.’’(25) Two months later private industry in Oak Ridge, Tenne~— the clinch River Breeder Reac- received further encouragement from Congress in the tor (CRBR)– and a test reactor in Richland, form of new legislation. Washington– the Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF). Clinch

5 River promised to be a major meP in the transition from bansferrad production, packaging, and shipping to com- technology to Iargeacale demonstration of the fast mercial suppliers, while continuing to SUPPORresearch on breeder concept. The project was launched in August 1972 new applications. (31) with the signing of a memorandum of undemanding ~ During the 1960’s the Commission produced a series of tween the Commia40n and the principal utility par- radioisotope-powered and reactor-powered elactrical- ticipants, the Commonwealth Edison Company and the generating units for space applications. The first such unit Tennessee Valley AuthofitY. The Commission would be was launched into space from Vandenberg Air Force Baaa responsible for research and development of the in California on April 3, 1965, under the Systems for demonstration plant while the Commonwealth Edison Nuclear Auxiliary Power (SNAP) program. Newly Company and the Tenna=a Valley Authority would discovered heavy isotope% such as Caiifornium-252, were engineer, manufacture and proof test equipment and found useful in both research and indust~. In addition, systems. significant progress was made in developing cardiac pacemakers for human use and ultimately atiificial hearts Licensing and Regulation using radioisotopic-power sources.(=) Under the terms of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Con- Major research facilities such as high energy ac- gress had given the Atomic Energy Commission the celerators were constructed and operated by the AEC. responsibility for regulating and licensing commercial Building on the accomplishments of the Berkeley Bevatron atomic activities. As the Nation’s electric power industry and the Brookhaven Cosmotron in the 1950’s, the Com- increasingly turned toward nuclear plants, the Commission mission supportad even larger accelerators in the 1%0’s found it necessary to modify its organizational structure to and 1970s, including the Alternating Gradient Syn- separate regulatow from non-regulatory functions. In 1961 chrotronsat Brookhaven, the Zero Gradient Synchrotronsat the regulatov staff was separated from the General Argonne, and the twomila long Stanford Linear Ac- Manager’s office and placed under a Director of Regula- celerator. The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratovt tion who reportad directly to the Commissioners. Two completed in 1972, contained the world’s most powerful years later the regulatory and operational functions were proton synchrotrons. The principal centers for research on separated physically when the regu~tov @aff was moved controlled thermonuclear (fusion) reactors were Oak from the headquanem building in Germantown, Maryland Ridge, Los Alamos, Livermore, and Princeton, although to offices in Bethesda. many universities and industrial facilities were involved on Licensing procedures involved a series of technical a smaller scale. reviews and public hearings, including an independent technical safety evaluation by the Advisory Committee on Applied Technology Reactor Safeguards. The Commission itself sewed as a As nuclear technology developed, the Commission final review board for all licenses granted, and maintained perfected special applications of nuclear power, such as continuous surveillance of licensed reactors throughout nuclear explosives for eatth moving and for extracting their operating lifetime. resources deep underground. Gnome, the first experiment in the Plowshare series, was conducted in December 1961 Research in a thick salt bad deposit near Cadsbad, New Mexico, The weapon requirements for national defense in the while the first nuclear cratering experiment, Project , early years had forced the Commission to postpone goals was completed the following July at the . for an all-out program of research on the peaceful atom. Project Gasbuggy in 1967, Ruliaon in 1%9, and Rio Blanco As seen i,n the development of the power reactor, in 1973, tested methods for extracting natural gas from im- however, there was a gradual shift in emphasis during the permeable rock. In the early 1970s, the Commission Eisenhower era, and the trend continued to gain momen- directed applied technology projects toward environmen- tum during the Kennedy and Johnson Years. In 1966 the tal research, energy storage and transmission systems, AEC budget for the first time was divided about equally ba- synthetic fuels, and nonnuclear energy. tween weapons and peaceful uses. Research and developnient programs in the”1960’s and Nonnuclear Research early 1970s produced a significant fund of knowledge The scientific and technological expe~isa gained by the about radiation and its effects, and provided basic data national laboratories in developing nuclear energy made needed to determine radiation protection standards and to the Commission a logical contender for a strong role in assess the environmental impact of nuclear technology. developing new energy options. The doora of the national Advances in medical diagnostic techniques based on the labs first opened to nonnuclear research in 1960 when the use of radioisotopes and radiation machines added to the Commission, in a special repofi to the Joint Committee on skills of the medical profession, while immunological Atomic Energy, acknowledged “that the strong ‘esearch provided the knowledge needed for successful capabilities of the laboratories are not the exclusive ansplants. Other medical breakthroughs included the reaources of the atomic energy field; they are held in trust ‘atment of Parkinson’s Disease, the preservation of cells for the Nation as a whole.” Accordingly, work from other - transfusion, and the introduction of small accelerators federal agencies would be accommodated whenever the produce shon-lived radioisotopes for immediate use in skills of the national laboratories were needed. ,atients. Although Oak Ridge produced virtually all of the On August 11, 1971, largely in response to President Nix- radioisotopes available for physical and biomedical as well on’s energy message of June 4, Congress authorized the as for industrial applications, the Commission gradually Atomic Energy Commission to unde~ake research and

