ddops history book 2022 25e6f

Summary

HOW WE DO OUR WORK IS AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT WE DO A HISTORY OF LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY OPERATIONS Rekha S. Pillai, PhD Carrie J. Gregory Weston Phippen J. T. Stark HOW WE DO OUR WORK IS AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT WE DO A HISTORY OF LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY OPERATIONS RReekkhhaa SS.. PPiillllaaii,, PPhhDD CCaarrrriiee JJ.. GGrreeggoorryy WWeessttoonn PPhhiippppeenn JJ.. TT.. SSttaarrkk LA-UR-22-30602 Images, unless otherwise noted, are from the collections of Los Alamos National Laboratory…

Page 1

HOW WE DO OUR WORK IS AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT WE DO A HISTORY OF LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY OPERATIONS Rekha S. Pillai, PhD Carrie J. Gregory Weston Phippen J. T. Stark

Page 3

HOW WE DO OUR WORK IS AS IMPORTANT AS WHAT WE DO A HISTORY OF LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY OPERATIONS RReekkhhaa SS.. PPiillllaaii,, PPhhDD CCaarrrriiee JJ.. GGrreeggoorryy WWeessttoonn PPhhiippppeenn JJ.. TT.. SSttaarrkk

Page 4

LA-UR-22-30602 Images, unless otherwise noted, are from the collections of Los Alamos National Laboratory and are included for educational purposes. Los Alamos National Laboratory, an affirmative action/equal opportunity employer, is managed by Triad National Security, LLC, for the National Nuclear Security Administration of the U.S. Department of Energy under contract 89233218CNA000001. By approving this article, the publisher recognizes that the U.S. Government retains nonexclusive, royalty-free license to publish or reproduce the published form of this contribution, or to allow others to do so, for U.S. Government purposes. Los Alamos National Laboratory requests that the publisher identify this article as work performed under the auspices of the U.S. Department of Energy. Los Alamos National Laboratory strongly supports academic freedom and a researcher’s right to publish; as an institution, however, the Laboratory does not endorse the viewpoint of a publication or guarantee its technical correctness.

Page 5

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors acknowledge the assistance and support of numerous current and former Laboratory employees in the development of this book. We are most appreciative of Deputy Director for Operations Kelly Beierschmitt for his vision of this book and his enduring support throughout the effort. We are extremely grateful to the National Security Research Center (NSRC), led by Riz Ali, for providing access to both the NSRC staff and their digital and hardcopy files. Librarian-Archivists Julie Miller, Andrew Gordon, and Norma Baca were extremely generous with their time and knowledge. We recognize Laboratory Senior Historian Alan Carr and Historian of Science Elliot Schultz for providing early assistance in identifying important operational events and people and for ways to organize the data. Special thanks to Historian Nic Lewis for reviewing the draft document. Our research assistant, Danielle Huerta, provided outstanding data entry and compilation support. We thank the following subject matter experts who provided project support or made themselves available to answer topical questions or provide specific images: Jim Bland, James Clifford, Sandi Copeland, Andrew Erickson, Ethan Frogget, Kari Garcia, Charlotte Marie Lindsey, and Daniel Preston. We value the librarians at the LANL Research Library for finding and pulling books and managing our numerous interlibrary loans. We extend our deepest appreciation to the following current and former Laboratory subject matter experts who performed critical reviews of the draft document and provided constructive comments: Jeremy Brunette, Kevin Leifheit, Evelyn Mullen, Jeanne Robinson, Raeanna Sharp-Geiger, Cameron Townsend, and Unica Viramontes. We graciously acknowledge the expertise, time, and dedication of our production team: NSRC Publications Team Leader Brye Steeves; Lead Editor Tamara Hawman; Secondary Editor and Layout Specialist Renae Mitchell; Graphic Designers Paul Ziomek, Gabriella Smith, and Don Montoya; Geographic Information System Specialist Bethann McVicker, and Derivative Classifier Dave Keller. We extend our sincerest thanks to all who supported and contributed to this effort. iii

Page 7

Laying the Groundwork CONTENTS Foreword …vii Preface …ix Introduction …xi Chapter 1: Launching a Laboratory …1 Chapter 2: Realizing a Permanent Institution …27 Chapter 3: Laying the Groundwork for a New Direction …57 Chapter 4: Facing Uncertainty during the Post–Cold War Era …89 Chapter 5: Ensuring Operational Excellence …121 Executives over Laboratory Operations, 1945–2022 …144 About the Authors …146 Endnotes…148 v The National Security Sciences Building, May 2020 (opposite page).

Page 8

vi

Page 9

FOREWORD Kelly Beierschmitt, Deputy Laboratory Director for Operations The story of the history of the Laboratory, starting with wartime Although not a comprehensive operations history of the Laboratory, Project Y, is usually told with an emphasis on the famous scientists this book tells many of the important stories and relates them and key scientific accomplishments that contributed to the to today’s considerations. We identify how organizations and development and later refinement of atomic weapons design and groups were formed and how they evolved, which will help us associated technology. better understand the timeline for cultural changes, the process for changes, and how to influence these changes rapidly to improve This book focuses on the operations that enabled the mission of the the Laboratory workforce. Hopefully this knowledge will help us Laboratory. Operations staff and leaders provided vital, behind-the- transform the Laboratory to be a much better version than it ever scenes contributions to the success of the Laboratory. We undertook was in support of delivering our national security mission and our researching and writing this book to better understand the history of evermore-complex, high-hazard plutonium operations and waste the Laboratory’s operations—its past operations leaders, innovators management. in operations, administrators, culture, systems, and technologies— and how they transformed over time to address changing national security mission. We are looking at another big change in the Laboratory’s future. Our objective with this book is to create a collective memory that tells a story of who we are, where we come from, and where we are headed. As we strive to change culture to improve safety, security, disciplined operations, quality, and environmental compliance, we can learn from past leaders and innovators by studying operational data that led to the creation of our current requirements, policies, procedures, and culture. vii

Page 10

viii

Page 11

PREFACE Rizwan Ali, Director, National Security Research Center In 2020, I received a query that was both exciting and unique. As exactly what Dr. Pillai and Dr. Beierschmitt wanted to achieve. I the director of the Laboratory’s National Security Research Center wholeheartedly agreed, and the partnership was formed. (NSRC), I’m fortunate to be able to say that requests that can easily be described as both are nearly daily occurrences. The book you’re holding spotlights the Laboratory’s infrastructure, facilities, business operations, and other support systems needed for This one, though, was different. national security. Its content was overseen by the NSRC and written by Dr. Pillai, historians from the Laboratory’s Environmental Director for Operations and Infrastructure Strategy Rekha Pillai Stewardship group, and a writer from the Laboratory’s Technical told me that she and Deputy Laboratory Director for Operations Editing and Communications (CEA-TEC) group. The authors Kelly Beierschmitt wanted to write a book, and they hoped to were supported by a team of NSRC and additional TEC staff. partner with the NSRC to do so. Not intended to be a single definitive history book, this publication The NSRC is one of the largest libraries in the country and has is a precursor to forthcoming, more in-depth books and reports. For a highly trained, expert staff of librarians, archivists, publications the time being though, I’m confident you’ll agree that what began as specialists, and historians. Our collections, which number in the a query yielded an exciting, unique outcome. tens of millions and include every medium imaginable, span the entire nuclear history. They support today’s scientists in their I hope you enjoy reading this history of the Laboratory’s operations national security work and are critical to the Lab’s mission. as much as we enjoyed working on it. These collections also tell stories. Woven together, the NSRC’s documents, data, and photos could—for the first time ever— aggregate and share the important accomplishments of the Laboratory’s operations staff during the past 80 years, which is ix

Page 12

x

Page 13

INTRODUCTION In 1943, the Manhattan Engineer District established Project Y that drove start-up activities, and start-up speed took priority to research solutions to specific problems associated with the over safety. production of a nuclear weapon. Specifically, Project Y was Today, Los Alamos National Laboratory (the Laboratory) established for the development, final processing, assembly, and includes 897 facilities, with an additional 415,000 square feet testing of the atomic bomb. Based on U.S. Engineering Office of leased space. During the last 75 years, the Laboratory has studies and constraints established by Dr. J. Robert Oppenheimer diversified its portfolio to become the National Nuclear Security and General Leslie R. Groves, the Los Alamos Ranch School in Administration’s premier national security laboratory, serving as Otowi, New Mexico (a 49,383-acre site), was finally selected as their design agency for the W76, W88, B61, and W78 nuclear the location for Project Y. The classified site was called “Site Y,” weapons systems and their production agency for pits and and Santa Fe residents referred to the site as “The Hill.” detonators. The Laboratory’s mission-focused science, technology, The University of California, as operating contractor, administered and engineering portfolio has expanded to include the technical work and continues to be part of the management • accelerator science and technology; and operations team today. Zia Company was first contracted to manage operations for both the townsite and the Laboratory. • advanced computing to exascale and beyond; Initial Project Y setup consisted of rehabilitating 31 buildings, constructing 111 buildings, and planning for utilities and streets. • integrated capabilities for plutonium and actinide missions; The new construction provided housing and other facilities • leadership in quantum initiative and integrated nuclear for military personnel, housing and dormitories for technical materials; and personnel, a power plant, a dispensary, a school, a post exchange, stores and markets, and theaters. The Frijoles Canyon Lodge, • ways to address the grand challenges regarding climate located in Bandelier National Monument, was leased as additional change, vaccine development and epidemic prediction, housing during 1944, when shortages were at their peak. Electrical cybersecurity, and space exploration and modeling. power to Project Y was established from New Mexico Power Company’s Bernalillo-Santa Fe line. Initial design and engineering In the era of abundant digital technologies, Laboratory were provided by Albuquerque Engineering District and then by Operations—the largest organization—is evolving to become Manhattan Engineering District. To minimize delay in support more modular, connected, distributed, and systems- and data- of the emergency work, all design and engineering contracts were driven to support this growing, complex portfolio and to ensure awarded to one architect-engineering firm: W. C. Kruger-Santa the delivery of mission—reliably, safely, securely, efficiently, Fe. During this initial period, speed was the most essential factor and effectively. xi

Page 14

Now the Laboratory is again going through another significant Growth in the Laboratory’s production mission is swiftly driving growth phase—primarily driven by the pit-manufacturing an increase in operational capacity by mission—resulting in • increasing staffing; • significant growth in staffing; • rapidly building new infrastructure; • changes in staff demographics; • increasing efficiency of critical processes, such as waste • an exploding range of applications in web services; management, criticality safety, nuclear material control and accountability, nuclear facility management, and security; • a mobile, changing operating environment; and • building the pipeline for growing staff; and • significant changes to on-campus and off-campus infrastructure needs. • partnering with local and regional government and Pueblos to increase housing availability, improve community services, and In addition, since 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic has brought broaden transportation options. with it changes in how the Laboratory delivers its mission and has introduced into its operations the need for understanding a Working during COVID-19 has taught the Laboratory many “new normal.” Because of significant growth in its mission and ways to get work done while continuing to be effective, efficient, pandemic conditions, the Laboratory is experiencing some of the safe, and secure. The Laboratory is offering more flexibility to same types of issues faced during Project Y: difficulty obtaining its staff by allowing those who can to work some or mostly skilled workforce in many areas, lack of a varied local labor market, from a location that is different than their onsite location transportation of employees via congested access roads, inadequate and to commute less without compromising the quality of housing for staff, terrific time pressure, inability to manage peak relationships with customers or oversight entities, collaboration, or staff needs adequately, frequent changes in design, and short- communication. The post-COVID “normal operations” is different term and fragmentary planning; however, today, safe, secure, and from the pre-COVID normal, and teleworking is accepted and disciplined operations are the most essential factors that drive even preferred by a portion of Laboratory staff. Laboratory activities and performance—how we do our work is as important as what we do—the title of this book. The increased mission scope will require operations to focus on industrial management in addition to scientific management. xii Security check at Site Y (opposite page).

Page 15

xiii

Page 16

Oppenheimer directly recruited Dorothy McKibbin to work in the Santa Fe Office at 109 East Palace. She was the “Gatekeeper to Los Alamos” and welcomed the incoming scientists and their families. Dorothy was also the lifeline for many of the people already on the Hill.

Page 17

C H A P T E R 1 Launching a Laboratory 1943–1946

Page 18

The main technical area adjacent to Los Alamos townsite in 1945.1

Page 19

Presidents Laboratory Staff Franklin D. Roosevelt (D), 1933–1945 Approximately 1,500 (1943)– Harry S. Truman (D), 1945–1953 Approximately 10,000 (1946) Major Conflicts Executives over Laboratory Operations World War II, 1941–1945 Cold War, 1945–1991 David Hawkins, Arthur L. Hughes, Federal Oversight and Bermis E. Brazier, 1943–1944 David Dow, 1944–1945/1946 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Col. Austin W. Betts, 1945–1946 Manhattan Engineer District, 1942–1946 Col. L. E. Seeman, 1945–1946 Laboratory Directors Col. Austin W. Betts, 1946–1948 J. Robert Oppenheimer, 1942–1945 Support Contractor Norris E. Bradbury, 1945–1970 Zia Company, 1946–1986

Page 21

1 Launching a Los Alamos and the Main Technical Area (TA-01) in 1946 (opposite page; photo from the Los Alamos Historical Society). Laboratory REACHING SHANGRI LA The year 1942 witnessed a heightened acceleration by the United States certain provisions for the wellbeing of the assembled scientists and to develop an atomic weapon. The Manhattan Project had been well support staff.5 Primary selection factors included availability of rail and underway before the United States’ entry into World War II and was ini- air transportation, reliable water supply, amiable climate, physiographical tially launched to determine the prospect for successfully developing and remoteness, and social seclusion. deploying atomic weaponry sooner than the Germans. With war raging Ultimately, favorable conditions for the operational success of the Project Y on two fronts after the attack on Pearl Harbor, the United States ramped mission propelled Los Alamos, New Mexico, to the top of the list.6 The up the effort of the Manhattan Project to develop atomic weaponry mesas around Los Alamos represented an ideal location for a base of before the enemy and bring about a quick and decisive victory for the operations to develop the world’s first atomic weapon. Ample distance Allied Nations. Manhattan Project personnel brought an intensity to the from the coastlines offered an undeniable advantage for classified Project Y mission and a deep conviction that their efforts, if timely and successful, work.7 Placement in a remote part of the country provided security, yet would save countless American service members’ lives and the lives of also offered the untethered opportunity for scientists to collaborate open- millions of people around the globe. ly within a compartmentalized structure. Proximity to local Pueblo and Work to develop an atomic weapon was expected to ramp up; key posi- Hispano communities provided a sustainable population with numbers tions needed to be filled, and additional locations were required. General to support the looming support required by the scientific endeavors of Leslie R. Groves was tasked with heading up the Manhattan Project, Project Y. while J. Robert Oppenheimer would lead Project Y—the extraordinary effort to engineer a deployable atomic weapon. Groves understood from Favorable conditions for the operational the beginning that, although scientific insight and laboratory research would be vital to the Manhattan Engineer District, at its heart it was not success of the Project Y mission propelled a scientific project but a large, far-flung industrial enterprise. Success—in Los Alamos, New Mexico, to the top of the list. the form of a deliverable bomb before the end of the war—would come only from coordinating and pushing hard on all elements of the com- plex.2 The general understood that, although the contributions of the Project Y needed a reliable water resource to ensure successful operations. Although water availability in and around Los Alamos presented a scientists were crucial, theirs was only one of a host of critical compo- nents that made up the totality of the Manhattan Project.3 level of concern, initial staffing forecasts led General Groves to believe that the available water supply would be sustainable if the Laboratory This task—a difficult one defined by difficult constraints—required site followed conservative water-use practices.8 Water availability would selection as its first priority. The yet-determined location of Project Y prove to be a reoccurring problem throughout the war years. Today, our (codenamed Site Y) required addressing several concerns held by Groves Operations Division manages the challenges of ensuring supply distribu- primarily, but also by Oppenheimer. Groves insisted on security and tion to the Laboratory’s ever-increasing need for safe and reliable water safety.4 Oppenheimer, while in agreement with Groves, also sought for a growing population. 5

Page 22

The first water tower to supply Los Alamos had a capacity of 250,000 gallons. Although the approach to Los Alamos was much improved, the plateau still Not only did the tower provide for the operations of the Laboratory and offer safe offered a rugged and challenging terrain to navigate.. drinking water to the community, it also was used as the principal marker when giving directions to various social events held in neighborhood housing. Favorable weather patterns were determined to offer an advantageous civilian technical staff and the family members who followed them to outcome to operations.9 Year-round construction was a prime objective. Site Y. Oppenheimer decided on four divisions that were directly related Northern New Mexico winters can be cold and snowy, especially in to building the weapon. These four divisions were designated Theoretical, decades past; however, the abundant sunshine and clear, sunny days Experimental, Chemistry and Metallurgy, and Ordnance. Divisions were experienced most of the time (even throughout the winter months) on further separated into “groups.”11 Oppenheimer established a “governing the Pajarito Plateau served to diminish the effects of occasional wintry board” to oversee the divisions. weather. The divisions set up by Oppenheimer were housed at TA-01. This TA Collaboration among physicists, chemists, metallurgists, and engineers was constructed around Ashley Pond and, at first, efficiently used the ensured that the challenging mission of Project Y succeeded. A trying close proximity to existing infrastructure of the previous Ranch School.12 timeline required that a bomb be ready once usable nuclear materials Many of the early staff were housed in existing school buildings, and the were obtainable from manufacturing plants across the country. Because earliest housing quarters were constructed on the school grounds. The of this straining schedule, collaboration was essential, and the adoption introductory map for Chapter 1 illustrates the buildup of infrastructure of compartmentalization was critical to the success of the project. near Ashley Pond during the last days of the Manhattan Project. Within the main technical area (TA), Oppenheimer was responsible for As staffing grew and experimental requirements developed, divisions and establishing and organizing the working groups therein,10 in addition groups extended outward, past the established boundary of TA-01. Much to policy and the administration of security and secrecy between the of this expansion was due to the need for less interference from other 6

Page 23

GROVES AND OPPENHEIMER experimentation occurring at TA-01, safety considerations from explo- sives testing, and the development of multiple lines of weapons testing. As the scientists, their families, and the support staff began settling the mesa top, buildings went up faster than previously imagined. TAs moved Oppenheimer and Groves had a surprisingly congenial well beyond the main TA-01. Housing areas swelled as the number of relationship. Groves was a hard and fast military man, while families moving onto the mesa also swelled, and families grew bigger Oppenheimer was a quizzical yet confident academic. In any once they arrived. The Pajarito Plateau upheld its promise to protect other existence, these two commanding figures of opposing Groves’s secret project while also sustaining the idea of splendor that personalities and conflicting qualifications could have fal- Oppenheimer had foreseen. The name Los Alamos was to remain a tered. Still, the shared enormity of constructing an atomic secret. As a name, Site Y was sterile, secure, and secretive, but to the new inhabitants of the plateau, other names became commonplace. Shangri weapon and putting an end to WWII inspired the two to La was often used to describe Los Alamos in all its mystery and beauty. persevere. What started out with the decision for Site Y’s location ended with the success of the Manhattan Project, While Oppenheimer administered the civilian side, a commanding officer, Gerald R. Tyler, held responsibility over the military personnel. nearing culmination in July 1945 at the Trinity Site with the Although a large civilian contingent made up the bulk of Project Y’s successful detonation of the “Gadget” (pictured below). technical staff, the military supported the project with security to prevent trespass, provide guard duties, and ensure that living conditions in Los Alamos remained suitable for the town’s population. Initially, the Laboratory would stand as a civilian institution that was researching and designing an atomic weapon. As design and assembly took precedence, the military would take over, citing the need for greater secrecy and potentially commissioning the once-civilian scientists as military officers. As with Oppenheimer, Tyler reported directly to Groves, yet Groves ultimately snubbed the initial plan of moving Project Y to the military because the effort to maintain secrecy under a civilian administration proved adequate. After completion of the bombs and the realization that work at Los Alamos would continue, modernization and expansion of infrastructure occurred within the bounds of available land. Land procurement and expansion were limited due to neighboring federal agency lands (U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service) and sovereign tribal lands. Laboratory operations can expand only within inflexible boundaries and outward only into willing communities. Oppenheimer and Groves survey the Trinity site.

Page 24

Site Y post office in Los Alamos. P.O. Box 180 during the Manhattan Project era, Los Alamos.

Page 25

SERVICE DATE COMMENCED FIRST OPERATOR Appliance Store Late 1946 U.S. Army Building Maintenance and Repair 1943 U.S. Army through Force Account Crews Dentist March 1944 U.S. Army East Cafeteria March 1945 U.S. Army Electric Power Facilities 1943 U.S. Army Fire Department and Fire April 1943 U.S. Army Prevention Section Garbage Disposal 1943 U.S. Army Heating 1943 U.S. Army Housing 1943 University of California Medical Service March 1943 University of California Military Educational Facilities September 1946 U.S. Army Military Mess Early 1943 U.S. Army Motor Transportation Pool and Shop July 1943 U.S. Army Natural Gas system Early 1946 U.S. Army North Mess April 1943 U.S. Army Police Department/Military Police April 1943 U.S. Army Regular School System/ Summer of 1943 University of California Los Alamos High School Special Engineer Post Exchange June 1944 U.S. Army Sewage System 1943 U.S. Army Tech Post Exchange September 1943 U.S. Army Technical Area Steam Plant 1943 U.S. Army Telephone System February 1943 U.S. Army Veterinarian April 1943 U.S. Army Women’s Army Corps Mess/ Spring 1945 U.S. Army West Cafeteria Water Supply 1943 U.S. Army West Mess September 1943 U.S. Army

Page 26

A FORMIDABLE At first, Oppenheimer and Groves projected that Project Y would require only a few hundred scientists and support staff to finish the APPROACH mission.13 With this initial estimate, the existing infrastructure and the development of a living area and laboratory space would be sufficient. Oppenheimer began recruiting prominent physicists for Project Y. Groves not only saw the military eventually leading the effort to build the bomb; early on, he envisioned the recruited scientist’s enlisting in the military and falling under Army Corps of Engineers jurisdiction as well as being issued military rank. Oppenheimer initially agreed to this setup but compromised on this requirement after conversations with some of the more needed and influential recruit prospects such as Robert F. Bacher and Isidor I. Rabi, who refused to work at a laboratory run by the military, arguing that science could not flourish within a rigid military structure. Oppenheimer determined that recruitment efforts would also suffer, given the solidarity among the physicists at the time. Groves ended up giving in but did request the services of a special engineering detachment consisting of enlisted personnel. As a result, recruitment picked up. Oppenheimer used his network of former students and professional associates to help fill the ranks at the Laboratory. Although he was not allowed to tell the recruits about the particularities of the assignment, Oppenheimer’s prestige and confirma- tion that the project, if successful, would end the war led many to accept relocation to Los Alamos virtually “sight unseen.” Within a year of establishing Site Y, the realization hit home that the initial estimate of a few hundred scientists was a drastic miscalculation. The Pajarito Plateau lies on the southeast-facing slope of Because the incoming scientists were not enlisted and Site Y was so the Jemez Mountains. Long mesas and steep canyon walls remote, the demand to bring along family members was enormous. steer water and earth down and away to the Rio Grande—a By the end of the war, the military had posted approximately 3,000 landscape that Groves found ideal for security. In contrast, personnel at Los Alamos.14 The civilian population amounted to around Oppenheimer appreciated the beauty and sunshine that 2,500 individuals—considerably higher than the few hundred at the start of the project in 1943, which was not part of Groves’s initial plan northern New Mexico afforded. of how staffing at Project Y would progress. The addition of so many families changed the number and function of the required facilities Operational support bypassed the switchbacks with a reroute for the townsite. In addition to increased housing that would support along the north edge of the mesa. The route (NM 502, also family-sized units, residents would also need support infrastructure such called “Main Hill Road”) is still in use today, and the historic as a school and a hospital—a hospital set up not for military personnel but for families. Not only was the size of the staff an underestimate— switchbacks offer popular hiking opportunities. community demographics played a large part in how the new laboratory would need to be administered.

Page 27

1 Launching a Laboratory “LARGEST COLLECTION OF CRACKPOTS EVER SEEN” —GENERAL GROVES With the site of the new laboratory selected and the personnel organi- contract while necessary personnel, supplies, materials, and equipment zation developing, General Groves would need to find a management were procured for the work. entity. J. Robert Oppenheimer hailed from the University of California, After the war, the University of California expected to end the contract; which had experience managing scientific laboratories. At this time, however, the continued interest in further researching and developing Groves and Oppenheimer envisioned Site Y primarily as a scientific atomic technology and the advent of the Atomic Energy Commission in laboratory and, to some extent, could have viewed the situation from a 1947 led to an extension of the contract in March 1947.19 This contract very narrow perspective that partially blinded them to the needs of the remained in effect through 2006, with control being transferred to Los incoming families. Alamos National Security, LLC. In 2018, a partnership between the The University of California was selected in April 1943 because Groves Regents of the University of California, Battelle Memorial Institute, and needed an entity that was “experienced in research” and “still retained Texas A&M University continued Laboratory operations and helped an uncommitted capability to take on work.”15 Many of the universities promote an enhanced culture of safety. and related entities across the country were already involved in one way or another with the war effort. Groves believed that the University of California had yet to fully burden itself with war work.16 Additionally, Oppenheimer and a few of the prospective recruits hailed from the University of California. This connection surely played a pivotal role in Groves’s decision. Oppenheimer’s connection with the University of California went back to a 1929 assistant professorship,17 and Ernest O. Lawrence presented an extremely influential presence with the University of California. Lawrence invented the cyclotron and founded Berkeley’s Radiation Laboratory. The University of California’s experience with the scientific aspects of the work at Site Y easily fit the defined parameters of the Project Y mission; however, the need for housing and other civilian-type infrastructure on a massive scale was out of its league. The University of California would end up turning to multiple private contractors to help fulfill this need. The University of California signed a contract with the Manhattan Engineering District on April 20, 1943. The contract was retroactive to January 1, 1943, because work had already occurred and required pro- curement and financial processing.18 The mission of Project Y remained This photo of John von Neumann, Richard Feynman, and Stan Ulam was a secret to University of California officials who were administering the taken in the entrance patio at Bandelier National Monument.

Page 28

TA-01 during the hustle and bustle of a normal workday. Uncleared family members were restricted access by security fencing and guard stations. Although much of the work was scientific in nature, support staff constituted a wide variety of tasks, including security, construction, maintenance, and industrial manufacturing. EXPANSION AND GROWTH Along with the entire Manhattan Project— at numerous sites across the country—Site Y infrastructure and population exploded to meet the scientific and engineering requirements of developing the first atomic weapon.

Page 29

Operations personnel, such as machining specialists, contributed an essential and substantive workforce to the mission of the Manhattan Project. COMPARTMENTALIZATION TOTAL QUALITY MANAGEMENT Compartmentalization was key to security in Groves’s mind. The Total Quality Management (TQM) was the essential orga- concept of compartmentalization specific for the Manhattan Proj- nizational philosophy incorporated by Oppenheimer into the ect came from Gregory Briet, a nuclear physicist.20 However, the Laboratory’s structure since the beginning.22 TQM was a revo- scientists at Site Y grappled with how to convey and discuss ideas; lutionary development that stressed not only effective leadership they were used to open and free dialogue. Oppenheimer realized and management but also multidisciplinary teams with efficient that compartmentalization could hamper this exchange and took information exchange. steps to lessen the military rigidity imposed on the scientists, improving morale and the success of the mission.21 In the summer of 1944, the Laboratory underwent a major reor- ganization in response to the realization that plutonium would not work in the type of bomb that they were developing. Testing of the gun-type bomb indicated that the design would sufficiently set off a chain reaction and subsequent explosion in a uranium core; it would be insufficient for a plutonium core. Because of the project- ed quantities of refined uranium, it was essential that plutonium be available to produce multiple weapons. Oppenheimer went into crisis mode and reorganized the Laboratory to continue develop- ing and testing the gun device and to emphasize the importance of developing a plutonium-based weapon. TQM was instrumen- tal to the success of this reorganization and the short timeframe when a plutonium-based weapon was developed.23

Page 30

Y THE WOMEN OF PROJECT Many of the celebrated stories attributed to the Manhattan Project among others. Although a vast number of both men and women in articles, books, and movies sadly place most, if not all, of the performed crucial administrative and operational support, a few women focus on the prodigious and subsequently widely admired men of the worked in the sciences alongside their male counterparts and were able project; however, countless women of remarkable talent furthered to contribute to the project with degrees and experience in physics, the achievements generated by the Manhattan Project as a whole chemistry, biology, and medicine, just to name a few. Because of the and Project Y specifically. Women worked in a variety of skillsets prejudices and limited opportunities that many women faced leading and endeavors to ensure the success of Project Y. These extraordinary up to and during the war, their potential to contribute to the project women, exceeding 500 by the end of the war, worked in the civilian was tamped down by institutional constraints. The women of Project sector and came to Los Alamos with their husbands; or they worked on Y were suppressed and regulated in their prospective achievements Project Y as enlisted personnel in the Women’s Army Corps (WAC), to the project. In spite of this institutional disadvantage, historical excelling in tasks typically assigned to the enlisted men.24 Much of investigations confirm the importance of women to the success of this dedicated workforce could be found in administrative jobs or in Project Y and the war effort overall. support of operations as maids, laundresses, and telephone operators, Rose Bethe Helen Stokes Irma Shuler moved to Los Alamos with worked in the recruited new employees famed husband, Hans Bethe. She began work procurement office where the Laboratory’s in her role as assistant personnel director. at Site Y assigning lodging accommodations to purchase requests, expedited shipments, and She conducted interviews and made hiring incoming families and solicited military non-technical conveyances were reviewed decisions. Her extraordinary capacity to officials on behalf of tenants. Rose advocated and processed. As an elected official to the perform in this role later required three for essential building upkeep, managed deliv- town council, Helen represented the citizens people to do the same job. Toward the end of ery and maid services, and tirelessly cam- of Los Alamos in most matters concerning the Manhattan Project, she married famed paigned for additional housing aimed at easing the direction of the town and the quality of explosives chemist George Kistiakowsky. the strain of an ever-growing population. She residential life. later worked to wire electronics boards.

Page 31

Frances Dunne (pictured above assembling an explosives test; position as an aircraft mechanic at Kirtland Air Force Base to work photo from the Los Alamos Historical Society) exemplifies the with Kistiakowsky’s group. Her skills proved instrumental to the value of women to the success of Project Y. Although women were group’s development and testing of implosion designs that led to the largely deprived of the same prospects to support the mission of “Gadget” and “Fat Man” devices. Frances Dunne’s distinguished the Manhattan Project enjoyed by male scientists and engineers, contribution to Project Y on her own merits—in a customarily male Frances triumphed as a respected member of the otherwise all-male role and despite overwhelming socially engrained opposition— Explosives Assembly Group. Retained by George Kistiakowsky, heralded a future that led to the Laboratory’s prominent female group leader and renowned explosives expert, Frances left her leaders, scientists, and engineers of today.

Page 32

1 Launching a Laboratory The McKee flat-topped, prefabricated housing offered Los Alamos residents a little more discretion from their neighbors, but the size left something to be desired. (opposite page). BUILDING LOS ALAMOS Bringing in the multitude of scientific personnel and support staff de- manded not only laboratory space but also a significant amount of housing and supporting infrastructure—such as schools and hospitals—and utilities to deliver water and electricity to the new town. Stone and Webster provided original plans for supporting the town and the technical area. Oppenheimer and other top officials directly supplied specifications for laboratory buildings initially designed for a working staff of a few hundred. One of the biggest problems with constructing buildings for the technical area was that experiments in progress determined the design and layout of the building under construction, and foundations were often poured before official architecture plans were received. All in all, by 1946, family-unit housing for 617 families had been constructed. The Los Alamos Hospital, pictured here in 1947, was well equipped to handle most of what a small community needed; however, the number of births frequently tested those capabilities. Housing on the outskirts of the technical area presented its own set of problems. As the primary staff increased, so did the needed support staff and the family members who tagged along. Although Stone and Webster provided the initial plans and was supposed to also provide construction services, the needs of Project Y proved to be too demanding; M. M. Sundt Company was selected by the University of California to construct many of the buildings designed by the first contractor.25 The Sundt Company remained the primary construction contractor for the Laboratory until the beginning of 1944, constructing 332 apartments.26 Following the work completed by the Sundt Company, the J. E. Morgan Company constructed 56 duplexes, known as “Morganville,” during the first 3 months of 1944.27 Then the Robert E. McKee Company came to Los Alamos to construct “McKeeville,” which consisted of 100 prefabricat- ed houses.28 All in all, by 1946, family-unit housing for 617 families had The Sundt apartments housed numerous families. The close-quartered living tested been constructed. the politeness of many good neighbors. 16

Page 34

1 Launching a Laboratory KEEPING SITE Y SECURE As the population and resultant housing increased, security also increased. Staff wore mandatory security badges around the technical areas. To keep Military Police made up the security detachment—with 196 enlisted information secure, staff often used codenames. Names of premier and personnel’s reporting to a single officer—to guard the main technical area well-known scientists were veiled to hide their true identity and to keep and other sites and to act as fire guard. By 1946, the number of security prying ears from gaining further understanding of the work that was guards grew to 9 officers, overseeing 486 security staff in 44 separate, 24- occurring at the Laboratory. For example, Enrico Fermi used the surname hour posts. Military Police retained the bulk of the security work through Farmer when traveling offsite.32 Other codenames, such as with progress 1946, and a Motor Patrol Section handled road patrols and traffic viola- reporting, used popular baseball teams to describe poor outcomes (Chicago tions. In 1947, AEC security guards replaced the Military Police guards.29 Cubs), fair (Brooklyn Dodgers), and good results (Boston Red Sox). Security for and among the residents was a constant presence at Site Y. Groves was not only worried about an outside threat but also one from the Workers and their families were under continuous watch and were even inside.33 During the entirety of the Manhattan Project, General Groves provided security regulations.30 Letters to the outside were carefully sent hundreds of operatives across the country within a counterintelligence scrutinized before being sent out, and any incoming mail went to one post corps. This operation—comprising some 500 soldiers alongside detectives, office box: P.O. Box 1663, Santa Fe, New Mexico. Telephone usage was reporters, lawyers, and the like—monitored the workers of the Manhattan also severely regulated. Staff and family members were restricted in their Project. Not only did the counterintelligence corps investigate suspected interactions when off The Hill. Professional conversations were limited to leaks and sabotage—in at least one instance, they came down hard on an the technical areas, but families were still under restrictions regarding their individual who was producing and selling counterfeit meal tickets.34 The social engagements and photography. 31 Travel from Los Alamos was gen- threat was real, and with the confirmed test of the first Soviet atomic weap- erally limited to Santa Fe—with farther destinations firmly discouraged— on on August 29, 1949, the United States realized that the Soviet Union and friends and family members were not allowed to visit the site at all. had received inside information. In fact, much of the information that the Soviet Union received was given freely, with little or no apprehension. Security changeover, 1947.

