http://www.dri.edu
	Summer 2006

The Plowshare Program: DRI scientists examine Cold War era testing sites

An aerial view of the Pre-Gondola project, which was a high explosive row charge and cratering experiment for waterway construction. The project was conducted at the edge of the Fort Peck Reservoir in northeastern Montana from 1966-1969.

Projects Bronco, Carryall, Dragon Trail, Pre-Schooner II, Tugboat, and Wagon Wheel—what do all of these have in common, besides evocative, albeit somewhat cryptic names? In the late 1950s, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), the U.S. Department of Energy’s (DOE) predecessor, decided to examine the possibility of using nuclear explosives for civilian purposes. These six named projects—along with over 150 other subsequently identified projects—were part of what was known as the Plowshare Program. DRI researchers Dr. Colleen Beck and Susan Edwards, archaeologists and historic preservation specialists with DRI’s Division of Earth and Ecosystems Sciences, started a project in 2002 to investigate the potential for environmental liabilities associated with Plowshare projects conducted at places other than the Nevada Test Site (NTS). Beginning with a list of just 26 enigmatic names provided by DOE, they diligently tracked down information on these projects—and many others—using a combination of archival and internet database searching, field visits, oral histories and a lot of very hard work.

In this day and age, it is doubtful that anyone would dream of using nuclear explosives to do things such as excavate for a road or harbor, recover gas and oil, create a quarry for dam construction, or fracture rock for water storage. However, the proposed peaceful uses for nuclear explosives in the late 1950s and 1960s were limited only by the imagination of the people working on the Plowshare Program.

Beck said, “The history of these projects reflects the optimism of the times,” when it was believed that atomic energy could be harnessed for all sorts of beneficial uses. One of the best known and most ambitious proposals for the peaceful use of nuclear explosives was to blast a second canal across the Isthmus of Panama.

The Plowshare Program was based out of Lawrence Livermore Radiation Laboratory, now Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL). The Laboratory partnered with the AEC and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers as well as a number of other government agencies and private industry to develop Plowshare projects. The U.S. government was hopeful that nuclear explosives could serve humankind in peacetime, hence the name Plowshare, referring to the biblical allusion of beating “swords into plowshares.” The off-NTS component of the Plowshare Program became the primary focus for the DRI researchers because virtually nothing was known about the scope of these projects and tests that were proposed for—and some implemented on— sites that were not official government testing areas.

After a nuclear weapons testing moratorium was signed in 1958, nuclear projects that had been proposed for Plowshare could no longer be conducted. Nevertheless, the U.S. Atomic Energy Commission decided to move forward with some of the Plowshare projects using chemical high explosives instead of nuclear explosives. In 1961, the ban on nuclear weapons testing ended, and nuclear explosives were once again available for the various Plowshare projects. Most of the Plowshare nuclear tests were done at the Nevada Test Site. High explosives tests, however, continued to be conducted at locations around the U.S., and nuclear demonstration projects were planned in more than 20 states.

When the optimism of the 1950s eventually gave way to the pessimism of the 1970s, funding for Plowshare was reduced as defense dollars were diverted to the increasing American involvement in the Vietnam War. Private industry partners dropped out because of the length of time it took to get Plowshare projects approved and funded. They had deadlines and could not wait, for example, for a road to be constructed using unconventional means. Other projects that were completed under Plowshare never lived up to initial expectations and, as the public grew wary of the use of nuclear explosives owing to environmental and health concerns, enthusiasm and funding for the proposed projects dried up. By 1975, the Plowshare Program was inactive.

So, how did DRI researchers get involved in investigating these Cold War era nuclear- and high-explosives projects in the first place? In the 1990s, DOE became concerned about the potential environmental liabilities for off-NTS Plowshare projects when the agency was caught off-guard by a controversy over Project Chariot. The goal of that project was to use nuclear devices to create a harbor in northwest Alaska, and although Project Chariot was never executed, intensive field studies were conducted in the area. Due to rising public concerns about safety and soil contamination, DOE committed to an extensive cleanup effort. With the loss of institutional memory and no readily accessible documentation that could have put public fears over possible radioactive contamination to rest, DOE spent nearly $7 million on the cleanup effort. Ultimately, it turned out that the area actually had little contamination.