6 development projects geared to providing a variety of alter- The Federal Court of Appeals’ August 4, 1971 iandmark natives for meeting the Nation’s energy needs. As a result decision concerning the Caivert Ciiffs nUCiear power piant the Commission’s industrial contractors and national became a pivot point for a major revamping of the Com- laboratories became involved in the areas of super- mission’s iicensing procedures. The Court ruied that the conducting power transmission systems, energy storage, Atomic Energy Commission’s regulations for implement- solar energy, geothermal resources, and coal gasifica- ing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in licens- tion. ing procedures did not compiy in saverai respects with the Act, and that the Commission shouid make an indepen- Reorganization dent review and evacuation of ai( environmental effects at James R. Schlesinger took over the helm of the Atomic every decision point in the nuclear power piant licensing Energy Commission in August 1971, as its twenty-fifth year process. as an agency was drawing to a close. American troops were still in Vietnam and anti-war protests were Moving swiftly to impiement the Court’s ruiing, the widespread. The Nation faced increasing demands for Commission made substantive changes in environmental energy, a leveling out of domestic oil production, limita- review procedures. Both the Commission and the iicense tions on coal use due to environmental concerns, inade- appiicant wouid now be required toconsider the totai im- quate natural gas supplies, and field delays in the licensing pact of the proposed piant on the environment, including and construction of nuclear power plants. The rapid water quaiity. in addition, a cost-benefit analysis would growth in atomic energy activities in the previous decade balance the benefits of buiiding the faciiity against a varie- and changing perspectives in nuclear technology clearly ty of alternatives. These changes in procedures af- pointed to the need for a substantial reorganization of the fected virtually ail nuclear power piants whether iicensad Commission’s operational and regulato~ functions. For for operation or under review. nearly a quarter of a century the Commission had focused To expedite the additional procedures which the Caivert research and development toward responding to national Ciiff’s decision required, Schlesinger made significant defense requirements, funding and developing new uses changes in the Commission’s regulatory organization, and for atomic energy, and fostering the growth of a com- added additional personnel to the staff to heip with the ex- petitive and viable nuclear industry. The next few years panded reactor licensing workioad. Additional changes in would see increasing attacks on the Commission’s role as 1972 further streamlined the raguiatory staff. Three dirac- a regulatov overseer of the nuclear industry, particularly in tors consolidated the functions previously performed by the areas of quality of product and public safety. seven divisions. Aii iicensing activities were centered in the As a first order of business, Schlesinger led the Commis- largest of the three, the Directorate of Licensing, headed sion in a comprehensive review of the agency’s functions by John F. O’Leary, former Director of the Bureau of and organization. An economist and former assistant Mines.(39) director of the Bureau of the Budget, Schlesinger an- nounced the results of the review in December 1971. The first broad reorganizaton in ten years would bring together The Commission’s Last Days various related programs previously scattered throughout the agency. Developmental and operational functions Schlesinger left the Atomic Energy Commission in formerly under the jurisdiction of the general manager January 1973 tobecome head of the Centrai intelligence would now bt under six assistant general managers for Agency. He was succeeded as chairman by Dr. Dixy Lee Energy and Del ?Iopment Programs, Research, Production Ray, a marine biologist from the state of Washington who and Management of Nuclear Materials, Environment and had been appointed to the Commission by President Nixon Safety Programs, National Security, and Administration. in August 1972. The first woman to be chairman of the Reflecting expanding areas of Commission involvement Atomic Energy Commission, Ray took over at a time when were new divisions of Controlled Thermonuclear the Nation was faced with the monumental task of recon- Research, International Security Affairs, and Applied ciling energy needs, environmental concerns and Technology. The second half of 1971 aiso saw a major economic goais. More importantly for the Commission, revamping of the regulato~ organization and functions. criticism had begun to mount against an agency that regulated the very same energy source that it helped to Calveti Cliffs Decision produce and operate. The Nixon Administration beiieved that nuciear power, In June 1973, President Nixon directed the chairman of as an environmentaliy “ciean” fuei, could heip the Nation the Atomic Energy Commission to undertake an im- produce the increasing suppiy of energy needed for the mediate review of federal and private energy research and future. On the other hand ponderous licensing procedures development activities and to recommend an integrated and increasing environmental considerations lengthened program for the Nation. The President’s energy pro- the time necessary to bring nuclear power piants on line, Posais to Congress the foliowing Janua~ refiected the and increased costs to the industry, and ultimately to the recommendations submitted by Chairman Ray in the consumer. As Commissioner Doub informed the Atomic December 1, 1973 report on “The Nation’s Energy industrial Forum in October 1971, the Commission har- Future.” Because of the energy crisis resuiting from the bored no iiiusions as to the magnitude of the task of trying October Arab oii embargo, the President had chosen to to match “the capabilities of a dynamic and compiex break tradition and present his energy request to Congress technology to the urgent energy and environmental needs before delivering his State of the Union address, Both his of the country.’’ PrOpOSSl for a five-year $10 biiiion energy research and