Page 35

Klaus Fuchs Klaus Fuchs would later come to personify the fear that initially captured the concern of General Groves when selecting a location for Site Y. Fuchs admitted to suppling the Soviet Union with details that aided their production of an atomic weapon; however, Fuchs’s treachery did not stem from an adjacent populace, as initially conceived, but rather from a sympathetic stance for a political ideology. Insider threats remain a serious concern for the successful and secure operations of the Laboratory today. “I had therefore, no hesitation in giving all the information I had, even though occasionally I tried to concentrate mainly on giving information about the results of my own work.” — Klaus Fuchs

Page 36

1 Launching a Laboratory KEEPING SITE Y SAFE Security and secrecy were prime objectives for Site Y operations; however, precautions for uranium poisoning.39 Once plutonium entered the picture, urgency to succeed often placed environmental management and waste testing increased significantly regarding this little-known substance. management far behind other priorities. Standards were set by the project and did not allow for sufficient oversight by nearby communities. Methods for biological testing40 and apparatuses to monitor for exposure Additionally, project managers implemented hasty solutions to ensure took center stage.41 Laboratory staff were under significant pressure to more expedient results, and these solutions ultimately sacrificed the health perform and produce results, which caused concern that accidents were and safety of personnel. Compartmentalization contributed to this sacrifice likely to occur at the Laboratory. Plutonium effects produced terrifying by limiting the sharing of sensitive information, safety concerns, and effects in bone and kidneys.42 Furthermore, very little data existed for the lessons learned; however, significant efforts produced strides in monitoring short-term effects on the human body—much less for long-term effects radiation hazards,35 with contractors bearing the responsibility of setting measured in decades rather than days, months, or several years. In response, standards, procedures, and inspection protocol. In 1942, the Met Lab the Laboratory developed ways to determine exposure in the body and (short for Metallurgical Laboratory) instituted unprecedented monitoring plutonium concentration in the air.43 for radiation hazards by establishing the Chicago Health Division. The civilian health services provided by the Post Hospital for the commu- … accidents and fatalities did occur due to the nity of Los Alamos differed dramatically in scope from Hempelmann’s Health Group. Although the Post Hospital provided healthcare for Labo- fast-paced nature of the work… ratory workers, that work mostly comprised common injuries and accidents characteristic of normal manufacturing processes. Additionally, one of the Project Y had two separate health service providers during the Manhattan most common events at the Post Hospital was childbirth—so common Project, but science was the focus of the University of California and the that General Groves was quite dismayed by his lack of control regarding Army Corps of Engineers. One of the health service providers served this unexpected circumstance of bringing a bunch of 20- and 30-year-olds the civilian population, and the other served the Laboratory staff. Group together in the middle of nowhere. Leader Louis Hempelmann, who reported directly to Oppenheimer, led the Los Alamos Health Group.36 This group was concerned with Although the Laboratory tried to monitor health effects of staff, accidents “special hazards,”37 which included industrial health safety that required a and fatalities occurred due to the fast-paced nature of the work and lax safety definition of standards and safe operating procedures and also monitoring procedures of the era. Two notorious fatalities occurred due to accidental ra- and recording.38 The first year for Hempelmann’s group saw a light diation exposure to Harry Daghlian and Louis Slotin, but non-radiation ex- workload, and with the arrival of plutonium to the Laboratory in 1944, the posure and construction-related fatalities also occurred. In 1947, the Atomic workload dramatically increased. Before 1944, the health group monitored Energy Commission took over the Manhattan Engineering District.44 particle accelerators and other radiation sources, performed blood counts Lessons learned from previous fatalities provided opportunities to learn from of personnel, documented instrumentation shortages, and developed mistakes, in hopes of preventing further accidents from claiming lives. 20

Page 37

ESTABLISHMENT OF In November 2015, Congress established the Manhattan THE MANHATTAN Project National Historical Park to memorialize the historically significant events of the Manhattan Project. The Los Alamos PROJECT unit of the park showcases much that has been discussed in this chapter. The Laboratory’s Operations Division does much to support these efforts by helping to preserve the extant buildings NATIONAL and providing crucial carrying capacity for the dissemination of knowledge for which the public thirsts. HISTORICAL PARK A park service employee helps lead tours at TA-18, the first Manhattan Project National Historical Park site at the Laboratory to allow limited public access.

Page 38

An early apparatus used to detect radiation. The Health Group was tasked throughout the Manhattan Project with monitoring potential radiation exposure.

Page 39

A mock-up of the criticality experiment that caused the death of Louis Slotin on May 30, 1946.

Page 40

ACQUIRED REAL ESTATE REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS AND (1943–1948)45 DISPOSITIONS (1949–1997)46 Manhattan Engineer District > Atomic Energy Commission Laboratory boundary Atomic Energy Commission (1947) Withdrawn from public domain Atomic Energy Commission (1948) Transferred to Los Alamos County Conveyed to public domain Conveyed to U.S. Forest Service Th e Manhattan Engineer District acquired Parcels A through E in 1943 and Transferred to Bandelier National Monument transferred them to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1947. Th e Atomic Energy Commission acquired Parcel F and Parcels G through I in 1947 and 1948, respectively. Th e exterior boundaries of all parcels became the Th e black line represents the bounds of the Laboratory. Light blue areas incorporated County of Los Alamos in 1949. Th e area totals approximately refl ect land withdrawn from public domain for use by the U.S. Atomic 109 square miles. Energy Commission (1947–1974), the U.S. Energy Research and Development Administration (1974–1977), and the U.S. Department of Energy (1977–1997). Pink areas show the land that was transferred to Los Alamos County (Los Alamos Ski Club to the left, Los Alamos “townsite” in the middle, and White Rock to the right). Th e medium blue area identifi es land conveyed to the public domain. Green areas display land conveyed to the U.S. Forest Service. Brown areas indicate land transferred to the Bandelier National Monument.

Page 41

REAL ESTATE ACQUISITIONS AND DISPOSITIONS (1998–2019)47 Laboratory boundary Withdrawn from public domain Transferred to Los Alamos County Remaining in public domain Conveyed to Pueblo San Ildefonso Conveyed to White Rock Canyon Reserve The black line represents the bounds of the Laboratory. Light blue areas reflect land withdrawn from public domain for use by the U.S. Department of Energy. Pink areas show additional land transferred to Los Alamos County. Medium blue areas identify land remaining in the public domain. The orange area displays land conveyed to the Pueblo de San Ildefonso. The purple area represents land conveyed to the White Rock Canyon Reserve.

Page 42

Second Laboratory Director Bradbury and first Laboratory Director Oppenheimer, 1964.

Page 43

C H A P T E R 2 Realizing a Permanent Institution 1947–1970

Page 44

Facility counts of Los Alamos National Laboratory technical areas in 1965.48

Page 45

Presidents Federal Oversight Harry S. Truman (D), 1945–1953 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, Dwight D. Eisenhower (R), 1953–1961 1947–1974 John F. Kennedy (D), 1961–1963 Federal Managers a Lyndon B. Johnson (D), 1963–1969 Elmo R. Morgan, 1951 Richard M. Nixon (R), 1969–1974 Ralph P. Johnson, 1951–1952 Major Conflicts Frank C. DiLuzio, 1952–1956 Cold War, 1945–1991 Paul A. Wilson, 1956–1961 Korean War, 1950–1953 John J. Burke, 1961–1962 Vietnam War, 1965–1973 Charles C. Campbell, 1962–1967 Treaties Herman E. Rosser, 1967 H. Jack Blackwell, 1968–1974 North Atlantic Treaty Organization formed, Laboratory Director 1949 Limited Test Ban Treaty, 1963 Norris E. Bradbury, 1945–1970 Outer Space Treaty, 1967 Executives over Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Laboratory Operations Weapons, 1970 Col. Austin W. Betts, 1946–1948 Laboratory Budget ($K)RobertM.Kimball,1948–1950$44,484 (1954)–$140,980 (1970) Henry R. Hoyt, 1950–1970 Laboratory Staff Raemer Schreiber, 1962–1972 Support Contractor 4,508 (1947)–4,428 (1970) Zia Company, 1946–1986 a The Atomic Energy Commission established a Los Alamos field office on June 18, 1951, which provided exclusive federal oversight of the Laboratory.

Page 47

2 Realizing a Oblique aerial of TA-01 (foreground) and the community of Los Alamos, 1955 (opposite page). Permanent Institution NURTURING A NASCENT ORGANIZATION At the end of World War II, the Laboratory’s future was extremely Bradbury to keep the Laboratory consequential, thereby inaugurating uncertain because staff had fulfilled its “one and only mission” to develop a longstanding tactic.57 Evidently, “inheriting a solid staff helped him an atomic bomb.49 After the war, the campus stood in great disrepair, and [Bradbury] through the transition years, which included times with no approximately half of the Laboratory’s staff left Los Alamos to return water, very little pavement, lots of mud, and not enough housing.”58 The to their pre-war lives.50 As recalled in 1954, “Laboratory equipment, procurement of a permanent water supply began in March 1946, with although excellent, was housed in cramped, inadequate complexes of the commencement of a $750,000 water-acquisition project using valley wooden buildings and served by an increasingly inadequate utility wells that tapped into the Rio Grande aquifer.59 system,” and the townsite lacked the necessary housing and commercial The United States Congress quelled the uncertainty of the Laboratory’s infrastructure.51 Some stability was established with the appointment in future when they passed the Atomic Energy Act in August 1946.60 October 1945 of Norris E. Bradbury as interim director upon J. Robert This legislation validated that the United States wanted to maintain a Oppenheimer’s departure.52 Accepting the position on condition for 6 nuclear research laboratory.61 Notably, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 months, Bradbury stayed at the helm for 25 years.53 Director Bradbury transferred the control of atomic energy from the military to the civilian had a vision for the Laboratory and established its future with a con- Atomic Energy Commission.62 In an effort to increase the United States’ tinued focus on weapons research. By right-sizing programs, he ensured production capacity of nuclear weapons, the Atomic Energy Commission that the land base could accommodate the work and civilians could initiated an expansion of the entire nuclear weapons complex.63 administer it.54 In this new framework, the Los Alamos Laboratory’s focus was the Los Alamos Laboratory’s focus was the development of atomic weapons, which required the immediate estab- lishment of a robust campus and a permanent community.64 The former development of atomic weapons, which required the construction of new, dedicated technical areas and scientific facilities and the development of dependable power and water supplies. required … a permanent community. By September 1947, the decision was made to move the Laboratory’s primary functions to South Mesa (present-day TA-03) and subsequently At the end of 1945, the United States had two nuclear weapons in its demolish the Main Technical Area (TA-01) immediately adjacent to the stockpile.55 The first nuclear test series, Operation Crossroads, occurred Los Alamos townsite.65 in June–July 1946 at Bikini Atoll in the Pacific Ocean.56 The Operation Crossroads program provided the Laboratory with a new objective; In December 1947, Associated Architects-Engineers, led by W. C. the program focused on testing the destructive power of the atomic Kruger, developed a 5-year campus plan that articulated Director bomb against naval vessels. Rebuilding the Laboratory’s infrastructure Bradbury’s vision for reconstruction of the technical area.66 The campus and intellect began in January 1946, when Groves implored Director plan provided a general site plan of present-day TA-03, studied access 31

Page 48

Car stuck in the mud, February 1948. Construction of Omega Bridge over Los Alamos Canyon, 1951. roads, included drawings of building types, and estimated construction for each division. Working with the division leader and division staff, costs. Primary considerations in preparing the plan were to the teams assessed space and utility requirements, observed the division’s processes, and evaluated area and equipment needs. The team then • group related facilities to simplify operations; developed “an ideal mode of operation under ideal conditions in a new laboratory.”67 Through the input gathered from the research teams, • provide adequate room for expansion; Associated Architects-Engineers developed a set of standard schemes, • segregate administrative, warehouse, maintenance, and laboratory establishing guidelines for modular designs and a master plan.68 functions; The construction of a bridge across Los Alamos Canyon was critical to • provide ease of access to all elements; moving the Laboratory because the canyon separated the Main Technical Area from South Mesa. The Atomic Energy Commission awarded the • maximize security for technical operations; construction contract in May 1950, and the bridge opened in August • prohibit security from impeding on routine administrative and 1951.69 Between 1947 and 1951, the Laboratory established more than warehouse functions; 12 technical areas and hundreds of facilities on the other side of Los Alamos Canyon, away from the townsite. Plans for the South Mesa • minimize interference with existing activities; and access road (present-day Truck Route) and a power plant were also underway. By 1954, the Atomic Energy Commission invested more than • construct a road along the north side of South Mesa. $127 million in technical facilities at Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory.70 To facilitate Director Bradbury’s vision, Associated Architects-Engineers assigned a research team that consisted of an architect and an engineer 32

Page 49

SETTING THE STANDARD As the Atomic Energy Commission was established, Director Bradbury began rebuilding the Laboratory’s intellect. He established research and development priorities, initiated new projects, and hired the appropriate staff to accomplish mission objectives. To remain germane and attract first-rate scientists, Director Bradbury expanded the Laboratory’s weap- In December 1947, Associated Architects-Engineers proposed ons-research programs and extended their reach. Cooperating primarily architectural and structural standards for new facilities at the with universities, the Laboratory established student fellowships, post- Laboratory.85 doctoral appointments, and consultant agreements.71 Director Bradbury ADMINISTRATIVE BUILDING began “building his ideal Laboratory” and convinced the Atomic Energy Commission and the University of California of his plans.72 Type A: Rectangular plan, five stories high with a service tower Type B: Rectangular in plan and numerous stories high with The Atomic Energy Commission and Director Bradbury knew that services in the center mission success was dependent on Los Alamos’s being a nice place to Type C: U-shaped in plan with a three-story main building and live. Without an attractive community, they could not expect to keep two-story wings high-quality staff, students, and consultants in town. The military camp Type D: Rectangular in plan and one story high with separate had to be transformed into a traditional community that included wings for each department housing, schools, municipal services, and medical facilities.73 Director LABORATORY Bradbury took an active interest in this effort, spending much of his time dealing with domestic crises.74 It has been said, “He lived as though Type A: Two-story-high laboratory and office combination he were killing snakes every minute of the day.”75 In March 1948, the Type B: Three-story sets of laboratories and offices Atomic Energy Commission announced a 5-year community master plan Type C: One-story-high laboratory with utilities in the attic worth $65.5million.By1954,theCommissionhadinvestedmorethanSHOPSANDWAREHOUSES$121 million in community and general-use facilities in Los Alamos.76 Type A: Three-story-high shops and warehouse combination Director Bradbury established the Laboratory’s model to remain con- with freight elevator sequential, explaining in 1963 that, to succeed, the Laboratory had to Type B: Main warehouse with separate wings for shops exist for a purpose, have a definitiveness and uniqueness of purpose, and UTILITY BUILDINGS have good staff.77 He noted, “We had very specific, tangible objectives Type A Powerhouse: Housed four 5,000-horsepower diesel and we were well supported in Washington.”78 Between 1945 and 1967, generators during Director Bradbury’s tenure, the nation’s stockpile grew from 2 Type B Firehouse: Sited on a corner lot with two wings for to 31,255 weapons, and the United States conducted more than 500 personnel quarters nuclear tests.79 To both maintain a thriving weapons program and ensure the permanence of the Laboratory, Director Bradbury diversified the weapons-research mission as much as possible.80 In 1968 during the Laboratory’s 25th anniversary, Director Bradbury was awarded the Atomic Energy Commission’s citation, in part, for “his Design for Shop and Warehouse type A, by Associated Architects-Engineers, Los Alamos, New Mexico.

Page 50

2 Realizing a Permanent Institution accomplishments as a scientist and administrator in translating basic procurement volume, innovate subcontracting, expand construction and concepts into practical instruments of national security and peacetime engineering capacity, and improve the review and approval processes.84 national goals” and “his courageous and imaginative leadership after Meeting the Laboratory’s energy needs will be accomplished through World War II in transforming a temporary wartime installation into investments in long-term, power-purchase agreements. Comprehensive an outstanding modern center for research and development.”81 Senior facility-based planning ensures that upcoming expansions will be Laboratory Historian Alan B. Carr noted that Norris E. Bradbury is supported by maintenance and operations staff and activities, including considered the father of the modern federal Laboratory.82 criticality safety, waste management, security, and environmental per- mitting. To succeed, the Laboratory must continue to execute sustained Today, we face many of the same operational challenges that Director operations that are reliable and responsive to mission needs. Bradbury faced in the late 1940s. As the Laboratory expands its pro- grams—namely the pit-production mission—the need is increasing for more regional housing, high-quality staff, reliable power, and mission- essential infrastructure. In 2021, the Laboratory developed a comprehen- sive Campus Master Plan that established a vision for the future.83 With aims similar to those of the Associated Architects-Engineers in 1947, the Laboratory is meeting the increased demand for staff and space by adopting modular construction, expanding parking capacity, and increas- ing telework options. The Laboratory Agenda for fiscal year 2022 seeks to improve talent acquisition plans, double the rate of hiring, increase Portion of the Main Technical Area in 1951, before the Laboratory was relocated. 34 Omega Bridge over Los Alamos Canyon, 1959. Director Bradbury discusses the Laboratory’s budget in July 1963.

Page 51

2 Realizing a Permanent Institution TRANSFERRING OVERSIGHT TO CIVILIANS Appointed by the President, the civilian Atomic Energy Commission Laboratory and the Los Alamos townsite.100 These services included took over control of atomic energy from the military in August 1946.90 support of a $127-millionLaboratoryconstructionprogramandaPresidentHarryS.TrumansignedExecutiveOrder9816intandem$121-million community master plan.101 Although the cost of construc- and, on January 1, 1947, conveyed the assets of the Manhattan Engineer tion was typically more expensive in Los Alamos because of its isolated District to the newly appointed commission.91 Transitioning respon- location, two decisions kept costs down. First, the Atomic Energy sibility from the military to the Atomic Energy Commission was not Commission employed competitive bidding and second, they built a immediate because the military continued to oversee the Laboratory at construction camp in White Rock so that smaller companies could bid least through March 1947.92 on the work.102 In general, the Atomic Energy Commission pursued a policy of decen- The Zia Company was heavily involved in implementing the Atomic tralization.93 As part of this management philosophy, they continued Energy Commission’s priorities for the Laboratory: stabilize and with contractor-operated facilities even though the Atomic Energy Act revitalize the Laboratory and develop a community “satisfactory to the of 1946 allowed them to use federal employees. In 1947, they established scientists.”103 Notably, when the Zia Company took over maintenance the Office of Santa Fe Directed Operations (later known as the Santa and support operations, “the utilities for the technical and community Fe Operations Office) in Los Alamos.94 The Commission established areas were both a maze and a mess.”104 The Zia Company managed all a Los Alamos Field Office in 1951 and moved its regional office to utilities and environmental services in Los Alamos (electricity, water, Albuquerque.95 The Atomic Energy Commission renewed the University natural gas, steam, garbage, and sewage); ran the town bus system and of California’s contract to operate the Laboratory and Zia Company’s the Laboratory taxi; maintained all of the roads; and provided architec- contract for Laboratory maintenance and townsite operations.96 tural and engineering services.105 Los Alamos was a “company town,” and the The expediency of the wartime effort to develop the atomic bomb left the Laboratory with crowded complexes, temporary buildings, and cramped Zia Company operated it. spaces.106 The Zia Company provided supply procurement and storage, cost and property accounting, fleet management, janitorial services, The Zia Company—not to be confused with the U.S. Army Corps of “gadgeteering,” and facility maintenance.107 Engineers Albuquerque District’s Zia Project or Zia Area Office97—was founded in April 1946.98 At the command of the Manhattan Engineer Los Alamos was a “company town,” and the Zia Company operated it: District, general contractor Robert E. McKee established the Zia lodging, cafeterias, radio station, newspaper, veterinary hospital, commu- Company as a subsidiary to provide support services to the Laboratory nity hospital, and schools. They managed and maintained all community after World War II.99 Under a cost-plus-fixed-fee contract, the Zia buildings and housing, collected rental and utilities payments, and kept Company performed maintenance and operations services for both the up parks. Because the Atomic Energy Commission paid for commercial 35

Page 52

Atomic Energy Commission mounted patrol, 1947 (photo from the Los Alamos Historical Society).

Page 53

Man sitting under a tree at the Western Area golf course, July 1, 1946. Two people overlooking the golf course (inset).

Page 54

LEADERS IN OPERATIONS JANE HENRY HAMILTON REESE HALL HOYT Jane Hall began in the Laboratory’s weapons division in 1946, Henry Hoyt began as a senior Laboratory administrator in 1946 co-led the Clementine reactor project, and was promoted to and was promoted by Director Bradbury to assistant director assistant director by Director Bradbury in 1955. Born on June 13, for administration in 1950. In this position, Hoyt coordinated 1915, Jane Elizabeth Hamilton grew up in Denver, Colorado. fiscal, procurement, property, personnel, and miscellaneous She married physicist David B. Hall in 1939, had two children, administrative activities. Born on December 5, 1902, in New and earned a doctorate in physics in 1942 from the University York City, he received an associate degree in business in 1924 of Chicago. Before moving to Los Alamos in November 1945, from Harvard College. He and his wife, Keziah (or Kay), had the couple had worked at Chicago’s Metallurgical Laboratory three children, and Hoyt served on the home front in the U.S. and at Hanford. Throughout her career, colleagues admired Jane Air Force from 1942 to 1945. In addition to his Laboratory duties, for both her great scientific ability and exceptional management Hoyt charitably gave back to his Santa Fe community. He served skills. The Atomic Energy Commission awarded Hall the AEC as president of the International Folk Art Foundation and was a Citation for outstanding service to the nation upon her retirement member of its board of trustees. Additionally, he was a member in June 1970.86 Jane Hall is presently honored with a conference of the board of managers for the School of American Research. room named after her—the first one named after a woman at Hoyt retired on October 31, 1970, and received a certificate of the Laboratory—in the Radiological Laboratory/Utility/Office appreciation for his valuable service from Director Agnew.89 Building (or RLUOB),87 and an award in her name is given to teams or organizations that have “demonstrated continued improvement in safety/security processes or performance.”88 38

Page 55

Atomic Energy Commission Office of Santa Fe Directed Operations, Los Alamos, Zia service station. 1947 (photo from the Los Alamos Historical Society). buildings, they limited the types and number of businesses allowed to As noted in a 1954 Laboratory report about the state of Los Alamos, operate. For example, of the 33 business types in Los Alamos in 1952, “There were few amenities of normal American life other than those only food stores, cafeterias, barber shops, service stations, jewelers, provided by the residents themselves, but these inconveniences were movie theaters, and drugstores numbered more than one.108 Through the accepted by civilian and military residents alike as part of their contri- contracting of private concessionaires, the Zia Company eventually del- bution to winning the war.”116 Although it took time for residents to egated the operation of commercial enterprises.109 The state educational assume greater responsibility for their community, they eventually created system appropriated schools administration in 1949, and Los Alamos boards of trustees, associations, clubs, committees, and organizations.117 Medical Center, Inc., took over hospital management in 1950.110 Notably for residents, the last outdoor toilet disappeared in 1949, citizens were allowed to vote in 1950, the security switchboard for home phones Undoubtedly, the Atomic Energy Commission was fortunate to inherit the Zia Company.111 The work required at the Laboratory provided for a Zia Company payroll of 1,400 staff by 1954112 and included skilled and unskilled craftpersons from local unions, whom the Zia Company kept exhaustively trained. The Zia Company spent 60 percent of its resources in support of Laboratory operations and 40 percent on the townsite. After sustaining Laboratory operations for 40 years, the Zia Company lost its contract to Pan Am World Services in 1986.113 An outside contractor provided support services to the Laboratory until 2008, when the Laboratory brought the functions in-house.114 Made possible by reinvesting funds previously allocated for the state’s gross-receipts tax, this structural change allowed the Laboratory to build a maintenance The community of Los Alamos put great emphasis on indoor and outdoor recreation organization that ensures mission operations to this day.115 and its associated facilities. It’s a hit, April 22, 1947. 39

Page 56

2 Realizing a Permanent Institution was removed in 1954, the town opened up to the public in 1957, and community police force.121 The community founded a best-in-class Civil private homes were built in 1959.118 Today, the County of Los Alamos is Defense Organization, overseen by the Los Alamos Field Office’s Chief governed by a council with the support of boards and commissions. of Health and Safety when off-duty.122 The Laboratory’s security service comprised federal employees from 1946 to 1984, at which time the Contrary to their maintenance and operations outsourcing, the Atomic Laboratory secured a protective force contractor.123 Energy Commission conducted their own security.119 They established the AEC Security Service (later known as the AEC Protective Force), made up of federal employees. AEC Security Service personnel wholly replaced the U.S. Army Military Police by mid-November 1947.120 The Atomic Energy Commission also established a fire department and Ceremony for the U.S. Army transfer of security responsibility to the Atomic Energy Commission in 1947.

Page 57

Design for Utility Building type A, by Associated Architects-Engineers, Design for Laboratory type C, by Associated Architects-Engineers, Los Alamos, New Mexico. Los Alamos, New Mexico. Design for Engineering Building, by Associated Architects-Engineers, Design for Shop and Warehouse type B, by Associated Architects-Engineers, Los Alamos, New Mexico. Los Alamos, New Mexico.

Page 58

2 Realizing a Permanent Institution Stretch engineer’s maintenance console, 1961 (opposite page). DIVERSIFYING MISSION THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS The Laboratory’s post–World War II mission was to continue to research systems.135 The Laboratory designed computers and augmented systems and develop nuclear weapons. Bradbury had a plan for the Laboratory’s with commercial units until it began working with industry to design new future before the Atomic Energy Commission was even established.125 To computers in 1956.136 The Laboratory collaborated with IBM for 5 years to quell the staff exodus and keep the Laboratory relevant, Director Bradbury co-design the first transistorized computer, Stretch (or the IBM 7030).137 developed new technical research programs.126 Expanding beyond basic Keen to continue partnerships and knowledge sharing, the Laboratory nuclear research, they included physics, chemistry, and metallurgy.127 For- was a founding member of the IBM SHARE user group, establishing tunately, the scientists found Bradbury’s diversified programs challenging relationships with other scientific computing centers such as RAND and and rewarding, and the Laboratory prospered with new partnerships.128 MITRE.138 In 1966, the Laboratory collaborated with the Control Data Corporation to develop the CDC 6600, the first remotely operated sys- In 1954, some interested Laboratory scientists formed a study group to tem.139 Another computing partner was the University of New Mexico. The explore the feasibility of a nuclear-powered rocket, unofficially starting Laboratory remains on the cutting edge of supercomputing—the primary Project Rover.129 To investigate the technological principles, the Atomic tool for ensuring the safety and reliability of the nation’s nuclear stockpile.140 Energy Commission began a demonstration program at the Laboratory in 1955. The Laboratory established a Nuclear Rocket Propulsion (N) Project Rover, at its peak, was the second Division, led by Raemer Schreiber, to support the program.130 Initially collaborating with the U.S. Air Force and the University of California’s largest program at the Laboratory. Radiation Laboratory at Livermore, the newly founded National Aeronau- tics and Space Administration joined the project in 1958.131 In 1961, as the In 1958, the Advanced Research Projects Agency developed a “watchman” space race began, President John F. Kennedy inaugurated the Project Rover project in response to the launch of the Sputnik satellite by the Soviet program.132 Project Rover was discontinued in January 1973 because of Union.141 The Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory and Sandia Laboratory growing concerns about the overall cost of the space program, and national were funded in 1959 to research technologies for monitoring nuclear priorities had changed.133 Considered a success, Project Rover, at its peak, explosions around the world.142 Developing into the Vela satellite Pro- was the second largest program at the Laboratory, engaging many divisions gram, the project involved primarily the P-1, P-4, and W-7 groups at the and utilizing various facilities.134 Importantly, subsequent deep-space mis- Laboratory; the Atomic Energy Commission; the U.S. Air Force; and the sions greatly benefited from technology developed during Project Rover, Advanced Research Projects Agency (present-day DARPA).143 The Labo- and the Laboratory continues to collaborate closely with the National ratory developed detection instrument systems for nuclear explosions with- Aeronautics and Space Administration. in the earth’s atmosphere and in space.144 Ten days after the signing of the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty on October 7, 1963, the United States launched Since helping to originate the field in high-performance computing, the Vela 1 and 2 to conduct nuclear surveillance.145 In total, the United States Laboratory has always been at the forefront to develop new and better launched six pair of Vela satellites between 1963 and 1969 and made 42

Page 60

2 Realizing a Permanent Institution numerous cosmic discoveries along the way.146 The Laboratory continues to effective and successful operations and enhances the economic viability support satellite-based nonproliferation programs. of surrounding communities.153 Building on Director Bradbury’s achievements, the Laboratory has increased its partnerships with academic Markedly, President Dwight D. Eisenhower’s Atoms for Peace proposal and institutions and developed new relationships with trade organizations. the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 shifted the trajectory of nuclear energy Recognizing that technological and process improvements drive efficiency, and opened up new opportunities for partnerships. The former promoted the international management of nuclear energy and its peaceful uses, and the latter allowed the sharing of technical and scientific nuclear informa- tion with the foreign nations.147 Significantly, in 1960, the Atomic Energy Commission endorsed the collaboration of laboratories with other federal agencies in nonnuclear research.148 They recognized that “the strong ca- pabilities of the laboratories are not the exclusive resources of the atomic energy field; they are held in trust for the nation as a whole.”149 Applying technology to peaceful uses, the Laboratory participated in the Plow- share series of nuclear testing and directed Project Sherwood. Plowshare explored the feasibility of using nuclear explosions for excavation, natural gas exploration, and earth moving.150 Project Sherwood comprised the Laboratory’s research on controlled thermonuclear (fusion) reactors that could produce an essentially inexhaustible source of energy.151 Director Bradbury’s plan to transition the Laboratory from one project (developing an atomic bomb) to many projects (technical research to integrate physics, chemistry, and metallurgy) created a sustainable future for the Laboratory. The effort required funding from the Atomic Energy Commission; construction, maintenance, and operations support from the Zia Company; innovative proposals from the staff; and a means to attract high-quality scientists and engineers. Bradbury initiated the wide-ranging cooperation with universities and colleges that the Laboratory enjoys today. His strategy included developing dynamic consultant agreements, making numerous postdoctoral appointments, and creating student fellowships.152 Director Bradbury’s tactics were the predecessors of the Laboratory’s cur- rent robust student pipelines in the fields of science and operations. Today, establishing and improving community relations is a core part of the Laboratory’s mission. The Laboratory’s management and operations Developed in 1962, the Laboratory-designed Vela satellites were named from the Spanish contractor, Triad National Security, LLC (Triad), believes that it ensures word velar, meaning “to watch.” 44

Page 61

2 Realizing a Permanent Institution improved talent pipelines focus on the critical skills currently needed, such as construction and craft trades, radiation protection, engineering machining, and mechanical engineering.154 To address stewardship EAST GATE concerns, the Laboratory has increased its regional and community dialogue and partnerships,155 which include Laboratory leadership’s being SECURITY STATION more visible in the community by serving on boards of directors and attending board meetings. The Laboratory is also focused on improving relationships with regional tribes. As such, the Laboratory established a Tribal Working Group and presents high-profile projects to the All East Gate, Back Gate, and Sandia Gate served as public Pueblo Council of Governors. Triad has increased philanthropy in security checkpoints along public access points during the northern New Mexico by investing $7 million since November 2018. As early-Cold War era. The East Gate checkpoint included a part of improving the Laboratory’s culture, “Community involvement and engagement [is] expected of everyone across the organization.”156 tower, a pass office, and a covered vehicle inspection station. Constructed in 1948 by W. C. Kruger and Associates, the checkpoint served the townsite and the Laboratory until 1957, when the townsite was opened up to the public. The location of the tower offered excellent views of traffic along State Road 502 and increased the visibility of physical security to the public.124 Vela satellite assembly at Cape Canaveral, April 1970. East Gate Security Station.

Page 62

Project Sherwood experiment, 1959.

Page 63

Summer students, left to right, Ethan Billingsley (New Mexico State University), Yolnan Chen (Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology), and Robert Billette (Michigan State University) at work in the Laboratory, August 8, 2019.

Page 64

2 Realizing a Permanent Institution PROTECTING THE WORKFORCE Unfortunately, the Laboratory’s health, medical, and safety services were From the Manhattan Engineer District, the Atomic Energy Commission in as much upheaval as the rest of the Laboratory after World War II.157 received a “comprehensive accident prevention and health program” within In response, Director Bradbury called for the development of a health the complex.164 However, the physical state of equipment and facilities physics program and championed the continuing research of radiation across the complex varied. As such, the Atomic Energy Commission estab- effects.158 Notably, Chemistry and Metallurgy Division Leader Eric lished the Safety and Industrial Health Advisory Board in August 1947 to Jette was an early advocate for a Health Division at the Laboratory, even provide an independent assessment. The resulting report established, “Los sending Director Bradbury a memo in 1946 requesting its establishment Alamos, with the worst record in the complex, had not been subject to and providing an organizational chart.159 Expanding on the health and health and safety control from headquarters,”165 and changes ensued. safety efforts of the Manhattan Project, the Laboratory established an independent Health (H) Division in May 1947, with Louis H. Health Division Leader Shipman noted in 1950, “Gradually and inevitably Hempelmann as its Division Leader and Wright H. Langham as his the concept of ‘health’ broadened as it was realized that general matters of alternate.160 The new division—even its research group—was a service physical and mental well-being were matters of importance in the rela- organization to the Laboratory, with the aim of maintaining the health and tionship between the worker and the work he was doing.”166 Planned in safety of workers. Notably, biomedical research began in the laboratory in conjunction and intentionally sited next to each other, the Los Alamos support of worker safety of those engaged in handling plutonium.161 Hospital opened in January 1952, and the Laboratory’s Health Research Laboratory—home to the Health Division—opened in October 1953.167 Biomedical research was born out of necessity Although the two organizations were closely cooperating before their relocation, the importance of this continued collaboration was noted aptly during the Manhattan Project. by Dr. Shipman, “… there now exists the very healthy realization that we all have a common aim, that a person cannot have one part of his health on By 1948, the Health Division formed a trainee program and occupational one side of a fence and one part on the other.”168 health, radiological safety, radiobiology, industrial health, and safety groups.162 In 1949, new Health Division Leader Thomas L. Shipman Director Bradbury also oversaw the establishment of facilities and created the Industrial Hygiene (H-5) and Bio-Medical Research (H-4) procedures for remote handling of fissile materials following the groups. At the Laboratory, biomedical research was born out of necessity Manhattan Project–era criticality accidents.169 These new guidelines during the Manhattan Project as an essential support group to the weapons prioritized personnel safety while safeguarding fissile material. Moreover, program.163 However, by the late 1940s, the Health Division had made Laboratory management had to approve a detailed set of operating numerous contributions to the general body of biomedical knowledge, procedures for each experiment. The new operating philosophy included which gained its independence as an important field of study like physics, designating an individual to monitor the safety of the experiment.170 chemistry, and metallurgy. Significantly, the Laboratory has always been on the cutting edge of 48

Page 65

The aftermath of the high-explosives accident that killed Candelario Esquibel on June 26, 1956. criticality safety and criticality experiments. Work conducted by the A December 1958 criticality accident led to the death of one Laboratory Laboratory and others forms “the basis for all criticality safety calculations worker in 1959.177 Before the Laboratory restarted operations at the site, in our nuclear facilities.”171 they installed new and better equipment, implemented improved sampling techniques, and emphasized compliance with procedures.178 Most critical- Between 1947 and 1970, the Laboratory experienced 12 fatal accidents.172 ity accidents worldwide occurred between 1950 and 1970, during the early The first of these occurred in 1954, when a Laboratory worker died of an era of the Cold War; after 1970, the criticality accident rate decreased by electrocution while stationed in the Pacific. In 1956, the first fatal high- 90 percent.179 Three additional fatalities occurred in 1961: a fall, an asphyx- explosives accident occurred. Subsequently, the Laboratory’s GMX Divi- iation, and a vehicle accident.180 sion formed the Explosives Sensitivity Committee, which was responsible for “reviewing available sensitivity data and approving the use of new com- During the early–Cold War era, the Laboratory’s health, medical, and safety pounds and formulations …”173 By 1980, this committee reported straight programs evolved and expanded to keep up with the pace, quantity, and to the Laboratory Director.174 Two additional high-explosives accidents diversity of research occurring on site. The Laboratory made operational killed six Laboratory workers in 1959, bringing about the preparation of changes after incidents to lessen the chances of reoccurrence. The Health standard operating procedures for all explosives operations.175 Changes to Division created radiation-counting machines, developed bioassay proce- existing practices included the addition of some remote-control drilling, dures, and invented protective gear and monitoring equipment (such as the installation of blast doors to machining bays, a 50-pound weight limit thermoluminescent dosimeters [or TLDs] used at the Laboratory today). on explosives to be burned, and the use of specially designed containers to The Laboratory’s occupational health program promoted physical, mental, transport explosives.176 and social well-being at work. An understanding of potential hazards and their effects, exposure limits, effective controls, and efficacious treatments matured hastily during the early–Cold War period.181 49

Page 66

WHO KEPT THE LAB SAFE? Roy Reider, “LASL’s Mr. Safety,” served as the Safety group leader in the Health Division from August 1948 through his retirement in February 1977 and as the Laboratory’s safety director from 1954 to 1971.183 Born in Dobbs Ferry, New York, on August 13, 1914, Reider acquired a degree in Chemical Engineering at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York. Before taking the Laboratory job in 1948, he was a safety engineer for an insurance company and a safety superintendent at a major explosives firm in Wisconsin. An active member in the community, he enjoyed public speaking and gave up to 10 lectures per month, both internal and external to the Laboratory, on a variety of subjects. As a leading safety expert in the nuclear field, Reider believed in helping, not hindering, the mission of the Laboratory, as asserted by Health Division Leader Shipman. Reider understood that there was no “absolute safety in a scientific laboratory” but that eliminating all risk would impede progress.184 Reider hated safety slogans and posters and advocated for each division to make their own safety standard operating procedures and rules because safety is specific and rests with the workers and their immediate supervisor. With most injuries in the nuclear industry associated with strains, falls, tool mishaps, fires, and chemical accidents, Reider emphasized, “It’s not always the obvious hazards that cause the accidents.”185 In 1964, the Atomic Energy Commission presented an Award of Honor to the Laboratory for operating 3,373,000 person- hours without a disabling injury. “It was the longest accident-free period in the Laboratory’s history.”186 As of 1965, Safety Director Reider had reduced the Laboratory’s accident rate by 50 percent from what it was during the Manhattan Project. This profile is based on an article by David Sundberg in a 1965 issue of The Atom.182 Safety Group Leader Roy Reider, January 9, 1974.

