iv NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility
NASA’s Nuclear Frontier

The Plum Brook Reactor Facility,

1941—2002

by Mark D. Bowles and Robert S. Arrighi

NASA History Division

Office of External Relations

NASA Headquarters

Washington, DC 20546

Monographs in Aerospace History Series

Number 33

August 2004

Introduction
NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bowles, Mark D.

NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: the Plum Brook Reactor Facility / Mark D. Bowles and Robert S. Arrighi.

p. cm. — (Monographs in aerospace history; no. 33) (NASA SP ; 2004-4533)

Includes bibliographical references and index.

1. NASA Glenn Research Center. Plum Brook Station—History. 2. Nuclear energy—Research—United States—

History. 3. Nuclear reactors—Ohio—Sandusky—Experiments. I. Arrighi, Robert S., 1969- II. Title. III. Series.

IV. NASA SP ; 4533.

QC786.43.U5B68 2003

621.48’3’0977122—dc22 2003044298

Image 1 (cover): Plum Brook reactor control room as engineers prepare to “take it critical” for the first time in 1961.

(NASA C1961–55813)
iii

Contents

List of Images ................................................................................................................................. v

Introduction................................................................................................................................... 1

Obtaining the Land ....................................................................................................................... 9

The Dream of a Flying Reactor ..................................................................................................... 23

Designing the Plum Brook Reactor .............................................................................................. 33

Constructing the Reactor............................................................................................................... 47

Kennedy’s New Dream .................................................................................................................. 65

Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities.................................................................................................... 73

The Plum Brook Reactor Opens Its Doors ................................................................................... 97

The Experimental Program ........................................................................................................... 101

Plum Brook Station Test Facilities................................................................................................ 117

Plum Brook Station Social Activities............................................................................................ 123

Mothballing the Reactor ............................................................................................................... 129

Returning the Land ........................................................................................................................ 143

Endnotes ........................................................................................................................................ 157

Appendices..................................................................................................................................... 161

Timeline ................................................................................................................................... 162

Reactor Experiments ............................................................................................................... 165

Reactor Cycle Dates................................................................................................................. 178

Organizational Charts ............................................................................................................ 180

About the Authors ......................................................................................................................... 185

NASA History Monographs .......................................................................................................... 186
iv NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility
List of Images

Image 1: Plum Brook reactor control room. (NASA C–1961–55813) (Cover)

Image 2: President Eisenhower. (International Atomic Energy Agency)

Image 3: Artist’s conception of a manned nuclear-powered spacecraft. (NASA C–1959–52113)

Image 4: Artist’s conception of an atom-powered bomber. (Copyright and permission courtesy of

Bettmann/CORBIS)

Image 5: Artist’s drawing showing layout of other Plum Brook support buildings. (1957)

(NASA C–2003–818)

Image 6: Plum Brook reactor primary buildings. (NASA C–1956–42673)

Image 7: Cutaway drawing of the Plum Brook reactor assembly. (NASA CS–30642)

Image 8: Descendents of original 1812 Firelands settlers. (Courtesy of Henry Pfanner)

Image 9: Plum Brook Station. (NASA C–1960–55682)

Image 10: The Plum Brook Ordnance Works administrative building, medical services building, guard

tower, and other structures. (No. 1238–12, 1944)

Image 11: Plum Brook cafeteria. Courtesy of Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army (No. 3–42, 1944)

Image 12: Cafeteria in basement of Building 1. Courtesy of Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army (No. 21748,

1944)

Image 13: One of ninety-nine bunkers. Courtesy of Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army (No. 21762, 1944)

Image 14: Plum Brook Ordnance Works (P.B.O.W.) News. (NASA C–2003–823)

Image 15: Abbott & Costello. (Permission courtesy of the Charles E. Frohman Collection at the

Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center, Freemont, Ohio)

Image 16: Typical Plum Brook Ordnance Works office building. Courtesy of Corps of Engineers, U.S.

Army (No. 21747, 1944)

Image 17: Drawing from the PBOW news. (NASA C–2003–825)

Image 18: Women’s Bureau health and safety poster. (National Archives and Records Administration

NWDNS–44–PA–946)

Image 19: Employees celebrating the end of World War II. (1945) (Department of Energy

Photo 946–26)

Image 20: Workers dig up transit lines, flumes, and buried TNT. (1956) (NASA C–2003–826)

Image 21: Abe Silverstein. (NASA C–1961–58359)

List of Images

v
vi NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility List of Images

Image 22: USS Nautilus. (National Archives and Records Administration, NWDNS–80–G–709366)

Image 23: NACA officials inspect Plum Brook Ordnance Works buildings. (NASA C–1958–47291)

Image 24: Map showing Plum Brook’s location relative to Lake Erie and other cities.

(NASA CS–12374 B)

Image 25: Argonne National Laboratory-West. (Department of Energy Photo 2001951)

Image 26: Two photos of converted B-36 bomber. (Department of Energy)

Image 27: Badge inspection. (Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office)

Image 28: First-level floor plan for reactor building. (Plum Brook Reactor Facility Archives)

Image 29: First-level floor plan for hot laboratory. (Plum Brook Reactor Facility Archives)

Image 30: Physicist at NASA Lewis. (NASA C–1957–45726)

Image 31: Reactor core area. (NASA C–1961–55533)

Image 32: Demonstration of Plum Brook reactor’s core. (NASA C–2003–828)

Image 33: Davis-Besse nuclear power reactor. (Cleveland Press Photo Collection—“Atomic Energy

Facilities: Davis-Besse”)

Image 34: Plum Brook representative. (NASA C–2003–1039)

Image 35: Artist’s rendering of scientists during first chain reaction. (National Archives and Records

Administration NWDNS–326–DV–4 [4])

Image 36: View into the reactor core of Materials Test Reactor at Idaho Falls. (Department of Energy

Photo 1002147)

Image 37: Control rods for Mock-Up Reactor. (NASA PS63–0007)

Image 38: Atomic Energy Commission, Abe Silverstein. (NASA C–1964–69271)

Image 39: Edward Sharp at Plum Brook groundbreaking ceremony. (NASA C–1956–43032)

Image 40: Building being demolished with a controlled fire. (NASA C–2003–829)

Image 41: Plum Brook Ordnance Work’s Pentolite Area. (NASA CS–18957)

Image 42: Crews excavate a hole in the ground. (1958–60) (NASA C–2003–830)

Image 43: Exterior of the containment vessel. (NASA C–2003–831)

Image 44: Inside the containment vessel. (NASA C–2003–832)

Image 45: Pressure tank shipped via railway. (c. 1959) (NASA C–2003–833)

Image 46: Pressure tank delivered by truck. (NASA C–2003–834)
Image 47: Pressure tank being lowered into containment vessel. (NASA C–2003–835)

Image 48: “Sputnick.” (NASA C–2003–835)

Image 49: Pressure tank in place. (NASA C–2003–836)

Image 50: Worker spray paints quadrant wall. (NASA C–2003–837)

Image 51: Rye Beach pumping station. (1983) (NASA C–2003–838)

Image 52: Diver surfacing. (NASA C–1961–58167)

Image 53: Guardhouse. (NASA C–2003–850)

Image 54: Plum Brook reactor’s research facilities and support buildings. (NASA C–1969–10920)

Image 55: President Kennedy. (Harry Finger Collection)

Image 56: President Kennedy operates a remote manipulator. (Harry Finger Collection)

Image 57: Ad for Nuclear Engines for Rocket Vehicle Applications (NERVA). (Harry Finger Collection)

Image 58: Model of thermonuclear rocket for exploration vehicle. (NASA C–1963–63470)

Image 59: Main components of nuclear rocket engine. (1970) (NASA C–2003–851)

Image 60: NERVA engine standing on railcar. (Harry Finger Collection)

Image 61: Jack Crooks and Jerold Hatton inside reactor tank. (NASA C–1961–56897)

Image 62: Harold Geisler takes Plum Brook reactor critical. (NASA C–1961–56899)

Image 63: Lily pad area atop reactor pressure tank. (1961) (NASA C–1961–55851)

Image 64: Two men on lily pad guide crane. (1959) (NASA CS–18228)

Image 65: Just outside the containment vessel airlock. (NASA C–1961–55812)

Image 66: Right side of control panel. (NASA C–2001–01229)

Image 67: Cherenkov radiation. (c. 1962) (NASA C–1996–03983)

Image 68: Technicians working on core during shutdown. (NASA C–61–56897)

Image 69: Mock-Up Reactor. (NASA C–2001–01204)

Image 70: MUR core as seen from the control room. (NASA PS63–0002)

Image 71: MUR control room. (NASA PS63–0008)

Image 72: MUR control room. (NASA PS63–0005)

Image 73: Technicians manipulate shim safety control rod. (NASA C–1961–55808)

List of Images vii
NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility List of Images

Image 74: Two Plum Brook employees use crane. (NASA CS–22209)

Image 75: Technician with “cutie pie” radiation detector. (NASA CS–22203)

Image 76: Bob Oldrieve using manipulator arms. (NASA C–1961–55638)

Image 77: View from inside hot laboratory. (NASA C–1961–55800)

Image 78: View into hot laboratory. (NASA CS–22201)

Image 79: Hot laboratory safe workarea. (NASA C–2003–839)

Image 80: Technician checks for contamination with “cutie pie.” (NASA C–2003–840)

Image 81: Identical Remote Area Monitoring System. (NASA C–2001–01150)

Image 82: Technician washes clothing. (NASA C–2003–841)

Image 83: Board with data from dosimeters. (NASA C–2001–01153)

Image 84: Librarians. (NASA C–1961–56372)

Image 85: James Webb and Abe Silverstein. (NASA C–1961–58735)

Image 86: Congressman Mosher and Ross Braig tour. (NASA C–1961–56466)

Image 87: Bill Kortier explains reactor to press. (NASA C–1961–56465)

Image 88: Reporters on tour. (NASA C–1961–56468)

Image 89: Tours given to students and families. (NASA PS62–1783)

Image 90: Representative explaining model of reactor. (NASA C–1964–73677)

Image 91: Diagram showing numerous “facilities” of core. (NASA CS–46328)

Image 92: Hap Johnson, and H. Brock Barkley, aluminum “rabbit.” (c. 1970)(NASA C–2003–843)

Image 93: Johnny Miller and Earl Boitel in experiment control room. (1964) (NASA P64–0713)

Image 94: Chart listing experiments to be irradiated for each cycle. (NASA C–2001–1258)

Image 95: HB-2 Cryogenic Experiment. (NASA CS–18942)

Image 96: Technician Allen Larkins and engineer David Willinger in metallurgical laboratory.

(NASA C–1961–55641)

Image 97: Lockheed-Martin engineers make adjustments to cryostat refrigeration machine. (January

1962) (Cleveland Public Library Photograph Collection, Ohio, Sandusky, Industry, NASA,

Plum Brook Station)

Image 98: Astronaut Gordon Bean (Apollo 12). (1969) (NASA AS12–46–6790)

viii
Image 99: Diagram showing two insertion tables in Quadrant C. (1965) (NASA PS65–1136)

Image 100: Technician on the walkway. (NASA C–2003–827)

Image 101: Diagram of an experiment. (NASA CS–13591)

Image 102: John Hire adjusts instrument console. (NASA C–1960–55125)

Image 103: Technicians wheel large “thimble” through truck door. (NASA C–1961–55811)

Image 104: Technicians work inside the thimble. (NASA C–1961–55810)

Image 105: Hap Johnson and Brock Barkley. (NASA C–2004–741)

Image 106: Puncture rig. (NASA P69–3224)

Image 107: NERVA engines bolted to test chamber. (Cleveland Public Library Photograph Collection,

Ohio, Sandusky, Industry, NASA, Plum Brook Station)

Image 108: Hypersonic Tunnel Facility. (NASA C–1969–00725)

Image 109: Cryogenic Propellant Test Site (K-Site). (NASA C–1967–03315)

Image 110: Shake Tower. (NASA C–1959–51298)

Image 111: Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B-2). (NASA C–1969–00305)

Image 112: Space Power Facility (SPF). (NASA C–1970–03690)

Image 113: Airbags for Mars Pathfinder in SPF. (NASA C–1995–01861)

Image 114: Impromptu cookout. (NASA C–2003–844)

Images 115 and 116: Formal dances and Christmas parties. (NASA C–2004–739; NASA C–2003–845)

Image 117: Easter egg hunt. (NASA C–2003–846)

Image 118: Landscaping at Plum Brook. (NASA C–2004–740)

Image 119: Apollo 17 crew visiting Lewis. (NASA C–1973–00774)

Image 120: Blackboard graffiti: RIF (“reduction in force”). (NASA C–2001–01166)

Image 121: Bill Fecych shutting down reactor. (NASA C–2003–847)

Image 122: Two stacks being felled. (1977) (Department of Energy Photo 1001138)

Image 123: Calendar left open in reactor building. (NASA C–2001–1182)

Image 124: A 100-kilowatt wind turbine. (NASA C–1976–3906)

Image 125: Reactor after 1973 (NASA C–1961–55643)

List of Images ix
NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 126: Reactor facility almost thirty years after its shutdown. (NASA C–1981–4957)

Image 127: Felling of the 193-foot-tall double water tower. (NASA C–2004–742; C–2004–743;

 C–2004–744; and C–2004–745)

Image 128: Plum Brook chemistry lab in 1961. (NASA C–1961–55639)

Image 129: Chemistry lab in 2001. (NASA C–2001–1173)

Image 130: Bill Fecych and Don Johnson in control room in 1959. (NASA C–1959–51506)

Image 131: Control room in 2001. (NASA C–2001–01221)

Image 132: NASA reactor site. (NASA C2001–01214)

Image 133: Existing field at Plum Brook. (NASA Glenn Environmental Management Office)

Image 134: Tim Polich and Keith Peecook. (NASA C–2002–1023)

Image 135: Employee reunion. (NASA C–2002–01879)

Image 136: Keith Peecook leading tour through reactor facility. (NASA C–2003–852)

Image 137: Wetlands area. (NASA Glenn Environmental Management Office)

Image 138: Herbaceous field. (NASA Glenn Environmental Management Office)

Image 139: Seasonally flooded Forest Alliance. (NASA Glenn Environmental Management Office)

Image 140: Deer at Plum Brook. (NASA C–2003–853)

Image 141: Bald Eagles nest. (NASA C–2004–771)

Image 142: Artist’s rendering of nuclear rocket. (NASA S99–04186)

Image 143: Interior of Plum Brook reactor at night. (NASA C–2003–852)

x List of Images
1

In 1953, President Eisenhower delivered a

speech called “Atoms for Peace” to the United

Nations General Assembly. He described the emergence of the atomic age and the weapons of mass

destruction that were piling up in the storehouses

of the American and Soviet nations. Although

neither side was aiming for global destruction,

Eisenhower wanted to “move out of the dark chambers of horrors into the light, to find a way by which

the minds of men, the hopes of men, the souls of

men everywhere, can move towards peace and happiness and well-being.”1

 One way Eisenhower

hoped this could happen was by transforming the

atom from a weapon of war into a useful tool for

civilization.

Many people believed that there were unprecedented opportunities for peaceful nuclear applications. These included hopeful visions of atomicpowered cities, cars, airplanes, and rockets. Nuclear

power might also serve as an efficient way to

generate electricity in space to support life and

machines. Eisenhower wanted to provide scientists

and engineers with “adequate amounts of fissionable material with which to test and develop their

ideas.”2

 But, in attempting to devise ways to use

atomic power for peaceful purposes, scientists

realized how little they knew about the nature

and effects of radiation. As a result, the United

States began constructing nuclear test reactors to

enable scientists to conduct research by producing neutrons.

American scientists and engineers carried out

the “atoms for peace” initiative at the nearly 200

research and test reactors built in the 1950s and

1960s. These types of reactors are very different

from power reactors, which are built to produce

power by converting radioactive heat into electricity. In contrast, research and test reactors are used

for scientific and technical investigations. Research

reactors help engineers design experiments and

build better reactors, while test reactors generate

powerful radiation fields that enable scientists to

Introduction

Introduction
2 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 2: In his 1953 “Atoms for Peace” speech at the United Nations General Assembly, President Eisenhower called for an

international atomic agency so that “experts would be mobilized to apply atomic energy to the needs of agriculture, medicine,

and other peaceful activities.” (International Atomic Energy Agency)
3

Image 3: Artist’s conception of a piloted nuclear-powered spacecraft capable of exploring the solar system. (1959) (NASA

C–1959–52113)

Introduction
4 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

study how materials respond to radioactive environments. Though commercial and academic

institutions built some research and test reactors,

the government supported the large majority of

them. One of the most powerful in the world was

the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) test reactor, located at Plum Brook

Station in Sandusky, Ohio, near Lake Erie. From

1961 to 1973, this reactor was home to some of

the most advanced nuclear experimentation in the

United States. Engineer A. Bert Davis said of the

work at Plum Brook, “We were young and eager

and we felt like we were pushing back the frontiers of science.”3

 The Plum Brook reactor became

NASA’s nuclear frontier—the boundary between

what was known and unknown about the effects

of radiation on materials.

This book is a visual history of the Plum Brook

reactor, including numerous images and captions,

a narrative history, and selected primary documents. It begins with the acquisition of the Plum

Brook farmland by the government at the start of

World War II and discusses its use as a significant

ordnance works for the war effort. At the same time,

scientists worldwide were making tremendous

progress on a roughly fifty-year investigation of the

mysterious world inside the atom and the enormous reserve of power it appeared to contain. This

work culminated in the atomic bomb. After the

war, as Plum Brook’s ordnance factories went

silent, scientists continued their pursuit of nuclear

knowledge by constructing test reactors. One specific aim for this research in the 1950s was to build

a nuclear-powered airplane. To support this effort,

in 1956 NASA’s predecessor, the National Advisory

Committee for Aeronautics (NACA), began to design and build a massive test reactor at Plum Brook.

By the time the reactor was completed in 1961,

President Kennedy had suspended the nuclear

Image 4: Artist’s conception of an atom-powered bomber capable of carrying its own fighter escort. The plane was described by

Lee A. Ohlinger, atomic specialist for Northrup Aircraft, at a meeting of the Society of Automotive Engineers in New York (10

April 1956). Called “Project Opossum,” the bomber would carry six fighters at subsonic speeds, cutting them loose and shifting

into high in case of attack. (Copyright and permission courtesy of Bettmann/CORBIS)
5

aircraft program for safety and technical reasons.

However, in its place he advocated an even bolder

plan—a nuclear rocket. The Plum Brook Reactor

Facility became one of the primary research facilities to test materials for this rocket. Working with

contractors from Lockheed, Westinghouse, General

Dynamics, and General Electric, scientists and

engineers conducted ground breaking nuclear

experiments.

Despite the promise of their work, many of

the experiments were never concluded. In 1973,

just over a decade after Kennedy first extolled the

nuclear rocket’s importance, the project shared the

fate of the nuclear airplane. In the post-Apollo era,

NASA terminated costly, long-term, nonreusable

projects like the nuclear rocket in favor of programs

that appeared to have greater immediate payoff like

the Space Shuttle. Two weeks after Apollo’s last mission, Plum Brook was ordered to shut down its

reactor. The entire facility was maintained in a

standby mode (under a “possess but do not operate” license) for nearly a quarter century. In 1998,

a decommissioning plan was formulated to

demolish the reactor piece by piece, until nothing

would be left but bare land, suitable once again

for farming. Despite now being closed for over

thirty years, it remains the eighth-largest test reactor that the United States has ever built.

Image 5: Artist’s drawing showing the layout of other Plum Brook support buildings and laboratories. At the time, several key

buildings had yet to be built. (1957) (NASA C–2003–818)

Introduction
6 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Archivist Robert S. Arrighi gathered a photographic database, collected artifacts for a museum

display, and assembled documents in a collection

destined for the National Archives and Records

Administration. Historian Mark D. Bowles interviewed many of the people who had worked at

the reactor, analyzed the documents, and began

writing a scholarly book-length history of the

facility (the forthcoming Reactor in the Garden). The

authors hope that their combined efforts have resulted in a visually exciting and intellectually

accessible monograph that recounts the pioneering research of a committed group of NASA

scientists and engineers working in the nuclear

frontier.

The authors would like to thank Dr. Virginia

P. Dawson at History Enterprises, Inc., for her valuable insight into NASA history and her comments

on successive drafts of this manuscript. They also

Image 6: Plum Brook reactor primary buildings with a cutaway of the containment vessel revealing the quadrants, the reactor

pressure tank, and the lily pad. It was called the lily pad because, with water in the quadrants, the circular center resembled “a

lily pad floating on water.” (1956) (NASA C–1956–42673)

thank Kevin Coleman of NASA Glenn Research

Center for his coordination of this project and his

advice and assistance throughout all phases of the

research, writing, and photograph gathering. The

authors also acknowledge the valuable help of

Deborah Demaline, Jim Polaczynski, Quentin

Schwinn, Mark Grills, and Bruce MacGregor from

Indyne Inc.; Michael Blotzer, chief of the Glenn

Research Center Environmental Management Office; Rich Kalynchuk from Science Applications International Corporation; Project Manager Timothy J. Polich and Senior Engineer Keith M. Peecook

from the Plum Brook Reactor Facility Decommissioning. Steve Dick, NASA Chief Historian, Stephen

Garber, Jennifer Troxell, and Katrina Thompson

from the NASA History Office; Galen Wilson and

Scott Forsythe from the National Archives and

Records Administration; Nan Card from the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center; Deborah A.

MacDonell from the United States District Court
7

Image 7: Cutaway drawing of the Plum Brook reactor assembly within the pressure tank. The drawing reveals an array of test

holes, the core, subpile room, control rods, water lines, etc. The tank was surrounded by four shielding quadrants, three containing water. Quadrant B was constructed with extra concrete shielding so the water was not necessary. This construction provided

unique capabilities for handling experiment packages. Despite the significance of this feature, the artist erroneously depicts

Quadrant B as being filled with water. (NASA CS–30642)

Introduction

Northern District of Ohio (Toledo); Linda Gattshall

from the Milan Public Library; Margaret Baughman

from the Cleveland Public Library Photograph

Collection; Joanne Cornelius from the Cleveland

State University Special Collections Department;

Jerome Cooke from the Department of Energy; and

all of the retirees from the Plum Brook Reactor

Facility who graciously gave their time to be interviewed for the history projects. Lynn Patterson provided excellent transcriptions for all the interviews

conducted in this book. Melissa Kennedy at NASA

Headquarters created an initial design, at NASA

Glenn, Kelly Shankland redesigned and laid out

the complete monograph, Patty McCredie was the

editor, and Lorraine Feher was the proofreader. A

special thank-you goes to Hap Johnson, H. Brock

Barkley, and Harry Finger, who supplied documents

and photographs from their personal files.

A debt of gratitude is extended to the manuscript reviewers (anonymous peer-reviewers and

NASA and former Plum Brook reactor employees)

who provided important suggestions to improve

this manuscript. The NASA and reactor employees

included H. Brock Barkley, Earl Boitel, Bill Brown,

Jack Crooks, Don Johnson, Jack Ross, and Dean

Sheibley.

A special recognition goes to Olga M.

Dominguez, Deputy Assistant Administrator for

Institutional and Corporate Management at NASA

Headquarters in Washington DC, who without her

support, dedication, and foresight to preserve the

history of this unique facility, this document would

not have been possible.
8 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility
9

In early 1941, Fred C. Baum was working on

his 110-acre farm in Erie County, Ohio, just like he

had every day for the previous twenty years. He

was a typical small farmer, raising cows, cultivating his fields, and tending to his 120-tree apple

orchard. He and his family lived in an idyllic country house near his crops and livestock. Several acres

of beautiful shade trees surrounded the area and a

babbling stream named “Plum Brook” ran through

the center of the property. Though Baum’s farm

was a thriving enterprise providing a good living

for his family, his career as a farmer ended unexpectedly that spring, before he could even harvest

the year’s crop. His fields were destroyed, buildings razed, and livestock slaughtered, as the United

States government acquired his property in the

name of military preparation. For compensation

the government land agents offered the Baum family $18,375 and told them to vacate immediately.4

With World War II spreading throughout Europe, American political and military leaders

began to prepare the United States for the material demands of conflict. It was still many months

before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, but the government began laying the infrastructure for the war.

This infrastructure took the form of seventy-seven

ordnance factories built throughout the country,

primarily on the land of former farmers. In the span

of just a few months in the spring of 1941, the

government’s land agents took possession of 44

million acres of land (roughly the size of all the

New England states) formerly owned by private

citizens. In Erie County the government exercised

its power of eminent domain and forced over 150

Ohio farming families, including the Baum family, to sell 9,000 acres of land. Baum’s farm became part of the future home of the Plum Brook

Ordnance Works.

The United States military designated Plum

Brook as one of its most important sites for the

development of gunpowder. It became one of the

three largest suppliers of trinitrotoluene (TNT) for

Obtaining the Land

Obtaining the Land
10 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 8: Descendants of original 1812 Firelands settlers owned much of the property that became Plum Brook Station. Years of

commitment and investment in the land had resulted in abundant crops and a strong community. In early 1941, federal agents

arrived, and in April, 150 families were forced to sell out and leave the land that had been theirs for generations. Courtesy of

Henry Pfanner.