7 development program, and his determination to double the development and application of nuclear technology for total federal commitment to energy research and develop scientific, medical, and industrial purposes. Through par- ment for fiscal year 1975, were in line with the recommen- ticipation in the International Atomic Energy Agency, inter- dations made by the Commission chairman. The Ray national conferences and bilateral agreements, the United repoti also suppomd the president’s recommendation to States shared the new technology with other nations. establish an Energy Research and Development Ad- The congressional mandate of 1946 also called for the ministration. (41) use of atomic energy in a way that would strengthen free competition in private enterprise. Although the severe Reactor Safety restrictions of the 1%8 Act made atomic energy virtually a In December 1973 the Commission announced new re- government monopoly, the Commission in less than a quirements for the performance of the emergency core decade advanced nuclear technology to the point where cooling systems (ECCS) installed in light-water-cooled industrial participation was feasible, and then encouraged power reactors. Such systems provided the capability for the passage of new legislation in 1954 which made a emergency removal of heat from the reactor core in the nuclear industry possible. By the early 1970s nuclear event of a loss of the normal reactor coolant water. The power offered a promising option for meeting national and Commission’s action concluded a two-year public rule- world energy needs. making hearing which had served as a focal point for In carrying out the Congressional mandate of 1948, the public discussion of opposing viewpoints on the safety of Atomic Energy Commission essentially worked its way out nuclear power plants. Six months of hearing sessions, be- of existence. After concentrating on defense com- tween Januaw 27, 1972 and July 25, 1973, had produced a mitments in the early years, the Commission then focused voluminous transcript, a clear witness to the complexity of on the development of a viable nuclear industry, only to the technical issues involved in nuclear safety. A constant come under fire in the late 1800’s and 1970’s for being in advocate of the public’s right to know and fully understand the position of regulating the same industry it helped to the possible dangers of radiation, the Joint Committee on create. Atomic Energy had also held a hearing in early 1973 on the This difficulty had been foreseen in 1981 when the func- safety of nuclear power plants. tions of the agency were divided between the General Clearly the handwriting on the wall was spelling out the Manager and the Director of Regulation, Then in 1963 the numbered days of the AEC in 1973. Although nuclear two functions were physically separated by being housed power constituted a significant part of the answer to the in different geographical locations. Finally, the legal Nation’s need for additional sources of energy, it was by separation of the developmental and regulatory functions, no means the only answer as had been predicted in the requested in 1973 by the Commission itself, was ac- early decades of the Commission’s existence. complished by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. The regulatory and licensing responsibilities became the ex- Summary clusive focus of a new agency headed by a five-member When President Ford signed the Energy Reorganization board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, while the Act of 1974 on October 11, the Atomic Energy Commis- developmental functions were placed under a single ad- sion’s twenty-eight year stewardship of the Nation’s ministrator in a second agency, the Energy Research and nuclear energy program came toan end. On January 19, Development Administration. 1975, the Commission’s research and development respon- In the preceding decade the Atomic Energy Commission sibilities were assumed by the Energy Research and had lost much of its privileged status with Congress and Development Administration, and the regulatory and licen- the American public. The exclusive monopoly and the sing functions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Six mantle of secrecy had bean largely removed, and no longer thousand, three hundred and twenty Commission did atomic energy seemingly provide the perfect formula employees went to ERDA while one thousand nine hun- for both military defense and civilian energy needs. dred and seventy former regulatory personnel became part Regulatory restrictions and environmental concerns were a of the new Nuclear Regulatory Commission. ‘ large part of the reason for the demise of the AEC, but In the preceding Menty-eight years the Atomic Energy more imponant was the recognition that a single Commission had accomplished a large portion of the mis- technology should not be the exclusive focus of one agen- sion established by the Congress in 1946. First, through its cy. The energy crisis would now require the coordination weapon laboratories and production contractors, it had of all major energy programs in a new research and developed and stockpiled an array of sophisticated nuclear development agency, whose primary purpose would be to weapons which for nearly three decades had served as an assist the Nation in achieving energy independence. irnpofiant element in national defense. Also in the area of As a legacy to the new agency, the Atomic Energy Com- defense, the Commission had supported the development mission passed on its unique production facilities, its of nuclear propulsion reactors which made possible the valuable network of national laboratories, and the proven creation of a fleet of reliable nuclear submarines and sur- technological skills, resourcefulness, and experience of its face ships. personnel. Three years later the Energy Research and Although for many years military related programs com- Development Administration, like the Atomic Energy Com- manded the major portion of the budget, the Commission mission before it, became part of an even larger organiza- had initiated and supported extensive research in the tion. On October 1, 1977 Congress created a cabinet-level nuclear sciences. The research contract and the national Department of Energy to coordinate Federal energy laboratory had become key instruments in the widespread policies and programs.

