Interview with Katie McWilliam, July 9, 2004

Nevada Test Site Oral History Project University of Nevada, Las Vegas Interview with Katie McWilliam July 9, 2004 Las Vegas, Nevada Interview Conducted By Suzanne Becker © 2007 by UNLV Libraries Oral history is a method of collecting historical information through recorded interviews conducted by an interviewer/ researcher with an interviewee/ narrator who possesses firsthand knowledge of historically significant events. The goal is to create an archive which adds relevant material to the existing historical record. Oral history recordings and transcripts are primary source material and do not represent the final, verified, or complete narrative of the events under discussion. Rather, oral history is a spoken remembrance or dialogue, reflecting the interviewee’s memories, points of view and personal opinions about events in response to the interviewer’s specific questions. Oral history interviews document each interviewee’s personal engagement with the history in question. They are unique records, reflecting the particular meaning the interviewee draws from her/ his individual life experience. Produced by: The Nevada Test Site Oral History Project Departments of History and Sociology University of Nevada, Las Vegas, 89154- 5020 Director and Editor Mary Palevsky Principal Investigators Robert Futrell, Dept. of Sociology Andrew Kirk, Dept. of History The material in the Nevada Test Site Oral History Project archive is based upon work supported by the U. S. Dept. of Energy under award number DEFG52- 03NV99203 and the U. S. Dept. of Education under award number P116Z040093. Any opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in these recordings and transcripts are those of project participants— oral history interviewees and/ or oral history interviewers— and do not necessarily reflect the views of the U. S. Department of Energy or the U. S. Department of Education. UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 1 Interview with Katie McWilliam July 9, 2004 Conducted by Suzanne Becker Table of Contents Introduction: family background ( Buffalo, NY), education ( University of Rochester, geology; M. S., geophysics, University of South Carolina), work as seismologist with USGS, technical consultant for treaty negotiation and monitoring, marriage and family ( Boulder City, NV), engineering company 1 Move to Las Vegas, NV ( 1991) to work for NTS ( testing) and then DOE ( environmental technology development), impressions of the NTS 2 Work with EG& G on environmental technology development, experiences of working at the NTS ( camaraderie, gender) 3 Work as treaty negotiator during U. S.- Soviet talks in Geneva ( 1989- 1990) 4 Soviet attitude towards America and Americans 8 Work with American delegation to Moscow ( test monitoring, 1991) 9 Impressions of Moscow ( 1991) 12 Similarities and differences between American and Soviet testing programs 13 Issue of gender in testing and scientific work 14 Differences over use of the NTS after fall of USSR ( 1991), 16 Work on DOE waste transportation study, public perception and education 18 Influences on career choice ( geophysics and seismology) 20 Details of test monitoring ( seismology) at the NTS 22 Thoughts on NTS testing and test monitoring work 24 Memories of Colin Powell 26 Conclusion: the end of testing at the NTS 28 UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 1 Interview with Katie McWilliam July 9, 2004 in Las Vegas, NV Conducted by Suzanne Becker [ 00: 00: 00] Begin Track 2, Disk 1. Suzanne Becker: So if we could just start with your background, where you’re from, a little bit about your family, and where you originated. We talked about it earlier. Katie McWilliam: OK, I’m from— do I need to say my name? Sure. OK, I’m Katie McWilliam and I am originally from Buffalo, New York. I went to University of Rochester, where I majored in geology. I got my master’s degree at University of South Carolina in geophysics, and then after graduate school, obtained a job with the [ U. S.] Geological Survey [ USGS] in Menlo Park, where I worked up from junior seismologist to seismologist, working on an earthquake prediction experiment. In the late eighties, the opportunity to become a technical consultant for treaty negotiations and treaty monitoring came up, so I switched to that position. That’s how I got involved with the Nevada Test Site, because I had to come out to the test site for training and such so that I could understand what I was now having to consult on and work on for monitoring. And was this contracted? No, I worked with the government. I currently live in Boulder City. I’m married to Chay [ Charles] McWilliam. We have three older children that are [ from his previous marriage], Chay, Amy, and Becky, and then he and I have our seven- year- old son, Jamie. We currently own an engineering UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 2 company that specializes in building evaluations, and we are also in the process of cruising on our sailboat, with the goal of eventually circumnavigating the world. Wow! Very cool. How long have you guys been out here in Nevada? I have been in Nevada since 1991. When you came out to do the work at the test site. Right. Initially, before that, there was just visits and such, and then I moved out here in ’ 91. And when I made