|
SEABORG AND PLUTONIUM CHEMISTRY (Met Lab, 1942-1944)
Events
>
The Plutonium Path to the Bomb, 1942-1944
While the Met Lab labored to make headway
on pile (reactor) design,
Glenn T. Seaborg (right) and his
coworkers were trying to learn enough about transuranium
chemistry to ensure that plutonium could
be chemically separated from the
uranium that would be irradiated in a
production pile. Using lanthanum fluoride as a
carrier, Seaborg isolated a weighable sample of plutonium
in August 1942. At the same time, Isadore Perlman
and William J. Knox explored the peroxide method of
separation; John E. Willard studied various materials to
determine which best adsorbed (gathered on its surface)
plutonium; Theodore T. Magel and Daniel K. Koshland, Jr.,
researched solvent-extraction processes; and Harrison S.
Brown and Orville F. Hill performed experiments into
volatility reactions. Basic research on plutonium's
chemistry continued as did work on radiation and fission
products.
Seaborg's discovery and subsequent isolation of plutonium
were major events in the history of chemistry, but it
remained to be seen whether they could be translated into
a production process useful to the bomb effort. The
laboratory process created by Seaborg would have to be
scaled-up a billion-fold to be implemented in an
industrial separation plant.
Collaboration with DuPont's Charles M. Cooper and his
staff on plutonium separation facilities began even before
Seaborg succeeded in isolating a sample of
plutonium. Seaborg was reluctant to drop any of the
approaches then under consideration, and Cooper
agreed. The two decided to pursue all four methods
of plutonium separation but put first priority on the
lanthanum fluoride process Seaborg had already
developed. Cooper's staff ran into problems with the
lanthanum fluoride method in late 1942, but by then
Seaborg had become interested in phosphate carriers.
Work led by Stanley G. Thompson found that bismuth
phosphate retained over ninety-eight percent plutonium in
a precipitate. With bismuth phosphate as a backup
for lanthanum fluoride, Cooper moved ahead to create an
experimental production facility near Stagg
Field.
By late 1942, experiments with the lanthanum fluoride
process in Chicago had gone well enough that DuPont moved
into the plant design stage and converted the facility at
the Met Lab to experiment with the use of bismuth
phosphate. In late May 1943,
DuPont pushed for a final decision on
which of the two processes to use. Greenewalt chose
bismuth phosphate (right), even though Seaborg admitted he
could find little to distinguish between the two.
Greenewalt based his decision on the corrosiveness of
lanthanum fluoride and on Seaborg's guarantee that he
could extract at least fifty percent of the plutonium
using bismuth phosphate. DuPont began constructing
the chemical separation pilot plant at
Oak Ridge, while Seaborg continued
refining the bismuth phosphate method.
It was now Cooper's job to design the new
experimental production pile as well as
the plutonium extraction facilities at Oak Ridge, both
complicated engineering tasks made even more difficult by
high levels of radiation produced by the process.
Not only did Cooper have to oversee the design and
fabrication of parts for yet another new Manhattan Project
technology, he had to do so with an eye toward planning
the Hanford facility.
Radiation safety was a major
consideration because of the hazards of working with
plutonium, which was highly radioactive. Uranium, a
much less active element than plutonium, posed far fewer
safety problems.
Previous Next
Sources and notes for this page.
The text for this page was adapted from, and portions
were taken directly from the
Office of History and Heritage Resources
publication:
F. G. Gosling,
The Manhattan Project: Making the Atomic Bomb
(DOE/MA-0001; Washington: History Division, Department
of Energy, January 1999), 27-28, 30-31. The photograph of
Glenn Seaborg looking at the first
sample of pure plutonium at the
Met Lab in 1942 is courtesy the
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. The photograph of the interior of cell in a
Queen Mary was taken by Robley Johnson
and is courtesy the
Department of Energy (DOE); it is reprinted in Rachel Fermi and Esther Samra,
Picturing the Bomb: Photographs from the Secret World
of the Manhattan Project (New York: Harry N. Abrams, Inc., Publishers, 1995),
76-77. The flow chart is reproduced from the DOE
report
Linking Legacies:
Connecting the Cold War Nuclear Weapons Production Processes to their Environmental Consequences
(Washington: Center for Environmental Management
Information, Department of Energy, January 1997), 172.
Home |
History Office
|
OpenNet
|
DOE
|
Privacy and Security Notices
About this Site
|
How to Navigate this Site
|
Note on Sources
|
Site Map |
Contact Us
|