Page 67

The aftermath of the high-explosives accident that killed José Cordova, Sevedeo Luján, Escolastico Martinez, and Leopoldo Pacheco on October 14, 1959 (above left, above right). The aftermath of the high-explosives accident that killed Leo Guerin and Ray Means The Laboratory also honors the service of four others who died between 1954 on February 24, 1959. and 1961. Robert England died of an electrocution in 1954. In 1961, Clarence McInturff died from a fall, Wyndle Frazier died from asphyxiation, and Homer Gittings died from a motor-vehicle accident.

Page 68

PROTECTING WORKERS AGAINST HAZARDOUS AEROSOLS Notably, the Laboratory played a leading role in the identification, were working with plutonium, brought about improved respirator understanding, and protection of workers against radioactive design and testing in the late 1950s and through the 1960s.194 Harry aerosols.191 It began in 1948, when the Laboratory hired Harry F. J. Ettinger assumed the role in the late 1960s, becoming the H-5 Schulte to start a program of industrial hygiene and to “correct group leader in the 1970s.195 He studied aerosols of burning fissile some of the ventilating ‘atrocities.’”192 By the 1950s, the Industrial materials, tested filter media, and surveyed techniques employed Hygiene Group, led by Schulte, was measuring particulate matter to define respirable dust. The latter led to the identification of the from nuclear testing; addressing ventilation problems associated with LASL Conference Curve (or Los Alamos Curve) to “provide a basis tritium activities; and collecting and analyzing air samples associated for defining ‘respirable dust’ and lung deposition.”196 Still used today, with beryllium, lithium, plutonium, and uranium operations.193 this Laboratory breakthrough “led to significant advancements and Schulte and H-5 Alternate Group Leader Edwin C. Hyatt, application of respiratory protection.”197 dissatisfied with the unspecialized respirators used by personnel who The Health Research Laboratory under construction on the right, with the Los Alamos Hospital (present-day Los Alamos Medical Center) on the left, June 15, 1953.

Page 69

THERMOLUMINESCENT DOSIMETER CECIL KELLEY CRITICALITY ACCIDENT In January 1959, Cecil Kelley died from radiation exposure that he received during a criticality accident in December 1958. Kelley was an experienced plutonium-processing operator, and on December 30, he turned on the stirrer of a large mixing tank. Unbeknownst to him, the solution in the tank contained higher-than-normal levels of plutonium. When the liquid formed a whirlpool in the tank, the plutonium-containing layer congealed and went critical. Lasting 200 microseconds, the event released a large pulse of neutrons and gamma radiation. Falling or being knocked off of his observation ladder and becoming disoriented, Kelley turned the stirrer off and then back on and then left the building. Coworkers found Kelley outside stating, “I’m burning up! I’m burning up!”199 The nature of his injuries was not understood for nearly 20 minutes, and Kelley died after a In 1962, the Low-Level Counting Section of the Laboratory’s Health grueling 35 hours. The radiation dose has been estimated at “900 rad Division began the development of a TLD with an operating range from fast neutrons and 3,000 to 4,000 rad from gamma rays, giving of 100 mrad to 2,000 rad.187 Basing their investigations on previous 3,900 to 4,900 rad.”200 Significantly, “Kelley’s tragic death became studies (1953–1962) that used thermoluminescent materials to measure an opportunity to determine certain factors crucial to the protection an absorbed dose, the team envisioned radiobiology and health- of workers.”201 Upon collection and analysis of Kelley’s tissues, physics applications for the device.188 By 1966, Laboratory staff were the Laboratory initiated the Los Alamos Human Tissue Analysis using TLDs at Nevada Test Site sampling stations during Project Program.202 For many years, this program served as an indicator of the Rover testing.189 Laboratory field experiments in 1975 traced levels of effectiveness of the Laboratory’s workforce-exposure-protection efforts. radioactivity in the vicinity of the Laboratory and the Trinity test site by implanting rodents with TLDs.190 These early instruments are the This event summary is based on an article that appeared in a 1995 predecessors of the TLDs that many Laboratory staff use today. issue of Los Alamos Science that focused on radiation protection and the human radiation experiments.198

Page 70

Respirator testing by workers of the H-5 Industrial Hygiene Group in the Health Research Laboratory, November 1965.

Page 71

Edwin C. Hyatt (left) and Harry F. Schulte (right) with respirator, November 1965.

Page 72

Researchers celebrate in the control room after Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF) obtained its first full-energy beam in 1972.

Page 73

C H A P T E R 3 Laying the Groundwork for a New Direction 1971–1991

Page 74

Facility Counts of Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Areas in 1991.203

Page 75

Presidents Federal Managers Richard M. Nixon (R), 1969–1974 H. Jack Blackwell, 1968–1974 Gerald R. Ford (R), 1974–1977 Kenneth R. Braziel, 1974–1981 James Earl Carter (D), 1977–1981 Harold E. Valencia, 1981–1989 Ronald Reagan (R), 1981–1989 Jack E. Tillman, 1989–1990 George Bush (R), 1989–1993 Jerry L. Bellows, 1991–1994 Major Conflicts Laboratory Directors Cold War, 1945–1991 Harold M. Agnew, 1970–1979 Gulf War, 1990–1991 Robert N. Thorn (acting), 1979 Treaties Donald M. Kerr, 1979–1985 Robert N. Thorn (acting), 1985–1986 Seabed Arms Control Treaty, 1971 Siegfried S. Hecker, 1986–1997 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, 1972–2002 Laboratory Staff Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty I, 1972 Strategic Arms Limitation Treaty II a 4,168 (1971)–7,523 (1991) Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty, Executives over 1988–2019 Laboratory Operations Threshold Test Ban Treaty, 1990 Raemer Schreiber, 1962–1974 Treaty on Underground Nuclear Explosions Charles I. Browne, 1974–1983 for Peaceful Purposes, 1990 Christopher S. Adams, Jr., 1983–1986 Laboratory Budget ($K)RobertW.Selden,1984–1986$130,852 (1971)–$1,037,619 (1991) James F. Jackson, 1985–1998 Federal Oversight Allen Joseph Tiedman, 1986–1994 Support Contractors U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1947–1974 U.S. Energy Research and Development Zia Company, 1946–1986 Administration, 1974–1977 Pan Am World Services, 1986–1989 U.S. Department of Energy, 1977–Present Johnson Controls World Services, 1989–1997 a This treaty was never entered into force.

Page 77

3 Laying the An early aerial view taken of LAMPF (opposite page). Groundwork A FUTURE BEYOND WEAPONS— A MULTIPROGRAM NATIONAL LABORATORY Since the Laboratory’s inception, it had focused mostly on weapons By the beginning of the 1970s, several projects set the Laboratory on a design and science used—if not exclusively, then very indirectly—for course for change. The idea was to expand the type of science possible nuclear weapons. The Laboratory was a world leader in nuclear science. at the Laboratory, especially with world-class equipment that would During the 1960s, the Laboratory began to engage in non-weapons attract world-class talent.211 By 1973, the epitome of these projects was projects such as those associated with nuclear energy, reactor research, the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility (LAMPF), whose task was to and Project Rover.204 Although the Laboratory grew steadily during this study atomic nuclei and nuclear reactions. LAMPF would be used to period, changes were on the horizon.205 The nuclear science gap closed study nuclear science applicable for weapons, but it would also become because other national laboratories had taken leaps forward, and scientif- important for understanding nuclear reactors at the time of growing ic centers in Europe were close behind.206 Partly to blame was the aging concern about the world’s energy sources. It would become a crowning employee base. The many great scientists who had seen the Laboratory achievement of the era. With an estimated cost of $47,142,000, it would grow from infancy were now retiring.207 Additionally, as relations be one of the most expensive nuclear scientific research facilities to date. between the Soviet Union and the United States improved, the future The chosen location was Mesita de Los Alamos, a small mesa to the east of weapons work became uncertain, and a few national security projects of the main Laboratory site. Because this mesa was also the site of many were terminated.208 pre-Columbian Native American settlements, Laboratory archaeologists carefully preserved the artifacts. In 1972, LAMPF produced the first 800 LAMPF would become a crowning MeV of protons, and in August 1973, the Laboratory had produced its first mesons.212 LAMPF was officially named the Clinton P. Anderson achievement of the era. Meson Physics Facility, in dedication to the senator’s support.213 The Laboratory needed to attract new minds, which physicist Louis LAMPF, and the experiments that followed, led to many breakthroughs. Rosen—a Manhattan Project pioneer—called instrumental to its For example, after running the accelerator, scientists knew the target area future. When Harold Agnew became Laboratory Director in 1971, the would become so radioactive that it would be harmful for any human Laboratory progressed into a period of transition.209 Rosen said, “A labo- to repair the machine if needed. So Laboratory scientists developed ratory is, in first approximation, made up not of hardware and computers a device, similar to a robotic arm, that could work in the target area and buildings but of people—dedicated, competent people, well educated remotely. Scientists also developed the side-coupled linear accelerator in the activities that you want to pursue but, more important, inspired by structure, which was later adopted by industry around the world for the magnitude of their ignorance.”210 Although Director Bradbury had radiation therapy.214 And on July 30, 1974, the Laboratory shipped a begun to broaden the research done at the Laboratory during his tenure, small bottle that contained radioisotopes for medical research to the the work still hewed closely to the idea that the Laboratory was, first and Veterans Administration Hospital in Denver. The Laboratory opened foremost, a weapons laboratory. LAMPF as a national user facility and the first “open” scientific facility 61

Page 78

at the Laboratory.215 This effort allowed nuclear and particle physicists across the country—and the globe—to visit the Laboratory and study the basic properties of nuclear forces, the bonds that hold elements together on Earth and in space. As Rosen and Bradbury desired, the Laboratory once again became an international draw for nuclear scientists. Although much of the early and late 1970s was a period of diversification at the Laboratory, this period also saw the onset of the energy crisis and environmental crises. The United States experienced consequences from the political chaos in the Middle East, tumult in pricing policies by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries nations, and associated transport disruptions.216 This persistent turmoil resulted in limited supplies of coal, oil, and gas; price increases; and power brownouts along the Atlantic coast.217 Concurrently, environmental degradation in the United States was increasingly tied to energy-related technologies, such as refinery operations, drilling accidents, off-shore oil spills, transportation of fuels, and production of electricity.218 An outcome was the consideration of “more environmentally-[sic] benign alternative fuels” by the public.219 Dialogues encompassed the associated research and development and the general reduction of pollutants in waterways, landfills, and the atmosphere.220 In the energy field, the Laboratory focused on magnetic fusion and geothermal energy—large complex research programs.221 With govern- ment support in 1973, the Hot Dry Rock project, which had started as a pursuit of curiosity in geothermal energy, became a program that would succeed in generating 10 gigawatts of energy and inspiring many countries to start their own geothermal programs. Other non-weapons Team working on LAMPF high-resolution proton spectrometer. undertakings supported nuclear medicine, genetic studies, NASA collaborations, and superconducting research. As the end of the 1970s neared, the Laboratory also opened the Plutonium Facility, which would grow into a massive complex called TA-55.222 Scientists during the Manhattan Project had used D Site, which looked like a large barn, to process plutonium for the core of nuclear weapons. Then the Laboratory built DP West, which became active in 1945 and remained in use until 1978.223 The Plutonium Facility would be state of the art—160,000 square feet across three floors, which included 70,000 Visitors inside LAMPF.

Page 79

POWER OF DIVISION LEADERS Modular home at the Laboratory, demonstrating Laboratory-developed solar collector panels in 1976. Scientists hoped to show enough of an energy savings that the nation would consider installing them on all modular and mobile Begun by Director Bradbury and expanded by Director Harold homes built each year (below). Agnew, diversification of Laboratory activities involved research and development beyond weapons, resulting in new programmatic divisions. Following the Manhattan Project organizational structure, new division leaders reported directly to the Laboratory Director. From 1950 to 1970, major non-weapons programs included • controlled thermonuclear reactors (magnetic fusion), • advanced nuclear reactors, • the nuclear rocket program (Project Rover), • the Vela project, square feet of processing space, 450 gloveboxes to handle plutonium, and • the subterrene tool and the Hot Dry Rock project, a host of safety technology such as air sensors and a specialized venting • laser fusion and laser isotope separation, system.224 For such an endeavor, the planning and construction of the • solar energy, and facility moved quickly, with the idea originating in 1969 and the first • the tritium system test assembly. plutonium shipment being received less than 10 years later. Even today, it is the nation’s newest, most modern plutonium facility.225 The 1970s was an age of decentralization when division leaders The TA-55 Plutonium Facility was constructed to survive 200-mile-per- and project heads wielded much power. The Laboratory grew hour winds, as well as any likely earthquake, because the work done there steadily, and major non-weapons projects came online. Though involves handling dangerous metals and caustic chemicals. Scientists these programs were well conceived and led by competent and recover plutonium from decommissioned weapons, process plutonium respected scientists and engineers, the reporting structure became for disposal or to burn as mixed oxide fuel, recycle plutonium, and progressively less effective. The diversity of programs led to a refine and remove impurities from plutonium. Today, the work at the diversity of funding mechanisms, which resulted in increased Plutonium Facility supports some of the Laboratory’s most fundamental, authority and independence of divisions. Laboratory management mission-related programs—stockpile stewardship, materials disposition, often received program approval requests after divisions had already nuclear forensics, nuclear counter-terrorism, and nuclear energy. negotiated program objectives and content with their federal The three endeavors (LAMPF, the Hot Dry Rock project, and TA-55) and partners. This risk was significant for the organization, especially the technology held inside represented a pivotal shift for the Laboratory. when these programs were terminated abruptly. The situation No longer would the Laboratory rest solely on the laurels of being the changed when the Department of Energy took responsibility, and first to develop a nuclear bomb. It was now a first-class research facility— their policy of decentralization diminished the power of division one that would draw weapons designers and scientists of all stripes. The leaders. As explained by WX Division Leader J. J. Wechsler, Laboratory had diversified quickly and became a multipurpose national “Division leaders were very strong in the Lab. One who felt laboratory.226 By 1980, the Laboratory doubled its staff to 7,000; profes- strongly something should be done could make it happen. Now he sionals accounted for 35 percent, and half of them held doctorate degrees. can propose it, but it has to go through a rigorous review.”247 The operating budget in fiscal year 1980 totaled $395 million, and only half of this amount was allocated to defense programs.227 This synopsis was based on a 1997 report by Edward F. Hammel titled “Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Energy-Related History, Research, Managerial Reorganization Proposals, Actions Taken, and Results 1945–1979.”246

Page 80

3 Laying the Groundwork Donald M. Kerr became Laboratory Director in 1979. He called for To reduce the risk of nuclear weapons to the world, the Laboratory accountability, with the aim to streamline operations and reduce costs.228 engaged in a mission of stockpile stewardship, stockpile support, Changing the Laboratory’s management structure from a vertical nuclear-materials management, non- and counter-proliferation, and model that served weapons research and development, Director Kerr environmental legacy management (including environmental cleanup).239 instituted a hybrid form of “matrix” management, which aligned with a Using science-based stockpile stewardship, the Laboratory conducted multipurpose national laboratory.229 His matrix management structure above-ground, non-nuclear experiments that employed hydrodynamic included two kinds of line authority: program managers oversaw projects, testing and big-flash X-ray machines.240 Stockpile management and disciplinary (or functional) managers oversaw staff and managed required the Laboratory to be clever, by identifying cheaper alternatives facilities.230 The former negotiated with the latter for manpower and for weapons manufacture resources.231 This structure allowed the Laboratory to harness talent at or re-manufacture every level and created a Laboratory that Director Kerr called “relatively and ensuring a steady well integrated” and avoided “the pejorative sense of regimented.” 232 supply of tritium.241 In support of nuclear- Regrettably, the matrix system “sowed confusion in the everyday tasks materials management, of evaluating work, giving promotions, and settling disputes.” 233 While the Laboratory programs with concrete goals thrived, individuals suffered. After an ini- developed technological tial period of discomfort, staff aligned with the new structure, and it was solutions to reduce accepted in support of the Laboratory’s multipurpose mission areas.234 the material stockpile Director Kerr’s tenure saw the creation of three new research centers: the and extract energy in Institute for Geophysics and Planetary Physics, the Center for Nonlinear the process.242 In the Studies, and the Center for Materials Science. The greatest accomplish- A diagram shows the varied research that nuclear non-proliferation ment of these new institutions was the employment of scientists from scientists hoped could be accomplished by and counter-proliferation arena, outside the Laboratory. He shared, “They’re attempts to bring a focus to LAMPF (above). the Laboratory assisted Russian research areas of great interest to the lab that don’t fit within the normal officials in securing their plutonium and highly enriched uranium.243 As organizational mode.”235 Russian society collapsed, the security of Russian fissile nuclear materials In 1986, the Laboratory began another period of diversification became precarious.244 During this period, the Laboratory also began when Siegfried S. Hecker became Laboratory Director. He guided to understand all aspects of cleaning up the environment and safely the Laboratory through the paradigm shift caused by the nuclear and securely storing waste in the long term.245 Hecker’s term saw the testing moratorium and the potential of a complete testing ban.236 expansion of the Laboratory’s scientific, computational, and experimental Laboratory scientists had to develop experiments, other than nuclear capabilities to address challenges in weapons research and development. testing, to manage the nation’s weapons stockpile.237 Under Director Hecker’s leadership, the Laboratory developed science-based stockpile stewardship, which focused on computer modeling, non-nuclear testing, and additional weapons surveillance.238 64 A piece of nuclear material from Russia. Large quantities of nuclear material were vulnerable following the breakup of the Soviet Union (opposite page).

Page 81

65

Page 82

At the Los Alamos Survival-Mortality (or SUMO) site, a piñon tree and a juniper tree are enclosed in an acrylic chamber that simulates the effects of climate change, 1990. 66

Page 83

The Fenton Hill site for the Hot Dry Rock project, which had a fairly small footprint, was one of the first government-funded experiments to channel a large amount of geothermal energy. 67

Page 84

68 Denver Steel housing in Los Alamos, February 1967.

Page 85

INCREASED HOUSING DEMAND Program diversification of the 1970s also necessitated an increase Laboratory retirees, and some relatives. It was not unheard of for in Laboratory staff, which drove up demand and prices for housing parents and relatives of Laboratory staff to visit the county, fall in love located within Los Alamos County. County population—composed with it, and settle down. As time passed, the number of second- of Los Alamos and White Rock, a wartime construction camp— generation employees increased, and some county residents even chose reached almost 20,000 by the end of the decade. Conspicuously, the to commute from other northern New Mexico communities.248 composition of county residents was mostly Laboratory staff, many 69 Residential neighborhoods in Los Alamos (above).

Page 86

Morley Safer, 60 Minutes correspondent, interviews Laboratory Director Kerr (opposite page). BEGINNING A STRATEGIC PLANNING PROCESS The Atomic Energy Commission established a Long Range Planning Committee, and the Laboratory’s response to a request for information in 1974 became DIR-2345. This document, “Los Alamos Long-Range Planning through Fiscal Year 1981,” comprised information from fiscal year 1975 and projections through 1981.249 It was the first comprehensive site plan that detailed the Laboratory’s technical history, accomplishments, expenditures, and goals. Commencing annual workshops to discuss the institutional planning process, the national laboratories held their first one in 1978. A Laboratory alumnus, Director Kerr worked in the Washington, D.C., office of the fledging Department of Energy for 3 years before he returned to the Laboratory to become its director in 1979. During this time, he partook in the endeavor to align the national laboratories with headquarters and make them more accountable. To achieve this goal, the Department of Energy selected long-term planning as its management tool. This approach provided an opportunity for each laboratory to distinguish itself to headquarters by characterizing its capabilities and objectives.250 Distinctly, the institutional planning process became an important factor in the research and development endeavors of multiprogram national laboratories.251 Laboratory Director Kerr. 70

Page 88

GOVERNANCE AND OVERSIGHT CHANGES The Manhattan Project introduced the government-owned, problems included “a counterproductive federal system of operation” contractor-operated, or GOCO, model of governance. Laboratory and “multiple symptoms of institutional stress.”256 These problems Director Siegfried Hecker called it “an enlightened system of included rising overhead costs, poor morale, gross inefficiencies, governance.”252 According to Director Hecker, it was an admission excessive internal focus, institutional fragmentation, and poor by the federal government that they struggled to attract the best management systems. Scathingly, the task force wrote, “it is hard to and brightest and to administer a complex organization efficiently. reach any conclusion other than the current system of governance The engagement with the University of California provided a of these laboratories is broken and should be replaced with a bold way for the organization to get out from under some government alternative.” 257 The creation of a regulations and to maintain some agility. In 1995, Director Hecker not-for-profit research and stated, “But this system has eroded steadily over 50 years and has development corporation rapidly declined in the last 6 years.”253 is one model outlined by the task force, Thinking about a resolution, Director Hecker pointed to the work wherein the of Robert Galvin, chairman of Motorola, who recently revived Department their competitiveness and subsequently headed up a task force for of Energy the Department of Energy.254 The resulting report, “Alternative becomes the Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories,” also Laboratory’s known as the Galvin Report, recommended that the Department of customer. Energy make changes in its governance of the national laboratories regardless of each laboratory’s mission.255 Observed governance The creation of a not-for-profit research and development corporation is one model outlined by the task force, wherein the Department of Energy becomes the Laboratory’s customer. 72 Laboratory Director Hecker briefs President Clinton during his first visit to Los Alamos, 1993.

Page 89

Laboratory Director Siegfried Hecker. Director Hecker’s bullseye chart. Jim Jackson served as the deputy director from 1985 to 1998 and “was very involved in all aspects of the operations of the JAMES (JIM) F. JACKSON Laboratory.”258 Born on August 15, 1939, in Ogden, Utah, he married Joan Borger in 1960, and they had four children together. He acquired his master’s degree in nuclear engineering from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and began his professional career as a research engineer at Atomic International in 1962. Jackson worked as a research assistant at the University of California-Los Angeles while he attained a PhD in engineering in 1969. Subsequently, he worked as a nuclear engineer at Argonne National Laboratory and served as an associate professor of engineering and as an engineering consultant.259 Jackson began his career at the Laboratory in June 1976 as the leader of the Reactor Systems, Theory, and Methods Group in the Nuclear Safeguards, Reactor Safety, and Technology (R) Division.260 In 1977, he moved to the Energy (Q) Division, where he held numerous leadership positions until 1983. At this time, Jackson became the Personnel Administration (PA) division leader under Director Kerr. Jackson was highly regarded as a leader and an engineer; he received the Los Alamos National Laboratory Distinguished Performance Award in 1981, the Department of Energy’s E. O. Lawrence Award in 1983, and was elected to the National Academy of Engineering in 1991.261

Page 90

3 Laying the Groundwork THE ERA OF ENVIRONMENTAL RECKONING During the Manhattan Project, the topmost priorities for scientists and the “Health and safety, however, received higher priority than waste or government were first, to build an atomic bomb, and second, to keep this environmental concerns,” read one report, “because this could put workers project secret. The government built sprawling complexes across the nation and public directly at risk and made sense from the perspective of cost- that would help accomplish this goal. benefit analysis.”267 But once World War II ended, the Cold War began, and the nation was The loose environmental oversight was, in part, caused by the emphasis on again in a state of constant weapons production. As a result, emphasis was speedy production. But it was also an organizational issue. The Laboratory placed on keeping workers safe, but no unifying regulations were adopted regulated itself for the most part, meaning that no outside public across the nation’s labs and weapons facilities, which worked not only with authorities reviewed developments behind the fence, ranging from facility radioactive elements such as plutonium, but also with a vast array of chem- construction to waste management.268 The need for tight security and icals used to build weapons. 262 Again, the priority was placed on speed and control of classified information also hindered cooperation between federal technological development. regulatory authorities. Loose environmental oversight was, in part, This self-regulation began to change in the early 1970s. In the decade prior, a growing movement among the public emphasized environmental caused by the emphasis on speedy production. conservation and, on April 22, 1970, the world celebrated the first Earth Day. That year Congress stood up the Environmental Protection Agency, The remote location of the Laboratory meant that any accidents or release and it also passed the National Environmental Policy Act, which required of chemicals would be far from any public centers,263 so at the Laboratory, all federal agencies to consider the adverse effects of their actions upon the radioactive material was buried underground on the Pajarito Plateau.264 environment.269 Chemicals such as chromium, which was used at the Laboratory’s non- nuclear power plant as a corrosion inhibitor, were commonly flushed into At the time, the nation’s laboratories were overseen by the Atomic Energy the canyons from 1956 to 1972.265 It would eventually penetrate the Commission, which fought this new law, saying that it conflicted with the rock layers and later seep into the regional aquifer beneath Sandia and Atomic Energy Act. (This conflict would lead, 14 years later, to a federal Mortandad Canyons. The Laboratory had developed a medical section court decision that ruled in favor of increased federal oversight.) In the as early as 1943, though this effort focused on employee health and following years, Congress passed a series of laws aimed at placing more researching the risks of radiological exposure.266 Scientists and health environmental regulations on private and public entities, including national workers took air and water samples to detect radioactive contamination. laboratories. These regulations included the Clean Air Act; the Clean Water The Laboratory also conducted environmental surveys, though these were Act; the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act; and the Comprehensive done with the immediate future in mind. Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. 74

Page 91

CREATION OF By 1974, the Atomic Energy Commission had been dealt a series of THE ENERGY public setbacks concerning its handling of hazardous waste. Congress dismantled the agency, replacing it in 1974 with the Energy Research and Development Administration and the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.270 RESEARCH AND Three years later, the Department of Energy was formed; an agency with a cabinet-level position that brought together two programmatic focuses: DEVELOPMENT defense technologies that included the design, construction, and testing of nuclear weapons; and a swath of energy-related programs deployed within ADMINISTRATION numerous federal agencies.271 As part of the new focus on environmental cleanup, Congress also established the Environmental Management agency within the Department of Energy. On October 11, 1974, President Gerald R. Ford signed the At the Laboratory, these new regulations meant a more transparent Energy Reorganization Act, which abolished the Atomic accounting of its environmental impact, which included yearly site-wide Energy Commission.280 The U.S. Congress created the reports.272 The intent of this document, read one early report, is to “keep information on environmen- law in response to the energy crisis and the need for more tal quality available to the domestic sources of energy. During a year of study, the public” and “principally serves unique capabilities of the weapons research laboratories the purpose of providing were considered, and the laboratories were placed under the public documentation of data Energy Research and Development Administration instead on environmental quality and of the Department of Defense. The Energy Research and conditions in the vicinity of the Laboratory.”273 Development Administration amassed, for the first time, all major research and development programs for all forms of These reports, at first com- energy in one organization; other energy-related programs posed by the Environmental were dispersed to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and Studies Group, published an Energy Resources Council. President Ford appointed the results of a wide range Robert C. Seamans, Jr., as the first head of the Energy of potential environmental impacts, including radioac- Research and Development Administration. Developing tivity in the air, ground, and the country’s first national energy plan, Creating Energy surface waters; and chemical Choices for the Future, Seamans outlined short-, mid-, Cover of an early environmental report, presence in groundwater. and long-term programs to support research into coal mandated by National Environmental Policy Although it would undergo Act, that assessed environmental impacts of plants, research reactors, liquid fuels from coal and shale, the Laboratory. numerous name changes over energy conservation, solar energy, and fusion and breeder reactors. His plan “called for an early demonstration of the technical feasibility of new energy systems with built-in environmental and safety controls.”281

Page 92

Th e push for environmental oversight led to numerous changes in the agencies that oversaw the Laboratory in the 1970s and 1980s. Seen here are the seals of the Atomic Energy Commission, which later became the Energy Research & Development Administration and then the Department of Energy. the years, today this wide-ranging report on the state of the environment in included overhauling how radioactive waste is stored at the Laboratory, and surrounding Los Alamos is called the Annual Site Environmental Report. facility improvements that reduce air contamination, massive energy-use improvements, cleaning up DP Road where legacy waste was stored, and As part of National Environmental Policy Act (or NEPA) requirements, treating water that was contaminated by releasing chromium into the canyons. the Laboratory also retroactively evaluated legacy waste practices, including storage of radioactive waste, to analyze how past practices had Th is last eff ort has been a major undertaking. Th e Laboratory has drilled impacted the environment. Th is eff ort included monitoring past and 30 monitoring, extraction, and injection wells to treat the chromium current waste burial sites and evaluating the risk posed to the environment, plume.278 Th ese wells pump contaminated water to the surface, where it is as well as how to store these materials more safely.274 Th is activity was no treated at a plant, then reinjected back into the earth. It is a complicated, small task. As a 1975 environmental report read, “Th e variety of wastes costly process—one that evidences that the Laboratory is eff ectively that must be treated necessitates a continuing program of research and restoring the environment. As Danny Katzman, groundwater remediation development, which additionally contribute [sic] to solving world-wide manager for a Laboratory problems of safely handling radioactive wastes.”275 In its eff ort on this environmental contractor, said, “Th e path, the Laboratory would pioneer many new practices that would later combination of extraction, treatment, be adopted by the radioactive waste management industry, including ion and injection has resulted in a exchange, reverse osmosis, and evaporation. signifi cant reduction in the extent of hexavalent chromium contamination Environmental remediation would become a main focus of each national along that boundary, where sampling laboratory. By 1990, environmental cleanup accounted for about 20 percent results from a key monitoring well of the Laboratory’s budget. And by 1995, the Department of Energy had have shown a consistent drop in spent $23 billion to identify, characterize, manage, and remediate waste chromium levels.”279 across its weapons sites and facilities.276 Today, environmental safety has become an integral facet in how the Laboratory operates, and employees work diligently to correct the A National Plan for Energy Research, mistakes of the past.277 Some of the most industrious cleanup eff orts have Development, and Demonstration, 1976.

Page 93

Injection and extraction wells greatly reduced the spread of a chromium plume. Overview of the Fenton Hill site, where the Hot Dry Rock project investigated geothermal energy. DECENTRALIZED MANAGEMENT OF LABORATORIES The Atomic Energy Commission practiced a policy of decentralization and managed the weapons laboratories in a permissive manner.282 Striving to establish some regularity across the national laboratories, the Energy Research and Development Administration focused on the consistency of management, planning, and accountability. Secretary of Energy James R. Schlesinger, the first secretary under the new Department of Energy, developed a plan for decentralization. With headquarters responsible for making policy and developing budgets, the field offices were responsible for implementation. His approach entailed more rigorous reporting and longer- term planning. One critic of the strategy, WX Division Leader J. J. Wechsler, foretold, “Such accountability squelches any technology with a long-term payoff.”283

Page 94

3 Laying the Groundwork MAKING SAFE AND HEALTHY WORKING CONDITIONS The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) of 1970 was enacted By 1972, the Health Division doubled the H-5 Industrial Hygiene Group’s on April 28, 1971.284 The law was created “to ensure safe and healthful staff and added $500,000 to its budget. As noted by journalist Barbara working conditions for workers by setting and enforcing standards and by Storms, “This happy state of affluence is the result of recent interagency providing training, outreach, education, and assistance.”285 A bit ahead of agreements between the Atomic Energy Commission and the National In- its time on understanding the importance of worker health and safety, the stitute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) for projects in fields Laboratory had already completed a new Occupational Health Laboratory in which H-5 is the nation’s recognized authority.”289 Although these ini- in TA-59.286 The Health Division moved in two of its groups, H-5 and tiatives were a result of the Occupational Health and Safety Act of 1970, H-8, in March 1966. At that time, the H-5 Industrial Hygiene Group the Laboratory had been conducting research on occupational exposures was focused on how air contamination and pollution affected workers, and establishing standards for years. For example, by the end of 1973, the and the H-8 Field Test Studies Group was investigating health and safety Laboratory’s H-5 Industrial Hygiene Group had trained more than 250 issues associated with radioactivity from reactor tests and operations at the persons from the Atomic Energy Commission complex; the Department Nuclear Reactor Development Station in Nevada. of Health, Education and Welfare; and the Department of Labor on how to bring respirator programs into compliance with federal regulations.290 The Laboratory had been conducting research In 1975, Laboratory instructors took this training course on the road to Denver, Colorado; Chicago, Illinois; and Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.291 on occupational exposures for years. The Energy Reorganization Act of 1974 abolished the Atomic Although the Occupational Safety and Health Act initially excluded Energy Commission and transferred responsibilities to the Nuclear federal agencies, such as the Atomic Energy Commission, a subsequent Regulatory Commission and the Energy Research and Development executive order brought them under the act.287 The Atomic Energy Administration.292 The latter assumed responsibility for the Laboratory. Commission moved quickly to bring its sites into compliance with the new In 1977, the Department of Energy Organization Act of 1977 eliminated law.288 Comprising five division/group leaders, the Laboratory established the Energy Research and Development Administration and conveyed an Occupational Safety and Health program. Spending more than 15,000 responsibilities and assets to the Department of Energy.293 An internal person-hours, the Laboratory, the Zia Company, and the Atomic Energy review of the complex conducted in the mid-1980s by the Department Commission conducted an assessment to identify variances in their policies of Energy—called the Kane Report—determined that environment, and practices from the new law. Conspicuously, numerous Laboratory safety, and health (or ES&H) programs had little authority and were groups developed health and safety manuals between 1969 and 1979. generally ignored unless a crisis occurred. Importantly, Kane wrote that the The early 1980s saw a proliferation of Laboratory-wide health and safety Department of Energy’s operations were in no way unsafe or jeopardizing guides, controls, and appraisal systems. the general public; “Rather, the danger was that the Department might not know it if there was a safety or health problem.”294 78

Page 95

POWER AND WATER Secretary of Energy John S. Herrington took action, and in 1985, he established an Office of Environment, Safety and Health and more than doubled its proposed funding to support new initiatives.295 In light of the The Laboratory and Los Alamos County have a long-standing environmental crisis at the Rocky Flats Plant in Colorado—the nation’s site for pit production—and to address concerns expressed by the U.S. partnership in the public works domain, as shared by Andy Congress, new Secretary of Energy Admiral James D. Watkins announced Erickson, Utilities and Institutional Facilities division leader.303 the formation of environmental “tiger teams” in 1989 to “perform com- With the assistance of the Laboratory, Los Alamos County became pliance assessments” within the complex.296 The tiger team sent to the a municipal entity and power provider in approximately 1985 and Laboratory conducted a health and safety assessment on plutonium and was the first county in the state to do so. enriched uranium facilities, nuclear reactors, other critical facilities, tritium operations, and accelerators.297 Team members reviewed safety and health program performance within the following technical areas: organization This ingenious move allowed the Laboratory and the county to and administration, quality verification, operations, maintenance, training pool all electric resources to serve both their community and and certification, auxiliary systems, emergency preparedness, technical sup- the Laboratory and to purchase and deliver power from the port, packaging and transportation, nuclear criticality safety, security/safety wholesale market. interface, experimental activities, site/facility safety, radiological protec- tion, personnel protection, worker safety and health (OSHA) compliance, fire protection, aviation safety, explosives safety, natural phenomena, and The Laboratory now contracts with the county for power, and medical services. Published together they determine their own power future, including the in 1991, the results of the purchase of carbon-free or carbon-neutral options. Since the assessment were mixed.298 beginning, the Laboratory’s administrators—the Manhattan Engineer District, the Atomic Energy Commission, the The assessment affirmed that Laboratory senior manage- Energy Research and Development Administration, and the ment had started making Department of Energy—owned and operated the water system changes—consistent with and infrastructure and associated water rights. In the late 1990s, initiatives established by the the Department of Energy transferred all water production Secretary of Energy—that infrastructure to Los Alamos County, who took over water were enhancing performance administration and stood up a water system. Subsequently, the in environment, safety, and health.299 Department of Energy leased its water rights for Los Alamos County to use, which allows Los Alamos County to manage all However, much more of the water rights together to serve both their communities and work was needed because the Laboratory. Laboratory staff were still Protective gloveboxes. working based on their own As revealed by Erickson, the division is always looking for the intersection between Laboratory research and infrastructure. He wants to “do things that use the Laboratory’s infrastructure to help advance scientific research.” 304

Page 96

Laboratory industrial hygienists conduct research on respiratory protection and personal protective clothing, 1980.

