Rocky Flats: Let's Get Active, or Get Radioactive “The military made a decision to place a plant with a large quantity of plutonium and 4a lot of other trace elements pretty much within the Denver metropolitan area. .this site was clearly a mistake." Former Director of the Colorado Department of Health, Dr. Tony Robbins. Production of Nuclear Weapons Begins: Following World War II, the United States began the mass production of the hydrogen bomb, the very same type of bomb that was dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Facilities all over the United States were set up to separately produce components for these bombs. In Colorado, a plant named Rocky Flats was built to produce these bomb components. The plant was responsible for the production of, mainly plutonium triggers, or “pits”. These triggers were steel or beryllium spheres that were filled with plutonium so that when activated they would trigger a nuclear fission reaction within itself, which is the splitting of atoms which results in the release of massive amounts of energy, which then provokes the explosion of a nuclear weapon. Rocky Flats Facility was built in 1952 about 15 miles northwest of Denver, Colorado in a disastrously windy plateau, known as Rocky Flats. It was not ‘uncommon for winds to reach speeds up to 80 miles per hour, which more often than not resulted in road closures due to the winds ability to blow automobiles clean off the road. So windy in fact, that the Department of Energy deemed an area north of the plant a suitable site for national testing of wind turbines and windmill 1 Rocky Flats Action Group, Local Hazard, Global Threat Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant (Rocky Flats Action Group, 2239 E. Colfax, Denver, CO 1977), p. 3.ny components. Later on, it was discovered this wind was a leading factor in the mass spread of plutonium contamination across the metropolitan areas of Colorado. Rocky Flats was built within a twenty-mile radius of over 600,000 unsuspecting residents at the time. Aworker holds a Plutonium Button, Courtesy Wikipedia. Rocky Flats shady history had only started to be revealed to the publi 1987, but the real problems started almost thirty years prior. The large amount of, buildings that were apart of Rocky Flats and its various processing space was spread out over an area of 11 miles square miles. Originally Rocky Flats was built to only store materials for nuclear weapons production, which was what was disclosed to the residents surrounding the area, not to actually be involved in the production of nuclear bombs, Many citizens were unaware of the true purpose of the plant. Kristen Iversen, a Colorado resident, said, “Rocky Flats was a big secret in my childhood. No one knew what they did at the plant; the rumor in the neighborhood was that they made household cleaning products, my mother told me they were 2 New York Times, March 10", 2012.making Scrubbing Bubbles.”? The large amount of plutonium that was to be handled was not disclosed fully to the public until two years after the plant was built. Eventually, Rocky Flats released a statement that informed the citizens what they were doing. One of the main products Rocky Flats operation produced was involved with its glove box production line. Inside these glove boxes lumps of, plutonium were measured, machined, milled, and shaped to use in the plutonium triggers. In the thirty odd years Rocky Flats was in function; over 70,000 triggers were produced. The materials were kept in airtight boxes and manipulated by workers from the outside who used rubber gloves fastened to the boxes, thus avoiding contact with the extremely toxic and air combustible metal being manipulated within, Pictured Above: Repacking Glovebox, Building 440. Rocky Flats, 2002. June 1988, an FBI agent met with the Assistant U.S, attorney, and told him, “Let's do Rocky Flats’.* The Department of Energy was involved in a lengthy 3 Kristen Iverson, Full Body Burden: Growing up in the Nuclear Shadow of Rocky Flats (Crown Publishing Group, 2012), p.12.argument with the EPA trying to explain that the RCRA (Resource Conservation and Recovery Act), was not applicable for Rocky Flats. They argued that they had sole authority to govern their facilities under the Atomic Energy Act.