Image 9: Plum Brook Station seen in the context of Sandusky’s unique location near Lake Erie. It is in the heart of some of the

region’s most fertile farmland. However, access to five highways, in addition to its secure distance from the borders, made it a

perfect location for an ordnance facility. (NASA C–1960–55682)
11

Image 10: The Plum Brook Ordnance Works administrative building, medical services building, guard tower, and other structures

during World War II. Just months prior to this photograph, this had all been farmland. Courtesy of Corps of Engineers, U.S.,

Army. (No. 1238–12, 1944)

Obtaining the Land
12 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

The following document is Fred C. Baum’s protest in a district court that the government was not

providing fair compensation for the forced acquisition of his lands. The government was offering

$18,500 and Baum believed that a fair price would be $35,929 for land that included a two-story

brick home with ten rooms, two barns, milk house, hog pen, 120-tree apple orchard, thirty-one cows,

twenty-two hogs, two acres of woods, and diversified crop production in his fields. Ten families went to

court to get more money. Baum’s was the only case in which the jury ruled in favor of the defendant; it

awarded him $31,700, just $4,000 less than he was seeking. No other defendants were awarded

anything close to what they held their land to be worth. The government believed that Baum won his

case because of a disposition on the part of the jury to favor the landowner without giving just consideration to the testimony presented by government experts. This jury decision was eventually upheld

and Baum received his money. These documents can be found at Record Group 21, Records of the

District Courts of the United States, Toledo, Civil Case 4627, U.S. vs. 1140.375 Acres of Land, et al.,

National Archives-Great Lakes Region (Chicago).

Primary Document #1

September 19, 1941

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF

OHIO, WESTERN DIVISION

Fred C. Baum presents to the Honorable Court that on or about the 21st day of June,

1941, the United States of America instituted condemnation proceedings as herein

entitled, seeking to acquire certain land in Erie County, Ohio, for federal building site

purposes, more specifically designated as the Plum Brook Ordnance Site, a portion of

which land designated as Parcel I, and fully described in the petition referred to, was in

the name of this applicant; and that on or about the 23d day of June, 1941, by order of

this Court, the immediate possession of this land referred to was taken by the United

States of America.

The applicant further states that subsequently negotiations were entered into for the

payment of said land with representatives of the United States Government, but that a

price judged to be fair compensation for the taking of said property could not be agreed

upon and that consequently the fair value of said property is to be determined at a later

date by this Honorable Court and a Jury impaneled for such purposes.

The applicant further states that the United States of America considered that Eighteen

Thousand, Five Hundred Dollars ($18,500.00) was a fair and reasonable price for the

taking of said land as aforesaid, and has deposited with the Clerk of this Court said

amount to the credit of this applicant.

This applying defendant has been ordered to vacate said premises by officials of the

War Department of the United States, but is without sufficient funds to purchase or lease

other lands and housing facilities to which he might move his family and his furniture

and equipment.
Obtaining the Land 13
14 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 11: The Plum Brook cafeteria building, a typical Ordnance Works structure. Plum Brook’s ordnance buildings were built

for functionality, not style. Although these structures were built to last five years, many survived much longer, and this building is

today used by the Perkins School District. Courtesy of Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. (No. 3–42, 1944)

Image 12: The Plum Brook cafeteria in the basement of Building 1. A painting of the Plum Brook Trojanair appears on the far

wall. The B-17 bomber was built with war bonds purchased by Plum Brook Ordnance Works employees during one of their

numerous bond drives. Courtesy of Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. (No. 21748, 1944)
15

the nation, producing nearly one billion pounds

between 1942 and 1945. Aesthetics, not surprisingly, were not considered important in the construction of most ordnance facilities. “There are to

be no high falutin gargoyles on these buildings,”5

remarked Major General Charles M. Wesson, chief

of ordnance, in July 1940. Emphasis was placed

on functionality, stability, and speed in construction. Most of the buildings at Plum Brook were

considered temporary, with an expected lifespan

of five years.6

 All in all, eight major buildings were

erected at a cost of $7,851,335.7

While most of the buildings at ordnance facilities were hastily built with inexpensive construction materials, the igloos were a notable exception.

The igloos (so named because they looked like Eskimo shelters) were solidly built storage facilities

that Plum Brook used to house its explosives. They

were concrete with reinforced steel structures,

shaped like half-barrels lying sideways in the

ground, and covered with a thick layer of sod. Two

lightning rods protected them during electrical

storms. Though they were designed to explode

upward and not sideways, all ninety-nine of them

had to be isolated from each other by at least 400

feet on each side and 800 feet from the front and

rear to prevent a dangerous chain reaction if one

of them ignited.

Plum Brook’s first line production of TNT

began on 15 November 1941, just twenty-two days

before the Japanese unleashed a surprise attack on

Pearl Harbor.8 The prime operating contractor

was the Trojan Powder Company of Allentown,

Pennsylvania. Once operational, Plum Brook produced over 400,000 pounds of explosives per day.9

The workers did everything that they could to support the war effort. Not only were they committed

to performing their jobs, but they also pooled their

money together to buy war bonds. One Plum

Brook bond campaign set a goal of raising enough

funds to purchase a $350,000 military airplane.

The plane, a flying fortress, was christened “The

Plum Brook Trojanair” before its first flight.

Obtaining the Land

Image 13: One of ninety-nine bunkers used to store powder at Plum Brook’s southwest corner. These structures function today as

naturally climate-controlled warehouses for federal records. Courtesy of Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army. (No. 21762, 1944)
16 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 14: The Plum Brook Ordnance Works (PBOW) News was published every Saturday for the duration of the war. It

emphasized exemplary work habits and kept employees up to date on the social comings and goings. Plum Brook employees

ranged from sixteen to eighty years old and came from all around the country. They were tied together by a common sense of

purpose to assist the Allied victory. There were also social events, sports teams, and holiday functions that created a strong and

closely knit culture. Courtesy of Milan Public Library.
17

In August 1942 the film and comedy duo

Abbott & Costello visited Plum Brook to encourage the workers to purchase even more war bonds.

The pair entertained the audience on a stage erected

behind the administration building. After making

jokes and imitating the sound of steam engines,

Costello became serious and shouted, “We’re going to put the three louses, Hitler, Hirohito, and

Mussolini, in their place. We’re going to send them

right to a good seat—the hot seat!”10 They spent

the remainder of the day at Cedar Point, a local

amusement park. Seven months later the bond

campaign came to a successful conclusion with

most employees setting aside 10 percent of their

total salary for bond purchases.

It was difficult to keep morale strong. The labor was demanding and the conditions were harsh.

Because buildings were considered temporary, they

lacked adequate insulation from the cold Ohio

winters. In December 1942 nearly all of the employees worked in their heaviest coats and hats as

“icy blasts tore through warped window casings.”11

Most people pulled down their office shades in

hopes of deflecting the cold winds. Typewriters became sluggish, and the secretaries forced their

numb fingers to press the frozen keys. It was not

unusual for twenty-foot icicles to form on the

110-foot-tall water tower. One office manager said

that he spent most of the day brushing snow off

his desk. Many of the employees rode bicycles to

Obtaining the Land

Image 15: Abbott & Costello appeared at the Plum Brook Ordnance Works in August 1942 to encourage workers to buy war

bonds. Other campaigns included the display of a captured Japanese submarine, a visit by General MacArthur’s ranger troop,

and several all-Plum Brook days at Cedar Point, an amusement park in Sandusky. (Permission courtesy of the Charles E.

Frohman Collection at the Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center, Freemont, Ohio)
18 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 16: A typical Plum Brook Ordnance Works office building. Rooms like this looked relatively warm and comfortable, but

their functional military construction left occupants vulnerable to the Ohio winter weather. Courtesy of Corps of Engineers, U.S.

Army. (No. 21747, 1944)

nitrator operators, wash-house helpers, packers,

box factory operators, truck drivers, and clerical

workers. There were numerous stories of patriotic

women working for the war effort. For example,

June Franklin’s job was to nail the wooden bottoms onto TNT boxes. She had fourteen close relatives fighting in the war, and when she learned that

her husband had been wounded in action in North

Africa, she immediately walked into the Plum

Brook payroll office, bought a war bond, and

signed her name to the bottom of a TNT box. She

vowed never to miss a minute of work and said,

“Every time I drive a nail into the bottom of a TNT

box I feel that I’m driving a nail into the Axis

coffin.”13

In 1945, World War II came to an end. In early

May, Germany surrendered, and three months later,

after the devastating atomic bomb attacks, Japan

surrendered. President Harry Truman announced

work because of conservation efforts, which also

proved to be quite challenging in the winter. While

the conditions were difficult, employees endured

them, knowing that loved ones were probably risking their lives in far more dangerous and demanding situations abroad.

Plum Brook emphasized safety and conservation. Supervisors had regular safety dinners where

they discussed concerns or problems that they

thought might threaten their workers. Plum Brook

employees were also subject to strict conservation

and rationing for the war. They saved gas by

carpooling or biking to work. Many families

planted “victory gardens” around their houses to

help supply their own food needs.

As was typical in most industry during the war,

women represented a large proportion of the

workforce at Plum Brook.12 Women held jobs as
19

that the war was over via a radio broadcast that

night, and proclaimed the next two days as a

national holiday. Simultaneous celebrations

spontaneously erupted through the United States.

In nearby Akron, Ohio, nearly the entire city

celebrated on Main Street, which was filled with

“people yelling and hugging each other and mothers of G.I.s crying.”14 At Plum Brook the celebrations were more muted. One observer said, “There

Obtaining the Land

was quiet elation of course, and here and there

especially among female employees there were

misty eyes and tears of happiness because their

loved ones were safe at last.”15

After the Japanese surrender, the production

at Plum Brook came to an end. For three-and-ahalf years it had operated twenty-four hours a day,

seven days a week, with only a few work stoppages.

Image 17: A drawing from the Plum Brook Ordnance News reminding women of the proper placement of their

identification badges. Courtesy of Milan Public Library.
20 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 18: This poster was issued by the Women’s Bureau to help ensure that women workers did all they could to remain

healthy and safe while on the job. (National Archives and Records Administration. NWDNS–44–PA–946)
21

Image 19: Employees at Oak Ridge National Laboratory celebrating the end of World War II. Spontaneous celebrations erupted

all over the country when Japan surrendered. (1945) (Department of Energy Photo 946–26)

Obtaining the Land

Eighteen million hours of labor had produced

nearly one billion pounds of explosives, with no

fatalities. Several months were needed to close and

“decontaminate” the facility, so that the entire site

could be returned to the government.16 Suddenly,

Plum Brook was silent again. Some observed a return to nature as they left the plant for the last time.

For four years, since ground was first broken, peace

and quiet had been absent from these lands. Now

there was a “gloriously blue sky overhead” and

sounds of “what seemed like a thousand birds

throating a medley of songs just as if the feathered

songsters knew that peace had come at last to the

world of men.”17

As Plum Brook went quiet, the nation began

to wrestle with the realities of the new atomic age.

The war ended with the detonation of an atomic

bomb, but could the technology that enabled this

deadly device be used for other applications? This

quest became the goal for scientists working at an

increasing number of research and test reactors

built throughout the United States.
22 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 20: Workers dig up transit lines, flumes, and buried TNT at Plum Brook. The explosive remains were then detonated

safely elsewhere. Despite claims that there would be no long-term damage to the land, by 1948 it became evident that the Plum

Brook site had suffered considerable contamination. During the early 1950s the land became a subsidiary of the nearby Ravenna

Arsenal and was subjected to even more contamination. The NACA attempted to clean up the area in the mid-fifties. The United

States Army Corps of Engineers is still working on the project today. (1956) (NASA C–2003–826)
The Dream of a Flying Reactor 23

The Dream of a Flying Reactor

After World War II, the United States military

began envisioning ways to take advantage of

nuclear technology for its weapons arsenal. Since

the Army had already developed an atomic bomb,

it hurriedly began working on even more destructive applications, namely, a nuclear warhead for a

missile, while the Navy successfully built the USS

Nautilus, a nuclear-powered submarine. The Air

Force began its nuclear initiative on 10 October

1945, when J. Carlton Ward, Jr., president of

Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation, testified before Congress on behalf of the post-war aviation industry. He claimed that the nation that first

developed an atomic airplane would have an unparalleled tactical advantage in future conflicts.18

Thus was born a fifteen-year, billion-dollar quest

to put a nuclear reactor into an airplane for use as

a fuel source. The apparent benefits appeared well

worth the risk. Some believed that nuclear airplanes would be able to fly for months without

the need to refuel. With the heightening tension

of the Cold War and the increasing rumors that

the Soviets were close to developing their own

nuclear airplane, the American government quickly

launched a massive effort to close the perceived

gap.

A great number of technical problems needed

to be solved.19 For example, the crew would have

to be shielded from the onboard reactor for obvious safety reasons. Traditional shielding was so

thick and heavy that it would significantly complicate liftoff. Another safety problem was the

danger to people on the ground. Should the plane

crash, many observers thought that the effect would

be similar to the detonation of a hydrogen bomb.

Others in the nuclear field tried to reassure the

skeptics that these predicted dangers were

unrealistic. Lesser concerns consisted of finding

materials that could withstand the high operating

temperatures of the reactor.20 Despite the controversy, Pratt & Whitney, Convair, the U.S. Air Force,

Lockheed, and General Electric all began developing reactor testing technologies to try to solve the

myriad technical problems associated with the

nuclear airplane.
24 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 22: Launched on 21 January 1954, the USS Nautilus was the world’s first nuclear submarine. The nuclear engine

enabled the craft to remain submerged for weeks. After its success, the U.S. government became interested in constructing

atomic-powered airplanes, which, it hoped, would have the potential to remain in flight for weeks without refueling. (National

Archives and Records Administration, NWDNS–80–G–709366)

Image 21: Abe Silverstein, director of Lewis Research Center, addresses an audience about the benefits of nuclear propulsion. In

the background is a display titled “Nuclear Energy Research Technology” that features images of nuclear rockets and uses for

thermoelectric power. (1961) (NASA C–1961–58359)
The Dream of a Flying Reactor 25

on safety, cost, and accessibility. Lewis representatives finally chose the Plum Brook Ordnance Works

because it was near to Cleveland and already had

much of the infrastructure required to operate a

nuclear reactor.22

Not just at Plum Brook, but throughout the

United States, the government took the lead in

developing test reactors. These projects exemplified the “big science” era. Big science was a new

trend in research characterized by expensive programs massively funded by external agencies

and patterned after the Manhattan Project.23 The

government made big science possible through its

willingness to spend large amounts of money to

develop projects whose outcomes were unknown.

This activity took place at national laboratories like

In 1951, the NACA began to explore the possibility of developing its own nuclear reactor to assist in the development of the nuclear airplane. The

NACA was uniquely qualified to take the lead in

the endeavor because of its expertise as an aeronautics laboratory. This government agency was

also important because it willingly shouldered the

risks associated with creating innovations. Virginia

Dawson wrote, “By assuming the costs of research

and testing, the government could pursue promising new technology, regardless of blind alleys and

false starts.”21 The NACA selected the Lewis Flight

Propulsion Laboratory in Cleveland, Ohio, to design and build the reactor. Representatives from

the laboratory examined nineteen sites in Ohio and

Pennsylvania for the reactor facility. The sites were

judged with a predetermined list of criteria based

Image 23: NACA officials inspect Plum Brook Ordnance Works buildings to determine if they could be used for the NACAs

purposes. When the inspectors opened up many of the buildings, they found rooms with calendars, coffee mugs, and papers as

they had been left the day the Ordnance Works closed down. An eerily similar scene would be encountered forty years later by

the decommissioning team in the Plum Brook Reactor Facility. (1958) (NASA C–1958–47291)
26 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

SITE SURVEY FOR NACA RESEARCH REACTOR

September 13, 1955

Prepared for NACA by the Nuclear Development Corporation of America

White Plains, New York

This report summarizes the studies and evaluation of nineteen sites considered for

location of a high-flux nuclear research reactor facility which is being designed by the

Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory of the National Advisory Committee for Aeronautics. The research facility is to be used primarily for engineering studies and performance test evaluation of aircraft reactor power plant systems and

components...simulating actual operating conditions.

The location of nineteen possible sites which have been considered includes: Altoona,

Pennsylvania; Ashtabula, Ohio; Confluence, Pennsylvania; Cumberland, Maryland;

DuBois, Pennsylvania; Fairport, Ohio; Indiana, Pennsylvania; Johnson Island, Ohio;

Kittanning, Pennsylvania; Lorain, Ohio; Perrysville, Ohio; Plum Brook Arsenal; Portage, Pennsylvania; Ravenna Arsenal; Saxton, Pennsylvania; Seward, Pennsylvania;

Strongsville, Ohio; Susquehanna Ordnance Depot; Twinsburg, Ohio.

It is concluded, as a result of this survey, that the most desirable site is in Plum Brook

Arsenal, which is located in a sparsely populated area three and one-half miles south

of Sandusky, Ohio. From a technical standpoint, this is among the best of the sites

surveyed. Its favorable safety characteristics are inherited directly from the Arsenal’s

own requirements for both intra- and extra-site safety. Site development costs and the

cost of maintaining security should be a minimum, since it is an active Governmentowned facility with security fences and patrols, roads, and other services already

established. The proximity to the Lewis Flight Propulsion Laboratory (fifty miles, one

hour travel by car) will permit full utilization of the administrative and technical personnel and the extensive facilities of the Laboratory. This situation should contribute greatly

to the reduction of the cost of establishing and operating the facility.

The following document is an excerpt from a report that selected Plum Brook as the ideal site to

construct the NACA test reactor.

Primary Document #2
The Dream of a Flying Reactor 27
28 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 24: This map shows Plum Brook’s location relative to Lake Erie and several Northern Ohio cities. Plum Brook’s only

disadvantage was the relatively large population in nearby Sandusky. However, it was decided that any experiment deemed too

risky would be sent to more remote test reactors in Idaho Falls like the Materials Test Reactor or the Engineering Test Reactor.

(NASA CS–12374B)
The Dream of a Flying Reactor 29

Argonne, Oak Ridge, Brookhaven, and Los Alamos.

Nuclear research was given a high priority, and

these laboratories took the lead in developing test

reactors. Between 1942 (when the first research

reactor was built) and 1962 (when Plum Brook

was in operation), the government constructed

seventy-seven research and test reactors.

There were two other reasons why the U.S.

government led the exploration into nuclear research. The first was secrecy. While much of the

research generated at governmental facilities was

eventually declassified for transfer to industry, as

it was being produced it remained classified. The

restricted environment of the typical government

laboratory was essential when research was directly

tied to national security issues. Second, national

laboratories had the luxury of assembling a wide

variety of specialists who could be brought together

for a common goal. The prime example of this was

the Manhattan Project’s grouping of talent to

achieve a vast, complex, yet single-minded goal that

would have been far beyond the capabilities of any

university laboratory or corporation. Since these

specialists were all under the control of a single

entity, such as the Atomic Energy Commission

(AEC), their focus could be redirected at the

government’s discretion.

Image 25: Argonne National Laboratory-West. Argonne’s western site opened on 18 February 1949 in Idaho to serve as a testing

ground for different types of reactors. Similarly to NASA Lewis and Plum Brook Station, Argonne’s basic research was conducted

at the main laboratory near Chicago, and nuclear facility testing and development was performed at the Idaho site. In December

1951, the Experimental Breeder Reactor I (EBR-1), the world’s first nuclear power plant, produced the world’s first nuclearderived electricity. Other Argonne facilities included the Materials Test Reactor (1952–1970), the Engineering Test Reactor

(1957–1982), and the Advanced Test Reactor (1967–present). (Department of Energy Photo 2001951)
30 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 26: The aircraft in these photos, a B-36 bomber converted to run a nonpropulsive test reactor during flight, flew fortyseven times between 1955 and 1957 over Texas and New Mexico. A nuclear-powered airplane was never flown. Engineers were

aware of the multiple problems associated with an atomic plane, but they remained excited about the long-term possibilities.

(Department of Energy)
31

Image 27: Guards Milton Miller (left) and John Metcalf inspect the badge of Frank Waters of the Joint AEC Department of

Defense (DOD) Information Office. Notice the mushroom cloud on the shoulder patch. Although the mission of the security

forces has not changed over the last forty-two years, uniforms, communication equipment, and vehicles are substantially

different. (1960s) (Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office)

The Dream of a Flying Reactor
32 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility
33

Designing the Plum Brook Reactor

Engineers already working at the Lewis laboratory were given the task of designing the reactor.

Dr. Theodore “Ted” Hallman had a Ph.D. in

nuclear engineering and was the first division

chief of the Plum Brook reactor. He worked on the

reactor design and managed the startup test programs at Plum Brook. Most of his colleagues had

no background in the nuclear field and taught

themselves by studying nuclear engineering textbooks from the library.24 Sam Kaufman, an engineer, also worked with Hallman on the design,

though he had little nuclear training. His righthand man was Alan “Hap” Johnson, who eventually became the head of Plum Brook Station itself.

These men also augmented their studies by visiting other test reactor facilities at Oak Ridge,

Lockheed, and Idaho Falls. Through this process

they were able to master the concepts and build a

unique and powerful test reactor that had an unparalleled emphasis on experimental facilities. Abe

Silverstein also established a nuclear training

school at Lewis to provide broad training in nuclear

Designing the Plum Brook Reactor

applications. Though few of the high-level attendees actually went to work at Plum Brook, teachers

like Jim Blue consulted during its development and

operation.25

In the simplest terms, a nuclear reactor creates

energy by literally splitting atoms, the basic building blocks of matter. Atoms were once thought to

be indivisible, but in the twentieth century, scientists discovered that they could be artificially split

or fissioned. Nuclear fission occurs when a neutron collides with the nucleus of an atom. Once

this division occurs, the nucleus releases a large

amount of kinetic energy, which is the source of

the power found in atomic bombs and nuclear

reactors. All nuclear reactors generate energy

through this fission process.

At the center of both power and test reactors is

the active core, which is where the nuclear fuel, or

fissionable material, is located. It is here that the

chain reaction occurs and all the energy is released.
34 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

The fuel comes primarily from uranium isotopes,

which are atoms that are chemically equivalent but

different in mass. Uranium-235 is the principal

isotope for the fission process; though uranium238 is also present, it contributes very little to the

process. The reactor becomes extremely hot during the chain reaction. A coolant mechanism is

used, normally water, to carry away the heat. A reflector made of a material that prevents neutrons

from leaving the pile surrounds the core. It gets its

name from the fact that neutrons leaving the reactor core hit the reflector and are returned to the

core. While the reflector can save a majority of these

neutrons, some do escape and leak out of the pile.

Shielding, usually constructed with steel, water,

Image 28: First-level floor plan for the reactor building (no. 1111) at the Plum Brook Reactor Facility. (Plum Brook Reactor

Facility Archives)

and concrete, is used to contain the radiation

around the reactor core and protect people from

the dangerous effects of radiation. The shielding

materials effectively block the gamma, beta, and

neutron radiation produced by the chain reaction.

The shielding can also get very hot from the radiation (though much less so than the reactor), and

the coolant helps to cool it as well. Reactor components called “moderators” enable scientists to

control the speed of the neutrons so they will move

at the proper velocity to split the nucleus. The

moderator can be a solid, such as graphite, or a

liquid, such as water.
35

Image 29: First-level floor plan for the hot laboratory (no. 1112) at the Plum Brook Reactor Facility. (Plum Brook Reactor

Facility Archives)

Designing the Plum Brook Reactor
36 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Another important part of the reactor are the

control rods. If the reaction becomes unbalanced,

with either too few or too many neutrons causing

fission, then it could either die out or accelerate to

dangerous proportions. Scientists use the control

rods to regulate the process. These are usually made

of boron or cadmium, elements that absorb the

extra neutrons. Lowering or raising the rods into

the core is a way of fine-tuning the reaction; the

level of the rods controls the neutron absorption

rate. The deeper they are in the core, the more neutrons are absorbed and the slower the reaction. The

further they are pulled out, the more reactions take

place.

There are three main types of nuclear reactors:

power, research, and test. Research and test reactors as scientific tools are more common than most

people realize. While power reactors frequently

appear in newspaper headlines and are conspicuous because of their size and power, research reactors can be quietly tucked away, even in the midst

of a college campus. Power reactors generate heat,

which can easily be converted to other useable

Image 30: One of the rare women physicists at NASA Lewis Research Center, working on an atomic laboratory experiment that

pushed a gas at low pressure through a high-voltage discharge. (1957) (NASA C–1957–45726)
Designing the Plum Brook Reactor 37

Image 31: The reactor core area from the top of the pressure tank. The reactor core (right side of the box) comprises a uraniumfueled section (a center array of three holes by nine holes for fuel control rods) surrounded by reflector material or experiments,

to compose the complete four- by eleven-hole core array. The fueled core contains twenty-two stationary rods and five moveable

cadmium and fuel control rods. The reflector material on three sides includes two cadmium and beryllium moveable regulating

rods, three similar shim safety rods, and twelve fixed reflector plugs or experiments. The fueled core housing has reflector plates

on the right and left sides and aluminum end-plates. Alongside the fueled section is a large four- by eight-hole reflector section

(left side of the box), which provides facilities for inserting up to thirty-two experiments, one for each hole. The whole core

structure sits on a stainless steel rack in the stainless-steel-lined pressure vessel (nine feet in diameter by thirty-one feet high).