Page 97

A Laboratory scientist wears appropriate personal protective clothing during a Helios laser system experiment, ca. 1979.

Page 98

3 Laying the Groundwork THE DEADLIEST DAY perception of health and safety rather than established Laboratory policy. The assessment noted staffing shortages of health and safety personnel in both higher and lower levels of management. Laboratory safety review committees were not providing independent assessments of programs or experiments. Seventy-four percent of the identified issues “indicate noncompliance with DOE mandatory requirements as a major issue.”300 More direction to staff was required to affect change, and the Laboratory’s organizational structure had to “clearly establish the responsibility and authority of organizational units and to set accountability for performance in the ES&H functions.”301 The assessment team identified that “a change in the safety culture at LANL is beginning.”302 Today, the Laboratory is totally committed to excellence in safety, security, environmental compliance, and quality. It is integral to the work we do and how we do it. Wright H. Langham, Assistant Health Division Leader and H-4 Group Leader. After a full decade of no fatal accidents, the Laboratory lost 13 workers during the 1970s.305 There were two airplane crashes, an electrocution in 1974, an asphyxiation in 1978, and two vehicle accidents in 1979. The Laboratory’s deadliest day was May 19, 1972, when eight employees died in an airplane accident at the Albuquerque International Airport.306 Wright Langham, Johnnie Gallegos, Bruce Bean, Richard Niethammer, William Frye, John Gill, Don Larson, and Eugene Teatum perished when their Beechcraft Queen Air crashed and caught fire shortly after takeoff.307 Ross Aviation pilot Richard Zettel, also killed, tried to make an emergency landing, but during this critical phase of flight, it was unsuccessful.308 Andy Erickson (left), Scott Backhaus (center), and Loren Toole (right) standing The investigation showed that the probable cause of the at the power plant for the solar smart grid in Los Alamos, August 25, 2010. The accident was the inadvertent opening of the forward cargo Laboratory, Los Alamos County, Japan’s New Energy and Industrial Technology Development Organization, and the State of New Mexico collaborated to develop door during takeoff, causing both the door and cargo to a smart grid. impact the left propeller.309

Page 99

“WE’RE MORE THAN JUST DELIVERY BOYS.” The SP-4 Shipping, Receiving, and Warehousing Group was the Laboratory’s trucking company in the 1970s.310 With expert truck drivers and freight handlers, this group packaged, loaded, and delivered 7,000 cargo shipments per year and received 60,000. Shipments included items such as mules, monkeys, “hot boxes,” steel shielding, radioactive materials, scientific equipment, high explosives, concrete slabs, and dangerous chemicals, just to name a few. In addition to the peculiarities of transporting freight associated with a nuclear weapons research institution, truck drivers had to be familiar with all Department of Transportation, State of New Mexico, Tony Trujillo drives a Laboratory semitrailer truck east on State Highway 502. Energy Research and Development Administration, and Laboratory rules and regulations. All employees received safety training in the handling and transportation of both common and unusual materials. One of eight semitrailer truck drivers for the SP-4 Group, José “Tony” Trujillo won first place in 1976 in the New Mexico State Truck Safety Roadeo in Albuquerque. In 1977, the group comprised 50 highly trained men and women and 50 pieces of equipment, and group leadership had a combined total of 60 years with the Laboratory. This profile was based on an article in a 1977 issue of The Atom.311 Trujillo loads a shipment into a Laboratory semitrailer truck, 1976.

Page 100

3 Laying the Groundwork BUILDING PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS With a new suite of technology and facilities at the Laboratory, the work “The Bayh-Dole and Stevenson-Wydler Acts were intended to increase the being done there began to attract the attention of private industry. This rate at which new technologies are commercialized,” noted a Laboratory goal was achieved by a shift in direction under Bradbury, which opened report celebrating 25 years of technology transfer, “and to facilitate inven- up research to weapons-adjacent topics. Under third Laboratory Director tor involvement in technology development requiring research institutions Harold M. Agnew, for the first time, the Laboratory began to institute the to take an active approach to the protection and management of their programs necessary to forge partnerships that could lead to breakthroughs innovations.”315 that would benefit not only national security but also American industry. As the program grew, the Laboratory established the Technology Transfer Partnerships would become a fundamental Division, which connected work being done at the Laboratory to private industry. In 1989, the program had been so successful that the Department part of the Laboratory. of Energy established the Cooperative Research and Development Agree- ments program, a formalized process that allowed the Laboratory to more The first such partnerships were facilitated by the Technology Transfer directly benefit from its partnerships. These collaborations would become Office, established in 1975. Once the Laboratory developed new technology, a fundamental part of the Laboratory, starting relationships with some of then received a patent for this work, the Technology Transfer Office worked the world’s largest corporations. By 1993, Director Hecker celebrated the with the Department of Energy to license the technology by advertising the success of the Technology Transfer Office by upholding it as one of the licensing opportunity.312 If a company was interested, the Department of projects that would direct the Laboratory into the “next 50 years.”316 Energy could issue a non-exclusive license for the technology.313 “Industry not only gets a match for their R&D dollars but also buys into This area of interest was not new. From 1940 to 1975 in at least 40 the Laboratory’s capabilities,” Hecker wrote. “Moreover, our experience Congressional hearings and reports, Congress had discussed the topic of demonstrates that the agreements can address each of the three high prior- whether it was right to allow private industry to license publicly funded ity areas for government assistance” in developing “pathbreaking, strategic, research. No consensus could be reached, but by the late 1970s, Congress and infrastructural technologies.”317 shifted its stance, giving way to the idea that the public would greatly benefit from private partnerships with the national laboratories and that The collaborations that Hecker touted included Xerox, to develop private industry could spark new innovation. To codify this belief, in 1980, “new paradigms in computing, along the lines of the lattice Boltzmann Congress passed the Bayh-Dole Act; later it passed the Stevenson-Wydler technique that we developed for solving nonlinear differential equations.” Technology Innovation Act.314 These laws allowed universities, nonprofit Other collaborations included working with Lockheed to remove uranium institutions, small businesses, and federal laboratories to issue exclusive and plutonium from soil; developing processing chips with Cray Research; licenses for patents of their inventions. and projects with Exxon, DuPont, MediGene, and many other leaders in private industry.318 84

Page 101

3 Laying the Groundwork The Laboratory’s work in nanoscience also led to more efficient solar panels and superconducting cables to decrease power loss.319 Scientists also developed some of the most accurate climate models, later used OFFICE OF by the international climate modeling community as part of the Inter- governmental Panel on Climate Change Assessment that would win a COMMERCIALIZATION Nobel Peace Prize. Through the Cooperative Research and Development Agreements program, The first head of the Energy Research and Development the Laboratory brought in tens of millions of dollars per year, which was cy- Administration, Robert C. Seamans, Jr., developed the cled into research and development programs that allowed for further research country’s first national energy plan. Allocating $4 million in in non-weapons fields. A portion of this funding also went to the scientists the first year to commercial projects, the agency subsidized who had developed the new technology, incentivizing more innovations.320 solar water and solar heating demonstration projects across Not all projects focused on private industry. One of the more ambitious the country. In January 1976, Seamans founded the Office of and well-known programs would result from a collaboration between the Commercialization within the organization. His hope was Laboratory and Harvard University’s School of Public Health. Laboratory that the Energy Research and Development Administration researcher Bette Korber worked with the university’s AIDS Institute, could more effectively share with industry any new energy which held a global repository of HIV proteins sequence data and drug- technologies so they could get out into the marketplace. As resistant mutations.321 A similar project led the Laboratory to collaborate enabled by Seamans’s plan, “industry was expected to take the with Emory University on a project focused on how HIV avoids the effects of T cells, the immune system response that targets foreign initiative in the commercialization process while the federal cells for destruction within the body.322 This work spawned a variety of government played a supportive role by identifying major developments, such as computer-based, disease-modeling software, and problems and implementing steps to overcome them.”324 ultimately led to the first human trial of an HIV vaccine.323 This research might have been deemed too tangential to the Laboratory’s mission in prior decades, but these new partnerships became an important source of funding for work indirectly related to national security and attracted a new generation of students and scientists who wanted to participate in the research being done at the Laboratory. Some had begun to believe that the Laboratory was no longer special in its research; however, a path had been laid by the massive construction proj- ects of the early 1970s—first with LAMPF, and then with the expansion of capabilities offered by the Plutonium Facility and the Hot Dry Rock project. Now, decades later, the idea of making the Laboratory, once again, a world-class scientific institution is being realized. Dr. Robert Channing Seamans, Jr., also former Secretary of the Air Force.

Page 102

In the fall of 1991, a tiger team inspects the nuclear complex as part of more than 130 audits at the Laboratory over a span of 7 weeks.

Page 103

LABORATORY RECORDS CENTER AND ARCHIVES Since its beginning, the Laboratory has generated hardcopy records that have required retention, either due to government regulations or for their historical significance. These records included “memos, letters, administrative documents, payroll records, medical charts and X-ray films, scientific notebooks, maps, photographs, and reports.”325 In 1948, the Laboratory hired Walter Bramlett to oversee these records. He advocated for one bay in a newly built warehouse and made it work until 1956, when he assessed the space as too small. To resolve this issue, the Laboratory gave him the entire building, which subsequently became a “vault” within a secure area. Bramlett retired in 1982 as the head of the Records Center.326 Curiously, he removed all of the records about himself before leaving. Walter Bramlett (center) enjoying his retirement party in the Records Center, 1982. Begun as an idea in 1975 and established as a permanent institution in 1981, the Archives collected, catalogued, and maintained the historically important records, and the Records Center continued to house the business records.327 Lillian Hoddeson advised the Laboratory of the need for an archives because she directed the pilot project to write a technical history of Project Y. She required the many documents that had been tucked away in the files of numerous divisions for her project and began “tracking them down, organizing them, and conducting interviews.”328 The first archivist was Nancy Zachariasen, a librarian. Assisting her was Director Kerr’s wife, Alison Kerr, who held a degree in library science with an emphasis in manuscripts and archives. Shortly thereafter, Zachariasen left, and Kerr took her place. Subsequently, Kerr hired Roger Meade to backfill her position when she left in 1985. For a more detailed history of these institutions, please refer to the History of the Los Alamos National Security Research Center Collections by Michael P. Bernardin and Alan B. Carr.329 Walter Bramlett (right) enjoying his retirement party in the Records Center, 1982.

Page 104

General John A. Gordon was sworn in as the first National Nuclear Security Administrator by Secretary of Energy Bill Richardson, June 2000.

Page 105

C H A P T E R 4 Facing Uncertainty during the Post–Cold War Era 1992–2005

Page 106

Facility Counts of Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Areas in 2004. 330

Page 107

Presidents Laboratory Directors George H. W. Bush (R), 1989–1993 Siegfried S. Hecker, 1986–1997 William J. Clinton (D), 1993–2001 John C. Browne, 1997–2003 George W. Bush (R), 2001–2009 G. Peter Nanos, 2003–2005 Major Conflicts Robert Kuckuck, 2005–2006 Laboratory Budget ($K)WarinAfghanistan,2001–2021IraqWar,2003–2011$1,102,360 (1992)–$2,101,211 (2005) Treaties Laboratory Staff Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, 1994 7,582 (1992)–11,831 (2005) Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty II c Executives over d Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty Laboratory Operations Strategic Offensive Reductions Treaty, 2003 Allen J. Tiedman, 1986–1994 Federal Oversight Warren F. Miller, Jr., 1996–1999 U.S. Department of Energy, 1977–Present Willard R. Wadt, 1999 Federal Managerse Joseph F. Salgado, 1999–2003 Richard A. Marquez, 2002–2006 Jerry L. Bellows, 1991–1994 Support Contractors G. Thomas Todd, 1996–1998 David Gurulé, 1998–2001 Johnson Controls World Services, 1989–1997 Ralph Erickson, 2002–2004 Johnson Controls Northern New Mexico, Edwin Wilmot, 2004–2007 1997–2003 Kellogg Brown and Root, Shaw Infrastructure, and Los Alamos Technical c This treaty was never entered into force. Associates, 2003–2008 d This treaty was never entered into force. e Gaps in service dates reflect periods of unidentified interim or “acting” managers.

Page 109

4 Facing Uncertainty during the Post– Cold War Era A NEW MISSION, NEW SCIENCE, AND NEW FACILITIES With the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, a highly symbolic moment signed the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, a seemingly permanent ban that would herald dissolution of the Soviet Union 2 years later, the Cold on all testing.334 “In the end,” Hecker said, “what you need for nuclear War had ended. For many across the world, it was a time to rejoice. That weapons more than anything else is to have smart people stay associated triumph was definitely felt in Los Alamos, but for the Laboratory, it with them.”335 was also a time of uncertainty, as had been the moments after the end of World War II.331 “In the Manhattan Project, great science was married At the Laboratory, with its new focus on reducing nuclear danger, scientists would need to find new ways to conduct their work. It was a to a clear and very important national Mission,” said then Laboratory mission “intellectually as ‘seismic’ as the nuclear tests had been in actual Director Siegfried Hecker at a roundtable discussion in Washington, fact,” Raymond J. Juzaitis, then leader of X Division at the Laboratory, D.C. “During the Cold War, the mission was a little fuzzier, but still would later say.336 To accomplish this feat, Laboratory scientists would quite clear. In both instances, we developed technology to stay ahead of our adversaries. We did that, and we did it well.”332 require new methods of experimentation, which would require new equipment and would call for new facilities. But with the close of the Cold War, what role would the Laboratory now serve? Hecker, as director from 1986 to 1997, oversaw one of the most While still focused on the nation’s nuclear stockpile, this shift broadened existentially trying moments in the Laboratory’s history and a time of the scope of scientific work done at the Laboratory. It would lead to great change. And Hecker had an answer for this question. breakthroughs in computer modeling, climate science, health care, particle physics, and many more areas that turned the Laboratory into not only a beacon for weapons development but also a global destination “What you need for nuclear weapons … is to for scientific research. Some of the more prominent endeavors took the form of the Advanced Simulation and Computing Initiative (ASCI), have smart people stay associated with them.” the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (LANSCE; formerly the Los Alamos Meson Physics Facility [LAMPF]), and the Dual-Axis He collectively called the new mission “reducing the nuclear danger.”333 Radiographic Hydrodynamic Test facility (DARHT). This mission included work on environmental radiological cleanup, non-proliferation, nuclear material management, stockpile support, Groundbreaking for DARHT began in 1994, with Director Hecker and stockpile stewardship. This latter mission, established officially in tossing out the first shovelful of dirt.337 The chosen location was between 1994, included maintaining the safety and reliability of the nation’s Water Canyon and Cañon de Valle, about 7 miles from the Laboratory’s current nuclear stockpile—except there would be no more underground main technical area. This new facility would simulate nuclear explosions nuclear testing. The end to testing had begun in 1992, with the unilateral via hydrodynamic tests, which use high explosives to detonate a mockup moratorium announced by President George H. W. Bush, who later pit at speeds greater than 10,000 miles per hour. No plutonium is signed the START II ban in 1993. In 1996, President Bill Clinton involved, but the intense pressure of the explosion turns the non-fissile 93 Aerial view of the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center, 2004 (opposite page).

Page 110

substitute material into liquid, similar to what would happen during a real nuclear test. These hydrotests allowed the Laboratory to “provide data critical to improve confidence in the predictive capability of codes to support a safe, secure, and reliable stockpile and maintain confidence in the nation’s nuclear weapons stockpile without nuclear testing.”338 Along with being, at the time, the world’s most powerful X-ray machine, DARHT also led to the development of many other technologies such as MOXIE, then the world’s fastest camera.339 Before and during construction, the Laboratory conducted environmental surveys that focused on heavy metals in the soil and vegetation around the facility.340 Vehicle checkpoints were established to secure access to the site. The use of high explosives, ionizing On February 23, 1992, Hecker (right) greets physicist Yuli Khariton (front), who radiation, lasers, and high-voltage lines posed significant safety concerns oversaw the creation of the Soviet Union’s first atomic bomb. to employees, so the facility was outfitted with a network of door interlocks that communicated with each other to prevent, for example, someone from entering the fire point during a hydrotest.341 By 1999, construction was completed, and DARHT ran its first test.342 The next year, Laboratory scientists had completed the first three-dimensional simulation of a nuclear weapon secondary explosion. This research led to the program extension of the W-76 warhead.343 But DARHT was only part of that triumph. To run such a simulation required a lot of computing power (42 days’ worth!), and that task would be carried out by the ASCI program.344 The end of nuclear testing meant that the Laboratory needed to simulate DARHT in 2004. tests, and this need would push the Laboratory into the forefront of scientific modeling. In 1995, the Department of Energy announced the ASCI supercomputing initiative, a collaboration between the Los Alamos, Lawrence Livermore, and Sandia national laboratories.345 At Los Alamos National Laboratory, this initiative took the form of the Nicholas C. Metropolis Center (formally the Strategic Computing Complex). The facility was a three-story, 300,000-square-foot building located in TA-03 that included a massive 43,500-square-foot room that housed the mainframe computer, two visualization theaters, and a 200- seat lecture hall.346 With stockpile stewardship central to the Laboratory mission, the Nicholas C. Metropolis Center became the primary classified computing system for the national laboratories. At DARHT, electron accelerators pulse electrons The heart of the ASCI program at the Laboratory is the Nicholas C. Metropolis downrange at a target, allowing scientists to Center, which has housed many of the classified computing systems. view inside various materials (opposite page).

Page 112

4 Facing Uncertainty during the Post– Cold War Era The scale of this new power transformed the scope of work possible at the material, giving scientists a look into the material’s internal structure and Laboratory. Researchers could now model the physics of a nuclear device composition. in three dimensions on a computer. Over the next two decades, the Lab- oratory became host to some of the most high-powered computers in the In 1995, LAMPF was renamed LANSCE to reflect this change in world: ASCI Blue Mountain, ASCI Q, Roadrunner, Cielo, and Trinity.347 mission.351 But more important than a new name, a new scientific focus again called for new equipment. The three main facilities at LANSCE Together, these facilities helped the Laboratory that were critical to the Stockpile Stewardship program were the Proton Radiography Facility, the Luján Neutron Scattering Center, and the peer into aging materials in the nation’s Weapons Neutron Research Facility.352 Together, these facilities helped the Laboratory peer into aging materials in the nation’s nuclear stockpile and nuclear stockpile. identify manufacturing issues with the use of neutron scattering and high- energy neutron radiography.353 The new computing power also allowed scientists to harness this resource for work outside the nuclear mission. The Laboratory had been interested As a 1993 Department of Energy report pointed out, neutron-scattering in biological science from early on—during the Manhattan Project—to experiments were also increasingly important to the broader scientific understand the effects of radiation on the human body. With supercom- community. So the Department of Energy Office of Basic Energy Sciences puters, a long-time project of mapping the human genome and the largest began to sponsor the facility for non-weapons research so that users from worldwide scientific collaboration to date, found an added boost.348 This across the world could experiment at LANSCE. In the coming decades, computing power also led to great advances in climate-change modeling, Laboratory and non-Laboratory scientists would use the facility—particu- disease spread, high-energy density physics, our knowledge about the larly the beam accelerator (still considered one of the most powerful in the creation of stars and planets, and a host of other areas that would become world)—to investigate topics as varied as the prevalence of anti-matter in important disciplines of their own at the Laboratory. the universe to cancer research.354 LANSCE’s Isotope Production Facility became particularly important in this latter field of study, and it has pro- The third major renovation to the Laboratory’s physical footprint, which duced important isotopes used to both diagnose and treat different forms would expand its role in scientific research, was an overhaul of LAMPF. of cancer.355 The facility had been focused on high-energy particle physics, mainly the subatomic pi-mesons present in cosmic rays. Pi-mesons, also called pions, These advances, a few among many during the early Stockpile Stewardship are important in understanding the performance of nuclear weapons and era, not only improved the Laboratory’s ability to achieve its nuclear mis- radiation effects on nuclear reactors.349 But by the early 1990s, national sion but also helped it become an international destination for top scientists. scientific focus had switched from pi-mesons to neutrons. In a time of unprecedented change, the Laboratory would need new minds to solve new problems, which included what to do with nuclear waste. Neutrons became essential to a range of scientific research because they can be used to probe the atomic scale of materials—everything from polymers to superconductors to biological matter.350 This work is done by passing neutrons through the material and then studying how the characteristics of the beam have been changed by its interaction with the 96 Laboratory scientists use containment vessels to confine the explosions of nonfissile material, helping the nation assure the safety of its nuclear stockpile (opposite page).

Page 115

4 Facing Uncertainty during the Post– Cold War Era WHAT TO DO WITH DECADES OF NUCLEAR WASTE? The end of Cold War not only altered the mission of the Laboratory But that was not the only waste produced by the Laboratory. Irradiated internally; it and the rest of the Department of Energy weapons facilities material, such as paper from offices, glassware, even cabinets in old were now increasingly open to public scrutiny, which led to questions offices, were often disposed of in pits “bulldozed out as deep as practical about what the Laboratory had done with its nuclear waste. before hard rock is encountered.”360 The pits were usually about 300 feet long, 15 feet wide, and 12 feet deep.361 The buried materials were often During the days of the Manhattan Project, scientists had focused of lower radiological concern, but the poor record keeping of these sites almost entirely on producing a useable weapon. At the time, there caused problems. One such incident occurred in 2020, when construction were no industrial precedents for how to dispose of highly radioactive near DP Road uncovered radioactive material from an old pit.362 materials, and there were no outside reviews by local or federal regulatory agencies.356 So scientists set their own standards and safety procedures. But the end of the Cold War changed how the Laboratory would process this radioactive material. After President Bush ended nuclear warhead Monitors with survey meters constantly patrolled the open areas of the production in 1990 and following the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty Laboratory. Personnel took air and water samples to test for radioactive (START I) and START II, the Department of Energy announced that it contamination, and environmental researchers analyzed the surround- would consolidate the weapons complex. By 1995, environmental cleanup ings.357 These procedures were developed to protect the health of the made up the largest Department of Energy program, consisting of $6.5employeesand,forthemostpart,wastemanagementwasnotapriority.billionoftheagency’s$18.5 billion budget.363 Then, with the close of World War II came the Cold War, and weapons production once again ramped up, as did the amount of chemical and nuclear waste. By 1995, environmental cleanup made up the During this time, the Laboratory had processed and stored transuranic largest Department of Energy program. waste—byproducts of radioactive elements such as plutonium, uranium, and americium—onsite and in pits on the Pajarito Plateau.358 The most This realignment of priorities was spurred, in part, because of the declas- radioactive material was processed and stored in underground shafts, sification of Cold War–era documents, “a stack of material over three some lined with concrete and some without, in a designated location miles high,” as researchers put it. “Public health-[sic] concerns began called Area C. This site was used in this manner from 1948 to 1974, until to arise as it was discovered that releases of radioactive gases into the another disposal site, called Area G, became the primary disposal atmosphere, and other mishandling of hazardous materials, had occurred location.359 (Area G remains in use today, although with radically during the Cold War period.”364 different storage procedures. Waste placed in containers is stored in above-ground domes and is monitored continually until the containers For decades, the United States had amassed a vast quantity of nuclear can be shipped offsite.) and other types of hazardous material. Now the nation’s laboratories Mike Connor uses a remote-handling 99 device at LANSCE. The yellow-tinted window is made of 4-foot-thick glass to protect researchers from radiation (opposite page).

Page 116

4 Facing Uncertainty during the Post– Cold War Era would take on two major tasks: ensuring the reliability of America’s stockpile and helping to restore the environmental damage and any WASTE future damage caused by the years of furious nuclear production. CHARACTERIZATION Luckily, a solution to the problem of nuclear waste had, in fact, been in development for decades. But it had only recently been completed. It was AND called the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP). CONTAMINATION The idea to deposit transuranic waste from the United States’ national laboratories and weapons facilities at a central, secured location had been theorized as early as 1957.365 By the early 1960s, the government was By the mid-1990s, the Department of Energy understood searching the nation for sites that could safely store transuranic waste, the problems of cleanup requirements, but the full which required not only the right geological conditions but also local characterization of contamination and waste across the public support. By 1973, the United States government had settled on complex was still in progress. Significantly, “the waste, along a stretch of desert land near Carlsbad, New Mexico, about 300 miles with the actual process of cleaning it up, creates not only southeast of Los Alamos.366 health, safety, and environmental concerns but administrative The site is located in salt beds deposited 250 million years ago by the and legal problems as well.”381 Washington State University’s evaporation of the ancient Permian Sea.367 This location was a primary Richard Reed and others shared that cleanup activities were recommendation decades earlier by the National Academy of Sciences complicated. For example, to clean up spent nuclear fuel, the when the government started its search.368 Salt does not allow water to Office of Environmental Management had to conduct the seep through from the earth’s surface, and it deters any underground work under 50 Department of Energy orders, 9 Presidential free-flowing water that might corrode containers. Salt also closes up any executive orders, and 22 separate acts (e.g., the Nuclear Waste fissures in the ground, giving WIPP a tight seal. Policy Act and the Archaeological Resource Protection Act). By 1990, construction was complete.369 The repository, built 2,150 feet underground, had eight massive disposal panels where the transuranic waste was stored. Surface facilities included a waste-handling building, a waste shaft, evaporation ponds, and a salt pile. WIPP covered 16 square miles. Under federal guidelines, the facility may store 175,565 cubic meters of waste for 10,000 years.370 The Department of Energy Carlsbad Field Office was assigned to oversee WIPP, with Nuclear Waste Partnership LLC directly operating the facility. Two contractors, Visionary Solutions and Cast Specialty Transportation, would ship transuranic waste from labs and weapons facilities across the country.371 The trucks would drive only on designated routes, and each shipment would be tracked by satellite. By 1990—after decades of research, planning, and political wrangling—the United States had built The first shipment of transuranic waste, which originated from the the first underground repository for nuclear waste. Laboratory, arrives at WIPP in the early morning hours of March 26, 1999.

Page 117

4 Facing Uncertainty during the Post– Cold War Era But the first shipment of transuranic waste would not be delivered that shutdown of operations.377 WIPP closed for almost 3 years due to the year or the next. A series of political changes, lawsuits, certifications, and incident, which resulted in approximately $640 million in clean-up regulatory changes delayed the official opening of WIPP for another 9 costs.378 Investigations revealed that the root causes were associated years, until 1999.372 with the Laboratory’s change in packaging material and deficiencies in management systems.379 Agreements between the Department of Energy, In that year, on March 26, then Energy Secretary Bill Richardson the National Nuclear Security Administration, and the State of New gathered with hundreds of people and the press to mark the historic Mexico to expedite shipments may have been a contributing factor.380 moment.373 The shipment had originated from the Laboratory—17 Subsequently, the Laboratory participated in numerous audits; conducted containers of transuranic waste—with transporters stopping every 100 testing, modeling, and experiments; and implemented new procedures, all miles or 2 hours to check on their cargo. Richardson said, “This shipment in an effort to avoid reoccurrence. By January 2017, WIPP had reopened to WIPP represents the beginning of fulfilling the long-overdue promise and was once again receiving shipments. to all Americans to safely clean up the nation’s Cold War legacy of nuclear waste and protect the generations to come.”374 Along with historic waste, WIPP played a significant role in the future of the Laboratory when, in 2021, the Laboratory was ordered by the Although the Laboratory was the first to send transuranic waste to Department of Energy to produce 30 plutonium pits each year. These WIPP, it was just one of more than 20 other Department of Energy sites pits would be furbished from those removed from old weapons, taken that would rely on the facility. Within 12 years, WIPP would celebrate to TA-55 to process out impurities, and then installed into the latest its ten thousandth shipment.375 technology. As the Laboratory set out on this new path, unusable radioactive material was sent to be stored safely, securely, and away from The rapid pace was remarkable, but it also led to complications. In the public at WIPP. February 2014, a mishap occurred that involved a waste container shipped to WIPP by the Laboratory.376 Improperly packaged, the container ruptured, contaminated workers, and necessitated the Miners use a remote-controlled, continuous- mining machine to make space in the bedded salt for planned salt disposal investigations at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, 2011.

Page 118

4 Facing Uncertainty during the Post– Cold War Era THE FIRE HEARD AROUND THE NATION Not all major changes to the Laboratory came in the form of national For much of the past century, wildfires were thought of as inherently policy or international politics. The decision to locate Project Y—the secret destructive. But as new forestry science emerged, the nation realized that effort to build the world’s first atomic bomb—on the Pajarito Plateau was small fires were not only natural—they helped clear forests of tinder that made in large part because it helped conceal the work being done there. built up after trees fell and grass died and also controlled forest density. For The area was heavily forested, and the winds could whip up the canyons example, the recommended healthy density for northern New Mexico for- with surprising speed. But at the time the location was decided, there was ests is between 50 and 150 trees per acre.384 Forests around the Laboratory no reason to think that the Laboratory would exist beyond the end of often held 1,000 trees per acre. To correct this overgrowth, federal agencies World War II, and little thought was given to how natural disasters might often conducted controlled burns, which simulate the natural thinning of factor into the Laboratory’s future. forests by fires. Before 2000, the last controlled burn in the area where the Cerro Grande fire started occurred in 1993.385 But damp conditions at the The nation was accustomed to wildfires … but not time led to an unsatisfactory burn. The next scheduled management was set for May 4, 2000. … near a facility that handled nuclear material. There would be many investigations into what went wrong that day and In May 2000, what was then the largest wildfire in New Mexico’s history the planning that led to the controlled burn; the National Park Service, burned through the nearby mountains, the town of Los Alamos, and dan- the Laboratory, and the Department of Energy would all conduct assess- gerously close to the Laboratory. Although much of the Laboratory’s oper- ments.386 But two factors played a major role: high winds and drought, the ational buildings were spared or saved by the quick work of firefighters, the start of what would be the longest dry spell in the state’s recent history. fire charred more than 8,000 of the 27,000 acres owned by the Laboratory (and 39 structures, most of which were storage buildings).382 The Cerro The nation was accustomed to wildfires in the West but not a fire near a Grande Fire would alter the Laboratory in significant ways. facility that handled nuclear material. No nuclear material would ever be at risk, but the damage to the Laboratory was extensive. Power and commu- This fire was not the first to threaten the Laboratory. The Water Canyon nication lines were severed. Five historic, Manhattan Project–era buildings Fire (1954), La Mesa Fire (1977), and Dome Fire (1996) had come close. that were part of V-Site—buildings that had recently been named an The Dome Fire led to the creation of the Interagency Fire Management official project of the White House Millennium Council’s Save America’s Team.383 Before this fire, county, state, federal, and Laboratory wildfire Treasures Program—were leveled.387 Hardest hit was the Physical Chem- teams operated separately. Going forward, each would coordinate efforts istry and Applied Spectroscopy Group, made up of mostly postdoctoral when fighting and preventing fires, and their efforts would limit the dam- students, with half of the office losing their office trailers. About a dozen age wreaked by this latest blaze. Moreover, the Cerro Grande Fire trans- Laboratory scientists were temporarily relocated to the Santa Fe Institute, formed the Laboratory’s relationship with wildfires locally and nationally. the non-profit think tank based in Santa Fe, where they were 102 The 2011 Las Conchas Fire behind the Laboratory (opposite page).

Page 120

The La Mesa fire burned into the Laboratory’s explosives fabrication facilities and testing sites at TA-16 and TA-11, 1977.

Page 121

The Cerro Grande Fire in May 2000.

