DOCSLIB.ORG

Los Alamos Thermonuclear Weapon Project, 1942-1952

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Los Alamos Thermonuclear Weapon Project, 1942-1952 LA-13577-T Thesis Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. 9e $ ~ o ;KJ (J)CPL Asfl Igniting the Light Elements: ~~~ The Los Alamos Thermonuclear Weapon Project, 1942-1952 Los Alamos NATIONAL LABORATORY Los Alamos National Laboratoy is opera fed by the tlniversify of California for fhe Unifed Sfafes Departrm?nf of Energy under con fracf W-7405-ENG-36. This thesis was accepted by the Department of Science and Technol- ogy Studies, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, Virginia, in partial ful$llment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy. The text and illustrations are the independent work of the author and only the front matter has been edited by the ClC-l Writing and Editing Stafl to conform with Department of Energy and Los Alamos National Laboratoy publica- tion policies. An Affirmative Action/’Equal Opportzmify Employer This report was preparedasan accountof worksponsored by an agency of theUnited States Government.Neither The Regentsof theUniversity of Cal~ornia, the United States Government noranyagency thereoJ nor any of their employees, makes anywarranty,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 usewould not infringeprivately ownedrights. 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 Regents of the University of Calfornia, the United States Government, or any agency thereof. The views and opinionsof authorsexpressed herein do not necessarily state or ref7ect those of % Regents of the University of Caljlomia, the United States Government, or any agency thereof. Los Alarms National Laboratoy stronglysupports academicj-eedomand a researcher’s right to publish; as an institution, however, the Laboratoy does not endorsethe viewpoint of a publication or guaranteeits technical correctness. DISCLAIMER Portions of this document may be illegible in electronic image products. Images are produced from the best available original document. LA-13577-T Thesis Issued: July 1999 , Igniting the light Elements: The Los Alamos Thermonuclear Weapon Project, 1942–1952 Anne Fitzpatrick” ‘Consultant at Los Akzmos. The George WashingtonUniversity, Center for Histoy of Recent Science, Department of Histoy, 801 22nd Sfreet, N. W., Washington, DC 20052. Los Alamos NATIONAL LABORATORY Los Alamos, New Mexico 87545 Acknowledgments I would like foremost to thank Joe Pitt, who first sent me to New Mexico, where 1 met Bob Seiclel; our acquaintance was an act of fate. Subsequently, I discovered that Los Alamos not only changed the world, but it changed my life. No less influential were my advisory committee members at Virginia Tech. Burton Kaufman consistently supported my work since my undergraduate days. Bert Moyer, Richard Hirsh, and Dick Burian were always encouraging, and provided valuable comments and critiques. All of my committee members were excellent teachers. All of the people of Los Alamos National Laboratory who welcomed me and assisted me with this project are too numerous to mention here, but several were outstanding. Beverly Mattys, Judy Rose, and Evelyn Martinez in the Technology and Safety Assessment Division Office kept everything running smoothly. Dale Henderson was helpful in introducing me to many knowledgeable people. Steve Becker, Pat Garrity, Larry Germain, John I Hopson, Karl Lautenschlager, Steve Maaranen, Jas Mercer-Smith, Ray Pollack, John Richter, Rod Schultz, Paul Whalen, and Steve Younger I provided enlightening information. Many people assisted me with the research for this study. Roger Meade and Linda Sandoval allowed me access to the Los Alamos Laboratory Archives. Jack Carter, Marcia Gallegos, Linda Kolar, and Marlene Lujan in v the Los Alamos Report Library let me scour their old documents. Bill Davis and Herb Rawlings-Milton of the National Archives helped me to collect much important historical documentation. A couple of individuals at Los Alamos assisted in other capacities. Bill Palatinus read every page of this dissertation and worked tirelessly to see that it survived security review. Carolyn Mangeng supported me professionally, and became a role model and friend along the way. Several people from the history of science and science studies communities gave helpful feedback. Professors Lillian Hoddeson and Andy Pickering at the University of Illinois, and Tom Cornell at the Rochester Institute of Technology shared ve~ useful critiques. Professor Joseph Wieczynski at Virginia Tech inspired me to retain my academic first love -- Russian history -- while I pursued this project. Many of those who were the subjects of this study graciously told me their stories. They are Hans A. Bethe, Bengt Carlson, Foster Evans, Ed Hammel, Roger Lazarus, J. Carson Mark, Nick Metropolis, Robert Richtmyer, Robert Serber, Edward Teller, Anthony Turkevich, and Edward Voorhees. Spencer Weart and the American Institute of Physics Center for the History of Physics Grants-in-Aid Program kindly sponsored my interviews with Drs. Richtrnyer and Serber. Thanks to my parents for everything else. This dissertation is dedicated to Michael Henderson, nuclear weapons wizard and mentor to this historian. vi Table of Contents . TITLE PAGE . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..Ill ACKNOWLEDGMENTS . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. v TABLE OF CONTENTS.. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. vii ABSTRACT . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. x CHAPTER ONE. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 INTRODUCTION AND LITERATURE REVIEW: WHY THE H-BOMB STILL MATTERS .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. 1 1.1. LOSALAMOSANDT~RSSIONPROmCTHISTORES.................................................................... 8 1.2. Thermonuclear WEApONssTuDms . ... .. .. .. .. ... .... ... ... ... .. .. .. .... ... ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... ... .. 10 1.3. POLITICALHISTORY.......................................................................................................... 16 1.4. O~ICIWAND~CHNICaHISTORES................................................................................... 19 1.5. SOCIOLOGY..................................................................................................................... 23 1.6. PARTICIPANTS’ACCOUNTS................................................................................................. 24 1.7. CULTURALHISTORIES........................................................................................................ 31 1.8. A~CHNOLOGICALSYS~OFWAPONS RES~RCH~DD~LOPM~ .................................... 31 1.9. GOALOFTHISSTUDY........................................................................................................ 36 2.0. CHAPTERORGANIZATIONANDSUMMARES............................................................................ 40 CHAPTER TWO . .. ... .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .46 THE FISSION BOMB HAD TO COME FIRST .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .46 2.1. THEMANHATTANDISTRICTASA~CHNOLOGICfiSYS~M....................................................... 50 2.2. CALCULATINGATOMICDEVICES:ACRITICfiPROBLEMFORLOSWAMOS................................... 55 2.3. GETTINGTHEJOBDONEONTIME:MECHANIZATIONOFFISSIONCALCULATIONS...........................63 2.4. THEEMERGENCEOFLABOR-SAVING~C~OLOGY.................................................................. 76 2.5. WARTIMEMISSION:LOSALAMOSESTABLISHESANAPPROACHTOPROBLEM-SOLVING.....................79 2.6. ~OM~DTO ~C ............................................................................................................ 83 2.7. NEWLIFEFOROLDMODELS:ESTABLISHINGLOSALAMOS’SPOSTWARMISSION............................. 94 CHAPTER THREE .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ..99 THE SUPER AND POSTWAR COMPUTING: MACHINES CAN CALCULATE, BUT CAN HUMANS?. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .99 3.1. FERMIANDTHEFUSIONWEAPON:ORIGINSOFT= SUPER.......................................................101 3.2. NOSUPERFORWART1wLOSfiAMOS..................................................................................105 3.3. ENTERVONNEUMANN.....................................................................................................117 3.4. POSTWAREXODUS,OTHERTHERMONUCLEARCREATURES.......................................................l24 3.5. coMPumRsoFTmwTuW ...............................................................................................l29 3.6. TAMINGANDwCHANIZINGmRGEANIM~S:HIPPOANDBABYHIPPO......................................l33 3.7. MONTECARLO................................................................................................................137 3.8. ADVANmDWmPONS.ORALARGE``BANG''?........................................................................l38 3.9. WHATDOMACHINESKNOWANYWAY?RE-EVALUATINGTHEENIACCALCULATIONS...................143 4.0. AFAMLYoFwAmNs......................................................................................................l5o
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Building 9731 – Secret City Festival’S Y-12 Public Tour Or: Building 9731 to Be Featured in Secret City Festival's Public Tour (Title Provided by the Oak Ridger)
    Building 9731 – Secret City Festival’s Y-12 public tour Or: Building 9731 to be featured in Secret City Festival's public tour (title provided by The Oak Ridger) In March 1943 the very first structure to be completed at the newly emerging Y-12 Electromagnetic Separation Plant was Building 9731. It was only a little over a month earlier that ground had been broken for the first of nine major buildings designed to hold cautrons (CALifornia University Cyclotron). But the real push had been to complete the construction of a smaller building, one with a high bay and especially designed to house four very special units of newly designed equipment using huge magnets. The Alpha Calutron magnets stand well over 20 feet tall and are still standing there today―the only ones in the world! For the first time ever, the public will have a chance to see these huge magnets and will also be able to tour inside historic Building 9731. This historic event is a part of the Secret City Festival this year. On Saturday, June 19, 2010, from 9:00 AM to 4:00 PM, a major part of the Y-12 public tour will include Building 9731. The public will be allowed to see inside the historic structure and view the magnets of both the two Alpha and two Beta calutrons. These calutron magnets have been designated as Manhattan Project Signature Artifacts by the Depart- ment of Energy’s Federal Preservation Officer in the DOE Office of History and Heritage Resources. The building is being submitted for Historical Landmark status on the National Register of Historic Places.