Three thermal shields are visible (the three rings) around the core. Two large vertical test holes run next to the ends of the core.

One large tube runs through the large reflector section and another runs next to the fueled section. Three smaller beam tubes

abut the right side of the core and three others are on the reflector side (left). (1961) (NASA C–1961–55533)
38 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 32: The Plum Brook reactor’s core, as demonstrated by the manufacturer prior to installation in the reactor pressure tank.

(NASA C–2003–828)
39

Image 33: Before construction began on the nearby Davis-Besse nuclear power reactor (pictured here), community leaders

examined the safety of the Plum Brook facility for reassurances that a nuclear reactor could coexist within a populated area.

(Cleveland Press Photo Collection—“Atomic Energy Facilities: Davis-Besse”)

Designing the Plum Brook Reactor
40 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 34: A Plum Brook representative explains a diagram showing the main elements of the Plum Brook reactor core. The

numerous test holes and rabbit tubes were what made the Plum Brook reactor unique. Few other test reactors in the United

States had the ability to irradiate as many test materials simultaneously. (NASA C–2003–1039)

forms of energy, such as electricity. Research reactors operate at very low thermal power levels—so

low, in fact, that they do not even require any type

of forced cooling. They are used to measure nuclear

parameters and other characteristics, which can

then be used to build other reactors or to design

experiments for test reactors. Test reactors are more

powerful than research reactors and are able to

produce much more intense radiation fields.

Though they are still much less powerful than the

power reactors, they generate enough heat to require a closed-loop forced-circulation coolant

system. This system will remove the heat from the

reactor by transferring it to a secondary cooling

system, which releases it into the atmosphere

through cooling towers.

Radiation is produced for research in the form

of controllable neutron fluxes, which are very

intense fields into which hardware components or

electronic, structural, or fuel materials are placed.

Objects are tested to determine the effect of radiation on physical properties such as strength, brittleness, or elasticity. Items are exposed to neutron

radiation for a specified length of time, removed,

and transferred to hot laboratories, which are

shielded cells where engineers and technicians can

safely analyze the irradiated experiments. Hot laboratories are important because materials exposed

to nuclear radiation become radioactive and emit

gamma rays. Operators peer through thick glass

windows and use claw-like robotic manipulator

arms to carry out chemical and physical tests without being exposed to the deadly radiation.
41

Plum Brook’s main nuclear facility was a lightwater-cooled and moderated sixty-megawatt test

reactor. Additionally there was a 100-kilowatt research Mock-Up Reactor (MUR), which was used

to design experiments for the main reactor. In this

kind of reactor, the fuel elements were in a pool

and the water functioned as a reflector, moderator, and coolant. The AEC recognized that there

were such significant differences between research

and test reactors that they began to issue separate

licenses for them. The Plum Brook Test Reactor was

given the number TR-3, which signified that it was

the third test reactor licensed in the United States.

The emphasis on testing was what made

Plum Brook different from other reactors at the

time.26 The reactor itself had two horizontal holes,

Since the completion of the first nuclear research reactor in 1942 at the University of Chicago,

672 facilities have been built throughout the world.

The United States has built the most research and

test reactors worldwide, with 227 sites,

followed by the former Soviet Union with 97.

National laboratories, universities, private industry, and the military constructed these reactors and

were responsible for the golden age of research and

test reactors in the 1950s and 1960s. During these

decades, 193 research facilities became operational,

compared to a combined total of only 34 reactors

in the years before 1950 and after 1969. These reactors were the centerpiece of the American nuclear

initiative after World War II, and invaluable research tools for American scientists who were using radiation for diverse fields of experimentation.

Designing the Plum Brook Reactor

Image 35: Artist’s rendering depicting the group of scientists, which included Enrico Fermi, gathered around the first chain

reaction on 2 December 1942. The team began work at 8:30 a.m. Slowly, over the course of the morning, they pulled out several

of the control rods and monitored the graphs. When an automatic rod accidentally shut down the reaction, Fermi abruptly broke

for lunch. The slow, tense operation resumed with rods being withdrawn inches at a time at Fermi’s command. At 3:25 p.m.,

they had achieved the first self-sustaining chain reaction. Twenty-eight minutes later, Fermi ordered Walter Zinn to insert the

“zip” rod and the reaction was shut down. (National Archives and Records Administration NWDNS–326–DV–4 [4])
42 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

six horizontal beam holes, and forty-four in-core

test locations. Experimental materials could be sent

hydraulically into the holes in tiny capsule devices

called “rabbits,” or they could be irradiated from

the neutrons emanating from the beam holes. The

engineers would determine the effects on the materials subjected to radiation and this basic research

could then be used to help design various components for the nuclear airplane program. The entire

facility cost $15 million to build.27

In 1956, the NACA sought AEC approval for

the construction of the test reactor. The NACA

planned that the facility’s main area of research

would be testing materials for a nuclear airplane.

This included the effects of radiation on aircraft

components, shield refinement, and related

nuclear and solid-state physics. The pump loop

experiments were to be the most important. This

research would all take place under simulated

aircraft reactor conditions. The AEC granted its

approval, and in September 1956 the groundbreaking ceremony took place in Sandusky.28

Congressman A.D. Baumhart, Abe Silverstein, and

several NACA leaders spoke at the ceremony, praising the local leadership and stating that Plum

Brook was selected in part because of its progressive, forward-thinking community.29

Image 36: View into the reactor core of the Materials Test Reactor (MTR) at Idaho Falls. The 30,000-kilowatt test reactor first

went critical on 31 March 1952 and operated until 23 April 1970. The core designs and fuel elements of virtually every

American nuclear reactor, including Plum Brook Reactor, were influenced by studies at the MTR. (Department of Energy Photo

1002147)
Designing the Plum Brook Reactor 43

Image 38: Atomic Energy Commission (AEC) officials with Abe Silverstein (front row, sitting third from left), working out the

final reactor licensing issues. It is said that Silverstein told AEC Director Glenn Seaborg that the officials could not leave until a

deal was struck. Because Plum Brook was a federal facility, it was not required to file for an AEC license, but to promote peace of

mind in the nearby community and maintain safety, NASA officials decided to work through the commission. They received the

AEC designation Test Reactor 3 (TR-3). (NASA C–1964–69271)

Image 37: Control rods for Plum Brook’s Mock-Up Reactor, which entered the core from above. In the Plum Brook reactor, the

control rods entered the core from below. Three types of control rods were used in the Plum Brook reactor: two hydraulically

controlled regulating rods to provide precise control of the reactor power level; three mechanically controlled reflector rods to

provide a coarser level of control (the reflector rods had a quick release to allow them to drop and scram the reactor, if

necessary); and five fueled shim rods, which performed the same functions as the reflector rods. (NASA PS63–0007)
44 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

“BREAK GROUND FOR REACTOR HERE”

The Sandusky Register Star-News

September 26, 1956

Silver pick, shovel start work on Lab.

Nuclear Project at Plum Brook ready in 3 years.

Dr. Edward Sharp, director of the NACA Lewis Laboratory at Cleveland, using a silver

shovel, and Congressman A.D. Baumhart, Jr., Vermillion, with a silver pick, loosened the

ground to mark the formal start of construction of the reactor which is scheduled to be

completed within three years and be staffed by approximately 50 aeronautical scientists

and 100 other employees.

Dr. Sharp explained that NACA’s primary interest in atomic power is conversion of the

energy generated in a reactor to useful thrust in the most efficient manner possible... He

added that the airplane powered by the atom will be capable of flying non-stop to any

point on earth without refueling, and its flight endurance will be limited only by the endurance of its crew.

Abe Silverstein, associate director of the Lewis Laboratory, said of the reactor: “Despite

recent important advances in aerodynamic efficiencies for aircraft at supersonic speeds,

nuclear power still is the ‘shining hope’ for increasing the range of aircraft at high speeds

and for increasing aircraft ranges to values obtainable with conventional special chemical

fuels. A long range bomber may carry 100,000 pounds or more of fuel. A piece of

Uranium 235 with the same energy content would weigh less than one ounce.”

Primary Document #3

The following document is an excerpt from a local newspaper article reporting on the groundbreaking

ceremonies at the Plum Brook reactor in September 1956.
Designing the Plum Brook Reactor 45
46 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility
47

Constructing the Reactor

Constructing the Reactor

Image 39: Congressman Baumhart watched as Lewis Laboratory Director Dr. Edward Sharp dug the first shovel of dirt at the

September 1956 groundbreaking ceremony for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility. The silver pick and shovel are the same ones

used for the 1941 groundbreaking of the NACA Lewis Laboratory in Cleveland, Ohio. (NASA C–1956–43032)

The construction of Plum Brook required a great deal of effort between the first groundbreaking in

1956 and first criticality in 1961. During this span of five years, construction efforts reshaped the

land and resulted in a powerful nuclear test reactor. The following photographic section documents this effort.
48 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 40: Controlled fire to demolish unwanted Ordnance Works structure. Upon taking possession of Plum Brook, the NACA

inventoried all the Ordnance Works structures and decided to retain forty-one of them, demolishing over 600 other buildings.

In addition, three TNT areas and underground waste disposal lines had to be destroyed and decontaminated.

(NASA C–2003–829)
Constructing the Reactor 49

Image 41: The Plum Brook Ordnance Works’ Pentolite Area was demolished and decontaminated. It was on these 117 acres of

land that the reactor facility was constructed. (NASA CS–18957)
50 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 42: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility construction began when crews excavated a hole in the ground for the pressure tank.

The tank extended approximately thirty-two feet under ground. The steel containment vessel, which was more than 100 feet high

(fifty-five feet above grade and fifty-six feet below grade), surrounded the reactor tank area and the surrounding quadrants and

canals. It was designed to prevent any radioactivity from being released if an accident were to occur in the reactor. This safety

precaution was essential because of the nearby communities. Many other large reactors did not have such safety features. For

example, the Materials Test Reactor in Idaho Falls had no shield because small amounts of contamination could be released into

the atmosphere without endangering the public. (1958–60) (NASA C–2003–830)
Constructing the Reactor 51

Image 43: Exterior of the containment vessel during construction. (NASA C–2003–831)
52 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 44: Inside the containment vessel during construction. (NASA C–2003–832)
Constructing the Reactor 53

Image 45: The pressure tank was shipped to Plum Brook via railway, and transported to the reactor facility on a flatbed truck.

The tank was then rolled to a crane, which lifted it into place at the center of the unfinished quadrant area. Several pipes

jutted out from the tank. These “test holes” would be used to transport experiments to the reactor core for radiation during its

operating cycles. (c. 1959) (NASA C–2003–833)
54 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 46: The pressure tank delivered by truck. (NASA C–2003–834)
55

Image 47: Pressure tank being lowered into the containment vessel. (NASA C–2003–835)

Constructing the Reactor
56 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 48: Because it bore a resemblance to the Soviet’s first orbiting satellite, engineers scrawled the word “Sputnick” into

the side of the pressure tank. Though misspelled, this was perhaps a not-so-subtle reminder of the Cold War space race. It was

hoped that the basic experimental science conducted at Plum Brook would play a vital role in the development of a nuclear

rocket. (NASA C–2003–835)
57

Image 49: The pressure tank in place inside the containment vessel. (NASA C–2003–836)

Constructing the Reactor
58 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 50: A worker spray paints one of the quadrant walls and a shielding wall surrounding the reactor pressure tank. The

quadrants were twenty-five to twenty-seven feet deep and filled with water. The water provided shielding for the radioactive

materials that were transported along the canal basin. (NASA C–2003–837)
59

Image 51: Plum Brook had two pumping stations to obtain raw water from nearby Lake Erie. The reactor required one million

gallons of water daily for cooling, shielding, and dilution of radiation. The main one was at Rye Beach (pictured) and the

other was at Big Island. They were initially constructed in 1941 for the Ordnance Works and were closed in late 1945. In

March 1958, NACA assumed control of both facilities, but it took several years of repairs and cleaning before both would

consistently function properly. They were connected to Plum Brook by 5.9 miles of 24-inch steel piping. Together, they could

pump 51 million gallons of lake water per day. (1983) (NASA C–2003–838)

Image 52: A diver emerges after working on the Plum Brook water pumps in Lake Erie. Divers had to flush the intake line and

clear it of mud, silt, and debris regularly. (NASA C–1961–58167)

Constructing the Reactor
60 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 53: The Plum Brook Guardhouse. (NASA C–2003–850)
61

Image 54: The Plum Brook reactor complex consisted of numerous research facilities and support buildings. The containment

vessel’s silver dome was at the center of the main reactor building. The reactor office and lab building was located in the

immediate foreground, and the hot laboratory was adjacent on the right. Across the road to the left was the reactor office

building, and assembly, test, and storage building. Behind it was the large, white helium storage structure. Behind the reactor

building were the service equipment building, the cooling tower, and the water tower. The fan house and waste-handling

building were behind the hot laboratory. (1969) (NASA C–1969–10920)

Constructing the Reactor
62 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

FINAL HAZARDS SUMMARY NASA PLUM BROOK REACTOR FACILITY,

December 1959, edited A.B. Davis, B. Lubarsky, and T.M. Hallman

The Lewis Research Center of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration has

built a nuclear research reactor at the NASA Plum Brook Research Facilities (formerly

known as the Plum Brook Ordnance Works) near Sandusky, Ohio. The purpose of this

report is to provide information to the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission concerning the

design of the reactor facility, the characteristics of the site, the hazards of operation at

this location, and general operating and emergency procedures.

To achieve good coordination of the reactor research with programs on the other propulsion system components, the reactor was constructed at the NASA Plum Brook Facilities.

The reactor facility is located 3000 feet from the closest border of the site, three miles

from Sandusky, a city of 35,000 people, and fifty miles from the Lewis Research Center

in Cleveland, Ohio.

During the period when the site for the NASA reactor was selected, consideration was

given to a more remote site such as the NRTS [National Reactor Testing Station] site in

Idaho. The NASA Plum Brook Facilities offered a number of advantages compared to a

site of this type.

The surrounding population density is the chief disadvantage of the Plum Brook Site

compared to a more remote location. This factor may prohibit the performance of a few

very hazardous experiments at this site. Any experiment vital to the progress of scientific

knowledge or nuclear propulsion which is deemed too hazardous for the Plum Brook

Site, could readily be carried out at MTR [Materials Test Reactor] or ETR [Engineering Test

Reactor]. This fact minimizes this disadvantage of the Plum Brook Site.

An analysis of the consequences of failure or malfunction of equipment has been made

for the purpose of estimating the consequences of the unplanned release and dispersion

of radioactive materials. The analysis deals with accidents which may introduce hazards

from the following sources: (1) Failure or malfunction of component parts of the reactor

or of component parts of the reactor cooling, electrical, or control system. (2) Failure or

malfunction of experiments in any of the radiation facilities of the research reactor. (3)

Acts of God, sabotage, negligence. (4) Maximum credible accident.

[A maximum credible accident] is the excursion resulting from the inability of the control

system to compensate for the addition of a large step-increase in reactivity to the reactor.

In this excursion, the reactor power and temperatures increase rapidly until some inherent self-limiting process in the reactor stabilizes the situation or until the reactor disassembles itself. The runaway to destruction in a reactor of this type would probably include the melting of the fuel plates, an explosion in the reactor pressure tank, and the

scattering of radioactive materials. It is an event which could create a considerable

hazard both for the operating personnel and the general populace.

Primary Document #4

The following document is a report detailing the potential radioactive hazards posed by the Plum Brook

reactors. It was first submitted to the AEC in October 1956 and then revised in 1959. The following is an

edited excerpt from the over-400-page summary.
Constructing the Reactor 63
64 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility
65

During the five years of Plum Brook’s construction, both the government and the U.S. Air Force

lost their enthusiasm for the nuclear airplane

program. It turned out that the reports stating that

the Soviet Union was close to building its own

nuclear airplane were untrue. Also, progress on traditionally fueled airplanes enabled them to begin

performing at levels that were once thought achievable only by a nuclear airplane. Bombers were now

able to fly to Moscow and back, and intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) armed with small

nuclear warheads could be launched from the

United States and accurately hit targets in the Soviet Union. In March 1961, President John F.

Kennedy delivered a message to Congress on the

defense budget, which became known informally

as the “kiss of death for the atomic plane.” He said

that despite the time and money (fifteen years and

$1 billion) that had been sunk into the project,

“the possibility of achieving a militarily useful aircraft in the foreseeable future is still very remote.”

As a result he planned to “terminate development

effort” on the nuclear airplane.30

Suddenly, just months before the Plum Brook

reactor was to go critical (meaning that it would

be able to sustain a nuclear reaction or reach

criticality), its primary research objective was eliminated. But the Plum Brook engineers, still finishing construction on their facility, did not have to

wait long to have a new assignment handed to

them. Despite the end of the nuclear airplane,

Kennedy did not lose his enthusiasm for nuclear

technology. The nation had also been working on

a nuclear space initiative since 1955, and this was

the brave new world that Kennedy wanted to explore. Less than two months later he delivered his

famous “Urgent National Needs” speech before a

joint session of Congress about landing a man on

the Moon before the decade was out. He said,

“Now it is time to take longer strides—time for

a great new American enterprise—time for this

Kennedy’s New Dream

Kennedy’s New Dream
66 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

nation to take a clearly leading role in space

achievement, which in many ways may hold the

key to our future on Earth.” He wanted the entire

nation to commit itself to achieving this goal

quickly and efficiently as before its rival superpower, the Soviet Union, could do so. What is often forgotten about this speech is that Kennedy

also advanced an even more compelling dream.

Though just months before he had cancelled the

nuclear airplane, now he called for increased funding to develop a nuclear rocket. He said, “This gives

promise of some day providing a means for even

Constructing the Reactor

more exciting and ambitious exploration of space,

perhaps beyond the Moon, perhaps to the very end

of the solar system itself.”31

The development of a nuclear rocket was a

highly complex undertaking (even more so than

the nuclear airplane), and advanced research facilities like Plum Brook would play a role in its

development. One important advantage of the

nuclear rocket was its high specific impulse (a

measure of the miles per gallon that would be

possible with hydrogen fuel propellant, which

Image 55: President Kennedy emerges from a tour of the nuclear rocket test facilities at Jackass Flats, Nevada. At his right is the

head of the Atomic Energy Commission, Glenn Seaborg, and in front of him is Harold Finger, the head of the joint AEC-NASA

Space Nuclear Propulsion Office. (Harry Finger Collection)
67

Image 56: President Kennedy operates a remote manipulator like the ones found in the hot laboratory at Plum Brook. This one

was used to disassemble radioactive parts from a nuclear rocket reactor that had been sent to Los Alamos from the Nuclear

Rocket Development Station at the Nevada Test Site. Harold Finger accompanied him on the trip and recalled, “There’s no

question about it. [Kennedy] enjoyed seeing the equipment. He actually played with some of the remote manipulators and I can

tell you he was beaming as he was doing it. After meeting these outstanding scientists at Los Alamos and seeing the facilities in

Nevada, he was really excited about the whole thing.”32 (Harry Finger Collection)

Kennedy’s New Dream
68 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 57: An advertisement for NERVA, the Nuclear Engines for Rocket Vehicle Applications program. Aerojet General Corp.

and Westinghouse were primary contractors who operated under NASA–AEC’s Space Nuclear Propulsion Office. (Harry Finger

Collection)
69

would be used in tandem with a nuclear rocket),

due to the high operating temperature of the reactor. Though scientists had harnessed the power of

the atom for nuclear bombs twenty years earlier,

there was still much to learn about the effects of

radioactivity. Building a nuclear rocket presented

many scientific, technical, and human questions.

For example, how quickly would materials exposed

to radiation (both from space and the reactor itself) become weak and deteriorate? What types of

materials endured best in these environments?

Which of these materials provided the greatest

radiation-shielding capabilities to ensure the safety

of the astronauts traveling with it? Important questions also surrounded temperature. For example,

what would be the effects of radiation and high

temperatures on the reactor and the rocket’s engines? Did cryogenic temperatures also have an

effect upon performance? The search for these answers became the responsibility of scientists and

engineers working at nuclear research and test reactors around the country.33 Just twenty days after

Kennedy gave his speech, the Plum Brook reactor

went critical and became the second most powerful American test reactor facility.

Image 58: A model of a thermonuclear rocket capable of interplanetary exploration. The reactor was used to heat up liquid

hydrogen for thrust similarly to traditional rocket engines. The large heavily shielded zone between the reactor and the crew

cabin protected the astronauts from the radiation. (1963) (NASA C–1963–63470)

Kennedy’s New Dream
70 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Primary Document #5 and #6

Just seven days before President Kennedy officially canceled the atomic airplane, Plum Brook held a

massive open house to demonstrate the reactor that was constructed to support development of this project.

More than sixty members of the print media and radio and television news services met at the site to talk

with community leaders and NASA and AEC representatives. To see the dramatic change of focus for the

reactor, compare the following two excerpted newspaper reports. The first article, “Reactor for A-Plane

Gets Okay,” appeared in early March when the Plum Brook reactor was set to support the atomic airplane. The second article, “Plum Brook Atomic Lab Brings Space Closer,” appeared less than two weeks

later and made no mention of the atomic airplane,although it discussed space and nuclear rocket

research.

“REACTOR FOR A-PLANE GETS OKAY”

Chillicothe Gazette

8 March 1961

The Plum Brook research nuclear reactor, to be used in efforts to develop an atomic

airplane, has received the Atomic Energy Commissions approval to go into operation.

The reactor, the nation’s second largest with power equivalent to 60 million watts, is a

facility of Cleveland’s Lewis Research Center, which operates under the National Aeronautics and Space Administration... Scientists hope to develop a fuel, a couple of pounds

of which would enable an airplane to fly many times around the world.

NASA has said the entire installation was designed to withstand any foreseeable accident without releasing any hazardous materials or gases. The reactor is contained in a

steel tank three-quarters of an inch thick. The tank is encased in three feet of concrete for

more protection. Surrounding the tank is a pool 70 feet in diameter that will be filled with

water for further protection.

“PLUM BROOK ATOMIC LAB BRINGS SPACE CLOSER”

The Cleveland Press

21 March 1961

U.S. effort to harness nuclear power for rockets and space flight takes a giant step today

with completion of the Plum Brook Reactor Laboratory three miles south of Sandusky. This

is the first laboratory of its kind built by the space agency and the only nuclear reactor in

Northern Ohio...

Civic officials of Sandusky and top scientists from Lewis participated in opening ceremonies at the laboratory today. Lewis officials described an extensive program to guarantee

that the facility and its environs will be kept free from radioactive contamination.

Kennedy’s New Dream
71
72 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 60: Reporters and government officials examine the NERVA engine as it stands on its railcar test platform at Jackass

Flats, Nevada. This engine was used for ground tests only. The nozzle on top released heated liquid hydrogen into the air and the

engine remained fixed on a railroad track. (Harry Finger Collection)

Image 59: The main components of a nuclear rocket engine with 75,000 pounds of thrust. The engine heated liquid hydrogen

and exhausted it through the nozzle. (1970) (NASA C–2003–851)
73

Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, in association with the Air Force, initiated work on the

nuclear rocket development program in 1955. At

the beginning, its primary focus was to develop a

potential missile application for use in warfare. In

1961 these efforts evolved into the Nuclear Engine

for Rocket Vehicle Application (NERVA). In theory,

nuclear rockets produced propulsion by directing

cold liquid hydrogen into a hot reactor. This caused

the liquid hydrogen to expand into a highpressure gas, which resulted in a very high specific

impulse that was roughly twice as powerful as that

produced by chemical rockets. By exhausting the

gas through a nozzle, engineers believed that between 50,000 and 70,000 pounds of engine thrust

was possible. This thrust level was later greatly improved when on 26 June 1968, the Phoebus 1B

Reactor was operated at 4200 megawatts, which

produced 200,000 pounds of thrust. A second

nuclear space application program called the Space

Nuclear Auxiliary Program (SNAP) also began during this period. SNAP was developing a nuclear

Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities

generator to provide electrical power for a spacecraft or satellite. By the mid-1960s NASA and the

AEC had spent an accumulated $584.5 million on

the two programs.34

One of the main concerns affecting both of

these programs was how the materials used to

build the spacecraft would withstand the damaging effects of radiation. The answer to this question became the focus of the experimental program

initiated at NASA’s Plum Brook Station. The chief

of the reactor division, H. Brock Barkley, said,

“Although many experiments have been run in

other facilities in the past, they have not yielded

the kind of information that NASA needs for space

applications. That is why our job and our programs

are so vital to NASA’s application of nuclear power

to space.”35

After Congress cancelled work on the nuclear

airplane, Plum Brook’s mission was quickly revised

to support work on the nuclear rocket. When Plum

Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities
74 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 61: Jack Crooks (right) and Jerold Hatton work inside the reactor tank in preparation for the initial startup of the Plum

Brook Reactor. They are inserting dummy fuel elements into the core as part of the final hydraulic testing. (1961) (NASA

C–1961–56897)
75

Brook first reached criticality in June 1961, it joined

120 other research and test reactors already in operation across the country.36 The only research or

test reactor in the United States that was more powerful at the time was the Engineering Test Reactor

in Idaho. As one of the most powerful test reactors

in the world, the NASA Plum Brook reactor became a leader on the emerging nuclear frontier.