Page 122

4 Facing Uncertainty during the Post– Cold War Era able to work remotely from offices they collectively deemed the “laptop small fires naturally thin healthy forests.394 The Laboratory’s strategy also lab in exile.”388 Extensive smoke and ash damage to many offices would meant applying science to the wildfire problem. The Laboratory increased need to be cleaned, and many reports were made about the damage to the robustness of its air- and water- monitoring program, which became the facilities and environment. In total, more than $300 million worth of part of normal Laboratory operations.395 damage would be done to the Laboratory.389 The Cerro Grande Fire also led to general concern that another wildfire Still, it could have been much worse. If the Interagency Fire Management like it—but perhaps even more devastating—could further damage the Team had not, in the past 4 years since the Dome Fire, thinned the trees Laboratory. Scientists developed models such as FARSITE, which sim- and tinder from nearby Laboratory facilities, the destruction would have ulates wildfire patterns in the surrounding forest.396 Some of the models certainly been worse. Every 2 weeks after the Dome Fire, members of evolved do the same regionally and across the United States. Today, the the Laboratory, Los Alamos County, Bandelier National Monument, effects of climate change, which include drought, a warming world, and the Santa Fe National Forest, Pueblos, and state agencies met to discuss future climate forecasting—all of which pertain to wildfires—are an im- wildfire management.390 They carefully mapped where to build firebreaks portant field of study at the Laboratory. and where to thin the forest, and they also met with the community and individual homeowners. “The Interagency Team is widely recognized as be- One of the more tangible results of the Cerro Grande fire was the construc- ing instrumental in raising community awareness, improving response, and tion of the new Interagency Emergency Operations Center at TA-69.397 It instilling the first notion of proactively managing the forests surrounding would host the Laboratory’s Emergency Management Group and serve as the community,” a joint Laboratory and Los Alamos County report read.391 a command center in case of another wildfire—or any emergency. Under normal conditions, it would serve as a place for federal, state, and local The Cerro Grande wildfire would burn 48,000 acres and would not be emergency planners to meet and discuss preventive actions.398 extinguished until July 20, more than 2 months after it began. With the immediate danger of the fire behind, the Laboratory began its assessment The Laboratory’s actions were praised for protecting facilities and aiding of how such a fire could be prevented in the future and how to recover locals. But the Cerro Grande Fire also drew attention from Washington, what was lost. Laboratory Director John C. Browne, who had taken over D.C., regarding Laboratory operations. Before, divisions at the Laboratory from Hecker 3 years earlier in 1997, began this effort immediately. operated more independently. The strengths of this system included nimbleness, independence to pursue projects, and speed because of a One of his first orders was to establish an Emergency Rehabilitation Team. flatter organizational structure. Safety and information security might This group would evaluate the impacts of the Cerro Grande Fire on Labo- be emphasized differently among divisions. Even more mundane things, ratory property, design erosion-mitigation solutions from land denuded of such as where to get money for building repairs, led to confusion. The vegetation, and implement these plans to prevent further damage. Some of response from the federal government was to reorganize this structure as this work began even as the fire still burned.392 a pyramid. Decisions would be passed from the division level to managers and eventually to directors and associate directors. To facilitate this new Under the Wildfire Hazards Reduction Project Plan, the Laboratory made structure, Operations became centralized, charged with oversight across forest health a major priority.393 The Laboratory’s Ecology Group sought to the Laboratory. recreate a healthy forest, which meant clearing many dead trees and brush, as well as thinning the forest in a way that replicated the manner in which 106

Page 123

CERRO PELADO FIRE In the spring of 2022, New Mexico saw four major wildfires that Alamos County, the U.S. Forest Service, and the Laboratory’s fire would devastate hundreds of thousands of acres of forest and drive Incident Command. Under the “Set” phase, residents were asked to many people from their homes. One of these fires—the Cerro pack a bag of belongings and to plan an evacuation route in case the Pelado—came within 3.5 miles of the Laboratory.399 The cause of the threat level was elevated to “Go;” however, by May 17, the town was fire was still under investigation during the writing of this book, but it returned to the “Ready” phase. began on April 22 during a high-wind event. The fire burned into June, enveloping 45,605 acres before its conclusion.400 Due to past actions taken by fire officials, including the Laboratory’s Wildland Fire program, it was believed that previous mitigation During the fire, the Laboratory sent many employees home and efforts greatly reduced the fire’s potential devastation. Jim Jones, the encouraged those who could to work remotely. On May 9, the town Laboratory’s Wildland Fire program manager, told local reporters, of Los Alamos was also given instructions to prepare for potential “For about the last three and a half years, we’ve been doing preparation evacuation as part of the “Ready, Set, Go” program, a threat system for a wildland fire. We removed approximately 3,500 tons of fuel from established by the National Nuclear Security Administration, Los the Lab properties—trees brush, those types of things.” Smoke from the Cerro Pelado Fire billows behind the Laboratory, April 29, 2022.

Page 124

4 Facing Uncertainty during the Post– Cold War Era THE ERA OF CYBERSECURITY National laboratories became targets of hackers as soon as remote access For these reasons, the U.S. formed a counterintelligence corps, which to someone else’s computer was possible.401 As repositories of massive investigated everything from security leaks and suspected sabotage to a data collections, the national laboratories possessed advanced computer man at the Hanford Site in Washington State who had counterfeited and technology, used remote access regularly, and operated connected and sold meal tickets. Workers at the Laboratory agreed to accept censorship of integrated networks.402 Inconspicuously, “somebody at probably every their mail before they were hired. The employees of the Manhattan Project DOE Lab helped ‘invent’ incident response and computer network safeguarded the secrets of their conversations and reports using improvised defense.”403 According to former Laboratory high-performance computing code words.406 In short, the Laboratory was accustomed to the idea that, scientist Alex Malin, several incidents transformed cybersecurity at the at any moment, a spy could be in its midst—and during the Manhattan Department of Energy: Project, numerous, high-profile spies were outed by the government and later the media. In more modern times, this notion of a spy who sold se- • the 1988 internet worm (Morris Worm) that affected multiple laboratories; crets to foreign governments would come to be called the “insider threat,” • and perhaps none of the post–Cold War era was more controversial than Cliff Stoll’s 1989 book, The Cuckoo’s Egg: Tracking a Spy Through the Wen Ho Lee. Maze of Computer Espionage; • the 1999 Wen Ho Lee incident at Los Alamos National Laboratory; On March 6, 1999, The New York Times published a lengthy, troubling • the 2004 Stakkato cyberattack that affected high-performance com- report of a spy in the hallways of the Laboratory.407 Within days, the puting and multiple laboratories; Laboratory had fired Wen Ho Lee, a research mathematician who helped • the accountable classified removable electronic media incident at Los develop computer programs for nuclear test simulations.408 At the Lab- Alamos National Laboratory; and oratory, the Lee investigation led to a site-wide overhaul of how it safe- • guarded classified information from insider threats and unified site-wide the advanced persistent threats from 2008 to 2014 across the regulations. The Lee incident was a catalyst for major security reform at Department of Energy.404 the Laboratory. Even as this reform was underway, the Laboratory and the Department of Energy instituted a recovery plan that included, among According to Malin, cybersecurity is a living history, and “DOE Labs other actions, increasing physical security at the vaults that stored classi- continue to make important contributions and innovations, adding to the fied information; ordering custodians to oversee all material checked out; legacy for leadership in network defense and intrusion response.”405 requiring specialized National Security Agency encryption keys to access classified data; and completing a full audit of classified information.409 During the Manhattan Project, General Groves had to assume that every person on the job was not above suspicion. Movements of people were Protecting classified material in the digital era had always been a hard watched. Every rumor was tracked down, and any indication that someone task, especially once the advent of personal computers being connected had broken the silence that surrounded the Laboratory was investigated. to the internet became widespread. In 1988, the Morris Worm, an early 108

Page 125

THE 414 INCIDENT virus developed by a Cornell University graduate student, infected the Laboratory. Measures were taken to step up defenses from outside viruses A group of teenagers hacked a Laboratory computer, and the and finally, in 1998, the Laboratory implemented a firewall (a digital event became known as the 414 incident. It was facilitated fence to secure incoming information) for its systems. By the early 2000s, through the advent of personal computing and remote-access the Laboratory had to account for 150 security areas; 1,500 security technologies and changes in our cultural norms. Technology containers; 6.5 million classified records; and 2,000 classified computers. The “safeguards and security program at LANL,” one report noted, “is one provided a means to access materials owned by others, and of the most complex, geographically diverse, and operationally challenging societal shifts permitted the activity. In the early 1980s, the programs in the world.”410 computer club was born, and hacking became a hobby. In 1983, “the 414s became the public face of the teen ‘whiz kid,’” and The other major change that would be implemented to employees in the film WarGames “glamorized hacking.”415 The September 5, classified areas, and later to all staff, was two-factor identification cards, 1983, edition of Newsweek titled its article about the 414 hackers, called CRYPTOCards. These hand-held electronic devices would protect “Computer Capers: Trespassing in the Information Age—Pranks classified data from unauthorized access and would also help the Laborato- or Sabotage?”416 ry track those who had accessed the data.411 This tracking required pulling employee records, including citizenship and clearance level, as well other pertinent human resources information. Interestingly, with these data com- The teenagers, calling themselves the 414s, were part of an piled in a central system, the Laboratory’s digitized phonebook was born. Explorer Scout computer club that met at their local IBM office in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. As part of their gaming activities, they But despite these reforms, in May 2000, the Laboratory suffered another began breaking into mainframes in May 1983. Within 1 month, security incident—this one involving missing disks that held classified they broke into the Laboratory’s Machine G. The 414 incident information. Director Browne shut down parts of the Laboratory while the was a key driver to the correction of deficiencies in cybersecurity Federal Bureau of Investigation conducted an investigation. In June, the at the Laboratory and the establishment of computer crime laws. disks mysteriously showed up behind a copy machine.412 The controversy As Malin observed, “DOE site network defenses in 1983 did spawned another series of investigations and more Congressional hearings. not proactively account for the change in threat posed by the The compounding criticism from the missing disks, a later controversy combination of technological culture changes.”417 of employee misspending, and the memory of the Wen Ho Lee incident would all lead to Director Browne’s resignation in January 2003. “The controversy was so strong and so critical of management,” Director Browne This event summary was based on a 2017 presentation by Alex said, “that I personally thought the best thing for me to do was resign and Barry Malin titled, “Cyber History in the DOE—The 414s.”414 to have the [University of California] come in and take it to the next level of performance.”413 With a change in leadership, the hope was to put the scandals of the past behind the Laboratory, to institute changes to solve these problems, and to get back to the science. But the coming years would not be so easy for the Laboratory. A computer operator running programs on an IBM computer at the Laboratory, 1984.

Page 126

The Blue Mountain supercomputer, installed in 1998, was the Laboratory’s first large-scale cluster computer and one of many systems it used to become a world leader in computer modeling and simulation.

Page 128

4 Facing Uncertainty during the Post– Cold War Era THE SAFETY AND SECURITY STAND DOWN When Laboratory Director Browne resigned, he was replaced by G. Peter inventory error. The National Nuclear Security Administration determined Nanos. Beginning in 2002, Nanos served as principal deputy associate that 12 barcodes used to issue classified disk drives were issued to a group director for the Laboratory’s Threat Reduction Directorate. Before that, he that required only 10. The extra two were nevertheless logged into the mas- had retired as a vice admiral in the U.S. Navy.421 ter inventory, which was why it appeared that two disks had gone missing. “The allegedly missing disks never existed and no compromise of classified After the years of the Wen Ho Lee incident and widespread media material has occurred,” the report stated. A simple mistake in inventory descriptions, however unfair, of a culture of lax security at the Laboratory, management had been misidentified as the misconduct of incompetent officials and politicians hoped that Director Nanos would effect change scientists, and a set of extreme and destructive acts of cultural re-engineer- at the Laboratory with his “tough, military style.”422 The reorganization ing had been instituted at great cost to the Laboratory and, presumably, after the Cerro Grande Fire brought a pyramidal style of leadership across to national security.425 The news of the missing disks drew remarks from the Laboratory, and Director Nanos’s time centralized this structure even outside the Laboratory, including from the University of California’s Board more. This new style would often clash with long-standing employees, and of Regents, the Vice President of Laboratory Management, and Secretary throughout his 2 years as director, employee retirements were 50 percent of Energy Spencer Abraham.426 higher than in previous years.423 [N]o compromise of classified material What brought the Laboratory to a crisis level were two more security inci- has occurred. dents, followed by the longest Laboratory shutdown since the time of the Manhattan Project, and then another scandal in the wake of reforms. On the heels of other recent security incidents, the still relatively new di- rector tried to emphasize the seriousness of the matter to Laboratory staff. In July 2004, while taking inventory to prepare for an experiment in the “Once again,” Director Nanos wrote to employees, “the failure … to follow weapons physics directorate, the Laboratory discovered that four computer [security rules] has brought disrepute to Los Alamos.”427 storage devices that contained classified research were missing. Two drives were later found—having been improperly moved to a different build- A second security failure, which occurred the same week as the missing ing—but the other two were never located. The news of missing classified disks, involved a student injured by a laser. The 20-year-old was helping information prompted another round of media headlines.424 To remedy a mentor—a Laboratory employee—set up a test that used powerful this system, the Laboratory worked with the Department of Energy and lasers. A later investigation would reveal that neither was wearing laser the National Nuclear Security Administration to digitize tens of thousands eye protection and that there had been missteps in safety planning for the of storage devices that held classified research. experiment and laser operation.428 During the test, the student bent down to look into the rear chamber of the target point while the laser was still It was later learned that the other two “missing” disks had, in fact, never active, resulting in a burn on her retina and damage to her eye. existed, and that there was no national security risk. The mistake was an 112

Page 129

SAFETY AND Director Nanos responded very sternly to these incidents. In another SECURITY REFORMS email to Laboratory employees, later passed along to the media, he wrote, “This willful flouting of the rules must stop, and I don’t care how many AT THE LABORATORY people I have to fire to make it stop. If you think the rules are silly, if you think compliance is a joke, please resign now and save me the trouble.”429 Soon after, Director Nanos suspended 19 Laboratory employees. He then In the wake of the Lee incident, Laboratory Director Browne took the almost unprecedented move of shutting down operations at the hired Richard Burick as associate director for Operations to Laboratory, with non-essential research at different sites at the Laboratory institute security reforms. Together, they stood up the Senior ended for between 2 and 7 months. The stand down, as it was called, would Information Security Policy Board to provide “institutional cost $370million.Duringthistime,employeesreceivedrepeatedsafetyleadership,direction,integration,andmanagementoversightandsecuritytraining.DirectorNanos’sheavy-handedreactiontochangetoensurethattheLaboratory’sINFOSECProgramismeetingtheLaboratory’sculturewasperceivedas“aprofoundbreachwiththeem-ployeeshewassupposedtoleadandrepresent.”430Afterbeingharassedbyknownthreatsandanticipatingandrespondingtotechnologicalemployees,DirectorNanoshadasaferoomconstructedinhishome.431changesinatimelymanner.”418Thisteamwouldmeetregularlytodiscusssecuritymeasuresandtoevaluateprogress.ItwouldAspartofasecurityreview,managementassignedariskleveltoeachstandup“redteams”toidentifyvulnerabilitiesinsecuritydivision’sactivity.Duringthestanddown,resumptionofworkwasallowedandestablishanExternalAdvisoryBoardtoreviewtheonlyafteremployeesandmanagementhadfulfilledareviewprocess,man-Laboratory’sprocesses.419agedbytheCultureandOperationsModel,PlanandSuretySystem.432Thisprocesssometimesincludedone-on-onemeetingswithemployeestoUnderBurick,theLaboratorydevelopedasuiteofmediareviewsafetyproceduresintheirofficesand,insomecases,amorerigor-trackersoftwarethatautomatedtheelectronicrecordkeepingousassessmentthatrequiredidentifyingandresolvingalistofcorrectiveofclassifiedinformationbyusingbarcodes.TheLaboratoryactionsbeforeworkresumed.alsobolstereditsinsiderthreatriskassessmentprogram,whichincludedincreasedpersonnelsecurityandemployeeassistanceHowever,asaresult,theNationalNuclearSecurityAdministrationfinedprogramsforthosehandlingclassifiedinformation.OthertheUniversityofCalifornia$3 million—money that was taken from improvements included the creation of a senior security advisor funds that the university received to manage the Laboratory and that was position, deployed to all directorates. This person would become typically reinvested into experiments.433 The university was also given an the point of contact for security matters and a host of training “unsatisfactory” rating for its management practices. programs and special projects, including the Enhanced Security through Human Error Reduction project, the Lessons Learned The University of California had operated the Laboratory since the days of Program, and the SMART Security Suggestion Program.420 the Manhattan Project, but now—for the first time—the federal government opened the Laboratory’s management and operations contract up for bid. Since this time, the Laboratory has made great efforts to digitize much of its classified material and place it on the red network. This effort would involve building dozens of new fiber networks and building security vault rooms to protect classified computing systems and material. The Laboratory would John Browne (left) sits with Admiral Tom Brooks during the University of California Laboratory Security Panel, 2000.

Page 130

Cray 1, the Laboratory’s first super- computer, at the Central Computing Facility, 1978.

Page 131

The Laboratory used nine Cray Y-MP computers between 1989 and the late 1990s.

Page 132

4 Facing Uncertainty during the Post– Cold War Era also convert personal computers in classified areas to diskless systems— first by using J-B Weld to seal the computer ports and later by phasing out CREATION OF many systems with newer models. THE NATIONAL Securing classified data was a worry from the Laboratory’s inception. Computers, the internet, and the proliferation of personal computers all NUCLEAR SECURITY made security more difficult. Over the years, the Laboratory has learned that security, like technology, must always evolve to meet new challenges. ADMINISTRATION But even as the Laboratory sought to make these needed reforms, it found itself connected to another incident that splashed across national headlines. In 2002, the Laboratory hired two former police chiefs, Glenn Walp and Subsequent to the Wen Ho Lee incident in 1999 and the Steve Doran, to review security at the Laboratory in the wake of recent not-really-missing disks debacle in 2000, the Department safety and security lapses. Shortly after they arrived, Walp wrote a troubling of Energy established the National Nuclear Security report that accused Laboratory employees of misusing funds and stealing Administration. The new federal agency would “superintend property totaling some $3millionsince1999,healleged.Walp’sclaimstheweaponslabs”LosAlamosNationalLaboratoryandmadeheadlines,andhewasfiredinthewinterof2002.AccordingtoWalp,LawrenceLivermoreNationalLaboratory.434TheNationalhehadraisedconcernsofcorruptionwithLaboratoryleaders,butinsteadNuclearSecurityAdministrationimmediatelyretrainedoflookingintohisfindings,Walpclaimedthatleadersreleasedhimfromweaponsscientistsandmandatednewsecurityprocedures.Ithisrole.Amongtheallegations,WalpsaidthatLaboratoryemployeeshadtooktheLaboratoryalongtimetodischargetheperspectivetriedtopurchasea$30,000 Ford Mustang with taxpayer money, had used a that “the scientists of Los Alamos had developed a culture Laboratory credit card to withdraw $2,500incash,andthattheLaborato-ofarroganceandnoncompliance,andthatU.S.nationalrycouldnotaccountformanyitems,suchas260missingcomputers.securitywasendangeredbyit.”435Atthetime,aLaboratoryspokesmanrespondedtoreportsbysayingtherewas“nocultureofthefthere”andthat“peopledonotwalkoutofherewithproperty”asWalphadclaimed.ManyofthemissingitemswereprobablymisplacedamongtheLaboratory’smorethan2,000buildingsonthe40-square-milesite,thespokesmansaid,addingthat“thereisnoevidencethatthereisanyclassifiedinformationoncomputersreportedasmissing.”AfterWalpsuedforwrongfultermination,heeventuallyreceivedasettlementof$930,000 from the University of California. He would also go on to write a book, titled Implosion at Los Alamos, about his experience. Walp’s allegations led to an investigation by the DOE and hearings in Congress. This incident, along with the previous safety and security inci- dents, contributed to changes in leadership. Eventually, the government would compete the Laboratory management contract, which the University of California had handled since the Manhattan Project.

Page 133

THE END On September 11, 2001, the day terrorists attacked the World OF THE Trade Center and the Pentagon, the Department of Energy ordered that the Laboratory close and placed it on SECON 2, a heightened level of security. The Laboratory was evacuated, and all “OPEN LAB” non-essential operations were ceased. The 9/11 terrorist attack reshaped the Laboratory, which had been one of the more accessible and open weapons laboratories in the Department of Energy complex. The Laboratory had prided itself on being an open campus, but with the nation on alert for more potential acts of terrorism, the National Nuclear Security Administration ordered a wide-ranging security analysis of the Laboratory. On September 12, Laboratory employees returned to work, and already they noticed some changes. New barricades had been constructed around TA-03, and in general, so-called “soft gates” were reinforced with concrete barriers to prevent vehicle access. Any vehicle that entered the Laboratory was subject to screening, and security guards also conducted continuous, random screening of buildings. Additional guards were stationed at TA-54 and S-Site. In the months to come, the Laboratory would greatly increase the number of security guard and vehicle screening posts onsite, including guards with heavy weapons and armored car patrols. Many of these changes, especially the increased presence of security guards, would remain permanent. The largest change was the closing of Pajarito Road, where a new policy restricted access to only badged employees (the road would be opened to the public— through traffic only—again on October 15). A truck screening station was established well away from the Laboratory, and most visibly, the Laboratory eventually constructed vehicle access points for the remaining roadways that enter the site. These actions essentially brought the long-held “open campus” model to an end. Aerial view of a vehicle access portal along Pajarito Road.

Page 135

CONCEPT OF DISCIPLINED OPERATIONS A formal program of Integrated Safety Management at the Laboratory dates back to 1996, when the Department of Energy directed the Laboratory to immediately develop a Safety Management System.436 Developed in 1998, the program comprised • a description of the system and its core functions, • an assignment of roles and responsibilities, • the required training, • a requirements process, • a self-assessment process, • safety and environmentally responsible behaviors, and • safety resource allocations.437 By 2000, the Laboratory had developed training materials on Integrated Safeguards and Security Management. The self-study course, required for all L- and Q-cleared employees, taught staff how to apply integrated safeguards and security management into their daily work activities.438 The Laboratory established an interim process for Integrated Work Management in 2003 and published guidelines for all levels of management, including integrated work document templates, in 2004. Two-factor identification cards, called CRYPTOCards, are hand-held devices that protect classified data from unauthorized access and track those who access data (opposite page).

Page 136

The Triad Leadership Team standing in front of the National Security Sciences Building TA-03-1400.

Page 137

C H A P T E R 5 Ensuring Operational Excellence 2006–Present

Page 138

Facility Counts of Los Alamos National Laboratory Technical Areas in 2022.439

Page 139

Presidents Laboratory Directors George W. Bush (R), 2001–2009 Robert Kuckuck, 2005–2006 Barack H. Obama (D), 2009–2017 Michael R. Anastasio, 2006–2011 Donald J. Trump (R), 2017–2021 Charles McMillan, 2011–2017 Joseph R. Biden, Jr. (D), 2021–Present Terry C. Wallace, Jr., 2018 Major Conflicts Thomas E. Mason, 2018–Present Laboratory Budget ($K)WarinAfghanistan,2001–2021IraqWar,2003–2011$2,145,200 (2006)–$3,264,982 (2021) Treaty Laboratory Staff New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, 2011 11,672 (2006)–12,144 (2021) Federal Oversight Executives over Laboratory Operations U.S. Department of Energy, 1977–Present Federal Managers Richard A. Marquez, 2002–2006 Jan A. Van Prooyen, 2006 Edwin Wilmot, 2004–2007 Richard Vann Bynum, 2007 Donald L. Winchell, 2007–2010 Michael B. Mallory, 2007–2011 Kevin W. Smith, 2010–2012 Carl A. Beard, 2011–2014 Juan Griego (acting), 2012–2013 Michael A. Lansing, 2014–2015 Geoffrey L. Beausoleil (acting), 2013–2014 Craig S. Leasure, 2015–2018 Kim Davis Lebak, 2014–2017 Kelly J. Beierschmitt, 2018–Present Steve Goodrum, 2017–2019 Support Contractor Mike Weis, 2019–2021 Ted Wyka, 2021–Present Kellogg Brown and Root, Shaw Infrastructure, and Los Alamos Technical Associates, 2003–2008

Page 141

5 Ensuring Oblique aerial of TA-03 on October 19, 2019, view to the southwest (opposite page). Operational Excellence CHANGING ORGANIZATIONAL CULTURE For 60 years, the University of California exclusively held the contract to 70 percent remained at risk, meaning payment would be based on annual manage and operate the Laboratory. Following congressional hearings incentives performance. Vitally, the mission for Los Alamos National in February and March 2003 that investigated management problems Security was to perform excellent science research and development at the Laboratory, the Department of Energy announced its decision in activities. Beyond science and technology, the contract scope included April 2003 to compete the management and operating contract for the infrastructure construction, project and program management, Laboratory.440 The Laboratory was not alone in this planned transition environmental remediation and management, business services, and because the Department of Energy was also competing the contracts at oversight management. four other laboratories.441 Taking over responsibility for the Laboratory on June 1, 2006, the In December 2005, the Department of Energy and National Nuclear Los Alamos National Security leadership team was the first to occupy Security Administration awarded Los Alamos National Security, LLC, the the National Security Sciences Building, which replaced the 1953 management and operating contract for the Laboratory.442 A consortium Administration Building. Early achievements included a reduction of of the University of California; Bechtel National, Inc.; Washington Group the Laboratory workforce between 2006 and 2008, safety performance International; and BWX Technologies, Inc., Los Alamos National Security improvements, the institution of integrated work management was a sole-purpose, dedicated, limited-liability corporation.443 Team policy, the establishment of an emergency operations center, and the strengths included the University of California’s research prowess and implementation of a contractor assurance system.447 Between 2006 and Bechtel National’s construction expertise. Los Alamos National Security 2017, the annual budget averaged $2.26billion,andthestaffpopulationsignedacost-reimbursable-typecontract,transitioningtheLaboratory,foraveragedjustunder10,000.thefirsttime,fromanot-for-profittoafor-profitcontractmodel.444WithInJanuary2016,LaboratoryDirectorCharlesMcMillaninformedabasetermof7years,thecontractprovidedanopportunityforextensionsupto13yearsand10monthsmore.445staffthatLosAlamosNationalSecurity“narrowlyfailedtoqualifyforaone-yearextensionofitscontract.”448Scoringonlysatisfactoryinoperationsandinfrastructure,DirectorMcMillanexplainedthatLosThemissionforLosAlamosNationalSecurityAlamosNationalSecurityfellshortinsafety,managementsystems,andcybersecurity.Reasonsforthepoorscoreincludeda2012contaminationwastoperformexcellentscienceresearch.anda2015arc-flashaccidentattheLosAlamosNeutronScienceCenter,the2014WasteIsolationPilotPlant(WIPP)incident,a2-yearAtthattime,theU.S.Congressappropriatedapproximately$2–2.5 pause in Plutonium Facility operations, and shipping and construction billion per year in Laboratory funding, with up to 90 percent dedicated project issues.449 Former Laboratory Director Robert Kuckuck observed, to Department of Energy–funded programs.446 Thirty percent of Los “… the interests of the private sector and the university were not aligned Alamos National Security’s fee was fixed and paid monthly, and the other …”450 and noted a detrimental “culture difference.”451 125

Page 142

The Department of Energy competed the Laboratory’s management and operations contract for the second time in history. Triad National Security, LLC (Triad)—a consortium of the Regents of the University of California, Battelle Memorial Institute, and Texas A&M University— won the contract on June 8, 2018. The Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration tasked Triad “with changing lab culture around safety, security, conduct of operations, contract assurance.”452 Taking over responsibility for the Laboratory on November 1, 2018, Triad brought in a new leadership team from outside the Laboratory and introduced significant changes. These senior leaders had experience Laboratory Director Michael Anastasio (left), Robert Kuckuck (center), and Linton Brooks (right) after the contract is awarded to Los Alamos National at other laboratories and in industry and were tasked with ensuring Security, January 19, 2006. simultaneous excellence in mission and operations.453 Triad … continues to enable the Laboratory’s mission by implementing an annual strategic planning process … a Laboratory Agenda … Triad accomplished its initial commitments and continues to enable the Laboratory’s mission454 by implementing an annual strategic planning process. The result is a Laboratory Agenda that establishes the priorities for the next 5, 10, and 25 years.455 Identifying critical outcomes and strategic initiatives, the Laboratory Agenda is a touchstone for all employees to develop their own performance goals. This approach is Triad’s way to “harness the full strength of the Laboratory in delivering our mission.”456 Primary to the new contract was the development of an integrated strategy for national pit production. Triad is developing the Savannah River Site pit production capability, supporting the transfer of knowledge to future Savannah River Site workers, and improving infrastructure and staff skills to support pit production here at the Laboratory.457 Part of this focus was on the Laboratory’s critical processes that support pit production. These processes included criticality safety, renewal of waste management processes, and the improvement of project performance. Triad cleared the criticality-safety backlog to improve productivity at the The Department of Energy and National Nuclear Security Administration recapitalization portfolio invested more than $99 million in the TA-55 Plutonium Facility upgrade and replacement The current Lab Agenda. projects (opposite page).

Page 144

5 Ensuring Operational Excellence Laboratory’s Plutonium Facility and expanded the educational program with the University of California, Berkeley.458 A first since 2016, the TRANSFORMING Laboratory resumed shipments to the WIPP and continues to ship at a regular cadence. Markedly, the Laboratory reduced the amount of HUMAN generated waste and reduced the cycle time for transuranic waste. Triad has improved the performance—schedule, budget, quality, and safety—of RESOURCES projects.459 Triad established and integrated management systems, allowing the Laboratory to execute a significant increase in mission scope with fewer operations upsets; advance safety, security, and emergency In January 2020, the Human Resources Division embarked on management systems; improve procurement processes and cybersecurity; a 5-year initiative to improve operational excellence, transform and develop a fully integrated strategy for building the Laboratory of service delivery, and strengthen the Laboratory’s workforce.474 the future.460 Within the first year, the division created three new internal teams to steer the transformation approach. The Core Another contract priority was improving the conduct of operations and Transformation Team comprises subject matter experts who establishing a continuous learning culture.461 Triad placed a renewed will oversee the change-management progression. Involving focus on improving disciplined operations through monthly lessons leaders from across the Laboratory, the Cross-Organizational learned and best practices. To train all first-line managers in Safe Steering Committee will provide a broader perspective to the Conduct of Research principles, Triad implemented a Laboratory effort. The Employee Council, consisting of human resources Operations Safety Academy.462 Before the COVID-19 pandemic, 80 staff at various stages in their career, will assist with integration percent of the appropriate staff had completed the program. Triad of the changes. The Human Resources Division continues its inextricably linked employee performance, behaviors, compensation, and transformation process by assessing current business processes recognition, and the Laboratory established an Operational Excellence and systems and implementing greater efficiencies. award in 2021 that recognizes contributions in mission operations.463 Triad fundamentally changed the culture of the workforce and the This profile appeared in an April 2021 LANLInside workplace with the goal to use “the strength of the entire institution to news story. address and respond to major issues and events holistically to achieve mission success.”464 Although challenges remain, Triad is making steady progress in improving the state of the Laboratory. With the Laboratory’s entire staff engaged in this transformation process, Triad has made significant advancements in transforming the operational environment, physical site, and Laboratory culture. A new employee training building was leased and remodeled Laboratory Human Resources staff participate in a career fair for into a modern 40,000-square-foot facility to train the workforce students visiting from Texas A&M University, April 19, 2022. needed to execute the pit production mission (opposite page).

Page 145

PLANNING THE CAMPUS In 2010, the Laboratory comprised 26,322 leased and owned acres and 1,169 facilities.465 President Barack Obama issued Executive Order 13589, “Promoting Efficient Spending,” in November 2011.466 Subsequently, the Office of Management and Budget established a policy in 2012 to “Freeze the Footprint.”467 In response, the Laboratory developed a business strategy to “eliminate non-enduring real property assets.”468 From fiscal year 2005 through fiscal year 2013, the Laboratory reduced its owned buildings by 3 percent, approximately 250,000 square feet. By 2015, the Laboratory had reduced its office and warehouse spaces by 2 percent.469 This reduction boded well; the Office of Management and Budget established another policy that same year to “Reduce the Footprint.”470 In 2018, Triad assumed the management and operations contract for the Laboratory and set out to develop a fully integrated strategy for building the Laboratory of the future.471 Triad completed the Laboratory’s first comprehensive plan in 20 years.472 As explained by current Laboratory Director Thom Mason, “This Campus Master Plan (CMP) is a robust institutional effort that provides the framework for facility and infrastructure development to make sure we can meet future national security challenges, enable sustainable growth, better connect our workforce and capabilities, and continue our environmental stewardship.”473 At the end of fiscal year 2021, the Laboratory comprised 25,506 acres and 897 facilities (more than 8.4 million gross square feet). As the Laboratory increases the hiring rate and improves the retention rate, it must also innovate and find different ways to get work done within the footprint. With anticipated growth on the horizon, there is a renewed emphasis on improving the safety and performance of capital-project construction and on increasing the utilization of existing infrastructure.

Page 147

5 Ensuring Operational Excellence CLEANING UP THE PAST Many Laboratory activities produce waste and have throughout the In the absence of an off-the-shelf program, in 2006, the Laboratory Laboratory’s history. At the start, the Manhattan Engineering District commenced to develop a system to manage and track waste.482 The goal provided little direction to Manhattan Project sites on the management was an all-in-one, comprehensive solution that addressed the challenges of waste, so each site developed its own program. Nevertheless, devel- of aging technologies and the lack of communication between systems. oping waste management solutions at the Laboratory was a low priority In 2010, the Laboratory began managing nuclear, radioactive, chemical, compared with making an atomic bomb and winning World War II.475 and hazardous wastes using its Waste Compliance and Tracking System. An Atomic Energy Commission safety and industrial health review in Two events in 2014 changed the way the Laboratory managed waste: 1947 established that the Laboratory exhibited “sloppy conditions” and “sloppy habits.”476 The Laboratory “simply dumped radioactive and toxic the February 2014 mishap at the WIPP in Carlsbad, New Mexico, materials into adjacent canyons.” 477 and the Department of Energy’s establishment of an Office of Environmental Management at the Laboratory.483 The former resulted In response to this scathing review, the Laboratory established a Waste in the Laboratory’s participating in numerous audits; conducting testing, Management group in 1948, primarily to minimize the negative impacts modeling, and experiments; and implementing new procedures, all in an of liquid radioactive wastes to the environment.478 In 1950, the Atomic effort to avoid a reoccurrence. The latter provided the opportunity for the Energy Commission took over control of Los Alamos townsite’s san- Laboratory to focus on the waste that it was creating because the new itation program and all of the Laboratory’s industrial waste activities, office assumed oversight of all legacy contamination at the Laboratory.484 although they handed back the latter responsibility in 1955. Assigned to Triad assumed responsibility for the Laboratory in 2018 and immediate- the Laboratory’s Health Division, tasks included operating and main- ly implemented a comprehensive housekeeping and clean-up program taining treatment plants and laundry, and developing methods to treat generated wastes.479 Subsequent decades saw the Laboratory focus on focused on waste identification and efforts to reduce waste during gener- ation. The Laboratory transitioned to a self-performance model of waste managing and treating wastes generated by new missions and activities. management with the establishment of a single waste operations division in 2019.485 With a philosophy of implementing change where needed The Laboratory transitioned to a self- and ensuring continuity where critical, this division addresses enduring performance model of waste management. waste management and improves waste management throughput.486 The Laboratory has reduced the Triad-stored waste inventory by 366 con- In 1987, the Department of Energy began an Environmental Restoration tainers since the beginning of fiscal year 2021.487 Today, the Laboratory’s Program (presently overseen by the Office of Environmental Management) Waste Management Division provides “a central, compliant, efficient, and to address environmental cleanup across the complex. In 1989, it acquired operationally excellent waste and material management program.”488 The a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act Permit from the State of New Laboratory is committed to cleaning up the past, controlling the present, Mexico.480 The Laboratory began a comprehensive process of documenting and creating a sustainable future.489 former and current waste-generating activities on the site. In 1990, funding for environmental cleanup neared 20 percent of the Laboratory’s budget.481 131 Solid waste disposal at the Laboratory, April 1968 (opposite page).

Page 148

Workers excavated a vehicle in 2011 as part of a cleanup of Material Disposal Area B.

Page 149

HISTORICAL EXCAVATIONS Workers excavated a 13-foot mixing tank in 2011 as part of a cleanup of Material Disposal Area B, the Laboratory’s first hazardous and radioactive waste landfill, used from 1944 to 1948. The cleanup began in 2010 using American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funding (above). Workers also excavated a radiation-protection suit in 2011 as part of the same cleanup and same waste landfill (left).

