DOE/ES-0003/l

A HISTORY OF THE
ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION
by:
Alice L. Buck

July 1983

U.S. Department of Energy

Assistant Secretary, Management and Administration
Office of The Executive Secretariat
History Division
Washington, D.C.20585

Table of Contents1................................................................................

Introduction.

The First Commission .........................................................................

1

The Nuclear Arsenal ..........................................................................

1

ProductionExpansion......................................................;
Organizing the National Laboratories............................................................

22........................................................................

Reactor Development.
AtomsforPeace2..................

3.............................................................................
1954 ..................................................................

TheAtomicEnergyActof

TheFiveYearPlan........................................;

3
3...................................
:. ............................

Cooperation With Industry .......................................

3

Participation.....................................................................

3

WeaponTestingandFallout...................................................................

4

International

LimitedTestBanTreaty

4.......................................................................

Civilian Power: The Proliferationof the Peaceful Atom in the Sixties.

Private Ownership.................................................................

Legislation.

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

5
5

Nuclear Power Capacity .......................................................................
The Breeder Reactor ..........................................................................
Licensing and Regulation ......................................................................
Research ....................................................................................
Applied Technology
Nonnuclear..........................................................................

Research .........................................................................

6
7

Reorganization ...............................................................................
Calvert Cliffs Decision .......................
TheCommission’sLastDays
ReactorSafety

7. .................................................

7...................................................................

8...............................................................................

Summary ...................................................................................

8..................................................................................

9

Footnotes.
Appendix

I Personnel .........................................................................

11

Appendix

II Chronology.......................................................................

13

Appendix

III Laboratories and Production

Appendix

IV Organization

Appendix

V Nuclear Detonations

and Early Stockpile Data. .........................................

Appendix

VI Financial Statistics.............................................................

Appendix

VII Institutional

15

Facilities .................................................

17

Charts ...............................................................

Origins of the Departmentof Energy

23
....

25

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

26

Introduction
Almost a year after World War II ended, Congress
established the United States Atomic Energy Commission
to foster and control the peacetime development of atomic
science and technology. Reflecting America’s postwar optimism, Congress declared that atomic energy should be
employed not only in the Nation’s defense, but also to promote world peace, improve the public welfare, andstrengthen free competition
in private enterprise. Afterlong months of intensive debate among politicians, militaryplanners and atomic scientists, President Harry S. Truman
confirmed the civilian control of atomic energy by signing
the Atomic Energy Act on August 1,1946.(l)The provisions of the new Act bore the imprint of theAmerican plan for international
control presented to theUnited Nations Atomic Energy Commission two months
earlier by U.S. Representative Bernard Baruch. Although
the Baruch proposal for a multinational
corporation todevelop the peaceful uses of atomic energy failed to win
the necessary Soviet support, the concept of combining
development, production, and control in one agency foundacceptance in the domestic legi,slation creating the UnitedStates Atomic Energy Commission.(2)Congress gave the new civilian Commission extraordinary power and independence to carry out its awesome
responsibilities.
Five Commissioners
appointed by the
President would exercise authority for the operation of theCommission, while a general manager, also appointed by
the President, would serve as chief executive officer. To
provide the Commission exceptional
freedom in hiring
scientists
and professionals,
Commission
employees
would be exempt from the Civil Service system. Becauseof the need for great security, all production facilities andnuclear reactors would be government-owned,
while alltechnical information and research results would be underCommission control, and thereby excluded from the normal application of the patent system.
In addition, the Act provided for three major advisorycommittees: a Congressional Joint Committee on Atomic
Energy, a Military Liaison Committee, and a General Advisory Committee of outstanding scientists.f3)

The First Commission
On January 1, 1947, the fledgling Atomic Energy Commission took over from the Manhattan Engineer District
the massive research and production facilities built during
World War II to develop the atomic bomb. The facilities
were the product of an extraordinary
mission accomplished in three years in almost complete secrecy. Under the
direction of General Leslie Ft. Groves of the Army Corps ofEngineers, the laboratory experiments of Enrico Fermi andother Americanand European scientists
had beentransformed into operating plants capable of producing a
military weapon of devastating power. When the atomic
bomb was dropped on Hiroshima on August 6, 1945, andthree days later on Nagasaki, not only was a long and costly war brought to an end, but the world also became awareof a completely new and largely unexpected technology.(4)As the first chairman of the agency created to control
the peace,time development of the new technology, President Harry Truman appointed David E. Lilienthal, a lawyer

and former head of tht Tennessee Valley Authority.
During the preceding year, Lilienthal and Under Secretary ofState Dean Acheson had co-authored the well-known
Acheson-Lilienthal
report which had formed the basis for
the American plan for international
control of atomic
energy. Serving with Lilienthal on the Commission wereSumner
T. Pike, a businessman from New England,
William T. Waymack, a farmer and newspaper editor from
Iowa, Lewis L. Strauss, a conservative banker and reserve
admiral, and Robert F. Bather, a physicist from Los
Alamos and the only scientist on the Commission. Carroll
L. Wilson, a young engineer who had helped Vannevar
Bush organize the National Defense Research Committee
during the war, was appointed general manager. Twofloors of the New War Department Building in Washington
provided a temporary home for the Commission. A few
months later more permanent headquarters were found at
19th and Constitution
Avenue, N.W., in the former wartime offices of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
The new Commission faced a challenging future. WorldWar II was quickly followed by an uneasy internationalsituation commonly referred to as the Cold War, and Lilienthal and his colleagues soon found that most of the Commission’s resources had to be devoted to weapon development and production.
The requirementsof national
defense thus quickly obscured their original goal ofdeveloping the full potential of the peaceful atom. For two
decades military-related
programs would command thelion’s share of the Commission’s time and the major portion of the budget.t5)

The Nuclear Arsenal
To meet the Nations expanding requirements for fissionable material the Commission set about refurbishing
the production and research facilities built during the war.
A major overhaul of the original reactors and two new
plutonium
reactors were authorized
for the Hanford,
Washington plant. Oak Ridge was scheduled for an addition to the existing K-25 plant and a third gaseous diffusion
plant for the production of uranium 235. The Commission
decided to adopt the Army’s practice of hiring private corporations to operate plants and laboratories, thereby extending into peacetime the contractor system previously
used by the Government
only in times of national
emergency.
The first test of new weapons was conductedatEnewetakAtoll
in April and May 1946. Operation
Sandstone explored weapon designs and tested a new fission weapon to replace the clumsy tailor-made models
used during World War II. By 1946 the Commission had
both gun-type and implosion-type non-nuclear and nuclear
components in stockpile and was well on the way toward
producing an arsenal of nuclear weapons.
In early September
1949 a special Air Force unit
detected a large radioactive mass over the Pacific, indicating that the Soviet Union had successfully detonateda nuclear device. The Soviet detonation not only ended theUnited States’ monoploy of nuclear weapons, but also had
an immediate effect on the Commission’s planned expansion program. During the prolonged debate which followed the announcementof the Soviet event, Commissioner Lewis L. Strauss, supported by fellow Commis-

sioner Gordon Dean, urged the Commissionto take a“quantum jump” by developing a thermonuclearweapon.
Strong support for the Strauss’ position came from theCongressional Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, andfrom scientistssuch as EdwardTeller, LuisW. Alverez, andErnest 0. Lawrence, who agreed that the development of
the superbomb was absolutely essentialto the security of
the United States. The members of the GeneralAdvisory
Committee, however, while concurring in the need for giving high priority to the development of atomic weapons fortactical purposes, recommended against an all-out effort
to develop a hydrogen bomb. On January 31,1950, President Truman settled the issue with his momentous decision that the Commission should expedite work on thethermonuclearweapon.(b)Production

Expansion

David Lilienthal resigned on February 15th after three
years as chairman of the Atomic Energy Commission.
Although his dream of developing the full potential of thepeaceful atom had not been fulfilled, the Commission
under his leadership had become an effective government
institution. Indeed, the future held great promise for thepeaceful atom, but for the moment at least the military
atom would continue to be in the ascendancy.
By mid July 1950 Gordon Dean had become chairman of
the Commission,and the Nation was no longer in a twilightzone between peace and war. Following an attack by
North Korean troops across the 38th parallel, President
Truman ordered U.S. forces to the aid of South Korea.
Suddenly increased military demands, added to the President’s decision to develop the hydrogen bomb, threatened
to exhaust the Commission’sproduction capacity. Beginning in October 1950 the Commissionembarked on a vast
expansion program. During the next three years the constructicn of huge plants increasedcapacity at each step inthe production chain. The new facilities included a feedmaterials production center at Fernald, Ohio; a plant toproduce large quantities of lithium 6 at Oak Ridge; agaseous-diffusion plant at Paducah, Kentucky; a whole
new gaseous diffusion complex at Portsmouth, Ohio; two“Jumbo” reactors and a separation plant for producing
plutonium at Hanford; and five heavy-water reactorsat theSavannah River site in South Carolina for producing
tritium from lithium 6 as well as plutonium. The three year
three-billion-dollar expansion program representedone of
the greatest federal construction projects in peacetime
history.
In addition to having an impact on the Commission’sexpansion program, the Korean War also focused attention
on the need for a continental test site. In December 1950,
with the approval of the Department of Defense and theGeneral Advisory Committee, the Commission selectedthe Las Vegas bombing and gunnery range as the site to
conduct the January 1951 Ranger test series, the firstatomic tests in the United States since the Trinity detonation at Alamogordo on July 16,1945.(7)The United States detonated the world’s first thermonuclear device in the fall of 1952. Code-named Mike, theshot was part of the Ivy test seriesconducted at Enewetak
By the end of 1953 more than thirty weapon test devices
had been successfully fired at Pacific or Nevada sites, the2~iesuttof extraordinary efforts by scientistsand engineers
at the Commission’sLos Alamos weapon laboratory.A second weapon laboratoryestablishedat Livermore, California in early 1952, soon became the center of a weapon
engineering and production network which included theSsndia Laboratorynear Albuquerque, New Mexico, as well
as new or expanded facilities in Iowa, Texas, Missouri,
Ohio, and Colorado.(B)\Organizing

