I I • • 7 - This ocu ent con i ts or - r_poce Copy o _ ot L _Series_4 ______ _ MINUTES 73403 Forty-first Meeting of the General Advisory Committee to the U S Atomic Energy Ccmn ission '- July 12 13 14 and lS 1954 Albuquerque New Mexico and Los Alamos New Mexico CLASSIF1CAT10N CANCELLED WITH DELETIONS 4- '1 s --- -· ------- tlli c tc M1r u1E S O h _ I • -r' T DP'- F 11 - _ _ 1 _ _a_ _ --- 1 0 ¥ JL 7 fK c'1J r T m 1 I IlIDEX 1 Minutes Forty-first Meeting GAC Weapon Briefings • • • • • • • • • • • •• • • • • Sandia Briefings • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Sandia Laboratory • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Missile Applications • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Possible Thennonuclear Missiles • • • • • • Air Defense Weapons • • • • • • • • • • • • • Air-to-Air Rocket Systems Studies • • • • • • Aspects of Anti-Aircraft Warheads • • • • • • Fu zing • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Retarded Trajectories • • • • • • • • • • • • Two-Stage Weapons • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 'l'X -15 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Contact Fuze Difficulties • • • • • • • • • • • Weapon Effects• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Product Testing· • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • External Initiators • • • • • _ • • • • • • • • Los Alamos Briefings • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Review of Castle • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Present Status of TN Weapons • • • • • • • • • • Current Weapons • • • • • • • • • • • • • TN Weapon Classes • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Equivalent Oralloy Costs • • • • • • • • • Forward Looking Prospects in 'IN Weapons • • • • Li-7 as a Fuel • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Uniformity of Comp ssion• • • • • • • • • Bomb Weight • • - • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Class D Candidate • • • • • • • • • • • • • Primary Bombs • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Crossover Class D and Boosted Fission ••• T a Weapons • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Bo b t - - cti ai Tactical Bomb Tests • • • • • • • • • • • • Thermonuclear External Initiator • • • • • • Nuclear Safeing • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Safeing car r J 2- 35 2 2 2 2 3 3 3 4 S 4 s s s 6 8 9 10 10 12 12 13 14 15 lS l S 16 16 17 17 18 19 20 20 20 21 22 22 Safety of i i-i- ' • • • • • • • • • • • • Possible Nuclear Safety Test • • • • ••• 22 Improvements in the 30 KT Region • • • • • • • • 22 Recessed Detonators 23 Hydrodynamic Improverients--External Initiation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Boosting • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Possible Tests • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 23 23 24 1 r- - ¥ ' ' · • ' • INDEX Continued ii Weapons Briefings Continued •••••• •• •••• •••••• ••••• •••••• 24 24 25 25 25 • • • • • • 26 15 22 32 34 35 •• ••••••• 27 • • • • • • • • • 30 • • • • • • • • 30 •••••••• 32 • • • • • • • • • • • 32 ••• '• • • • • • • • 32 3 3 •• •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • '• • 3Z • • • • • • • • • 34 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3S • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 35 Uranium-233 Production Program • • • • • • • • • • • • Case A and Case B • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Discussion of Case B• • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Possible U-233 Bomb Test • • • • • • • • • • • • • Impurity Specifications for U- 3 3 • • • • ••• •• Thorium Ore Supply • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Interaction with Tritium Production • • • • • • • • 42 42 44 4445 45 47 Predetonation • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 47 Meeting with the Chairman of the Commission • • • • • 49-53 GAC Discussions Aircraft Nuclear Propulsion Program • • • • • • • • Attitudes of the Air Force • • • • • • • • • • • • Reactor Subcor mdttee to Oak Ridge • • • • • • Discussion of U-233 Program Case B • • • • • • • • U-233 Test Shot • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • GAC Discussion or Weapon Briefings • • • • • • • • • Sar1dia • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 36 53 36 53 44-47 50-52 52 53 53 The Revolution in Weapons and the Growing Importance of Sandia • • • • • • • • • • • • • 54Need for Encouraging Systems Studies at Sandia •• 54 Los Alamos • • • • • • • • • • • • • • -- J · c· · r· iii INDEX Continued GAC Discussions Continued • ss Livermore • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Difficulties with Livermore Program • • • • • 56 v1eapon Subcommittee Study of Livemore • • • • 56 Test Programs • ' • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 57 Philo sophy of Weapon Development • • • • • • • • 57· Report of the Reactor Subcommittee • • • • • • • Boiling Reactor • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Breeder • • • • • • • ' • • • • • • • • • • • Availability of Hanford and Savannah Reports to ANL • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 58 · • 58 • 60 • 61 Other Matters Sunshine Progress • • • • • ·• • • • • • • • • • Letter Dr Oppenheimer • • • • • • • • • • • • Aftermath of the Oppenheimer Case • • • • • • • • Distribution of GAC Minutes • • • • • • • • • • • Minutes of the 40th Meettng • • • • • • • • • • • Dates Next Meeting •• • • • • • • • • • • • • • Matters for Next Meeting • • • • • • • • • •• 41 40 50 39 401 57 61 61 Schedule and Agenda 41st Meeting • • • • • • • • • Appendix _A Chairman's Report References •• • • • • • • • • • • Item l • • • • • • _ • • • • • • • Item 2 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • Item 3 e • • • • • • • • • • 3 b • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 3 c • • • • • • • • • • • Appeneix B 50 52 53 53 55 SS 3 d • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 57 3 e • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 57 Item 4 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 58 Item 5 • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • • 61 Expacted Attendance at Briefings • • • ' f ' · # • Appendix C · -1- Secretary's Notes The Comnittee met at the Sa ndia Laboratory in Albuquerque on July 12 and at Los Alamos on the three succeeding days Except tor an executive session of the Cormnittee on the night or July 14 the first three days re devoted to program briefings by the Sandia Los Alamos and Livermore laboratories These briefings were also attended by members or the Military Liaison Com nittee the Coo rdinating Committee on Atomic Energy and its Technical Advisory Panel ' A list of the expected attendance at the briefings furnished at Sandia is attached as Appendix C Dr Wigner was unable to attend this Meeting - -· ' '· -2FIRST SESSION July 12 1954 The Committee met at the Sandia Laboratory at 8110 a m All Sandia members except Dr Wig er we resent The Secretary and Mr Tomei Bri fings · ' were present In addition other groups as noted in Appendix C and members of the Sandia staff attended The session was opened by Mr James W McRae who welcomed the Sandia visitors and remarked brief1¥ on the Sandia Laboratory and its status Laboratory He mentioned that the past year had been marked by the consolidation of the staff into groups and that the stai'f size had levelled off at 5300-5400 people About 45% of the laboratory's effort is devoted to production activities 55% to research and developnent the latter as follows specific weapons development and design 5 3% field testing 1 18% quality assurance 3% ·research ion services 5% H9 classified 11% and inforrr a- The first two presentations were to be en weapons development and design Mr L A Hopkins ¥ iss le discussed missile applications He emphasized at the start the severity of the logistics problems involved in the Applica- t 0 s use of missile-borne atomic warheads and said it -as time to reconsider the stockpiling of complete warheads 5 ble r ·- 1 a r t- 1 s les Mr Hopkins showed slides pic ur- ing various missiles and discussed each in turn After comm mting on the Honest John rocket Arzcy- and the Navy depth boob he mentio 1eci the following as possible carriers for thermonuclear apons Rascal Regulus-2 500 mle range Snark one mile accuracy at 5000 riles Redstone Navaho II and Atlas He said it '-as urgent to decide oi7 - ter r r · nr __y•v s r v 1 ·· -'- -•J 1 J E ' fl r- - -3large size atomic XW-13 or class C thermonuclear weapona were to be carried by the Snark and Redstone missiles Mr Hopkins turned next to the subject of air defense weapons Air · 1nent ioning1 _ the Navy Talos event ualfy to carcy an optimized-- Defense Weapons warheadJ the Army Nike-B to carry a 30 11 warhead the Air Force F99 Bomarc and in the conceptual stage air-to-air rockets and Nike-B are to be operational by early I 57 • The new air-to ir rock t The Taloa program was conside ed in some detail Air-to- The tightest kind of systems study on this application is necessa 1 7 Air Rocket The results of analyses relating time of flight yield and aircrart Systems Studies kill and safety were presented - A special systems study group involving S andia Los Alamos and the Special Wea pons Con mand