*The DOE was quickly making enemies with the EPA, and FBI. In May of 1987 a FBI agent working for the Office of Criminal Investigation found an internal DOE memo that stated, “Rocky Flats was in poor condition generally in terms of environmental compliance, its permit applications were deficient and some of its waste facilities were patently illegal."6 The same FBI agent started to get suspicious, after interviews with two former Rocky Flats employees and the EPA Region 8 Regulator’ the belief that serious crimes were being committed at Rocky Flats became more and more real. Investigation on the Plant: An investigation had finally begun. Agents from the FBI set up a water- sampling pump next to Walnut Creek, a small river that flowed away from Rocky Flats under Indiana Street on its way to the Great Western Reservoir. It was discovered that these water samples collected on November 15% and 16 of 1988 were found to contain “mysterious” organic chemicals. ‘The EPA Toxicologist who ran the tests told investigators, “...the combination of chemicals... strongly suggests that the contamination is medical waste...one of the chemicals has been 4 Los Angeles Times Magazine, August 8, 1993, p, 12 $ Farrel Hobbs, An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats: Urban Myths Debunked (Sally Kribs, 2010) p.. 56. © Farrel Hobbs, An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats: Urban Myths Debunked (Sally Kribs, 2010) p. 56. 7 United States District Court Warrant, June 1989, p. 6.experimentally tested concerning its ability to protect against radiation-induced cellular damage.” Another study done by the Colorado Department of Health struck even more fear. The CDH tested the water for what Rocky Flats normally tested for, which included: plutonium, uranium, americium, but they also tested for an additional contaminant that Rocky Flats did not have the instruments to test for. Tritium. Tritium is another radioactive component of hydrogen fusion. The conclusion the CDH came to was unfavorable. High levels of tritium contaminated the creek. After these results were published, Rocky Flats, simply denied that there was any truth to the CDH’s statements, that what they had actually found was a false positive. So, the CDH did another study, and the results were identical. Acculmination of 2 more years of thorough investigation done by the FBI, which included, a series of secretive aerial observations, and an ongoing collecting of more evidence from insiders and outsiders with allegations that hazardous waste was illegally treated, stored and disposed of without permits Federal Investigators used high-tech equipment to spy on the alleged illegal waste handling that was, occurring at the countries own nuclear weapons facility. Videotapes from the air were examined by experts in infrared photographic interpretation from the EPA’s Monitoring Systems Lab in Las Vegas, Nevada.1° This was one of the first instances in history that infrared photographic interpretation from airplane surveillance had ever been used for an investigation of any sort. Using infrared techniques for the 8 United States District Court Warrant, June 1989, p. 98. ° Denver Post, June 7" 1989, 1. 19 Denver Post, June 10® 1989. 1.first time in an environmental case, the FBI was able to interpret that one of the incinerators at Rocky Flats, known as, Building 771, which was supposed to have been shut down indefinitely, was being used to illegally burn hazardous waste during hours at the night when the Plant management had confirmed the plant was closed for the night. The search warrant that was finally drawn up stated, turveillance on the nights of December 9, 10, and 15 indicate that the incinerator was being operated on each of those nights.” On those same nights, the spy plane also saw similar heat traces in the water of Walnut Creek? The Raid: On June 6% 1989, one of the biggest environmental raids in the United States occurred. Seventy-five FBI agents under the guise of investigating a potential terrorist threat met with a group of Department of Energy (DOE) officials who were in charge of running the nuclear weapons plant in Golden, Colorado, and served those officials with a search warrant. This warrant led to the raid of the DOE controlled facility, FBI agents began collecting documents and more soil samples, even going as far as to set up a command post inside the facility to investigate for an extended amount of time.!? The raid occurred during an average workday, and the then over six thousand employees were simply notified over the public address system that the investigation was in progress.!3 ‘The raid was peaceful, but it did not remain a secret for very long. Media outlets quickly found out, and released statements that the super secretive Rocky 1 United States District Court Warrant, June 1989, pgs 83 and 