the National

Laboratories

Fortunately the concentrated effort on weapon production did not mean a total neglect of the Commission’s
research laboratories. The Commission recognized theneed to maintain the vitality of the national labs, and to encouragethe university researchteams and industry groups
whose research on the peaceful uses of atomic energy
would provide the technology of the future. The
Metallurgical Laboratory at the University of Chicago had
been reorganized by the Army in 1946 as the Argonne National Laboratory. The following year the Commissionobtained a new site for the lab at Argonne, Illinois and determined that the laboratory should become a large multidisciplinary research center for the midwest. Under the
directionof Walter H. Zlnn, one of Enrico Fermi’sprincipal
assistants.in developing the world’s first reactor, Argonnevery quickly became the Commission’scenter for reactor
development.(9~The Clinton Laboratories, built during World War II at
Oak Ridge, Tennessee, became the regional research
center for southeastern United States. Reorganized in1948 as the Oak Ridge National Laboratory, Oak Ridge
became the Nation’s largest supplier of radioisotopesfor
medical, industrial and physical research, as well as aregional center for research in chemistry, physics,
metallurgy, and biology. The laboratory also conducted
the largestradiation genetics program in the world.
To provide regional research facilities for the northeast,
the Commission approved a plan by Associated Univershies, Inc. to build and operate a laboratoryat Upton, New
York. The Brookhaven National Laboratory provided
research facilities in reactor physics, high-energy accelerators,and the biomedical sciences. A fourth center inthe far west was established by expanding the facilities of
the University of California Radiation Laboratory at
Berkeley. In addition to the regional centers the Commission continued to support the wartime researchlaboratoriesat a number of colleges and universities, andawarded and administered hundreds of contracts withresearch institutions, universities and nonprofit organizations for basic research in the physical and biologicalsciences.(10)Reactor Development
Afthough by 1953 the vast production complex of theAtomic Energy Commission was almost totally dedicatedto military purposes, the idea of a civilian nuclear powersystem based on American industry was very much alive.
As early as 1947, Lilienthal had publicly encouraged a partnership with industry in developing the peaceful uses ofatomic energy. The Commission had supported a modest
but coherent plan for developing nutilear power and propulsion and had permitted a few industry committees

behind the Commission’s security barriers to evaluate theopportunities for commercial development. On December
20, 1951, at the Commission’s Idaho Test station, Zinn anda group of engineers from the Argonne National
Laboratory succeeded in producing a token amount ofelectricity from an experimental fast breeder reactor. Thishistoric accomplishment demonstrated in a practical way
that the atomic nucleus could serve mankind as a sourceof power. ( 11)
Probably the most successful reactor program in the
1850’s was the naval reactors project established anddirected by Admiral Hyman G. Rickover. On June 14,1852,
at the keel-laying ceremony for the wortd’s first nuclear
powered ship, Chairman Gordon Dean noted that the propulsion of the submarine Nautilus
would be the first practical utilization of atomic power, heretofore used primarily
as an explosive. The Navy project later played a significant
role in the widespread adoption of pressurized-water reactors by the nuclear power industry in the United States.flP)
By the end of 1852, technological developments had
generated a broad interest in nuclear power in Congress aswell as in industry, and the election of a Republican president brought further encouragement. Indeed, there wassoon reason for optimism. Two outstanding
accomplishments of the Eisenhower years, the 1853 Atomsfor-Peace plan, and the passage of the 1854 Atomic Energy
Act were to have a significant impact on the Nation’s
nuclear program031

Atoms for Peace
Speaking before the United Nation’s General Assemblyon December 8, 1853, President Dwight D. Eisenhower
declared that “peaceful power from atomic energy is no
dream of the future. . that capability, already proved, ishere today.“(l4) The President’s Atoms-for-Peace proposal became a major pronouncement of America’s public
policy concerning the international management of
nuclear energy. With a sufficient supply of uranium tosatisfy its own military needs, by 1954 the United States
could turn its attention to the promotion of the peacefuluses of nuclear energy051

The Five Year Plan
Even before Congress had passed the Atomic Energy
Act of 1854, the Commission had launched a new programfor power reactor development. In early 1854 Strauss announced plans to test the basic designs then under study
by building five experimental reactors within five years. Of
the five reactor prototypes planned, the one with the mostimmediate impact on nuclear power development was thePressurized Water Reactor (PWR) at Shippingport, Pennsylvania. Based on the technology developed for nuclear
propulsion systems for submarines, Shippingport wascompleted on schedule in late 1857 as the Nation’s firstfull-scale nuclear generating station.
The other reactor experiments constructed under thefive year program included the Sodium Reactor Experiment built by North American Aviation, a Commission
contractor in southern California; the Experimental Boiling
Water Reactor constructed at the Commission’s Argonne
National Laboratory; and new models of the fast breeder
and homogeneous reactor experiments built in the early
1850’s at the National Reactor Testing station in central
Idaho, and the Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee. Of the five experiments in the program, the Ship
pingport and the Argonne boiling-water reactors encountered fewer technical problems, but each experimentcontributed to the development of the technology needed
to build full-scale nuclear power plants in the future.

Cooperation

with Industry

The terms of the Atomic Energy Act enabled the Commission to encourage private industry to build its own
nuclear plants, using fissionable material leased from theGovernment. Industry responded to the Commission’s
January 1855 Power Demonstration Reactor Program withfour proposals covering all but one of the Commission’s
five prototypes. Thus by the end of 1857, the Commission
had seven experimental
reactors in operation andAmerican industry was participating in nine independent
or cooperative projects capable of producing almost
806,CKM kilowatts of electricity by the mid-1960’s. For the
moment at least, prospects for the future of the peacefulatom were extremely encouraging.fl7)

Lewis Strauss had been President Eisenhower’s special
assistant for atomic energy prior to his appointment as
Commission chairman in July 1853. Strongly committed tonational security during his early years as a Commissioner,and supportive of Truman’s decision to expedite thedevelopment of the thermonuclear weapon; Strauss was
now in a position to work closely with Eisenhower in promoting the peaceful atom on a world-wide basis.

The Atomic

early summer resulted in a new law which opened the door
for an exchange of nuclear technology with other nations.
Although industry did not gain the right to own fissionable
material, liberal licensing provisions, greater access totechnical data, and the right to own reactors provided theessential conditions for the private development Of nuclear
power in the United States.(lG)

Energy Act of 1954
International

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

In his Atoms-for-Peace proposal of December 8, 1953,
President Eisenhower had proposed that the nuclear
powers contribute portions of their stockpiles of normal
uranium end fissionable materials to an international
atomic energy agency, which would then allocate thesematerials toward peaceful uses. After three years of patient diplomatic negotiations, the International Atomic
Energy Agency (IAEA) was formally inaugurated in Vienna,
Austria on October 1, 1957. As head of the United States3

delegation to the first IAEA conference, Lewis Strauss
delivered the President’s message of hope that the fissioned atom would now be transformed from a symbol offear to one of hope. The new spirit of international
cooperation had been in evidence even earlier when morethan 1400 scientists from 73 nations attended the first
United Nations sponsored International Conference on thePeaceful Uses of Atomic
Energy, held in Geneva,
Switzerland in August 1965. Similar conferences were held’in 1958,1964and 1971.
In addition to sponsoring
the International
AtomicEnergy Agency, the United States gave strong support toEurarom, the European atomic energy community consisting of West Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, theNetherlands and Luxembourg.
Formally inaugurated in
January 1958, Euratom undertook to establish an integrated program for developing an atomic energy industry in Europe similar to the European Coal and Steel
Community. Prior to the establishment of either the International Atomic Energy Agency or Euratom, the Atomic
Energy Commission had negotiated a series of bilateralagreements to provide research reactors, power reactor
fuel and technical information to friendly nations, as wellas training programs for nuclear scientists and technicians.
Althoughno bilateral agreements were made with theSoviet Union, Commission Chairman John A. McCone
and his Soviet counterpart, Professor Vasily S. Emelyanov,signed a Memorandum on Cooperation on November 24,
1959, covering exchanges of visits and informationonseveral unclassified areas of peaceful nuclear application.
Similar memoranda in the 1960’s and early 1970’s covered
joint experiments in the fields of high energy physics, controlled thermonuclear
research and fast breeder reactors.(l8)Weapon Testing and Fallout
The detonation of the first shot in the Castle weapon
test series in the spring of 1954, however, had threatened
to cast a shadow over the glowing prospects for thepeaceful atom, so recently kindled by Eisenhower’s atomsfor-peace proposal. At the time of the Bravo shot on
March 1, a Japanese fishing vessel had been within 82
nautical miles of the test area, close enough to receive aheavy dusting of radioactive fallout. By the time the ship,
the f-ukuryu Maru (or Lucky Dragon) returned to Japan theeffects of the radiation exposure had become evident, andseveral members of the crew required hospitalization. The
American and Japanese press accounts of the incident
had made the public aware, probably for the first time, of
the worldwide dangers of radiation from fallout.(l9)In January 1956 Commissioner Willard F. Libby revealed
the existence of Project Sunshine, a study of global fallout
from weapon testing which Libby had initiated in the fall of1953 while serving on the General Advisory Committee.
Commission laboratories and contractors had been analyzing data collected through a worldwide network monitoring the presence of strontium 90 in humans, foods andsoils. Prior to 1953 public concern with radiation had focused primarily on workers in atomic energy projects. In
1957 the Joint Committee’s hearings on the nature ofradioactive fallout revealed for the first time the extent of
the Commission’s radiation research program. Millions ofdollars were involved in more than 300 Commissionsponsored projects on various aspects of radiation andfallout.(21 I
Testing of nuclear devices by the United States continued throughout
the 1950’s, although the Eisenhower
Administration
repeatedly expressed its willingness to suspend nuclear tests as part of a disarmament agreement.
When the Conference of Experts convened in Geneva inthe summer of 1958, the President announced that theUnited States was prepared to negotiate a test ban agreement and would voluntarilysuspend all weapon testing
after the completion of the Hardtack series in the fall. As aresult an unpoliced moratorium period began on October
31, 1958, during which both the United States and theSovietUnion
refrainedfromnuclearweaponexperiments.(22)