has been set up to consider the interrelated problems of the aircraft rocket warhead fuze and fire-control and to optimize this weapon system It will have a very tight program for the next two years Some other general aspects of air defense rheads re next_ Aspects discussed a safety requirement high 1 -unit important in-flight- of AntiAircraft insertion and in-flight-retraction problems b hi£h altitude effec s 1·larheads on high vol a ge sources c readiness corrosion problems lar£ numbers needed • These considerations all point to the desirability o a canned warhead Some ideas as to what this might look like -r -oOP -tl'$ ' 11'1 ' ' ' t i • 7· r· · • The last subject discussed by Mr Henderson was the thermonuclear weapon program The TX-14 TX-16 and TX-17 con titut e our emergency Two- Stage Weapons 'l'X-14 and TX-16 are to be retired thermonuclear capability · There is a program to develop a paraohute for the TX-17 for ·a smaller time ot fall than the p r e s e n t Automatic n clcar insertion ia being worked on 4 Contact fuzing desired for surf ce burst applications • • • is being worked on but presents difficult prdblems available for at least two It will not be years ' The TX-1 5 is the -weapon considered to fill the class-C 1N 'IX-15 requirement Sandia has assumed responsibility for the detailed internal engineering ot this apon and has thus become for the · first time involved in nuclear design subject to control by Los Alamos is scheduled for April 30 1955 The partioular program is The first delivery to t e stockpile The bomb is engineered for storage as a completely assembled unit except for the tail fins It·is equipped with barometric and proximity f'uzes some consider contact fuzing a must The 17 400 lb TX-21 is in its infancy Mr Henderson said that a lightened version might eventually take the place of the TX-15 in filling the class C requirement The TX-21 appears to be compatible with the B-58 aircraft Hustler • An effort 'Will be made to standardize the fuzing in the differePt theri onuclear apons C0 w act _ There were some questions and discussions by the group mainly o i Fuze Diffi- fuzing for surface burst applications4 culties There seems to be a diVerger ce r - r A -4- After questions and discussion there was a 1S-m1nute break eting was resumed at 9 4 5 a m The next presentation Fuzing nte on fuzing questions bomb release methods and the thermonuclear weapon program was made by Mr R W Henderson He revie-wed the developnents 1n fuzing stratogi and tactical bomb f In order to simplify field logistics barometrio fuzing fuze A waa substituted for the earlier radar fuzing in strategic _weapons A contact fuze is also used Fuze B developed for t ctica l applications of the MK-7 bomb has radar air burst timer d contact fuzes With respect to the number of options burst altit de ·_ s· paxation times etc which the tactical fuze should pres t to the pilot operating · experience and systems studies have indicated options should be reduced that the present seven When agreeme t on details has been reached the simplification will be applied across the board The problem of retarding trajectories in order to give the plane Retarded ti me to get away was discussed An air brake dilled lhe Rotochute Trajec tories and working on the autogyro principle is being tested On the MK-7 it reduces the Mr Henderson next discussed various carrying arrangements fo the MK-7 bomb external versus bomb bay for supersonic delivery t-- · - -c- _Lr i _J -6- o opinion Yhethor proximity fuzing is satisfactor y about contact fuzing £1 the The difficult7 two-stage weapons arises from the acts · that the bomb bays of th in these weapons and that - ' -- available carriers do not have BUfficient space for fuze assembly external to the case It was suggested that a walking stick arrangement might be resorted to Thie d 1 scussion concluded the morning meet g and the session was adjourned at 11 00 a m Between this time and noon the groups vi ited a mock-up room in 'Which various warheads and missile mountings were shown The exhibits included a full TX-15 c esembly SECOND SESSION July 12 19 4 Thie session began at 12 45 p m Attendance was the same as at the first session After introductory remarks by Mr McRae the ubject of weapon Weapon effects as they come into systems studies was discussed by Mr S c Effects Hight The Sandia Laboratory's primary interes in this subject is in lea -ning how best to fuze Tactical and air defense uses are receiving particular attention at present Mr Hight gave a list of the phenomer a of interest their approximate scaling laws in terms of yield W and in some cases D dis a '1ce He also listed kill and safe criteria 0 I--·· I - I -7Phenomenon Kill crushing overpressure dynamic pressure Approximate Scaling Factors Safe 6 psi 1 psi 1 psi 0 1 psi wl 3 wl 3 10 cal cm2 5000 r irmled iate 700 r delayed 2 cal cm2 2 W D 25-50 r W D2 wind force thermal penetrating radiation induced contamination n fallout n • wl S 0 1 r dq wl 3 wl 3 II less than l S c rater radii craters wl 3 fireball The presentation was aided by a large number of heig t of burst charts for the various apons effects out were the following There is a 11 Some of the points brought bonus factor in the scaled effects on a light steel frame structure for example of 1 MT versus ' those of 1 KT due to the longer wind duration with the higher yield explosion Against aircraft dynamic pressure and penetrating radia- tion effects seem the most importa t For a 2 KT shot against a E-29 at 10 000 ft th 5000 r radiation envelope reaches out farther than the thermal and wind effects except in certain directions in which the last have a greater lethal ra ge larger lethal radius than any At 40 000 rt radiation has a other effect With respect to sur a e contamination induced activity predominates over fallout for high altitude bursts DOE ARCHIVES II I- - • Next after a few questions Dr Walter MacNair discussed two subjects product testing and the external initiator program Dr MaciNa r contrasted product testing in th·e manufacture of Product nuclear weapons with the usual manufactu ing situation in which items Testing large are produced tor public use in quantities In the latter ca e large ecale customer use supplies an overali statistical quality test on the item a method not applidable to nuclear weapons The Sandia i Laboratory attempts to invent and develop substitutes for customer use testing this effort accounts for about one thl rd of the labora- tory's total budget The tests include laboratory determinations of the reactions of components to environmental conditions impact vibration acceleration climatic exposure win tunnel e nts o bomb shape and full scale field tests In the latter -tully instrumented non- uolear s o yMK-6 wea ave been carried -15 1 out for example - aJ sr ' JJ TX-14 quality assurance program is c ied out in the fashion' fof industrial spot- check inspections Finally each completed stockpile item is sub jec t ed to a continuing surveillance The surveilla 'lce ·p rogram begins with a complete non-destructive test when the item arrives in the stockpile It is tested subsequently at intervals of not less tha l eighteen months The present stockpile items are tested every five nonths on the average In ans r to questions Dr ¥ a cNair said that components in the stockpile occasio ally fail to meet specific3- tions but there is practically never a bomb that wouldn't work DOE ARCHIVES rv r' -9' The _engineering status of the external W ti ator ·was next e neutron ce i the D-T eacti n tritium ions Initiators be ni ££me ated and acoe1e ated t o a Ti--D target The unit produces Exte fual described DELETED ignificant size reductions have been accomplished and the unit is now compatible with the MK-7 bomb It may also be compatible with the TX-12 Dr MacNair said that the present units have one cha 11ce in 170 of not performing properly This can probably be improved by 5elec- tion of con ponents and by potting procedures _ - - ----- ¼ The interim solution -- - - - - - is to testing eyecy 90 days • It is hoped that improvements will allow the tests to be I put on a six month basis The till ' in condensers require particular attention This initiator would present simpler testing proble s in the stockpile than Tom but more complicated f t if1l· c- _y- • In the question perio _the follow1ng points ere brought out Compared t ft D • -I Jthe external initiator has the ad- -antages of a pti tm mi timing b irnpler nu lear sa fe i ng problems and c applicability to special assenblies such as hollow spheres The reasons for using it are thus entirely different' frO' l the reasons for substituting _er - lilrMt-Ifll _ · longiir shelf-life and s y nuf ture -1 0 J _1tcrl ° J'E 3 - - -- - · - · a 'J - -- -10- -' A program is coming along on nuclear saf eing of high I yield weapons however the military requirement has not yet been formulated Considerable interest was shown 1n pro ximit7 and contact fuzes The proximity fuze program is being pushed it is hoped that 400 will be available for experimental purposes by the end or the year The problems of contac fuzing two-stage weapons are great _one does not know how to do it at present This session was adjourned at 3 10 p m 'fiURD SESSION Ju 13 1954 The briefings were resumed at 9105 a