Reaching criticality for the first time was a momentous occasion. People gathered around the

control room, either inside or looking through the

large glass windows from the outside walkway.

They all anxiously awaited the announcement that

the reactor was finally critical. Reactor operator

Clyde Greer said, “It was breathtaking to see one

instrument especially.” An ink line drawing represented the power level of the reactor. Everyone

knew that once it reached criticality it would begin to trace a straight line. Once it did, Harold

Giesler and Bill Fecych announced, “We’re critical,” and everyone began clapping and cheering.38

Nuclear engineer A. Bert Davis recalled, “That was

a special day when it went critical... I stood outside the glass looking in the control room observing what was going on. After it went critical we

had a great party that night at a winery in

Sandusky.”39

Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities

Image 62: Harold Geisler takes the Plum Brook reactor critical for the first time on the evening of 14 June 1961. This first selfsustaining chain reaction was conducted at very low power. It wasn’t until the following April that the reactor reached its full

potential of sixty megawatts. By July 1963, the reactor had completed its first experimental cycle while critical. (NASA C–1961–

56899)
76 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Though the Plum Brook reactor went critical

in 1961, it was almost two years before it operated

at its full sixty-megawatt power capacity. While the

power of the reactor was important, it was the neutron flux that was the main attribute that enabled

advanced experimentation. Myrna Steele, the only

woman physicist at Plum Brook, recalled, “The

neutron fluxes and the neutron currents from the

reactor at Plum Brook were among the highest in

the world at the time that it was built and running.”40 The Plum Brook reactor was capable of

producing average neutron fluxes of 4.21014

neutrons/cm2-sec. This meant that the reactor

could transmit 420 trillion neutrons through a

square centimeter of space every second. In the

United States, Plum Brook’s performance was

second only to the Engineering Test Reactor’s 500-

trillion-neutron flux. Worldwide, only the

Dounreay Fast Reactor in Britain had a higher flux

at the time, 2,500 trillion. Even though the Chalk

River Laboratories reactor in Canada had a much

higher power rating—135 megawatts versus Plum

Brook’s sixty megawatts—it was only capable of a

400-trillion neutron flux.

On 15 August 1963, the main reactor completed its first experimental cycle. During the

experimental cycles, when the reactor was

operational, a plume of vapor would drift over the

reactor cooling tower. This plume became a

Image 63: The lily pad area atop the reactor pressure tank. For over ten years, engineers subjected materials to radiation within

this vast, cathedral-like containment vessel. In this picture, the shrapnel shields have been removed from over the pressure tank

and the hatch has been removed and placed on the lily pad, revealing the open reactor tank. Monitoring was performed and

experimental equipment was often assembled in this area. (1961) (NASA C–1961–55851)
77

Image 64: Two men standing on the lily pad guide a crane to remove the third of three large, white, twenty-ton shrapnel shields

that nest over the pressure tank. The shields were then stacked off to the side until it was time to reposition them on top of the

pressure tank. Since the support beams could rotate 365 degrees, the overhead crane could reach any location in the containment

vessel. The pressure tank hatch is open. (1959) (NASA CS–18228)

symbol to the reactor operators that their systems

were operating normally.

That same year, Plum Brook received its AEC

license for the Mock-Up Reactor (MUR). The MUR

significantly increased Plum Brook’s experimental capability and assisted in the overall experimental program by saving both time and money for

the experiment sponsors.41 Benefits included being able to make flux and reactivity measurements

on the MUR without tying up the main reactor.

The MUR also could help the engineers determine

where the experiments should be placed, how

much irradiation they would receive from the core,

and how the experimental materials would affect

the reactor. Maintenance on the MUR occurred

monthly for all of its electronic systems. It first

went critical at 9:30 p.m. on 10 September 1963,

and was considered a “major milestone” for the

facility.42 Dick Robinson was the senior operator

and supervisor, and Bill Poley operated the control panel.

In December 1963, the hot laboratory, headed

by Robert Oldrieve, became fully operational.

After materials were irradiated in the core, some

of them were transferred via underwater canal to

the adjacent hot laboratory building for examination, while others were transported in lead casks

above the water. The radioactive materials also

Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities
78 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 65: The area just outside the containment vessel airlock (bottom right). The reactor control room on the second floor is

visible to the left. The experiment control room is directly below it on the first level. On the second level to the right is a workarea

that was later segmented and enclosed for office space. In this picture, three of the “Reactor On” signs are illuminated, indicating that the reactor is in operation. (1961) (NASA C–1961–55812)

Rank Country Reactor Critical Date Power, kW

1 United States Engineering Test Reactor, ETR 2 Sept 1957 175,000

2 Canada Chalk River Laboratories, NRU 3 Nov 1957 135,000

3 Soviet Union SM–3 10 Jan 1961 100,000

4 Soviet Union 27/BM 1 Jan 1961 70,000

5 Soviet Union 27BT 1 Jan 1956 70,000

6 Britain Dounreay 1 Nov 1959 65,000

7 United States SPERT–3, Phillips Petroleum 1 Jan 1958 60,000

8 United States WTR, Westinghouse 1 Jan 1959 60,000

9 United States NASA Plum Brook Test Reactor 14 June 1961 60,000

The World’s Most Powerful Test Reactors Prior to June 196137
79

passed through a large room that shielded the rest

of the laboratory from radiation. Then they could

be examined in one of seven “hot cells.” The walls

of the hot cells ranged from forty-three to sixtythree inches thick and contained various tools and

equipment to inspect and dismantle the experiments. In addition, “master-slave manipulators”

allowed operators outside of the cell to work with

materials. The Model A and Model D manipulators were both constructed by Central Research

Labs, Inc., of Red Wing, Minnesota. Once the

elements were disassembled, the irradiated materials were placed in rabbits (small metal capsules),

which could be sent through pneumatic tubes to

other laboratory rooms in the facility.

Public relations were very important, and most

reactor operators considered it a “vital part of our

job.”43 Tours were given to distinguished visitors

from NASA, such as astronauts, and to the public

and media. Some distinguished guests included

Raymond Bisplinghoff (director of NASA’s Office

of Advanced Research and Technology), Harold

Finger (manager of the Space Nuclear Propulsion

Office (SNPO)), Glenn Seaborg (AEC chairman),

the editors of Nucleonics magazine, officials from

the Japanese Atomic Energy Commission, and

professors from local universities who were

considering the use of the reactor for their own

experiments. In 1963, an aircraft landing strip was

built in the southern portion of Plum Brook so

Image 66: This closeup of the right side of the control panel in the reactor control room shows the controls for the manual

operation of the shim rods. Each rod has its own speed dial, meter, indicator lights, control buttons, and scram button. The

buttons within the square on the left-hand side controlled the regulating rod that could activate a “junior” scram (a partial

scram using only one regulating rod). It was designated within the box so that operators could quickly locate the rod’s control

buttons in case of emergency. The full scram buttons, which dropped all the control rods simultaneously, were set apart at the

bottom of the console. (NASA C–2001–01229)

Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities
80 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 67: During criticality, the Plum Brook Reactor core emitted an eerie blue glow known as Cherenkov radiation. This is

common to all swimming pool reactors. The Cherenkov Effect is caused by high-energy beta particles moving at velocities faster

than the speed of light in water. Pavel Alekseyevich Cherenkov first observed this phenomenon in 1934. Cherenkov’s discovery

helped with the detection of elementary particles and was significant for subsequent experimental work in nuclear physics and

the study of cosmic rays. In 1958 he was awarded a Nobel Prize in Physics. (c. 1962) (NASA C–1996–03983)

that visits from important guests could be handled

more efficiently. Frequent public tours were also

given to demonstrate that the reactor was safe for

the surrounding community, and also to let people

know that the public funds were being properly

utilized. After one tour for a Catholic school, Sister Mary Christopher wrote, “From the moment

when the guards met us at the gate, all through

the periods of explanation at the various stations,

until the moment when we left, we were impressed

by the willingness and competence of the personnel who helped to make our tour enjoyable and

worthwhile.”44 General open houses were also held

for the public. These were of tremendous interest

to the community; over 1,600 people visited the

reactor during an open house in October 1963. A

speakers bureau was staffed by a group of reactor

employees who traveled around to local schools

and civic organizations talking about the reactor.

Though the reactor maintained its safety

record, shutdowns, or “scrams,” were relatively

common and did not necessarily mean that there

was a significant danger present. For example, in

its second year of operation there were twenty-one

unscheduled shutdowns.45 These were most often

due to operator errors, defective equipment, safety

or control system malfunctions, and loss of
81

electrical power. Forced evacuations of the containment vessel were not common, but when they did

occur they usually resulted from the presence of

high levels of airborne radiation. Flooding within

the vessel caused at least one evacuation. The majority of medical emergencies were common eye,

hand, and bruise injuries. Individual employee

radiation exposure was monitored daily and health

physics managers used this information to keep

track of monthly and annual accumulation. This

radiation safety program ensured that employee

exposures were kept below established safe limits.

Throughout the Plum Brook reactor’s entire history, there was never a case of personal injury or

illness related to radiation exposure.46

However, accidents happened on occasion. For

example, one evening during the second shift on

20 May 1964, three workers were removing control rod drive assemblies from the subpile room.

Due to a simple mistake they were suddenly

“drenched with primary water contaminating

themselves and their protective clothing.”47 They

were immediately taken to the decontamination

shower and were closely monitored by healthsafety personnel. After several showers they were

cleaned of the radioactivity and airborne tests

showed no other remaining contamination. These

risks were considered worth taking because of

the importance of the experimental program at

Plum Brook.

Image 68: Three technicians work on the core, inside the pressure tank, during one of the shutdown periods. Experiment cycles

varied greatly. Some lasted months, while others only days. Each cycle consisted of two parts—the shutdown portion and the

power portion. The shutdown periods were used to change fuel, perform maintenance, and work on experiments. (NASA

C–1961–56897)

Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities
82 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 70: The Mock-Up Reactor (MUR) core as seen from the control room. Since the MUR generated a very small amount of

radioactivity, the “swimming pool” within which it was located provided sufficient shielding. A moveable bridge directly above

the core allowed MUR operators to easily change fuel or manipulate experiments during shutdowns. (NASA PS63–0002)

Image 69: The Mock-Up Reactor (MUR) was a 100-kilowatt reactor installed in the reactor building to test experiments at low

power before inserting them into the more powerful sixty-megawatt reactor. This allowed operators to determine the best location

for the experiments and it also helped them understand the effects each loading scheme had on the neutron flux. Though much

smaller and less powerful than the main Plum Brook reactor, the MUR required its own annual AEC/NRC license, and today

has its own separate decommissioning plan. (NASA C–2001–01204)
Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities 83

Image 72: Interior of the Mock-up Reactor control room. (NASA PS63–0005)

Image 71: The control room for the Mock-Up Reactor was perched directly above its core. The large windows allowed the

operators to view the controls and monitors, as well as the activity in the core below. (NASA PS63–0008)
84 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 73: Two technicians clad in anti-contamination clothing manipulate a shim safety control rod in a water canal in the hot

laboratory. The twenty-five-foot-deep water provided shielding from radiation, yet still enabled visible contact with the research

experiments. This water canal also allowed the underwater transfer of irradiated materials from the reactor to the hot laboratory

for inspection. Moving materials by canal reduced the need for lead transfer casks, though they were still needed when the

radioactive materials were taken out of the water. (1961) (NASA C–1961–55808)
85

Image 74: Two Plum Brook employees use an overhead crane to lift a lead cask of low-level radioactive waste from Canal F. This

was the first canal outside of the containment vessel. Canals G and H are visible behind the man standing on the bridge. The

bridge was moveable so technicians could continually work above the objects as they moved through the canal system. The canal

connected to the hot laboratory, which was adjacent to the south side of the reactor building. Radioactive materials were moved

under water with vehicles, or remotely controlled cranes, between heavily shielded walls in the hot handling room and hot dry

storage areas. Then they could be transferred to the hot cells. An eighty-ton lead door separated the hot handling room from the

controlled workarea. (NASA CS–22209)

Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities
86 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 75: A technician emerges from the rear of a hot laboratory cell in full protective gear carrying a “cutie pie” radiation

detector. Another technician wheels open the massive sixty-three-inch-thick concrete door plug. (NASA CS–22203)
87

Image 76: Bob Oldrieve, a hot laboratory supervisor, uses manipulator arms to inspect radioactive materials within a hot cell.

The pliers-type “hand” is visible inside the window. Operators became so skillful in operating the manipulators that some were

even able to thread a needle with them. (1961) (NASA C–1961–55638)

Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities
88 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 77: View from inside a hot laboratory cell looking out. The manipulator arm is in the foreground; the engineer behind the

glass, Dan Gardner, is operating it. A fifty-two-inch oil-filled glass window protected the operator from the radiation. The oil

eliminated all of the window’s distortion when looking through it. There were seven interconnected hot cells at Plum Brook—

each with its own function. Cell 1 was over twice as large as the others. It was used for dismantling experiments when they

entered the hot laboratory. Cell 2 had an engine lathe to machine materials. Cell 3 was a tensile testing facility with two sets of

manipulator arms. Cell 4 was a preparatory area for Cell 5, where a variety of metallographic testing equipment was housed.

Cell 6 was used for chemical analysis. Cell 7 had X-ray diffraction and analysis machinery. Each cell had filtered air, water,

special vents, an intercom, and floor drains for liquid waste effluent. (1961) (NASA C–1961–55800)
Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities 89

Image 79: The hot laboratory’s safe workarea. Operators are using manipulator arms to work with irradiated experiments in the

cells. The hot lab also contained an office, manipulator repair shop, and a decontamination room that connected this “clean”

operating area with the radioactive area behind the cells. (NASA C–2003–839)

Image 78: View into a hot laboratory. Technician Dan Gardner examines irradiated materials using remotely controlled

manipulator arms from behind protective walls and shielded windows. (NASA CS–22201)
90 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 80: A health-physics technician uses a hand-held “cutie pie” radiation detector to check equipment for contamination.

These detectors allowed technicians to quickly monitor specific areas or equipment. They worked in conjunction with the

permanent systems that constantly monitored radiation levels throughout the facility. (NASA C–2003–840)
91

Image 81: Identical Remote Area Monitoring System (RAMS) detector location panels, found in both the health-safety operations

office and the reactor control room, and other monitoring equipment allowed operators to monitor radiation sensors located

throughout the facility and to scram the reactor instantly if necessary. The color of the indicator lights corresponds with the

elevation of the detectors in the various buildings. The reactor could also shut itself down automatically if monitors detected any

sudden irregularities. (2001) (NASA C–2001–01150)

Image 82: A Plum Brook technician wearing protective clothing and a mask washes contaminated clothing. The clothing was

worn again after it was decontaminated and laundered. The wash water had to be treated as radioactive waste. (2001)

(NASA C–2003–841)

Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities
92 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 83: This board in the health-safety operations office was updated by health-physicists with data from daily pocket ionization dosimeters and other monitoring instruments to ensure that no one exceeded the legally permissible radiation exposure limits.

Strict limits were imposed on the amount of radiation that employees could be exposed to over time. These limits were far below

the levels that were considered to cause health risks. All personnel assigned to Plum Brook Reactor Facility were monitored for

radiation exposure on a continuing basis by utilizing film badge dosimetry. The frequency of the individual readouts varied from

monthly to quarterly depending on the job assignment. Since there was an inherent delay in this technology, it became necessary

to have current daily estimates of exposure for personnel who routinely entered radiation areas. Lifetime exposure levels were also

closely monitored through regular bioassay samples. (NASA C–2001–01153)
93

Image 84: Librarians manage files and books in the reactor library. Massive amounts of documentation were required to

maintain licensing by the AEC. Unfortunately, many of these documents, including the experiment logs, photographs, and

sponsor names, were destroyed. (1961) (NASA C–1961–56372)

Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities
94 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

From: Alan D. Johnson, Director, Plum Brook Station

To: Memorandum for the Record

Date: November 8, 1962

An informal discussion was held between Bob Gaines and All Herrmann of Lewis-Cleveland

and J.R. Braig and the writer on 6 November 1962 at Plum Brook Station for the purpose of

investigating the possibilities of using Plum Brook Station as an emergency command center

for Lewis-Cleveland in case of enemy attack.

For purpose of discussion the emergencies were divided into three general categories: (1)

An evacuation caused by an air raid alert but followed by no attack and no damage, (2) An

evacuation caused by actual attack where the damage to Lewis Facilities was considered

reparable with research to be resumed within a year, and (3) An evacuation caused by an

actual attack with substantial damage to the Lewis Facilities such that a very substantial

rebuilding and rehabilitation would be required.

In the case of evacuation, approximately eight to twelve key Lewis-Cleveland personnel

would evacuate immediately with their families to Plum Brook Station. If the evacuation is of

the second type above, the first wave of Lewis-Cleveland people coming to Plum Brook

would be handled in the same manner. Evacuation of the third type listed above was not

developed in any detail.

The need for acquisition of food, drinking water, heating and sanitary facilities, bedding,

etc. was discussed. It was also agreed that Plum Brook Station personnel would look into the

cost for converting igloos into suitable temporary housing. The discussions above concerned

themselves with the evacuation of Lewis-Cleveland personnel to Plum Brook Station but did

not enter into the area of the evacuation of Plum Brook Station personnel to Lewis-Cleveland

in the event of an air strike in the Sandusky area.

Primary Document #7

The relationship between Lewis Research Center and Plum Brook was always a close one. During Cold War

concerns about a potential Soviet nuclear strike on the United States, Plum Brook was also considered the

primary evacuation facility for key Lewis personnel. The following excerpted document describes the plan.
Plum Brook’s Nuclear Facilities 95
96 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility
97

The Plum Brook Reactor Opens Its Doors

Plum Brook Reactor Opens Its Doors

In an era of both paranoia and enthusiasm about the power of nuclear research, Plum Brook

employees frequently held open houses for government officials, the media, high school students,

and local families. The following photographic section illustrates some of these events.

Image 85: NASA Administrator James Webb (left) and Lewis Director Abe Silverstein (center, with glasses) peer into the

reactor tank while visiting Plum Brook. (NASA C–1961–58735)
98 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 86: Congressman Charles Mosher, a longtime Plum Brook supporter in Congress, and Ross Braig (center) are given a

tour of the facility by Assistant Director Dr. John C. Evvard. (1961) (NASA C–1961–56466)
99

Image 87: Bill Kortier uses a sketch of the reactor facility on the blackboard and an aerial photograph of Plum Brook Station

to familiarize reporters attending the March 1961 Media Day with the reactor operations just prior to the reactor going

critical. Declassified information about the reactor facility was often supplied to the press. (1961) (NASA C–1961–56465)

Image 88: Reporters with cameras in hand are given a tour of the hot laboratory. (1961) (NASA C–1961–56468)

Plum Brook Reactor Opens Its Doors
100 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 89: Frequent tours were given to high school students and families from the local community to promote an interest in

nuclear science and to dispel the anxiety people may have had about living next door to a nuclear reactor. (1962) (NASA

PS62–1783)

Image 90: A Plum Brook representative explains the Plum Brook Reactor Facility to high school students. This model of the

reactor building and the hot laboratory was intricately designed, down to the smallest detail—moveable manipulator arms,

sliding canal doors, and even a blue light in the core. The model hung in the foyer of the reactor office and laboratory building

during the reactor’s operational days and is still on display at Plum Brook Station. (1964) (NASA C–1964–73677)
101

The Plum Brook reactor became an important

tool for gathering the necessary data to construct a

safe and efficient nuclear rocket and to design reactors to produce electrical power in space.48 Scientists and engineers derived this data by developing an extensive experimental program. There

were four basic types of experiments: nuclear rocket

experiments, energy conversion experiments, basic radiation effects studies, and basic physics

experiments. These experiments consisted of

irradiating variously sized and shaped materials,

components, and devices to determine how their

behavior changed while being irradiated. After irradiation, through analysis in the hot laboratories,

scientists examined how their physical properties

had changed. The experiments did not always originate with NASA; they were frequently sponsored

by outside contractors. The largest sponsors were

Lockheed, Westinghouse, and General Electric,

though these industrial organizations were carrying out the work on government contracts. They

used Plum Brook to investigate the relationship

The Experimental Program

between cryogenic temperatures and radiation,

research the best materials for the NERVA and

SNAP programs, and understand the behavior of

thermionic diodes and fuel elements during and

after irradiation (thermionics is the conversion of

heat into electricity). In total, the Plum Brook reactor staff managed eighty-nine experiments during its years of operation.

One of the features that made the Plum Brook

reactor unique was its cryogenic facilities. Nuclear

rockets needed to not only maintain structural

integrity in a radioactive environment, but also

withstand the intense cold of both space and the

liquid hydrogen propellant. Plum Brook installed

special refrigeration capabilities that enabled experimenters to subject materials to radiation and

cold at the same time. The first of these experiments was the Lockheed Cryogenic Experiment

(62-01),49 which determined how various metals

reacted to cryogenic temperatures while in a radioactive environment.

The Experimental Program
102 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 91: This diagram shows the numerous “facilities” of the Plum Brook reactor core. Each of these was given a unique name

(LA-7 or RD-3, for example). The facilities in the fuel area (left side) contained cadmium and beryllium moveable regulating

rods around the exterior, three shim safety rods, and twelve fixed reflector plugs or experiments. The unfueled right side of the

core box contained facilities for inserting up to thirty-two experiments. Three of these facilities (with circles) were hooked up to

pneumatic rabbit tubes to provide quick insertion and removal of experiments. (NASA CS–46328)
103

A new $1 million cryogenic facility was built

for the NERVA Components Irradiation experiment

(62-16), and was about twenty times larger than

the one used in the Lockheed Cryogenic Experiment. It had a twenty-kilowatt low-temperature

helium refrigerator that could maintain a temperature between –409 and –39 degrees Fahrenheit. For

the other extreme in temperatures, materials could

also be irradiated at +3272 degrees Fahrenheit

while in the reactor. It could test larger instrumentation components such as accelerometers, strain

gauges, and displacement transducers, as well as

smaller mechanical components like control drum

assemblies, dynamic bearings, and molybdenum

instrumentation tubes.50 This was a unique capability at Plum Brook; few other nuclear facilities

could run similar tests.51

Along with Lockheed, Westinghouse also

played an important role in the NERVA program.

The Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory was responsible for the nuclear reactor designed to go

into the rocket, and the Plum Brook facilities were

essential in helping Westinghouse scientists

understand which materials were best suited for

a radioactive environment. The Westinghouse

NERVA Experiment (63-05) was a test to irradiate

materials, especially transducers, for the nuclear

rocket. The materials were placed in water-cooled

capsules in the Plum Brook HT-1 facility. Samples

Image 92: Hap Johnson (left) and H. Brock Barkley (right) examine a test specimen. It was designed to be inserted into the

aluminum “rabbit,” standing on end with its cap next to it. The rabbits housed the sample test materials. (c. 1970) (NASA

C–2003–843)

The Experimental Program
104 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 93: The experiment control room, located directly below the reactor control room, contained various monitoring

equipment. In this photo, Johnny Miller examines the Experiment Data Logging and Alarm System, which recorded all events

during the operating cycles of the Plum Brook reactor in minute detail. Earl Boitel, seated, checks data input sources. (1964)

(NASA P64–0713)

It was hoped that the results from these experiments would help engineers design better circuits

and other electrical equipment that could operate

reliably and withstand the radioactive environment

of a space reactor. Nuclear Electric Sub-Systems

and Component Irradiation (63-09) explored the

reaction of electronic equipment to neutron and

gamma radiation for the SNAP-8 program. Radiation damage occurred every time that radiation

interacted with matter. This phenomenon was explored in 1946 by Eugene Wigner; it became

known as “The Wigner Effect.”53 What made this

problem more difficult was that the damage occurred to the materials before any direct visual

included instruments as well as complete component assemblies.52 This experiment lasted for over

three years. Westinghouse Refractory Fuel Compounds (62–15) was the first fueled experiment at

the reactor, run in August 1964. The fueled experiment enabled irradiation of materials at high

temperatures and high power for long periods of

time. The ability to test fueled experiments was one

of the major reasons that the Plum Brook reactor

was constructed.