Limited Test Ban Treaty
Three years later the Soviet Union abruptly ended themoratorium by announcing, on August 31,1961, that they
intended to resume testing. By now John F. Kennedy wasin the White House, and Glenn Seaborg had succeededJohn McCone as chairman. One of the original membersof the General Advisory Committee and the first scientist
appointed as chairman of the Commission,
Seaborg
served during the entire decade of the 1960’s.
Although the Soviet Union tested a large number ofhigh-yield weapons in the atmosphere during the autumn
of 1961, President Kennedy limited the Commission’s
weapon laboratories to underground tests until April 25,
1962, when the first shot in the Dominic series was conducted at Christmas Island in the Pacific. With technicalsupport from Seaborg and the Commission, the President
at the same time had been earnestly pursuing a test ban
agreement with the Soviet Union. It had been a long andarduous task bearing little fruit. In an address to the Nation
on March 2,1962, Kennedy had explained that he deploredthe necessity of beginning atmospheric testing again, but“a nation which is refraining from tests obviously cannot
match the gains of a nation conducting tests.“031
Finally, after months of negotiations, a limited test ban
treaty was signed in Moscow on August 5, 1963, prohibiting nuclear explosion tests in the atmosphere, outerspace, or under water, but permitting
underground
detonations provided no radioactive debris crossed theborders of the country in which the test was being conducted.

On February 15, 1955, with the approval of the President, Strauss released a major report on the “Effects ofHigh-Yield Nuclear Explosions.”
The report did little tocalm public apprehension, and mounting concerns foundexpression in numerous articles on radiation and fallout inscientific journals and other public media. Both the Committee on Armed Services and the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy held healings in the spring of 1955 on problems associated with radioactive fallout. The following
December, the United Nations established a ScientificCommittee on Radiation with the former director of the,Commission’s Division of Biology and Medicine, Shields
Warren, as United States’ representative.(20)In the absence of further success in negotiating a comprehensive test ban treaty, President Kennedy, and later
Presidents Johnson and Nixon, continued to authorize
4_“,?,.;_./.... .. ., _-..-. ,___._..,(..,-‘rr+y’.-.ry-l,’. ._,.

undergroundtests in accordance with the 1963 treaty.
Althoughthe limitationsof the treaty imposed severe
technical
problems,
particularly
in testinghigh-yield
warheads, the Commission’slaboratories
neverthelesswere highly successful in devising ways to improve and update nuclear weapons by testing underground.

Civilian Power: The Proliferation
Atom in the Sixties

Private Ownership

Legislation

On August 26, 1964, President Johnson brought to an
end an eighteen-year mandatory government monopoly of
special nuclear materials by signing into law the “Private
Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials Act.” Enricheduranium for power reactor fuel would no longer have to beleased from the government. Private entities would be permitted to assume title to special nuclear materials.
Although the new law provided for a transition period forthe changeover from government to private ownership,
after June 20, 1973 private ownership of power reactor
fuels would become mandatory. The Act also authorized
the Commission to offer uranium enriching services toboth domestic and foreign customers under long-term
contracts, beginning on January 1, 1969. Most of theAtomicEnergyCommision’s
literatureon reactor
technology had been declassified as early as 1955. With
the adoption of the Private Ownership Act in 1964, fissionable materials as well as reactors now entered the
public domain, and a fullOfledged nuclear industry became
a possibility.(26)of the Peaceful

The signing of the Limited Test Ban Treaty in August1963 also had an impact on the civilian power program.
The cessation of weapon testing in the atmosphere gave
new hope that the peaceful atom might soon command aslarge a share of the Commission’s time and budget as themilitary atom had for so many years.
Althoughthe imminence of economic nuclear power
had been a main theme at the 1958 Geneva Conference,
recurring technical difficulties in many of the prototype
and demonstration
plants in several European countries
continued in the next few years to frustrate hopes for apractical new source of electrical power. In the UnitedStates, however, prospects were somewhat more encouraging.
In March 1962 President Kennedy had requested the Atomic Energy Commission to take a “newand hard look at the role of nuclear power” in the Nation’s
economy. In submitting the Commission’s report several
months later, Seaborg noted optimistically that the Commission’s ten-year civilian power program, adopted in
1958, was on the threshold of attaining its primary objective of competitive
nuclear power by 1968. Suggested
goals for the future included a concentration of resourcesin the most promising reactor systems, the early establishment of a self-sufficientand growing nuclear power industry, and increased emphasis on the development of improved converter or breeder reactors which would conserve natural uranium resources. The report was broadly
circulated
and stimulated
publicconfidence
in theeconomic prospects for civilian nuclear power.(24)On November 22, 1963, Lyndon B. Johnson became
President of the United States. One of Johnson’s first andprobably most significant acts was to order a 25 percent
cutback in production of enriched uranium and the shut
down of four plutonium piles, with the expectation that
other nations might be challenged to do the same.
Although verification was difficult, Chairman Khruschev
later announced production cutbacks in the Soviet Union.

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

Nuclear Power Capacity
The Commission’s 1962 report on civilian power had
projected 5,060 megawatts of nuclear power capacity by
1970 and 40,ooO by 1980. Within five years the outlook hadchanged so dramatically that in March 1967 the Commission issued a supplementary report doubling its previous
predictions. Within a few years, however, even these revised statistics were exceeded. (By the end of 1974 two
hundred and thirty-three nuclear central-station generating
units, with a capacity of 232,000 megawatts, were either inoperation, under construction,or on order in the UnitedStates.11271

The Breeder Reactor
In addition to predicting dramatic increases in megawatt
capacity, the Commission’s 1967 report on civilian nuclear
power reaffirmed the promise of the breeder reactor formeeting long-term energy needs, and gave the Liquid
Metal Fast Breeder Reactor (LMFBR) the highest priority
for civilian reactor development. A major boost was given
to the program four years later by President Richard Nixon.
In his “clean energy” message to Congress on June 4,
1971, the President called for the commercial demonstration of a breeder reactor by 1980, stating that “The breeder
reactor could extend the life of our natural uranium fuelsupply from decades to centuries, with far less impact on
the environment
than the power plants whichareoperating today.“(28)Another milestone in civilian power development occurred on December 12, 1963, when the Jersey Central
Power and Light Company announced that it had contracted for a large nuclear power reactor to be built at
Oyster Creek near Toms River, New Jersey. According to
the company’s own evaluation, the plant would be competitive with a fossil fuel plant. For the first time an
American utility company had selected a nuclear power
plant on purely economic grounds without government
assistance and in direct competition with a fossil-fuel plant.
In a commencement
address at Holy Cross College onJune IO, 1964, President Johnson called it an “economic
breakthrough.“@51
Two months later private industry
received further encouragementfrom Congress in theform of new legislation.

The fast breeder project included a demonstration plantin Oak Ridge, Tennessee- the Clinch River Breeder Reactor(CRBRI-anda testreactorinRichland,Washingtonthe Fast Flux Test Facility (FFTF). . Clinch

5

__.

..I

, .

.

,

, ., ,.

River promised to be a major step in the transition fromtechnology to large-scale demonstration of the fast
breeder concept. The project was launched in August 1972
with the signing of a memorandum of understanding between the Commission and the principal UbTi participants, the Commonwealth Edison Company and theTennessee Valley Authority: The Commission would be
responsible for research and development of thedemonstration plant while the Commonwealth ,Edison
Company and the Tennessee Valley Authority would
engineer, manufacture and proof test equipment andsystems&?91_Licensing and Regulation
Under the terms of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, Congress had given the Atomic Energy Commission the
responsibility for regulating and licensing commercial
atomic activities. As the Nation’s electric power industry
increasingly turned toward nuclear plants, the Commission
found it necessary to modify its organizational structure to
separate regulatory from non-regulatory functions. In 1961
the regulatory staff was separated from the General
Manager’s office and placed under a Director of Regulation who reported directly to the Commissioners. Twoyears later the regulatory and operational functions wereseparated physically when the regulatory staff was moved
from the headquarters building in Germantown, Maryland
to offices in BethesdaJ30)
Licensing procedures involved a series of technicalreviews and public hearings, including an independent
technical safety evaluation by the Advisory Committee on
Reactor Safeguards. The Commission itself sewed as a
final review board for all licenses granted, and maintained
continuous surveillance of licensed reactors throughout
their operating lifetime.
Research
The weapon requirements for national defense in theearly years had forced the Commission to postpone goals
for an all-out program of research on the peaceful atom.
As seen in the development of the power reactor,
however, there was a gradual shift in emphasis during the
Eisenhower era, and the trend continued to gain momentum during the Kennedy and Johnson Years. In 1966 the
AEC budget for the first time was divided about equally between weapons and peaceful uses. ,Research and development programs in the 1966’s andearly 1970’s produced a significant fund of knowledge
about radiation and its effects, and provided basic dataneeded to determine radiation protection standards and toassess the environmental impact of nuclear technology.
Advances in medical diagnostic techniques based on theuse of radioisotopes and radiation machines added to theskills of the medical profession, while immunologicalresearch provided the knowledge needed for successfultransplants. Other medical breakthroughs included thetreatment of Parkinson’s Disease, the preservation of cells
for transfusion, and the introduction of small accelerators
to produce short-lived radioisotopes for immediate use inpatients. Although Oak Ridge produced virtually all of theradioisotopes available for physical and biomedical as well
as for industrial applications, the Commission gradually_.. ,.