8 FOOTNOTES

1. sect, l(a), A mmic Energy Act of. 1* (pub~c Law 12. Hewlett and Duncan, Nuclear Navy, PP. 176-79,235 57; Dean Diary, June 14, 1962. ~] 78th CongolSt 5eSS. Hewlett, “The Advent of Nuclear Power”, p. 12. 2. Corbin Allardice and Edward R. Trapnell, The A tornic 13. Energy Commission (New York: Praeger Publishers, 14. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States, 1974), pp. 31-32 (hereafter cited as Allardice and 1953, l)wight D. Eisenhower (Washington: Govern- Trapnell, The AEC). ment Printing Office, lWO}, pp. 813-22. 3. Dr. Richard G. Hewlett, former Chief Historian of the 15. For a discussion of Atoms for Peace as an instrument AEC, believes that the most influential group in the of foreign policy, see Jack M. Hell, “Eisenhower’s early years was not the Commission itself but its Peaceful Atomic Diplomacy: Atoms for Peace in the General AdvisorY Committee consisting of such Public Interest” (Paper delivered before the famous scientists as J. Robert Oppenheimer, James American Historical Association, Dellas, TX, Dec. 23- B. Conant, Enrico Fermi and Ieedor 1. Rabi. Richard 30, 1977), p. 1 (hereafter cited as Hoi!, “Eisenhower’s G. Hewlett, “The Advent of Nuclear Power, 1845” Peaceful Diplomacy”). 1966” (Paper delivered before the American Associa- tion for The Advancement of Science, Dallas, TX, 16. “Message from the President of the United States, Dec. 28, 1966), p. 4 (hereafter cited as Hewlett, “The “House Document, 63 Cong., 2 sees., no. 328 (M. Advent of Nuclear Power”). 17, 1864); Richard G. Hewlett, “Industry and the Atomic Energy Commission, 1947-1864” {Paper 4. Richard G. Hewlett, “Nuclear Power in the Public in- delivered at a joint session of the Society for the terest: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954” (Paper History of Technology and the Organization of delivered before the American Historical Association, American Historians, Chicago, IL, April 27, 1967), PP. Dallas, TX, Dec. 1977), PP. 1-3. 21-22. 5. Richard G. Hewlett, “The AEC in Retrospect” (un- 17. Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Current State published ins., Historian’s Office, Feb. 10, 1976), p. ment of the A tomic Energy Commiw”on on the Five- 12 (hereafter cited as Hewlett, “The AEC in Year Reactor Development Program, May 4, 1965 Retrospect”). (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955). 6. Public Papers of the Presidents of the United States: 18. Hell, “Eisenhower’s Peaceful Diplomacy” PP. S18 Harry S. Truman 1950 lWashington: Government AEC, Twenty-third Semiannual Repoti, January 1968 printing OffIce, 1965), P. 138. For a detailed pre=rnta- (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1956), PP. tion of the decision on the hydrogen bomb, see 189-221. Richard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan, Atomic Shield, 1947-1952, Vol. 1~of A History of the United 19. Robert A. Divine, Blowing on the Wind, the Nuclear States Atomic Energy Commission (University Park: Test Ban Debate If&& 1%0 (New York: Oxford Pennsylvania State University Press, 1868), pp. 382- University Press, 1978), pp. 3-18; AEC, Sixteenth 409 (hereafter cited as Hewlett and Duncan, Atomic Semiannual RepoR, July W54 (Washington: Govern- Shield). ment printing Office, 1858), pp. 51-5; Richard G. Hewlen and Jack M. Hell, “Nuclear Weapons: A 7. Hewlen and Duncan, Atomic Shield, pp. 534-36,663- New Reality” (unpublished ins., Historian’s Office, 64. 1961), pp. 61-63. 8. Hewlen and Duncan Atomic Shield, pp. 411,424-30, 20. “A RepoR by United States Atomic Energy Commis- 441; “The Eisenhower Imprint,” unpublished ins., sion on Effect of High-Yield Nuclear Explosions,” Ap- Department of Energy Historian’s Office, pp. 3-4; “A pendix 7, Eighteenth Semiannua/ Report of the Histow of the 13pansion of AE~ Production Atomic Energy Commis@on Ju/y IX5 (Washington: Facilities,” Repoti-by the General Manager, Aug. 16, Government Printing Office, 1855), PP. 147-% 1863, pp. 13-20. Senate Committee on Armed Services, Civil Defense 9. Hewlen and Duncan, Atomic Shield, p. 432 Richard Program, 84th Cong., 1st Sees., Feb. 22, 1955, p. 2 G. Hewlen and Francis Duncan, Nuclear Navy 1946- Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Health and I$M2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1974), Safety Problems Associated with Atomic Explosions, pp. 54-55 (hereafter cited as Hewlett and Duncan, April 15, 1%5; AEC, Major Activities in The Atomic Nut/ear Navy). Energy Programs, January-June 1955, p. 16. 10. Atomic Shield, pp. 222-227,432. 21. Willard F. Libby, “Radioactive Fallout and Radioac- tive Strontium,” Northwestern University, Evanston, 11. Proposal for Industrial Development of Atomic IL, Jan. 19, 1956; Joint Committee on Atomic Energy Energy, enc. C.A. Thomas to S. Pike, June 20, 1960 Press Release No. 80, April 18,1957. David Liiienthal, Speech before the Economic Club, Detroit, Ml, Oct. 6, 1947; AEC Press Release 59, Oct. 22. AEC, Twenty- fifih Semi-Annual Rapoti of the 6, 1947; Hewlen and Duncan, Atomic Shield, PP. Atomic Energy Commission, January 1959 495-%. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1860), PP.