m in the S conference Los lamos Brief- all members of the Committee _ ' · · except Dr _ Wigner the Secretary and Mr Tomei h t er visiting room at Los Alamos Those present were groups Appendix C and members of the Los Alemos ·staff Dr Bradbury opened the meeting by welcoming the visitors and introducing the LASL presentations In the first talk Dr Graves revie ed the results of the Castle s -_ _ew tests He Rentioned changes made during t he tests can ation of of Castle ' ' ' ' ' the shot in view of the high yields o f the _ firing of a ified - ' ' ' _ ' and the cancellation of the· · ---- hot at LivermoreT request after t h e shot -1' The following t ulation gives essentially final results as to yield and alpha of the various shots -- - - ff- -11Yield Total Yield from fission Alpha ball of radiochemical Shake-l fire Predicted Yield 4-8 MT 15 ±0 5 MT 1-7 11 0 5 ·· Cai 2 1 7 1-4 ' __ i 1 7 Lz r c j -I 1 3 5 1 0 ca ll @ ff1 - L r J 7 i 0 5 1-6 C j » 0 • 3 0 1 3± 0 0 3 · The predicted yield' d f o r · was that made on the basis V of the results hf-ia 6 1shot mad e with a The last hots· listed were the others w i t h - The fission yields · - observed were in approximate except in the case of 'V _ V ' the expected ratio to he tote l yields - 1 ' ' _v • The time intervals i microseconds between deto ation of the prir- ary and j i· The figures· in p rentheses are those which were predicted before the shots Radiochemical fast neutron detectors by n 2n placed at various ---- 0 - - - f- - ' t -• ' l-- - I' I t ·- 2 - - ' ii--- - -- - • _ -- - -12Commenting on fall-out measurements Dr Gra s mentioned difficulties in recovering the uoya and barges after· shot cancellations as well as after the actual shots and said that he believed the best data would come from measurements made on· the oce water occurs in a turbulent surface layer of limited depth Mixing • Fallout was sufficient to iµ ve an integrated dose greater than 400 r_over an area The Navy wash-down system proved to be of 5000-6000 square miles great value on the vessels exposed to fallout ot Dr Graves believed that the integrated fallout from the barge shots was about the same from the land shots but spread over a larger area Next Dr R E Schreiber revie-wed 11 the pre ent status following immediatei - from the Castle operation F esent Status or weapons The following table gives the essential information 'fli Weapons Name or next' - -2 LJ in Class Weight pounds 14-0 A- 32 000 17-0 A 42 000 24-0 A II 17-1 A n 24-1 A II C ·e it w pone Yield · atons --- In production L J - LU B 21-0 •r• t ____ '- 1a ooo t Oak Ridge production - mey have - ' - Scheduled for stockpi1 e entcy Dec 1 54 · · At that time production of 17-0 and 24 wiM cease Stockpile entry ca August 155 • ' 'lllil1-with normal lithiUill -hi ch Stockpile entry ca April 1 55 7 400 C Limited production To be retired by Sept 30 1 1 5i In production -J 15-0 status ' - • • r--- 1--4 ti 0 0 A to be used depending on the -JJThe class entries above refer to guidance deecriptione est abliehe4 TN by the military and have the foliowing meanings approximately Weapon Classes Class As weight 5 0 000 lb or less minimum yield B 23 000 to be reduced to 15 000 11 II C 8500 or le as tJ II D 3000 to 4000 The TX-14 assembly has serious operational disadvantages in that the as a read Y-weapon - •- p ' V' 1 ' 'p• soo e to assemble and is quite expensive it be considered only as an interim device It is very cumber- Hence ·LASL has recommended Its components will be ref abricated The listed as 17-1 above has some major engineering changes from the Mod-0 1 which introduce new problems of fabrication fro n the weaponry standpoint __ The main changes a re 1 2 3 4 I - I -14- Dr Schreiber in response to a que tion from Mr Winns listed the equivalent oralloy and Li6 costs ot the various two-stage apa s as follows 93 5% oy kg U235 37 5% oy k U232 Li6D kR Li6 nrichment 17 24-0 E ·dya- 17-1 j_e_1t Ortl1 - c3ts 24-1 15-0 21-0 The 17-0 also uses_ ·nEL TLJ - - -_ Each weapon also requires -· I - -- • • - - • 93 5% oralloy for the primary -• r • At this point there was a 20-minute break The briAfings were Forward resumed at 11 00 a m at which time Dr Carson Mark discussed forward Looking · _ Pros- looking prospects ·1n two-stage weapons pecta · in ffl· Dr Mark began by commenting on the fact that the yields of th · Cast1e shots were substantially higher than predicted in most cases This is now understood in terms of nuclea reactions of lithium- which had formerly been assumed to be a much less good fuel than lithium-6 or liquid deuterium 11 -7 as a 'E'uel Un - · formit7 · - · -- of Compres· sion l 1 r- ' -16- Bon · - • ' I Weight I Class D Candi da te f ' -17- Pri nar y Bc n B re ssove Class D and Boosted Fission 1 - DELETEll This session -was adjourned at 12 15 p m FOURTH SESSION July 13 1954 The briefings were resumed at 1 30 pom Dr Bradbury introduced Tactical Dr Duncan MacDouga 11 who talked on the developme ct of tactical we ns i· s pons of small size and yield Dr lfa c 1 said there were three sizes of warhead on the books of nominal dia IrP-ters 30 11 22 11 and 15 to give Exact specifications in the z rl lita ry requirement still seem so iewhat open There seems to be no 5trong interest in the 3on·lllil_weapon which co1 ld ' ' itS 1 ' '- ' 1' v of be n ade now with existing techniques 1n the 15 size for air-to-air rocket delivery and in the 22 11 size for delivery by a device such as Talos W ' ' ' 'tf' • d C DillTED I I t ' Interest appears to be greatest r-· y 2Z 11 t ta tical Bomb J' Tacti- cal Bomb Tes s Tharmo-' nu lear er- I nctl ' Ir itifitor Ls I ✓ 1 V v- A 3011 weapon can be made now with conventional r thods Ii' there were real interest on the part of the n ilitary establishment ir a weapon of this size-yield characteristics considerable savings in · -- - - - - - --- iseionable material could be accomplished relative to the smaller weapons However the degree or such interest is not at the momc t clo r In a _brief' question period the following points were brought out The next presentation was by Dr Sch -eiber on the subject of nuclea •- Nncl• ar safeing P 7 He illustrated the problem by referring to a sc_aled-up_1 feing It is assumed that any accidental detonation will occur at o e point o llj i e that the electrical safeing is cOC1pletely reliable The basic circuznstance being ·worried about is c -ash on take-off followed by The following were given as possible criteria for nuclear safeing ·- _ - __ _ -- fj_-- - '-' ' - - •4 -- -b- --• - -- • J- rt -22- ' 1 alpha is never positivej · ' 2 a pha does not become ositive before the system disassembles Safeing Criteria ' 1 e before about forty gcneretionsj 3 the nuclear explosion resulting from a one point detonation should not exceed that possible with the normal HE load carried by the aircraft 4 safety by probability i e that the net estimate or the compound probability for the sequence of events leading to an accidental nuclear _explosion be acceptably small Dr Schreiber favor d 3 as a workable_ driteriori _ It ould req that t h - a cident nuclear i l -s th abo ut_ - • t · •· A calculation has been ma e for tr efil'JI esign on the assumptions that 4 1 or - V the n hnal nergy oes into •preserves Safety • sphe i ai symnetry d the time of implosion is in -E ased • over normai · • by · r t h e calculat Oh • • • hec vy meta1 the metal system • • -be • · • • a factor 1 6 inverse square root of E is The result or that a 100 t'l l bang_ wouJ d·-result from one point of ✓4· detbnat ionJ hence that the il 'i' s not nuclearly safe by this critericn v The assumptions of the calculation are co servath'e however a l'ld the 1 --· accidental yield of t e jJould probab y not actually exceed 1' _J r2- ible Dr Schreiber said that- experinental cne point detonation test wot i d - - lear - 'ety probably be proposed eventually At this point there w s a brief coffee break -- ---- 1 ext Dr l' acDougall sooke on ideas or i Dprover ients in the 30 Kry Ir p 'ove·__ 1 '1 r e -rts has the following characteristics 5 the region The present 30 KT t -- · - Region -eight 1600 lbs yield about 30 KT equivalent oralloyf ' l'tJ·1f _ - -· l ii' ¥£i - DOE ARCHI'VES - -23• Tactical applications of this weapon would involve large numbers it ie therefore worthwhile to investigate what could be one to reduce the equivalent oralloy cost Rec3ssed Det ona- tora H rdroc ynamic Improveme 1- External Initia ion Bo 3ting - -- _ -•-- - - C ' -24- Possible It is not intended to push these developnents for a test of Teapot Tests but a test might be m e in about a year and a halt If 11 dirty11 plutonium high 240 content becomes cheap and plentifyl Wea 1on through production in power reactors it is of inter at to oonsid r how Us of · · Db y it might be used in weapons Dr Mark made a few comnents on this rl·2 onium · subj ot - - - ----• ---- -- -• •• ' - I • _ _ r - _A' - ' 'T ' - _ _ -2SIf -- 1 Dr Mark mentioned t- - he Greenhouse _Item ' e o big pre a sure D-T gas was detonated with a stead¥ aou -ce and gave i l I • • • I • -- Dirty plutonium could obviously have been bsed • · Arter a few questions Dr Schreiber gave the next presentation Wea 0n Usa ot on the subject of he use f anium-23 ' 3' U-- 3 - - - '- ± t - - -T ' -- - - 1 -i _ i t - · - -26Dr Schreiber emphasized that the figures