that move, which was after I met Chay, I then switched and worked for DOE [ Department of Energy] in environmental technology, technology development. OK. How did you guys meet, if you don’t mind me asking? We met in a training class back in Washington, D. C. when we were going in to monitor the Soviet testing. They had what they called the delegated personnel, and all the delegated personnel had to be trained. So he and I both had to attend that training, and that’s where we met. And that was in the eighties? That was 1991. OK, so early nineties. So I guess I’m curious when you moved out here, or when you came out to the test site, had you had any thoughts about the Nevada Test Site or did it mean anything to you, or was it just another place that you were sort of going for training? I really had no clue what it was until I got involved in it and came out, and that first training was just a generic orientation of the test site. Then it got more specific the last few times that I was out for training, either about the weapons or whatever. What were your impressions? That it was huge. Apparently very well run. It was like a city which, you know, when you hear about it, you don’t realize that until you— UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 3 I think it’s sort of the size of a small city. Yeah. Had heard so much about what went on and it was just kind of good to put the faces with the names I had heard, people I had spoken to on the phone, and then to actually see how it was all done. And what a resource, which I then tried to convince the environmental side of the world that it was a resource they should be using for developing technologies, but they just didn’t want to take advantage of this huge— Yeah, there seems to be a pretty good split between the two. So you think environmentally it’s a good testing ground? Yeah, they can do anything they want out there, pretty much, and it’s not going to hurt anything. They can even, you know, some of the things— well, it’s the desert but we need to create like the conditions at Savannah River Plant. Well, then, create the conditions. Build something and change it. You [ 00: 05: 00] can do that there. So I think it’s a unique place that should be used for any kind of testing that needs to be outside and [ that] type thing. Right. So you came here in ’ 91, you moved out here permanently in ’ 91, and once you got out here, did you continue your affiliation with the NTS and continue to train, or—? No, I switched then completely, got out of the testing stuff, and switched over to the environmental technology. And at that point is when testing stopped and there was no more, so that’s why I didn’t even stay involved in it, because it wasn’t. Can you talk a little bit about that, what that all entailed, when you switched over to the environmental aspects? From the standpoint of just having to switch my whole mindset of what I did? Yeah, all of it. I’m just curious, [ about] what you actually did. UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 4 My focus when I switched to environmental technology development was working with EG& G [ Edgerton, Germeshausen, and Grier] to develop technologies to facilitate remediation. I worked with remote sensing folks, and then other non- intrusive ways to like see what’s inside barrels and stuff, so that was kind of the focus of the projects I was managing. And then some kind of sideline overview management of some of the experiments that were going [ on] out at the test site, like— it’s probably not even being used anymore— the treat- ability test facility. I got to go through the whole rigmarole of getting it approved as a nuclear facility. It really didn’t meet the criteria [ to be classified a nuclear facility, but we were kind of the test for how to do that. That was, all new requirements that were coming in. So I did that for three years, and then my husband and I had started our own company and I left to run our company. Now, I guess I’m curious about your experiences out at the test site with other people and you mentioned that it was like a city there. Like a sense of a lot of camaraderie? Camaraderie. It was unusual when I did come out because I was unusual, being a female in the technical arena. I was one of maybe three female seismologist- geophysicist- geologist- type that I knew of— I’m sure there were others— that were doing kind of what I was doing. But I never had— I mean, everybody just respected me and just treated me as one of the whatever. I never felt excluded or odd- man- out or anything. Right. So gender was not really much of an issue? Not for me. And it never has been, no matter what position I’ve been in with whatever company or [ the] Geological Survey, wherever, it was never an issue. The only time it was an issue was when I was negotiating the treaties in Geneva with the Soviets. I’m sure. UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 5 So that was a different— so that’s kind of where I got the flip side, was the dealing with them, and then having to apply just the whole test site operations to what I was doing in Geneva and in Moscow. Right. So, I guess, skipping ahead a little bit, maybe, just I’m curious about how that all came about. How did you end up negotiating the treaty with the Soviets? How did you end up as part of all of that? I became