NERVA was not the only nuclear space initiative researched at Plum Brook. SNAP represented

another significant application of nuclear power.
105

Image 94: This chart hung in the reactor building outside the experiment control room. It listed the experiments to be irradiated for each cycle and the through-holes, or access ports, to the reactor assigned to them.

The core diagram also showed where the experiment was to be placed. The three circles in the lower portion

of the grid represented the pneumatic rabbit facilities. (2001) (NASA C–2001–1258)

The Experimental Program
106 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 95: The HB-2 Cryogenic Experiment investigated the effects of low temperature and high radiation on various metals for

potential use in space vehicles. The experiment consisted of a refrigeration system, a transfer system, and devices for measuring

the strain resulting from radiation and temperature extremes. Four cryostats (or test loops) were used to measure tensile-fatigue

compression. Each cryostat was six inches in diameter and nine feet long. One could be set up on the floor of Quadrant D,

inserted into the core through the HB-2 beam port, and transferred remotely to the hot cave on the outside of the quadrant for

removal of the specimen. (NASA CS–18942)
107

Image 96: Laboratory technician Allen Larkins (upper right) and engineer David Willinger (lower left) working in the

metallurgical laboratory of the Plum Brook reactor. (1961) (NASA C–1961–55641)

Image 97: Lockheed-Martin engineers make adjustments to the cryostat refrigeration machine that was being prepared for use in

the Plum Brook Reactor Facility. The machine was used to test metals for their cryogenic resistant qualities. (January 1962)

(Cleveland Public Library Photograph Collection, Ohio, Sandusky, Industry, NASA, Plum Brook Station)

The Experimental Program
108 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 98: Astronaut Gordon Bean gets ready to insert the plutonium-238 heat source into the Space Nuclear Auxiliary

Program 2 (SNAP-2) thermoelectric generator. Apollo 12 was the first mission to use the generators. This generator was

capable of producing seventy-three watts of power for the Apollo lunar surface experiment package and had a lifespan of

eight years. (1969) (NASA AS12–46–6790)
109

Image 99: Diagram of two insertion tables in Quadrant C. Experiments were loaded here and sent through the two horizontal

through-holes or ports (HT-1 and HT-2) into the reactor core to be exposed to radiation. After irradiation, they were removed

and maneuvered through the canals to the hot lab for analysis. (1965) (NASA PS65–1136)

The Experimental Program
110 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 100: The technician on the walkway is operating the hydraulic cams, which insert and remove the experiment facility

(seen in the bottom of the quadrant) into the core via Horizontal Through Hole 1 (HT-1). Experiment 62-12, a setup to

evaluate the fuel and fission product retention qualities of tungsten-uranium dioxide dispersions (the dispersions were fission

heated to anticipate the operating temperatures of rocket fuel elements), was permanently installed in Quadrant A.

(NASA C–2003–827)
111

observations could be made. This experiment

electrically energized the components during irradiation and special test circuits monitored their

behavior and charted a graph comparing operation time versus radiation dosage received.54

To make the SNAP program more effective,

scientists had to better understand the science of

thermionics, or the conversion of heat into electricity. George Grover, from Los Alamos, initiated

the first investigations that showed the possibility

of thermionics. Plum Brook’s first testing in

this area was the Thermionic Diode Experiment

(63-03), which attempted to demonstrate the feasibility of fission conversion. This conversion

promised to be of great significance for space applications, because if it worked, the heat from the

reactor could be used to power onboard electrical

components. The experiment was placed in a vertical beam hole tube (VT-1). General Electric,

through its Special Purpose Nuclear Systems

Operation, sponsored a related experiment.55

Funding for the project came from General Electric, along with support from NASA, the AEC, the

Office of Nuclear Research (ONR), and the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA). The

experiment was a long-term test of cylindrical diodes to be used in nuclear thermionic power

systems. The performance of the diodes was

monitored during irradiation in the Plum Brook

reactor, and then the diodes were examined at the

Vallecitos Atomic Laboratory or in the Plum Brook

hot laboratory.56

One of the most difficult problems that arose

during the Plum Brook experimental program was

quantifying how important its data was to the

scientific community. These experiments were all

considered basic research, meaning that the

primary mission was simply to better understand

how materials responded to a radioactive environment. It is often difficult to objectively measure

Image 101: Diagram of an experiment after it was inserted into HT-1. The fuel element is surrounded by coolant, water, several

containment layers, and an outer jacket. A plug fills the test hole behind the experiment. HT-2 ran parallel to HT-1. (NASA

CS–13591)

The Experimental Program
112 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 102: John Hire adjusts an instrument console for final hydraulic testing prior to the reactor going critical for the first

time. The console was on the lily pad area at the center of the quadrants, directly above the reactor pressure tank. (1960)

(NASA C–1960–55125)
113

Image 103: Technicians wheel a large “thimble” containing experiments for irradiation into the containment vessel through the

truck door. When the reactor was shut down and the protection of the containment barrier could be broken, this door was the

only way large items of equipment and hardware could be taken in or out of the containment vessel, utilizing fork lifts if

necessary. (1961) (NASA C–1961–55811)

Image 104: Technicians work inside the thimble. (NASA C–1961–55810)

The Experimental Program
114 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Nevertheless, a controversy over the importance of some of the reactor research developed.

Not everyone believed that the data it was

returning was valid. One engineer, speaking

anonymously in a recent interview, said that he

believed at the time that measurements taken from

the cryogenic experiments had no statistical meaning. Even today, he questions the significance of

the data. This engineer argued that while the

cryogenic temperatures changed the physical properties of the materials, the radiation from the

reactor itself had little, if any, measurable effect.

He maintained that the same results would have

been obtained if the materials were placed in cold

storage alone, without any reactor present. Barkley

was aware of this controversy and agreed that

during the early years of the reactor, Plum Brook

researchers were still struggling to determine how

to best construct experiments to return significant

just how valuable and practical such research will

turn out to be in the short term. However, the information gained from the Plum Brook reactor occasionally resulted in significant findings with

immediate results. For example, during the

Westinghouse NERVA Experiment in 1964, the reactor irradiated pressure transducers that were to

be used for an upcoming full-scale reactor test in

Nevada. During the early radiations the transducers failed, which was a complete surprise to the

Westinghouse operators. This outcome forced

them to develop new transducers for the test.

Barkley said, “It’s obvious how much more

effective, economic, and important it was that the

problems were detected in this reactor rather

than waiting for the loss of the transducers to

invalidate an extremely expensive and important

full-scale NERVA reactor test.”57

Image 105: Hap Johnson (left) and Brock Barkley (right) examine test specimens from an experimental run in the Plum Brook

reactor. (NASA C–2004–741)
115

data. By 1967, he felt confident enough to proclaim, “We now know how to obtain valid test

data.”58 One year later, in a congratulatory report

to his employees, Barkley said, “Plum Brook has

the facilities and competence and is well on the

road to becoming the standard for the industry in

the field of radiation effects.”59

In addition to the radiation damage studies

on materials and nuclear fuels, the reactor rabbit

facilities were used to support experimental programs for other government agencies using

neutron activation analysis. These irradiations

included jet fuel to determine trace element content in compliance with the Clean Air Act of 1970

(PL88-206). Corn and other grains were irradiated

for the Department of Agriculture to determine

trace element content, and analyses of fuels (such

as crude oil, coal, and fly ash from coal-fired power

plants) were performed on over 1,000 samples per

year from 1971 to 1972 for the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) (70-08). Dean W. Sheibley

wrote, “This work is significant because it demonstrates that [instrumental neutron activation analysis] is a useful analytic tool for monitoring trace...

elements related to environmental protection.”60

The research was also significant because it began

proving that the work at the Plum Brook test reactor could extend beyond space applications.

The Experimental Program

Image 106: Puncture rig. Puncture rigs were used to penetrate the outer capsule of each experiment and measure the pressure

increase in the system due to released gases during irradiation. The plastic vial on the left was used to determine the isotope

content of fission product gases, xenon and krypton, using gamma ray spectrometry; the tubular sample container below it was

used to measure the volume percent of the two gases. The entire puncture operation and collection of gas samples was done inside

the hot cells using the remote manipulators. The sample containers were then removed from the puncture rig and transferred to

the radiochemistry laboratory for analysis. (NASA P69–3224)
116 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 107: NERVA engines are bolted to a vacuum test chamber in Plum Brook’s B-2 facility. The test will help ensure that the

engines will be able to start without an auxiliary power source. The B-2 facility was—and still is—the only place on Earth that

can fire a full-scale engine and subject it to simulated harsh and demanding conditions of the space environment. The physical

features of the B-2 facility are impressive. It has a huge stainless steel chamber thirty-eight feet in diameter and fifty-five feet tall.

It can simulate the cold of space (–320 degrees Fahrenheit) with its liquid-nitrogen-cooled walls, and mimic the heat of the sun

with its quartz lamp thermal simulators. Plum Brook engineers needed to maintain a vacuum, similar to space, in the B-2

chamber at the same time that the engines were firing and the test rocket was expelling hot gas. The answer was the development

of speed ejectors, which were able to keep up with the exhaust output of the engines so that every cubic foot of gas was immediately

removed from the chamber. Taken together, these features enabled engineers to simulate all the conditions of space, except zero

gravity. (Cleveland Public Library Photograph Collection, Ohio, Sandusky, Industry, NASA, Plum Brook Station)
117

Plum Brook Station Test Facilities

Besides the reactor, other facilities at Plum Brook during the 1960s

began making important contributions to the space program.

Plum Brook Station Test Facilities

Image 108: The Hypersonic Tunnel Facility was capable of creating air velocities and temperatures that simulated flight speeds

of seven times the speed of sound, at an altitude of 120,000 feet. (1969) (NASA C–1969–00725)
118 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 109: The Cryogenic Propellant Tank Site (K-Site) was a test chamber for liquid hydrogen rocket fuel tanks. (1967)

(NASA C–1967–03315)
Plum Brook Station Test Facilities 119

Image 110: Shake Tower. (1959) (NASA C–1959–51298)
120 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 111: The Spacecraft Propulsion Research Facility (B-2) was capable of testing space vehicles, and especially upper stage

rockets like the Centaur, in a simulated space environment. The large vacuum test chamber could accommodate vehicles as

large as 22 feet in diameter and 50 feet in length. The facility stood 74 feet high and extended 176 feet below ground.

(NASA C–1999–00305)
121

Image 112: The Space Power Facility was the world’s largest space environment simulation chamber when it was constructed

in the 1960s, and it remains so today. It has a 100-foot diameter and stands 122 feet high. In this chamber, large space-bound

hardware and spacecraft, even as large as the International Space Station, can be tested in an environment similar to that it

will encounter in space. (1970) (NASA C–1970–03690)

Plum Brook Station Test Facilities
122 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 113: In 1995, the airbags for Mars Pathfinder were tested in the Space Power Facility (SPF). (NASA C–1995–01861)
123

Plum Brook Station Social Activities

There was a great deal of camaraderie and socializing in the Plum Brook

community. Employees and their families became close, since many were

close in age and background and had all relocated together to the

Sandusky area.

Plum Brook Station Social Activities

Image 114: Plum Brook employees enjoy an impromptu cookout. (NASA C–2003–844)
124 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Images 115 and 116: Plum Brook events included formal dances and Christmas parties. (NASA

C–2004–739)(NASA C–2003–845)
125

Image 117: Employees shared family gatherings like this April 1972 Easter egg hunt. (NASA C–2003–846)

Plum Brook Station Social Activities

Image 118: Plum Brook Station Manager Hap Johnson endeavored to populate the Plum Brook landscape with trees. The

land had largely been cleared during its use for Plum Brook Ordnance Works. Today the station has many wooded areas.

(NASA C–2004–740)
126 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Primary Document #8

[Describing the hot laboratory]

We get nearly everything you can imagine: bottles of irradiated calf’s liver, elastomers,

transistors, timing devices, sledge hammer handles, and static eliminators for tape recorders. It seems that everybody wants to irradiate everything they can lay their hands on in

hopes of a scientific or commercial breakthrough.

[Realizing that the entire reactor and hot laboratory might be closed]

The place could be shut down, without any great loss in relocation of the entire organization. The remoteness of the area isn’t needed anymore. The capital assets aren’t irreplaceable. Sure, most of the reactors are twenty years old or older, and the separation plant is no

longer needed. I’ll bet these technicians aren’t paid enough; they came from the country

areas, and most probably the plant is located here to take advantage of them! They had

previously led simple lives, had few needs, and still require very little.

The final irony of the morning, aside from the fact that Pine Valley engineers could easily

find jobs if relocation for them were necessary, is that...the entire Pine Valley Plant could be

completely closed down without anyone being the wiser or really caring it if never reopened! Its almost tragic that no one really cares when someone else’s job is abolished, not

even if the job is an ultimately valuable and still current and required college-trained career.

In 1970, Robert Earl wrote a science fiction novel called Hot Lab, which was about the use of radioactivity

as a scientific research tool. It took place at the fictitious Pine Valley Laboratories, where engineer Richard

Rendfel, the book’s protagonist, moved with his young family. The author was actually Robert Oldrieve, a

hot lab manager at Plum Brook. It is uncanny that the fate that Oldrieve chose for his fictitious test reactor

happened to the Plum Brook reactor just three years later.
Plum Brook Station Social Activities 127
128 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility
129

Despite the growing importance of the Plum

Brook reactor’s experimental program, it never

became the leader in the field of radiation effects

that its managers hoped it would. Budgetary cuts

by the Nixon administration resulted in its closure

before many of its experiments could be completed. The NASA scientists and engineers who suddenly lost their jobs were devastated. They first

learned of the plans to shut the reactor down at

noon, 5 January 1973, when Bruce Lundin, director of NASA’s Lewis Research Center in nearby

Cleveland, Ohio, assembled them in the Plum

Brook auditorium to talk about the nation’s postApollo vision for space. This vision included a new

initiative called the Space Shuttle, but not a nuclear

rocket. NASA’s new goals were reusability, projects

that promised short-term results, and quick and

efficient access to space. The nuclear rocket had

none of these attributes. Like the Apollo program,

each nuclear rocket could be used only once, and

its missions would consist of costly (and, some

argued, environmentally dangerous) voyages into

Mothballing the Reactor

space. Though proponents of the nuclear rocket

believed that they were ready to take on a Mars

mission with astronauts, neither the budget nor

the nuclear incentive remained.

Without a nuclear rocket there was no need

for NASA’s only large-scale nuclear test reactor. The

closure was to be immediate, meaning that very

day. The reactor employees were unprepared for

this decision. The reactor had just received a new

load of fuel elements and was ready to run another

several years. In addition, many of the experiments

had just commenced when the shutdown announcement came. The stunned and dejected Plum

Brook employees returned to their reactor in a somber mood. Hours later the entire shift stood in the

control room and watched Don Rhodes and Bill

Fecych shut the reactor down for the last time. Plum

Brook engineer Earl Boitel recalled, “That was a

very traumatic experience. There were a lot of tears

in people’s eyes.”62 As they began looking for other

jobs, Plum Brook personnel lamented that one of

Mothballing the Reactor
130 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

the most powerful test reactors in the world was

not even given the opportunity to complete its last

experimental cycle. In an effort to vent their frustration, reactor engineers filled chalkboards once

reserved for nuclear research with cartoons of Plum

Brook as a sinking ship.

Plum Brook was not alone, as many reactor

facilities were forced to close nationwide. The

Brookhaven Graphite Research Reactor closed in

1969, the Materials Test Reactor closed in 1970,

and a Los Alamos reactor shut down in 1974. The

AEC’s influence was also in decline. After a 1971

Supreme Court ruling on AEC licensing procedures, the commission was forced to streamline

its organization and procedures. Critics claimed

that it was improper for the agency to regulate the

very same reactors that it managed. The AEC, which

was founded in August 1946, officially suspended

operations in October 1974 when President Ford

signed the Energy Reorganization Act. The Act

placed the AEC’s research and development functions under the Energy Research Development

Administration and its licensing functions under

the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.

The shutdown of the reactor did not mean that

the work was complete. The reactor team was given

six months to place the facility in standby mode.

By 30 June 1973, this carefully executed

Image 119: The Apollo 17 crew—Eugene Cernan, Ronald Evans, and Harrison Schmidt—visit Lewis Research Center and have

their picture taken with Bruce Lundin. The Apollo 17 astronauts were the last humans to walk on the Moon on 14 December

1972. Just over two weeks later, NASA Lewis Research Center Director Bruce Lundin ordered the closure of the Plum Brook

nuclear reactor due to budgetary cuts for long-term space projects. This photograph was taken about five weeks after the Plum

Brook reactor shutdown. (16 February 1973) (NASA C–1973–00774)
131

PLUM BROOK SHUT DOWN SPEECH

Bruce Lundin

Members of the staff of Plum Brook Station, I’ve asked that we meet together here at this

time to enable me to tell you all that I know and all that I can about what I learned

yesterday when I was with Jim Fletcher [NASA Administrator] and George Low [NASA

Deputy Administrator] and others in Washington. Our country’s current fiscal management and fiscal problems and some of the program actions at NASA will have a very

significant effect on all of us. I was anxious to do this at the very earliest possible

moment. I’d just like to check this point, I’m required to check that only NASA Lewis civil

service personnel are present here in this room. You’ll see at the end a little timetable for

spreading this information to broader circles than just the Lewis people.

First I’d like to give you just a few words about the total national picture to provide

background for you and to put our necessary Lewis actions into some total picture, total

context. I’ll do this in a sketchy brief way so I can get to matters more important to all of

us as quickly as possible.

Jim Fletcher has been working very closely with President Nixon the last few days, and

of course with Nixon’s staff, the Office of Management and Budget, the staff arm of the

president. And from Jim Fletcher’s very open and candid remarks to all of us yesterday

it became terribly clear. This will be no real surprise from what you’ve been reading in

the newspaper. The President is completely determined to limit federal outlays and expenditures this year to that 250 billion dollar number, to have no new taxes on the

people, and to reduce the size of what Nixon refers to as a federal bureaucracy. If after

doing all of these things he can have a strong defense establishment, he’d like that too.

But the President, and from the actions that Jim Fletcher had observed in Washington,

the President is indeed clear that he’s going to restrict federal expenditures and have no

new taxes.

We don’t know the specifics to the different agencies because of the way the President’s

been running this problem. But Jim Fletcher has touched base with his colleagues in

Washington and other agencies, and he got the very clear picture of large wholesale

cuts everywhere. And this will be unfolding, of course, during the month and made clear

in the President’s budget message on or around January 29th. Some entire agencies are

disappearing completely. Many of the so-called soft programs or Great Society programs will be gone. And that was the general picture of Nixon’s management of the

fiscal matters in the country.

As regards NASA now, Jim Fletcher had an understanding and gentleman’s agreement

with the President that NASA could count on running on what was called his level

budget concept, which was somewhat over 3 billion dollars a year. That level budget

understanding is now gone. And Fletcher spoke of considerable disappointment that he

Primary Document #9

The first time the Plum Brook reactor employees knew that their reactor would be shut down was during the

following speech made by Bruce Lundin, the center director at NASA Lewis Research Center. The speech

was made at noon on 5 January 1973 at the Plum Brook auditorium. Just a few hours later the reactor was

shut down for the last time. The following is an edited and excerpted transcript from an audiotape recording

of the event.

Mothballing the Reactor
132 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

had to give up his level budget concept. As regards NASA for the rest of this fiscal year

and the impact into fiscal ’74, we find that the Shuttle is in and the Apollo-Soyuz link up

to the docking with the Russians in space in ’75 is in. Those two items are in by Presidential direction. The Viking Program is in the budget. Our launch vehicle activities are

secure. Skylab is, of course, going to fly in April so that will be done. Many other

programs are disappearing from NASA.

Now as regards Lewis Research Center, NASA finds it has to fit its total program under

some, not only reductions in the New Obligation Authority in fiscal ’74, but more

importantly, even to fit under a very tight cost limit this current fiscal year. To fit under

that, NASA management and the Office of Management and Budget, have found it

necessary to decide to terminate all research work that cannot be expected to have a

needed or useful application, say for a period of, within this decade. Long-range research and development work that cannot be expected to have a real need or application until the 1980s must be terminated at this time and priority given to more shorter

range activities in say the 3 to 5 year time span. This means that essentially all nuclear

power and nuclear propulsion R&D work will be terminated this fiscal year.

In view of the total national picture, and after seeing this, working with the folks in

Washington, I can understand this and can therefore accept the rational for this decision. It’s one I don’t agree with, I don’t think that it’s exactly right to do it just this way,

but I can understand it and accept it and that’s what all of us have to do now. This

means, of course, that the reactor here at Plum Brook will be closed down during the

remainder of this current fiscal year. Further, the rest of Plum Brook Station will have to

be closed down at the end of fiscal 1974. This, I should emphasize, will be done in a

manner in which we leave it in a, what we call a standby or mothball condition. It’s not

to be abandoned in place and surplused off because all of us in NASA management

are confident that many of these very unique and important facilities and people will be

coming back to them to do work in them, when the space program reaches the point

when they are needed. This will be, of course, a massive and challenging, difficult job.

It’s about the toughest job in management.

As far as the people go, there will be reductions in force both this fiscal year between

now and June 30th and into next fiscal year. For Lewis I can’t give you exact numbers

because they’re not worked out in that kind of detail yet. For Lewis it will mean a

reduction in force of around 400 by June 30th, generally 50/50 between here and

Cleveland. And another 2 to 300 people by the end of fiscal ’74.

You will hear in the days and weeks ahead, quite a bit of talk, you’ll be engaged in

some of this conversation yourself, you’ll certainly read it in the newspapers or hear it

on the radio, about a lot of flack going on in Congress. The Congress and the President

are in many ways running on a collision course. It’s going to be a very active time

between the White House and the Hill this spring.

My response to all of this? What happened to me a week or few days ago is the same

thing that’s happening to you now. You suffer a shock that you can’t quite believe it, a

feeling of pain and anguish, of course, and you lick your wounds for a day or two.

Then you decide that’s not very constructive so where do we go from here? We are

completely dedicated to at least two things at this point. One is to do a very first-class

orderly job of finishing our work here. And secondly we’re going to be completely

dedicated to finding every one of you that wants a job, a good job someplace. I intend

to, Monday, as soon as I can, to call such people as Tom Paine and Harry Finger and
133

many of my other friends in other agencies in government now that I can tell them

what’s happening and make your interests and capabilities known to them. We’re

going to set up here and in Cleveland a real massive outplacement service for you.

The fact that you possess unusual skills and capabilities and experience, I’ve discovered, is known everywhere throughout the country and Washington and there will be

interest in a lot of places of making use of your skills and experience if the people

have the ability to expand their staffs.

My own sort of philosophical views here now . . . As I think back on all of this I think

nuclear reactor power for space really disappeared about four years ago when Tom

Paine opted for the shuttle instead of the space station when he was told he could only

have one of the two. Plum Brook was really created for a space program that simply

didn’t materialize at a rate that permits it to be sustained now. The space program

simply has slipped downstream in point of time.

I was anxious to tell you the same time that the Congressman Mosher was hearing it.

I will be leaving here in a few minutes and going back and telling the folks in Cleveland about this, so you’re the first to hear. Contractor management will be informed at

1:00 today but that will be for management information. There will be a press release

coming out of Washington and out of here and Cleveland at 4:00 this afternoon. All

of this information is restricted to government employees, except for notifying contractor management. At 4:00 a document becomes public in Washington. No doubt

when many of you get back to your desk, your phones will start to ring and people

will be asking you what was the meeting here for and what’s going to happen and so

forth. I’ll have to ask you to tell them, “We always have meetings but it was nothing of

particular concern at this time.”

[murmuring from the crowd]

That’s about all I can say. That’s all I know. I’ve told you everything that I know up to

this time. Probably a little bit more than I should have about some things. I don’t feel

that there are any more questions that I could answer at this time. So thanks for your

attention and coming here and I’ll be seeing all of you, I know, again in the days and

weeks ahead.

Thank you.

Mothballing the Reactor
134 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility
Mothballing the Reactor 135
136 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 121: Bill Fecych shut down the reactor for the last time on 5 January 1973, as Dale McCutheon, Dan Gardner, George

Gowan, and others looked on. Employees had gathered in the Plum Brook auditorium for an announcement by Lewis Center

Director Bruce Lundin, little expecting to hear the news that Plum Brook would be closed. Two hours later, stunned employees

crowded into the reactor control room and, just after 2 p.m., witnessed the final shutdown of the Plum Brook reactor.

(NASA C–2003–847)

Image 120: This blackboard graffiti expresses the sentiments of Plum Brook employees after learning about the reactor shutdown.

It went untouched for over twenty-five years and is now being preserved as a museum artifact. RIF stands for “reduction in

force,” which is the standard expression for layoffs at federal facilities. The graffiti was one way in which employees expressed

their deep feelings of frustration. Other graffiti includes, “Old reactors never die, they just decay away,” and “Decay in peace.”