99. Denver Post, June 10%, 1989, 1, +8 Denver Post, June 7% 1989, 1.Flats Nuclear Weapons site was being raided on suspicion of criminal environmental activities. Unbeknownst to Farrel Hobbs and ten other Rocky Flats managers met with two FBI agents who stated in general terms that Rocky Flats was in fact under investigation for criminal environmental activities. The 116-page affidavit that the FBI released indicated that the investigation, dubbed Operation Desert Glow, was planning to review alll aspects of the plant back to November 1980.4 The affidavit contained all the allegations that were being reviewed by the FBI, besides the illegal incineration of hazardous waste, it included the illegal dumping of chemicals and waste into drinking water, rivers, and streams, falsifying records that were submitted to state health officials and the EPA, improper mixing of chemicals and radioactive wastes, improper storage of waste that could lead to an explosive build up of hydrogen gases, and the illegal disposal of hazardous materials and waste through the plants sewage treatment.15 The federal bureau agents and agents from EPA also were looking for evidence that the management of the plant had obscured environmental contamination and falsified federal environmental reports. 16 Department of Energy and their Deception: The Department of Energy began writing their long list of deceit to the private and public sectors long before the 1987 memo describing Rocky Flats inept ability to comply with environmental protocol, and many years before the raid of the plant occurred. This all started when the first of two highly damaging fires broke ¥ The Atlantic, September 10%, 2012, 2. +5 United States District Court Warrant, June 1989 p. 11-15. 16 Rocky Mountain News, June, 10%, 1989, 36.8 loose at around 10pm on September 11", 1957 inside Building 771, Room 180. This building was one of the many of the 27 building facility designed for plutonium Processing and was supposedly fireproof for that exact reason. One of the gloves attached to the airtight glove boxes inexplicably became loose, allowing air to rush inside these boxes immediately igniting the plutonium, and turning the room into a radioactive inferno. Shortly after, two plant production workers discovered the fire and phoned for help. Firemen rushed to the scene and began to follow protocol as closely as, Possible. At first they switched on the ventilation systems in hopes to slow the flame, but it backfired and spread the flames and ignited more plutonium, Their second attempt consisted of spraying carbon dioxide onto the flames, which also failed. Safety feature after safety feature inside the plant failed, resulting in a domino effect which ended up destroying the roof of the building, releasing a plume of radioactive smoke straight into the late summer night air. Onlookers would later report thata “billowing black cloud was visible some 80-100 feet above the already towering 150 foot smoke stack tower of Building 771.""7 The fire burned for a continuous 13 hours releasing high levels of plutonium into the atmosphere. The attempts to quench the fire proved fruitless; all involved knew that to try and use water would ruin millions of dollars worth of equipment or potentially cause a critical excursion, it seemed to be the only option, Hesitantly the fire was put out by the firefighters using plain water.8 “The men knew not to use ® Rocky Flats Action Group, Local Hazard, Global Threat Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant (Rocky Flats Action Group, 2239 E. Colfax, Denver, CO 1977), p. 3. 1 The Atlantic, September 10%, 2012, 2.Water ona plutonium fire. There would likely be no explosion ~simply the blue fash Signaling the surge of neutron radiation fatal to everyone in the immediate vicinity. But they were desperate. For a moment it seemed to work. Then suddenly the air Pressure dropped. There was silence, and then a deafening blast., The force twisted the plenum's steel frame, destroying most of the filters, and blew the lead cap off the 152-foot smokestack [of building 771], Flames shot more than two hundred feet above the rim." Over 600 filters and measuring equipment was destroyed, but the fire was out. ‘The damage was claimed to not he extensive. Initial reports released by the management at Rocky Flats declared that there was no spread of radioactive Contamination, Seth Woodruff, manager of the Rocky Flats offices told the local ‘media that, “Itis possible,” he said, stressing the word possible as much as he could, “that some radiation escaped. But ifthat even isthe case, it would be so slight it ‘would be impossible to distinguish from radioactive background at the plant "selP'2 Opponents begged to differ, a pair of local researchers theorized that as much as 50 pounds of plutonium could have escaped the plant from the defective filters, on that devastating night.21 “If this figure is accurate,” Dr. John Cobb of the University of Colorado Medical School stated in an interview, “this amount is enough ‘© contaminate all 1.4 million Colorado residents with a radiation dose one million —___ Pntisten Iverson, "Full Body Burden: Growing up in the Nuclear Shadow of Rocky Flats’, pg. 78. 