for the two sizes were calculated on different bases and hence could not be directl - compared it ia not valid to conclude that the At 4 25 p m this session was adjourned FIFTH SESSION July 14 1954 The meeting began at 9 00 a m Dr Wigner were present All me cbers of the· Committee except The Secretary and Mr Tomei were present other groups involved in the briefings gave Dr Graves were The also present · the first presentation on the subject of the test Test programs Afte reviewing operation a rid safety problems partioul ly Programs as affected by weather he outlined the thinking witH respect to the next tests -- Teapot Nevada 1 Maroli 155 Post Teapot Nevada l Septembe 1 5$ atid Redwiil Pa 1fic lMarch 1 56 p°' · LASL will probably shoot 2 KT in 22 11 ' ' ' testJ and a booster test '-' ' Teapo t- 1611 2 KT 22 11 111 1111 external i li tiation a case V There will be ore pro sals for a case study and for Consideration is also being given to a group of shots proposed by the military a 2 KT high-altitude 40 000 ft shot for effects studies bearing on ground-to-air uses a i5-30 KT to r shot for effects stuc ies on drone planes and a 1 KT unc ergNund 65 ft shot bearing on de lition applications The Federal Civil Defense Agency has tW9 1 -' 4 1 ' i V • J• • s l ' rj • s -' -- · · ' -27proposals an effects test on shelters and an open shot meaning open to large numbers or visitors These will probably be combined with other tests Dr Graves remarked that it was a long list with only liniited possibilities for making combination shots He said it was proposed to group together the shots of different organizations There are a number or possibilities for shots in Post-Teapota ·2-stage tests one point detonation predetonation an optimized 30 KT beryllium tamper Li6D booster r ' or a gas booster - a 3011 2 KT device · Dr Graves said that c - good predetonation or beryllium tamper experiment had not been thought of yet Redwing might include a class D device LASL a class D device Livermore a class B weapon proof test e g a 15 000 lb shortened 11 11111 a ciass Cweapon · ' · · Wigwam a proposed underwater test also mentioned booste -llli 2 MT • vi' 30 KT at 2000 ft depth was and a high yield The nominal date is 15 May 1 55 There was some discussion oni operational problems in tests fallout rom air drops the possibility of even larger oultimegaton shots the importance pro and con of do ng a good predetonation experiment At 10 40 a m there was a coffee break the meeting resumed at 11 00 a m At this time Dr Bradbury delivered a critique on the philosoph ARCHIVES -- - DOE Philoso- of '-eapon design phy of - Weapon From 1947 until 1954 Dr Bradbury said the country's thinking Design has been defined by a h o ailnsnsional array of cores varsus bo nb sizes • _ I • -F'I s - - ' - -- q•- r-· · in -hioh interchangeability or cores in bombs was a dominant feature He expressed concern that this thinking -- we don 1 t know what we want to do but want to be able to do anything -- is no lenser relevant or c and · appropria e Since 19 54 the WO-stage classes A B DJu ch have been set up over the spectrum of yields and of vehicles in the thermonuclear • field In a number of cases they 8 ppear to render particular standard • T e MK-6 d MK-13 with ·wEdghts corresponding fission bombs obsolete to class B-47 to o are dead dueksil yone go ng to care about u·sing a deliver kilotorts eri 3 MT bombs or the same weight are avail- Jble Is the MK- 5 worth tori rliasses c l-rying -- who prefers it to a class D weapoa appear to cover the strategic area Dr Bradbury spoke The A Is for abandoning the array ccncept He suggested instead additional classes to co er the tactical are 11 Class E -- For fighter bombers missile warheac s etc This might be the size of MK-7 3011 weight 16oo lb and yield -1 - Is this the proper size and yield to fix on or the particular purpose The real poLjt is to fix on a device with characteristics that people want and then to make that w-eapon the best we can 11 Class F 11 Cla ss G11 11 - - - - e 1 ' ' Do i ' A ' • r 7r i -- • Ji • t • 30 MK-7 1600 l b 11 There might be two subclasses G1 and G11 in the 15-2211 range for air-to-air defense anti-submarine use missile warheads -·- --- -2911 Class H etc -- Gun types So far all guns are inter- changeable which exacts· penalties especially when one goes to emap er and Slllaller designs ' Dr Bradbury emphasized that he was not proposing what the detailed ciaas descriptions should be but ·was proposing a philosophy namely to fix on types in which large numbers are needed to develop the best possibie weapons with the best achievable characteristics of each lype without penalizing the design by requiring that the core be interchangeable with some other i e strategic weapon The main tactical classes will require large numbers instant readiness and very wide deployment Under these circumstances interckmgeability is not relevant 'The gain to be achieved from abandoning the arrey concept could be an increase in the number of weapons use of boosting by a factor of li-2 wit 10ut the If one accepts the further specialization of boosting the factors are probably larger still If one clings to the concept of interchangeability on the other hand the further gains that can be made in the fission field are very limited DOE ARCHIVES There was an animated discussion following Dr Bradbury's marks One point in particular was whether the gc p between 30 KT and 1 MT was without interest Opinions pro and con were expressed No one preser 7 hoio -ever voiced any dissent of principle with the changes in attitude proposed by Dr Bradbury This session was adjourned at 12 05 p m i - • - 30- - - ---1 §IXTH SESSION July 14 1954 Liver- The final session·or the briefings was devoted to Livermore matters • • The 12eting bogan at lt 30 p m more Briet-· ings 1111 After brief comments by Dr E O Lawrence Dr_ Ed_ward Teller revie ad Livennore ts thermonu le r program J Dr Teller beian by saying that ot the expected_ 3 MT Analysis for - giving 1 30 KT instead had b e ve Z dis pfo t t The reason the low yield was - - · was to be learned from the test however A great deal - •- -• To do eo was important because all the more ·1n lighter V v and s naller TN weapons l's the •' Dr Teller then proceeded to a detailed exposition ot what had been 1earned from the x p e r i m e n t · ome · ' t - points were as follows -- ' · ' • ' - _ • CS• • -- I _ 2 - - -- _- - ' - 32- - - - t · ' Livo 'mol•e The 110- nuclear Plans Pcssible Case Tesi Posiible Tests - - - - - --- I ------- -Jj- - - --- -- - -- - -- - -- t- • _ ___ _ _-· ¥- •• - er -- -- - --- ·- -- There was a coffee break at 2 55 p m about Li vet- Small We one Liv-cr- Most progress has more -- -- l I - Characteristics of soos various sizes were gi -en as follo Length ir ches Dia eter Weight pounds 7 10 I 36 50 100 5 ---- - -- -· -- - 16 4 2 11 •- ·- -· __ 10 11 - 800 -35- I _ A te_st shot program for this development ha _s ot Y jelled Possible Tests current thinking is to make one quite conservative · to be followed by a second shot shot The not a prototype In the hydride program Livermore was exploring the ·possibilities Hydride Program of substituting UH3 fo U inetal However the situation was V' ry uncertain Various fabricc - ' tion and handling methods are being investigated There were a number of questions and some discussion about the ideas Dr York had 'Nported This final session of the conbined briefings closed at 4 20 p rn - - -- -__ _ · · -- --- - · ' I • • '· -36SEVENTH SESSION July 14 19 54 The Committee met in executive session at 8 10 p m All members The others present were the Secretary were present _except Dr Wigner and Mr Tomei The topic of discu sion was the aircraft reactor program in view Air e ft or · Nuc ear Propul- 1 The commente in the Chai 's Report or the 4oth Meeting letter sion Program I I Rabi ' to ewis i Strauss June 3 1954 that the Committee was favorably impre ssed to the item 2 effect by th plan to marry t-h•l ORNL-Pratt and Whitney programs for the 11 fireball propulsion mechanism had heard of the GE and NDA proposals and suggested ' unnecessary duplication a st of the_ program as a whole to avoid and to sharpen the objectives 2 The request in the pre-meeting letter H D Szeyth t I I Rabi · July 9 1954 for an elaboration of these c e t Dr Rabi asked whether he had correctly expressed the Committee's - position in 1 and received assurances that he had Yll' Murphree remarked on some considerations by the Atcmic Energ Panel of the DOD which had also felt a study would be in order Dr Ra bi asked Dr von Neumann to set forth his understanding cf current attitudes of the Air Force in ·the light of his recent conv n·s i•of t -1 Air sation with Mr Zimmerman head of the Operations_ Research Section of Force SAC Dr von Naumann responded with the following renarks A 1 t l - t Jes _ • ' _ i a j 11 '• ' • • _ • • -- '' • '1 ·-r- ---· - _· l -37 1 It is realized that the main mission is now a lti-eir force e g destruction of aircraft on the ground and not industrial destruction All lse is secondary 2 There is great interest in large weapons 3 The weapons which now exist can essentially fulfil their needs The carriers leave much to be desired 4 They are very interested in cont ct fuzing and unhappy that this is not receiving