Howard C. Brown, Assistant General Manager for Administration, Atomic Energy Commission, to John T. Conway, Executive Director, Joint Committee for Atomic Energy, enclosing “Report on Visit to Israeli Atomic Energy Installations, January 27-31, 1965,” 13 April 1965, Secret

Date

Apr 13, 1965

Description

As detailed in previous postings, U.S. concern about Dimona and the risk it posed to nonproliferation policy persisted during the Kennedy administration. Under nagging pressure for months from President John F. Kennedy, Ben-Gurion finally agreed to the first U.S. visit to the Dimona site in May 1961. Then, after an improvised and unsatisfactory visit in September 1962, President Kennedy resumed his pressure in the spring and summer of 1963 for an arrangement involving regular visits, to which Ben-Gurion (and subsequently his successor Levi Eshkol) reluctantly assented in August 1963. The first of those visits took place on 18 January 1964 under president Lyndon Johnson, and the full report on the visit was published for the first time in a previous posting. While President Johnson shared President Kennedy’s concern about nuclear proliferation, he was certainly not as persistent and demanding with the Israelis as his predecessor had been.

The 1965 Dimona visit was the second of those annual visits. Its arrangement involved as many diplomatic complications as the earlier ones. Prime Minister Eshkol delayed the visit, and the Israelis imposed restrictions on its length. The fundamental findings of the 1965 visit are outlined in a previously released short summary made available to the State Department and the White House. The full 30-page report by the 1965 U.S. team – Ulysses Staebler with the AEC, Clyde McClelland with the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, and Floyd L, Culler with Oak Ridge Laboratory – is even more interesting, in part because of its detailed coverage of the limited capacities the Israelis presented to the visitors in the areas of reprocessing and plutonium. The construction, apparently completed during this period, of a large underground reprocessing facility at Dimona was the big secret of Dimona that the Israelis had successfully concealed. As noted, State Department and CIA officials recognized that an Israeli bomb was possible only if spent reactor fuel could be chemically processed into plutonium. Trying to identify such a facility was high on the U.S. agenda, but U.S. officials had no idea that the secret 1957 French-Israeli agreement for the Dimona nuclear package had provided for a reprocessing plant that the French constructed and the Israelis completed in a secret underground structure. [11]

Hosted by Professor Igal Talmi, a prominent nuclear physicist at the Weizmann Institute, the January 1965 visit was rushed; it lasted only one day, a little less than 11 hours. The Israelis would not agree to provide more time, let alone an additional day. Nevertheless the team members believed that they had seen enough to draw reliable conclusions. Among the main findings of the report (also included in the summary and in Howard Brown’s cover letter) was that even though they thought there was “no near term possibility of a weapons development program,” the reactor “has excellent development and production capability and potential that warrants “continued surveillance at intervals not to exceed one year.” Among the points consistent with such “potential” was that the amount of uranium onsite was enough to “produce on the order of 10 to 30 Kgs of plutonium after 1 1/2 to 2 1/2 years of irradiation, depending upon the irradiation level desired for the plutonium.” In their assessment, a chemical separation plant to produce the plutonium “could be constructed .... within perhaps two years as an internal modification within an existing building.”

As long as Dimona remained a “secret facility,” the team recommended that future visits try to establish, for example “whether the reactor operating schedule is indicative of ‘weapons grade’ plutonium production” and to find “any evidence of the construction of a chemical separations plant.” Another sign of weapons potential became evident from the visit to the small plutonium hot cells laboratory, which included three rooms “equipped for work with dangerous alpha-active substances such as plutonium.” The lab was then working with 56 grams of the 150 grams of plutonium received from the French for research purposes. According to the report, the “plutonium facilities are very complete and are suitable for an extensive research or small production program.” While the glove box equipment needed for safe operations is “relatively small scale .... it would be possible ....to equip the [glove] boxes with equipment suitable for the fabrication of the plutonium components required for a nuclear weapon.”

In connection with the plutonium issue, the team visited the “ventilation, filtration, decontamination building” where a pilot plutonium separation plant “was to have been constructed.” But Director Mannes Pratt said that he doubted that “it will ever be constructed,” and the team found no evidence “that the radiochemical processing pilot plant does exist ... or is planned.” Thus, the Israelis maintained the narrative that despite their initial plans reprocessing capability did not exist.

An important issue was how Israel would handle the first reactor core that had been irradiated and removed. According to Pratt, the core would be returned to France for chemical processing, but that issue had not yet received “detailed consideration.” He did not make clear exactly what would happen with the core and responded to a “direct question about the disposal of the plutonium recovered from the Israeli fuel” only by stating that it “was a question of policy.” According to Pratt, the French could continue to supply small quantities of plutonium for research purposes under the same conditions that they had supplied the 150 grams, but those conditions were not explained. When a team member “mentioned that a four-year cooling period would reduce transportation costs, Mr. Pratt acknowledged that [Dimona lacked] facilities for such long cooling times” and he “worried about the consequences of an air attack” if irradiated material was onsite.

The uranium metal production facility that produced material used in the fuel elements was part of the visit, but the U.S. team was informed that the plant had been shut down because of a shortage of uranium supplies. At that point, one of the team members asked about Israeli procurement of uranium concentrate from foreign sources. While the team did not mention uranium from Argentina, it is what they had in mind when the issue was raised. The Israelis, however, refused to discuss “foreign sources” declaring that it was “outside the scope of this visit.”

Before the U.S. team arrived at Dimona, it lodged at the Desert Inn Hotel in Beer Sheba. There, as it turned out, Harvard Professor Henry Kissinger, previously an adviser to the Kennedy White House, was also staying (apparently meeting Israelis connected to the nuclear project). That caused some consternation until it was determined that none of the team members were acquainted with him. A few days later, Kissinger met with U.S. diplomats in Tel Aviv and during that meeting said that the Israelis had “embarked on a nuclear weapons construction program.”

Source

RG 128, Records of the Joint Committee on Atomic Energy, Subject Files, Box 16, Foreign Activities- Israel 1957-1976

Document published in following posting(s):

1960 Intelligence Report Said Israeli Nuclear Site Was for Weapons

Dec 17, 2024