2° Denver Post, September 12-1957, Fy. Woodward, “Plutonium Particulate Study in Booster System No.3 (Building 774) Filter Plenum” (Golden, Colo. The Rocky Flats Plant, January 27, 1971)heavily contaminated, but it was only a few days later that bomb-trigger production esumed. Over the next 13 months Rocky Flats officials recorded 21 fires, explosions, spills of radioactive material, and Contamination incidents,23 all of which ‘were downplayed, and kept secret from the public, and EPA, ‘The second abhorrent fire happened on Sunday, May 11° 1969, Mother's Day ina building, which housed 7,600 pounds of plutonium, enough for 1,000 nuclear bombs.* Some ofthe plutonium that was stored in a cabinet, ignited. These flames made their way into the glove boxes of Building 776-777, similar to the fire that happened in 1957. When the alarms finally sounded at 2:27 P.M, the flames were tinable to be contained, According to veteran reporter Roger Rapoport, “When the fireman reached [Building] 776-777 they found tons of flammable radiation shielding feeding the blaze.” In attempts to notuse water, for fear ofa criticality Securting, carbon dioxide was tried, After ten minutes, and no effective progress made, the fire captain initiated the use of water.25 This happened to be the same fire Previous experience and success for extinguishing similar fires ¢ Ifit were not for that fire captain and the 29 men who battled these flames, and were quick on their ‘eet the ire could have potentially breached the roof of the building, and Denver would have experienced a Chernobyl-type nuclear disaster, ee % John C. Cobb, interview, May 1981, 2 Rapoport, Great American Bomb Machine, p. 28, % Daily Camera, May 10, 1991, 1. 2 AEC, December 1969, p. 2, * Radiological Assessments Corporation, August, 1991, p.1.‘The damage done was devastating, This fre was so destructive; it was ranked as the most expensive industrial fire in American History. The first estimate from the AEC came in at around three million dollars. It took only a few days to Feassess and come up with the more accurate figure; seventy-one million dollars, The cleanup from this fire alone would take two years, and hundreds of full-time and part-time employees to clean up the mess. Amajority of employees of Rocky Flats had no clue thata fire this massive had occurred until work began the next morning, A short briefing was given, a major Fre had damaged the glove boxes in Buildings 776/777, and no one was to speak of ‘any further than that. A group of research managers were taken to another room, which included former employee Farrel Hobbs, “We were told what was later ‘included in the unclassified report about the fire, all research plans were on hold ‘intl the area could be decontaminated. We were told we were the volunteers to help begin that cleanup.” Hobbs documented his time spent during the decontamination, “Working conditions were miserable, we wore tm ultiple layers of coveralls and surgeons gloves, all sealed to our skin with the yellow tape used everywhere at Rocky Flats for contamination work.2® More often than not, workers ‘would be required to take a decontamination shower to remove the traces of plutonium oxide that made it through the clothing and onto the skin, —_ parte! Hobbs, An Insiders View of Rocky Flats: Urban Myths Debunked (Sally Kribs, 2010) p.10. sonattel Hobbs, An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats: Urban Myths Debunked (ally Kribs, 2010) p.12,12 Workers wearing anti-contamination suits during the 1969 cleanup. Courtesy Rocky Flats/DOE 1969 The Public Reacts: Even with the DOF’s best attempts to downplay the fire, small details about the levels of plutonium leakage, and contamination slowly made its way out of the woodwork. In the suburbs of Denver, which included Golden, Boulder, Arvada and Westminster recorded the highest rates, the measurement of plutonium Contamination was above “background