more attention 5 Ballistic missiles may become _very important but they will not supplant aircraft At least one more heavy plane I ast the B-_52 is - -· needed Nuclear propulsion_ is very much de ired it ia considered more important than bomb development 6 The dispersion ideal would be about five pla 'les on an air field • Considerable dispersion may be expected in the next 2- 3 years 7 Speed may not be decisive in a heavy plane High altitude may be more important There -was a lengthy discussion on tr e proper attitude for the GAC to take with respect to nuclear aircraft develc-pment _and its organi tional arrangements Most of the membe -s were prepared to endorse the ' ' great urgency of this development Mr MurphreeJ Dr RabiJ a ld Dr - rcn Neur ann were particularly inclined to th s view Mr Whitman on t e other handJ tended to take a more cautious position He said he as i --i favor of a nuclear powered plane but -as not convinced it shoul '£ S B v s i-J• 1 0 - first priority ' ' ---- -- - • - _ l Jf 4-1 - -'I - 38The Committee found no reason to revise its conclusions as expressed 1n the Minutes and Chairman 1 e Report of the· 40th Meeting The pres nt problem appeared to be one of emphasis and or the best organizational arrangements for achieving-the desired ends It was tentatively decided that the Reactor Subcommittee would study the • situation and visit Oak Ridge and GE before the r ext meeting The following two paragraphs convey - a l idea of the · discussion · -- ' which took place Dr Rabi said that he had changed his opinion on the urgency r this development in view of the way the Air Force now u derstands its mission He cited a discussion which Dr Fisk and he had had with General Bunker on the need for a long flying air platform one aspect being its possible use -in very early warning · Lo g· -_ange not come in in time for the air field demolition missions -ockets may a- Whitman felt that one way missions would be inevitable and therefore that chemically powered planes would serve Dr von Neumann said that it will be seven or eight years before intercontinental missiles furnish a slight retaliatory capacity ten years before they sup la t manned planes Therefore another generation of rea 'lned planes is mieded Nuclear fuel will be an important supple ent to c emical Dr Rabi wondered whether the proposed organizational arrangeme ite involving Oak Ridge GE and NDA really would give the best 't -ray to E t the best effort behind a high priority p -ogram Would a special organization set up for the purpose be mo € effective He worried tl½t a collection of little projects would tend to dissipate effort and d'II •• • ··-· - · - - - - -_ a - 1ft _ - -- - · - ' - - -· _ -39would fail to concentrate enough push on the program Mr Whitman airdrart observed that the _best Oak Ridge people were n t on the reactor program it seemed to be grudgingly carried because of the Laboratory's ·commitment He did not feel that the program should take priority over the homogeneous ea tor development at Oak Ridge Dr Rabi and Mr Murphree disagreed pointing ·out that _Oak Ridge's responsi biti y is relatively much less in the power program then in the air- craft reactor program -- perhaps a fifth a half Mr Murphree there should be two or re t perhap three concurrent developments the art is still oo fresh for the job to be left with a single organization • The responsibilities assigned to GE could not be taken away at this stage but their effort mi_ght be pepped up Whi tne y combination is a logical ·one •• The Oak Ridge-Pratt and However Oak dge is probably not going to push hard enough perhaps the responsibility sho d be given to Pratt and Whitney A third logical combination- would involve NDA with responsibility for experimental work assigned to one of the laboratories Dr von Neumann left during the abo e discussion ·at 9 00 p m After this discussion Dr Rabi brought up a matter concerning Districu ion of GAC the distribution of the Minutes The General V anager had asked ·whether they might be shown to Commission staff concerned -with certain matters discussed by the Committee Dr P abi had advised the General 1-' anager not to do so com nenting that the Chairma of the C ttee could not approve such a step without authorization from the full Committee There was some discussion on this mat-t P-r The sta uding re5triction on DOE ARCfilVES 'f '3 ' - f -- · distribution of the Minutes and --- access to them was felt necessary in order that the members should feel free to speak frankly and freely their disdussi ns and in order that the record might preserve as much of the character or these discussions as possible Reports to the Chairman or The Chairman's the Commission on the other hand are the property or the AEC and their distribution is letermined by the AEC The Cozmnitt e unanimously agreed to continue its standing restrictions on distribution of the Minutes and access to them_ - and specifically in the case in point that the Commission staff should not have acce s to them This session was adjourned at 9 35 p m EIGHTH SESSION July 15 1951 The Co ttee met in executive session at 9 05 e m were present except Dr Wigner and Dr von Neumann All wembers The Secretary and Mr Tomei were pre sent Attention was first given to the ¥ dn tes of the 40th Meeting Minutes Wigner had submitted a correction this was accepted Dr Othci· menbers of the l 0-t h l• e3ting also had some corrections Final approval was postponed until later Next Dr Rabi read to the Cormnittee the_ le tter which he had written on June 14 to the Commissioners on the case of Dr Oppenheiruer -_ i Since it was necessarily semi-official because of his o 1 position he vpµcnheimer felt it proper to a5k whether the Co umittee wished it incorporated tn 1 r the Minutes Various expressions of approbation fo the letter re made the· Commit tee agreed not to make it a part of the Minutes -1 i r _'I- - --- av' C 4--4 r--· -- ·- -u- _ Next the Chairman asked Dr Libby for comments on the progress Sunshine of Project Sunshine Dr Libby briefly reported that fallout over the Progress continents from the Castle seriee had been very large that it had not yet shown up 1n 1'ood and human samples It was expected to show up ·• vegetation and food by Thanksgiving · and in _humans by Easter by_ a fac_tor twenty was I in Rise is-- d - · anticipated -- - pr ject AEC Division of Biology and Medicine Dr Libby has responsibility for ' · - food and h as ays Dr K p and Mr Eisenbud for allout measurement At 9iJO a m he following persons joined the raeet ing Mr• Strauss Dr Bradbury Dr Mark Dr Schreiber D Fro ia 'l D Jane Hall Mr Quinn Dr Fine and General Fields entered at this time n i Dr Max i J bby nt on to Dr von l- eumann also Roy entered ii few minutes later that the tibje t was a matter of more and more tu·gency l kel y to bec e The effort was being expc- --i 1 ed 1 somewhat further expansion might be needed depending on results which should be in by the end of the yea I' He said that ruthenium as well as strontium contamination mig t - ome dangerous n the region ----- ---··------··---- of 2-20 x 1o3 megatons Dr Rabi then called on Mr Strauss for rema ks the letter P 3 d none at this ti me The meeting was turned over to General Fields who had asked to bring up the question of U-233 production · G€neral Fields reported that the Divisions of Vi ilitary Applicc ion and Production had recoI llilended to the General Ma '1 ager for approval on a planning basis the large scale production of uranium-233 If -- - - - I • • approval was granted the immediate dollar costs would not be large but instructions wuld be given to the duPont Company to look toward such production Advance instruction 'WZlB needed by duPont for their planning·and process devel9pnent The central reason for the recommendation is the U-233 Productio Pror ram lfiB ET D · The following productio - ch edules have been proposed for consi 'a tion Case A refers to no U-233 production Case B to the proposed schedule including U-233 Production through 1961 Case A Case A and Case B -_ -· ---- -·---- ---· - _ --·- - - Case B Differen e · • -c -4 - Correspondin Number of Corea Actual No Effective No iHHf A value ratio of is assumed The effective number of cores is calculated on the assumption tha _ --·••t - -1 1 - · '- • ing to the· At the suuestion of Dr P C Fine eo11e figures pert ste_ady state arter 1961 were given A Advanta 1n 1 good TN_ '- weapons per year 2 dollar _sa gs or $ on ye 1n eessing costs ' reductions o f - i n plutonium produc · - - - ' · tion production · The first figure involves the • ' value ratio ot U-233 and plutonium the second derives from the U-235 burn-up ' · ' I' •• • · Dr Schreiber said that the a elati e vtl e igure contained · an assumption about the neutron velocity in U-233 which is somewhat - uncertain - - If Pajarito ll e-nts- are correct the velocity higher than assumed and the may be • rsiative value correspondingq higher Dr von Neumann put the argument for case Bas the bookkeep g T• • • mainly shows that case B would not make a major up set in the thenno• • • • • • _ - - - - # nuclear program for all other pUTposes case B provides an important degree of freedom Turning to Mr Strauss Dr Rabi sked why ask us sine so many · - advantages are evident Mr Strauss replied that