Page 150

5 Ensuring Operational Excellence SUPPORTING OUR NATION’S NUCLEAR POLICY Developed in 1940, plutonium, a human-made element, and plutonium- former processes, it required facility upgrades, replacement and retooling of bearing pits are major components of a nuclear weapon.495 One of the equipment, addition of new technologies, wide-ranging process improve- “most interesting materials known to mankind,” plutonium is strange, very ments, comprehensive testing and inspection programs, and extensive staff reactive, and ultimately unstable.496 Most importantly, Laboratory scien- training.507 All of these steps significantly increased product precision and tists, in collaboration with other scientists, discovered that the material accuracy.508 The intense, 10-year effort culminated in the Laboratory’s pro- properties of pits change over time.497 Therefore, as long as plutonium is in ducing its first certifiable nuclear weapons pit in 2003.509 Subsequently, the the stockpile or is used for nuclear reactors, the United States must retain Laboratory delivered its first war-reserve pit to the Department of Energy the capability to handle, store, process, and produce it.498 The Laboratory in 2007, and they accepted it for use in the nation’s stockpile.510 serves as the nation’s Plutonium Center of Excellence,499 and pit produc- tion serves to The Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration’s • modernize existing weapons for safety, security, and reliability; 2014 strategic plan called for the Laboratory to produce at least 30 pits per year by 2026 and in perpetuity.511 Recommending a two-site approach, the • prevent nuclear proliferation and terrorism; 2018 Nuclear Posture Review established an initiative to produce no fewer • maintain strategic deterrence; and than 80 pits per year during 2030.512 This recommendation provides for • sustain a safe, secure, and effective nuclear arsenal.500 continued investment in the Laboratory to produce their 30 pits per year and prepares to repurpose the Savannah River Site to produce the other 50 After testing its first pit in the July 1945 Trinity test, the Laboratory pits. In response, the Laboratory established a new Associate Laboratory produced all of the nation’s pits until 1952.501 At this time, the Atomic Directorate for Plutonium Infrastructure in April 2021 that will support Energy Commission transferred pit production to the Rocky Flats Plant the Plutonium Center of Excellence, the Los Alamos Plutonium Pit in Colorado.502 Notably, this move pleased Laboratory scientists because Production Project, the Chemistry and Metallurgy Research Replacement they did not want research and development collocated with production Project, and the TA-55 Reinvestment Project.513 The Laboratory is at the Laboratory.503 The Rocky Flats Plant produced pits until 1989, after also training the staff who will work at the Savannah River Plutonium which the United States briefly lost its capability.504 Asking the Laboratory Processing Facility. to assume the task of pit surveillance in 1991, the Department of Energy requested the Laboratory to resume pit production in 1993.505 The Labo- One of the “most interesting materials known ratory’s Plutonium Facility was, and still is, the only physical plant in the nation equipped to do pit production.506 to mankind,” plutonium is strange … Forty-one years later, the resumption of pit manufacturing at the Labo- In 2022, the Department of Energy and the National Nuclear Security ratory has been a tremendous feat. An effort far beyond simply restarting Administration praised a team of more than 45 Laboratory employees of 134 Plutonium crystal (opposite page).

Page 152

Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Administrator Jill Hruby observes activities at the Laboratory’s Plutonium Facility, August 26, 2021. 136

Page 153

Radiological control technicians simulate Plutonium Facility work-related processes at the TA-55 cold lab. 137

Page 154

5 Ensuring Operational Excellence the Capital Projects and the Plutonium Infrastructure Associate Laborato- ry Directorates.514 Comprising staff from several divisions and groups, this team completed a complex submittal for the pit production project in half the time it usually takes and in a high-quality manner. Never having done EARLY this task before, this team exceeded their customer’s immense expectations. RADIOACTIVE Similar to the enormous efforts of the mid-1990s, the Laboratory is making significant investments in facilities, equipment, and staff to attain WASTE the capability to produce 30 pits per year for the nuclear weapons stockpile. Part of this modernization process is reshaping the Laboratory campus and the workforce for 24/7 operations and making improvements that will mitigate all types of potential unexpected events.515 Noticeably, the support This is an aerial photograph of Los Alamos Ranch School from maintenance and operations is growing exponentially to maintain taken in 1942, looking to the east. In 2020, excavations the Laboratory’s high standards in safety, health, safeguards and security, for a Los Alamos County sewer line exposed unexpected quality waste management, construction, procurement, and staffing. This radiologically contaminated materials of Laboratory origin support includes meeting rigorous environmental and waste disposal within the former DP Site. A Laboratory researcher asks, standards and making infrastructure investments in offices, laboratories, “If you were a young army person in 1943, and you were shops and warehouses, utilities, transportation, and parking.516 Triad asked to bury some radioactive waste, where would you believes that the Laboratory “is the right place for pit manufacturing for bury it?”490 three reasons: we have the technical knowledge, the physical infrastructure, and the capable workforce.”517 Oblique aerial photo of Los Alamos Ranch School, 1942. Waste shipment being prepared to leave Los Alamos National Laboratory for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Carlsbad, New Mexico, on April 11, 2019.

Page 155

SHIPMENT TO WIPP On April 11, 2019, the Laboratory made its first shipment since of waste shipments. The new facility replaces a previously used 2014 of transuranic (TRU) waste to the Waste Isolation Pilot outdoor area and increases the Laboratory’s shipping capacity of Plant (WIPP) near Carlsbad, New Mexico.491 Shipped from transuranic waste. As stated by Deputy Director for Operations the newly opened Radioactive Assay Nondestructive Testing Kelly Beierschmitt, “Getting the RANT facility back in service facility (RANT), the resumption of shipments “puts Los Alamos and successfully moving TRU waste to WIPP will add to our in a stronger position to fulfill its national security mission.”492 operational and safety margins and provide a better level of The Laboratory is the largest producer of transuranic waste in efficiency as we continue to improve our waste operations.”493 the nuclear security enterprise and requires a regular cadence Subsequently, the Laboratory shipped more than 2,300 drums.494 Laboratory workers prepare a shipment for the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in Carlsbad, New Mexico.

Page 156

5 Ensuring Operational Excellence CONFRONTING THE PANDEMIC Coronavirus disease (or COVID-19) is an infectious disease caused by The Telework Pilot required the rapid development and implementation the SARS-CoV-2 virus.520 On March 11, 2020, the State of New Mexico of new processes and systems, including the revision of charging, funding, reported its first four cases.521 This same day, the World Health Organiza- and pay guidance and the development of a process to monitor and analyze tion declared COVID-19 a pandemic, and the governor of New Mexico costs.530 Serving as an unforeseen opportunity, the Telework Pilot regular- declared a state of public health emergency.522 In response, on March 16, ized and documented numerous ad hoc practices because the Laboratory 2020, Laboratory Director Thom Mason directed staff to telecommute as had to decide which ones applied and whether they applied to offsite much as possible and to limit domestic travel to mission-essential business workers. Between October 2020 and September 2021, the Laboratory only.523 Almost overnight, the Laboratory transitioned from more than developed a formal approach to implement, assess, measure, and refine 12,000 staff working on campus to more than 10,000 teleworking.524 the pilot. During this time, the Laboratory overhauled much of its aging infrastructure and developed drop-in or turnaround spaces for teleworkers. The Laboratory quickly transitioned the information technology staff Increased workforce productivity and cost and space savings were among primarily to support teleworkers.525 Astoundingly, information technology the greatest benefits, along with pilot participant satisfaction. Teleworking staff rapidly prepared more than 9,000 laptops for staff to use at home. is now a strength of the Laboratory. A marked success, the Telework Pilot Quadrupling virtual private network capacity and tripling phone connec- transformed into a viable option in the Laboratory’s January 2021 work tivity, the Laboratory created a virtual onboarding process, shifted to online location policy and set the standard for other sites in the complex.531 training formats, and implemented a remote student program. In support of the national response, the Recognizing a new approach that enabled effective and productive exe- Laboratory, along with other research cution of the Laboratory’s mission with very low numbers of the onsite workforce present,526 the Laboratory created a Telework Pilot. This pro- institutions, shared its equipment and expertise gram shifted a portion of the already pandemic-related teleworking staff (approximately 1,400 or 11 percent) to largely telework mode.527 Subse- to study the virus’s history, nature, genomics, quently, the Laboratory placed workforce functions that proved highly productive while teleworking into that status for the duration of the pilot. and molecular structure. The offices of pilot participants were repurposed to disperse staff conduct- ing onsite mission activities. The Telework Pilot evaluated the potential Based on active lessons learned and continuously refined, Laboratory simultaneous benefits of significant future mission enablement and infra- COVID-19 safety processes and procedures (some of which are still in use structure cost savings and provided the framework necessary to assess the today) were established at the onset of the pandemic.532 As remarked by optimal use of telework and telework benefits and to address drawbacks.528 the Deputy Director for Operations Beierschmitt, “LANL COVID policy The Laboratory was the first site in the Department of Energy National became enterprise approach.”533 Early in the pandemic, the Laboratory Nuclear Security Administration complex to implement a telework pilot.529 ensured workforce safety through multiple measures beyond teleworking, 140

Page 157

5 Ensuring Operational Excellence including the development of a Pandemic Advisory Team on January 30, 2020; activation of an Emergency Operations Center on March 9, 2020; PRAISING SAFE and establishment of a COVID-19 hotline on March 12, 2020.534 Testing and modeling became fundamental components for how the Laboratory WORK managed work activities and locations. Most importantly, the employee- employer partnership was at the heart of the Laboratory’s success. Staff recognized the importance of protective behaviors, and the Laboratory purposefully concentrated on developing the necessary systems (risk The Laboratory’s Worker Environmental, Safety and management) and culture (staff leadership).535 Security Team in the Associate Laboratory Directorate for Capital Projects developed initiatives for supervisors and While the Laboratory maintained full operability during the pandemic, it peers to praise “craft workers for putting safety first in the likewise increased productivity, accomplished the mission, reduced costs, field.”518 Recognized under the Job Well Done or Caught and increased job satisfaction. Conspicuously, the Laboratory led the Being Safe initiatives, leadership acknowledges workers Department of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration complex during monthly all-hands meetings and provides a certificate in addressing the challenges of the pandemic. The Laboratory was the first site to test staff, the first site to vaccinate staff, and the first site to mandate of recognition and a backpack with tools of their trade. COVID-19 vaccinations.536 Receiving high praise from the Department Practicing disciplined operations, engaging in worker safety, of Energy National Nuclear Security Administration Los Alamos Field exhibiting a questioning attitude, or providing exceptional Office, the Laboratory demonstrated its ability to manage the impacts of customer service, these recognized Laboratory employees a constantly changing pandemic.537 As noted by Beierschmitt, the circum- identify safer and smarter ways to work.519 stances “harnessed the strength of the Lab to proactively manage COVID and enable mission.”538 This profile appeared in a February 2022 LANLInside news story. In support of the national response, the Laboratory, along with other research institutions, shared its equipment and expertise to study the virus’s history, nature, genomics, and molecular structure.539 Using its high-perfor- mance computing and complex system-modeling capabilities, the Labora- tory provided methods to predict the pandemic’s progression and to screen potential drug candidates.540 Laboratory staff founded their own research initiatives and studied vaccine development, testing and mitigation strate- gies, and medical equipment supply.541 In support of public health efforts, the Laboratory established a special office for COVID-19 that provided technical capabilities to the community.542 The Laboratory worked espe- cially close with New Mexico state officials on major policy issues during two to three conference calls per week. As stated by 1663 magazine editor Craig Tyler, “COVID-19 is a killer, and Los Alamos is doing everything it Electricians at the Los Alamos Neutron Science Center (left to right) Martin Gutierrez, Joshua F. Salazar, and Leonard Maestas are recognized in January 2022 for exceptional customer service.

Page 158

5 Ensuring Operational Excellence can to provide life-saving scientific guidance for policymakers.”543 In 2022, the New Mexico state legislature recognized the contributions of more than 100 Laboratory researchers in the battle against COVID-19.544 The COVID-19 pandemic was the beginning of a challenge that lasted more than 2 years and enacted institutionally adopted safety protocols, rapidly implemented staff guidance, and judicious policy changes alongside teleworking and COVID-19 testing, surges, vaccinations, and variants.545 The Laboratory integrated COVID-19 controls (signage, hand sanitizer, etc.) in all work planning; transitioned infrastructure and assets rapidly; and used and strengthened the Worker Environment, Safety, and Security Team for communication and implementation of COVID-19 controls. LANL COVID-19 website. Advocating for cross-organization interaction, collaboration, and feed- back, the Laboratory used a systems and data-driven approach to deci- sion-making and operational changes. Wholly meeting the challenge, the Laboratory also enhanced operations with a broad array of internal and external initiatives that employed all of the strengths of the organization. The Laboratory’s shared principles, values, and behaviors were demonstrat- ed and put into action during the difficult times. “How we do our work has become as important as what we do”546 at the Laboratory, and the institution has changed forever and for the better. The success and learning during the COVID-19 pandemic will be translated to improve all areas of the Laboratory, including delivering the pit production mission. Deputy Director for Operations Kelly Beierschmitt receives the vaccine at the Laboratory’s Emergency Operations Center, January 20, 2021. Vaccines ready to administer to Laboratory staff at the Emergency The Laboratory offers COVID-19 vaccinations to staff at the Operations Center, January 20, 2021. Emergency Operations Center, April 7, 2021.

Page 159

Masked statues of J. Robert Oppenheimer and General Leslie R. Groves outside of Fuller Lodge in downtown Los Alamos, 2020. While masked, the Laboratory’s DeployIT staff prepares laptops and peripherals for remote work, July 14, 2020.

Page 160

YROTAROBAL REVO SEVITUCEXE 2202–5491 ,SNOITAREPO David Hawkins Arthur L. Hughes B. E. Brazier David Dow Liaison with Post Administra- Personnel Department, Construction and Maintenance, Asst. to the Dir. in Charge of tion, 1943–1944 1943–1944 1943–1944 Non-Technical Admin. Matters, 1944–1945/1946 Charles I. Browne Christopher S. Adams, Jr. Robert W. Selden James F. Jackson Asst. Dir. for Admin., 1974– Associate Director, 1983–1986 Associate Director, 1984–1986 Deputy Director, 1985–1998 1976; Assoc. Dir. for Admin., 1976–1979; Assoc. Dir. for Tech. Support, 1979–1983 Jan A. Van Prooyen Richard Vann Bynum Michael B. Mallory Carl A. Beard Principal Associate Director, Principal Associate Director, Principal Associate Director, Principal Associate Director, 2006 2007 2007–2011 2011–2014

Page 161

Col. L. E. Seeman Col. Austin W. Betts Robert M. Kimball Henry R. Hoyt Raemer Schreiber Associate Director for Assoc. Dir. for Admin. and Administrative Associate Assistant Director for Technical Associate Director, Administration, 1945–1946 Services, 1945–1946; Assoc. Director, 1948–1950 Administration, 1950–1970 1962–1972; Deputy Director, Dir. for Admin., 1946–1948 1972–1974 Allen J. Tiedman Warren F. Miller, Jr. Willard R. Wadt Joseph F. Salgado Richard A. Marquez Associate Director, 1986–1994 Deputy Director, 1996–1999 Deputy Director, 1999 Deputy Laboratory Director, Associate Director, 2002–2006 1999–2001; Principal Deputy Director, 2001–2003 Los Alamos National Laboratory is known for its world-renowned research and Nobel Prize–winning scientists. Few know about the support required to keep the Laboratory running. Since 1943, 25 individuals have served the Laboratory as the executive over operations. Often sharing the role during the early years and enduring numerous title changes over time, the executive over operations serves a critical role in the Laboratory’s success. Michael A. Lansing Craig S. Leasure Kelly J. Beierschmitt Principal Associate Director, Principal Associate Director, Deputy Laboratory Director, 2014–2015 2015–2018 2018–Present

Page 162

ABOUT THE AUTHORS Rekha S. Pillai was hired by Los Alamos National Laboratory in October 2018 as a member of the Deputy Laboratory Directorate for Operations, reporting directly to the deputy director of Operations. Dr. Pillai has a PhD in management science (1992), an MS in Operations Research (1987), and a BS in statistics, mathematics, and physics (1981). From 1981 through 1984, she worked at Blue Chip Computer Consultants as a programmer, building many back-office business process automation tools for invoicing, accounting, procurement, and employee-time-and-effort capture for manufacturing and service companies. Dr. Pillai worked at Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL) from 1992 to 1996 and again from 1999 to 2013. Starting as a postdoc fellow, she held a variety of research and management positions with increasing responsibility, including senior research scientist, group leader of Decision Engineering (a group she founded), Laboratory Directed Research and Development program manager, and director of International Science and Technology Programs. Dr. Pillai developed and led ORNL R&D programs in operations research and decision analysis. From 1996 to 1999, she worked at Resource Optimization, Inc., as director for Operations Research, leading the development of large-scale optimization tools for manufacturing companies in areas such as supply chain management, production planning, and product-mix planning. From 2001 through 2009, Dr. Pillai taught information technology strategy as a joint faculty member for the executive MBA program at the University of Tennessee Business School. From 2013 to 2015, Dr. Pillai was director of programs at Qatar National Research Funds (Qatar Foundation), where she led the effort to design their R&D investment portfolio (>$400M) to help build Qatar’s science and innovation ecosystem and help its transition to a knowledge-based economy. From 2015 through 2018, she was director of strategic planning and investments at Idaho National Laboratory, where she established its science and technology core capabilities and designed and implemented seminal integrated laboratory agenda, annual laboratory planning process and plan, and R&D budgeting and investment processes. Dr. Pillai has more than 80 publications and presentations to her credit.

Page 163

Laying the Groundwork Carrie J. Gregory was hired by Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2020 as a Historic Buildings Specialist. With a BS in anthropology from San Diego State University and an MS in historic preservation from Goucher College, she worked in the private sector as a cultural resources specialist in southern California and in the Southwest for most of her 25-year career. Her specialties included prehistoric and historical trail studies, cultural landscape surveys, and Cold War military facility significance evaluations. Currently, she serves as an architectural and landscape historian for the Laboratory’s Environmental Protection and Compliance Division and the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. Weston Phippen was hired as a contractor for Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2019. He graduated from Arizona State University’s Walter Cronkite School of Journalism and Mass Communications in 2012 and has worked at national newspapers and magazines. He lives in Santa Fe, New Mexico, and currently serves as a communications specialist for the Technical Editing and Communications group at the Laboratory. J. T. Stark was hired by Los Alamos National Laboratory in 2020 as a historic buildings specialist, concentrating on the built environment of the Manhattan Project National Historical Park. Before working at the Laboratory, J. T. spent 15 years with the National Park Service as an archaeologist and historic preservationist at several parks throughout Arizona and New Mexico. Coupled with his experience in cultural resource management and his nearly life-long captivation with World War II history, J. T. is overjoyed to serve the Laboratory with helping to preserve some of the last- remaining buildings and structures of the Manhattan Project. 147

Page 164

ENDNOTES 1 J. T. Stark after Edith C. Truslow, Manhattan District 9 Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper History: Nonscientific Aspects of the Los Alamos Project Y and Brothers, 1962), 64–65. 1942–1946 (Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos Historical 10 James W. Kunetka, Oppenheimer: The Years of Risk (New Society, 1997), 18, and LASL Engineering Department n.d.: Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982), 42. Main Technical Area, Drawing No. ENG-R-100; Bethann McVicker, LANL GIS Program update, 2022. 11 James W. Kunetka, Oppenheimer: The Years of Risk (New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982), 43. 2 Stanley Goldberg, “Groves Takes the Reins,” The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, 1992. 12 Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), 66. 3 Stanley Goldberg, “Groves and the Scientists: Compartmentalization and the Building of the Bombs,” 13 Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper Physics Today, August 1995. and Brothers, 1962), 66. 4 Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper 14 A. W. Betts, A Technical Maintenance Group Report on and Brothers, 1962), 64. General Background Data Concerning The Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Required for Planning Purposes (Los Alamos, NM: 5 Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 1947), 3. and Brothers, 1962), 65–66. 15 Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper 6 Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), 149. and Brothers, 1962), 66–67. 16 Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper 7 Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper and Brothers, 1962), 149. and Brothers, 1962), 65. 17 James W. Kunetka, Oppenheimer: The Years of Risk (New 8 Leslie R. Groves, Now It Can Be Told (New York: Harper Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc., 1982), 13. and Brothers, 1962), 66. 148

Page 165

18 Alan Brady Carr, The University of California Contract 24 Ellen D. McGehee, The Women of Project Y Working At the to Operate the Los Alamos Laboratory, 1942-1947, A Birthplace of the Bomb 1942–1946 Workforce Consideration, Documentary History (Los Alamos National Laboratory Part I (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-03- report LA-UR-04-07896, 2004). 02821, 2003). 19 Alan Brady Carr, The University of California Contract 25 Edith C. Truslow, Manhattan District History: Nonscientific to Operate the Los Alamos Laboratory, 1942-1947, A Aspects of the Los Alamos Project Y 1942-1946 (Los Alamos, Documentary History (Los Alamos National Laboratory NM: Los Alamos Historical Society, 1997), 11. report LA-UR-04-07896, 2004). 26 David Hawkins, Project Y: The Los Alamos Story (Los Angeles, 20 Stanley Goldberg, “Groves and the Scientists: CA: Tomash Publishers, 1983), 59. Compartmentalization and the Building of the Bombs,” 27 Jon Hunner, Inventing Los Alamos: The Growth of an Atomic Physics Today, August 1995. Community (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 21 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, Los Alamos Beginning of 2004), 32–33. an Era 1943-1945 (Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos Scientific 28 Jon Hunner, Inventing Los Alamos: The Growth of an Atomic Laboratory, Public Relations Office, 1967). Community (Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press, 22 Roger A. Meade, Total Quality Management and Nuclear 2004), 33. Weapons, A Historian’s Perspective (Los Alamos National 29 Provisional Military Police Battalion, Armed Forces Special Laboratory report LA 12643-H, 1993). Weapons Project Provisional Military Police Battalion History 23 Roger A. Meade, Total Quality Management and Nuclear of Military Units at Los Alamos (Los Alamos, NM: Los Weapons, A Historian’s Perspective (Los Alamos National Alamos Times, 1947). Laboratory report LA 12643-H, 1993). 149

Page 166

30 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Security Handbook the Manhattan Project, 1942-1946 (Los Angeles, CA: (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ca. 1944). University of California Press, 1987), 60–61. 31 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Security Handbook 38 David Hawkins, Project Y: The Los Alamos Story (Los (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, ca. 1944). Angeles, CA: Tomash Publishers, 1983), 53. 32 Robert de Vore, “The Man Who Made Manhattan,” 39 Barton C. Hacker, The Dragon’s Tail: Radiation Safety in Colliers, October 1945. the Manhattan Project, 1942-1946 (Los Angeles, CA: University of California Press, 1987), 61. 33 Alex Barry Malin, “Cyber History in the DOE—The 414s” (presentation, Cyber Fire, San Diego, CA, 40 Barton C. Hacker, The Dragon’s Tail: Radiation Safety in November 16, 2017, Los Alamos National Laboratory the Manhattan Project, 1942-1946 (Los Angeles, CA: report LA-UR-30371). University of California Press, 1987), 62. 34 Robert de Vore, “The Man Who Made Manhattan,” 41 David Hawkins, Project Y: The Los Alamos Story (Los Colliers, October 1945. Angeles, CA: Tomash Publishers, 1983), 53. 35 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the Circle: 42 David Hawkins, Project Y: The Los Alamos Story (Los The Department of Energy and Environmental Management, Angeles, CA: Tomash Publishers, 1983), 54. 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy, 43 Thomas L. Shipman, Health, Safety and Biomedical History Division, 1994). Research at Los Alamos (Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos 36 Barton C. Hacker, The Dragon’s Tail: Radiation Safety in Scientific Laboratory, 1948), 1, also available electronically, the Manhattan Project, 1942-1946 (Los Angeles, CA: https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16111545.pdf. University of California Press, 1987), 60–61. 44 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the Circle: 37 Barton C. Hacker, The Dragon’s Tail: Radiation Safety in The Department of Energy and Environmental Management, 150

Page 167

1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy, LA-UR-16-23631, 2022); this map (22-038-05) was created History Division, 1994). by the LANL GIS Program using the best data available and might not represent all land transactions. 45 Bethann McVicker update of map originally developed by Mona Valencia and subsequently updated by Brad 48 Bethann McVicker of the LANL GIS Program created McCown, “Los Alamos National Laboratory Acquired this map (22-038-01_1965) using the best data available. and Dispositioned Real Estate” (map, Los Alamos 49 Roger Allen Meade, ed., The Postwar Laboratory (Los National Laboratory report LA-UR-16-23631, 2022); this Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-16-28879, map (22-038-02) was created by the LANL GIS Program 2016), 1. using the best data available and might not represent all land transactions. 50 Alan Brady Carr, “Mister Los Alamos” (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-29957, 46 Bethann McVicker update of map originally developed 2020), 15; Zia Company, Presenting… The Zia Company: by Mona Valencia and subsequently updated by Brad Maintenance and Operations Contractor, Los Alamos, New McCown, “Los Alamos National Laboratory Acquired Mexico (Los Alamos, NM: Zia Company, 1964), 2. and Dispositioned Real Estate” (map, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-16-23631, 2022); this 51 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos map (22-038-04) was created by the LANL GIS Program National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 2. using the best data available and might not represent all land transactions. 52 Roger Allen Meade, ed., The Postwar Laboratory (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-16-28879, 47 Bethann McVicker update of map originally developed by 2016), 1. Mona Valencia and subsequently updated by Brad McCown, “Los Alamos National Laboratory Acquired and Dispositioned 53 Vic Hogsett, “Director’s Interviews,” The Atom 17, no. 3 Real Estate” (map, Los Alamos National Laboratory report (1980): 26. 151

Page 168

54 Alan Brady Carr, “The Life, the Times, and the Laboratory 63 Alan Brady Carr, “Mister Los Alamos” (presentation, Los of Norris E. Bradbury,” (presentation, Los Alamos Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-29957, National Laboratory report LA-UR-13-25312, 2013). 2020), 18; F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental 55 Alan Brady Carr, Of Clouds and Craters: The History of U.S. Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: Department Nuclear Weapons Testing (Los Alamos National Laboratory of Energy, History Division, 1994), 5. report LA-UR-20-22980, 2020), 6. 64 Norris E. Bradbury and edited by Roger Allen Meade, 56 Roger Meade, “Post-war Weapons Testing Started 75 Peace and the Atomic Bomb (Los Alamos National Years Ago,” LANLInside, July 1, 2021, https://int.lanl.gov/ Laboratory report LA-UR-16-25417, 2016), 7; Roger news/news_stories/2021/july/0701-crossroads.shtm. Allen Meade, “From A Bombs to H Bombs to the Moratorium: Los Alamos during the Tenure of Norris E. 57 Harold M. Agnew and Raemer E. Schreiber, Norris Bradbury” (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory E. Bradbury 1909–1996 (Washington, D.C.: National report LA-UR-99-05433, 1999), 4. Academies Press, 1998), 6. 65 A. W. Betts, A Technical Maintenance Group Report on 58 Vic Hogsett, “Director’s Interviews,” The Atom 17, no. 3 General Background Data Concerning The Los Alamos (1980), 26. Scientific Laboratory Required for Planning Purposes (Los 59 Jeff Pederson, ed., “Crossroads to the Sun: A Time Table,” Alamos, NM: Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 1947). The Atom 17, no. 3 (1980), 16. 66 Willard C. Kruger, Interim Report on Reconstruction 60 Vic Hogsett, “Director’s Interviews,” The Atom 17, no. 3 of TA-1. Submitted to the Office of Santa Fe Directed (1980): 26; Norris E. Bradbury and edited by Roger Allen Operations, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission (Los Alamos, Meade, Peace and the Atomic Bomb (Los Alamos National NM: Associated Architects-Engineers, 1947), also Laboratory report LA-UR-16-25417, 2016), 7. available electronically, https://www.osti.gov/opennet/ servlets/purl/901022.pdf. 61 Norris E. Bradbury and edited by Roger Allen Meade, Peace and the Atomic Bomb (Los Alamos National 67 Willard C. Kruger, Interim Report on Reconstruction of TA-1. Laboratory report LA-UR-16-25417, 2016), 4. Submitted to the Office of Santa Fe Directed Operations, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission (Los Alamos, NM: Associated 62 Norris E. Bradbury and edited by Roger Allen Meade, Architects-Engineers, 1947), 17, also available electronically, Peace and the Atomic Bomb (Los Alamos National https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/901022.pdf. Laboratory report LA-UR-16-25417, 2016), 7. 152

Page 169

68 Willard C. Kruger, Interim Report on Reconstruction Los Alamos” (presentation, Los Alamos National of TA-1. Submitted to the Office of Santa Fe Directed Laboratory report LA-UR-20-29957, 2020), 16. Operations, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission (Los Alamos, 75 Alan Brady Carr, “Mister Los Alamos” (presentation, Los NM: Associated Architects-Engineers, 1947), 17–18, Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-29957, available electronically, https://www.osti.gov/opennet/ 2020), 5. servlets/purl/901022.pdf. 76 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos 69 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, “Press Release, Subject: National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 3. Award of Contract to Vinson Construction Company for Construction of Bridge across Los Alamos Canyon,” 77 Norris E. Bradbury and edited by Roger Allen Meade, U. S. Department of Energy OpenNet, https://www.osti. The Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory—An Isolated Nuclear gov/opennet/detail?osti-id=16197359; Jeff Pederson, ed., Research Establishment (Los Alamos National Laboratory “Crossroads to the Sun: A Time Table,” The Atom 17, no. 3 report LA-UR-16-27298, 2016), 3–4. (1980), 17. 78 Vic Hogsett, “Director’s Interviews,” The Atom 17, no. 3 70 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos (1980), 26. National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 3. 79 Alan Brady Carr, Of Clouds and Craters: The History of U.S. 71 Harold M. Agnew and Raemer E. Schreiber, Norris Nuclear Weapons Testing (Los Alamos National Laboratory E. Bradbury 1909–1996 (Washington, D.C.: National report LA-UR-20-22980, 2020), 21; U.S. Department Academies Press, 1998), 6–7. of Energy, United States Nuclear Tests: July 1945 through September 1992, Report DOE/NV209 (Las Vegas, NV: 72 Alan Brady Carr, “Mister Los Alamos” (presentation, Los U.S. Department of Energy, Nevada Operations Office, Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-29957, 1994), rev. ed. 14, 1–30. 2020), 17–18. 80 Alan Brady Carr, “Mister Los Alamos” (presentation, Los 73 Harold M. Agnew and Raemer E. Schreiber, Norris Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-29957, E. Bradbury 1909–1996 (Washington, D.C.: National 2020), 31. Academies Press, 1998), 6. 81 Harold M. Agnew and Raemer E. Schreiber, Norris 74 Harold M. Agnew and Raemer E. Schreiber, Norris E. Bradbury 1909–1996 (Washington, D.C.: National E. Bradbury 1909–1996 (Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press, 1998), 10. Academies Press, 1998), 6, 8; Alan Brady Carr, “Mister 153

Page 170

82 Alan Brady Carr, “Mister Los Alamos” (presentation, Los Alamos https://int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2019/march/0327- National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-29957, 2020), 31. jane-hall-award.shtml. 83 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” 89 Alan Brady Carr, LANL Organization Chart 1943–1984 (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20- LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 21. 28134, 2020); Los Alamos National Laboratory, personnel file on Henry Hoyt, National Security Research Center, 84 Kelly J. Beierschmitt, Thomas Edward Mason, Frances Los Alamos, New Mexico; The Atom, “Short Subjects: Chadwick, Robert Blair Webster, and John Louis Sarrao, Henry Hoyt,” The Atom, no. 7 (1970), 17. Lab Agenda January 2022 Update (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-22-20658, 2022). 90 Norris E. Bradbury and edited by Roger Allen Meade, Peace and the Atomic Bomb (Los Alamos National 85 Willard C. Kruger, Interim Report on Reconstruction Laboratory report LA-UR-16-25417, 2016), 7; Roger of TA-1. Submitted to the Office of Santa Fe Directed Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos Operations, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission (Los Alamos, National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 2. NM: Associated Architects-Engineers, 1947), 17–18, also available electronically, https://www.osti.gov/opennet/ 91 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Presidential Executive Order servlets/purl/901022.pdf. 9816 Providing for the Transfer of Properties and Personnel to the Atomic Energy Commission (Los Alamos National 86 Alan Brady Carr, LANL Organization Chart 1943–1984 Laboratory report LA-UR-16-28963, 2016), 1. (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20- 28134, 2020); Whitney Spivey, “Jane Hall: Queen of the 92 Herbert I. Miller and Ralph Carlisle Smith, Memorandum Hill,” National Security Science, October 1, 2018, https:// on Los Alamos Operation: A Generalized Study of the Problem www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/national-security- (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-UR-00540- science/2018-October/Jane%20Hall.php; Los Alamos MS, 1947). National Laboratory, personnel file on Jane Hall, National 93 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the Circle: Security Research Center, Los Alamos, New Mexico. The Department of Energy and Environmental Management, 87 Raeanna Sharp-Geiger, email message to authors, May 26, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: Department of Energy, 2022. History Division, 1994), 5. 88 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Jane Hall Award 94 Carroll L. Tyler, Report of the Manager, Santa Fe Nominations Open,” LANLInside, March 26, 2019, Operations, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, July 1950 to 154

Page 171

January 1954 (Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Atomic Energy 103 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos Commission, 1954), 2. National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 2; Carroll L. Tyler, Report of the Manager, Santa Fe 95 Carroll L. Tyler, Report of the Manager, Santa Fe Operations, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, July 1950 to Operations, U. S. Atomic Energy Commission, July 1950 to January 1954 (Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Atomic Energy January 1954 (Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1954), 2. Commission, 1954), 6. 104 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos 96 Herbert I. Miller and Ralph Carlisle Smith, Memorandum National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 2. on Los Alamos Operation: A Generalized Study of the Problem (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-UR-00540- 105 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos MS, 1947). National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 14–17. 97 Michael E. Welsh, A Mission in the Desert: Albuquerque District, 1935–1985 (Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Army Corps 106 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos of Engineers, Albuquerque District, 1985), 82–88. National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 2. 98 Robert E. McKee, The Zia Company in Los Alamos: A 107 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos History (El Paso, Texas: Carl Hertzog, 1950), 2. National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 16–17. 99 Robert E. McKee, The Zia Company in Los Alamos: A History (El Paso, Texas: Carl Hertzog, 1950), 5; Michael 108 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos E. Welsh, A Mission in the Desert: Albuquerque District, National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 5. 1935–1985 (Albuquerque, NM: U.S. Army Corps of 109 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos Engineers, Albuquerque District, 1985), 225. National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 100 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos 13–17. National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 13. 110 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos 101 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 10, 12. National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 3. 111 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos 102 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 2. National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 3–4. 155

Page 172

112 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos 118 Oakes, Maureen, Laboratory in a Changing World: A Los National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 17. Alamos Chronology (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LALP-01-065, 2001); U.S. Atomic Energy 113 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ Commission, Santa Fe Operations Office, “Last Outside Compensation Programs, Division of Energy Employees Toilet Soon to Disappear at Los Alamos” (press release, Occupational Illness Compensation, U.S. Department Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-12- of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, 01611, 2012). Los Alamos Field Office, Los Alamos National Laboratory (presentation, ca. 2010). Available electronically, https:// 119 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/owcp/energy/regs/ Compensation Programs, Division of Energy Employees compliance/public_reading_room/deeoic_training/ Occupational Illness Compensation, “U.S. Department of DOE_Info_Sessions/PDFs/LANL.pdf. Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Field Office, Los Alamos National Laboratory” 114 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ (presentation, ca. 2010), also available electronically, Compensation Programs, Division of Energy Employees https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/owcp/energy/ Occupational Illness Compensation, “U.S. Department of regs/compliance/public_reading_room/deeoic_training/ Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los DOE_Info_Sessions/PDFs/LANL.pdf. Alamos Field Office, Los Alamos National Laboratory” (presentation, ca. 2010), also available electronically, 120 Kari L. M. Garcia, David M. Holtkamp, Ellen D. https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/owcp/energy/ McGehee, Sheila A. McCarthy, Ken Towery, and John regs/compliance/public_reading_room/deeoic_training/ Ronquillo, Standing Guard: An Evaluation of Early Cold DOE_Info_Sessions/PDFs/LANL.pdf. War Guard Stations at LANL, 1948–1959 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-15-22369, 2015), 12. 115 Andrew W. Erickson (operations manager, Utilities and Institutional Facilities, Los Alamos National Laboratory), 121 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos in discussion with the author, April 18, 2022. National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 6–7. 116 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos 122 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 2. National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 7, 10. 117 Roger Allen Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos 123 U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Workers’ National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 4, Compensation Programs, Division of Energy Employees 9–10. Occupational Illness Compensation, “U.S. Department of 156