level” for the entire state Which sat at about 5 millicuries. This measurement is a unit to measure levels of radioactivity with high Jevels of plutonium contamination.29 With more information about the plants negligence to following protocols Properly, scientists began to conduct studies of their own, A biologist at the University of Colorado in Boulder urged the panel responsible for the investigation, which was known as the Governor's Rocky Flats Scientific Panel on Monitoring Systems, to halt ll burning of any type of material atthe plant because of apparent ee % Denver Post, july 16%, 1989, 1.undoubtedly cancer causing because of their easy ingesting into the human bloodstream. “All toxic waste should be recycled, not burned,” argued the doctor, “the state should also be required to establish a Program to test organs of Denver residents and their levels of exposure to radioactive substances."*2 The same advocates arguing against Dr. Nichols and his team Produced studies showing the Sct opposite data. George Setlock, the environmental and health programs manager for Rockwell International, which were the owners of Rocky Flats, released ‘hese contradicting studies. He released a statement saying that the air levels were ® Denver Post, june 22, 1989, 1, 3* Denver post, July 25, 1989, 1. * Denver Post, july 25, 1989, 1.14 concurrent with where the plant was located, Setlock argued that Dr. Nichols did not taken this natural occurrence of radiation into account.* Only five months later, a study conducted by doctors from the National jewish Center for Immunology and Respiratory Medicine and the University of Colorado Medical School, discovered that eight current employees and five former employees, who were exposed to the metal beryllium (a metal used in the manufacturing of the plutonium triggers) while working at Rocky Fiats, contracted a deadly lung disease known as berylliosis. ‘These two fires brought unwanted attention from the public towards the DOE and what was happening at the base of the foothills. As suspicions rose, and the raid finally happened, public and private sector reactions to the raid were voiced feverishly. Media coverage of the raid was extensive. One of the most critical newspapers deemed Rocky Flats as "America’s Cherynobl.”5 News of the raid was a shattering blow to the Department of Energy’s image. James Watkins, the Department of Energy secretary, had been hard at work attempting to instill and rebuild confidence in the lowly thought agency by urging lawmakers to reject measures that allowed states and other federal agencies more power than the Department of Energy itself. But the news of the pending investigation only created more suspicion of a cover up, or even a conspiracy. Former manager at Rocky Flats, Farrel Hobbs documented his time spent as a manager during the raid. Hobbs met with Federal Agents daily, answering questions about the environmental samples that were constantly taken, about plutonium, ® Donver Post july 258, 1989, 1. 34 Rocky Mountain News, December, 14", 1989, 1. 35 Denver Post, June 22, 1989, 3B.15 about the fires that had happened. For months this happened every day, the same two agents would come into his office and search through every scrap of paper in every corner of his office. Governor Roy Romer, who was actively involved in the ongoing debate about where waste from Rocky Flats was being shipped and stored, reacted angrily, “lam outraged by the possibility that a criminal act has occurred at Rocky Flats that may have engendered the population... it jars me to the bone to realize that the judgments we have made may have been on bad information.” Romer released his statement to the public only one hour after the US Attorney Mike Norton disclosed the probe to the governor. The breaking of this news stunned many people other than just Romer, public officials, environmentalists and others who were intrigued in the frequently disputed nuclear weapons plant shared their opinions. “This kind of thing has never happened before,” said a nervous assistant manager of the DOE's Albuquerque operations office, jim Bickel, "ifit’s true, it certainly isn’t going to help our credibility.”3® The Department of Energy Secretary James Watkins repeatedly committed to being in full compliance to all standards, and having a primary care and management to health, and safety of not just the employees but to the citizens of Colorado as well. ?° On the opposite side of the fence, US Representative David ‘Skaggs, a former Boulder resident, told reporters “The Department of Energy is 36 Farrel Hobbs, An Insider's View of Rocky Flats: Urban Myths Debunked (Sally Kribs, 2010) p. 64. 