9 179-80. Richard G. Hew1e~~ “Nuclear ‘capon 31. AEC, 1974 Annuat Report to Congress, (Washington: Testing and Studies Related to Health Effects: An Government Printing Office, 1974). PP. 2426. Historical Su~i~mary” (unpublished ins., Oct. 1%0), 32. A EC Annual Report to Congre= for I*, pp. 43-44. (Washington: Government Printing Ofice, 1966), P. 23. Major Activities in the Atomic Energy Program, 151; Annual Reporl to CongreS for f=, Jarruary-Oecember I* I (Washington: Government (Washington: Government Printing Ofice, 1967), P. printing Office, 1962), PP. 161-62 AEC# Major Ac- 211; AEC, 1974 Annua/ Report to Congress, p. 114. tivities in Atomic Energy Programs, January- the 33. “Atomic Energy Research in the Life and Physical @cember I$M2 (Washington: Government Printing Sciences- 1960,” A Special Repofi of the United Office, 1953), p. 234 Public Papers of Presidents of States Atomic Energy Commission, Januaw 1961, the United States: John F. Kennedy 1*2 (Washington: Government Printing OffIce, 1861); (Washington: Government printing OffIce, 1~), PP. AEC, Annual Report to Congress for 1960, 186-92. (Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961L p. 24. AEC, Civilian Nuclear Power– A Report to the Presi- 156-57. dent– 1%2, Nov. 20, 1962. 34. Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1972 (PL. 92-84, 25. “Annual Message to the Congress on the State of Sections 31-33, Aug. 11, 1971; Richard G. Hewlett, the Union,” Jan. 8, 1964; “Commencement Address “Nonnuclear Energy Research in the Atomic Energy at Holy Cross College,” June 10, 1864, both in Public Commission” (unpublished ins., Historian’s Ofice, Papers of the Presidents: Lyndon 8. Johnson, 1974). (Washington: Government printing ofice, 1955), PP. 35. Corbin Allardice and Edward R. Trapnell, The Atomic 117,763-764. Energy Commission (New York: Praegar Publishers, 26. AEC, Annual f?eporY to Congress for 1964, 1974), pp. 131-32. (Washington: Government printing Office, 1965), PP. 36. “Reorganization of Atomic Energy Operating Func- 12-14; Hewlett, “The AEC in Retrospect,” p. 18; tions,” AEC Announcement 216, Dec. 7, 1971. “Remarks Upon Signing Bill permitting priVate Ownership of Nuclear Materials,” public Papers of 37. “The Right to be Heard- Laying [t on the Line,” the Presidents: Lyndon 8. Johnson, (Washington: Remarks given by AEC Commissioner William O. Government Printing Office, 1955), p. 1006. Doub (at 1971 Annual Conference of the Industrial Forum, Oct. 18, 1971); President Richard M. Nixon, 27. AEC, Civilian Nuclear Power, The ?%7 Supplement Message to the Congress on “A Program to Insure to the 1S2 Report to the President, Februaty, 1967; an Adequate Supply of Clean Energy in the Future,” AEC, 1974 Annual Report to Congress, p. 239. June 4, 1971 in Executive Energy Documents, p. 1. 28. Richard M. Nixon, “A Program to Insure an Ade- 38. “Statement by the A EC on Court of Appeals Deci- quate Supply of Clean Energy in the Future,” June 4, sion in Calvert Cliffs Litigation,” AEC Announcement 1971, as reprinted in Executive Energy Documents, 0-134, Aug. 4, 1971; AEC Annual Repotl to Congress published by the Senate Committee on Energy and for 1971 (Washington: Government Printing Office, Natural Resources, July 1978, pp. 1-12 (Hereafter 1972) pp. 1-2,21-23. cited as Executive Energy Documents). 39. “AEC Makes Organizational Changes to Strengthen 29. “Operating and Developmental Functions,” AEC Its Regulatory Program,” Press Release 0-207, Nov. 1972 Annual Repoti to Congress, pp. 10-12; “AEC 11,1971. Continues Developmental Push for Breeder Reac- tor,” AEC Announcement 0-10, January 29, 1971. 40. Richard M. Nixon, “Statement,” June 29, 1973 in Ex- ecutive Energy Documents, pp. 48-55; Statement by 30. AEC, Major Activities in the Atomic. Energy Pro- , Chairman of the AEC, AEC Press grams, January-Qecember 1951 (Washington: Release R-274, June 29,1973. Government Printing OffIce 19621, pp. 337-38; Richard G. Hewlett, “The Development of the 41. The Nation’s Energy Future, A Report to President Nuclear Power Industry” (unpublished ins., Richard M. Nixon, December 1973 (Washington: Historian’s Office, 1974), pp. 13-14; AEC, Major Ac- Government Printing OffIce, 1973) P. ix; “propo~ls tivities in the Atomic Energy Programs, Jarruary - to Deal with the Energy Crisis,” Jan. 23, 1974, in ~- Oecember 1931, P. 337-38. ecutive Energy Documents, PP. 1191* White House Fact Sheet, “Energy Research and Develop ment,” Oct. 11, 1973.

10 APPENDIX 1 (Personnel)

Joint Committee on Atomic Energy

CHAIRMEN DATES OF SERVICE Briert McMahon 1946- Burke B. Hickenlooper 1947-1946 Brien McMahon 1949-1952 (d, 7/26/52) Carl T. Durham (Acting) 1352- W. Sterling Cole 1953-1954 Clinton P. Anderson 1954-1956 Carl T. Durham 1956-1956 Clinton P. Anderson 1959- Chet Holifield 1%0- 1961 John O. Pastore 1962-1964 Chet Holifield 1965-1966 John O. Pastore 1967-1366 Chet Holifield 1969-1970 John O. Pastore 1970-1972 Melvin Price 1973-

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

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

From To

Sumner T. Pike Oct. 31, 1946 Dec. 15, 1951 David E. Lilienthal, Chairman Nov. 1, 1946 Feb. 15, 1950 Robert F. Bather NOV. 1, 1946 May 10, 1949 William W. Waymack Nov. 5, 1946 Dec. 21, 1948 Lewis L. Strauss Nov. 12, 1946 Apr. 15, 1950 Chairman July 2, 1953 June 30, 1958 Gordon Dean May 24, 1949 June 30, 1953 Chairman July 11, 1950 June 30, 1963 Henry DeWolf Smyth May 30, 1949 Sept. 30, 1954 Thomas E. Murray May 9, 1950 June 30, 1957 Thomas Keith Glerman Oct. 2, 1950 NOV. 1, 1952 Eugene M. Zuckert Feb. 25, 1952 June 30, 1954 Joseph Campbell July 27, 1353 Nov. 30, 1954 Willard F. Libby Oct. 5, 1954 June 30, 1959 John Von Neumann Mar. 15, 1955 Feb. 8, 1957 Harold S. Vance Oct. 31, 1955 Aug. 31, 1959 John S. Graham Sept. 12, 1957 June 30, 1962 John Forrest Floberg Oct. 1, 1957 June 23, 1960 John A. McCone, Chairman July 14, 1958 Jan. 20, 1961 John H. Williams Aug. 13, 1959 June 30, 1960 Robert E. Wilson Mar. 22, 1960 Jan. 31, 1964 Loren K. Olson June 23, 1960 June 30, 1962 Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman Mar. 1, 1961 Aug. 16, 1971 Leland J. Haworth Apr. 17, 1961 June 30, 1963 John G. Palfrey Aug. 31, 1962 June 30, 1966 James T, Ramey Aug. 31, 1962 June 30, 1973 Gerald F, Tape July 15, 1963 Apr. 30, 1969 Mary 1. Bunting June 29, 1964 June 30, 1965 Wilfred E. Johnson Aug. 1, 1966 June 30, 1972 Samuel M. Nabrit Aug. 1, 1966 Aug. 1, 1967 Francesco Costagliola Oct. 1, 1968 June 30, 1969 Theos J. Thompson June 12, 1969 NOV, 25, 1970 Clarence E. Larson Sept. 2, 1969 June 30, 1974 James R. Schlesinger, Chairman Aug. 17, 1971 Jan. 26, 1973 William O. Doub Aug. 17, 1971 Aug. 17, 1974 Dixy Lee Ray Aug. 8, 1972 Chairman Feb. 6, 1973 Jan. 18, 1975 William E. Kriegsman “ June 12, 1973 Jan. 18, 1975 William A. Anders Aug. 6, 1973 Jan. 18, 1975