the advantages had 4 previously not been so clear and that in any •• • case it '-as an approprla te matter for GAC consideration -• Dr Libby inquired as to the certainty of the cost- estimates Mr Discus- G F Quinn said that they were the best available although it -was t -ue ston of - · Crlse B that experience was lacking in large scale thoriun processing Mr Murphree asked whether there was a possibility that U-233 Possible might have some disad tage in - ea pons U-233 Bomb Test ll r Straus9 · s id he had wondered about this and whether one should lake· a test before rushing into large scale production Dr Bradbury con mented that test ' '-ould certainly be '-anted •ut that the low neutron background is definite - · - - - -45- and U-233 which is intennediate between Pu-239 and U-235 can tt do anything funny in a bomb• There was some discussion contributed to by Dr all and Dr Impurit7 Froman about the neutron background Tolpurity specifioationq·would Specifica • tions be about 5 times more rigorous than for production grade U-235 On for U-233 the basis of U-233 in hand which had been purified by the standard production processes it appeared that the specifications could readily ' be met ·Even if the impurity le s wore 4 '' 50 tirr s t ose specified · - - l 1 · '· • Dr Rabi asked what would be the effects yea - by year if the program were started in the immediate future Mr Quinn replied that next January one Savannah reactor would be put on U-233 production - · nine months later a second and then a third _ - Operation w1 1ld contir uE with three reactors on U-233 and two on low g T plutoni as controllec by the separations capacity Two years from now the thermonuclear quir ment will be met by ·• either schedule A or schedule B and high g T Pu The main differences are in U-235 The present steps ''Ould be to approve duPcnt planning and to comnd t $ 5 million late in the fiscal year for plant modifications and construction culties The duPont paop e anticipate no great diffi- Dr Rabi asked how upsettL11g it would_ be if one had to r verse the program lat r Hr Quinn indicated t he main thing ' · mld be the conversion of th 3 Purex plant back tc its original functions 'Thorium Ore Supply Dr Rabi asked about the supply of thorium ores · Mr Quinn n- -dic ated that the amount now availabl-e--is sufficient for three years ---- --· DOE ARCHrvES ---- f-'l _ • i _ _tl'i Oill ' _ 1 ' -¼ Ii _ - - - -46after 1957 a·- per year would be needed Several ot those present conur ented that this was a more favorable situation tha the one_ with respect to uraniliin ores Dr Rabi 1n4u 1red from Dr Bradbury what arguments were against it None ppeared rJr Dr Bradbury said that the strongest· argument U-233 was the inc ased degree of flexibility in Weapon design would still advocate the proposal even if a brig • idea developed which · -·' t - r He would greatly reduce the ' •• ' The neutrons were not being thrown away the added cost is not great the weapon design and ore supply advantages are very considerable To a question or Dr Rabi s on possible effects on the Livermore progra -· he said it would give t_hem another parameter to _ ' ICr_k with Dr Rabi asked whether t - larger criticaJ m ss would int rodu e - ' '· _ Dr lfa 'k said this consideration was alreaey- in the exchange rate Mr Whitman said it would be a good thing to get a second raw material into the program He also felt that the reactor p ogram - uld probably benefit from this e -tension of technology Dr Libby who said he had been sea ching for an objection to schedule B observed that it might remove the precsure from dev-elopi g the technology of separating Pu-240 fro n high g T plutonium It l as felt hoh ver that this -as not too J ikely Dr Rabi said his view -as that the proposed step mzy be a gc-cd tr ng but is not likely to be of practical signif cance in the ther -a -- - --·· -----··--· --- - nc lea r program There will continue to be every incentive to impro --e DOE ARCHIVES G o _ the primacy -- __ turns out to have been exaggerated Ano h r advantage of U-2 3 3 inted out by Dr Fine was that it ' would permit ·v •-· Further advantages were· seen to be the lower toxicity or U-2 3 Dr Libby and the related technological and fabrication a vantages Dr Schreiber Dr Rabi asked it the program would interfere with tritium produc- -·or ntettion in case a requirement for that material came along _ Dr _ Hall sdd ction tl Jh that tritium is made on the excess_ reactivity · th3 triti'lrl t ' c 'I ritium Pr0duc- will be available in FY 55 and that this rises Mr tion Quinn said that the changeover to thorium does not affect the tritiUJ 1 tr pfl vear picture as it is now understood St c · -r• • Dr Rabi said these arguments would make him pe -fectly happy if there existed a good theory for the yield However he would like to see another point on the curve closer to zero time in order to check the validity of the extrapolation Dr Mark said that the difficulties in predicting yields before the shots were not now relevant The yields of all of the shots made 40 to 50 in number and in assorted configurations et s_ calculated well can now -e There is every evidence that the calculations are sound and no reason to think there is a ·1ything mysterious or interest - ing in the untested region of the yield curve It is not clear wh- t use could be made of a minor correction ·- - - - - --v- __ -- - 1--- -- -7- l l DOE AR C rH 'V l I _ · 4 - • • - _t I _ l ' • -49Dr Rabi said that he could see a use from the customer end There will be a lot of bombs· of high g T and the military users · would want to ha ye solid knowledge or _the spect or yields He felt that military interest in such information about the stockpile I • migbt develop considerably It was pointed out that the two sig 1fickit technical questicns are 1 what is the p obability that a neutro is present and 2 • t ' · '' given tMt what is the yield or 1 f r period of about six ·mo th before retuming ' 0 investigation ·• Dr Bradbury favored a laboratory to the question or a test shot Dr Libby asked about the British report t at·the n mber neutrons per fission has a wide spread or Dr Mark said the report was that the number varies with the energy of the fisoicning neutron a a If the British paper s corre t the caJc ' •d· ·probability would be reduced to about • r Ta h t' 'is plarming - ·- 1 some check experiments they will take several -wee With these remarks the discussion ' ' as concluded ii - Dr Rabi asked Dr Bradbury whether there re he would like to bring before the Commit tee a ny other matters There were none and wit h the remark that it had been a superb briefing Dr Rabi aa d that this part of the meeting was concluded cetini wi h the There was a brief break The Committee reassembled at 11 20 a m C airnia for a discussion with the Chairman of the ColEiiission Those presPnt of the Gommis- were Mr Strauss all members of the Committee except Dr Wigne1· sion and the Secretary ---- --- I •· - · · ---- - · - - - -- - - --- - -soMr Strauss spoke at some length on the Oppe nheiner case referring particuia to the Commissi_on·• s difficulties in m taining its poltc y_ of no comment and to r actions to he Conmissio ts d oision as mani rested in letters the reeling at Los and in the Alamos He eJq ressed unde rstanding for press The fact that Dr Oppenheimer' 6 stand on the thermonuclear questicn had had no weight in the Commission's decision probably helped in regard to the Lo Alamos reaction - · · - He mentioned that he was ellv r ing a P sidential citation to the Laboratory o i'ts xtraord ina cy 'accomplis nt -' · Dr Rabi asked what would be the aftermath of the Ccmmission 1 s After- decision on the Oppenheimer case Since associations had played such math of the a prominent role in the case there was considerable ·apprehension tha Oppenhei er _ ·- · ·· · _ Case a 1arge ive overemphasizing associations as r gatory L formation would be made by security offic s Mr Str auss _ -re - the CuJJUIUttee · •-_ •• - - w• _ ' that this apprehension was _unfounded • • remarked on the very • ' Several Comnittee members · · · · _ ·- - grave morale problem in the Commission 1 s labora - tories which resulted from the case Dr van Neumann said that from a i ractical point of view this problem made it very impo -tar t for the AEC to make clear its criteria of associe tions particularly in view of the opinions recorded by Mr Zuckert c nd 11 i r Mu rray indicated that the Commission would bri g out · Mr St-rau ' is hi September e statemer-t clarifying the security regulations Attention 'as next turned to the U-233 question Dr Rabi ask'3d u-cinions o U-233 the individual members in turn to express their views for the benefit Gi- G -- ·_ · _· - ·-·· c·- l • - ' - - ' · -- · -- _ of the Chairman ot the Commission The mernbe '1' respond13d a B follnwo Mr Whit man We should go ahead with the proposed U-23 3 program Dr Warner Agreed At the worst we aren't losing much Dr Fisk f' numbers of weapons of ' has been - - - · i--· - - ·· - · The - bothersome in terms It is essentially a stand-off There is apparently a rea 1 gain It decision is to be based on this consideration it is ssential o obtain the opinion of the milltary e stablisnnient Howe_ver the· flexibility arg1Jment and th e fact that it is not n significantly costly program