37 Denver Post June 7*, 1989, 1. 38 Denver Post, june7th 1989, 1. 3° Denver Post, june 7, 1989, 2.16 Simply not capable of doing an adequate job of policing itsel?”.*° If these allegations were to be true, an already weak faith that citizens had in the government would only become more deteriorated, Residents from all areas in Colorado who had been avid supporters of dismantling Rocky Flats sounded offlouder than even some Colorado Production of nuclear weapons.” Other supporters also suggested that the long Tecord of proven government negligence in other areas of the United States, showed thata plant producing such radioactive and explosive materials is one of the last entities the government should be capable of Controlling, especially when one Sovernment body has to investigate another. ven though the probe was commenced by internal hints from people here and there, a large part ofthe staff felt indifferent to the raid. “It seemed like a huge Joke," laughed Dan Oliver, who was a worker at the Plutonium incinerator that was a Suspected target of large amounts of environmental Violations, “fit wasn't safe here, I wouldn't work here, its all political” #2 There was only one worker who was * Rocky Mountain News, june 10%, 1989, 3. 4 Denver, Post, july 15%, 1989, 1, * Denver Post, June 7%, 1989, 1.Rocky Flats and the Department of Energy were not violating any sorts of laws. The belief was that the FBI, the EPA, the US. Attorney, and Governor Roy Romer, were all Cohorts to get free front-page publicity at the expense of truth and rationality. One anety citizen voiced his opinion fervently, "I predict this “great raid of '89" will turn up little more than a 1 percent error rate in Paperwork,” retorted Glenn Selch, “and 3 few spills less hazardous than the atmosphere in an average dry cleaning or paint stripping shop", Rocky Flats Exposed: time, Rocky Flats and the DOE accrued 95,800$ in fines due to numerous Environmental violations at the plant, 25 of which had occurred just the previous Summer, and that were owed to the state immediately ina partial settlement. The Plant was cited for improper storage of dangerous wastes, maintenance vague ecords, multiple failures to offer annual hazardous-waste training classes for Workers, and finally use of an inadequate system of groundwater monitoring wells ‘o follow the path of pollution.*8 These failures to abide by laws only scratched the surface and did not contain complaints that were fled and told to the investigation that was occurring on the federal level, ee * Denver Post, july 24, 1989, 1, ‘* Denver Post, july 15%, 1989, * Denver Post, July 15%, 1989, 1,18 emission of atmosphere destr¥ing substances,« ee i Rocky Mountain News, Febua 1940,1 “’ John Brinkley News Washingtee, St Bry a7 1990, 7.19 to do their best to operate Rocky Flats properly, safely, and within the law.*® Local media's response was caustic, one Denver paper retorted, “Your attempt to entirely whitewash your record only further diminishes what little credibility lingered after your hasty departur "48 The Department of Energy also publicly criticized Rockwell, stating that they were “fed up with Rockwell's recent behavior” during the announcement that EG&G would be the new contractors. EG&G was handed money on a silver platter. The deal between the DO# and EG&G included 2.5 billion dollars for the four year contract, in addition to 15 million dollars up front, with the ability to earn other 10 million in performance fees.50 EG&G’s main purpose was to began an aggressive work safety and cleanup plan for Rocky Flats that included construction of a system to remove contamination from the groundwater of the site, and the movement of radioactive waste. Colorado's Special Grand Jury: Colorado's first special Grand Jury was empanelled in August 198951, and was formed as a result of the raid on Rocky Flats to decide what federal and environmental laws had been violated. The jury was made up of 50 people who had received postcards in their mail summoning them to the federal courthouse in Denver. The jurors were subjected to 100 or so witnesses testimonies, along will millions of pages of documentation obtained by the federal agents during the raid,52 they were told they could either write indictments if they believed the evidence 48 Rockwell, January 1990. * Denver Post, January 4, 2000. 80 Denver Post, October 12, 1989, 9A. 5 United States Attorney Statement, September 23, 1992, p. 5. 