known as the honest seismologist. Seismology is one of the ways to monitor nuclear testing. So I just started slowly. I was just kind of [ a] lower level consultant and just developed the reputation for being honest, not having any agendas. I just kind of moved into it, and I understood the politics involved, so I was able to balance the two but still present a good technical solution that wouldn’t just forward one agenda or another agenda. And I just kind of developed my own niche. Was there ever pressure to forward an agenda or maybe—? Yes. Oh, yeah. Yeah? Well, with the group I was working with, there was DOE, DoD [ Department of Defense], State Department, Arms Control and Disarmament Agency, Joint Chiefs of Staff. So there was a lot. Of course, they all have their own reasons for what they want, and so I was able to stay back [ 00: 10: 00] and be the objective [ person]. And plus all the labs. In addition to DOE Federal, there was Livermore and Los Alamos, and Sandia had representation as well. And they all have their own things that they’re either protecting or want to have or whatever. UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 6 Wow, it’s amazing that you managed to stay above all of that. It’s interesting. I’ve talked to other people who have done various jobs out there and, have had a really— same thing, there’s always been pressure from one side or another to do things one way or another. Yeah, and I just always stuck to my— what I knew was technically right and didn’t— You never got much flak about it? Not that I knew of. They might’ve complained about me behind my back. I think sometimes they knew that if they could, you know, not sway me but give me the evidence to say Yes, I’ll support this position, they knew it would be an important thing to have my support of it. But there wasn’t— I never, never got nasty, never, nothing. I just tried to stay honest. And so from that, because of your honesty and the fact that you were very objective and obviously good, you were sent to negotiate? Right. I was on the delegation, and I actually chaired, across from the Soviet general, the seismology working group for the development of the protocols for verifying the tests. And so that was interesting because one, I’m young, female, look younger than I am, and would be at the table with all men, and they would have comments like, The men are here to help you. I’d say, No, the men aren’t here to help me. And so it was interesting because that was a new thing for them. Yeah, I bet. How large were the delegations? Well, the whole delegations were, if you include all the technical people and the policy reps, probably twenty. And were you the only female? Sometimes. I was trying to think. Usually, I was the only female technical rep. I’m trying to think if the labs ever sent females over to work. A lot of them were on the stateside, supporting UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 7 it. And then some of the policy reps, you know— that would come and go because they’d change out every six weeks, every two months— would be female. I was definitely the odd man working amongst all these old, experienced testers. And so what sorts of things did you come up against, just with that as a factor? Amongst the seismologists, there were some that, I think, felt threatened because I wouldn’t [ give in]; they were pushing their agenda or, you know, wanting things to go a certain way. And I didn’t— it wasn’t necessary for what we were trying to do, to have to do what they wanted. So I think there was— I don’t know, I wouldn’t say jealousy, because these are grown men, but some kind of friction that way. And because they were more senior than me, and here I was chairing, so it was, you know, I think there was some [ jealousy] there. But amongst all the other folks from the labs, I never felt that at all with them. They just respected the position that I had been given and they supported me. I by no means knew everything they did and I would draw on their resources to do what I needed to do as the chairman of that group, but it was all consensus positions that we’d be putting forward. And I learned a tremendous amount from all of them because I mean, I just didn’t have the background they did. I was like a sponge, sucking it all in. Now, how long were you over there? I started going in ’ 89 and I did a couple of two- month stints, and then in ’ 90 I was there for six months. When they went into the mode that the protocols had to be finished, I stayed the whole time, and then came back and then went through the whole ratification process with Congress. [ 00: 15: 00] But the interesting, you know, it was just the Soviet reaction to me [ that] was just interesting. Some were fine with it. Others were kind of condescending, but not in a bad way because that’s just the way they were but, you know, would come up with a pet name for me instead of calling me by, you know, the formal Miss Poley or whatever, which was my maiden UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 8 name. So that was the— I’m trying to think of any other things with— I think they just couldn’t believe that I was doing this all by myself. Sure. Did that make the job more difficult? It sometimes did, and it would depend on who the Soviet side had sitting in in the groups. The one general who was