General Managers

Carroll L. Wilson Dec. 31, 1946 Aug. 15, 1950 Marion Boyer Nov. 1, 1950 Oct. 31, 1953 Kenneth D. Nichols Nov. 1, 1953 Apr. 30, 1955 Kenneth F. Fields May 1, 1955 June 30, 1958 Paul F. Foster July 1, 195$ Nov. 30, 1958 A. R. Luedecke Dec. 1, 1958 July 31, 1964 R. E. Hollingsworth Aug. 11, 1964 Dec. 31, 1973 John A. Erlewine Feb. 15, 1974 Dec. 31, 1974

APPENDIX I

12 APPENDIX II Chronology

DATE EVENTS August 1, 1846 Atomic Energy Act of 1946 signed by President Truman. Januaw 1,19$7 Atomic energy program transferred from the Manhattan Engineer District to the Atomic Energy Commission. September 1947 Start of construction on first of two new Hanford reactors. March 1,1948 Oak Ridge National Laboratory officially established to continue work of Clinton Laboratories established in 1843. April-May 1848 , the first AEC nuclear test series conducted at Enewetak Atoll. March 1,1849 Announcement by AEC of selection of a site for the National Reactor Testing Station in Idaho. August 29, 1848 Soviet Union detonated nuclear device. Januaw 31, 1850 President Truman directs Commission “to continue work on all forms of weapons, including the so-called hydrogen or super-bomb.” June 27,1850 Truman orders U.S. forces to aid of South Korea. December 20,1851 Experimental 8 reader Reactor No. 1 (EBR-1) first reactor to produce electric power from nuclear energy. June 14, 1852 Keel of the world’s first nuclear-powered ship, the submarine Nautilus, laid at Groton, Connec- ticut. November 1952 World’s first thermonuclear device detonated by U.S. at Enevvetak. December 8,1953 Announcement by President Eisenhower of the Atoms-for-Peace program and proposal to establish an international agency to promote peaceful applications of atomic energy. March 1, 1954 First shot in Castle weapon test series fired in Pacific. August 30, 1954 President Eisenhower signed the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, a major revision of the 1946 Act. The new law made possible greeter panicipation by private indust~ and more cooperation with other countries in developing the peaceful uses of nuclear energy. January 10, 1955 Announcement by the AEC of the Power Demonstration Reector Program, under which the AEC and industry would cooperate in the construction and operation of experimental power reactors. August 8-20, 1855 First United Nations International Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic Energy, in Geneva, Switzerland. October 1,1957 International Atomic Energy Agency inaugurated in Vienna, Austria. AEC Chairman Lewis Strauss announced U.S. offer to make 5,000 kilograms of uranium 235 available to the agency. December 23, 1957 Full-power operation of the Ship~ingport Atomic Power Station, the world’s first full-scale . nuclear power plant, at Shippingport, Pennsylvania. August 22, 1958 President Eisenhower announced moratorium on weapon testing to begin on October 31.

November 24, 1959 AEC Chairman John A. McCone and Professor Vasily S. Eme{yanov signed Memorandum of Cooperation between, U.S. and U,S.S. R. March 1981 Regulatory functions separated from General Manager’s Office and placed under a Director of Regulation. August 31, 1961 Soviet Union broke moratorium and began testing nuclear weapons.

December 10, 1961 , the first Plowshare nuclear detonation, conducted in New Mexico. April 25,1982 First shot in Dominic series conducted at Christmas Island in the Pacific. August 5,1863 Limited test ban treaty between U. S., U. K., and U.S.S.R. signed in Moscow. August 28, 1W4 President Johnson signed Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials Act.

October 1884 The nuclear-powered surface ships, Enterprise, Long Beach and Bainbridge, completed “Operation Sea Orbit,” a round-the-world cruise without logistic suPPort of any kind.

13 i4 PAGE ‘

OF DOCUMENT ~iojfq~

WAS NOT PROVIDED APPENDIX Ill ~~ooratories and Production

Atomic Energy Commission

AEC facility Location Contractor-operator Multiprogram Laboratories Argonne National Laboratory ...... Chicago,lll...... Univ. of Chicago and Argonne Universities Assn. Brookhaven National Laboratow ...... Upton, NAY...... Associated Universities, Inc. Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory...... Berkeley, Ca...... University of California Lawrence Livermore Laboratory...... Livermore, Ca...... University of California Los Alamos Scientific Laboratow...... Los Alamos, N. Mex.. University of California Oak Ridge National Laboratory...... Oak Ridge, Term.. ., . Nuclear Div., Union Carbide Corp. Pacific Northwest Laboratom’...... Richland, Wash. . . . . Pacific Northwest Div. Battelle Memorial Inst.