(2001) (NASA C–2001–01166)
137

Image 122: Two stacks are felled simultaneously during the decommissioning of the Hanford reactor. In recent years, several

other reactors besides Plum Brook have been decommissioned. Successful decommissioning projects include the Watertown

Arsenal, Shoreham, the Saxton Nuclear Experimental Corporation, Argonne, Pathfinder, Elk River, Fort St. Vrain, Shippingport

Nuclear Power Station, and Trojan. (1977) (Department of Energy Photo 1001138)

Mothballing the Reactor
138 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 123: This calendar, left open in the reactor building just days before the reactor’s final closure, has remained untouched

for almost 30 years. Despite their disappointment at the shutdown of their facility, Plum Brook employees worked diligently for

the next six months to put the reactor into protective safe storage. They hoped that this mothballing procedure would allow the

reactor to be reactivated at a future date when research could again be funded. (2001) (NASA C–2001–1182)

“mothballing” procedure was completed. Of the

200 or so Plum Brook reactor employees, the vast

majority left NASA. About twenty were sent to

Lewis Research Center. Most easily found new work

either in other government agencies or in private

industry. Their experiences at the Plum Brook reactor gave them valuable skills that were coveted

by other organizations. NASA also helped them

find new work through elaborate job placement

assistance.

The facility was mothballed with such care

partly because many of the employees expected

that it would reopen again in the near future. Initially, it was thought that the reactor would be used

again if the nation revived the human Mars mission in the 1980s. In the meantime, other possible

uses for the reactor and the other facilities at Plum

Brook Station were explored. In April 1973, a symposium of over fifty scientists, educators, politicians, and economists was held to explore future

uses of the station. Their proposals included an

industrial park and a multi-university research center. U.S. Representative Charles Mosher pursued

several other options. One plan was to convert the

reactor into a power facility, but both the AEC and

NASA said that was impossible. Another proposal

called for using the reactor at a lower power (six

megawatts) for continued neutron activation

analysis testing for the EPA (which had already
139

Image 124: Spurred by the energy crisis, NASA, and the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) installed

this large 100-kilowatt wind turbine for alternative energy research at Plum Brook. The 100-foot tower supported two sixty-twofoot blades, which could reach forty rpm in eighteen-mph winds. When the Plum Brook reactor shutdown was announced,

Congressman Mosher and others endeavored to find alternative uses for Plum Brook Station. The wind turbine was one of the

few successful programs on the station in the 1970s and 1980s. By the late 1980s, several of the testing sites at Plum Brook were

reactivated and remain in operation today. (28 September 1976) (NASA C–1976–3906)

Mothballing the Reactor
140 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

been started with experiment 70-08). Dr. James

Blue of the NASA Lewis Research Center’s cyclotron facility proposed another use for the reactor.

At the time, Blue was working with the Cleveland

Clinic treating cancer patients with neutrons from

the cyclotron. With a ten-year grant from the National Cancer Institute, he helped treat over 4,000

patients at Lewis. He suggested converting Quadrant B at Plum Brook into a medical facility to use

epithermal neutrons to treat patients who had

brain tumors called glioblastoma.63 Any decision

for future use had to be made before the reactor

was to be finally shut down in June 1973. When

no decision came about, it became clear that the

mothballing procedure was going to be permanent.

During spring 1973 the reactor area was fenced

off and locked. The nuclear fuel and wastes were

removed, and the still radioactive equipment was

placed in the hot laboratories, containment vessel, and canals. The rest of the facility was decontaminated and became subject to NRC licensing.

Emergency telephone, water, and electrical systems

were retained. The NRC’s “possess but do not operate” license required annual renewals, quarterly

radiological testing, and regular inspections of

alarms and security tools. It also required a staffed

communication center, an administrative staff, and

the continuation of regular records and reports—

enough to keep a skeleton crew at work.

Image 125: After its mothballing in 1973, the reactor went silent. It was visited only by the numerous deer in the area and a

skeleton crew that continued to monitor the facility during the standby period. (NASA C–1961–55643)
141

In 1976, a new proposal to NASA headquarters suggested four options for the future of Plum

Brook Station. The main recommendation was for

an estimated three-year, $1,200,000 reactordecommissioning project. Decommissioning was

considered so costly NASA decided to maintain the

reactor in standby mode. The problem was that

the costs to keep the facility mothballed rose dramatically every year. In 1979, it was estimated that

retaining the reactor in standby condition cost

$230,000 annually. Meanwhile, a new 1979 analysis estimated that decommissioning the reactor

facility would require six years and $14,744,000.

Again, NASA declined to decommission it. Eventually, however, the agency could not ignore the

rising costs. NASA knew that it would have to perform this task, and with each year the decommissioning growing more expensive, it finally decided

to allocate the funds for the project in 1998.

Image 126: For almost thirty years, the facility remained sealed and constantly monitored to ensure that no contamination

escaped. However, aesthetic maintenance was not as important, as shown by the peeling paint on the once shiny reactor dome.

(1981) (NASA C–1981–4957)

Mothballing the Reactor
142 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility
143

Visiting the Plum Brook reactor today is like

exploring a modern day archeological preserve. It

is an eerie Pompeii-like place where the physical

remains of the reactor’s final hours have been left

untouched. Papers remain on desks, paint peels

from the walls, calendars stand frozen in time in

June 1973, dusty equations linger on blackboards,

and tools are still scattered on workbenches. Numerous ashtrays, some built into the testing machines themselves, bear the scars of thousands of

cigarettes ground into them over the years. Posters

from J. Edgar Hoover and the FBI continue to admonish, “A theft from your government is a theft

from YOU!” In contrast to the artifacts that were

left haphazardly forgotten, meticulous attention

was given to maintaining the reactor core and ensuring its environmental safety. It is a testament to

the scientists and engineers who were responsible

for closing down the reactor that none of its structures began to physically deteriorate and endanger the surrounding community.

The reactor remained in this mothball state for

a quarter century until it opened once again, but

this time not for research. In 1998, NASA requested

annual renewal of its “possess but do not operate”

license from the NRC. The NRC responded by asking NASA to consider decommissioning the entire

reactor because it was becoming increasingly expensive to maintain the facility and the half-life of

many of the isotopes had lapsed, making it safer

to tear down. NASA agreed and approved the funds

to dismantle the facility with a projected completion date in 2007. In December 1999, NASA submitted a decommissioning plan to the NRC.64

The plan described an extensive decommissioning process through which, piece by piece, the

entire building would be dismantled. Engineers

planned to transform the 117-acre site into an

empty field, with an assurance to environmentalists that the ground would be safe enough for a

family to actually live on the land, grow crops on

Returning the Land

Returning the Land
144 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 127: Despite the fact that decommissioning work had been on-going since 2001, the felling of the 193-foot-tall double

water tower was one of the first external signs that the Plum Brook reactor was being dismantled. The tower stood adjacent to

the Reactor Facility from 1959 until its demolition in October 15, 2003. Workers placed explosive charges on the legs of the

tower to collapse it in a controlled manner. The felled tower was then cut into pieces and shipped offsite for disposal.

(NASA C–2004–742), (NASA C–2004–743), (NASA C–2004–744), (NASA C–2004–745)
145

Image 129: The chemistry lab forty years later, in 2001. The Plum Brook reactor, once a lively research center, had become a

ghost town. (NASA C–2001–1173)

Returning the Land

Image 128: Above, Dean Sheibley and Barbara Johnson perform studies in the Plum Brook chemistry lab in 1961 before the

reactor was shut down. (NASA C–1961–55639)
146 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 131: The Plum Brook reactor control room in 2001, stripped of a significant amount of its instrumentation. (NASA

C–2001–01221)

Image 130: Bill Fecych (seated) and Don Johnson work in the reactor control room during its operating days in 1959. After an

ad hoc committee study in 1977, NASA Headquarters decided that the reactor would never be put back into operation. Reactor

equipment was then “cannibalized” for other programs. (NASA C–1959–51506)
Returning the Land 147

Image 133: An existing natural field at Plum Brook Station. (NASA Glenn Environmental Management Office)

Image 132: Above, after serving as the site for the Ordnance Works pentolite production facility and the NASA reactor for over

sixty years, this land will be restored by the decommissioning process to a condition safe enough to allow crops to be grown upon

it again. (NASA C–2001–01214)
148 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

it, drink water, and raise livestock.65 Great care

would be taken to decontaminate everything that

came into contact with radiation before being

transported to landfills in Utah and South Carolina. Keith Peecook, senior project engineer, observed, “It’s not just going in with a wrecking ball,

it’s a little more surgical in nature.”66

The cornerstone of the plan was a federal partnership between NASA, the U.S. Army Corps of

Engineers (USACE), and Argonne National Laboratories (a section of the U.S. Department of Energy). USACE was an important partner because it

had extensive experience managing large cleanup

and construction projects. It also served as an important link to expertise in the private sector.

USACE hired Montgomery Watson Harza from

Pasadena, California, as prime contractor for the

project. Duke Engineering Services from Charlotte,

North Carolina, and MOTA Corporation from

Columbia, South Carolina, were also chosen as

subcontractors to assist with the engineering

challenges.67

Despite the importance of the team, NASA was

the organization that was ultimately responsible

for the decommissioning process. Tim Polich left

the NRC to become NASA’s decommissioning

manager in 1999. He and his team became responsible for overseeing the entire process, which is

sometimes conceptualized as construction in reverse. Unlike conventional building from the

Image 134: Decommissioning manager Tim Polich (second from left) and Keith Peecook (right) consult with former reactor

employees Jim Martz (left), Len Homyak (third from left), and Jack Crooks (second from right). Retired Plum Brook employees

have assisted the decommissioning team throughout the decommissioning process. (2002) (NASA C–2002–1023)
149

ground up, Polich and his team are literally proceeding from the roof to the ground. This includes

removing and safely disposing all radioactive materials, decontaminating and demolishing all of the

buildings at the site, and finally backfilling the

entire area with clean fill dirt. On 21 March 2002

the NRC officially approved the decommissioning

plan. NASA Glenn Research Center director Donald

J. Campbell said that the NRC approval of NASA’s

approach “reflects confidence in the capabilities

and experience of our project team... The predecommissioning activities to date were just the

beginning; now the real work begins.”68

Throughout the decommissioning process,

safety issues continue to be a primary focus to

protect the workers, the surrounding community,

and the environment. Tim Polich affirmed that

“NASA is committed to the safest method of decommissioning these reactors.”69 Every worker and

visitor to the reactor is given extensive training and

must pass a test to prove awareness of radiation

safety issues. Everyone who goes inside the reactor

carries a personal dosimeter, which indicates an

unplanned exposure to radiation. Also, upon leaving the reactor, everyone must pass through fullbody radiation monitors to detect any trace

amounts of contamination.

The nearby community is kept informed

through the Multifaceted Community Relations

Plan, which was established to educate the public

about decommissioning activities. It also conducts

extensive research with people from the surrounding area to ensure that they understand what is

happening behind the secured Plum Brook fences.

Image 135: In September 2002, Plum Brook Station held its third reunion for former employees. About 250 people

attended. While the reactor itself was closed because of the decommissioning process, most of the retirees did not

even visit the site’s exterior because they wanted to remember the way it was, and not in its current state of disrepair.

(NASA C–2002–01879)

Returning the Land
150 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

NASA assures the community that any family living in the area will receive no more than a dose of

twenty-five millirems of radiation per year because

of their proximity to the reactor. Ohio residents

on average receive about 360 millirems per year

from the sun, and the government has limited the

radiation dose that a worker may receive on the

job during any year to no more than 5,000 millirems. Those who work at the site every day during a year will likely receive only about one-fifth

that amount.

Environmental precautions are also rigorously

followed. Every week air samples are taken, and

water samples from the area are collected every

month for analysis at an offsite laboratory. The

Plum Brook decommissioning is considered

NASA’s largest environmental project, not only

because of the importance of safely disposing of

radioactive remains, but also because the surrounding area is a unique natural preserve.

Despite being home to the production of

nearly one billion pounds of gunpowder during

World War II and two nuclear reactors since 1961,

much of the protected area inside the Plum Brook

fences remains remarkably unspoiled. Today Plum

Brook’s 6,400 acres of land demonstrate an incredible ecological variety and vitality, including 521

plant, 125 breeding bird, 21 amphibian/reptile, 16

fish, 53 butterfly, 450 moth, and 8 bat species. Several of these are protected by the Endangered Species Act, which maintains that federal agencies cannot jeopardize the existence of any threatened speImage 136: In April 2002, Keith Peecook led the Decommissioning Community Workgroup on a tour through the reactor facility.

The tour was designed to demonstrate the safety measures in force during the decommissioning process. (NASA C–2003–852)
151

cies. Plum Brook has 20 plant, 8 bird, 3 amphibian/reptile, and 1 moth protected species. Eleven

populations of Least St. John’s Wort grow at Plum

Brook, which represents the largest concentrations

of this plant in Ohio. The Sedge Wren uses the area

as one of the most important breeding grounds

for its species. In recent years a Bald Eagle pair built

a nest at the facility and onlookers were treated to

the rare sight of baby eagles.

The Plum Brook forests and plains are also

unique. The central meadows area is significant

because Ohio has no other native prairie locations

like it. Though the presence of humans has restricted its natural growth, through proper cultivation it has great potential to be restored to its original condition. The west area native forests are also

important. According to Mike Blotzer, chief of the

Environmental Management Office at Glenn Research Center, “[The region] may be one of the

most significant remnant forest areas in the Ohio

Lake Plain. It is unique as a remarkable representation of Ohio forest conditions at the time of the

early settlement in the early 19th century.”70

Ironically, the land the government forcibly acquired through eminent domain in 1940 for use

as an ordnance works—and later as the home of

NASA’s most powerful nuclear test reactor—will

once again be restored to its natural condition.

From the natural frontier, to the nuclear frontier,

and back again, the Plum Brook land demonstrates

the resiliency of nature and its adaptability to

modern development. But what must not be forgotten is that without the emphasis on safety and

environmental preservation by NASA’s scientists

and engineers, the dangers of nuclear research

might have forever contaminated an important

piece of our American heritage.

Image 137: This swampy wetlands area is home to a Saturated Shrubland Alliance of dogwoods and willows. Plum Brook

Station’s approximately 5,400 acres contain a wide variety of wildlife and natural habitats, including fields, meadows, forests,

and wetlands. (NASA Glenn Environmental Management Office)

Returning the Land
152 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Image 138: Ashy sunflower plants are scattered around Ohio, but the Plum Brook Station probably has the state’s largest natural

population. A 1994 survey found the population near the intersection of Fox and Patrol Roads had been decimated by deer

grazing. No flowers or fruits were observed that year, but the species had recovered dramatically by 2001, apparently due to the

deer management that has been practiced within the facility. (NASA Glenn Environmental Management Office)

Image 139: Despite being cleared and drained for farming long before World War II, Plum Brook Station contains a wide

variety of forest areas. This seasonally flooded Forest Alliance of pin oaks, and the many other wooded areas, are no more than

sixty years old—and may be younger than that. (NASA Glenn Environmental Management Office)
153

Image 140: Plum Brook Station’s protected fence line has created a sanctuary for a plethora of wildlife populations. The deer

population inside the fence is often in excess of 2,000. Controlled hunts are occasionally scheduled to keep the number of deer in

proportion with a sustainable habitat. (NASA C–2003–853)

Image 141: In recent years, Bald Eagles have been observed nesting at Plum Brook. (NASA C–2004–771)

Returning the Land
154 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Though Kennedy’s dream of a nuclear rocket

went unrealized in the 1960s, it has now become

one of NASA’s most pressing goals for the future.

NASA is revisiting the advantages of designing and

constructing nuclear rockets for space exploration

and an eventual human voyage to Mars. NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe outlined NASA’s new

nuclear vision for the future in April 2002, which

includes the launch of space probes to the outer

solar system.

After Plum Brook’s shutdown, few other reactors continued to study the effects of radiation on

Image 142: Artist’s rendering of a nuclear rocket capable of reaching the Moon in 24 hours. This image was developed for

NASA by Pat Rawlings and Bill Gleason (SAIC). (NASA S99–04186)

materials in space. In the end, Plum Brook’s basic

research into the effects of radiation on materials

may serve as an important starting point for the

rejuvenated nuclear program. Many of the materials that might be used for the new nuclear initiative were originally tested in the Plum Brook reactor decades ago. Though the reactor is now quiet,

its archived data can be resurrected and put to use

as America begins a renewed quest to explore the

frontiers of outer space with nuclear rockets.
155

“PIONEERING THE FUTURE”

Sean O’Keefe

NASA Administrator

April 12, 2002

...In broad terms, our mandate is to pioneer the future, to push the envelop, to do what has

never been done before. An amazing charter indeed. NASA is what Americans, and the

people of the world, think of when the conversation turns to the future.

...What NASA needs now is a roadmap to continue our work in a more efficient, collaborative manner. Our imperative is not only for the sake of knowledge—it is for our future and our

security. Today I am introducing a new strategic framework and vision for NASA. It is a

blueprint for the future of exploration.

...NASA has to do things differently in the future. One fundamental difference is a need to

find new ways to explore the galaxy. Conventional rockets and fuel simply aren’t practical as

we reach further out into the cosmos. That’s why we are launching an initiative to explore the

use of nuclear propulsion.

One of the major obstacles of deep space travel is finding fast and efficient ways to get

around, to get to anywhere. Today’s spacecraft travel at speeds slightly faster than John

Glenn’s Friendship 7 did 40 years ago. NASA has explored the use of solar sails and ion

engines as alternatives to conventional fuels, but their uses are limited and restricts us to very

close-in objectives, or if used for deep space exploration, require us to wait a long time

before we see results—a minimum of 10 years for example, to get to the edge of our own

solar system, and a lot longer if we miss the “sling shot” effect of optimum planet alignment.

So the nuclear propulsion initiative is the next logical step to overcome this technology limitation. It’s a mature technology and its application to space travel has great potential. The

U.S. Navy has been operating nuclear powered vessels since 1955. In that time, the Navy

has sailed more than 120 million miles without incident, and has safely operated these

efficient power generators for more than 5000 reactor-years. And throughout that time, the

Navy has designed more compact, safer, and more efficient reactors, which last the 40-year

life of the vessels without refueling.

The technology is there. We just need to take it to the next step to increase speed and on-orbit

time, thereby beginning to overcome this persistent technical limitation. If we’re going to

pioneer the future as only NASA can, we’re going to need new ways to get us there.

Primary Document #7

NASA Administrator Sean O’Keefe delivered his vision for the future of NASA on 12 April 2002 at the

Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, University of Syracuse. He recommitted NASA to

pursuing a nuclear rocket as the best hope for exploring the solar system. The following is an excerpt of

that speech, focusing on his plans to develop nuclear rockets.

Returning the Land
156 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility
Endnotes 157

Endnotes

1. Dwight Eisenhower, “Atoms for Peace,” 8 December 1953, Public Papers of the Presidents of

the United States, Dwight D. Eisenhower: Containing the Public Messages, Speeches, and

Statements of the President, 20 January 1953 to 20 January 1961, Volume 1 (Washington, DC:

Government Printing Office, 1958-1961).

2. Ibid.

3. Interview with A. Bert Davis by Mark D. Bowles, 27 February 2002, NASA Headquarters

History Office, Historical Reference Collection, Oral History Collection.

4. Fred Baum petition, 29 October 1941, Record Group 21, Records of the District Courts of the

United States, Toledo, Civil Case 4627, U.S. vs. 1140.375 Acres of Land, et al., National

Archives—Great Lakes Region (Chicago).

5. Charles M. Wesson quoted in L. Fine and J.A. Remington, The Corps of Engineers:

Construction in the United States (Washington, DC: Office of the Chief of Military History,

United States Army, 1972), pp. 165, 325.

6. John C. Everett (chief of the Plant Services Division) and L. Marcus (head of the Structural

Design Section) to chief of the Technical Services Division, 16 May 1958, Folder: Evaluation of

Buildings and Structures, Box 7, NASA Glenn Research Center Archives.

7. “Evaluation of Plum Brook Ordnance Works” (July 1958), Folder: Evaluation of PBOW, Box 7,

NASA Glenn Archives.

8. “Production to Begin Soon at Plum Brook Powder Plant,” Cleveland Plain Dealer (26 October

1941).

9. “Plum Brook Station Review” (30 December 1976), NASA Glenn Archives.

10. “Thousands are Entertained by Antics of Abbott and Costello During Visit Here,” Sandusky Star

Journal (20 August 1942).

11. “The Wind Blew and the Cold Grew,” PBOW News (5 December 1942), The Charles E.

Frohman Collection, Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center archives.
158 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

12. Alice Kessler-Harris, Out to Work: A History of Wage-Earning Women in the United States (New

York, NY: Oxford University Press, 1986).

13. “Husband and 14 Relatives in Service, Mrs. June Franklin Nails TNT Boxes,” Sandusky Star

Journal (27 September 1943).

14. Memoirs of Donald L. Bowles, author’s private collection.

15. “War’s End Taken Quietly,” PBOW News (18 August 1945), The Charles E. Frohman

Collection, Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center archives.

16. “Production at Plum Brook Ordnance Works Stops and High Praise Is Expressed,” Sandusky

Star Journal (17 August 1944).

17. “The Saga of Plum Brook Ordnance Works,” Plum Brook News (18 August 1945), The Charles

E. Frohman Collection, Rutherford B. Hayes Presidential Center archives.

18. John Tierney, “Take the A-Plane,” Science 82 (January/February 1982): 4655.

19. Ibid.

20. T.M. Hallman and B. Lubarsky, “NACA Reactor Facility Hazards Summary” (15 October

1956), p. 1–1.

21. Virginia P. Dawson, Engines and Innovation: Lewis Laboratory and American Propulsion Technology

(Washington, DC: NASA SP–4306, 1991), p. 1.

22. “Atomic Power for Planes,” The New York Times (25 September 1955).

23. Pamela E. Mack, ed., From Engineering Science to Big Science: The NACA and NASA Collier

Trophy Research Project Winners (Washington, DC: NASA, 1998), p. xi.

24. Interview with Alan “Hap” Johnson, conducted by Mark D. Bowles, 20 March 2002, NASA

Headquarters History Office, Historical Reference Collection, Oral History Collection.

25. Interview with Jim Blue, conducted by Mark D. Bowles, 11 February 2002, NASA Headquarters

History Office, Historical Reference Collection, Oral History Collection.

26. Interview with Robert DeFayette, conducted by Mark D. Bowles, 29 January 2002, NASA

Headquarters History Office, Historical Reference Collection, Oral History Collection.

27. “The Plum Brook Reactor Deadline Is Extended,” Sandusky Register (15 October 1960).

28. Nuclear Development Corporation of America, “Site Survey for NACA Research Reactor” (13

September 1955), pp. 16.

29. Sandusky Star Journal, (27 September 1956).

30. John F. Kennedy, “Special Message to the Congress on the Defense Budget, March 28, 1961,”

Record # 12508, Selected Statements of President Kennedy on Defense Topics, December

1957–August 1, 1962, NASA HQ archives.

31. John F. Kennedy, “Urgent National Needs,” 25 May 1961, (Washington, DC: Department of

State, 1961).

32. Interview with Harold Finger, conducted by Virginia P. Dawson, 4 April 2002, NASA

Headquarters History Office, Historical Reference Collection, Oral History Collection.

33. L. Kowarski, “Report on Research Reactors,” as found in Clifford K. Beck, ed., Nuclear Reactors

for Research, (Princeton, NJ: D. Van Nostrand Company, Inc., 1957), pp. 327; L.D.P King,

“What a Reactor Can Be Used For,” Nucleonics (April 1954): 11.

34. “Rover Fact Sheet” (27 January 1966), Record #13842, NASA HQ Historical Reference

Collection.
159

35. H. Brock Barkley, “Newsgram #23” (24 June 1966), NASA Glenn Archives.

36. Harold W. Giesler, Harry J. Reilly, and William A. Poley, “Low-Power Tests of the Plum Brook

Reactor” (February 1963), Box 252, Folder 14, Plum Brook Archives.

37. Data compiled from International Atomic Energy Agency, Nuclear Research Reactors in the

World, accessed June 2002. http://www.iaca.or.at/worldatom/rrdb/

38. Interview with Clyde Greer, conducted by Mark D. Bowles, 5 February 2002, NASA

Headquarters History Office, Historical Reference Collection, Oral History Collection.

39. Interview with A. Bert Davis, conducted by Mark D. Bowles, 27 February 2002, NASA

Headquarters History Office, Historical Reference Collection, Oral History Collection.

40. Interview with Myrna Steele, conducted by Mark D. Bowles, 7 February 2002, NASA

Headquarters History Office, Historical Reference Collection, Oral History Collection.

41. “Report of Reactor Operations for the NASA Plum Brook Mock-Up Reactor” (20 November

1964), Box 40, File 2, Page 4, NASA Glenn Archives.

42. Barkley, “Special Newsgram, Mock-Up Reactor” (11 September 1963), NASA Glenn Archives.

43. Barkley, “Newsgram #1” (24 May 1963), NASA Glenn Archives.

44. Barkley, “Newsgram #3” (7 June 1963), NASA Glenn Archives.

45. “Report of Reactor Operations for the NASA Plum Brook Reactor” (12 May 1965), Box 40, File

4, Page 7, NASA Glenn Archives.