their head seismology guy, I mean, he was pretty cool about it all. And it was kind of awe inspiring to think, here I’m sitting across from this general and doing this and we’re understanding each other and talking the same language. He would know what I wouldn’t budge on and I knew what he wouldn’t budge on and it kind of became a— not a jolt but, you know, when it came to that, we’d both smile and be like, No. And then at the end of the negotiations, General [ Sergei] Zelentsov actually— because, you know, everyone gives gifts and stuff and all these things, and a lot of it’s the normal Russian books or just typical Russian gifts. But General Zelentsov gave me a dove that was carved out of one piece of wood, and really intricate, to hang, and it had a string to hang, and I just thought that was— it was something different and just kind of— and then he signed it, you know, “ Best Wishes” And so that was kind of a neat— I took it as a sign of OK, they did respect what I was doing and I wasn’t just this little kid. Because I was pretty junior in a position that normally would’ve been held by a more senior person. Right, and you were fairly new into the field at this time. Oh, yeah. Yeah. And just like I said, I was a sponge, sucking up everything from everybody that was over there. I would go in and talk to the lab guys, I’d go in and talk to Jim Magruder, you know, and whoever was there, I’d go in and just pick, pick, pick so that I could really understand what I was doing besides just my seismology background. UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 9 Were you able to gauge at all the attitude toward America or Americans at this point? I’m curious about this juncture in history. By the time I got involved, I think a lot of the walls had come down already, at least for these people. They had all already been to the test site and kind of had their eye- opening experience. I mean Chay’s got so many stories about, you know, taking them to K- Mart and grocery stores, and them thinking it was a front, that this couldn’t be real, and the Americans finally said, You guys, here’s the phone book. You tell us where you want us to take you and we’ll take you there. And that’s how they finally got them to start accepting that, yeah, this is what [ it is like]; we have all these choices. So they thought that all of the Wal- Marts and the K- Marts were all a front for—? Yeah, and because we picked where we were going to take them, that we just, you know— So you were showing them a very specific— Yeah, they were. I wasn’t going at that right. Yeah. Interesting. So by the time I was involved, I think they had developed, at least in the technical, testing world, a real realization that we weren’t bad and they’re just like us and that we can communicate. And I think there was a real camaraderie. I don’t think there was that fear, at least that I noticed. Some of them maybe still have it. Sure. This really helped to dissipate that a little bit. Yeah, they were on common ground and they were all doing the same thing. So you were over in Moscow, as well? I went to Moscow for a month in ’ 91. Before we stopped testing officially, they had declared a test and we were going over to do the coordinating group to get ready to go in and monitor their test. I went over as the seismologist with that delegation. And that was interesting because— UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 10 [ 00: 20: 00] That was just interesting, without adding— some of it you don’t need to know about. But we won’t— sure we do. Well, no, it was delegation problems, but it was interesting to see who they trusted and who they didn’t trust in our delegation. And the head of our delegation was from OSIA [ Onsite Inspection Agency], and if they hit a roadblock where, you know, they just weren’t going somewhere, even on a simple issue, they’d end up going— the general knew my husband, so he’d go to Chay during a break and say, This is the reason why we can’t do this. We’re really not trying to be obstinate. And one was a simple film issue. There was a requirement that the film be developed within a certain amount of time. They were trying to get us to supply the stuff, and he finally said, We don’t have that technology available to us . And so Chay had to go back to the head of the delegation and say, Here’s the reason why, and they’re embarrassed, or whatever. So they worded it such that either side could supply, depending on what the situation was. And that came out more when we went over. There, I didn’t notice that as much, and I think it’s just by that point they were trusting of some people and they wanted to be honest about it, Let’s get the job done, but we don’t want to say we can do something if we can’t. What was it about some people that they trusted more so than others, do you know, or have any sense of that? I don’t know. Chay had been involved for so long with them, from 1988 on, because he was the head of del here when the Soviets came over to monitor our test during the joint verification experiment [ JVE]. They just knew he was a straight shooter. Right. They just started and established relations? And then when all of a sudden there’s all these new players that had never been involved before— because when the treaty got ratified and then had to be implemented, they turned the UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 11 implementation over to the Onsite Inspection Agency, which is a Department of Defense organization, to do the START treaties and all that. And that was a switch. All of a sudden, there were different players involved now than were ever even thought were going to be involved when the treaties were negotiated. And I think that threw the— our Soviet counterparts were now Russian counterparts and that was a switch, too, because when we were doing a lot of the negotiations, they were Soviet. And then when we were in Moscow is when the coup occurred, and we got out the day before the coup happened, and then it split up. All of a sudden, now we’re having to deal with Russians and Kazakhstan and— Not just Soviets. Yeah, so it was a kind of a switch, even though— and then Kazakhstan had to ratify, and so it was that whole flip situation got folded into it, too. So that’s really an intense time to be there. Did you have any sense that that was going on or that this was all sort of brewing? We had— at least I had no idea. We were actually out— where were we? I guess we were over near the American embassy, doing something, and got to see where— we knew Yeltsin was doing stuff, and that was like right before we left to come home. And then when it all happened, it was right where we were. So if we had stayed longer or it had occurred earlier, we would’ve been right in the middle of it, so it was just— but there was no real indicator that it was going to— Wow. And you guys got out the day before? I think it was the day before we came home, and then the next day, two days later, we heard that— Wow! UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 12 Yeah, because we were just traveling around Moscow doing— when we weren’t doing the business we were doing sightseeing or whatever. How was Moscow? Kind of drab. You look at something from a distance and you go, Ooooh, that looks pretty, and then as soon as you get up to it close, you’re like, Oh. It just, you know, not much maintenance. A lot of things probably were very beautiful at one time, but they just weren’t taken care of. You know, we went to a mall. It’s like going into a little [ 00: 25: 00] Mexican town where there’s these stores that have nothing in them except for, a few items that they sell. And then Chay said he noticed when we went back in— because he had been in twice before that, before the coup and the dissolution of the Soviet Union [ USSR]— the people were now starting to have smiles on their faces, whereas before, he said, they’d just be walking. There’d be no smiles. They wouldn’t look at you. And they wouldn’t— like a group of people that normally would walk down the street talking to each other like we do, they’d all be walking but they wouldn’t be interacting. Sounds like a very dark blanket of oppression over the whole place. Yeah. Once it all started to change, then you started to see— and you started seeing some of the younger people being more capitalistic, in their endeavors and a little bit more freedom that they had. But I don’t know what it’s like now. We were on the subway and there was a mom and her kids, and Chay offered the one boy— or girl, I can’t remember which— a stick of gum, and just, you know, [ his] face just lit up, and they gave us two coloring books, in Russian, with like fairytale stories that went with the coloring, as a thank- you for the gum. They had it in their— I don’t know if it was their school stuff or what. So we still have those. We’ve got a whole little curio case with our Russian souvenirs, and we put that in there. And he said he could’ve never UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 13 done that on his previous trips. There would’ve been no— I mean they would’ve been like, you know, “ Evil Americans,” because that’s what they thought we were. It sounds like things— they didn’t have a lot of the resources that we thought that they might have had and, I mean, taking that further, did you notice major differences between their program and our program and their testing and our testing? Very similar, right down to their two labs. The mission of each lab was a little different, just like our two labs have slightly different missions, and the personality of the people in the labs were— like Livermore people have a certain way about them, and Los Alamos people have a certain way about them. I don’t know if you’ve run across that at all. Theirs was the same, right down to their Livermore component people were the same type of people our Livermore folks were. It was really weird. So this really is its own little universe. Yeah, it was— I mean— you can say, oh, I bet he’s with Livermore, or Los Alamos; you could do the same thing with their guys, which lab they were with. How about the way that the public, if at all, the public perceived their program? Their people? We know here in the U. S., particularly in Nevada, there’s always been a very specific public perception of what the test site is. Right. I don’t know if their public even knew. I don’t know. It was just such a closed thing that I would be surprised if, other than locals that lived near their test sites, I don’t know if they even knew that they had a program. When you asked about similarities, the one place that they differed was their technology was for— not