    [Show full text]
  • Kimmo Mäkilä Tuhoa, Tehoa Ja Tuhlausta
    JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 84 Kimmo Mäkilä Tuhoa, tehoa ja tuhlausta Helsingin Sanomien ja New York Timesin ydinaseuutisoinnin tarkastelua diskurssianalyyttisesta näkökulmasta 1945–1998 Esitetään Jyväskylän yliopiston humanistisen tiedekunnan suostumuksella julkisesti tarkastettavaksi yliopiston Villa Ranan Paulaharjun salissa joulukuun 15. päivänä 2007 kello 12. JYVÄSKYLÄN YLIOPISTO JYVÄSKYLÄ 2007 Tuhoa, tehoa ja tuhlausta Helsingin Sanomien ja New York Timesin ydinaseuutisoinnin tarkastelua diskurssianalyyttisesta näkökulmasta 1945–1998 JYVÄSKYLÄ STUDIES IN HUMANITIES 84 Kimmo Mäkilä Tuhoa, tehoa ja tuhlausta Helsingin Sanomien ja New York Timesin ydinaseuutisoinnin tarkastelua diskurssianalyyttisesta näkökulmasta 1945–1998 JYVÄSKYLÄN YLIOPISTO JYVÄSKYLÄ 2007 Editors Raimo Salokangas Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä Pekka Olsbo, Marja-Leena Tynkkynen Publishing Unit, University Library of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä Studies in Humanities Editorial Board Editor in Chief Heikki Hanka, Department of Art and Culture Studies, University of Jyväskylä Petri Karonen, Department of History and Ethnology, University of Jyväskylä Matti Rahkonen, Department of Languages, University of Jyväskylä Petri Toiviainen, Department of Music, University of Jyväskylä Minna-Riitta Luukka, Centre for Applied Language Studies, University of Jyväskylä Raimo Salokangas, Department of Communication, University of Jyväskylä Cover Picture by Janne Ikonen ISBN 978-951-39-2988-6 ISSN 1459-4323 Copyright ©2007 , by University of Jyväskylä Jyväskylä
    [Show full text]
  • “Dropping the A-Bomb on Cities Was Mistake”—Father of Health Physics (As Published in the Oak Ridger’S Historically Speaking Column the Week of June 29, 2020)
    “Dropping the A-bomb on cities was mistake”—Father of Health Physics (As published in The Oak Ridger’s Historically Speaking column the week of June 29, 2020) A friend and fellow historian, Alex Wellerstein, has just written in his blog, Restricted Data, The Nuclear Secrecy Blog, an entry entitled, What journalists should know about the atomic bombings. In this blog entry he notes that as we approach the 75th anniversary of the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki we will surely see increased emphasis in the news regarding the atomic bombs. This is understandable and especially so in Oak Ridge, Los Alamos and Hanford. While my focus on Oak Ridge history in Historically Speaking may vary from time to time, the atomic bombs and what has resulted from the nuclear age over the years is never far from my mind. In these articles researched and written by Carolyn Krause, I am attempting to bring Historically Speaking readers perspectives that might well not normally be expressed. Not that I intend to alter your thinking regarding the use of the atomic bombs, as generally each of us have made our decision already. However, seeing the issue from different perspectives is worthwhile. For example, this particular article features comments and perspectives of Karl Z. Morgan. Some of you may even have known him. If that is the case, you likely already know his opinions. If you are being introduced to him for the first time reading this, it will be good for you to appreciate his perspective, even if you disagree with his conclusions.