52 Wolpe, January 3,1993, p, 121-123.20 warranted such, or they could write a report on issues that did not lean towards indictments. The jurors met numerous times over the course of the next two years. At the end of their meetings, there was no unanimous answer. Some jurors wanted to issue indictments, but the Justice Department stepped in and deemed that these jurors did not have enough evidence to suffice indictments. Others even wanted to see people they believed guilty of these environmental atrocities go to jail, once again, the Justice Department intervened and determined that a plea bargain was more acceptable than jail time. Many of the jurors were angered by this, believing that the Justice Department was covering up the scandal, one of the jurors stated, “..it seems tous the purpose of the FBI raid was to cover up what the DOE did rather than actually prosecute it.”5? So, Rockwell International pled guilty to felonies and paid millions of dollars in fines as a result. Rockwell paid out 18.5-million dollars for a fine for environmental contamination that forced the 1989 shutdown of the Rocky Flats plant. This fine was the second-largest assessed against a company for environmental damages, second to Exxon who paid 125 million dollars for damages caused by a massive oil spill. Rockwell continued to deny that they were ever relaxed about protocols while in charge of the plant, but accepted the fines, What about the Department of Energy? The jurors were confused, and angry by the outcome, Why had they been assembled if their chosen indictments never went through? Several angry members 53 Denver Post, December 19, 1992, p. 16A. 54 Los Angeles Times, March 26, 1992, p. 1.21 prepared reports that mentioned allegations of crimes that were not addressed in the plea bargain. Each crime that had been ignored included staff from the Department of Energy. The jurors began to question why only Rockwell had been punished, when the Department of Energy was also at fault. When the U.S. attorney heard that the jurors were preparing these reports to submit, he advised them to not meet again. ‘The Grand jury foreman was livid, he told his fellow jurors, “Ifyou are going to let one government chickenshit lawyer tell you what to do, you're not part of America.” In the following months, the jurors presented a Denver newspaper with a draft of their report, which citied both Rockwell and the Department of Energy. ‘The people apart of the Grand Jury were angry that the DOE was not being held accountable. Their report stated, “DOE managed the plant with an attitude of indifference toward environmental laws.” The United States retorted, “The evidence shows that Rockwell, far more than the DOE, actually controlled Rocky Flats ona day-to-day basis...”55 “It is true that Rockwell performed the day-to-day operations,” said Former employee Farrel Hobbs, who sided with the Grand Jury, "but the directions came straight from the Department of Energy.”56 The gist the jurors were repeatedly trying to get across was that the Department of Energy was responsible for what happened at Rocky Flats, but were not being held accountable, and Rockwell was being used as a scapegoat, 58 Colorado Federal District Court, Febuary 19, 1992, p. 25-26. 56 Farrel Hobbs, An Insider's View of Rocky Flats: Urban Myths Debunked (Sally Kribs, 2010) p. 104.2 he Justice Department continued to show a blind eye. The government repeatedly proceeded with the outlandish premise that the DOE was unaware of what was actually happening at Rocky Flats and that Rockwell failed to inform the DOE of the problems, Farrel Hobs, a former manager at Rocky Flats provided proof, “An important part of my job, and other environmental managers was to assure that the DOE and Rockwell were informed about problems,” Farrel said, “We would brief our DOE contacts before we went to offsite meetings with information about issu To say the DOE was not informed is absurd.”s? Yet, the DOE never paid a single dime, or received an indictment. Aftermath: The cleanup necessary for Rocky Flats is one for the books. Environmental officials predicted that after 1989, it would take 5 years just to figure out what steps should be taken in the handling of the aftermath of Rocky Flats, “Fully cleaning up the pollution will take well into the 21 century,” Nat Miullo of the Environmental Protection Agency expressed, “there are so many unknowns at Rocky Flats that it is foolish to predict a bottom line for cleanup.”