.

..a . .._.. *.

.__..~__.i.,_!ci_~

.

-

. ..-

-.-

1

I.

._.-..-.._--__.-.-

transferred production, packaging, and shipping to commercial suppliers, while continuing to support research on
new applications.(31)During the 1966’s the Commission produced a series ofradioisotope-powered and reactor-powered electricalgenerating units for space applications. The first such unit
was launched into space from Vandenburg Air Force Basein California ‘on April 3, 1965, under the Systems for
Nuclear Auxiliary
Power (SNAP) program. Newly
discovered heavy isotopes, such as Californium-252, were
found useful in both research and industry. In addition,
significant progress was made in developing cardiac
pacemakers for human use and ultimately artificial hearts
using radioisotopic-power sources.(32)
Major research facilities such as high energy accelerators were constructed and operated by the AEC.
Building on the accomplishments of the Berkeley Bevatronand the Brookhaven Cosmotron in the 1966’s, the Commission supported even larger accelerators in the 1966’s
and 1976’s, including the Alternating Gradient Synchrotron at Brookhaven, the Zero Gradient Synchrotron at
Argonne, and the two-mile long Stanford Linear Accelerator. The Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory,completed in 1972, contained the world’s most powerfulproton synchrotron. The principal centers for research on
controlled thermonuclear (fusion) reactors were Oak
Ridge, Los Alamos, Livermore, and Princeton, althoughmany universities and industrial facilities were involved ona smaller scale.
AppliedTechnology

As nuclear technology developed, the Commission
perfected special applications of nuclear power, such as
nuclear explosives for earth moving and for extracting
resources deep undarground. Gnome, the first experimentin the PIowshare series, was conducted in December 1961
in a thick salt bed deposit near Carlsbad, New Mexico,while the firat nuclear cratering experiment, Project Sedan,
was completed the following July at the Nevada Test Site.
Project Gasbuggy in 1967, Rulison in 1969, and Rio Blanc0
in 1973, tested methods for extracting natural gas from impermeable rock. In the early 1970’s, the Commission
directed applied technology projects toward environmental research, energy storage and transmission systems,
synthetic fuels, and nonnuclear energy.
Nonnuclear

Research

The scientific and technological expertise gained by thenational laboratories in developing nuclear energy madethe Commission a logical contender for a strong role indeveloping new energy options. The doors of the nationallabs first opened to nonnuclear research in 1960 when theCommission, in a special report to the Joint Committee on
AtomicEnergy, acknowledged“thatthe strong
capabilities of the laboratories are not the exclusive
resources of the atomic energy field; they are held in trust
for the Nation as a whole.” Accordingly, work from otherfederal agencies would be accommodated whenever theskills of the national laboratories were needed.031
On August 11,1971, largely in response to President Nixon’s energy message of june 4, Congress authorized theAtomic Energy Commission to undertake research and6*

development projects geared to providing a variety of alternatives for meeting the Nation’s energy needs. As a result
the Commission’s
industrial
contractors
and national
laboratories
became involvedin the areas of superconducting power transmission systems, energy storage,
solar energy, geothermal
resources, and coal gasification.04)

The Federal Court of Appeals’ August 4, 1971 landmark
decision concerning the Calvert Cliffs nuclear Power Plant
became a pivot point for a major revamping of the Commission’s licensing procedures. The Court ruled that theAtomic Energy Commission’s regulations for implementing the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 in licensing procedures did not comply in several respects with theAct, and that the Commission should make an independent review and evaluation of all environmental effects atevery decision point in the nuclear power plant licensing
process.

Reorganization
James R. Schlesinger took over the helm of the Atomic
Energy Commission in August 1971, as its twenty-fifth year
as an agency was drawing to a close. American troops
were still in Vietnam
and anti-war
protests
werewidespread. The Nation faced increasing demands forenergy, a leveling out of domestic oil production, limitations on coal use due to environmental
concerns, inadequate natural gas supplies, and field delays in the licensing
and constructionof nuclear power plants. The rapid
growth in atomic energy activities in the previous decadeand changing perspectives in nuclear technology clearlypointed.to the need for a substantial reorganization of theCommission’s operational and regulatory functions. For
nearly a quarter of a century the Commission had focusedresearch and development toward responding to national
defense requirements, funding and developing new uses
for atomic energy, and fostering the growth of a competitive and viable nuclear industry. The next few years
would see increasing attacks on the Commission’s role asa regulatory overseer of the nuclear industry, particularly inthe areas of quality of product and public safety4351

Moving swiftly to implement the Court’s ruling, theCommission made substantive changes in environmental
review procedures. Both the Commission and the license
applicant would now be required to consider the total impact of the proposed plant on the environment, including
water quality. In addition, a cost-benefit analysis would
balance the benefits of building the facility against a variety of alternatives.(38) These changes in procedures affected virtually all nuclear power plants whether licensed
for operation or under review.
To expedite the additional procedures which the Calvert
Cliff’s decision required, Schlesinger
made significant
changes in the Commission’s regulatory organization, andadded additional personnel to the staff to help with the expanded reactor licensing workload. Additional changes in1972 further streamlined the regulatory staff. Three directors consolidated the functions previously performed byseven divisions. All licensing activities were centered in thelargest of the three, the Directorate of Licensing, headed
by John F. O’Leary, former Director of the Bureau of
Mines.(39)As a first order of business, Schlesinger led the Commission in a comprehensive review of the agency’s functions
and organization.
An economist and former assistantdirector of the Bureau of the Budget, Schlesinger announced the results of the review in December 1971. The
first broad reorganizaton in ten years would bring together
various related programs previously scattered throughout
the agency. Developmental
and operational
functionsformerly under the jurisdictionof the general manager
would now bt under six assistant general managers forEnergy and De\ slopment Programs, Researoh, Production
and Management of Nuclear Materials, Environment and
Safety Programs, National Security, and Administration.
Reflecting expanding areas of Commission involvement
were
newdivisionsofControlled
Thermonuclear
Research, International
Security Affairs, and Applied
Technology4361 The second half of 1971 also saw a major
revamping of the regulatory organization and functions.

The Commission’s

Last Days

Calvert Cliffs Decision

Schlesinger left the Atomic
Energy Commission in
January 1973 to become head of the Central Intelligence
Agency. He was succeeded as chairman by Dr. Dixy Lee
Ray, a marine biologist from the state of Washington who
had been appointed to the Commission by President Nixon
in August 1972. The first woman to be chairman of theAtomic Energy Commission, Ray took over at a time when
the Nation was faced with the monumental task of reconcilingenergyneeds,
environmental
concerns
andeconomic goals. More importantly
for the Commission,
criticism had begun to mount against an agency that
regulated the very same energy source that it helped to
produce and operate.

The Nixon Administration
believed that nuclear power,
as an environmentally“clean” fuel, could help the Nation
produce the increasing supply of energy needed for the
future. On the other hand ponderous licensing procedures and increasing environmental
considerations
lengthened
the time necessary to bring nuclear power plants on line,
and increased costs to the industry, and ultimately to theconsumer. As Commissioner Doub informed the Atomic
Industrial Forum in October 1971, the Commission harbored no illusions as to the magnitude of the task of trying
to match “the capabilities of a dynamic and complex
technology to the urgent energy and environmental needsof the countty.“(37)In June 1973, President Nixon directed the chairman of
the Atomic Energy Commission to undertake an immediate review of federal and private energy research anddevelopment activities and to recommend an integrated
program for the Nation.(
The President’s energy proposals to Congress the following January reflected therecommendations
submitted
by Chairman Ray in the
December 1, 1973 report on “TheNation’s
EnergyFuture.” Because of the energy crisis resulting from theOctober Arab oil embargo, the President had chosen to
break tradition and present his energy request to Congress
before delivering his State of the Union address. Both his
proposal for a five-year $10 billion energy research and7