    [Show full text]
  • Footnotes for ATOMIC ADVENTURES
    Footnotes for ATOMIC ADVENTURES Secret Islands, Forgotten N-Rays, and Isotopic Murder - A Journey into the Wild World of Nuclear Science By James Mahaffey While writing ATOMIC ADVENTURES, I tried to be careful not to venture off into subplots, however interesting they seemed to me, and keep the story flowing and progressing at the right tempo. Some subjects were too fascinating to leave alone, and there were bits of further information that I just could not abandon. The result is many footnotes at the bottom of pages, available to the reader to absorb at his or her discretion. To get the full load of information from this book, one needs to read the footnotes. Some may seem trivia, but some are clarifying and instructive. This scheme works adequately for a printed book, but not so well with an otherwise expertly read audio version. Some footnotes are short enough to be inserted into the audio stream, but some are a rambling half page of dense information. I was very pleased when Blackstone Audio agreed wholeheartedly that we needed to include all of my footnotes in this version of ATOMIC ADVENTURES, and we came up with this added feature: All 231 footnotes in this included text, plus all the photos and explanatory diagrams that were included in the text. I hope you enjoy reading some footnotes while listening to Keith Sellon-Wright tell the stories in ATOMIC ADVENTURES. James Mahaffey April 2017 2 Author’s Note Stories Told at Night around the Glow of the Reactor Always striving to beat the Atlanta Theater over on Edgewood Avenue, the Forsyth Theater was pleased to snag a one-week engagement of the world famous Harry Houdini, extraordinary magician and escape artist, starting April 19, 1915.1 It was issued an operating license, no.
    [Show full text]
  • B Reactor's 60Th Anniversary, by Richard Rhodes
    WashingtonHistory.org HISTORY COMMENTARY Hanford and History: B Reactor's 60th Anniversary By Richard Rhodes COLUMBIA The Magazine of Northwest History, Fall 2006: Vol. 20, No. 3 Many people know the history of the Hanford Engineer Works well; some have lived it. I know it as a historian. I wrote about it in my book, The Making of the Atomic Bomb, and would have written more, but I simply did not have room. I treated plutonium production as a black box, inadvertently contributing to the myth that the atomic bomb was the work of 30 theoretical physicists at Los Alamos. More recently I have reviewed volumes of primary sources to refresh my memory of the heroic work carried out there between 1943 and 1945, so I think I can speak with some authority about it. I may even be able to clear up a mystery or two. Scientists at the Metallurgical Laboratory of the University of Chicago selected the site where plutonium would be produced for the first atomic bombs. Thirty-three-year-old Army Corps of Engineers colonel Franklin T. Matthias, known to his friends as "Fritz," wrote them into his diary after a meeting at DuPont’s home offices in Wilmington, Delaware, on December 14, 1942. The site needed to be spacious enough to accommodate a manufacturing area of approximately 12 by 16 miles, with no public highway or railroad nearer than 10 miles, no town of greater than 1,000 population nearer than 20 miles, an available water supply of at least 25,000 gallons per minute and an electrical supply of at least 100,000 kilowatts.
    [Show full text]
  • Darien Was Home to the Man Who Ran the Manhattan Project, Building the First Atomic Bombs
    Darienite News for Darien https://darienite.com Darien Was Home To the Man Who Ran the Manhattan Project, Building the First Atomic Bombs Author : David Gurliacci Categories : Darien History, Darienites Date : August 23, 2020 After Albert Einstein convinced President Franklin Roosevelt that an atomic bomb could and should be built during World War II, the government turned to Gen. Leslie Groves, a brash, brusque and brilliant army officer to get it done. He succeeded in organizing and administering the project that built the two deadliest weapons ever used by mankind, resulting in the atomic attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But the same personality and tactics that helped him burst through bureaucratic obstacles to get the job done during the war proved fatal to his own post-war career in the Army. After Dwight Eisenhower gave him the results of a devastating job evaluation, Groves was out the door in February 1948. That's when he took a job heading up research for one of the earliest computer companies, Remington Rand, and bought a newly built house that still stands today at 9 Dellwood Road in Darien, a short commute to the site of his research division in Rowayton. (Several years later, after Gen. Douglas MacArthur was cashiered by President Harry Truman, that general also worked at the Rowayton office.) 1 / 6 Darienite News for Darien https://darienite.com By 1955, Groves (then 59 years old) was a vice president for Remington Rand "working on policy matters," according to a March 31 report in the Darien Review. "He likes to play tennis, go to football games and, much against his will (that I did not write, he did) does certain chores around the house and grounds," interviewer Beatrice Colgate wrote in her article.
