%DONEleak031556; ]> March 15, 1956 Letter from Donald R. Hamilton, et al. to President William Friday Machine readable transcription Hamilton, Donald R. Creation of machine-readable version: James M. Jackson Sanborn Creation of digital images: James M. Jackson Sanborn Conversion to TEI.2-conformant markup: James M. Jackson Sanborn ca. 17 kilobytes NCSU Libraries Raleigh, NC DONEleak031556

Publicly accessible

URL: http://www.lib.ncsu.edu/archives/etext

copyright 2000, by North Carolina State University

 October 9, 2000

Images of the document pages have been included. March 15, 1956 Letter from Donald R. Hamilton, et al. to President William Friday Donald R. Hamilton, et al.

2 pp. Manuscript copy consulted UA105.1

Nuclear Reactor

Prepared for the North Carolina State University Science and Technology Electronic Text Center

The lineation of the manuscript has been maintained and all end-of-line hyphens have been preserved.

Keywords in the header are a local Science and Technology Electronic Text Center scheme to aid in establishing analytical groupings.

Library of Congress Subject Headings March 15, 1956 English LCSH manuscript 24-bit color: 400 dpi March 15, 1956 Letter from Donald R. Hamilton, et al. to President William Friday

PALMER PHYSICAL LABORATORY PRINCETON UNIVERSITY PRINCETON, NEW JERSEY March 15, 1956 President William Friday University of North Carolina Chapel Hill, North Carolina Dear President Friday:

This letter summarizes our collective point of view concern- ing certain aspects of the nuclear reactor at North Carolina State College at Raleigh as discussed with you March 1-2, and as further developed after we left you.

We first came to Raleigh as a group on December 8-9, 1955. We had been requested by Dean Lampe to consider two questions which with slight paraphrasing were these: "What are the most fruitful fields of research which should be pursued in connection with the North Carolina State College nuclear reactor? How can the Committee on Safety and Health for the nuclear reactor and radioisotopes best serve the reactor program and the general public?" Our assignment by Dean Lampe on our second trip (March 1-2, 1956) concerned further work on the research program and a detailed review of the physical plans for the revised reactor which is to be constructed.

On our first visit it became painfully apparent to us in con- sidering the work of the Health and Safety Committee that there were clashes of personality and differences on fundamental policy between Doctor Beck and the Committee. This fact became much more strongly appar- ent to us on our recent visit, at which time we also became aware that the antagonism to Doctor Beck was held not only by the Committee but also by most (and quite probably all) of the physicists at the reactor. For the latter of these groups as well as the former, the most important source of disagreement and disapproval centered around the area of health and safety precautions.

In consequence of your expressed interest we looked more specifically, and both before and after our last meeting with you, into this question of Doctor Beck's past performance in matters of health and safety. Our final conclusion was that by his past actions Doctor Beck had shown himself to be completely out of sympathy with, and in disagreement with, those policies concerning health and safety which, to the best of our knowledge, are agreed upon by all other responsible research workers in the field of nuclear radiation; that in certain of his actions he had subordin- ated the health of his men to considerations of false economy and of con- cealment of past errors; that his actions in this respect have been a major but not exclusive factor in the loss of respect for him on the part of the people whose work is associated with the reactor.

This feeling on our part had been based initially on a number of comments made by and instances reported by men in the Physics Department or on the Health and Safety Committee. Subsequent to seeing you on the evening of March 2, we talked to another man not in these two groups but having very direct evidence on this point. His comments verified the

President William Friday 3/15/1956

prior reports and made our conclusions completely firm. Most of the facts relevant to the controvercies between Doctor Beck, former health safety offices, and the Health and Safety Committee may be gleaned from documents and reports available at the College and elsewhere.

These health and safety difficulties appear to have contrib- uted strongly to the lack of confidence in Doctor Beck which the Health and Safety Committee possesses and which seems to permeate the Physics Depart- ment.

While we appreciate the fact that the over-zealous exercise of caution in the handling of health problems can be a major impediment in the establishment of a new facility such as the Raleigh reactor, there are certain accepted unequivocal procedures which must be followed. The past performance of Doctor Beck gives no reason to believe that he accepts this safety "code", and we therefore question his ability to direct the opera- tion of the reactor in a manner which will minimize the health hazard to the personnel involved.

We believe that the reasons leading us to this conclusion have contributed very decidedly to that dissatisfaction on the part of the people around him which will make it very difficult under any circumstances for the reactor group to function in the future in an effective manner.

Very sincerely yours, Donald R. Hamilton Karl Z. Morgan Daniel J. Zaffarano P.S. This letter had been written, and was in the process of being cross- checked with regard to our unanimity concerning it, when news of Doctor Beck's resignation came. It is now sent you for the record.