development program, and his determination to double thetotal federal commitment to energy research and development for fiscal year 1975, were in line with the recommendations made by the Commission chairman. The Ray
report also supported the President’s recommendation toestablish an Energy Research and- Development Administration.(l)1 1
Reactor Safety
In December 1973 the Commission announced new requirements for the performance of the emergency corecooling systems IECCS) installed in light-water-cooled
power reactors. Such systems provided the capability for
emergency removal of heat from the reactor core in theevent of a loss of the normal reactor coolant water. The
Co.mmission’s action concluded a DNo-year public rule.
making hearing which had served as a focal point for
public discussion of opposing viewpoints on the safety of
nuclear power plants. Six months of hearing sessions, be.
tween January 27,1972 and July 28,1973, had produced avoluminous transcript, a clear witness to the complexity ofthe technical issues involved in nuclear safety. A constantadvocate of the public’s right to know and fully understandthe possible dangers of radiation, the Joint Committee on
Atomic Energy had also held a hearing in early 1973 on thesafety of nuclear power plants.
Clearly the handwriting on the wall was spelling out the
numbered days of the AEC in 1973. Although nuclear
power constituted a significant part of the answer to the
Nation’s need for additional sources of energy, it was byno means the only answer as had been predicted in theearly decades of the Commission’s existence.
‘Summary
When President Ford signed the Energy Reorganization
Act of 1974 on October 11, the Atomic Energy Commission’s twenty-eight year stewardship of the Nation’s
nuclear energy program came to an end. On January 19,
1975, the Commission’s research and development responsibilities were assumed by the Energy Research andDevelopment Administration, and the regulatory and licensing functions by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. Six
thousand, three hundred and twenty Commission
employees went to ERDA while one thousand nine hundred and seventy former regulatory personnel became partof the new Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
In the preceding twenty-eight years the Atomic Energy
Commission had accomplished a large portion of the mission established by the Congress in 1948. First, through its
weapon laboratories and production contractors, it had
developed and stockpiled an array of sophisticated nuclear
weapons which for nearly three decades had served as animportant element in national defense. Also in the area of
defense, the Commission had supported the developmentof nuclear propulsion reactors which made possible thecreation of a fleet of reliable nuclear submarines and surface ships.
Although for many years military related programs commanded the major portion of the budget, the Commission
had initiated and supported extensive research in the
nuclear sciences. The research contract and the national
laboratory had become key instruments in the widespread8

development and application of nuclear technology for
scientific, medical, and industrial purposes. Through participation in the International Atomic Energy Agency, inter- ’national coriferences and bilateral agreements, the United
Swam shared the new technology with other nations.
.The congressional mandate of 1948 also called for theuse of atomic energy in a way that would strengthen freecompetition in private enterprise. Although the severe
mslrictions of the 1946 Act made atomic energy virtually agovernment monopoly, the Commission in less than adecade advanced nuclear technology to the point whereindustrial participation was feasible, and then encouraged
the passage of new legislation in 1954 which made anudaar industry possible. By the early 1970’s nuclear
pow~ offered a promising option for meeting national and,world energy needs. .
In carrying out the Congressional mandate of 1948, theAtomic Energy Commission essentially worked its way out
of Qdstence. After concentrating on defense commibnents in the early years, the Commission then focusedon the development of a viable nuclear industry, only tocome under fire in the late 1960’s and 1970’s for being in
the position of regulating the same industry it helped tom
7Itis difficulty had been foreseen in 1981 when the functims of the agency were divided between the General
Manager and the Director of Regulation. Then in 1983 thetwo functions were physically separated by being housed
in different geographical locations. Finally, the legal
separation of the developmental and regulatory functions,requested in 7973 by the Commission itself, was accomplished by the Energy Reorganization Act of 1974. The
regulatory and licensing responsibilities became the exdusive focus of a new agency headed by a five-member
board, the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, while thedevelopmental functions were placed under a single administrator in a second agency, the Energy Research andDevelopment Administration.
In the preceding decade the Atomic Energy Commission
had lost much of its privileged status with Congress andthe American public. The exclusive monopoly and the
rr&? of secrecy had been largely removed, and no longer
did atomic energy seemingly provide the perfect formulafor both military defense and civilian energy needs.
Regulatory restrictions and environmental concerns were alarge part of the reason for the demise of the AEC, butmole important was the recognition that a single
tedmology should not be the exclusive focus of one agency. The energy crisis would now require the coordinationof all major energy programs in a new’ research anddevelopment agency, whose primary purpose would be toassist the Nation in achieving energy independence.
As a legacy to the new agency, the Atomic Energy Commission passed on its unique production facilities, its
valuable network of national laboratories, and the proventechnological skills, resourcefulness, and experience of its
personnel. Three years later the Energy Research andDevelopment Administration, like the Atomic Energy Commission before it, became part of an even larger organization. On October 1, 1977 Congress created a cabinet-level
Department of Energy to coordinate Federal energy
policies and programs.

FOOTNOTES
Sect. l(a), Atomic Energy Act of 1946 (Public Law585) 78th Cong. 1st sess.

12.

Hewlett and Duncan, Nuclear Navy, pp. 17879,23557; Dean Diary, June 14,;1952.

2% Corbin Aliardice and Edward R. Trapnell, The Atomic
Energy Commission (New York: Praeger Publishers,
19741, pp. 31-32 (hereafter cited as Allardice andTrapnell, The AEC).

13.

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

14.

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United Stares,
1953, Dwight D. Eisenhower (Washington: Government Printing Office, 19601, pp. 813-22.

15.

For a discussion of Atoms for Peace as an instrumentof foreign policy, see Jack M. Hall, “Eisenhower’s
Peaceful Atomic Diplomacy: Atoms for Peace in the
Public Interest”(Paper delivered
before theAmerican Historical Association, Dallas, TX, Dec. 2330, 19771, p. 1 (hereafter cited as Hall, “Eisenhower’s
Peaceful Diplomacy”).

16.

“Message from the President of the United.States,“House Document, 83 Cong., 2 sess., no. 328 (Feb.
17, 19541; Richard G. Hewlett, “Industry and theAtomic Energy Commission, 1947-1954” (Paper
delivered at a joint session of the Society for theHistory of Technology and the Organization ofAmerican Historians, Chicago, IL, April 27, 19671, pp.
21-22.

17.

Jdint Committee on Atomic Energy, Current Sraremenr of the Atomic Energy Commission on the FiveYear Reactor Development Program, May 4, 1955
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1955).

18.

Hall, “Eisenhower’s Peaceful Diplomacy” pp. 918;
AEC, Twenry-third Semiannual Report, January 1958
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 19581, pp.
189221.

19.

Robert A. Divine, B/owing on the Wind, the Nuclear
Test Ban Debate 7954-1960 (New York: Oxford
University Press, 19781, pp. 3-18; AEC, Sixteenth
Semiannual Report, July 1954 (Washington: Government Printing Office, 19581, pp. 51-5; Richard G.
Hewlett and Jack M. Hall, “Nuclear Weapons: A
New Reality” (unpublished ms., Historian’s Office,19811, pp. 61-63.

20.

“A Report by United States Atomic Energy Commission on Effect of High-Yield Nuclear Explosions,” Appendix 7, Eighteenth Semiannual
Report of theAtomic Energy Commission July 1955 (Washington:
Government Printing Office, 19551, pp. 14754;
Senate Committee on Armed Services, Civil Defense
Program, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., Feb. 22, 1955, p. 2;
Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Health and
Safety Problems Associated wiih Atomic Explosions,
April 15, 1955; AEC, Major Activities in The Atomic
Energy Programs, January-June 1956, p. 16.

1.

3.

Dr. Richard G. Hewlett, former Chief Historian of the
AEC, believes that the most influential group in theearly years was not the Commission itself but its
General Advisory Committee consisting of such
famous scientists as J. Robert Oppenheimer, James
B. Conant, Enrico Fermi and lsador I. Rabi. Richard
G. Hewlett, “The Advent of Nuclear Power, 1945.
1968” (Paper delivered before the American Association for The Advancement of Science, Dallas, TX,
Dec. 28, 19681, p. 4 (hereafter cited as Hewlett, “TheAdvent of Nuclear Power”).

4.

Richard G. Hewlett, “Nuclear Power in the Public Interest: The Atomic Energy Act of 1954” (Paper
delivered before the American Historical Association,
Dallas, TX, Dec. 19771, pp. 1-3.

5.

Richard G. Hewlett, “The AEC in Retrospect” (unpublished ms., Historian’s Office, Feb. 10, 19761, p.
12 (hereafter cited as Hewlett, “The AEC in
Retrospect”).

6.

Public Papers of the Presidents of the United Stares:
Harry S. Truman 1950 (Washington: Government
Printing Office, 19651, p. 138. For a detailed presentation of the decision on the hydrogen bomb, seeRichard G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan, Atomic
Shield, 1947-1952, Vol. /I of A History of the United
Stares Atomic Energy Commission (University Park:
Pennsylvania State University Press, 19691, pp. 362469 (hereafter cited as Hewlett and Duncan, Atomic
Shield).

7.

Hewlett and Duncan, Atomic
64.

Shield, pp. 53435,563-

8.

Hewlett and Duncan Atomic Shield, pp. 411,424-30,
441; “The Eisenhower Imprint,” unpublished ms.,
Department of Energy Historian’s Office, pp. 3-4; “AHistory of the Expansion of AEC Production
Facilities,” Report by the General Manager, Aug. 16,
1963, pp. 13-20.

9.

Hewlett and Duncan, Atomic Shield, p. 432; Richard
G. Hewlett and Francis Duncan, Nuclear Navy 1946I%2 (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 19741,
pp. 5455 (hereafter cited as Hewlett and Duncan,
Nuclear Navy).

10.

Atomic Shield, pp. 222-227,432.

21.

11.

Proposal for Industrial Development of Atomic
Energy, enc. C.A. Thomas to S. Pike, June 20,195O;David Lilienthal, Speech before the Economic Club,
Detroit, Ml, Oct. 6, 1947; AEC Press Release 59, Oct.
6, 1947; Hewlett and Duncan, Atomic Shield, pp.
495~98.,Willard F. Libby, “Radioactive Fallout and Radioactive Strontium,” Northwestern University, Evanston,IL, Jan. 19, 1956; Joint Committee on Atomic Energy
Press Release No. 86, April 18, 1957.

22.

AEC, Twenty-fifthSemi-Annual
Report of theAromicEnergyCommission,
January‘1959,(Washington: Government Printing Office, 19601, pp.

9

,,

.