    [Show full text]
  • Bob Farquhar
    1 2 Created by Bob Farquhar For and dedicated to my grandchildren, their children, and all humanity. This is Copyright material 3 Table of Contents Preface 4 Conclusions 6 Gadget 8 Making Bombs Tick 15 ‘Little Boy’ 25 ‘Fat Man’ 40 Effectiveness 49 Death By Radiation 52 Crossroads 55 Atomic Bomb Targets 66 Acheson–Lilienthal Report & Baruch Plan 68 The Tests 71 Guinea Pigs 92 Atomic Animals 96 Downwinders 100 The H-Bomb 109 Nukes in Space 119 Going Underground 124 Leaks and Vents 132 Turning Swords Into Plowshares 135 Nuclear Detonations by Other Countries 147 Cessation of Testing 159 Building Bombs 161 Delivering Bombs 178 Strategic Bombers 181 Nuclear Capable Tactical Aircraft 188 Missiles and MIRV’s 193 Naval Delivery 211 Stand-Off & Cruise Missiles 219 U.S. Nuclear Arsenal 229 Enduring Stockpile 246 Nuclear Treaties 251 Duck and Cover 255 Let’s Nuke Des Moines! 265 Conclusion 270 Lest We Forget 274 The Beginning or The End? 280 Update: 7/1/12 Copyright © 2012 rbf 4 Preface 5 Hey there, I’m Ralph. That’s my dog Spot over there. Welcome to the not-so-wonderful world of nuclear weaponry. This book is a journey from 1945 when the first atomic bomb was detonated in the New Mexico desert to where we are today. It’s an interesting and sometimes bizarre journey. It can also be horribly frightening. Today, there are enough nuclear weapons to destroy the civilized world several times over. Over 23,000. “Enough to make the rubble bounce,” Winston Churchill said. The United States alone has over 10,000 warheads in what’s called the ‘enduring stockpile.’ In my time, we took care of things Mano-a-Mano.
    [Show full text]
  • A Pedagogy of Diminishing Returns: Scientific Involution Across Three Generations of Nuclear Weapons Science
    3 A Pedagogy of Diminishing Returns: Scientific Involution across Three Generations of Nuclear Weapons Science Hugh Gusterson In science studies we hear a lot about the construction of facts, the building of net- works, and the growth of disciplines, but much less about the withering, decay, or arte- riosclerosis of fields of knowledge (brought on either through natural exhaustion of a particular approach or through external constraints). We have a disciplinary bias toward scientific evolution and revolution rather than what I am here calling involu- tion.1 A generation of historians, sociologists, and anthropologists of science has learned from actor-network theory and the sociology of scientific knowledge (SSK) to focus on the building of scientific institutions and facts, and from Thomas Kuhn to expect a certain historical rhythm in the evolution of scientific fields of knowledge: first, a dynamic burst of creativity (the “revolution”) as the foundational ideas of the new field are laid down; second, a period of “normal science” in which gaps are filled in as the new knowledge is institutionalized; and, finally, as puzzles emerge that can- not be fully explained by the established paradigm, a new burst of creativity as another generation redefines the fundamental precepts of the field.2 In this essay, looking at three generations of nuclear weapons designers, I follow and then depart from the Kuhnian script. Although the first two generations of nuclear weapons scientists con- formed perfectly to the Kuhnian storyline, the final story
    [Show full text]
  • The Los Alamos Thermonuclear Weapon Project, 1942-1952
    Igniting The Light Elements: The Los Alamos Thermonuclear Weapon Project, 1942-1952 by Anne Fitzpatrick Dissertation submitted to the Faculty of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY in SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY STUDIES Approved: Joseph C. Pitt, Chair Richard M. Burian Burton I. Kaufman Albert E. Moyer Richard Hirsh June 23, 1998 Blacksburg, Virginia Keywords: Nuclear Weapons, Computing, Physics, Los Alamos National Laboratory Igniting the Light Elements: The Los Alamos Thermonuclear Weapon Project, 1942-1952 by Anne Fitzpatrick Committee Chairman: Joseph C. Pitt Science and Technology Studies (ABSTRACT) The American system of nuclear weapons research and development was conceived and developed not as a result of technological determinism, but by a number of individual architects who promoted the growth of this large technologically-based complex. While some of the technological artifacts of this system, such as the fission weapons used in World War II, have been the subject of many historical studies, their technical successors -- fusion (or hydrogen) devices -- are representative of the largely unstudied highly secret realms of nuclear weapons science and engineering. In the postwar period a small number of Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory’s staff and affiliates were responsible for theoretical work on fusion weapons, yet the program was subject to both the provisions and constraints of the U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, of which Los Alamos was a part. The Commission leadership’s struggle to establish a mission for its network of laboratories, least of all to keep them operating, affected Los Alamos’s leaders’ decisions as to the course of weapons design and development projects.