suffice t support p posal B ·- - ·- - _ - -- l Dr von Neumannz Agreed with Dr Fisk The nuclear -- - ·- ·· -_ i- - -- -- situation contains maey plus-and-minuses and th bookkeoping - ' is _ · - -- - - very qualitativef but the gain in flexibi_lity is very • · - - important metallurgy There are many advantages _ - ·- in chemistry and It is fortunate that the reactor situation is such that U-233 production can now be injected ir to the program with no maj r dislocatio s As a secondary effect it will be of value in help5 1g _free 'l S from bias and be more attentive to possibilities_ of what others e g • t he Russians may e doing Mr Murphree Was in favor The program might have more advantages than can be foreseen at present • _- _ _ · ·-· s o-r -- -· - · - - ·• · « 1- · -52- Dr LiSbya Was completely in favor Hoped the effort - to purify plutonium of Pu-240 would not be set back Dr Did not feel qualified Buckleyi depende_nt opinion · to give an Wae always against more complications but if t ere were a real advantage to U-23 3 would be swayed by that consideration • nf bi W8 s con ced 1n the meeting· was No lo ss or· · _ · long term disadvantagesate danger involved and no eiemen or disco ered flexibility a e The impressive advantages of eirnplicity and Strongly suppor ed the proposa1 Appendix B item 1 - Mrt Strauss inquired whether the opinions w uld be chang d if iii_ were found that the ·owrall capabilltj- J n number of crits would be less • -- - - Dr Rabi said his own feeling of approval would ontinue· as lo ig as there were no short te rni disadvantage A 1 ong term one could alney • be oade up by building another plant • He would have opposed the proposal had it shown a short term loss i e fe-wer ·weapons in 1 58 Dr von Neumann pointed out with er nhasis th t there should be a i 233 test shot he would prefer T st o ot shot later There was some discussion of the need for a test and while the Coi i ' i ttee wished to defer until later any specific reco s 3 - tion for a U-233 shot at Teapot it agreed una '1imously that t ere ulc be a test as soon as practicable hen a sufficient c iount of U-233 i3 aV2 ilabl e ' - -·- - -- - Appendix B item l ' I' ' J' -· -- ---- - · -53 Brier consideration was given to the a rcra 't reector program Aircraft Dr Rabi advised Ml4i Strauss that the Committee would defer any addi Nuclear Propul- t ional reoornmendati ons until the Reacto Subcomnitte had studied the sion · Program matter further and had reporte He mentioned the Subcommittee's plan ' to rleit Oak Reactor Subcom- mittee Ridge in Septem r • Mr Whitman announced that Dr Wigner had been reached by telephone and would be able to attend on the Visit to Oalt proposed dates or September 21 22 and 23 _ Appendix B item 2 Ridge · · ·· · · At 12z 30 p m this session was a_djo1l Iled • - ·- • NINTH SESSION July 15 · ·1954 The Conmrl ttee met in executive session at 45 p m • All members were present except Dr Wigner and_ r Libby who was absent from • this session The Secretary and-Mr Tomei ·-were p -esent • - • •• •' • i • • J The Chairman called for views on the weapons programs as presented GAO Discussion or in the three-day briefing • • - -• • • l · ° • • - ' Weapon Briefings_ Santlia Dr Fisk and others remarked on the vecy great importance of the Sandia Laboratory The time has come when the demands on Sandia should be determined by the Itlssion of tr e Am ed Services rather than by the potentialities of new weapons The Laboratory and what it represents should grow more and more in import ce relative to Los Alamos The weapon philosophy arguments set forth yesterday by Dr Bradbury were illuminating and should be vecy carefully conside -ed in planning Sandia's future efforts Systems studies in which Sa' ldia - -·--··-- --•- - _ - - -- ··- - -- - - - - - -- DOE ARCiiIV1 • r · r -· - t '· ' I '• • '°' •· • - • --· -54 - has a strong capability and a strong interest are a rrerequisite to The what Dr Bradbury is trying to do Revolution in Weapons Dr • Rabi commented in this vein saying that Dr Bradbury 1 s rem rka and the Growing had made clear the complete revolution which has occurred in atomic Importance of weapons There will be ver little resemblance between the situation Sandia two years from now and that two years ago Dr Rabi remarked on the maturity or the weapons art the great prominence that systems engineer- ing must now have and its intimate relation to mif· sions and to the stockpile The duty or ensuring the most effective use o_r weapons ar d ot developing a general philosophy of weapon utilization will devolvA more and more on Sandia There were several comments on the need for encouraging and Need for utilizing Sandia's capability and interest in systems engL eering Encourag ing Some members had gathered that the new Area Manager was not providing Systems ·· Studies such encouragement There was some discussion of the· matter The at • Sandia Cormnittee did not feel it -would be appropriate to make formal comment at present however it this vital work was hoped that way would be found to ncouras_e The feeling was expressed that the CO i 'littee should ma Tlifest a lively and continuing interes in the work of the Sandia Laboratory It was remarked that the Sandia presentations were in general --rery good although the weapon effect present ntion was poor probably a case of having misjudged the a' ldj_ence some The latter - -as There was also disappointment about the to-do raisec by Sandia on the diffic ult e5 of contact fuzing However the significance of this was difficult to · 1 -· ' _C - · I • _ •- • • •ti • • ' -55judge in tne context of the general situation on systems studies Appendix B item Ja Mr Whitman said that the Los Alamos presentation was a very high Los Alamos grade job and this seemed to be the unanimous feeling Dr Fisk added that mo eover one gained· an increasing feeling of strength an maturity in the Laboratory • Mr Murphree said that Dr Bradbury's proposal on weapon philosophy was a sound one __ Dr _ isk sugge stod that - -· the onnnittee not atte pt to judge that point ·or v5 ew now but should to its rea l importance call attention to ey amining it Appendix B it em 3b it and to the importa ce of The next subject discussed was the Livermore report Livermore Dr Rabi __ 4- - re r ed_ and Dr von Neumann agreed that the analysis of t h e - - • ·v _ _ _ results had been a remarkable -job of diagnoais The Laboratory V clearly has very apable people on its staff it is un ortunate that - - ' they are not being effectively utilized up to their abilities · - ··· - ·• · Dr Fisk said he felt the Committee could endorse the small apon program - He was concerned however about Dr Teller's 10 000 MT gadget and wo dered wh action of the Laboratory's effort was being expe lded on the Mr Whitman had been shocked ' of 10 ' MT it would contaminate the earth by the thouJht Dr P abi 1 s react-io l - s that the talk about this device was an advertising stunt ar d not to be taken too seriously With regard to the small apons Dr Rabi said he had felt ttsre was something very amateurish in the way the objectives -were defL l3d The program was being set up with out any study of how the w r w r ild be fought what the planes and rockets actually would carry etc r ac-- t •-- J ---• - - -- -56- to explain the state ot objectives re ·set up and the Two different explanations were advanced Diffithe Livermore program a the ·way the culties with problem originate and b the adminiatrati-ve organization Livermore · Program Dr von Neumann said that the objectives are being defined essentially as to do something more risky than Los· Al oe This puti a·real progrem them in the frustrating position of not -having of their Dr Rabi said that Livermore has no resp n ibility 'ror any own 1 ·r necessary part of the weapons program He would like to see a clear· ' · - · 4 --· · • division ·between Los Alamos and Livermore with respect to defined ancl different objectives However the main problem according to Dr Rabi was administra- tive The Laboratory would become a very effective organ zation · really had a director • if it - At present responsibilities are divided in · _ _- - such a way that the arrangement works against the develop ent of • • · - •y - - _ j _ - strength and purpose in th organization The Commission should insist - · • · -· - - ' on a full-time director the Laboratory is to big-to ·run_in a haphazard way Dr Fisk agreed He also felt that Dr _von Neuma -m 1 s point that the Laboratory lacked a clear job to do -as serious This situation needed correction Dr von Neum arm agreE d that the Laborat_ory was being run by very bad organizational principles but it was fur- tionir g pretty well in spite of this He said that the presentation had been DOE AR CH _ V t' good _t Wbapon Su'bcom- The general feeling seemed to be that t e Live more program ne d d more rational definition and greater strenzt h of purpose and that tl e Study of Liver- method of administration should be improved Before the Committee - -o' ll d more fili tee ·-_ -- · - - · ' · - l - v ll 1 r - J -_ 7 • ' · 1 t7 iT ' -- - - •' a• ' • • - • • ·· - - - - ' I• -- ·-- -- -•· '· rt· 7 -· be in a position to make any detailed recomrnenda ions however it to stu the· situn- wotLld be necessary or the Subconmittee on· Wea ons tion an render a report The work at Berkeley ould probabl y be ·· Appendix B item 3o · · included in this stu - The next subject considered was that or the· test programs Dr · Test Rabi felt that the plans were perhap s over-elahorat e Dr Fisk pointed P 'Ograms • · · out however that a critic sm t_o thi effec ·- wa s_car ely justified · _ f ·- -' - · • since _Dr Graves had cautioned the audience repeatedly in his present a - - - - ii · - tions that he was merely describing candidates for' test shots were not as yet any firm proposals to consider There Al1 of the items --ere interesti- ig Appendix B item 3d The next point considered was how the Committee· should comment II • · _ • - •• t• Phllos- Dr Bradbury's concluding talk ophy of _ Weapon saying that attention should be Develop•· · · ment weapon situation to the thin gs C 1 Dr Fisk summed · 1p · the s cussions by - · - · - · • _ directed to the·· revolution n the - · ' · _ _ - · y t • ·-· ·· · which ar now 'important to be done · _ - i - _Ej• -- - - _ The Committee should point to the need for clarity in the objectives • • • • • _J - ' -· - • • of the weapons programs and the need for joint par cipation by the - • _ laboratories and the military establishment in studies aimed at ' achiev ing this clarity Appendix B item 3e The Minutes of the 40th lfoeting wer·e further considered - '• -1'1utes o the i r tb Cb t-he motion of Dr Fisk and second of Dr Warner the Minutes '1 th incl' - of certain rephrasings suggested by the individual members i -sre Meeting DOE ARCHIVES approved As the next item Dr Rabi called fo - a report of the Reacto - -- _--- r- - - -- - --- - Subcom nittee on the meeting at Chicago - -e-r' · 1 -- - f' • I r - I • ·-·--- ·- ---- -58Mr Whitman began with the boiling reactor Report ot Dr Zinn was now testing excursion conditions and various types or shutdown fuses The Reactor final test was to be a runaway experiment in hich the a aembly wou1d Subcombe allowed to destroy itself through melting of the fuel elements mittee Boiling Reactor Then a new ass·embly 'WOuld be set up at Arco and operated till the sno r flies The new assembly would incorporate various impr vements a 'ld would be used for additional tests of boiling op ration · • • • • - I• • • A tentative and somewhat tight schedule had been_established for building the BER experimental boiling reictor at ·iNi - ·It- pro des fer preliJninary design now·· comp eted selection of architect-engineer l September construction begins 1 April 1 55 · · · - 1 year _· core fabrication reactor critical 1 56 • · Mr Whitman said The Subcomnittee was in accord with these plans there was a problem about the contractual arrangement 54 end of • 1 • • • • • # • • • Dr Zinn thought the work 'WOuld go better with a lump sum plus fixed fee contrac1 but the AEC had not yet assented Dr Zinn believed that $3 5 million would l e adequate for the job The BER ·would use light H20 and slightly enriched fuel It _'O' lld produce 6oO lb steam and furnish 5 mega -a tts of electrio pc· Jer for distribution DOE ARCHIVES Some other points on boiling reactors were the following It is hoped that 40% burnup can be achieved with fully enriched fuel 1% w i h _-- -- - ---- -- -- - natural uranium - Heavy ·water might be preferable in a large unit the · __ __ ·- ¼· · -59cost of a turbine system does not seem excessive Dr Zinn wants to concentrate hie efforts on small reactors and ·specific problems not on a big power reactor He felt that industrial interest in a big reactor would not interfere with his O'ltn interests A large number of component tests need to be carried out e g on the resistance of fuel elements to burnup and corrosion _Mr Murphree added the following points1 _ • 1 D Zinn has some worries about the use of radioactive steam in turbines and wants to do experiments to valuate the possible troubles 2 He also wants to evaluate chemical costs It appears that to throw away the spent fuel instead of reprocessing it would add only 1-11 mills to the cost per kwh - 3 Under same conditions of operation fuel elements - ild have to last as long as seven years in order to achieve t Hence corr sion problems be ome require study or - desired burnup · particular'importance and th y Some work is being done on corrosion resistant 11meat 11 but at present they fael they have to rely on jackets Mr Whitman added 1 that Dr Zinn wants his boil ng exper ent to be thoueht o s 11 trivial11 so that more chances can be taken in bolder exper mentat5 onj 2 that the program presupposes a long term d velop 1ent of fuel ele i ents At 3 15 p m Dr von Neumann left the meetL11g - -- - -- - 2 _ -- - --- - -- -60- -- _ _ ' Dr Rabi asked the Subcommittee to prepare a written report on the Laboratory and the boiling and rast breeder reactor wor to sC Jrve as a basis on which the Committee could answer the questions which had been put to it Appendix B item 4 Mr ' Whitman then commented briefly on the fast reactor Breeder The critical question is whether it can breed if luted with struc ural inaterials e relevant experimental data should b _ available in about- It is proposed to ·build EBR n er· 2 at Arco at a cost of $19 million according to the following schedule _ I development only architect-engineer till July II 19 5 II building construction -P il 1956 · -· ready for operatia optimistic estimate · January 1958 Mr lfuitman said he had been impressed by the fact that Dr Zinn's enthusiasm on the breeder seemed much less than on the_boiling reactor Mr Murphree commented that breeding had only a long range importance in view of the available ore supply He ·was inclined to support the breeder on a long range basis but not as an urgent project It could be pushed harder than it is being pushed but it would be difficult to find justification for doing so A number of other topics received passing mention in this discussion Dr Zinn 1 s attitudes to -ard homogeneous and liquid bis ruth - reactors his apprehension about t he 1ea '- hazard in the use of liquid ' ·· _ ' - · ' - · -61eodium in graphite reactors the lack in the reaotor program - - or a workin _policy team composed of experts in the field question as to why build a ' power reactor at Los Alamos naval reactor studies opinion that the reactor program should be pushed now for reasons of international prestige and t t economic reaso s would event ly be v lid or Mr Murphree noted a specific point relevant to the health Availa- the program that ANL does not at present receive r ports from Hanford or 'bilit7 or Savannah River This was felt to be unfortunate Tn Secretary was Hanford _ _ _ - _ and directed by the Chairman to record this point in the Minutes Sa vannah · The · Committee agreed to comment favorably on the AI'1 program for _ developing the boiling water reactor and to recommend that it should receive strong support inoluding the minilnization of_contractual delay Other commendations sho d await the more detail d itten report from the Reactor Subcomnittee Appendix B i tem 4 At this point Mr Tomei· was excused from the meeting - - - The question of dates for the next meeting was considered -- In Dates view of uncertainties as to the membership of the_Commi ttee at the 1i ce -· · _ ·- 1- eeting of the next meeting no firm dates ware establish d It was agreed that Je ct the meeting WOuld be held sometime between Octcber 1 and 11 1954 a 1 the 4th 5th and 6th were tentative selected Appendix B iteill 5 Mr Whitman suggested that there be a session on weapon effects i - t rs and on Project Sunshine at the next meeting with Dr Scoville to attcn f o e - t if possible Appeudix B item i Dr Fisk suggested Heeting might also be asked to take part in the presentations _-- -- r ¥ possibility was left open th'DcJB'-A FiiW The latter However it was generall y a greed that it - s tizle for closer contacts bet-weer the GAC and the Sandi a organization r · _ _ # • • • -' ' ' I• • • _I • • • -62At this time Dr Buckley took occasion to express his regret that in view or_ the expiration or present at the next meeting his term ot appo tment _ e would not be Dr Rabi and other members ·expressed their wan a best wishes to Dr Buckley and their appreciati m for his services on the Committee There being no further business this final sessio was adjouroed at 4 05 p m - - i · - - ' Ric ha W Dodso ' ' ' Secretary Attachments 3 _ - c t · _ · -- - ·-- ·----- - _ ·-- - · ----- 4 st Meeting or the General Advisory Committee · Tentative Schedule and Agenda Monday July 12 at Sandia - 8 00 a m - 12 00 noon -- Presentation by the Sandia Laboratory 1 00 p m - 3 15 p m -- Presentation by the Sandia Laboratory Tuesday July 13 at Los Alamos 9 00 acm• - 12 15 p m - Technical Present ation by LASL 1 30 p m - 4 30 p m -- Technical Presentation by I ASL J l t ·- 1 - Wednesday July lit 9 00 a m - 12 15 p m _ _ Presentation by LASL 1 30 p m - 3 30 p m - Technical Presentation by UGRL • - ·• •_8 00 p m - 9 30p m -- Executive Session Committee business -t and NDA matter · Thursday July 1 •· · - - - - 9 00 a m - 12 15 p m -- Executive Session Report of Reactor Subcommittee and other matters The Committee will meet with the following persons at the latter's convenience Gen Fields Dr Pittman Dr Bradbury Mr Stra ss·- probably coiilD encing at about 10 00 a m 1 30 p m - Executive Session - - ·- --- -- - --- - --·