necessarily for the weapons themselves because I don’t even know that level of detail, but for how you go about it, the drilling, the emplacement, UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 14 and all that, they were very behind us. They did not have the same technology as we did, but they got their job done. Right. Any other major differences or similarities that you knew of? Like, for example, their safety measures or their security levels or anything like that? You know, I wasn’t involved enough to know that. I didn’t get to go to their test site. I came into it just a little bit late to warrant being able to go. I was way too junior at that [ 00: 30: 00] point. So I don’t know. That’s a good question. I think their safety was probably— the security was high. Safety, I’m guessing they probably didn’t have all the same safety precautions we take on things. But I don’t know on that. That’s just my opinion. Well, it’s a valid opinion. You were there. Well, opinion based on just kind of hearing things and just getting a feel for what was going on. Sorry if my questions seem disjointed. I actually have a lot that I’m trying to— No, that’s fine. And I’m an unusual person to be interviewing because it was a different— I was never at the test site testing, and I never got to their test site. I think one of the unique things about this project is that it’s— when we’re talking about the test site, we’re talking about people and aspects affiliated— not just that work there, but are affiliated with, impacted by, and the whole universe that is the test site— or what the test site means, what that encompasses. And I’m fascinated just with your experiences and what you’ve done. And I think, particularly being a young woman going into this— Basically all male. Yes I don’t mean to harp on gender, but I just think it’s really fascinating; it’s great. And what’s interesting is I never, in any of my positions, even though I was always one of very few, if not the only, female, I never even thought about it. I was just doing my thing. UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 15 Right. Right. Which sometimes, I think, is the way to go. You know, I used to get very upset when people thought they should get— or other women would think they should get special treatment or whatever, and I say no. If you can’t do a job, you can’t do it. I never felt, by anyone, that they didn’t think I could do it because I was a woman. Were there other women that had problems? I don’t know if there were in the testing stuff. There were people back when I worked for [ the] Geological Survey that certainly thought they were being oversighted because they were a woman, rather than the fact that they just didn’t want to work or didn’t want to do what they needed to do to get the promotions. I don’t know if— I don’t know. I never felt that on our side, except from isolated people but, you know, that’s always going to happen, but not as a whole. There was not that. And then just that little bit with the Soviets when they were like, Are these people here to help you? And when they said that, all the guys said, No! They stood right up and answered it. Which I think is just really telling of how far we have come, more or less. Twenty- five years ago, the experience might not even have been the same. Oh, yeah, it would’ve been very different. Definitely. I think we’ve made some progress. I like to think. So I’m sorry if you already explained this, but currently are you involved in anything? No. No. I run our business. And that’s it. And mom and wife. UNLV Nevada Test Site Oral History Project 16 That’s a lot. Yeah. No, I don’t have any affiliation or anything anymore. Haven’t had since ’ 95. After the coup and the fall of the Soviet Union, did you notice any— were there any differences in— well, I guess we were already at a moratorium at that point, but any differences at the NTS [ Nevada Test Site] before or after that or even within the program? Just the battle between the testers and the restorers. Like two different worlds, two different entities battling over the same piece of ground to do things or, [ 00: 35: 00] you know, to do things a certain way. As soon as I came out here, I guess, I was realizing that, you know, I had been— before I came out, I knew that you had to call the NTS manager or whoever was the director out there to get permission to come on and do something. And somehow I learned that. Not that I ever had to do it, but I knew that was the protocol. Everything had to go through NTSO [ Nevada Test Sit Office] in order to do anything. Well, when I came in in the environmental side, I started seeing how these people were doing, like, Well, didn’t’ you go through NTSO to get approval? And then they’d go, No, I just got— And I’m thinking, that’s just procedure— And so I, without even knowing anything, there was that kind of split, so they had a lot of that issue that had to be worked out of, What’s the new protocol now that there’s other things besides testing or testing- related stuff going on out there? And I think that can be attributed to empire building. The environmental side wanted to be their own empire instead of just using the structure and infrastructure that was there and just following the rules. Right. As in any, I guess, hierarchy. So I would say that’s where I saw a change,