    [Show full text]
  • Characterization of Radioisotope Inventory in the Building 9204-3 Actinide Facility
    Characterization of Radioisotope Inventory In The Building 9204‐3 Actinide Facility Mr. William C. Walker Oak Ridge National Laboratory UT‐Battelle, LLC; [email protected] Introduction An Extremely Brief History of a Beta‐Calutron Facility (1940’s – 1990’s) ‐ Building 9204‐3, located within the Y‐12 National Security Complex, is one of nine production facilities that were employed during the Manhattan Project for the enrichment of 235U from natural uranium using electromagnetic isotope separation processes. After the end of World War II and the termination of the Manhattan Project, the nine facilities ceased uranium enrichment operations. Building 9204‐3 (informally referred to as “Beta‐3”) subsequently was used in the 1950’s through the late 1990’s supporting the Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) Isotopes Program. The Isotope Program utilized the facility for two missions: Enrichment of specialty stable isotopes (Stable Isotope Program) and select actinide isotopes. The portion of Beta‐3 that was used for the enrichment of specialty actinide isotopes is referred to as the “Actinide Facility”. It was comprised of dedicated calutrons and laboratories that were used to prepare feed stock/source material, and recover the product materials. The Actinide Facility conducted active isotope separation operations in the early 1960’s up to the late 1970’s. Actinide laboratory operations were terminated in the 1990’s. Fast Forward: Identifying Actinide Facility Radiological Inventory Issues ‐ Although the Actinide Facility was no longer in operation, inventory records were still maintained for compliance with various requirements which included occupational radiological protection, facility nuclear safety, and asset management. These first inventory records tracked legacy feed stock/source materials and sealed sources.
    [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]
  • Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards: Appendix Volume II, Part One
    Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards: Appendix Volume II, Part One June 1977 NTIS order #PB-275843 FOREWORD This volume contains the appendixes to the report “Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards,H issued by the Office of Technology Assessment in June 1977. These appendixes are published in two parts; Part One includes appendixes I through V, and Part Two contains appendixes VI through IX. The appendixes were prepared for OTA by contractors and consultants, but several have been revised by OTA as noted. They were commissioned in order to collect and develop the information needed for the analysis presented in the OTA report. iii Office of Technology Assessment OTA ENERGY ADVISORY COMMITTEE Milton Katz, Chairman Director, International Legal Studies, Harvard Law School Thomas C. Ayers George E. Mueller President and Chairman President and Chairman of the Board of the Board System Development< Corporation Commonwealth Edison Company Gerard Piel Kenneth E. Boulding Publisher, Scientific American Professor of Economics Institute of Behavioral Science John F. Redmond, Retired University of Colorado Shell Oil Company Eugene G. Fubini John C. Sawhill Fubini Consultants, Ltd. President New York University Levi (J. M.) Leathers Executive Vice President Chauncey Starr Dow Chemical USA President, Electric Power Research Institute Wassily Leontief Department of Economics New York University OTA Nuclear Proliferation and Safeguards Project Staff Lionel S. Johns, Energy Program Manager Alan T. Crane, Project Director A. Buyrn Marvin C. Ott Support Staff Linda Parker, Joanne Sedor, Lisa Jacobson iv — NUCLEAR PROLIFERATION AND SAFEGUARDS ADVISORY PANEL Thomas L. Hughes, Panel Chairman Carnegie Endowment for International Peace Frederick S. Carney Herbert Scoville Southern Methodist University Consultant Thomas B.
    [Show full text]