* The Colorado Department of Health and the EPA signed an agreement with the Department of Energy to set target deadlines for the cleanup efforts, this agreement identified over 170 polluted sites at the plant alone that needed further analysis and careful cleanup.5? After President George H. W. Bush declared the end of the Cold War, and pentagon planners decided to officially shut down any sort of production that was 57 Farrel Hobbs, An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats: Urban Myths Debunked (Sally Kribs, 2010) p. 106. 58 Rocky Mountain News, January 31%, 1990, 1. 5° Rocky Mountain News, January 31%, 1990, 1.23 still occurring at Rocky Flats, The Energy Secretary announced that Rocky Flats would switch from producing nuclear components to environmental restoration and waste management to prepare for the inevitable dismantling of the plant.®? Rocky Flats will forever hold a rocky legacy, but is now a National Wildlife Refuge. According to officials, the Refuge is not open to the public because of a lack of appropriations for refuge management operations, but the officials claim to conserve unique biotic communities and sustain wildlife populations at the base were the mountains meet the prairies. Hopefully these claims are true, and Colorado will be safe from the nuclear waste wreckage the Department of Energy left behind. © Colorado Council on Rocky Flats, January 1993, p. 14.24 References Atomic Energy Commission, August 1979. “Report on Investigation of Fire - Building 776-777, Golden Colorado, May 11, 1969.” Volume I. Colorado Council on Rocky Flats, january 1993, “The Handbook on Rocky Flats.” Colorado Department of Health, October 1, 1975. “Lamm-Wirth Task Force on Rocky Flats.” Colorado Federal District Court, February 19, 1992, “Report of the Special Grand Jury 89-2 (Redacted).” Daily Camera, May 10, 1991, “Expert: Too much oversight.” Gregory Todd, page 1D. Denver Post, june 7, 1989. “Federal Agents raid Rocky Flats.” Thomas Graf. Page 1A. Denver Post, June 10, 1989. “FBI used spy plane in probe.” Howard Pankratz, Page 1A. Denver Post, june 22, 1989. “200 Protestors demand closing of weapons plant.” J. Sebastain Sinisi, page 3B. Denver Post, June 25, 1989, “Plutonium cancer risk ‘negligible” Albuquerque, page 17, Denver Post, July 15, 1989. “Rockwell management shake-up leaves lacobellis in command of Rocky Flats.” Peter Sleeth, page 1. Denver Post, july 24, 1989, "Some Rocky Flats foes are spreading hysteria.” Page 1. Denver Post, October 12, 1989. “U.s rasied ante to get EG&G to assume operation of Flats.” Thomas Graf, page 9A.Denver Post, December 19, 1992, Secret Settlement in Flats suit, Plant employees reported threat.” Mark Obmascik, Pages 1 and 20A. Denver Post, January 4, 2000. “An Open Letter to Rockwell International From the People of Colorado.” F. Gilman Spencer. Farrel Hobbs, An Insider's View of Rocky Flats: Urban Myths Debunked, 2010 Kristen Iverson, Full Body Burden: Growing up in the Nuclear Shadow of Rocky Flats Crown Publishing Group, 2012 Los Angeles Times, March 26, 1992. “An Idyllic Scene Polluted with Controversy.” David Kelly, page 1. Los Angeles Times, August 8, 1993. “Showdown at Rocky Flats.” Barry Siegel, pages 12-18 and 48-51. Radiological Assessments Corporation, August 1991. “Characterization of Releases to Surface Water From the Rocky Flats Plant.” Kathryn R. Meyer with John E. Till, Ph.D. Rocky Flats Action Group, Local Hazard, Global Threat Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, Rocky Flats Action Group, 2239 E. Colfax, Denver, CO 1977 Rocky Mountain News, June 10, 1989, “FBI: Flats burned waste secretly.” Sue Lindsay and Janet Dat, pages 7 and 36. Rocky Mountain News, December 14 1989, “Neighbors suddenly fee! fear.” Rebecca Cantwell, pages 21 and 31. Rocky Mountain News, January 31, 1990. “Glare of publicity has workers hot.” Rebecca Cantwell, page 25.26 Rocky Mountain News, February 6, 1990. " Skaggs: False data at Rocky Flats a threat.” Robert Kowalski, page 3B. Rockwell International Corporation, January 3, 1990. “An Open Letter to the People of Colorado From Rockwell International Corporation.” Rocky Mountain News, page 33. United States District Court, June 6, 1989. “Search Warrant Case Number 89-730M in the Matter of the Search of the Rocky Flats Plant, United States Department of Energy, Rockwell International Corporation Highway 93, Golden, Co, 80402.’ District of Colorado. Wolpe, Rep. Howard, January 4, 1993. “The Prosecution of Environmental Crimes at the Department of Energy's Rocky Flats Facility.” Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight, House Committee on Science, Space and ‘Technology.