46. PBRF Records, Cabinet 12: Medical & Bioassay Records, Plum Brook Decommissioned Trailer.

47. Lawrence A. Thaler, “Report of Reactor Operations,” Cycle 19 (14 May 1964 to 27 June 1964);

J. Ross and T. L. Junod, Health Safety 7, Plum Brook Library.

48. Interview with Earl Boitel, conducted by Mark D. Bowles, 22 January 2002, NASA

Headquarters History Office, Historical Reference Collection, Oral History Collection.

49. The first number indicated the year and then the sequence of approved experiments in that

year. Thus, the Lockheed experiment 62-01 meant that it was the first approved experiment in

1962.

50. “Experiment 62-16, NERVA Components Irradiation,” Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory

Technical Report WANL–TNR–1 10, Barkley Private Collection.

51. Barkley, “Newsgram #24” (19 July 1966), NASA Glenn Archives; Interview with Jim Blue by

Mark D. Bowles, 11 February 2002.

52. “Experiment 63-05R1 NERVA Transducer Irradiations,” Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory

Technical Report WANL–TNR–173, Barkley Private Collection.

53. E.P. Wigner, Journal of Applied Physics 17 (1946):857.

54. “Experiment 63-09 Radiation Damage of Electrical Components,” Barkley Private Collection.

55. “Experiment 63-03 Thermionic Diode Irradiation,” NASA Glenn Archives.

56. “Experiment 64-01 Irradiation of Fuel/Clad Emitters,” NASA Glenn Archives.

57. Barkley, “Newsgram #19” (7 May 1964), NASA Glenn Archives.

58. Barkley, “Newsgram #27” (27 October 1967), NASA Glenn Archives.

59. Barkley, “Newsgram #28” (4 June 1968), NASA Glenn Archives.

Endnotes
160 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

60. Dean W. Sheibley, “Trace Elements by Instrumental Neutron Activation” Analysis for Pollution

Monitoring, Trace Elements in Fuel, Suresh P. Babu, ed. (Washington, DC: American Chemical

Society, 1975), pp. 98117. Sheibley, Trace Element Analysis of Coal by Neutron Activation,

NASA report: NASA TM X–68208 (August 1973).

61. “Plum Brook Station Review,” December 30, 1976, NASA Glenn Research Center, unprocessed

archives. “Lewis Research Center, 30th Anniversary,” Unprocessed Plum Brook Archives. “Plum

Brook Station, Tour Brochure,” Unprocessed Plum Brook Archives. “Capabilities and Facilities

of the Plum Brook Station,” NASA Glenn Research Center, unprocessed records. “The 1973

Plum Brook Station Nature Tour,” The Charles E. Frohman Collection, Rutherford B. Hayes

Presidential Center archives.

62. Interview with Earl Boitel, conducted by, Mark D. Bowles, 22 January 2002, NASA

Headquarters History Office, Historical Reference Collection, Oral History Collection.

63. Interview with Jim Blue, conducted by Mark Bowles, 11 February 2002, NASA Headquarters

History Office, Historical Reference Collection, Oral History Collection.

64. PBRF Records, Cabinet 12-E: Decommissioning Team Management Policies.

65. Brad Dicken, “NASA Tearing Apart Sandusky-area Facility,” The Chronicle Telegram, as found

at www.chronicletelegram.com/news/head6.html, accessed on 27 June 2002.

66. Keith Peecook quoted in, John C. Kuehner, “NASA Reactors Take Final Voyage,” Ohio News

(27 June 2002).

67. Sally Herrington, “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Approves NASA Decommissioning

Plan” (1 April 2002), http://www.grc. nasa. govlW\XW/pbrf/.

68. Donald Campbell, as found in “U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission Approves NASA

Decommissioning Plan” (1 April 2002), NASA Decommissioning Archives.

69. Tim Polich, Decommissioning Video-Narration, http://www.grc. gov,WWW/pbrf/

video_script.htm.

70. Mike Blotzer, “Protected Species Management at Glenn Research Center,” Office of Safety and

Assurance Technologies Forum (10 June 2002).
161

Appendices

Image 143: Gazing into the abyss, employees soak up the quiet calm of the Plum Brook reactor at night. Many times on the

overnight shift, the operators would turn off the overhead lights in the control room and work by the glow of the indicator lights.

In addition to having a soothing effect, this also brought out the indicator colors, so if there was any abnormality it jumped right

out at the operator. Music was also piped into the control room. (1959) (NASA C–2003–852)

Appendices
162 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

1941 In January, U.S. Army announces Plum Brook site selection for an Ordnance Works (9,000

acres). It begins buying options on properties and town meetings are held. In March, the

remainder of deeds are purchased. Residents are given until April to vacate. In April, E.B.

Badger & Sons begin construction. In September, a dedication ceremony is held. In November, Plum Brook’s first trinitrotoluene (TNT) production line begins operation, twenty-two

days before Pearl Harbor is attacked by Japan.

1942 In August, Abbott & Costello visit Plum Brook Ordnance Works as part of war bond

campaign.

1943 In April, the B-17 bomber bought with Plum Brook bonds is christened the Plum Brook

Trojanair. The first research reactor is built at the University of Chicago.

1945 In May, Germany surrenders; in August, Japan surrenders. Plum Brook ceases producing

munitions. In December, Plum Brook land is transferred from Trojan to the Army.

1946 War Assets Administration accepts custody of Plum Brook. The Atomic Energy Commission

(AEC) is founded.

1947 Magazine area is renamed the Plum Brook Depot Activity.

1949 In May, NACA Lewis Laboratory acquires cyclotron for basic materials research. The Plum

Brook land is transferred to the General Services Administration.

1951 NACA begins examining requirements to build research facilities and test nuclear engines for

airplanes.

1952 In March, the Materials Test Reactor at Idaho Falls sustains its first nuclear reaction. It will

serve as a model for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility.

1953 President Eisenhower delivers “Atoms for Peace” speech to the United Nations General

Assembly.

1954 In January, the USS Nautilus, the world’s first nuclear submarine, is christened. Nuclear school

begins at Lewis. Army reacquires Plum Brook from General Services Administration; it becomes a satellite of the Ravenna Arsenal for the Korean War.

1955 Nuclear space initiative begins with two primary programs: Nuclear Engine for Rocket Vehicle

Application (NERVA) and Space Nuclear Auxiliary Program (SNAP). NACA proposes concept

of nuclear reactor facility to AEC. Site Survey for NACA Research Reactor published (September 13), and Plum Brook site is chosen. Congress approves construction of sixty-megawatt

reactor. A B-36 bomber begins forty-seven flights over Texas with a nonpropulsive test reactor

aboard.

Timeline
163

1956 AEC announces testing in Idaho on stationary forerunner of the atomic aircraft engine. The

NACA is given permission to use 500 acres for Plum Brook reactor. In September, ground is

broken for the Plum Brook Reactor Facility. In October, NACA Reactor Facility Hazards

Summary is submitted to AEC.

1957 In October, the Soviet Union launches Sputnik.

1958 In January, the Army transfers 3,180 acres to NACA for a five-year period. In March, the Plum

Brook area is released from the jurisdiction of the Ravenna Arsenal. In June, 65 percent of the

construction is complete. In October, the NACA transforms into NASA.

1959 In December, an updated Final Hazards Summary is submitted to the AEC.

1960 Provisional operating license is issued by the AEC. The joint AEC-NASA Space Nuclear Propulsion Office (SNPO) is formed. SNPO is given the responsibility to build the NERVA, the first

nuclear rocket engine.

1961 In March, President Kennedy terminates the nuclear airplane program. In May, Kennedy lends

support to the nuclear rocket program in his “Urgent National Needs” speech. Low-power

testing is performed at Plum Brook in June. On 14 June 1961, the Plum Brook test reactor

goes critical for the first time.

1962 In May, the United States Congress approves $40 million expansion program for Plum Brook

in the next fiscal year.

1963 In April, the reactor reaches full sixty-megawatt power for the first time. In July, it reaches

criticality for its first experimental cycle, which is completed on August 15. Also in July, the

Mock-Up Reactor (MUR) receives its license from the AEC. The MUR begins operation on

September 5 and goes critical for the first time on September 10. In October, over 1,600

people visit the Plum Brook reactor during a public relations event. In December, the hot

laboratory becomes operational.

1964 Plum Brook reactor completes its first year of operation at full power. The first fueled experiment is run in the reactor in August.

1966 The Plum Brook reactor completes its 50th cycle.

1969 The Plum Brook reactor completes its 100th cycle.

1970 The reactor begins investigations for the Environmental Protection Agency.

1972 In December, the last astronauts walk on the Moon with Apollo 17.

1973 In January, NASA Lewis director Bruce Lundin announces immediate shutdown of reactor. All

experimental programs end that day. By June, “mothballing” of the reactor is complete.

1974 Bob Didelot begins work as standby manager; he maintains this job until 1980. The AEC is

suspended and becomes the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC).

Appendices: Timeline
164 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

1976 Four future uses for the Plum Brook reactor are suggested to NASA headquarters.

1977 The decision is made to not restart the reactor. Reactor equipment begins to be cannibalized

by other programs.

1978 Teledyne performs a decommissioning options study.

1980 In January, a decommissioning project office is established at Lewis Research Center. In

March, NASA submits a five-year dismantling plan to the NRC. In September, Earl Boitel

becomes new Plum Brook reactor standby manager.

1981 In May, the order to dismantle is not carried out for budget reasons.

1983 In April, the Plum Brook Procedures Manual is completely rewritten to reflect pre-dismantling

work. Radiological surveys are performed on the cooling tower and disposal basins. In July,

the reactor cooling tower is razed and burned.

1984 The Plum Brook reactor is granted a “possess but do not operate” license.

1985 In January, cracks in pipes allow liquid to leak into basement of the hot lab. In July, NASA

requests a return to “possess but do not operate” license and rescinds dismantling order. In

October, Hank Pfanner becomes new standby manager.

1987 In January, a “possess but do not operate” license is reinstated for a ten-year period.

1989 In March, Sverdrup Technology, Inc., assumes control of maintaining the reactor and operating test sites.

1996 A $900,000 maintenance project performed.

1999 In December, NASA submits its decommissioning plan to NRC. Tim Polich becomes NASA’s

decommissioning manager.

2002 In March, NRC approves the Plum Brook plan and decommissioning starts. In April, NASA

administrator Sean O’Keefe outlines a new vision for a nuclear rocket.

2007 Projected completion date for Plum Brook reactor decommissioning.
165

Reactor Experiments

Appendices: Reactor Experiments

Note: Data from this table was compiled from the 152 reactor-cycle reports located in the NASA Plum

Brook Station Library. The cycle column refers not only to when the experiments were in the reactor, but

also indicates when preparatory work began in setting up the equipment.

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number

62-01 3,5–84 Lockheed Cyrogenic Experiment Determined the effects of radiation on

materials at cryogenic temperatures.

62-02 36–52 In-Pile Helium Cooled Loop Aided in evaluating loop performance

54–63, 75 under gamma heating on the in-pile

experiments. A great deal of effort went

into preparing equipment for this type

of experimentation.

62-03 3–11 Neutron Scattering and Provided a collimated beam of gamma

30, 31, Diffraction Experiment and neutron radiation for use by

33–45 experimenters.

58–61,

64,

75–79,

83–88,

92–94,

96–100

102–103

62-04 76, Irradiation of Solid Film Lubricants The experimental data for this test was

78–152 programmed on the EDLAS computer.

62-05 19, 21–31, Neutron Diffraction Utilized a collimated beam of thermal

33–91 neutrons emerging from HB-4 to con

93–111 duct experiments in basic physics, and

more specifically in neutron diffraction

studies. For example, during one cycle

fifty-two data point runs were made with

a barium chlorate monohydrate crystal.

During another, ninety-three data points

were made with a calcium bromate

monohydrate crystal.
166 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

62-05R1 Interim NERVA Irradiation Modifications to the previous experiment

were made to improve the reliability of

the system.

62-06 30, General Electric NERVA Actuator After a great deal of setup time, in Novem45–49 ber 1967 drum actuator type AG20 was

55–75 irradiated for sixty-five minutes at sixty

megawatts of power.

62-07 3, 5–8, Mallory and Tungsten Irradiation Determined the radiation effects on

12–15, material properties and corrosion

19–24, 30 resistance of Mallory 1000 and pure

tungsten.

62-07R1 76–78 Radiation Effects on Material A capsule that contained thirty tungsten

Properties of Tungsten tensile test specimens was irradiated.

62-09 3 PB Space Propulsion Facility Determined the optimum material

Activation Measurement composition for walls at Plum Brook’s

Space Propulsion Facility. Rabbits were

irradiated with samples of unclad and

cadmium-clad 304 stainless steel, and

unclad and cadmium-clad 5083

aluminum.

62-12 19, 21, Fueled Material Specimens Evaluated the fuel and fission product

23–45 Irradiation retention qualities of tungsten-uranium

49, 51–53, dioxide dispersions, which are fission

55, 62, heated to anticipate rocket fuel element

63, 65, operating temperatures. Capsules from

70–72 this experiment were sent to the Battelle

76, 79, 91 Memorial Institute and the Westinghouse

96–100, Electric Corporation for postirradiation

102–104, examination.

108, 109,

111, 118,

146

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number
167

62-12R1 73–75, 77, Fueled Material Specimen A series of tests determined the extent of

78, 81, 82 irradiation uranium dioxide relocation and

85–93 densification in small fuel pins operating at

95–152 high-clad surface temperatures. During

Cycle 88, engineers irradiated a stainless

steel shell-type capsule containing a sealed

fuel pin. The purpose of this experiment

was to provide the capsule that was required for checkout of the Plum Brook hot

cell fracturing device and to determine the

extent of pressure buildup in the sealed

fuel pin.

62-13 102–103,

105

62-13R1 42–45 Thermionic Materials Irradiation

62-13R2 80–116, Thermionic Materials Irradiation

118, 119,

124–126

62-14 3–105, Irradiation of PBRF Materials Investigated the long-term effects of critical

107–152 materials used in the construction of the

reactor. For example, in Cycle 4, sixty

carbon steel specimens were irradiated that

were identical to the material that was used

in construction of the reactor pressure tank.

62-15 20–73, 97 Fueled Refractory Compounds Studied the effects of irradiation of refractIrradiation ory fuel components at high specific power

to high burnups. This was the first fueled

experiment. It was sponsored by

Westinghouse.

62-16 64, 65, 76 NERVA Components Irradiation Included shielding materials tests.

Appendices: Reactor Experiments

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number
168 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number

63-01 11–28 Measurements of Materials for Tested the radiation effects on the full-scale

SPF Walls thickness of the Space Propulsion Facility

chamber walls. This included aluminum

plate and foils and nonborated concrete

block.

63-02 25–27, 30 Thermal Conductivity of Refractory Continuously measured the in-pile thermal

Fuel Compounds conductivity of high-density UO2 fuel at

temperatures up to 2,200 degrees Celsius.

63-03R2 82–87, Thermionic Diode Irradiation The diode was irradiated at defined

95–98, temperatures to see how it would react.

100–112, During Cycle 83 the diode would not

119–122, generate current.

126–128,

130–134,

137–139

63-03 28–38, 58 Martin Thermionic Diode Demonstrated the reliable performance

60, 76, 93, Irradiation of a state-of-the-art thermionic diode in a

94, 100, 115 nuclear reactor.

116, 122

63-04 76, 78–84 Thermionic Reactor Fuel Form Thermocouple readings were measured as

88, 93, and Insulator Irradiation the experiment capsules were subjected to

95–98 helium and argon at various power levels

in the reactor. Polaroid photos were then

sometimes taken of the disassembled

capsules.

63-05 48, 14, 16, Westinghouse Interim NERVA Provided information on materials

17, 20, 22, Experiment selection for components used for the

28, 29, 55, NERVA reactor designed by the

58, 60 Westinghouse Astronuclear Laboratory.
Appendices: Reactor Experiments 169

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number

63-05R1 30–48, 58 NERVA Transducer Irradiation Sponsored by Westinghouse, this modified

Program the previous 63-05 experiment through

the addition of a Charging Table. Other

modifications included an HT-1 isolation

valve, a capsule seal assembly, a seal pump,

controls for the table drive, a pump, a valve

motor, and new piping.

63-07 36 Rabbit test of Mallory Material to Investigated the tungsten 187 buildup in

establish source of tungsten in the primary cooling water system during

coolant the reactors full-power reactor operation.

63-08 14, 15 Sperry Experiment: Irradiation of Evaluated the radiation temperature

Digital Computer Components resistance of materials used in digital

computer switching circuits.

63-09 8, 24–75 Nuclear Electric Sub-Systems and Investigated the effects of neutron and

122 Component Irradiation gamma radiation on the input and output parameters of nuclear-electric components and subsytems. The experiment was

for the SNAP-8 program. In Cycle 32 a

sheet metal “roof” was constructed over the

instrumentation rack to prevent damage

from water drippage.

63-09R1 76–79 Nuclear Electric Subsystems and Testing included a foil plate and holder

81–88, Components with thermocouples attached. Argon-41

92–96, buildup and biological shielding

99–105, effectiveness were tested.

107–129

63-10 23–30 Alumina Insulators Irradiation Examined the effects of radiation on the

electrical resistivity of high-purity alumina

insulators.

63-11 10, 11 Investigated radiation effects on tungsten

metal. Most important, it examined the

elastic recoil mechanism of tungsten and

also tungsten effective resonance integral

measurements.
170 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

63-11R1 31 Two rabbits with tungsten specimens and

flux measuring foils were irradiated for

sixty seconds. They were then packaged in

the hot lab and sent to the experiment

sponsor.

63-12 46–56, 58 Radioscope Electrical Generator

63-12HL 45, 57–61, Radioscope Electrical Generator Tested and evaluated the concept of

88, 93–96 direct conversion of the kinetic energy of

98–103, 105 radioscope decay into electrical power.

64-01 58 Irradiation of Fuel/Clad Emitters Performed for General Electric sponsor in

California.

64-01R1 38–58 Fuel/Clad Emitter Irradiation Modifications were made to improve previous experiments.

64-02 12–14, Copper Irradiation Produced the Cu-64 isotope by exposing

30–34, 36 a high-purity copper foil to a thermal

neutron flux. The Cu-64 could be used as a

positron source to investigate the behavior

of positronium in liquid gases.

64-03 12, 20 Produced a radioactive source (sodium-24)

of such magnitude that it can be used

to evaluate the decontamination efficiency

of the newly built evaporator located at the

PBRF waste handling building.

64-04 22, 24–26, Concrete Materials Trace Element Determined by neutron activation of

28–43, 50, Control concrete samples whether or not the

51, 65 sample batch is satisfactory for the construction of the Space Propulsion Facility

biological shield.

64-06 89–92, 95, Radiation Damage Experiments in The purpose of this experiment was to

97, 98, Ion Complexer and Exchanger procure basic data necessary to determine

100–105, Systems the feasibility of a concept for control of

107–112, a water-moderated nuclear reactor.

117–119

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number
171

65-01 40 Production of Uniform Line Source Thirty-eight target specimens were loaded

into two rabbits. Deionized water was

added to each of the rabbits, which were

then welded shut. One rabbit was then

irradiated for just over sixty-one hours

and inspected. The rabbit ruptured.

A modified vent was designed to enable

the rabbits to remain sealed and the

experiment continued for a full eightyhour irradiation.

65-02 41, 42, 44 NaCL Crystals Three NaCL crystals were placed in polyethylene containers and loaded into three

rabbits and irradiated.

66-01 44, 54, Irradiation of Various Insulating Two Al2O3 crystals were irradiated for

59–62 Materials Materials 574.4 MWD in a rabbit. A silicon

carbide crystal was also irradiated at sixty

megawatts for twenty-four hours and then

sent to Lewis Research Center for analysis.

66-03 76, 77, Irradiation of Bulk UO2 Fuel/ These experiments included lengthy

80–82, 84, Clad Bodies irradiations. For example, during Cycle 80

85 a capsule was operated at the desired

temperature for 241 hours.

66-03-01 78, 79, 83 Irradiation of Bulk UO2 Fuel/

86–94 Clad Bodies

66-03-2 95–98, Irradiation of Bulk UO2 Fuel/ In Cycle 105 the capsule was inserted into

100–119, Clad Bodies the reactor tank in one-inch increments to

121, 123 obtain the designed operating temperature. The capsule was then withdrawn

completely in one motion, letting the

temperature stabilize. This was done fifty

times as quickly as possible to study the

effects of thermal cycling on the fuel and

thermocouples.

Appendices: Reactor Experiments

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number
172 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

66-05 47, 76 Neutron Irradiation of Ammonium A five-milligram sample of ammonium

Bromide bromide (NH4Br) was irradiated for thirty

minutes at sixty megawatts and sent to

Lewis Research Center for analysis.

66-06 92–105, Fission Gas Retention Studies In Cycle 106 the irradiation lasted 330

107–152 hours, or 93 percent of the total time

available for that cycle. The fuel pin was

operated at three temperature levels.

Fission gas release data was also collected

with the online detection instrumentation.

The capsule contents were UO2.

66-07 59–66 Charpy Impact Specimen Two capsules with weld specimens in

Irradiation aluminum alloy and alloy were initially

irradiated for an entire cycle in the reactor.

66-08 73–75, Irradiation of a Rare Gas Filled This experiment was installed into the

80, 81, Thermionic Diode experiment 62-16 (NERVA irradiation)

84, 86–88 water-cooled capsule.

67-01 58–61, Irradiation of Glassy Silicates Six irradiations were initially performed in

63–65, 81 the rabbit facility and the specimens were

sent to the Case Western Reserve University for analysis.

67-04 87–105, Radiolysis of Water The objective of this experiment was to

107–123 investigate the pressure buildup and

composition of gases resulting from the

radiolysis of water in sealed aluminum

containers.

67-05 71–82 Micrometeorite Irradiation Consisted of three powder containers that

held two major crystalline silicates of

meteorites (Olivine and Enstatite) and six

flux monitors.

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number
173

67-06 76–78, Nuclear Reactor Materials Included testing like an experiment in

80–88, 92 Evaluation Cycle 93. This included seven wear test

specimens for metallurgical examination.

Also, eighteen fatigue and six tensile

specimens were placed in Hot Cell 1 to

await reloading into future capsules for

irradiation. Corrosion tests were also

started on twenty-one specimens in 200

degrees Fahrenheit deionized water. The

fatigue testing equipment was built by the

Material Testing Systems (MTS).

67-06-71 94 Nuclear Materials Evaluation

Program

67-06-81 94–96, 98 Fatigue and Tensile Properties of

103, 105, Irradiated Materials

115–140

67-06-91 99–105, Irradiation of NERVA Materials Materials included Waspaloy, Inconel, and

107–112, General Dynamics test specimens.

120–127,

129–142

67-07 76, 77, 79, Irradiation of Gas-Cooled Fuel This experiment arrived at the reactor from

81, 82, 91, Pins for Compact Reactors Oak Ridge on 21 May 1968. One test

94–112, (Cycle 103) attempted to measure the

114–139, diffusion rate of gaseous fission products

142–150 in a static system.

68-01 76–79–82, Irradiation of Plastic Containers Over twenty-five samples of plastic were

84, 86, irradiated for various lengths of time and

87, 89, analyzed in the hot lab. This increased to

104, fifty samples in Cycle 81. In Cycle 104,

107–109 fifteen plastic vials that contained lead,

aluminum, or air samples were irradiated

and analyzed at the radiochemistry

laboratory.

Appendices: Reactor Experiments

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number
174 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

68-03 105, Nuclear Thermionic Ceramic

128–139 Insulators

68-04 89–91, 94, Radioactive Tracer Production for

 95 Tektite Research

68-05 92, 94, Irradiation of High-Temperature The temperature of the irradiations was

100–102, Thermocouples 1,600 degrees Celsius.

105–142

68-06 93–101, Hot Laboratory Examination of Sponsored by Oak Ridge. The high103–105 Irradiated Tri-Layer Specimens temperature vacuum furnace was placed in

Hot Cell 1. It raised the temperature of

the experiment to 2,200 degrees Celsius

with a vacuum. In Cycle 105, metallographic specimens were photographed at

250 and 500 magnification.

69-01-1 107–152, Nuclear Experiment Power Reactor Fuel pins received from the experiment

 93, 113 Technology Fuel Capsule sponsor were irradiated. In Cycle 107,

Irradiations I samples of stainless steel were irradiated to

determine the variation of cobalt content.

69-01-2 111–113, Nuclear Experiment Power Reactor

 115–152 Technology Fuel Capsule

Irradiations II

69-01-03 139–152 Space Power Reactor Technology

69-02 108, 109,

 111, 128,

 133, 144

69-03 98–100 Irradiation of Apollo Glycol-Water Vials containing glycol-water were

Solutions irradiated for four hours (Cycle 98) and

then analyzed in the radiochemistry

laboratory.