779-66. Richard G. Hewlett,“Nuclear Weapon
Testing and Studies Related to Health Effects: An
Historical Summary” (unpublished ms., Oct. 19801,
pp. 4344.

23,

Major Activities
in the Atomic Energy Program,
January-December
1961 (Washington: Government
Printing Office, 19621, pp. 161-62; AEC, Major Activities in the Atomic Energy Programs, JanuaryDecember 15X%?(Washington: Government Printing
Office, 19631, p. 234; Public Papers of Presidents oftheUnitedStates:John
F. Kennedy
1962(Washington: Government Printing Office, 19631, pp.
186-92.

24.

AEC, Civilian Nuclear Power-A
dent- 1962, Nov. 20,1962.

25.

“Annual Message to the Congress on the State of
the Union,” Jan. 8, 1964; “Commencement Address
at Holy Cross College,” June 10, 1964, both in Public
Papers of the Presidents: Lyndon B. Johnson,(Washington: Government Printing office, 1965). pp.
117,763-764.

26.

AEC, 1974 Annual Report to Congress, (Washington:
Government Printing. Office, 19741, pp. 24-26.

32

AEC Annual
Reportto Congress
for
1965,
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 19661, p.
151; Annual
Reportto Congress
for
1966,
(Washington: Government Printing Office, 19671, p.
211; AEC, 1974 Annual Report to Congress, p. 114.

33.

“Atomic Energy Research in the Life and PhysicalSciences-1960,”
A Special Report of the UnitedStates Atomic Energy Commission, January 1961,(Washington: Government Printing Office, 1961);
AEC, Annual
Report to Congress for 1960,(Washington: Government Printing Off ice, 19611, p.
156-57.

34.

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

35.

Corbin Allardice and Edward R. Trapnell, The Atomic
Energy Commission (New York: Praegar Publishers,
19741, pp. 131-32.

36.

“Reorganization of Atomic Energy Operating Functions,” AEC Announcement 216, Dec. 7,197l.

37.

“The Right to be Heard-Laying
It on the Line,”
Remarks given by AEC Commissioner William 0.
Doub (at 1971 Annual Conference of the Industrial
Forum, Oct. 18, 1971); President Richard M. Nixon,
Message to the Congress on “A Program to Insure
an Adequate Supply of Clean Energy in the Future,”
June 4,197l in Executive Energy Documents, p. 1.

38.

“Statement by the AEC on Court of Appeals Decision in Calvert Cliffs Litigation,” AEC Announcement
O-134, Aug. 4,197l; AEC Annual Report to Congressfor 1977 /Washington: Government Printing Office,1972) pp. l-2,21-23.

39.

“AEC Makes Organizational Changes to Strengthen
Its Regulatory Program,” Press Release 6-207, Nov.
11,197l.

46.

Richard M. Nixon, “Statement,” June 29, 1973 in Executive Energy Documents, pp. 49-55; Statement by
Dixy Lee Ray, Chairman of the AEC, AEC Press
Release R-274, June 29,1973.

41.

The Nation’s Energy Future, A Report to President
Richard M. Nixon, December 1973 (Washington:
Government Printing Office, 19731 p. ix; “Proposals
to Deal with the Energy Crisis,” Jan. 23, 1974, in 5.x
e&we
Energy Documents,
pp. 119134; WhiteHouse Fact Sheet, “Energy Research and Development,” Oct. 11,1973.

Report to the Presi-

AEC, Annual
Reportto Congressfor 1964,(Washington: Government Printing Office, 19651, pp.
12-14; Hewlett, “The AEC in Retrospect,” p. 18;“Remarks Upon Signing Bill Permitting Private
Ownership of Nuclear Materials,” Public Papers of
the Presidents: Lyndon B. Johnson, (Washington:
Government Printing Office, 19651, p. 1006.

27.

AEC, Civilian Nuclear Power, The ?967 Supplement
to the 1962 Report to the President, February, 1967;
AEC, 1974 Annual Report to Congress, p. 239.

28.

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

29.

“Operating and Developmental Functions,” AEC
1972 Annual Report to Congress, pp. 16-12; “AEC
Continues Developmental Push for Breeder Reactor,” AEC Announcement O-10, January 29,197l.

30.

31.

AEC, Major Activities in the Atomic Energy Programs,
January-December
1961 (Washington:
Government
Printing Office 1962), pp. 337-38;
Richard G. Hewlett, “The Development. of the
NuclearPower
Industry”(unpublishedms.,
Historian’s Office, 19741, pp. 13-14; AEC, Major Activities in the Atomic Energy Programs, JanuaryDecember 1961, p. 337-38.

10

APPENDIX

I(Personnel)
Joint Committee

on Atomic Energy

CHAIRMENDATES OF SERVICE

Brien McMahon
Burke B. Hickenlooper
Brien McMahon
Carl T. Durham (Acting)W. Sterling Cole
Clinton P. Anderson
Carl T. Durham
Clinton P. Anderson
Chet Holifield
John 0. Pastore
Chet Holifield
John 0. Pastore
Chet Holifield
John 0. Pastore
Melvin Price

1946.
1947 - 1948
1949 - 1952 id. 7/28/52)
1952.
1953.1954
1954.1956
1956.1958
1959.
1960.1961
1962 - 1964
1965.1966
1967.1968,
1969 - 1970
1970 - 1972
1973 -

Military Liaison Committee
CHAIRMENDATES OF SERVICE

Lt. Gen. Lewis H. Brereton, USAF
Donald F. Carpenter
William Webster
Robert F. LeBaron
Herbert B. Loper
Gerald W. Johnson
W.J. Howard
Carl Walske
Chet Holifield
Carl Walske
Donald R. Cotter

1946 - 1948
1948.
1948-1949
1949.1954
1954-1960
1961.1962
1963-1965
1966-19691970.
1971.1972
1973 -

General Advisory Committee
CHAIRMENDATES OF SERVICE

J. Robert Oppenheimer
lsidor I. Rabi
Warren C. Johnson
Kenneth S. Pitzer
Manson Benedict
L.R. Hafstad
Norman F. Ramsey
Howard G. Vesper
Lombard Squires

1946 - 1952
1952.1956
1956.1959
1960 - 1961
1962-1963
1964.1967
1968.
1969 - 1972
1973 -

11

AEC Commissioners
From

Sumner T. Pike
David E. Lilienthal, Chairman
Robert F. Bather
William W. Waymack
Lewis L. Strauss
Chairman
Gordon Dean
ChairmanHenry DeWolf SmythThomas E. MurrayThomas Keith Glennan
Eugene M. Zuckert
Joseph Campbell
Willard F. Libby
John Von Neumann
Harold S. VanceJohn S. Graham
John Forrest Floberg
John A. McCone, Chairman
John H. Williams
Robert E. Wilson
Loren K. Olson
Glenn T. Seaborg, Chairman
Leland J. Haworth
John G. Palfrey
James T. Ramey
Gerald F. Tape
Mary I. Bunting
Wilfred E. Johnson
Samuel M. Nabrit’
Francesco Costagliola
Theos J. Thompson
Clarence E. Larson
James R. Schlesinger, Chairman
William 0. Doub
Dixy Lee Ray
ChairmanWilliam E. Kriegsman
William A. Anders

GeneralCarroll L. Wilson
Marion Boyer
Kenneth D. Nichols
Kenneth F. Fields
Paul F. Foster
A. R. Luedecke
R. E. Hollingsworth
John A. Erlewine

Oct. 31, 1946
Nov. 1, 1946
Nov. 1, 1946
Nov. 5, 1946
Nov. 12, 1946
July 2, 1953
May 24, 1949
July 11, 1950
May 30, 1949
May 9, 1950
Oct. 2, 1950
Feb. 25, 1952
July 27, 1953
Oct. 5, 1954
Mar. 15, 1955
Oct. 31, 1955.
Sept. 12, 1957
Oct. 1, 1957
July 14, 1958
Aug. 13, 1959
Mar. 22, 1960
June 23, 1960
Mar. 1, 1961
Apr. 17, 1961
Aug. 31, 1962
Aug. 31, 1962
July 15, 1963
June29, 1964
Aug. 1, 1966
Aug. 1, 1966
Oct. 1, 1968
June 12, 1969
Sept. 2, 1969
Aug. 17, 1971
Aug. 17, 1971
Aug. 8, 1972
Feb. 6, 1973
June 12, 1973
Aug. 6, 1973

To
Dec. 15; 1951
Feb. 15, 1950
May 10, 1949
Dec. 21, 1948
Apr. 15, 1950
June 30, 1958
June 30, 1953
June 30, 1953
Sept. 30, 1954
June 30, 1957
Nov. 1, 1952
June 30, 1954
Nov. 30, 1954
June 30, 1959
Feb. 8, 1957
Aug. 31, 1959
June 30, 1962
June 23, 1960
Jan. 20, 1961
June 30, 1960
Jan. 31, 1964
June 30, 1962
Aug. 16, 1971
June 30, 1963
June 30, 1966
June 30, 1973
Apr. 30, 1969
June 30, 1965
June 30, 1972
Aug. 1, 1967
June 30, 1969
Nov. 25, 1970
June 30, 1974
Jan. 26, 1973
Aug. 17, 1974
Jan. 18, 1975
Jan. 18, 1975
Jan. 18, 1975

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

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

12IAPPENDIXII

Chronology
DATE

EVENTS

August 1,1946

Atomic Energy Act of 1946 signed by President Truman.

January 1,1947

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

September 1947
March 1,1948

Oak Ridge National Laboratory officiallyestablished in 1943;

April-May

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

1948

established

to continue work of Clinton

EnergyLaboratories

March 1,1949

Announcement

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

August 29,1949

Soviet Union detonated nuclear device.