Page 173

Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Los Norris E. Bradbury” (presentation, Los Alamos National Alamos Field Office, Los Alamos National Laboratory” Laboratory report LA-UR-99-05433, 1999), 2; Alan (presentation, ca. 2010), also available electronically, Brady Carr, “Mister Los Alamos” (presentation, Los https://www.dol.gov/sites/dolgov/files/owcp/energy/ Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-29957, regs/compliance/public_reading_room/deeoic_training/ 2020), 25. DOE_Info_Sessions/PDFs/LANL.pdf. 129 Donald P. MacMillan, “Los Alamos Nuclear Rocket 124 Kari L. M. Garcia, David M. Holtkamp, Ellen D. Project Rover” (presented paper, American Nuclear McGehee, Sheila A. McCarthy, Ken Towery, and John Society Materials Symposium, San Diego, CA, 1962), 1, Ronquillo, Standing Guard: An Evaluation of Early Cold also available electronically, https://www.osti.gov/servlets/ War Guard Stations at LANL, 1948–1959 (Los Alamos purl/4673160. National Laboratory Report, LA-UR-15-22369, 2015), 130 Alan Brady Carr, “Beyond the Moon,” (presentation, Los 7, 14, 21. Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-30089, 125 Richard D. Baker, quoted in “Bradbury’s Colleagues 2020), 10. Remember His Era,” Los Alamos Science (Winter/Spring 131 Donald P. MacMillan, “Los Alamos Nuclear Rocket 1983): 33. Project Rover” (presented paper, American Nuclear 126 Roger Allen Meade, “From A Bombs to H Bombs to Society Materials Symposium, San Diego, CA, 1962), the Moratorium: Los Alamos during the Tenure of 1–2, also available electronically, https://www.osti.gov/ Norris E. Bradbury” (presentation, Los Alamos National servlets/purl/4673160. Laboratory report LA-UR-99-05433, 1999), 2; Alan 132 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, Brady Carr, “Mister Los Alamos” (presentation, Los SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History of Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-29957, the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Vol. 2020), 31. 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11- 127 Roger Allen Meade, “From A Bombs to H Bombs to 00922, 2010), 17. the Moratorium: Los Alamos during the Tenure of 133 Daniel R. Koenig, Experience Gained from the Space Norris E. Bradbury” (presentation, Los Alamos National Nuclear Rocket Program (Rover) (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-99-05433, 1999), 2. Laboratory report LA-10062-H, 1986), 1, 7. 128 Roger Allen Meade, “From A Bombs to H Bombs to the Moratorium: Los Alamos during the Tenure of 157

Page 174

134 Diane Benegas, ed., “Los Alamos Timeline: Significant (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11- Events and 50 Years of Research Highlights,” in Dateline 00922, 2010), 110. Los Alamos, Special Issue (1995), 29. 140 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, 135 Billy Joe Archer, “A History of Los Alamos Scientific SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History Computing” (lecture, XCP Seminar, Los Alamos, NM, of the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), June 25, 2020, Los Alamos National Laboratory report Vol. 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR- LA-UR-20-24471). 11-00922, 2010), 107–109; Alan Brady Carr, “Computing at Los Alamos” (presentation, Los Alamos National 136 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, Laboratory report LA-UR-10-00132, 2010). SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History of the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), 141 Mario R. Perez and Richard D. Belian, “Vela Satellite Vol. 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR- Program” (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory 11-00922, 2010), 110; Edward A. Voorhees, “Software report LA-UR-08-05501, 2008); Morris B. Pongratz, and Operations,” in Computing at LASL in the 1940s and “Los Alamos in Space: The 50 Years since Vela” 1950s, by Roger B. Lazarus, Edward A. Voorhees, Mark (presentation, IGPPS Science of Signatures for Climate, B. Wells, and W. Jack Worlton, (Los Alamos Scientific Geophysics, Space and Astrophysics, Los Alamos, NM, Laboratory report LA-6943-H, 1978), 7. October 9, 2013, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-13-27772). 137 Billy Joe Archer, “A History of Los Alamos Scientific Computing” (lecture, XCP Seminar, Los Alamos, NM, 142 Richard Marc Kippen and John R. Gustafson, “Ensuring June 25, 2020, Los Alamos National Laboratory report America’s Security, 50 Years of Treaty Verification from LA-UR-20-24471). Space” (poster, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-13-26737, 2013). 138 Nicholas Dale Lewis, “On ‘The Lunatic Fringe’: Los Alamos High-Performance Computing History” 143 Edward F. Hammel, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (presentation, HPC Summer Presentation Series, Los Energy-Related History, Research, Managerial Alamos, NM, August 8, 2016, Los Alamos National Reorganization Proposals, Actions Taken, and Results Laboratory report LA-UR-16-25748). 1945–1979 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA- UR-13072-H, 1997), 3; Mario R. Perez and Richard D. 139 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, Belian, “Vela Satellite Program” (presentation, Los Alamos SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History National Laboratory report LA-UR-08-05501, 2008). of the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Vol. 1 158

Page 175

144 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, Laboratory: A History of the Los Alamos Administration SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History Building (1956–2006), Vol. 1 (Los Alamos National of the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Laboratory report LA-UR-11-00922, 2010), 34. Vol. 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR- 151 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, 11-00922, 2010), 98. SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History of 145 Mario R. Perez and Richard D. Belian, “Vela Satellite the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Vol. Program” (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11- report LA-UR-08-05501, 2008). 00922, 2010), 90. 146 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, 152 Harold M. Agnew and Raemer E. Schreiber, Norris SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History E. Bradbury 1909–1996 (Washington, D.C.: National of the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Academies Press, 1998), 6. Vol. 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR- 153 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” 11-00922, 2010), 130. (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report 147 Alice L. Buck, A History of the Atomic Energy Commission LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 11. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, History 154 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” Division, 1983), 3. (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report 148 Alice L. Buck, A History of the Atomic Energy Commission LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 11, 27, 36. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, History 155 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” Division, 1983), 6. (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report 149 U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, The Future Role of the LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 11–12. Atomic Energy Commission Laboratories: A Report to the 156 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Vol. 1 (Washington, (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report D.C.: U.S. Atomic Energy Commission, 1960), 66. LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 11. 150 Alice L. Buck, A History of the Atomic Energy Commission 157 Thomas L. Shipman, introduction to Health Division (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, History Annual Report, 1949 (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Division, 1983), 6; Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and report LA-UR-01072, 1950), 3. Ellen D. McGehee, SM-43, Nerve Center of a National 159

Page 176

158 Richard D. Baker, quoted in “Bradbury’s Colleagues Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: Remember His Era,” Los Alamos Science (Winter/Spring Department of Energy, History Division, 1994), 6. 1983): 45. 165 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the 159 Thomas L. Shipman, “H Division Activities” (paper Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental presentation, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, May 6, Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: 1969), 30, also available electronically, https://www.osti. Department of Energy, History Division, 1994), 7. gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16288769.pdf. 166 Thomas L. Shipman, introduction to Health Division 160 Alan Brady Carr, LANL Organization Chart 1943–1984 Annual Report, 1949 (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20- report LA-UR-01072, 1950), 3. 28134, 2020). 167 Wright H. Langham (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 161 Thomas L. Shipman, Health, Safety and Biomedical Health Division) to Theodore B. Jenson (Atomic Energy Research at Los Alamos (Los Alamos, NM: Los Commission Operations Office), memo, 27 August Alamos Scientific Laboratory, 1948), 1, also available 1948, also available electronically, https://www.osti. electronically, https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/ gov/opennet/servlets/purl/903549.pdf; Roger Allen purl/16111545.pdf. Meade, ed., Notes on Los Alamos (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-22764, 2017), 12; Thomas 162 Thomas L. Shipman, Health, Safety and Biomedical L. Shipman, Health Division Annual Report, 1953 (Los Research at Los Alamos (Los Alamos, NM: Los Alamos Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-UR-01689, 1954), 6. Scientific Laboratory, 1948), also available electronically, https://www.osti.gov/opennet/servlets/purl/16111545. 168 Thomas L. Shipman, introduction to Health Division pdf; Alan Brady Carr, LANL Organization Chart Annual Report, 1949 (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 1943–1984 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report report LA-UR-01072, 1950), 5. LA-UR-20-28134, 2020). 169 Roger Allen Meade, “From A Bombs to H Bombs to 163 Thomas L. Shipman, “Introduction,” in Health Division the Moratorium: Los Alamos during the Tenure of Annual Report 1949 (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Norris E. Bradbury” (presentation, Los Alamos National report LA-UR-01072), 3–8. Laboratory report LA-UR-99-05433, 1999), 4. 164 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the 170 Hugh C. Paxton, A History of Critical Experiments at Pajarito Site (Los Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Alamos National Laboratory report LA-09685-H, 1983), 2–3. 160

Page 177

171 Evelyn Mullen, Los Alamos National Laboratory, 178 Thomas P. Mc Laughlin, Shean P. Monahan, Norman Chief of Operations, Global Security Directorate, email L. Pruvost, Vladimir V. Frolov, Boris G. Ryazanov, and message to authors, March 15, 2022. Victor I. Sviridov. Review of Criticality Accidents: 2000 Revision (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA- 172 Alan Brady Carr, “The Ultimate Safety Share” UR-13638, 2000), 17. (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-26608, 2020), 5. 179 Richard E. Anderson, “History of Criticality Accidents” (working paper for an agreement between the United 173 John B. Ramsay, Incidents and Accidents Involving States and France on Nuclear Criticality Safety, Explosives at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, December 18–19, 2008, Los Alamos National Laboratory 1951–1999 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report report LA-UR-08-07765), 2. LA-UR-13697, 2001), 5. 180 Alan Brady Carr, “The Ultimate Safety Share” 174 John B. Ramsay, Incidents and Accidents Involving (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report Explosives at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, LA-UR-20-26608, 2020), 5. 1951–1999 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-13697, 2001), 6. 181 Carrie J. Gregory, Elliot M. Schultz, Cameron D. Townsend, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Jeremy C. Brunette, 175 John B. Ramsay, Incidents and Accidents Involving From Protection and Prevention to Research and Discovery: Explosives at the Los Alamos National Laboratory, Eligibility Assessment of the Health Research Laboratory 1951–1999 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report (TA-43) and Historic Documentation for TA-43-0001, Vol. LA-UR-13697, 2001), 2. 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-22- 29600, 2022), 3.11, 3.65–3.67. 176 Cary B. Skidmore, “The Seven LANL Explosives Fatalities—Technical and Human Perspectives” 182 David Sundberg, “LASL’s Mr. Safety,” The Atom 2, no. 3 (presentation, Los Alamos Historical Society 2012–2013 (1965), 20–23. Lecture Series: History and Science, February 12, 2013, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-13- 183 Alan Brady Carr, LANL Organization Chart 1943–1984 20561), 27. (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20- 28134, 2020). 177 Necia Grant Cooper, ed., “The Cecil Kelley Criticality Accident” Los Alamos Science 23 (1995): 250. 184 David Sundberg, “LASL’s Mr. Safety,” The Atom 2, no. 3 (1965), 20. 161

Page 178

185 David Sundberg, “LASL’s Mr. Safety,” The Atom 2, no. 3 192 Thomas L. Shipman, “H Division Activities” (paper (1965), 23. presentation, Laboratory Information Meeting, Los Alamos, NM, May 6, 1969), https://www.osti.gov/ 186 David Sundberg, “LASL’s Mr. Safety,” The Atom 2, no. 3 opennet/servlets/purl/16288769.pdf. (1965), 23. 193 Harry F. Schulte, “Group H-5, Industrial Hygiene,” 187 Philip N. Dean and John H. Larkins, in Health Division Annual Report, 1953, by Thomas L. “Thermoluminescent Dosimetry with Activated Lithium Shipman (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report Fluoride,” in Biological and Medical Research Group LA-UR-01689, 1954), 38–41. (H-4) of the Health Division Annual Report, July 1962 through June 1963, by Wright H. Langham and Thomas 194 The Atom, “They Clean the Air,” The Atom 2, no. 13 L. Shipman (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report (1965), 3–6. LA-UR-03034-MS, 1964), 205, 221. 195 Alan Brady Carr, LANL Organization Chart 1943–1984 188 Philip N. Dean and John H. Larkins, (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20- “Thermoluminescent Dosimetry with Activated Lithium 28134, 2020). Fluoride,” in Biological and Medical Research Group 196 Harry J. Ettinger, Survey of Techniques Employed to Define (H-4) of the Health Division Annual Report, July 1962 Aerosol “Respirable Dust” Concentration and Particle-Size through June 1963, by Wright H. Langham and Thomas Characteristics, vol. 2 (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory L. Shipman (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report report LA-UR-04249, 1971), 5. LA-UR-03034-MS, 1964), 221, 223. 197 Raeanna Sharp-Geiger, email message to authors, May 189 Oliver W. Larson, A. John Ahlquist, and Richard W. 26, 2022. Henderson, Radiation Measurements of the Effluent from the NRX A-4 Reactor (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 198 Necia Grant Cooper, ed., “The Cecil Kelley Criticality report LA-UR-03583-MS, 1966), 10. Accident,” Los Alamos Science 23 (1995): 250–251. 190 Donald F. Petersen and Elizabeth M. Sullivan, Biomedical 199 Necia Grant Cooper, ed., “The Cecil Kelley Criticality and Environmental Research Program of the LASL Health Accident,” Los Alamos Science 23 (1995): 250. Division, January–December 1975 (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-UR-06313-PR, 1976), 29. 200 Necia Grant Cooper, ed., “The Cecil Kelley Criticality Accident,” Los Alamos Science 23 (1995): 250. 191 Raeanna Sharp-Geiger, email message to authors, May 26, 2022. 162

Page 179

201 Necia Grant Cooper, ed., “The Cecil Kelley Criticality 212 Louis Rosen, “LAMPF: A Dream and a Gamble,” Los Accident,” Los Alamos Science 23 (1995): 251. Alamos Science 7 (1983). 202 James F. McInroy, “A True Measure of Exposure: The 213 Louis Rosen, “LAMPF: A Dream and a Gamble,” Los Human Tissue Analysis Program at Los Alamos,” Los Alamos Science 7 (1983). Alamos Science 23 (1995): 235–237. 214 Richard A. Reichelt, “Probing the Structure of Matter,” 203 Bethann McVicker of the LANL GIS Program created Los Alamos Science 21 (1993): 99. this map (22-038-01_1991) using the best data available. 215 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the 204 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1211. 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1211. 216 Edward F. Hammel, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 205 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the Energy-Related History, Research, Managerial 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1211. Reorganization Proposals, Actions Taken, and Results 1945–1979 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report 206 Louis Rosen, “LAMPF: A Dream and a Gamble,” Los LA-UR-13072-H, 1997), 13. Alamos Science 7 (1983). 217 Edward F. Hammel, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 207 Louis Rosen, “LAMPF: A Dream and a Gamble,” Los Energy-Related History, Research, Managerial Alamos Science 7 (1983). Reorganization Proposals, Actions Taken, and Results 1945–1979 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report 208 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the LA-UR-13072-H, 1997), 11. 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1211. 218 Edward F. Hammel, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 209 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the Energy-Related History, Research, Managerial 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1211. Reorganization Proposals, Actions Taken, and Results 210 Louis Rosen, “LAMPF: A Dream and a Gamble,” Los 1945–1979 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report Alamos Science 7 (1983). LA-UR-13072-H, 1997), 13. 211 Louis Rosen, “LAMPF: A Dream and a Gamble,” Los 219 Edward F. Hammel, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Alamos Science 7 (1983). Energy-Related History, Research, Managerial Reorganization Proposals, Actions Taken, and Results 163

Page 180

1945–1979 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-16-29084, LA-UR-13072-H, 1997), 13. 2016). 220 Edward F. Hammel, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 226 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the Energy-Related History, Research, Managerial 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1211. Reorganization Proposals, Actions Taken, and Results 227 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the 1945–1979 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1211. LA-UR-13072-H, 1997), 13. 228 William J. Broad, “Los Alamos: The Winds of Mutiny,” 221 Edward F. Hammel, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Science 218, no. 4568 (1982): 135. Energy-Related History, Research, Managerial Reorganization Proposals, Actions Taken, and Results 229 William J. Broad, “Los Alamos: The Winds of Mutiny,” 1945–1979 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report Science 218, no. 4568 (1982): 134; John Walsh, “Los LA-UR-13072-H, 1997), 3–4; John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Alamos: Coming to Terms with the 1980’s,” Science 209, Coming to Terms with the 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 no. 4462 (1980): 1211. (1980): 1211. 230 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the 222 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1211–1212. SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History of the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Vol. 231 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11- 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1212. 00922, 2010). 232 Donald M. Kerr in “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the 223 Raymond Garde, E.J. Cox, Allen M. Valentine, Los 1980’s,” by John Walsh, Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1212. Alamos DP West Plutonium Facility Decontamination 233 William J. Broad, “Los Alamos: The Winds of Mutiny,” Project, 1978-1981 (Los Alamos National Laboratory Science 218, no. 4568 (1982): 135. report LA-UR-9513-MS, 1982). 234 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the 224 Dane Robert Spearing, TA-55 and Sigma Overview (Los 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980). Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-16-29084, 2016). 235 Donald M. Kerr in “Los Alamos: The Winds of Mutiny,” by William J. Broad, Science 218, no. 4568 (1982): 136. 225 Dane Robert Spearing, TA-55 and Sigma Overview (Los 164

Page 181

236 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 243 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall Institute, 1995), 8. Institute, 1995), 6. 237 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 244 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall Institute, 1995), 8. Institute, 1995), 6. 238 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 245 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall Institute, 1995), 8. Institute, 1995), 6. 239 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 246 Edward F. Hammel, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science Energy-Related History, Research, Managerial and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall Reorganization Proposals, Actions Taken, and Results Institute, 1995), i. 1945–1979 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-13072-H, 1997). 240 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science 247 J. J. Wechsler in “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall the 1980’s,” by John Walsh, Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): Institute, 1995), 3. 1213. 241 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 248 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1212. and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall 249 Edward F. Hammel, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory Institute, 1995), 4. Energy-Related History, Research, Managerial 242 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 Years after Reorganization Proposals, Actions Taken, and Results Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science and Public Policy 1945–1979 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall Institute, 1995), 5. LA-UR-13072-H, 1997), 48. 165

Page 182

250 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the Department of Energy National Laboratories (Washington, 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1213. D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 1995), 7. 251 Edward F. Hammel, Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory 257 Secretary of the Energy Advisory Board Task Force Energy-Related History, Research, Managerial on Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy Reorganization Proposals, Actions Taken, and Results National Laboratories, Alternative Futures for the 1945–1979 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report Department of Energy National Laboratories (Washington, LA-UR-13072-H, 1997), 49. D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 1995), 8. 252 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 258 Steve Stokes, email message to author, January 18, 2022. Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science 259 Los Alamos National Laboratory, personnel file on James and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall F. Jackson, National Security Research Center, Los Institute, 1995), 10. Alamos, New Mexico. 253 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 260 Alan Brady Carr, LANL Organization Chart 1943–1984 Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20- and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall 28134, 2020). Institute, 1995), 10. 261 Los Alamos National Laboratory, personnel file on James 254 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 F. Jackson, National Security Research Center, Los Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science Alamos, New Mexico. and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall Institute, 1995), 10. 262 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental 255 Secretary of the Energy Advisory Board Task Force Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. on Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy Department of Energy, History Division, 1994). National Laboratories, Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories (Washington, 263 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 1995), 4. Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 256 Secretary of the Energy Advisory Board Task Force Department of Energy, History Division, 1994). on Alternative Futures for the Department of Energy National Laboratories, Alternative Futures for the 166

Page 183

264 Margaret Anne Rogers, History and Environmental Setting 270 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy of LASL Near-Surface Land Disposal for Radioactive Wastes Management, “Brief History of the Department of (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-UR-6848, Energy,” https://www.energy.gov/lm/doe-history/brief- 1997). history-department-energy. 265 N3B Los Alamos, “Chromium Plume Fact Sheet,” U.S. 271 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Legacy Department of Energy, Environmental Management Management, “Brief History of the Department of Field Office, https://www.energy.gov/sites/default/ Energy,” https://www.energy.gov/lm/doe-history/brief- files/2018/11/f57/Chromium%20Plume%20Fact%20 history-department-energy. Sheet%20Fall%202018.pdf. 272 Environmental Studies Group, Environmental Surveillance 266 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the at Los Alamos During 1976 (Los Alamos Scientific Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Laboratory report LA-UR-06801-MS, 1977). Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 273 Environmental Studies Group, Environmental Surveillance Department of Energy, History Division, 1994). at Los Alamos During 1976 (Los Alamos Scientific 267 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the Laboratory report LA-UR-06801-MS, 1977). Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental 274 Environmental Studies Group, Omnibus Environmental Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Assessment (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report Department of Energy, History Division, 1994). LA-UR-75-05012, 1975). 268 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the 275 Environmental Studies Group, Omnibus Environmental Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Assessment (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. LA-UR-75-05012, 1975). Department of Energy, History Division, 1994). 276 National Research Council, Improving the Environment: An 269 U.S. Congress, Office of Technology Assessment, Complex Evaluation of the DOE’s Environmental Management Program Cleanup: The Environmental Legacy of Nuclear Weapons (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995). Production, Report no. OTA-O-484 (Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1991), also available 277 National Research Council, Improving the Environment: An electronically, https://sgp.fas.org/othergov/doe/lanl/lib- Evaluation of the DOE’s Environmental Management Program www/ota/00418554.pdf. (Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1995). 167

Page 184

278 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental 285 U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Management, “Los Alamos Interim Measure to Control Health Administration, “About OSHA,” https://www. Contaminant Plume Reaches Full Operation,” https:// osha.gov/aboutosha. www.energy.gov/em/articles/los-alamos-interim- 286 The Atom, “New Address for H-5 and H-8,” The Atom 3, measure-control-contaminant-plume-reaches-full- no. 4 (1966): 7. operation. 287 The Atom, “Complying with OSHA,” The Atom 10, no. 3 279 Carol A. Clark, “N3B: Los Alamos Interim Measure to (1973): 6. Control Contaminant Plume beneath LANL Reaches Full Operation,” Los Alamo Daily Post, May 8, 2021, 288 The Atom, “Complying with OSHA,” The Atom 10, no. 3 https://ladailypost.com/n3b-los-alamos-interim- (1973): 7. measure-to-control-contaminant-plume-reaches-full- operation/. 289 Barbara Storms, “A Sideline Mushroomed,” The Atom 9, no. 8 (1972): 4. 280 Alice Buck, A History of the Energy Research and Development Administration (Washington D.C.: U.S. 290 The Atom, “Interpreting the Requirements for Respirator Department of Energy, Office of History and Heritage Programs,” The Atom 10, no. 7 (1973): 1. Resources, 1982), 4–5. 291 Jack Nelson, ed., “Respirator Road Show,” The Atom, 281 Alice Buck, A History of the Energy Research and January-February (1976): 20. Development Administration (Washington D.C.: U.S. 292 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the Department of Energy, Office of History and Heritage Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Resources, 1982), 5. Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 282 John Walsh, “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the Department of Energy, History Division, 1994), 18; Alan 1980’s,” Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1213. Brady Carr, On the Front Lines of the Cold War, Los Alamos 1970–1992 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report 283 J. J. Wechsler in “Los Alamos: Coming to Terms with the LA-UR-13-24021, 2013), 5. 1980’s,” by John Walsh, Science 209, no. 4462 (1980): 1213. 293 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the 284 U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Health Administration, “OSHA at 50,” https://www. Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. osha.gov/osha50#. Department of Energy, History Division, 1994), 23. 168

Page 185

294 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Environment, Safety, and Health, 1991), 4.4. Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 301 U.S. Department of Energy, Tiger Team Assessment of the Department of Energy, History Division, 1994), 44. Los Alamos National Laboratory, DOE/EH 0204, vol. 2 295 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Environment, Safety, and Health, 1991), 4.3. Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 302 U.S. Department of Energy, Tiger Team Assessment of the Department of Energy, History Division, 1994), 43–45. Los Alamos National Laboratory, DOE/EH 0204, vol. 2 296 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Environment, Safety, and Health, 1991), 4.4. Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. 303 Andrew W. Erickson (operations manager, Utilities and Department of Energy, History Division, 1994), 64. Institutional Facilities, Los Alamos National Laboratory), 297 U.S. Department of Energy, Tiger Team Assessment of the in discussion with the author, April 18, 2022. Los Alamos National Laboratory, DOE/EH 0204, vol. 2 304 Andrew W. Erickson (operations manager, Utilities and (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Institutional Facilities, Los Alamos National Laboratory), Environment, Safety, and Health, 1991), 4.1. in discussion with the author, April 18, 2022. 298 U.S. Department of Energy, Tiger Team Assessment of the 305 Alan Brady Carr, “The Ultimate Safety Share” Los Alamos National Laboratory, DOE/EH 0204, vol. 2 (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of LA-UR-20-26608, 2020), 6. Environment, Safety, and Health, 1991). 306 Alan Brady Carr, “The Ultimate Safety Share” 299 U.S. Department of Energy, Tiger Team Assessment of the (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report Los Alamos National Laboratory, DOE/EH 0204, vol. 2 LA-UR-20-26608, 2020), 6; The Atom, Eight Scientists (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Die in Plane Crash, The Atom 9, no. 5 (1972), 20. Environment, Safety, and Health, 1991), 4.3–4.4. 307 The Atom, Eight Scientists Die in Plane Crash, The Atom 300 U.S. Department of Energy, Tiger Team Assessment of the Los 9, no. 5 (1972), 20. Alamos National Laboratory, DOE/EH 0204, vol. 2 169

Page 186

308 National Transportation Safety Board, Aircraft Accident 315 Marjorie Mascheroni, ed., Innovation: Technology Transfer Report: Ross Aviation, Inc., Beechcraft 65-B8O, Queen 2005–2006 Progress Report (Los Alamos National Air, N841NS, Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 19, 1972 Laboratory report LALP-07-038, 2007). (Washington D.C.: National Transportation Safety 316 Siegfried Hecker, “Los Alamos: Beginning the Second Board, Bureau of Aviation Safety, 1972), ii. Fifty Years,” Los Alamos Science 21 (1993). 309 National Transportation Safety Board, Aircraft Accident 317 Siegfried Hecker, “Los Alamos: Beginning the Second Report: Ross Aviation, Inc., Beechcraft 65-B8O, Queen Fifty Years,” Los Alamos Science 21 (1993). Air, N841NS, Albuquerque, New Mexico, May 19, 1972 (Washington D.C.: National Transportation Safety 318 Siegfried Hecker, “Los Alamos: Beginning the Second Board, Bureau of Aviation Safety, 1972), ii. Fifty Years,” Los Alamos Science 21 (1993). 310 John Armistead, ed., “LASL’s Trucking Company,” The 319 Marjorie Mascheroni, ed., Innovation: Technology Transfer Atom, February (1977): 1. 2005–2006 Progress Report (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LALP-07-038, 2007). 311 John Armistead, ed., “LASL’s Trucking Company,” The Atom, February (1977): 1–6. 320 Marjorie Mascheroni, ed., Innovation: Technology Transfer 312 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and 2005–2006 Progress Report (Los Alamos National Technical Information, Infotech 1992: DOE Technical Laboratory report LALP-07-038, 2007). Information Meeting, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Oct. 21–23, 1992 (Washington, D.C: U.S Department of Energy, 321 Steve Girrens, Duncan McBranch, Mig Owens, Tatjana Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 1992). Rosev, Jeff Berger, John Russell, Steve Stringer, Belinda Padilla, John Mott, David Holmes, Shandra Clow, and 313 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Marjorie Mascheron, Technology Transfer Progress Report Technical Information, Infotech 1992: DOE Technical 2007–2008 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report Information Meeting, Oak Ridge, Tennessee, Oct. 21–23, LALP-09-020, February 2009. 1992 (Washington, D.C: U.S Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, 1992). 322 Steve Girrens, Duncan McBranch, Mig Owens, Tatjana Rosev, Jeff Berger, John Russell, Steve Stringer, Belinda 314 Marjorie Mascheroni, ed., Innovation: Technology Transfer Padilla, John Mott, David Holmes, Shandra Clow, and 2005–2006 Progress Report (Los Alamos National Marjorie Mascheron, Technology Transfer Progress Report Laboratory report LALP-07-038, 2007). 170

Page 187

2007–2008 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report Honig, Ken Towery, and John Ronquillo, Pillars of the LALP-09-020, February 2009. Cold War: Historic Administration and Support Buildings, Los Alamos, New Mexico; Historic Building Documentation 323 David Moore, ed., “Novel Approach Leads to Potential for the Department of Energy Land Conveyance and HIV-1 Vaccine,” Los Alamos National Laboratory, Transfer Project (Los Alamos National Laboratory report March 1, 2018, https://www.lanl.gov/discover/ LA-UR-10-03659, 2010), 22. publications/connections/2018/2018-03/science.php. 328 Ellen D. McGehee, , Kari L. M. Garcia, Judy Machen, 324 Alice Buck, A History of the Energy Research and Sheila McCarthy, Erik Loomis, Naomi Naranjo, Kristen Development Administration (Washington D.C.: U.S. Honig, Ken Towery, and John Ronquillo, Pillars of the Department of Energy, Office of History and Heritage Cold War: Historic Administration and Support Buildings, Resources, 1982), 9. Los Alamos, New Mexico; Historic Building Documentation for the Department of Energy Land Conveyance and 325 Ellen D. McGehee, , Kari L. M. Garcia, Judy Machen, Transfer Project (Los Alamos National Laboratory report Sheila McCarthy, Erik Loomis, Naomi Naranjo, Kristen LA-UR-10-03659, 2010), 22. Honig, Ken Towery, and John Ronquillo, Pillars of the Cold War: Historic Administration and Support Buildings, Los Alamos, New Mexico; Historic Building Documentation 329 Michael Pierre Bernardin and Alan Brady Carr, History of for the Department of Energy Land Conveyance and the Los Alamos National Security Research Center Collections Transfer Project (Los Alamos National Laboratory report (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20- LA-UR-10-03659, 2010), 17. 30312, 2020). 326 Ellen D. McGehee, Kari L. M. Garcia, Judy Machen, 330 Bethann McVicker of the LANL GIS Program created Sheila McCarthy, Erik Loomis, Naomi Naranjo, Kristen this map (22-038-01_2004) using the best data available. Honig, Ken Towery, and John Ronquillo, Pillars of the Cold War: Historic Administration and Support Buildings, 331 Hans A. Bethe, “What is the Future of Los Alamos?” Los Los Alamos, New Mexico; Historic Building Documentation Alamos Science 21 (1993). for the Department of Energy Land Conveyance and 332 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 Transfer Project (Los Alamos National Laboratory report Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science LA-UR-10-03659, 2010), 17. and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall 327 Ellen D. McGehee, , Kari L. M. Garcia, Judy Machen, Institute, 1995). Sheila McCarthy, Erik Loomis, Naomi Naranjo, Kristen 171

Page 188

333 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 340 Philip R. Fresquez, Harvey T. Haagenstad, and Louis Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science Naranjo, Baseline Concentrations of Radionuclides and and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall Heavy Metals in Soils and Vegetations around the DARHT Institute, 1995). Facility: Construction Phase (1996) (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-13273, 1997). 334 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History of 341 Edward B. Jacquez, The Dual Axis Radiographic the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Vol. Hydrodynamic (DARHT) Facility Personnel Control System 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11- (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-08- 00922, 2010). 6022, 2008). 335 Siegfried S. Hecker, “Is There Life for Los Alamos 50 342 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, Years after Trinity?” The Washington Roundtable on Science SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History of and Public Policy (Washington, D.C.: George C. Marshall the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Vol. Institute, 1995). 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11- 00922, 2010). 336 Raymond J. Juzaitis, “Science-Based Stockpile Stewardship An overview,” Los Alamos Science 23 (2003). 343 Phillip D. Goldstone, “LANSCE and the Nuclear Weapons Program,” Los Alamos Science 30 (2006). 337 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History 344 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, of the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Vol. 1 SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History of (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11- the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Vol. 00922, 2010). 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11- 00922, 2010). 338 Mark L. Allen, LANS Benefits LANL, NNSA, and National Security: Six-Year History of Accomplishment from 345 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “SCC The Strategic June 2006 to June 2012 (Los Alamos National Laboratory Computing Complex, 2012,” https://www.lanl.gov/ report LA-UR-12-01692, 2012). about/_ assets/docs/scc.pdf. 339 Whitney Spivey, “A Day at DARHT,” National Security Science, 346 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “SCC The Strategic October 1, 2018, https://www.lanl.gov/discover/publications/ Computing Complex, 2012,” https://www.lanl.gov/ national-security-science/2018-October/DARHT.php. about/_ assets/docs/scc.pdf. 172

Page 189

347 U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security 355 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, Administration, “NNSA’s High-Performance Computing SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History of Achievements,” https://www.energy.gov/nnsa/nnsas- the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Vol. high-performance-computing-achievements. 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11- 00922, 2010). 348 Larry L. Deaven and Robert K. Moyzis, “The Los Alamos Center for Human Genome Studies,” Los Alamos Science 356 Ludgard A. Emelity, Waste Management at Los Alamos: 20 (1992). Protecting Our Environment (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LALP-90-30, 1990). 349 Louis Rosen, “LAMPF: A Dream and a Gamble,” Los Alamos Science 7 (1983). 357 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental 350 Kurt F. Schoenberg and Paul W. Lisowski, “LANSCE, Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. a Key Facility for National Science and Defense,” Los Department of Energy, History Division, 1994). Alamos Science 30 (2006). 358 Margaret Anne Rogers, History and Environmental Setting of 351 Amy M. Longshore, History of the Los Alamos Neutron LASL Near-Surface Land Disposal for Radioactive Wastes (Los Science Center (Los Alamos National Laboratory report Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-UR-06848, 1997). LALP-95-0218, 1995). 359 Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory, “Area C,” https:// 352 Michael R. Furlanetto, “The Los Alamos Neutron Science hwbdocuments.env.nm.gov/Los%20Alamos%20 Center (LANSCE): Status and Plans” (presentation, National%20Labs/TA%2050/8241.pdf. LANSCE User Group Meeting, Los Alamos, NM, November 10, 2021, LA-UR-21-31238). 360 Margaret Anne Rogers, History and Environmental Setting of LASL Near-Surface Land Disposal for Radioactive Wastes (Los 353 Amy M. Longshore, History of the Los Alamos Neutron Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA-UR-06848, 1997). Science Center (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LALP-95-0218, 1995). 361 N3B, Solid Waste Management Unit Assessment Work Plan for Middle DP Road Site, Revision 1, Report no. EM2021- 354 Martin D. Cooper and W. Scott Wilburn, “Overview of 0095 (Los Alamos, NM: N3B, 2021), also available Fundamental Physics at LANSCE,” Los Alamos Science 30 electronically, https://n3b-la.b-cdn.net/wp-content/ (2006). uploads/2021/04/MDPR_WP_R1_032521.pdf. 173

Page 190

362 N3B, Solid Waste Management Unit Assessment Work Plan Nakai technical visit, March 30, 2017, LA-UR-17- for Middle DP Road Site, Revision 1, Report no. EM2021- 22495). 0095 (Los Alamos, NM: N3B, 2021), also available 369 Douglas James Weaver, “Waste Isolation Pilot Plant electronically, https://n3b-la.b-cdn.net/wp-content/ Overview” (presentation on WIPP overview for Yasuhiro uploads/2021/04/MDPR_WP_R1_032521.pdf. Nakai technical visit, March 30, 2017, LA-UR-17-22495). 363 Richard Reed, David J. Lemak, and W. Andrew Hesser, 370 Rebecca Moss, “With Limited Room at WIPP, “Cleaning up after the Cold War: Management and Feds Urged to Study Expansion,” New Mexican, Social Issues, The Academy of Management Review 22, no. September 6, 2017, https://apnews.com/ 3 (1997). article/863cb3d2463c43cbb867120dc2468e13. 364 Richard Reed, David J. Lemak, and W. Andrew Hesser, 371 Douglas James Weaver, “Waste Isolation Pilot Plant “Cleaning up after the Cold War: Management and Overview” (presentation on WIPP overview for Yasuhiro Social Issues,” The Academy of Management Review 22, no. Nakai technical visit, March 30, 2017, LA-UR-17- 3 (1997). 22495). 365 Douglas James Weaver, “Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 372 U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Overview” (presentation on WIPP overview for Yasuhiro Plant, “History/Timeline,” Nuclear Waste Partnership, Nakai technical visit, March 30, 2017, LA-UR-17- LLC, https://wipp.energy.gov/historytimeline. 22495). asp#1504107780103-88fe7afa-0531. 366 Douglas James Weaver, “Waste Isolation Pilot Plant 373 U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Overview” (presentation on WIPP overview for Yasuhiro Plant, “First Shipment of Transuranic Radioactive Nakai technical visit, March 30, 2017, LA-UR-17- Waste Arrives at WIPP,” https://www.wipp.energy.gov/ 22495). pr/1999nr.htm#Worlds_First_Begins_Operations. 367 Tammy Ann Lopez, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP): 374 U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot The Nation’s Solution to Nuclear Storage and Disposal Issues Plant, “First Shipment of Transuranic Radioactive (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-14- Waste Arrives at WIPP,” https://www.wipp.energy.gov/ 25415, 2017). pr/1999nr.htm#Worlds_First_Begins_Operations. 368 Douglas James Weaver, “Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Overview” (presentation on WIPP overview for Yasuhiro 174

Page 191

375 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of Environmental 381 Richard Reed, David J. Lemak, and W. Andrew Hesser, Management, “Waste Isolation Pilot Plant Receives “Cleaning up after the Cold War: Management and Milestone 13,000th Shipment,” https://www.energy. Social Issues, The Academy of Management Review 22, no. gov/em/articles/waste-isolation-pilot-plant-receives- 3 (1997): 619. milestone-13000th-shipment. 382 Meredith Coonley, ed., “A Great Laboratory Comes 376 David Kramer, “What Went Wrong with the Los Alamos Back,” Dateline Los Alamos, Summer Issue (2000). Contract?” Physics Today 69, no. 3 (2016): 22. 383 Patricia Jones, “MDAs and the Threat of Wildfire” (fact 377 David Kramer, “What Went Wrong with the Los Alamos sheet, LA-UR-13-25837, 2013). Contract?” Physics Today 69, no. 3 (2016): 22. 384 Sonja Louise Salzman, “A Curtain of Air Assists with 378 U.S. Department of Energy, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Cerro Grande Rehabilitation Project,” (article, Los Alamos “Recovery/Restart,” Nuclear Waste Partnership, LLC, National Laboratory report LA-UR-03-00062, 2003). https://wipp.energy.gov/recoveryrestart.asp; Ralph 385 National Interagency Fire Center, Cerro Grande Prescribed Vartabedian, “Nuclear Accident in New Mexico Ranks Fire Investigation Report: May 4–8, 2000 (Boise, ID: among the Costliest in U.S. History,” Los Angeles Times, National Interagency Fire Center, 2000). August 22, 2016, https://www.latimes.com/nation/la-na- new-mexico-nuclear-dump-20160819-snap-story.html. 386 U.S. Department of Energy, Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, “Summary: Proposed Future Disposition 379 U.S. Department of Energy Office of Environmental of Certain Cerro Grande Fire Flood and Sediment Management, Accident Investigation Report Phase 2: Retention Structures at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Radiological Release Event at the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant, Los Alamos, New Mexico,” https://www.energy.gov/ February 14, 2014 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department nepa/doeea-1408-proposed-future-disposition-certain- of Energy Office of Environmental Management, 2015), cerro-grande-fire-flood-and-sediment-retention. ES.6–ES.7. 387 Meredith Coonley, ed., “A Great Laboratory Comes 380 Sharon Ann Walker, “The Los Alamos National Back,” Dateline Los Alamos, Summer Issue (2000). Laboratory Nitrate (LANL) Salt Event: Causes and Cures” (presentation, TA-V Brown Bag Session, 388 Meredith Coonley, ed., “A Great Laboratory Comes Albuquerque, NM, September 19, 2017, Los Alamos Back,” Dateline Los Alamos, Summer Issue (2000). National Laboratory report LA-UR-17-28468), 21. 175

Page 192

389 Meredith Coonley, ed., “A Great Laboratory Comes 397 U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Administration, Back,” Dateline Los Alamos, Summer Issue (2000). Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Construction and Operation of a New Interagency Emergency Operations Center at Los Alamos 390 M. Diana Webb and Kelly Carpenter, The Cerro Grande National Laboratory, Los Alamos, New Mexico, Report DOE/EA- Fire, Los Alamos, New Mexico (Los Alamos National 1376 (Los Alamos, NM: U.S. Department of Energy, National Laboratory report LA-UR-01-1630, 2001). Nuclear Security Administration, Los Alamos Area Office, 2001). 391 M. Diana Webb and Kelly Carpenter, The Cerro Grande 398 U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Fire, Los Alamos, New Mexico (Los Alamos National Administration, Environmental Assessment for the Proposed Laboratory report LA-UR-01-1630, 2001). Construction and Operation of a New Interagency Emergency Operations Center at Los Alamos National Laboratory, Los 392 Kevin J. Buckley, Jeffrey C. Walterscheid, Samuel R. Alamos, New Mexico, Report DOE/EA-1376 (Los Alamos, Loftin, and Gregory A. Kuyumjian, Final Progress NM: U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Report on Los Alamos National Laboratory Cerro Grande Security Administration, Los Alamos Area Office, 2001). Fire Rehabilitation Activities (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-03-07139, 2003). 399 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Cerro Pelado Fire (May 8) Update,” Los Alamos National Laboratory, 393 Ecology Group, Wildfire Hazard Reduction Project Plan May 8, 2022, https://discover.lanl.gov/news/0508-cerro- (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-01- pelado-2. 02017, 2001). 400 National Wildfire Coordinating Group, “InciWeb 394 Ecology Group, Wildfire Hazard Reduction Project Plan Incident information System: Cerro Pelado,” https:// (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-01- inciweb.nwcg.gov/incident/8075/. 02017, 2001). 401 Alex Barry Malin, “Cyber History in the DOE—The 395 Craig Eberhart, Measurements of Air Contaminants during the 414s” (presentation, Cyber Fire, San Diego, CA, Cerro Grande Fire at Los Alamos National Laboratory (Los November 16, 2017, Los Alamos National Laboratory Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-14250, 2010). report LA-UR-30371), 3. 396 Teresa Hiteman, A Wildfire Behavior Modeling System 402 Alex Barry Malin, “Cyber History in the DOE—The at Los Alamos National Laboratory for Operational 414s” (presentation, Cyber Fire, San Diego, CA, Applications (Los Alamos National Laboratory report November 16, 2017, Los Alamos National Laboratory LA-UR-14017, 2004). report LA-UR-30371), 3. 176

Page 193

403 Alex Barry Malin, “Cyber History in the DOE—The 410 Meredith Brown, Security Improvement Initiatives 414s” (presentation, Cyber Fire, San Diego, CA, Safeguards and Security Best Practices (Los Alamos November 16, 2017, Los Alamos National Laboratory National Laboratory report LALP-02-221, 2002). report LA-UR-30371), 3. 411 Meredith Brown, Security Improvement Initiatives 404 Alex Barry Malin, “Cyber History in the DOE—The Safeguards and Security Best Practices (Los Alamos 414s” (presentation, Cyber Fire, San Diego, CA, National Laboratory report LALP-02-221, 2002). November 16, 2017, Los Alamos National Laboratory 412 James Risen, “Missing Nuclear Data Found behind a Los report LA-UR-30371), 5. Alamos Copier,” New York Times, June 17, 2000, https:// 405 Alex Barry Malin, “Cyber History in the DOE—The www.nytimes.com/2000/06/17/us/missing-nuclear-data- 414s” (presentation, Cyber Fire, San Diego, CA, found-behind-a-los-alamos-copier.html. November 16, 2017, Los Alamos National Laboratory 413 Leslie Hoffman, “N.M. Lab Director Resigns amid Gov’t report LA-UR-30371), 45. Probe,” National Intelligencer, January 2003, https://www. 406 Robert de Vore, “The Man Who Made Manhattan,” theintelligencer.com/news/article/N-M-Lab-Director- Colliers, October 1945. Resigns-Amid-Gov-t-Probe-10558512.php. 407 James Risen and Jeff Gerth, “BREACH AT LOS 414 Alex Barry Malin, “Cyber History in the DOE—The ALAMOS: A Special Report; China Stole Nuclear 414s” (presentation, Cyber Fire, San Diego, CA, Secrets for Bombs, U.S. Aides Say,” New York Times, November 16, 2017, Los Alamos National Laboratory March 6, 1999, https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/06/ report LA-UR-17-30371, 2017). world/breach-los-alamos-special-report-china-stole- 415 Alex Barry Malin, “Cyber History in the DOE—The nuclear-secrets-for-bombs-us-aides.html. 414s” (presentation, Cyber Fire, San Diego, CA, 408 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Spies, Lies, & Portable November 16, 2017, Los Alamos National Laboratory Tapes: The Wen Ho Lee Case,” https://int.lanl.gov/ report LA-UR-17-30371, 2017), 20. org/dir/ office-counterintelligence/counterintelligence- 416 Alex Barry Malin, “Cyber History in the DOE—The program/spy-of-the-month/_assets/docs/WenHoLee.pdf. 414s” (presentation, Cyber Fire, San Diego, CA, 409 Los Alamos National Laboratory, LANL Nine-Point Plan, November 16, 2017, Los Alamos National Laboratory April 1999. report LA-UR-17-30371, 2017), 2. 177

Page 194

417 Alex Barry Malin, “Cyber History in the DOE—The 424 Washington Post, “Energy Dept. Shelves Removable 414s” (presentation, Cyber Fire, San Diego, CA, Disks,” https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/ November 16, 2017, Los Alamos National Laboratory search?q=cache:lYlzb4NJG30J:https://www. report LA-UR-17-30371, 2017), 17. washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2004/07/24/energy- dept-shelves-removable-disks/3e04b066-593e-411c- b802-976f61cd7380/+&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us&c 418 John C. Browne, Tri-Lab Information Security Plan, lient=firefox-b-1-e. Los Alamos National Laboratory Office of the Director memorandum, May 1999. 425 Hugh Gusterson, “The Assault on Los Alamos National Laboratory: A Drama in Three Acts,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 67, no. 6 (2011). 419 John C. Browne, Tri-Lab Information Security Plan, Los Alamos National Laboratory Office of the Director 426 Hugh Gusterson, “The Assault on Los Alamos National memorandum, May 1999. Laboratory: A Drama in Three Acts,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 67, no. 6 (2011): 13. 420 Meredith Brown, Security Improvement Initiatives Safeguards and Security Best Practices (Los Alamos 427 David Malakoff, “Security, Safety Probes Shut down Los National Laboratory report LALP-02-221, 2002). Alamos National Lab,” Science, July 2004, https://www. science.org/doi/10.1126/science.305.5683.462a. 421 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History of 428 Frederick A. Tarantino, Dennis Derkacs, R. Ronald the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Vol. Geoffrion, Rita Henins, Matt Hardy, Thomas P. Turner, 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11- John Milewski, Gary Lewis, Connon Odom, LANL 00922, 2010). Investigation of a Laser Eye Injury (Los Alamos National Laboratory report, LA-UR-04-06229, 2004). 422 Judy Machen, Kari L. M. Garcia, and Ellen D. McGehee, SM-43, Nerve Center of a National Laboratory: A History of 429 David Malakoff, “Security, Safety Probes Shut down Los the Los Alamos Administration Building (1956–2006), Vol. Alamos National Lab,” Science, July 2004, https://www. 1 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11- science.org/doi/10.1126/science.305.5683.462a. 00922, 2010). 430 Hugh Gusterson, “The Assault on Los Alamos National 423 Hugh Gusterson, “The Assault on Los Alamos National Laboratory: A Drama in Three Acts,” Bulletin of the Laboratory: A Drama in Three Acts,” Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists 67, no. 6 (2011): 13. Atomic Scientists 67, no. 6 (2011). 178

Page 195

431 Hugh Gusterson, “The Assault on Los Alamos National 438 David Copeland, Integrated Safeguards and Security Laboratory: A Drama in Three Acts,” Bulletin of the Management (Los Alamos National Laboratory report Atomic Scientists 67, no. 6 (2011): 13. LA-UR-08-00526, 2008). 432 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Stand-down of 439 Bethann McVicker of the LANL GIS Program created Los Alamos National Laboratory (Washington, D.C.: U.S. this map (22-038-01_2022) using the best data available. Government Accountability Office, 2005). 440 House Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations 433 Albuquerque Journal, “Updated: Univ. of Calif. Fined $3 of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, million Over LANL Problems,” https://www.abqjournal. Investigation of Management Problems at Los Alamos com/2000/updated-univ-of-calif-fined-3-million-over- National Laboratory: 108th Cong., 1st sess., 2003; lanl-problems.html. Secretary of Energy, Notice, “Decision To Compete Management and Operating Contracts for Los Alamos 434 Hugh Gusterson, “The Assault on Los Alamos National National Laboratory, Ames National Laboratory, Laboratory: A Drama in Three Acts,” Bulletin of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Argonne Atomic Scientists 67, no. 6 (2011): 11. National Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,” Federal Register 04-1655 ( January 27, 435 Hugh Gusterson, “The Assault on Los Alamos National 2004): 3904, also available electronically, https://www. Laboratory: A Drama in Three Acts,” Bulletin of the federalregister.gov/documents/2004/01/27/04-1655/ Atomic Scientists 67, no. 6 (2011): 12. decision-to-compete-management-and-operating- 436 Bruce G. Twining (Department of Energy, Albuquerque contracts-for-los-alamos-national-laboratory-ames. Operations Office) to Siegfried Hecker (Los Alamos 441 Secretary of Energy, Notice, “Decision To Compete National Laboratory), memo, 2 December 1996 (Los Management and Operating Contracts for Los Alamos Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-98-2837). National Laboratory, Ames National Laboratory, 437 Philip Thullen, J. Lee McAtee, Steven J. Greene, Carl A. Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Argonne Ostenak, Hillard H. Howard, Joel Williams, C. Michael National Laboratory, and Lawrence Livermore National Montoya, and Lisa M. Woodrow, Integrated Safety Laboratory,” Federal Register 04-1655 (January 27, Management (Los Alamos National Laboratory report 2004): 3904, also available electronically, https://www. LA-UR-98-2837, 1998). federalregister.gov/documents/2004/01/27/04-1655/ decision-to-compete-management-and-operating- contracts-for-los-alamos-national-laboratory-ames. 179

Page 196

442 Ike Richardson, “Los Alamos National Laboratory Prime 448 David Kramer, “What Went Wrong with the Los Alamos Contract Brief” (briefing to United Kingdom Visitors, Contract?” Physics Today 69, no. 3 (2016): 22. Los Alamos, NM, June 7, 2011, Los Alamos National 449 Frances Chadwick, “Contract Transition at LANL” Laboratory report LA-UR-11-03169), 2. (presentation, JOWOG-30 Oversight Board Meeting, 443 Alan Chodos, ed., “DOE Picks University of California Reading, United Kingdom, May 7–9, 2019, Los Alamos to Head Los Alamos Management Team,” American National Laboratory report LA-UR-19-23830), 3. Physical Society 15, no. 2 (February 2006), https://www. 450 David Kramer, “What Went Wrong with the Los Alamos aps.org/publications/apsnews/200602/lanl.cfm; Mark Contract?” Physics Today 69, no. 3 (2016): 23. L. Allen, LANS Benefits LANL, NNSA, and National Security: Six-Year History of Accomplishment from June 451 Robert Kuckuck, quoted in David Kramer, “What Went 2006 to June 2012 (Los Alamos National Laboratory Wrong with the Los Alamos Contract?” Physics Today 69, report LA-UR-12-01692, 2012), 1. no. 3 (2016): 23. 444 Ike Richardson, “Los Alamos National Laboratory Prime 452 Frances Chadwick, “Contract Transition at LANL” Contract Brief” (briefing to United Kingdom Visitors, (presentation, JOWOG-30 Oversight Board Meeting, Los Alamos, NM, June 7, 2011, Los Alamos National Reading, United Kingdom, May 7–9, 2019, Los Alamos Laboratory report LA-UR-11-03169), 2. National Laboratory report LA-UR-19-23830), 8. 445 Ike Richardson, “Los Alamos National Laboratory Prime 453 Frances Chadwick, “Contract Transition at LANL” Contract Brief” (briefing to United Kingdom Visitors, (presentation, JOWOG-30 Oversight Board Meeting, Los Alamos, NM, June 7, 2011, Los Alamos National Reading, United Kingdom, May 7–9, 2019, Los Alamos Laboratory report LA-UR-11-03169), 4. National Laboratory report LA-UR-19-23830). 446 Ike Richardson, “Los Alamos National Laboratory Prime 454 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” Contract Brief” (briefing to United Kingdom Visitors, (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report Los Alamos, NM, June 7, 2011, Los Alamos National LA-UR-21-29032, 2021). Laboratory report LA-UR-11-03169), 2–5. 455 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” 447 Mark L. Allen, LANS Benefits LANL, NNSA, and (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report National Security: Six-Year History of Accomplishment from LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 5; Kelly J. Beierschmitt, June 2006 to June 2012 (Los Alamos National Laboratory Thomas Edward Mason, Frances Chadwick, Robert Blair report LA-UR-12-01692, 2012). 180

Page 197

Webster, and John Louis Sarrao, Lab Agenda January LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 13; Los Alamos National 2022 Update (Los Alamos National Laboratory report Laboratory, “Nominations Open for New Operations LA-UR-22-20658, 2022). Excellence Medal,” LANLInside, June 10, 2021, https:// int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2021/june/0609- 456 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” operations-excellence-medal.shtml. (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 5. 464 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report 457 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 15. (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29032, 2021) 6, 33. 465 William H. Jones, Ten-year Site Plan FY2012–2021 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-11-03036, 2011), 3. 458 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report 466 Kristen A. Honig, Ten Year Site Plan Limited Update: FY LA-UR-21-29032, 2021) 6. 2015 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR- 14-22957, 2014), 3. 459 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report 467 Office of Management and Budget, Management LA-UR-21-29032, 2021) 7–8, 27–28. Procedures Memorandum No. 2013-02, implementation of OMB Memorandum M-12-12 Section 3: Freeze the 460 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” Footprint, March 14, 2013, 1. (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29032, 2021) 8, 17, 24, 29. 468 Kristen A. Honig, Ten Year Site Plan Limited Update: FY 2015 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR- 461 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” 14-22957, 2014), 2. (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 8, 14–15. 469 Kristen A. Honig, Ten Year Site Plan Limited Update: FY 2015 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR- 462 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” 14-22957, 2014), 3. (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 6, 10. 470 Office of Management and Budget, Management Procedures Memorandum No. 2013-02, implementation 463 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report 181

Page 198

of OMB Memorandum M-12-12 Section 3: Reduce the 477 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the Circle: Footprint, March 25, 2015, 1. The Department of Energy and Environmental 471 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report Department of Energy, History Division, 1994), 7. LA-UR-21-29032, 2021), 24. 478 Ludgard A. Emelity, Waste Management at Los Alamos: 472 Thomas Edward Mason, “Director’s Foreword,” quoted Protecting Our Environment (Los Alamos National in Rae A. Tate, Harvey Todd Haagenstad, and Michael Laboratory report LALP-90-30, 1990), 3. Arens Bodelson, 2021 Campus Master Plan (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-CP-21-20800, 2021), 1.1. 479 Ludgard A. Emelity, A History of Radioactive Liquid Waste Management at Los Alamos (Los Alamos National 473 Thomas Edward Mason, “Director’s Foreword,” quoted Laboratory report LA-UR-96-01283, 1996), 19, 22–23. in Rae A. Tate, Harvey Todd Haagenstad, and Michael Arens Bodelson, 2021 Campus Master Plan (Los Alamos 480 Sandra E. Wagner, RFI Work Plan for Operable Unit National Laboratory report LA-UR-CP-21-20800, 2021), 1.1. 1079 (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR- 92-00850, 1992), 1.1; Alison M. Dorries, Ronald C. 474 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Changing How Conrad, and Linda Nonno, RCRA Facility Investigation We Do Business: Year One Review of the HR for the Townsite of Los Alamos, New Mexico (Los Alamos Transformation,” LANLInside, April 26, 2021, https:// National Laboratory report LA-UR-91-4069, 1991). int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2021/april/0426-hr- transformation-update.shtml. 481 Oakes, Maureen, Laboratory in a Changing World: A Los Alamos Chronology (Los Alamos National Laboratory 475 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the report LALP-01-065, 2001). Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: 482 Martin Alexander Baker, “Waste Compliance and Department of Energy, History Division, 1994), 3–4. Tracking System: A Comprehensive Solution for Managing Waste” (presentation, Los Alamos National 476 F. G. Gosling and Terrence R. Fehner, Closing the Laboratory report LA-UR-19-24573, 2019). Circle: The Department of Energy and Environmental Management, 1942–1994 (Washington, D.C.: 483 David Kramer, “What Went Wrong with the Los Alamos Department of Energy, History Division, 1994), 7. Contract?” Physics Today 69, no. 3 (2016): 22; Leo P. Duffy (Director, Office of Environmental Restoration 182

Page 199

and Waste Management, Department of Energy) to 488 John C. Kelly, “LANL’s Transition to a Single Waste Manager, Albuquerque Operations Office, Department Operations Program to Support the Waste Needs of the of Energy), memorandum, 16 November 1989, also Laboratory” (Waste Management Symposia, Los available electronically, https://www.energy.gov/sites/ default/files/2019/09/f66/Establishment-of-the-Office- Alamos, NM, February 23, 2021, Los Alamos National of-Environmental-Restoration-and-Waste-Management- Laboratory report LA-UR-21-21194), 7. Nov-16-1989.pdf. 489 Debora Lynn Hall and Rebecca Lyn Schwarzkopf, 484 Victoria A. George, “Environmental Management “32461_EMS_R2.1” (training course, Los Alamos Legacy Cleanup Contract Transition” (presentation, EM National Laboratory report LA-UR-22-22164, 2022). Transition: EM-LA Kick-Off Meeting, Los Alamos, 490 Michael McNaughton (environmental health physicist, NM, January 25, 2018, Los Alamos National Laboratory Los Alamos National Laboratory), in discussion with the report LA-UR-18-20527). author, December 3, 2020. 485 John C. Kelly, “LANL’s Transition to a Single Waste 491 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Los Alamos Operations Program to Support the Waste Needs of Waste Shipment Successfully Completed at WIPP,” the Laboratory” (Waste Management Symposia, Los LANLInside, April 15, 2019, https://int.lanl.gov/news/ Alamos, NM, February 23, 2021, Los Alamos National news_stories/2019/april/0415-wipp.shtml. Laboratory report LA-UR-21-21194). 492 Thomas Edward Mason, quoted in “Los Alamos 486 John C. Kelly, “LANL’s Transition to a Single Waste Waste Shipment Successfully Completed at WIPP,” Operations Program to Support the Waste Needs of LANLInside, April 15, 2019, https://int.lanl.gov/news/ the Laboratory” (Waste Management Symposia, Los news_stories/2019/april/0415-wipp.shtml. Alamos, NM, February 23, 2021, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-21-21194), 4. 493 Kelly Beierschmitt, quoted in “Los Alamos Waste Shipment Successfully Completed at WIPP,” 487 Peter H. Carson, “LANL’s Integrated Waste LANLInside, April 15, 2019, https://int.lanl.gov/news/ Management Strategy in Support of Pit Production” news_stories/2019/april/0415-wipp.shtml. (Waste Management Symposia 2022, Phoenix, AZ, March 7, 2022, Los Alamos National Laboratory report 494 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” LA-UR-22-21156), 9. (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29032, 2021) 37. 183

Page 200

495 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “An Abbreviated Guide to 499 David E. Eyler, Frank E. Gibbs, and David Edward Pit Production,” LANLInside, March 8, 2022, https://int.lanl. Dooley, “Weapons Production (ALDWP) Overview gov/news/news_stories/2022/march/0308-mission-focus- Nuclear Fundamentals Orientation” (presentation, Fuller pits.shtml; Douglas D. Kautz, David B. Mann, Richard G. Lodge Hiring Event, Los Alamos, NM, March 5, 2020, Castro, Lawrence E. Lucero, and Steven M. Dinehart, “The Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20- Pit Production Story,” Los Alamos Science 28 (2003): 58. 22121), 10. 496 David E. Eyler, Frank E. Gibbs, and David Edward 500 David E. Eyler, Frank E. Gibbs, and David Edward Dooley, “Weapons Production (ALDWP) Overview Dooley, “Weapons Production (ALDWP) Overview Nuclear Fundamentals Orientation” (presentation, Fuller Nuclear Fundamentals Orientation” (presentation, Fuller Lodge Hiring Event, Los Alamos, NM, March 5, 2020, Lodge Hiring Event, Los Alamos, NM, March 5, 2020, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20- Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20- 22121), 15; Douglas D. Kautz, David B. Mann, Richard 22121), 7; Maureen Elizabeth Lunn and Kevin Neil Roark, G. Castro, Lawrence E. Lucero, and Steven M. Dinehart, “National Geographic Interview: Pit Manufacturing” “The Pit Production Story,” Los Alamos Science 28 (2003): (data for magazine publication, Los Alamos National 58; Los Alamos National Laboratory, “An Abbreviated Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28401, 2020). Guide to Pit Production,” LANLInside, March 8, 501 Douglas D. Kautz, David B. Mann, Richard G. Castro, 2022, https://int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2022/ Lawrence E. Lucero, and Steven M. Dinehart, “The march/0308-mission-focus-pits.shtml. Pit Production Story,” Los Alamos Science 28 (2003): 497 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “An Abbreviated Guide 58; Maureen Elizabeth Lunn and Kevin Neil Roark, to Pit Production,” LANLInside, March 8, 2022, https:// “National Geographic Interview: Pit Manufacturing” int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2022/march/0308- (data for magazine publication, Los Alamos National mission-focus-pits.shtml. Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28401, 2020). 498 David E. Eyler, Frank E. Gibbs, and David Edward 502 Maureen Elizabeth Lunn and Kevin Neil Roark, Dooley, “Weapons Production (ALDWP) Overview “National Geographic Interview: Pit Manufacturing” Nuclear Fundamentals Orientation” (presentation, Fuller (data for magazine publication, Los Alamos National Lodge Hiring Event, Los Alamos, NM, March 5, 2020, Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28401, 2020). Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20- 503 Herbert I. Miller and Ralph Carlisle Smith, Memorandum 22121), 13. on Los Alamos Operation: A Generalized Study of the 184

Page 201

Problem (Los Alamos Scientific Laboratory report LA- (data for magazine publication, Los Alamos National UR-00540-MS, 1947). Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28401, 2020). 504 Maureen Elizabeth Lunn and Kevin Neil Roark, 511 Drew Kornreich, “The Strategic Path to 30 Pits per “National Geographic Interview: Pit Manufacturing” Year: How We Got Here, and Where We’re Going” (data for magazine publication, Los Alamos National (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28401, 2020). LA-UR-19-29999, 2019), 22–23. 505 Douglas D. Kautz, David B. Mann, Richard G. Castro, 512 U.S. Department of Energy, National Nuclear Security Lawrence E. Lucero, and Steven M. Dinehart, “The Pit Administration, Fiscal Year 2021 Stockpile Stewardship Production Story,” Los Alamos Science 28 (2003): 58. and Management Plan: Biennial Plan Summary; Report to Congress (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Energy, 506 Maureen Elizabeth Lunn and Kevin Neil Roark, National Nuclear Security Administration, 2020), 3.4. “National Geographic Interview: Pit Manufacturing” (data for magazine publication, Los Alamos National 513 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Milestone on Pit Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28401, 2020). Production Project and Standing up the New Associate Laboratory Directorate for Plutonium Infrastructure,” 507 Douglas D. Kautz, David B. Mann, Richard G. Castro, LANLInside, April 28, 2021, https://int.lanl.gov/news/ Lawrence E. Lucero, and Steven M. Dinehart, “The Pit news_stories/2021/april/0428-aldpi-announcement.shtml. Production Story,” Los Alamos Science 28 (2003). 514 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Pit Production Project 508 Maureen Elizabeth Lunn and Kevin Neil Roark, Team Receives High Praise,” LANLInside, February “National Geographic Interview: Pit Manufacturing” 17, 2022, https://int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2022/ (data for magazine publication, Los Alamos National february/0217-pit-production-team.shtml. Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28401, 2020). 515 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “An Abbreviated Guide 509 Douglas D. Kautz, David B. Mann, Richard G. Castro, to Pit Production,” LANLInside, March 8, 2022, https:// Lawrence E. Lucero, and Steven M. Dinehart, “The Pit int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2022/march/0308-mission- Production Story,” Los Alamos Science 28 (2003): 62. focus-pits.shtml; Maureen Elizabeth Lunn and Kevin Neil Roark, “National Geographic Interview: Pit Manufacturing” 510 Maureen Elizabeth Lunn and Kevin Neil Roark, (data for magazine publication, Los Alamos National “National Geographic Interview: Pit Manufacturing” Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28401, 2020). 185

Page 202

516 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28695, 2020); (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report Governor of New Mexico, Order Declaring a State of LA-UR-21-29032, 2021). Public Health Emergency and Invoking the Powers Provided by the All Hazard Emergency Management Act and the 517 Maureen Elizabeth Lunn and Kevin Neil Roark, Emergency Licensing Act. Executive Order 2020-0004. “National Geographic Interview: Pit Manufacturing” Santa Fe, 2020. (data for magazine publication, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28401, 2020). 523 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Director’s Memo: Telecommuting Is the Default; All Travel Restricted 518 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Taking Care of Each to Mission-Essential,” LANLInside, March 16, Other: New Craft Worker Focus,” LANLInside, February 2020, https://int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2020/ 24, 2022, https://int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2022/ march/0316-directors-memo.shtml. february/0224-craft-employees.shtml. 524 Sara Elizabeth Pasqualoni and Dina Mary Siegel, 519 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Taking Care of Each “Industrial Hygiene and OEM: Optimizing Other: New Craft Worker Focus,” LANLInside, February Collaboration amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic” 24, 2022, https://int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2022/ (presentation, AIHA ACOEM Webinar, Los Alamos february/0224-craft-employees.shtml. National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28695, 2020). 520 World Health Organization, “Coronavirus Disease 525 Kelly Beierschmitt, “Solving National Security Challenges,” (COVID-19),” World Health Organization, https://www. (presentation, Triad Operations Committee Meeting, Los who.int/health-topics/coronavirus. Alamos, NM, October 13–15, 2021, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29847), 30. 521 Sara Elizabeth Pasqualoni and Dina Mary Siegel, “Industrial Hygiene and OEM: Optimizing 526 Los Alamos National Laboratory, LANL Teleworking Collaboration amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic” Initiative: Findings and Recommendations (Los Alamos, (presentation, AIHA ACOEM Webinar, Los Alamos NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2021), 4. National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28695, 2020). 527 Los Alamos National Laboratory, LANL Teleworking 522 Sara Elizabeth Pasqualoni and Dina Mary Siegel, Initiative: Findings and Recommendations (Los Alamos, “Industrial Hygiene and OEM: Optimizing NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2021), 26. Collaboration amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic” (presentation, AIHA ACOEM Webinar, Los Alamos 186

Page 203

528 Los Alamos National Laboratory, LANL Teleworking (presentation, AIHA ACOEM Webinar, Los Alamos Initiative: Findings and Recommendations (Los Alamos, National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28695, 2020). NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2021), 4–5. 535 Sara Elizabeth Pasqualoni and Dina Mary Siegel, 529 Kelly Beierschmitt, “Solving National Security Challenges,” “Industrial Hygiene and OEM: Optimizing (presentation, Triad Operations Committee Meeting, Los Collaboration amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic” Alamos, NM, October 13–15, 2021, Los Alamos National (presentation, AIHA ACOEM Webinar, Los Alamos Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29847), 30. National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28695, 2020). 530 Los Alamos National Laboratory, LANL Teleworking 536 Kelly Beierschmitt, “Solving National Security Challenges,” Initiative: Findings and Recommendations (Los Alamos, (presentation, Triad Operations Committee Meeting, Los NM: Los Alamos National Laboratory, 2021), 4. Alamos, NM, October 13–15, 2021, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29847), 30–34. 531 Kelly Beierschmitt, “Solving National Security Challenges,” (presentation, Triad Operations Committee Meeting, Los 537 Marc E. Clay and Stephen Rottler, Triad Operations Alamos, NM, October 13–15, 2021, Los Alamos National Committee Report to Board (Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29847), 30. Laboratory report LA-UR-21-21633, 2021). 532 Sara Elizabeth Pasqualoni and Dina Mary Siegel, 538 Kelly Beierschmitt, “Solving National Security Challenges,” “Industrial Hygiene and OEM: Optimizing (presentation, Triad Operations Committee Meeting, Los Collaboration amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic” Alamos, NM, October 13–15, 2021, Los Alamos National (presentation, AIHA ACOEM Webinar, Los Alamos Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29847), 32. National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28695, 2020). 539 Craig Tyler, “Special Report: Los Alamos Versus the 533 Kelly Beierschmitt, “Solving National Security Challenges,” Virus,” 1663 (August 2020), https://www.lanl.gov/ (presentation, Triad Operations Committee Meeting, Los discover/publications/1663/2020-august/covid-special- Alamos, NM, October 13–15, 2021, Los Alamos National report.shtml. Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29847), 34. 540 Craig Tyler, ed., “COVID-19: Answering the Call,” 534 Sara Elizabeth Pasqualoni and Dina Mary Siegel, 1663 (February 2021), https://www.lanl.gov/discover/ “Industrial Hygiene and OEM: Optimizing publications/1663/2021-february/covid-answering-the- Collaboration amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic” call.shtml. 187

Page 204

541 Craig Tyler, “Special Report: Los Alamos Versus the Virus,” 1663 (August 2020), https://www.lanl.gov/ discover/publications/1663/2020-august/covid-special- report.shtml. 542 Sara Elizabeth Pasqualoni and Dina Mary Siegel, “Industrial Hygiene and OEM: Optimizing Collaboration amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic” (presentation, AIHA ACOEM Webinar, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-20-28695, 2020). 543 Craig Tyler, ed., “What Happens Next,” 1663 (February 2021), https://www.lanl.gov/discover/ publications/1663/2021-february/what-happens-next. shtml. 544 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “Senate Recognizes More than 100 Los Alamos COVID-19 Researchers for Contributions to State and Nation,” LANLInside, March 9, 2022, https://int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2022/ march/0309-covid-recognition.shtml. 545 Los Alamos National Laboratory, “COVID-19: Earlier News Updates,” LANLInside, March 16, 2022, https:// int.lanl.gov/news/news_stories/2020/covid-19/earlier- updates.shtml. 546 Thomas Edward Mason, “Triad Three-Year Assessment” (presentation, Los Alamos National Laboratory report LA-UR-21-29032, 2021) 10. 188

Page 208

“Operations staff and leaders provide vital, behind-the-scenes contributions to the success of the Laboratory. They worked in partnership with the mission staff and scientists to deliver the Lab mission.” — Kelly Beierschmitt Deputy Director for Operations Los Alamos National Laboratory is known for its world- renowned research and Nobel Prize–winning scientists. Few know about the support required to keep the Laboratory running. This book takes you behind the scenes for a closer look at Laboratory operations and the individuals, programs, and facilities of yesteryear and today. From infrastructure, security, staffing, and many other facets, Laboratory operations is what makes the science happen. Inside, you’ll find • how Site Y was kept safe and secure; • how the Laboratory became a permanent institution after World War II; • how the Atomic Age served as a backdrop for a renewed focus on safe, secure, and healthy working conditions; • how uncertainty led to new science, and with it, advances A publication by the National Security in operations to support the delivery of new and increased mission scope and emerging science; and Research Center. • how operations continues to bolster mission and scientific LA-UR-22-30602 research today—and into the future.