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number
175

70-01 106–107, Irradiation of Lunar Soil Several vials that contained 1.2 grams of

109, 112, lunar soil (Cycle 106) were irradiated in

115, 116, the rabbit facility for six days. The rabbit

118, 123, was then sent to the hot laboratory where

126, the vials were removed, packaged, and

128–131, shipped to the experiment sponsor. In

133, 135, Cycle 107, 0.6 grams of lunar soil, one

136, 139, gram of Columbia River basalt, and one

140, gram of ordinary chondrites were irradiat143–145, ed for six days and the samples were sent

147–152 back to the sponsor.

70-02 118–122, Vapor Transport Fuel Pin

124–137, Experiment

142, 143

70-03 111, 112 Irradiation of Pyrolytic Graphite

70-04 112, 113, Irradiation of Grain Boundary In Cycle 115, five pairs of grain specimens

115–119 Impurities were irradiated in the rabbit facility for

ninety-four hours and then unloaded in

the hot laboratory and sent back to the

experiment sponsor.

70-05 111, 118, Irradiation of Lunar Soil, Meteorites,

120, 126, Terrestrial Rocks, and Standards

130–134,

137

70-06 127, Thermionic Reactor Fuel Form

132–152 Irradiation

70-07 117, 118 Irradiation of Meteorite Crystals

70-08 117, 119 Irradiation of Particulate Materials

120, 122, from Cuyahoga County Air Samples

123, 125,

126,

128–152

Appendices: Reactor Experiments

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number
176 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number

70-09 117, 118, Irradiation of Extraterrestrial

120, 121, Material

123, 126,

129, 130,

133, 134,

136,

139–142,

147, 151

70-11 125, Loss of Coolant Experiment

138–144,

146–151

70-12 118–146, Irradiation of NERVA Materials During Cycle 119, 25 specimens of

148 at Cryogenic Temperatures aluminum were loaded into the cryogenic

capsule and irradiated at a temperature

below seventy-seven degrees Kelvin.

71-02 142, 143,

145

150–152

71-03 124–129, Determination of Mercury and

131, Selenium in Air Particulate

133–138,

140, 151

71-03R1 139, Determination of Hazardous Trace

141–147, Elements in Samples and Fuels

149, 150,

152

71-05 128, 132, Radioscope F-18 Production

133, 136

139

71-07 135, 136 Radiation of Reentry Heat Shield

140–144 Material
177

Exp. Cycles Name Description

Number

71-08 133, 134 Irradiation of Pure Silicon

71-09 137–139 Irradiation of Corn

72-01 143,

150–152

72-02 140 Irradiation of Thin Silver Films

72-03 149–152 Nuclear Power Reactor

Technology IV

72-04

IT-A-I Neutron Radiographic Facility This was located in quadrant A. It used a

voided tube to direct a neutron beam

through a specially designed fifteen-footlong collimator. The collimated beam of

thermal neutrons that emerged provided a

three- by thirty-inch area suitable for

radiography. For example, in Cycle 89, tests

included evaluating different types of X-ray

film provided by Eastman Kodak and AgfaGevaert. It was also used to irradiate fuel

pins.

Appendices: Reactor Experiments
178 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

1 2/12/1963 3/13/1963

2 3/13/1963 4/29/1963

3 4/29/1963 8/15/1963

4 8/30/1963 9/8/1963

5 9/20/1963 9/26/1963

6 10/13/1963 10/19/1963

7 11/1/1963 11/9/1963

8 11/26/1963 12/6/1963

9 12/9/1963 12/20/1963

10 1/10/1964 1/21/1964

11 1/21/1964 2/5/1964

12 2/5/1964 2/28/1964

13 2/28/1964 3/10/1964

14 3/10/1964 3/25/1964

15 3/25/1964 4/5/1964

16 4/5/1964 4/22/1964

17 4/22/1964 4/29/1964

18 5/14/1964 6/27/1964

19 6/27/1964 7/12/1964

20 7/12/1964 7/25/1964

21 7/25/1964 8/6/1964

22 8/6/1964 8/24/1964

23 8/24/1964 9/30/1964

24 9/30/1964 10/3/1964

25 10/3/1964 10/27/1964

26 10/27/1964 11/15/1964

27 11/15/1964 12/4/1964

28 12/4/1964 12/19/1964

29 12/19/1964 3/7/1965

30 3/7/1965 3/27/1965

31 3/27/1965 4/8/1965

32 4/8/1965 5/6/1965

33 5/6/1965 5/25/1965

34 5/25/1965 6/30/1965

35 6/30/1965 7/24/1965

36 7/24/1965 8/9/1965

37 8/9/1965 9/2/1965

38 9/2/1965 11/7/1965

39 11/7/1965 11/23/1965

40 11/23/1965 12/14/1965

41 12/14/1965 1/14/1966

42 1/14/1966 1/28/1966

43 1/28/1966 2/19/1966

44 2/19/1966 5/3/1966

45 5/3/1966 5/20/1966

46 5/20/1966 6/6/1966

47 6/6/1966 7/18/1966

48 7/18/1966 7/26/1966

49 7/26/1966 8/8/1966

50 8/8/1966 8/24/1966

51 8/24/1966 9/11/1966

52 9/11/1966 9/19/1966

53 9/19/1966 10/26/1966

54 10/26/1966 11/13/1966

55 11/13/1966 11/22/1966

56 11/22/1966 12/14/1966

57 12/14/1966 2/23/1967

58 2/23/1967 3/28/1967

59 3/28/1967 4/15/1967

60 4/15/1967 5/28/1967

61 5/28/1967 6/20/1967

62 6/20/1967 7/8/1967

63 7/8/1967 8/26/1967

64 8/26/1967 9/13/1967

65 9/13/1967 10/15/1967

66 10/15/1967 10/25/1967

67 10/25/1967 11/5/1967

68 11/5/1967 11/19/1967

69 11/19/1967 12/1/1967

70 12/1/1967 12/13/1967

71 12/13/1967 12/29/1967

72 12/29/1967 1/22/1968

73 1/22/1968 2/4/1968

74 2/4/1968 2/17/1968

75 2/17/1968 6/22/1968

76 6/22/1968 7/15/1968

77 7/15/1968 7/31/1968

78 7/31/1968 8/9/1968

79 8/9/1968 9/25/1968

80 9/25/1968 10/27/1968

81 10/27/1968 11/18/1968

82 11/18/1968 12/3/1968

83 12/3/1968 12/24/1968

84 12/24/1968 1/15/1969

85 1/15/1969 2/5/1969

86 2/5/1969 2/20/1969

87 2/2/1969 3/8/1969

88 3/8/1969 3/28/1969

Reactor Cycle Dates

Cycle Start Date End Date Cycle Start Date End Date
179

134 11/1/1971 11/23/1971

135 11/23/1971 12/20/1971

136 12/20/1971 1/14/1972

137 1/14/1972 2/1/1972

138 2/1/1972 2/26/1972

139 2/26/1972 5/19/1972

140 5/19/1972 6/3/1972

141 6/3/1972 6/23/1972

142 6/23/1972 7/11/1972

143 7/11/1972 7/27/1972

144 7/27/1972 8/14/1972

145 8/14/1972 8/29/1972

146 8/29/1972 9/17/1972

147 9/17/1972 10/6/1972

148 10/6/1972 10/29/1972

149 10/29/1972 11/24/1972

150

151

152

89 3/28/1969 4/14/1969

90 4/14/1969 5/14/1969

91 5/14/1969 6/11/1969

92 6/11/1969 6/30/1969

93 6/30/1969 7/25/1969

94 7/25/1969 8/22/1969

95 8/22/1969 9/14/1969

96 9/14/1969 10/13/1969

97 10/13/1969 11/3/1969

98 11/3/1969 11/19/1969

99 11/19/1969 12/9/1969

100 12/9/1969 12/24/1969

101 12/24/1969 1/15/1970

102 1/15/1970 2/8/1970

103 2/8/1970 3/1/1970

104 3/1/1970 3/23/1970

105 3/23/1970 4/10/1970

106 4/10/1970 5/18/1970

107 5/19/1970 6/5/1970

108 6/5/1970 6/22/1970

109 6/22/1970 7/9/1970

110 7/9/1970 7/27/1970

111 7/27/1970 8/17/1970

112 8/17/1970 9/8/1970

113 9/8/1970 9/28/1970

114 9/28/1970 10/20/1970

115 10/20/1970 11/8/1970

116 11/8/1970 12/1/1970

117 12/1/1970 12/18/1970

118 12/18/1970 1/18/1971

119 1/18/1971 1/30/1971

120 1/30/1971 2/15/1971

121 2/15/1971 3/7/1971

122 3/7/1971 3/29/1971

123 3/29/1971 4/9/1971

124 4/9/1971 4/25/1971

125 4/24/1971 5/17/1971

126 5/17/1971 6/1/1971

127 6/1/1971 6/26/1971

128 6/26/1971 7/8/1971

129 7/8/1971 8/5/1971

130 8/5/1971 8/23/1971

131 8/23/1971 9/11/1971

132 9/11/1971 10/13/1971

133 10/13/1971 11/1/1971

Cycle Start Date End Date Cycle Start Date End Date

Reactor Cycle Dates
180 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility Nuclear Rocket Program Organization (1962) AEC NASA The Commission

Space Nuclear Propulsion

Office

Harold Finger, Manager

M. Klein, Deputy Manager

General Manager

Deputy General Manager

Assistant General Manager

Research & Development

Assistant General Manager

Chicago

Operations Office

Albuquerque

Operations Office

Cleveland

Extension

NERVA

Los Alamos

Laboratory

Kiwi &

Phoebus

Argonne

Nat. Lab

Alternate

Reactor

Concepts

Division of Reactor

Research & Development

Director

Office of Advanced

Research & Technology

Director

Associate Administrator

Deputy Associate

Administrator

Administer

Deputy Administer

Nuclear Systems

Harold Finger, Director

W. Woodward, Deputy

Director

Nevada

Extension

NRDS

Albuquerque

Extension

Liaison

Other NASA

Centers

Lewis

Research

Center

Nuclear

Rocket

Technology

Marshall

Space Flight

Center

RIFT

* Dotted lines are Program Direction

Organizational Charts
181

Lewis Research Center Nuclear Reactor Division (1960)

NASA Lewis Research Center

Edward Sharp, Director

Reactor Experimental Projects

Samuel Kaufman, Head

Plum Brook Reactor Facility

Theodore Hallman, Chief

Propulsion Concepts

Branch

Frank Rom, Chief

Nuclear Reactor Division

Leroy Humble, Chief

Reactor Physics Branch

Donald Bogart, Chief

Heat Transfer Branch

Robert Deissler, Chief

Radiation Physics Branch

James Blue, Chief

Jack Aron, Cyclotron

Concepts Analysis

Section

Eldon Sams, Head

Reactor

Components

Section

Armin Lietzke,

Head

Reactor Analysis

Section

Daniel Fieno, Head

Experimental Reactor

Physics Section

Thomas Fox, Head

General Physics

Section

James Blue, Head

Nuclear Physics

Section

Theodore Fessler, Head

Theoretical Physics

Section

Howard Volkin, Head

Health-Safety

Oliver Wisdahl, Officer

Reactor Engineering

Branch

Theodore Hallman,

Acting Chief

Reactor Operations

Branch

Alan Johnson,

Chief

Organizational Charts
182 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility Plum Brook Reactor Facility (1959) Plum Brook Reactor Facility Theodore Hallman, Chief William Kortier, Program Coordinator

Ruth Oetzel, Facility Secretary Health-Safety Office Oliver Wisdahl, Health-Safety Officer

Thomas Junod

Edward Williams

Operations Branch

Alan Johnson, Chief

Engineering Branch

Theodore Hallman (Acting Chief)

Jim Blue (Consultant)

Reactor Operations Section

William Fecych, Head

Thomas Bertuccio

Steven Borbash

Charles Drechel

William Kern

Russell Meermans

William Poley

Ray Priebe

Process Systems Section

Jacques Boegli, Head

John Crooks

Richard Kimmey

Chester Lanzo

Norman Laubenheimer

Frank Macri

James Martz

Joseph Savino

Byron Siegel

Thomas Tambling

Electrical Equipment Section

Robert Linhart, Head

Howard Daniels

Joseph DeFazio

Phillip Huculak

Harry Stockman

Mechanical Equipment Section

Claude deBogdan

Kenneth Baumeister

Richard Crum

Edward Keshock

Robert Oldrieve

Project Engineering Section

Charles Conant, Head

Alvin Davis

Robert DeFayette

Patrick Finnegan

Gerald Fredrickson

Charles Hartley

Instrument Development Section

John Acomb, Head

Forrest Burns

Barbara Hill

James Partridge

Emile Rutner

Dean Sheibley

Reactor Physics Section

Harold Giesler, Head

James Cusick

Thomas Fox

John Liwosz

Rathuel McCollum

Harry Reilly
183

123

Plum Brook Reactor Facility (1966)

Plum Brook Reactor Facility

H. Brock Barkley, Chief

Harold Giesler, Asst. Chief

Beatrice Protsik

Glenna Rathbun

Elizabeth Willinger

Health-Safety Office

Thomas Junod, Health-Safety Officer

Donald Miller

Operations Branch

William Fecych, Chief

Richard Brickley, Asst. Chief

Edna Heilman

Engineering Branch

Charles Conant, Chief

Ralph Stein, Asst. Chief

Arlene Carr

Nuclear Support Branch

Richard Schuh, Chief

Ruth Jensen

Project Engineering Office

Alvin Davis, Chief

Margaret Heinsen

Program Coordinator

Robert Bottimore

Technical & Administrative Asst.

John Crooks

Shift Supervisors

James Martz

Robert Didelot

Edward Dobrinsky

Richard Kimmey

Donald Winterich

Process & Mechanical

 Section

Jacques Boegli, Head

Ervin Minderman

Maurice Senkfor

Burley Sharbaugh

Richard Westhoven

Electrical &

Electronics Section

Ray Priebe, Head

James Morley

Francis Rooker

Robert Shirky

Norman Spencer

Experimental

Equipment

Section

James Suhanic,

Head

Beecher Allen

Earl Boitel

Thomas Derkacs

Lawrence Thaler

Ralph Vrana

John Atkinson

Hot &

Metallurgical Lab

Section

Robert Hasse,

Head

George Batcha

Charles Hartley

Richard

Mittendorf

Clyde Null

Drafting Unit

Donald Zurcher, Head

Phillip Huculak

James Huffman

Joseph Ritchie

Jackie Taylor

Instruments &

Controls Section

James Heckleman,

Head

Konstanty Semenchuk

Richard Shumaker

General Engineering

Section

Ralph Coonrod, Head

Andrew Farkas

Frank Macri

Edward Huffman

Mechanical Design

Section

Wm. Schleicher,

Head

Robert Culp

Charles Funk

Electrical Design

David Huffman

Section

Lester Steinke, Head

Howard Daniels

Robert MacGregor

George Morris

Richard Barrows

Don Crandall

Warren Duff

Frederick Edie

Robert Galbo

Leonard Homyak

Richard Kerkhoff

William Kern

Gary Snyder

Thomas Tambling

Nuclear

Experiments

Section

R. Robinson,

Head

Robert

DeFayette

Thomas

Jenkins

Lawrence

Peters

William Poley

Robert Seidel

Myrna Steele

Nuclear Analysis

Section

Harry Reilly, Head

Salvi Altomare

Steven Borbash

Richard Crum

Earle Davis

John Lynch

Radiochemistry

Section

Dean Sheibley,

Head

Lauren Ball

Barbara Johnson

Paul Richardson

Organizational Charts
184 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility Plum Brook Reactor Facility (1971) Plum Brook Reactor Facility H. Brock Barkley, Chief Alvin Davis, Asst. Chief Lynn Snowden Health-Safety Office Thomas Junod, Health-Safety Officer Donald Miller Program Coordinator Robert Bottimore Technical & Administrative Asst. Richard Brickley Operations Branch William Fecych, Chief John Crooks, Asst. Chief Edna Heilman Jacques Boegli Elaine Johnson Engineering Branch Charles Conant, Chief Ralph Stein, Asst. Chief Arlene Carr Nuclear Support Branch Richard Schuh, Chief Ruth Jensen Project Engineering Office Ralph Stein, Chief Gary Snyder, Asst. Chief Experiments Branch Harry Reilly, Chief

Shift Supervisors

James Martz

Robert Didelot

Edward Dobrinsky

Richard Kimmey

Donald Winterich

Experimental

Equipment

Section

James Suhanic, Head

Beecher Allen

Earl Boitel

Thomas Derkacs

James Morley

Burley Sharbaugh

Lawrence Thaler

Systems Section

James Martz,

Head

George Hurrell

Ervin

Minderman

George Morris

Francis Rooker

Richard Barrows

Arlene Carr

Robert Galbo

Leonard Homyak

Richard Kerkhoff

Frank Macri

Thomas Tambling

Donald Winterich

Physics Section

Richard Robinson,

Head

Richard Crum

John Lynch

Lawrence Peters

Glenn Winters

Radiochemistry

Section

Robert DeFayette,

Head

Raymond Arndt

John Fryer

Clark Hahn

Chris Jensen

Barbara Johnson

Ronald Scott

Alfred Williams

Drafting Unit

Donald Zurcher,

Head

Phillip Huculak

James Huffman

Jackie Taylor

Mechanical Design

Section

Dennis Kring, Head

Andrew Farkas

Charles Funk

Richard Westhoven

Electrical &

Electronics

Design Section

Lester Steinke, Head

Howard Daniels

Robert MacGregor

Konstanty

Semenchuk

Richard Shumaker

Instrumentation

Section

J. Heckelman, Head

Robert Didelot

Robert Kozar

Materials Section

Dean Sheibley, Head

Lauren Ball

Anne Bodnar

Harvey Dewing

Paul Richardson

Hot & Metallurgical

Labs Section

Robert Hasse, Head

Charles Hartley

Richard Mittendorf

Clyde Null

Michael Sudsina
185

Mark D. Bowles received his B.A. in Psychology

(1991) and M.A. in History (1993) from the University of Akron. He earned his Ph.D. in the History of Technology and Science (1999) from Case

Western Reserve University. He was the Tomash

Fellow (1997–98) from the Charles Babbage

Institute at the University of Minnesota. From 1996

to 2004 he was a principal at History Enterprises,

Inc., where he coauthored three books with Dr.

Virginia Dawson. These included Taming Liquid

Hydrogen (2004), a history of the Centaur upper

stage rocket, which the American Institute of Aeronautics honored with its 2004 History Manuscript

Award. Dr. Bowles has also written Our Healing

Mission (2003), a history of Saint Francis Hospital

and Medical Center in Hartford, Connecticut. He

is currently vice president and principal at Tech Pro,

Inc., and he continues to write books on aviation

and aerospace history. He has been married to his

wife Nancy for fourteen years. They are raising their

three-year-old daughter Isabelle. He can be reached

at mark.bowles@case.edu.

About the Authors

Robert Arrighi is an archivist for InDyne, Inc. at

the NASA Glenn Research Center supporting the

History Office and the Imaging Technology Center. He received his B.A. in History (1997) from

Cleveland State University and M.A. in Library and

Information Science (2001) from Kent State

University. At Kent State, he prepared the Staughton

Lynd Collection for the Department of Special

Collections and Archives. From 1998–2001 he

worked on a number of archival projects for

History Enterprises, Inc., which include the Davey

Tree Co., Temple Tifereth Israel, Huron Road

Hospital, Matrix Essentials, and the National Institutes of Health. Between 2001–03, he worked

on a project archiving NASA’s Plum Brook Reactor

Facility documents and identifying artifacts.

During this period, Arrighi cowrote the accompanying documentary script and served as a consultant for the many facets of the reactor historical

preservation project. He began working with

InDyne, Inc. in June 2003. He can reached at

robert.arrighi@grc.nasa.gov.

About the Authors
186 NASA’s Nuclear Frontier: The Plum Brook Reactor Facility

NASA History Monographs

All monographs except the first one are available by sending a self-addressed 9- by 12-inch envelope

for each monograph with appropriate postage for 15 ounces to the NASA History Office, Code ZH,

Washington, DC 20546. A complete listing of all NASA History Series publications is available at

http://history.nasa.gov/series95.html on the World Wide Web. In addition, a number of monographs

and other History Series publications are available online from the same URL.

Launius, Roger D., and Aaron K. Gillette, compilers. Toward a History of the Space Shuttle: An Annotated

Bibliography. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 1, 1992. Out of print.

Launius, Roger D., and J.D. Hunley, compilers. An Annotated Bibliography of the Apollo Program. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 2, 1994.

Launius, Roger D. Apollo: A Retrospective Analysis. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 3, 1994.

Hansen, James R. Enchanted Rendezvous: John C. Houbolt and the Genesis of the Lunar-Orbit Rendezvous

Concept. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 4, 1995.

Gorn, Michael H. Hugh L. Dryden’s Career in Aviation and Space. Monograph in Aerospace History, No.

5, 1996.

Powers, Sheryll Goecke. Women in Flight Research at NASA Dryden Flight Research Center from 1946 to

1995. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 6, 1997.

Portree, David S.F., and Robert C. Trevino. Walking to Olympus: An EVA Chronology. Monograph in

Aerospace History, No. 7, 1997.

Logsdon, John M., moderator. Legislative Origins of the National Aeronautics and Space Act of 1958:

Proceedings of an Oral History Workshop. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 8, 1998.

Rumerman, Judy A., compiler. U.S. Human Spaceflight, A Record of Achievement 1961–1998. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 9, 1998.

Portree, David S.F. NASA’s Origins and the Dawn of the Space Age. Monograph in Aerospace History, No.

10, 1998.

Logsdon, John M. Together in Orbit: The Origins of International Cooperation in the Space Station.

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 11, 1998.

Phillips, W. Hewitt. Journey in Aeronautical Research: A Career at NASA Langley Research Center.

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 12, 1998.

Braslow, Albert L. A History of Suction-Type Laminar-Flow Control with Emphasis on Flight Research.

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 13, 1999.

Logsdon, John M., moderator. Managing the Moon Program: Lessons Learned Fom Apollo. Monograph in

Aerospace History, No. 14, 1999.

Perminov, V. G. The Difficult Road to Mars: A Brief History of Mars Exploration in the Soviet Union. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 15, 1999.

Tucker, Tom. Touchdown: The Development of Propulsion Controlled Aircraft at NASA Dryden.

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 16, 1999.

Maisel, Martin, Giulanetti, Demo J., and Dugan, Daniel C. The History of the XV-15 Tilt Rotor Research

Aircraft: From Concept to Flight. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 17, 2000 (NASA SP–2000–

4517).

NASA History Monographs
187

Jenkins, Dennis R. Hypersonics Before the Shuttle: A Concise History of the X-15 Research Airplane.

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 18, 2000 (NASA SP-2000-4518).

Chambers, Joseph R. Partners in Freedom: Contributions of the Langley Research Center to U.S. Military

Aircraft of the 1990s. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 19, 2000 (NASA SP–2000–4519).

Waltman, Gene L. Black Magic and Gremlins: Analog Flight Simulations at NASA’s Flight Research Center.

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 20, 2000 (NASA SP–2000–4520).

Portree, David S.F. Humans to Mars: Fifty Years of Mission Planning, 1950–2000. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 21, 2001 (NASA SP–2001–4521).

Thompson, Milton O. with J.D. Hunley. Flight Research: Problems Encountered and What They Should

Teach Us. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 22, 2001 (NASA SP–2001–4522).

Tucker, Tom. The Eclipse Project. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 23, 2001 (NASA SP–2001–

4523).

Siddiqi, Asif A. Deep Space Chronicle: A Chronology of Deep Space and Planetary Probes 1958–2000.

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 24, 2002 (NASA SP–2002–4524).

Merlin, Peter W. Mach 3+: NASA/USAF YF-12 Flight Research, 1969–1979. Monograph in Aerospace

History, No. 25, 2001 (NASA SP–2001–4525).

Anderson, Seth B. Memoirs of an Aeronautical Engineer: Flight Tests at Ames Research Center: 1940–1970.

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 26, 2002 (NASA SP–2002–4526).

Renstrom, Arthur G. Wilbur and Orville Wright: A Bibliography Commemorating the One-Hundredth

Anniversary of the First Powered Flight on December 17, 1903. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 27,

2002 (NASA SP–2002–4527).

Chambers, Joseph R. Concept to Reality: Contributions of the NASA Langley Research Center to U.S. Civil

Aircraft of the 1990s. Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 29, 2003 (NASA SP–2003–4529).

Peebles, Curtis, editor. The Spoken Word: Recollections of Dryden History, The Early Years. Monograph in

Aerospace History No. 30, 2003 (NASA SP–2003–4530).

Jenkins, Dennis R., Tony Landis, and Jay Miller. American X-Vehicles: An Inventory- X-1 to X-50.

Monograph in Aerospace History, No. 31, 2003 (NASA SP–2003–4531).

Renstrom, Arthur G. Wilbur and Orville Wright Chronology, Monograph in Aerospace History No. 32,

2003 (NASA SP–2003–4532).