January 31,195O

President Truman directs Commission
the so-called hydrogen or super-bomb.”

June 27,195O

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

December 20,195l

Experimental
energy.

June 14,1952

Keel of the world’s first nuclear-powered
ticut.

November 1952

World’s first thermonuclear

December 8,1953

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

March 1,1954

First shot in Cast/e 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 greater participation by private industry and more cooperation withother countries in developing the peaceful uses of nuclear energy.

January lo,1955

Announcementby the AEC of the Power Demonstration Reactor Program, under which the
AEC and industry would cooperate in the construction and operation of experimental powerreactors.

August 820,1955

First United Nations
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 Shippingport Atomic
nuclear power plant, at Shippingport, Pennsylvania.

“to continue

work on all forms of weapons,

including

Breeder Reactor No. 1 IEBR-1) first reactor to produce electric power from nuclear
ship, the submarine Nautilus, laid at Groton, Connec-

device detonated by US. at Enewetak.

International

Conference

on the Peaceful Uses of Atomic

Power Station,

the world’s

toEnergy, in

first full-scale

August 22,1958

President Eisenhower announced moratorium

November 24, 1959

AEC Chairman John A. McCone and Professor Vasily S. Emelyanov signed Memorandum
Cooperation betweeni U.S. and U.S.S. R.

on weapon testing to begin on October 31.

March 1961

Regulatory functions
Regulation.

August 31,196l

Soviet Union broke moratorium and-began testing nuclear weapons.

December lo,1961

Project Gnome, the first Plowshare nuclear detonation,

April 25,1962

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

August 5,1963

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

August 26,1964

President Johnson signed Private Ownership of Special Nuclear Materials Act.

October 1964

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

ofseparated from General Manager’s Office and placed under a Director of

13

conducted

in New Mexico.

December 16,1964

AEC issued a permit to Jersey Central Power and Light Company for the construction of a
nuclear power plant at Oyster Creek, New Jersey. This was the first civilian power reactor to bebuilt on a competitive basis with conventional plants and without government assistance.

April 3,1965

The first launching and operation of a nuclear reactor in space (SNAP-lOA).

March 5‘1970

Ratification of the Treaty for the Nonproliferationof Nuclear Weapons by the United States,
the United Kingdom, and the Soviet Union and 45 other nations.

June 4,197l

President Nixon announced
tion plant by 1980.

July 23,197l

Calvert Cliffs decision regarding AEC licensing procedures for nuclear power plants.

March 1972

Completion of National Accelerator
ton synchrotron.

October 17,1973

Organization

December 1, 1973

AEC Chairman Dixy Lee Ray submitted report to President
Nixon on “The Nation’s Energy Future.”

October 11,1974

Energy Reorganization

August 4,1977

Department of Energy Reorganization

as a national goal a commitment

to complete LMFBR demonstra-

Laboratory at Batavia, Illinois, world’s

most powerfulof Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries embargoed oil to the United States.

Act of 1974 signed by President Ford.

14

Act signed by President Carter.

pro-

APPENDIX

III

Laboratories and Production

Facilities

Atomic Energy Commission
A EC facility
Multiprogram
Laboratories
Argonne National Laboratory..................

LocationContractor-operator

Chicago, Ill. . . . . . . . .

Univ. of Chicago and
Argonne Universities Assn.
Associated Universities, Inc.
University of California
University of California
University of California
Nuclear Div., Union Carbide
Corp.
Pacific Northwest Div.
Battelle Memorial Inst.

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

Upton, N.Y. . . . . . . . .
Berkeley, Ca. . . . . . . .
Livermore, Ca. . . . . . .
Los Alamos, N. Mex..
Oak Ridge, Tenn.. . . .

Pacific Northwest

Richland, Wash. . . . .

Laboratory ..................

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

Savannah River Laboratory. ...................
Shippingport Atomic Power Station ............

Idaho Falls, Id. . . . . . .
Idaho Falls, Id. . , . . , .
Albuquerque, N. Mex.
8 Livermore, Ca. . .
Aiken,S.C.. . . . . . . . .
Shippingport, Pa. . . .

Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Westinghouse Hanford Co.
General Electric Co.
Atomics International Div.
Rockwell Int’l Corp.
Aerojet Nuclear Co.
Westinghouse Electric Corp.
Sandia Corp. (WesternElectric-Bell System)
E.I. du Pont de Nemours Et Co
Duquesne Light Co.

Specialized
Physical Research Laboratories
Ames Laboratory ............................
Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory ..........
Notre Dame Radiation Lab .....................
Princeton Plasma Physics Lab. .................
Stanford Linear Accelerator Center .............

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

Iowa State U. of Sci. Et Tech.
Universities Research Assn.
Univ. of Notre Dame
Princeton University
Stanford University

Oak Ridge, Tenn.. . . .

University of Tennessee

Chicago, Ill. . . . . . . . .
Albuquerque, N. Mex.

University of Chicago
Lovelace Foundation of Medical
Education and Research

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

Univ. of Calif. at L.A. (UCLA)
Univ. of Calif. Medical Center
Michigan State University
Oak Ridge Associated
Universities

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

Specialized
Biomedical
Research Laboratories
Comparative Animal ResearchLaboratory ................................
Franklin McLean Memorial Research Inst,(formerly Argonne Cancer Res. Hosp.). ........
Inhalation Toxicology Res. Inst. ................
Laboratory of Nuclear Medicine 8Radiobiology ..............................
Laboratory of Radiobiology. ...................
MSU/AEC Plant Research Lab. ................
ORAU Research Facilities .....................
Puerto Rico Nuclear Center ................
Radiobiology Laboratory. .....................
Radiobiology Laboratory. .....................
Savannah River Ecology Lab. ..................
U.ofRochesterMed.Lab..
....................

..~.

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

Mayaguez and Rio
Piedras, P.R.. . . . . .
Davis, Calif. . . . . . . . .
Salt Lake City, Utah .
Aiken,S.C . . . . . . . . . .
Rochester, N.Y. . . . . .

15

University
University
University
University
Universityof Puerto Ricoof Calif. (Davis)of Utahof Georgiaof Rochester

Production,

Development,

Burlington-AEC

and Fabrication

Centers
Burlington,

Plant . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Iowa . . . .

Feed Materials Plant ..........................
Feed Materials Plant ..........................
Feed Materials Plant ..........................

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

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

Richland, Wash. . . . .

Idaho Chemical Processing Plant. ..............
Kansas City Plant ............................
Mound Laboratory ...........................
Nevada Test Site .............................

INEL, Idaho . . . . . . . .
Kansas City, MO. . . . .
Miamisburg, Ohio . . .
Mercury, Nev. . . . . . .

Oak Ridge Gaseous Diffusion

Plant . . . , . . , . . . . . .

Oak Ridge, Tenn.. . . .

Paducah Gaseous Diffusion

Plant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

.Paducah, Ky. . . . . . . .

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

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

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

Clearwater, Fla. .....
Golden, Colo ........

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

Aiken,S.C . . . . . . . . . .
Oak Ridge, Tenn.. . . .

Mason & Hanger-Silas Mason
Co., Inc.
Reactive Metals, Inc.
National Lead Co.
Nuclear Div., Union Carbide
Corp.
Atlantic-Richfield
Hanford Co.
and United Nuclear, Inc.
Allied Chemical Corp.
Bendix Corp.
Monsanto Research Corp.
Reynolds Electrical 8 Engineering Co.; EG&G, Inc.; andHolmes 8 Narver Inc.
Nuclear Div., Union Carbide
Corp.
Nuclear Div., Union Carbide
Corp.
Goodyear Atomic Corp.
Mason Et Hanger-Silas Mason
Co. Inc.
General Electric Co.
Atomics International Div.
Rockwell International Corp.
E.I. du Pont de Nemours Et Co.
Nuclear Div., Union Carbide
Corp.

7974 Annual Report to Congress

16

._

.

...- ._..._

M

,.I.

-’

”

APPENDIXIV

Organization Charts

17

U.S. ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

GENERAL ADVISORYMILITARY
LIAISONATOMIC ENERGYCOMMISSIONCOMMITTEECOMMITTEE

JOINT

1

I’

I
GENERAL’MANAGER
DEPUTY

DIRECTOR

GENERAL

4-1

MANAGER

SECRETARY

OF INTELLIGENCECOMMITTEEON ATOMIC
ENERGYTO COMMISSION

RAW MATERIALSOPERATIONSOFFICE:

APPENDIX Iv-1

ri

December 1948;:

18

UNITED STATESATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSION

GENERAL MANAGER
DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER
OPERATIONSGENERAL COUNSELOFFICESCONGRESSIONALLIAISONCONTROLLER’INSPECTION

PLANNING

AND ANALYSISASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER FOR
ENERGY AND DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS____________~_______________________~________.

ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER FOR
NATIONAL SECURITY________________________________________-.