Engineering Development Bettis Atomic Power Laboratory...... Pittsburgh, Pa...... Westinghouse Electric Corp. Hanford Engineering Development Lab...... Richland, Wash, . . . . Westinghouse Hanford Co. Knolls Atomic Power Laboratory ...... Schenectady, N.Y. . . General Electric Co. Liquid Metal Engineering Center...... Santa Susana, Ca.. . . Atomics International Div. Rockwell Int’1 Corp. Idaho National Engineering Lab...... Idaho Falls, Id...... Aerojet Nuclear Co. Naval Reactors Facility, lNEL ...... Idaho Falls, Id...... Westinghouse Electric Corp. Sandia Laboratories ...... Albuquerque, N. Mex. Sandia Corp. (Western & Livermore, Ca. . . Electric-Bell System) Savannah River Laboratory ...... Aiken, SAC...... El. du Pent de Nemours & Co Shippingporl Atomic Power Station ...... Shippingpoti, Pa. . . . Duquesne Light Co.

Specialized Physical Research Laboratories Ames Laboratory ...... Ames, lowa ...... Iowa State U. of Sci. & Tech. Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory ...... Batavia, Ill...... Universities Research Assn. Notre Dame Radiation Lab ...... South Bend, Ind.. . . . Univ. of Notre Dame Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. , ...... ~ Princeton, N.J...... Princeton University Stanford Linear Accelerator Center ...... Palo Alto, Ca...... Stanford University

Specialized Biomedical Research Laboratories Comparative Animal Research Laboratory ...... Oak Ridge, Term.. . . . University of Tennessee Franklin McLean Memorial Research Inst, (formedy Argonne Cancer Res. HosP.)...... Chicago,lll ...... University of Chicago inhalation Toxicology Res. inst...... Albuquerque, N. Mex. Lovelace Foundation of Medical . Education and Research Laborato~ of Nuclear Medicine& Radiobiology ...... Los Angeles, Ca...... Univ. of Calif. at L.A. (UCLA) Laboratory of Radiobiology ...... San Francisco, Ca. . . Univ. of Calif. Medical Center MSU/AEC Plant Research Lab...... E. Lansing, Mich.. . . . Michigan State University ORAU Research Facilities ...... Oak Ridge, Term.. . . . Oak Ridge Associated Universities Puerto Rico Nuclear Center ...... Mayaguez and Rio Piedras, P.R...... University of Puerto Rico Radiobiology Laboratory ...... Davis, Calif...... University of Calif. (Davis) Radiobiology Laboratory ...... Salt Lake City, Utah . University of Utah Savannah River Ecology Lab, ...... Aiken, SAC...... University of Georgia U.of Rochester Med. Lab...... Rochester, N. Y...... University of Rochester

15 Production, Development, and Fabrication Centers Burlington. AEC Plant ...... , ... .,,. Burlington, lowa .,,. Mason&Hanger-Silas Mason Co.,Inc. F@ Materials plant ...... Ashtabula, Ohio. . . . . Reactive Meta{s, lnc. Feed Materials plant ...... Fernald, Ohio...... National LeadCo. Fead Materials Plant ...... Paducah, Ky...... Nuclear Div., Union Carbide Corp. Hanford Works ...... Richland,Wash. . . . . Atlantic-Richfield Hanford Co. andUnited Nuclear, Inc. ldaho Chemical processing plant ...... lNEL, ldaho ...... t. Allied Chemical Corp. Kansas City Plant ...... KansasCity, Mo. . . . . Bendix Corp. Mound LaboratoV ...... Miamisburg, Ohio . . . Monsanto Research Corp. Nevada Test Site ...... Mercury, Nev...... Reynolds Electrical &Engineer- ing Co.; EG&G, Inc.;and Holmes& Narver Inc. OakRidgeGaseous Diffusion Plant...... Oak Ridge, Term.. . . . Nuclear Div., Union Carbide Corp. Paducah Gaaeous Diffusion Plant...... Paducah, Ky...... Nuclear Div., Union Carbide Corp. Portsmouth Gaseous Diffusion Plant...... Portmouth,Ohio . . . . Goodyear Atomic Corp. Pantex Plant ...... +...... Amarillo, Texas. . . . . Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason Co. Inc. Pinellas Plant ...... ClearWater, Fla...... General Electric Co. Rocky Flats Plant ...... Golden, Cola...... Atomics International Div. Rockwell International Corp. Savannah River Plant ...... Aiken, SAC...... E.L du Pent de Nemours & Co. Y-12 Plant ...... OakRidge, Term.. . . . Nuclear Div., Union Carbide corm

1974 Annual Repoti to Congress

16 APPENDIX IV

Organization ChaRs I J

iim z 3 0 1w

i

Uj 3 :’L

a u

u 1

I

a cc o o u u’

n

m z .. 0 c u a UJ L L0

,+, I I {

I [ I 1 l--

I 4- -U I

APPENDIX IV-3 20 $~ m 1- m

‘a

21 APPENDIX IV-4 UJ

-i+ d

.9. -7’: \m\A . ● 6 ● ‘\

“+7 T > ‘ i WI r

m

I ?----+ I

—

22 APPENDIX IV-5 APPENDIX V United States Announced Nuclear Detonations and Early Stockpile Data

1945-1974

Event or Series Name Description Dates Trinity ...... Firsttestofan atomic . . . July 16,1945 bomb Hiroshima ...... Firstuseincombat...... August6,1945 Nagasaki ...... Second usain combat . . . August9,1945 Crossroads ...... ,...,...... June-July1946 Sandstone ...... April-May1848 Ranger ...... January-February 1951 Greenhouse ...... ,.....! ...... April-May1951 Buster-Jangle...... October-November 1951 Tumbler-Snapper ...... April-June 1952 Ivy ...... October-November 1952 Mike,experimental ...... 0ctober31,1952 thermonuclear device Upshot-Knothole ...... ,..!...... ! .. March-June 1853 Castle ...... February- May1854 Bravo, experimental . . . . . February28,1954 thermonuclear device Teapot ...... February-May1955 Wigwam ...... May14,1855 Redwing ...... May-July1856 Plumbbob ...... May-0ctober1957 Hardtack ...... April-August1958 Argus ...... August-September 1958 Hardtack...... September-October 1958