It became clear to DOE that Plowshare project sites needed to be assessed to determine if any possible environmental problems existed as a result of any activities or testing at these sites. Taking a proactive approach in order to avoid future “Chariots,” DOE initiated an inventory of Plowshare project locations outside the Nevada Test Site. The department turned to Beck and Edwards to gather information on the impact these projects might have had on the environment.

At first glance, the investigation of environmental liabilities may seem to have little to do with most people’s concept of archaeology.

According to Edwards, however, “Applying archaeological methods to the evaluation of landscapes for potential environmental liabilities is really a natural extension of our discipline. All archaeologists whether they are looking at prehistory or history, study material culture and how people use the landscape.”

In the case of the Plowshare research, Beck and Edwards applied traditional methods to address contemporary environmental issues.

The Pre-Gondola experimental trench in Montana at the time of Beck and Edwards’ May, 2005, field evaluation.

Getting information on Plowshare projects was not easy. Over time, the records that existed for these projects were scattered, people involved in these projects retired, and some were deceased. The so-called “institutional memory” of the Plowshare Program was being lost, and determining what occurred at each project site was getting more difficult.

Beck said, “This study shows how easy it is to lose history. In only forty years, people have lost track of these projects.”

Four years ago, Beck and Edwards started the task of tracking down and documenting the non-nuclear Plowshare project sites. They began by investigating archival material at, among other places, the University of Nevada, Las Vegas, the Nuclear Testing Archives, and LLNL, and they also used internet databases. As they researched the known 26 named projects, they discovered references to other Plowshare projects, and a total of 176 named projects have been uncovered by Beck and Edwards.

Once information about a project was unearthed, Beck and Edwards had numerous steps they followed in their research to verify and assess the quality of these data. They talked to project personnel, and they were able to visit some of the sites where projects actually were completed—many tests only were proposed and never implemented—to see any possible environmental impacts first-hand.

Beck said, “One of the most rewarding things about this project was getting to visit these sites and see a tangible piece of history.”

One of the sites that the team visited was Pre-Gondola. Completed in the late 1960s, this project was a series of very large, high explosive experiments. The largest, a 140-ton row charge detonation, ultimately blasted a new inlet along the shoreline of the Fort Peck Reservoir in Montana. The project was designed to test the feasibility of creating another trans-isthmus canal and the site was chosen, in part, because the geological characteristics were similar to those in the area where a second canal could be built. Because of very low water levels when they visited, Beck and Edwards were able to explore the main trench—1,100 feet long and 200 feet wide—created by these explosions.

About the Pre-Gondola site, Edwards said, “With the exception of the Sedan Crater on the NTS, this is probably the most visually impressive of the Plowshare experiments.”

The Project Tugboat harbor today in Hawaii

Another set of proposed Plowshare project sites called Kaunakakai, Iki and Tugboat, are located in Hawaii. Already in Hawaii for a conference, Beck and Edwards were also able to visit these locations. Kaunakakai was a proposed, but never implemented, project using nuclear explosives to create a deep-draft commercial harbor on the island of Molokai. Projects Iki and Tugboat were both conducted on the island of Hawaii. Iki involved drilling into one of the Kilauea volcano’s lava lakes to determine if molten rock—naturally occurring or of nuclear origin—could be used for geothermal purposes. The test, conducted in 1959 and 1960, showed that it was too costly at the time. Project Tugboat, completed between 1968 and 1970 at Kawaihea Bay was a high explosive cratering experiment for harbor construction. The data gathered was used as a model to develop nuclear harbor methodology. The harbor is still in use today, and it is likely that most people do not know it was originally created as part of a testing program to prove the utility of nuclear explosives.

After archival and database searches, site evaluations and oral histories were completed, project data the team collected were assessed, critically reviewed and finally categorized by level of potential environmental liability. The environmental level assessment, a list of the various agencies and industrial parties involved, along with a history of each project, has been written for 81 of the project sites so far, and DOE has already used Beck and Edwards’ data to answer several queries from the public.

By working on this project for DOE, Beck and Edwards are both helping to determine if there are environmental issues at these sites, and also making sure this fascinating part of U.S. nuclear history will not be forgotten.