GENERAL MANAGER FOR
RESEARCH___-______--____.___--____________________

REACTOR DEVELOPMENT AND TECHNOLOGYAPPLIED TECHNOLOGY
INTERNATIONAL PROGRAMSSPACE NUCLEAR SYSTEMSNUCLEAR EDUCATION AND TRAINING

MiLlTARY APPLICATIONINTERNATIONAL SECURITY AFFAIRSNUCLEAR MATERIALS SECURITY
NAVAL REACTORSSCHENECTADY NAVAL REACTORS OFFICEPITTSBURGH NAVAL REACTORS OFFICE

BIOLOGY AND MEDICINEPHYSICAL RESEARCHCONTROLLED THERMONUCLEARASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER FOR
PRODUCTION Et MANAGEMENTOF
NUCLEAR MATLS.
_____________________----_---_____-----__--_.
PRODUCTION AND MATERIALS MANAGEMENTGRAND JUNCTION OFFICEASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER
ADMINISTRATIONSECURITYCONSTRUCTIONCONTRACTSPERSONNEL
HEADQUARTERS SERVICES
MGMT. INFO. AND TELECOMM.
CLASSIFICATIONLABOR RELATIONSFORASSISTANTRESEARCH

ASSIS rANT GENERAL MANAGER FORENVIRONMENT AND SAFETYENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRSOPERATIONAL SAFETY
WASTE MANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORTATIONSYSTEMS

December

APPENDIX

IV-2
19

1971

ATOMIC ENERGY COMMISSIONREGULATORY ORGANIZATION

JAMES

,ALSO

REPORTI

TO COMMISSIONI

cCzz;s,oN
R. SCHLESINGER

T. RAMEYWILLIAM

I

T”E
JAMES

CLARENCE

0. OOUB

GENERALI

E. LARSON

OFFICE OF
ADMINISTRATIVELAW JUDGE

LEE RAY

I

I

I

BOARD OFCONTRACTAPPEALS

ATOMICSAFETY b
LICENSING
APPEALPANELATOMICSAFETY b
LICENSING
SOAR0
PANEL

I

I

AND

OIXY

MANAGER)I

L. Manning

Muming

INFORMATION(OAKRIDGE1,II
1APPENDIX

IV-3

REGIONNEWARKIREGION IIATLANTAIIIREGION III
CHICAGOIIII

REGION I”
DENVER
II
I

I

SAN
II

L

REGION ”
FRANCISCOJ

August20

1972

UNITED STATESATOMICENERGY COMMISSION

OFFICES AND LABORATORIES
Pacific

NorthwestLab.

(:I Lawrcnci
Laboratories
Bcrkclcy
Lwrrmorc

w4*

.

)

I-Y!_

’ r”‘o
FRANCISCO

lab

RIVER

December
APPENDIX

IV-4

21

1973

NUCLEARNUCLEAR

GENERATINGUNIT

IN THE UNITED STATES--CWACITY
kilowatts

l otwabts
50 licensed by AEC to operate
2 others authorized to operate

POWER REACTORSIAEC-owned~

32.679.000
940.000& Bean9 Built
56 conrrruction permtr
11 limited work authorizatmns

66.637.000
11.665.000

0 Ptanned
100 reactors orderal

112.712.000

121
U111ts lor which a sow has ,101 yet bee~l ,electrd
011 IIlL? nldi)

214.652.000
ale am1 mdxated

September 30, 1974

APPENDIX

IV-5,

APPENDIX V
United States Announced Nuclear
Detonations and Early Stockpile Data
1945-1974

Event or Series Name Description

Dates

Trinity

July 16,1945................

First test of an atomic ...
bomb
Hiroshima .............
First use in combat. .....
Nagasaki ..............
Second use in combat. ..
Crossroads ....................................
Sandstone..................................
...
Ranger .......................................
Greenhouse ...................................
Buster-Jangle ..................................
Tumbler-Snapper..............................
Ivy ...........................................
Mike,experimental. .....
thermonuclear device
Upshot-Knothole ...............................
Castle ........................................
Bravo, experimental. ....
thermonuclear device
Teapot .......................................
Wigwam ......................................
Redwing ......................................
Plumbbob .....................................
Hardtack ......................................
Argus ........................................
Hardtack ......................................
NO TESTS CONDUCTED

August 6,1945
August 9,1945
June-July
1946
April - May 1948
January - February 1951
April - May 1951
October - November 1951
April - June 1952
October - November 1952
October 31,1952
March-June
1953
February - May 1954
February 28,1954
February - May 1955
May 14,1955
May-July 1956
May - October 1957
April - August 1958
August - September 1958
September - October 1958

FROM OCTOBER 30,1958to

SEPTEMBER 1961

Nougat..

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . September 1961 -June
1962
Dominic I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . April 1962 - June 1962
Storax........................................
July1962 - June1963
Sedan, excavation . . . . . . July 6,1962
exoeriment
Dominic II . . . . . . . . . . . . .Three above ground tests. July 1962
LIMITED TEST BAND TREATY, AUG. 5,1963, PROHIBITED NUCLEAR
DETONATIONS IN ATMOSPHERE, OUTER SPACE AND UNDER WATER
Niblick ........................................
Wtretstone ....................................
. Flintlock ......................................
Latchkey ......................................
Crosstie .......................................
Bowline .......................................
Mandrel ......................................
Emery ........................................
Grommet .....................................
Toggle ........................................
Arbor .........................................
Bedrock ......................................

August 1963 -June 1964
July 1964 - June 1965
July 1965 -June 1966
July 1966 - June 1967
July 1967 -June 1968
July 1968 - June 1969
July 1969 - June 1970
October 1970 - June 1971
July 1971 - May 1972
July 1972 - June 1973
October 1973 -June 1974
July 1974 -23

Total Announced
1945 ................
1946 ..................
1947 ..................
1948 ..................
1949 ..................
1950 ..................
1951.. ................
1952..................10
1953..................11
1954 ..................
1955 ..................
1956..................17
1957..................2
1958 .................
1959.............;
1960 ..................

.,..

._

Detonations

.

.

._

*

,_

1.

_..

.

.,

.L

2
0
3
0
0
16

6
15
4
.55
....
0
0

.

by YearMl..................
1962 ...............
1963..................2
1964. ................
1965 .................
1966 ................
1967. ................
1968.. ...............
1969 .................
1970..................3
1971..................111972..................
1973 ..................
1974 ..................

...3

..

9
...89
5
.28
.28
..a
.28
.33
.28
0
8
9
7

535

TOTAL

Early Nuclear Weapon Stockpile Data
Fiscal Year
7945

7946

1947

1948

0
2

0
9

0”
29”

2”
53”

0
2

0
9

0
13

0
50

Number of nonnuclear
components
1.
2.

Gun-type
Implosion-type

Number of nuclear
components
3.
4.

Gun-type
Implosion-type*Numbers

declassified

in 1976

24.

APPENDIX

VI

Financial Statistics
U.S. Government Investment in the
Atomic Energy Program(From June MOThroughJanuary 18,1W5)(in millions)

Appropriation
Expenditures:
National Defense Research Council ........................................
Office of Scientific Research and Development .............................
War Department (including Manhattan Engineer District) .....................

$

.5
14.6
2,218.3
2,233.4

Atomic Energy Commission:
Fiscal years prior to 1966. ................................................
Fiscal year 1966 ........................................................
Fiscal year 1967 ........................................................
Fiscal year 1968 ........................................................
Fiscal year 1969 ........................................................
Fiscal year 1970 ........................................................
Fiscal year 1971 ........................................................
Fiscal year 1972 ........................................................
Fiscal year 1973 ........................................................
Fiscal year 1974 ........................................................
Fiscal Year 1975 (through January 181 .....................................

34,643.a2,402.g
2.263.7
2,466.6
2,450.4
2,455.0
2,274.7
2,392.1
2,393.1
2,307.5
1,512.6

Total A EC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

57,562.4........................................

59,795.aUnexpended Balance of Funds in U.S. Treasury
January 18,1975 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

3,439.g*..............**.....*........................

63,235.7

Total Appropriation

Expenditures

Total Funds AppropriatedLess:
Collections paid to U.S. Treasury . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..a.....
Property and services transferred to other Federal agencies
without reimbursement, net of such transfers received~ from other Federal agencies. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Cost of operations from June 1940 through January 18,1975. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

462.0
46,562.2

AEC Equity at January la,1975 as shown on Balance Sheet . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

$16,153.5

58.0

25

..,__L.C.,-,7..--i-CI..,T.-~,;,,..--,.-

.,

-I..

.T..

l...l-/l-C.--_--__..

. .. .

_-.

. .. -._...

Institutional

Originsof the Department.

Executive Office of the President

Manhattan

of Energy

Engineer District
Federal Power Commission(1920)

Special Energy
Committee (1973)

National Energy
Office (1973)tv
Energy Policy Office (1973)v

r

Federal Energy Office(1973)

Costof Living Council’
Internal Revenue Service’I

1Federal Energy Administration

Energy Research andDevelopment Administration

Nuclear Regulatory Commission(1975)

National

Science

I

Energy Coordinating(1978)

Committee4

1Federal Energy Regulatory

--mm-

I

Department

Commissionof Energy

5(1977)

Lt

rp’ Treasury - Energy Officelnteriof Dil Import Administration
Petroleum Allocation
Energy Co”seNatb”
Energrgd“G*,” and Analysis--&ice of Coal Research

Bureau of Mines - Energy Research Centers
Environmental Protection Agency - Research, Development
Denwnstration of innovative Automotive Systems

3

Interstate Commerce Commksion3

Urban Develop”w”:WId.dO’ lnttnior

Natiorvl Scienca Fwndatio”
Sdar Heating and Cooling
Gaothe”nalPwr

Cost of Living Council - Energy DivisionInternal Revenue Service - Enforcement of Allocation andPricing Regulationsz~/o9o-t~C-o-C86t

J~NI&kIIid +-A09 'S'Ar

26

Agriculture - REA Loans
Commerce - Voluntary Industrial Conservation
Defense - Petroleum and Shale Reserves
ICC - Oil Pipeline Reguktion
SEC - Electric Utilii Merger
HUD - Thermal Efficiency Standards
DOT - Fuel Efficiency Standads

4 Cabinet rak

advkory body’ independentagency within Departmentof Energy

and