NOTESTSCONDUCTED FROM OCTOBER 30, 1858toSEPTEMBER 1961

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

Dominic I ...... April 1962-June1962 Storax ...... 4...... 0. July1862-June1963 Sedarr, excavation ...... JuIY6,1962 experiment Dominic 11...... Three above ground tests. JuIY1962

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

Niblick ...... August1863-June 1964 Wtletstone d. hi ...... ) . . ..O.. July 1964-June1865 Flintlock ...... July1865-Junel%6 Latchkey ...... July1966-Junel%7 Crosstie...... 04.....0.0.. July1967-Junel%8 Bowline ...... July1868-June1869 Mandrel ...... July1969-June1970 Emery ...... 0ctober1970-June 1971 Grommet ...... July 1971 -May 1972 Toggle ...... July 1972-June1973 Arbor ...... October 1973-June 1974 Bedrock ...... July1974-

23 II Announced Detonations by Year

1%1...... ’’’’’’””: 3 lM5 . . . ..”” ””’” ”’’”’’”’q 1%2. <....4”’””””’”” 1946....”””””””’’”’” : 1*3...... ”””:% lw7...... ”””””oo”””~ 1964...... ”.””..”.’ 1948.....””’”””’””’”””~ 1%5. . .,, . ., ...... 28 1%9.....”’’”’’””””’”” 1%6, , ., ...... @ 1%0 ...... ” ’””” ’”””’l. 1%7,...... ”””’:;: 1%1, ...... ’. ’.”” ”””10 1%8 ...... ’”” ’”” ’’.28 1%2, ,, . ., . . ..”””.... 1969,.,,,,.,’”,”..”. 1953...... ””””....”.) 1970...... ””. .” . . ..””30 1971.,, ,., . . ..”. ’..”’11 1954...... ”” ”””” ”’”.5 8 1955. .,, ...... ””’17 1972....””’”’” ~ 1~6 ...... ”.24 1973...... ””....””’” 7 1*7 ...... ” ’””55 1974...,....”.”,..”””” 1958....’””’” 0 1%9...... ”””””””””” o 1%0...... ’””””””””” 535 TOTAL

Early Nuclear Weapon Stockpile Data

Fiscal Year 1947 1948 1945 1946

Number ofnonnuclear components 2’ 0 o* 0 29* 53’ I, Gun-tyPe 2 9 2. implosion-tYPe

Numberofnuclear components 0 0 0 50 3. G~n-WPe 9 13 4. Implosion-type <

●Numbers declassified inlW6

24 APPENDIX VI Financial Statistics

U.S. Government Investment in the Atomic Energy Program

(From June 1840 Through January 18, 1975)

(in millions)

Appropriation Expenditure* National DefenSe Research Council...... $ .5 Offlceof Scientific Research and Development ...... 14.6 War Department (including Manhattan Engineer District) ., ...... , ...... 2,218.3 2,233.4

Atomic Energy Commission: Fiscal years prior tol~ ...... 34,643.8 Fiscal year l* ...... ” ““. ”. . . .. s. DO”-<””-”-””’”’” ‘“’”””’’o”” 2,402.9 Fi~ca]year 1~7, ...... 04. <.0-. 2,263.7 FiscaIyear 1~ ...... !’. .“ . . .. ’. .. -’<” do””-””””’””” ““””’”’””” 2,466.6 Fiscalyear 1%9 ...... ---- . . . .. ”” ”” .” ”. ”4-.8” +0--””””” ““””””””<” 2,450.4 Fiwalyear 1970 ...... “. <. ”” .. ”$-4.”-”-””’”’”””- ““”””””’”” 2,455.0 Fiscal year 1971 ...... 2,274.7 Fiscal year 1972 ...... ” .. ”<”. .. ”” ”” .. -do.””””’’””””” ““””””””’” 2,392.1 Fiscal ywr1973 ...... ”” .. ”’. .-”-O--’”””” ‘“”””””<”” 2,383.1 Fiscal year 1974 ...... ”. .” ”” ”” .”. ..)” ’O-”””” ““”””””””””’ 2,307.5 Fiscal Year 1975 (through JanuarY 18) ...... 1,512.6

Total AEC ...... “’. .” .” ”””” $’””””’””’ ““”-’”””” 57,562.4

Total Appropriation Expenditures...... 59,795.8

Unexpended Balance ofFundsinU.S. Treasury January 18, 1975 ...... o..o.....<”.”””””..”””” ‘“”’”<”’”” 3,439.9

Total Funds Appropriated ...... 63,235.7

Less: 58.0 Collectionsp~id toU.S. Treasury , ...... Property andser’vices transferredto other Federal agencies without reimbursement, netofsuch transfers received from othe’ Federal agencies...... 462.0 Costofoperations from June lMthrough January 18,1975...... 46,562.2

AECEquitY atJanuarY 18,1~asshown on Balance Sheet ...... $16,153.5

25 -J

*

-1

,983-o-381-060/b? 26 ,u.~. ~.fEI?NMENT PRINTING omIcE: