Comments about the Book, “Making a Real Killing”

The book by Len Ackland is a well-researched source of information about Rocky Flats that I recommend. I posted a two part review of the book on that link of this web site, and committed to not editorializing in writing that review. The first part posted 9/7/11 is mostly about the history of Rocky Flats tied to the Church family, and the second part posted 9/14/11discusses operations, legal actions, and controversies. This posting discusses my disagreements with some of what Mr. Ackland wrote, and I suggest reading my book “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats, Urban Myths Debunked” for another perspective. That book is available free on this web site or from Amazon. I’ve heard that “history is interpretive,” and the differences between Mr. Ackland’s presentation of the history of Rocky Flats and mine confirms that observation. I intend to provide the content of the two part review and this posting to Mr. Ackland

There is criticism in “Making a Real Killing” about the selection of the Rocky Flats site for construction of a new nuclear weapons component production facility.  The book says the AEC knew they wanted Denver to be the location, but they went through the motions of an open selection process. I’ve read the Project Apple report (the report about the selection of a site for the plant), and there were compelling reasons given in that report for selecting a Denver location.  All of the other locations in other states had high humidity, and the production processes needed low humidity. Denver also was judged to be a good location for attracting and housing skilled workers. The author observed that the evaluation used wind data from Stapleton Field, and that actual Rocky Flats wind data “…should have eliminated Rocky Flats…”  The Stapleton Field wind rose showed the wind blowing to the north just under a fourth of the time and to the south about ten percent of the time. The wind would be blowing toward a populated area at all times from either Stapleton Field, Rocky Flats, or from any of the other six Denver locations considered, including the alternate location adjacent to the Rocky Mountain Arsenal. I posted a more detailed discussion of the Project Apple report on July 27, 2011.

The book mentions that “Building D,” which would later be designated Building 991, was the first built at Rocky Flats. The author calls it “…the atomic bomb assembly building.” Rocky Flats constructed components for atomic bombs, but no atomic bombs were assembled there.

The 903 pad was largest source of plutonium contamination released by Rocky Flats, and it is mentioned that the drums were removed from the pad in 1968. “Then, reflecting the same nonchalant approach to nuclear waste that led plant managers to create this temporary storage area in the first place, the field sat uncovered and subject to wind dispersion until July 1969. I have been challenged about the discussion in my book blaming AEC for the problems and stating that Dow argued against the pad and the way it was managed. That has led me to seek more information, and my search isn’t over. However, I’ve been consistently told that the paving project was held up for several months because engineering groups in the AEC Albuquerque Area Office and AEC headquarters were in dispute about the design of the cap that was to be added. Part of the delay was to complete a required Davis Bacon Act review. The act required that all federal construction exceeding $2,000 total cost must pay workers on-site no less than locally prevailing wages. I have been consistently told that there was frustration that the paving wasn’t completed more quickly, but I’ve found little evidence that the delay was caused by taking a “nonchalant approach.” I intend to continue looking for information about this issue, and hope to do a more detailed posting in the future.

There are several observations that worker safety and fire safety took a backseat to production, and the Building 771 fire in 1957 and the Building 776/777 fire in 1969 certainly proves there should have been more care taken with fire safety. I know that fire safety wasn’t ignored before the 1969 fire, because one of my tasks after that fire was to test remaining glove box windows to determine which ones contained fire retardants. The fire retardant windows were obviously installed for fire safety, but that didn’t prevent the windows in the lines affected by the fire from melting and burning. The retardants created dense smoke that made the efforts of the fire fighters much more difficult. The information about a million pounds of Benelex to provide radiation protection to workers contradicts at least in this one instance the inference that worker safety was downplayed, although the Benelex played a major role in the 1969 fire. Also on the subject of worker safety, interviews with Union officials often focused on that subject. I will point out that the Union found safety gave them significant leverage in getting concessions from management. The Department of Energy also discovered they could obtain substantial increases to funding by criticizing health and safety practices.

In my experiences, safety concerns were given priority over schedule; the need to operate safely was discussed at least daily. There was never a doubt that we were working with dangerous materials, and that care was required to protect ourselves and our coworkers. Of course there were nearly two decades of operations before I began my Rocky Flats career, so I can’t testify how things were then. However, I will remind that any discussion of why production schedules were important should include remembering the world situation while debating the need for Rocky Flats, what was made there, and whether production should have been given a high priority. I can see no debate that the people working at Rocky Flats were assigned a national defense mission that the military and government determined was a crucial.  Mr. Ackland provides a solid basis to justify why production was emphasized. He writes that the Joint Chiefs concluded in 1949 that the133 nuclear weapons stipulated in “…war plan Trojan…” wouldn’t be enough. By 1950, “The military’s plans meant ‘a greatly increased requirement for atomic weapons’.” In the 1960s, “Most Americans, including the managers and employees at Rocky Flats, accepted the notion that the United States had to win the nuclear arms race to defeat communism.”

The book mentions that the Pugwash Conferences “…founded by U.S. and Soviet scientists in 1957, advocated alternatives to a balance of nuclear terror between the two ‘superpowers’.”  What isn’t mentioned is that the Pugwash Conference was a front for the Soviet Union, (from Wikipedia) “…whose agents often managed to weaken Pugwash critique of USSR and instead concentrated on blaming the United States and the West.” Not mentioned in the book is the World Peace Council. That organization “…received $63 million in Soviet funding, criticized western armaments and weapons tests, and refrained from criticizing Russian arms.” Numerous peace groups were closely connected with the World Peace Council.

Mr. Ackland mentions the ballot initiative that Colorado voters approved to halt “peaceful” nuclear blasts in the state after the AEC detonated four atomic devices underground in western Colorado. I was surprised he didn’t mention that the 1982 ballot included a proposed amendment to the Colorado constitution to “…bring about the cessation of nuclear weapons component production in Colorado…” The proposal was defeated by 584,256 opposed to 326,550 in favor. Voters were said to have been influenced by the thousands of jobs at the plant and the positive economic impact for the Denver area. I think it is fair to point out that the people of Colorado were aware of what Rocky Flats was making by that time and knew of contamination released by the 1957 fire, the 903 pad, and the tritium incident. They choose jobs.

In the discussion of the tritium incident it is mentioned that Dow was criticized “…for its flat denials and inaction in trying to identify the tritium source.”  A Rocky Flats employee was quoted as saying “…I knew what was wrong. I knew Dow was lying,” I attended meetings when Colorado first reported elevated tritium levels downstream of Rocky Flats, and I was heavily involved with the investigation to identify the source of the tritium after the results were confirmed.  Dow and the AEC were both wrong when they denied the tritium came from Rocky Flats, but they did not lie. Tritium was not supposed to be involved in site operations. Material containing tritium was received from Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, and Rocky Flats was not informed that there was tritium in the material. I attended a meeting preceding a press conference about the release, and the Energy Research and Development (ERDA) manager (ERDA had replaced AEC) told us AEC had failed to control material, and that Dow was blameless in the matter.

Perhaps my strongest complaint about the book is some of the information in Chapter Fourteen titled “Rockwell’s Crimes.” I have no dispute with the statement that “…Rockwell International Corporation pleaded guilty to committing ten environmental crimes—five felonies and five misdemeanors—at Rocky Flats.” I will refer to my detailed descriptions and reasons for the guilty plea in my book, but I give a quick summary here. Rockwell was forced to plead guilty because the Justice Department was threatening to issue indictments that at least some of the prosecutors believed weren’t supported by the evidence. Rockwell knew indictments would ruin lives regardless of the outcome of a trial.  Mr. Ackland accurately writes, “Investigators failed to prove the most spectacular crimes alleged in the June 1989 search warrant.” What he doesn’t say is that the ten “crimes” in the guilty plea would not have been called crimes anywhere other than in a legal document designed to prevent government embarrassment. As examples, sewage treatment plants at places other than Rocky Flats often exceed their permitted discharge limits, and sometimes municipalities and other operators have had to pay fines for those exceedences. However, I am unaware of any other circumstance where the exceedences have been called crimes or where the fines levied were anywhere close to what Rockwell paid. My favorite “crime” was Rockwell pleading guilty to the fact that DOE had submitted a permit application  more than six months after Rockwell had provided it to them and six months after the date it was due. Rockwell pleaded guilty to inaction by DOE and paid a two million dollar fine. The intense scrutiny from a raid by dozens of federal agents and a Grand Jury investigation that lasted over two years found nothing that hadn’t been reported to the regulators before the raid. Rockwell helped save the reputations of embarrassed federal officials by paying millions of dollars in fines for elevated levels of non-toxic pollutants in sewage plant discharges and paperwork errors.

I wish Mr. Ackland would have mentioned that there was no off site impact from any of the ten “crimes,” that they weren’t mentioned in the search warrant, and they weren’t uncovered by the raid. They were “discovered” in official reports submitted by Rocky Flats to Colorado and EPA before the raid. I do credit Mr. Ackland with mentioning that the Radiological Assessments Corporation was hired by the state health department to analyze contamination released by Rocky Flats. He writes, “They haven’t found significant off-site contamination.”  I will point out that the final report said, “The records clearly indicate recognition of the need to control and limit radionuclide releases since the beginning of plant operations…none of the documentation included the occurrence of any previously unreported major events…” Is anyone else fascinated that no historian or investigative reporter has looked into the absurdity of the guilty plea forced on Rockwell?

11 thoughts on “Comments about the Book, “Making a Real Killing”

    • “Thank you. This is an interesting suggestion and one that I have discussed with my administrator in the past. Unfortunately, at present, I do not have the time available to moderate a discussion forum, but its on my “to-do” list.”

  1. I want to say thanks so much for the job you have made in writing this posting. I am hoping the same perfect work from you down the road as well.

  2. I think this is one of the most significant information for me. And i am glad reading your article. But wanna remark on few general things, The site style is perfect, the articles is really nice : D. Good job, cheers

  3. Dear Mr. Hobbs:

    Thank you for alerting me to your clearly written online memoir about Rocky Flats and your review of my history of the plant, “Making a Real Killing: Rocky Flats and the Nuclear West” (U. of New Mexico Press, 2nd edition, 2002).

    The personal experiences you recount in your book add interesting detail about some operations and events at the plant. Your overall interpretation of the plant and its role reflects one of several different perspectives I sought to accurately represent in my book.

    You note in your review that “in several instances of where common subjects are discussed, factual information in the two books is often virtually identical.” But the differences stand out, as you write in your blog posting of 9/14/11. Moreover, it seems to me that a major contrast between our work resides in the difference between a memoir based primarily on personal experience and a history based on written documents, observations, and interviews with a broad range of sources. It’s interesting that you didn’t cite my book in your memoir or list it in your references.

    To illustrate my point about the difference between experience and history, I’ll address just two issues you raise in your blog posting.

    In terms of nuclear waste, you write in your posting that “The 903 pad was largest source of plutonium contamination released by Rocky Flats, and it is mentioned [by Ackland] that the drums were removed from the pad in 1968.” You then quote from my book (p.141) that “Then, reflecting the same nonchalant approach to nuclear waste that led plant managers to create this temporary storage area in the first place, the field sat uncovered and subject to wind dispersion until July 1969.”

    You then briefly discuss your contention that the AEC was to blame for “the problems” and mention your continuing search for information about the episode. You then write that “I have been consistently told that there was frustration that the paving wasn’t completed more quickly, but I’ve found little evidence that the delay was caused by taking a ‘nonchalant approach.’ ”

    Whoever was to blame for the pad problems –the AEC or its hired contractor, Dow — the fact is that the field sat uncovered and subject to wind dispersion until July 1969. To me, that suggests a pattern of nonchalance toward nuclear waste at Rocky Flats that can be traced back to Heinie Langell, Dow’s first manager of the plant. Here is a cite from p. 107 of my book: “Heinie Langell took great pride in meeting the AEC’s production quotas. ‘We at Rocky Flats were never the cause of any hold-up of delivery by the Commission to the Military,’ he said, while admitting the tradeoff between bomb production and waste. ‘We didn’t slack off on production. We decided to accumulate the excess wastes.’ This meant Langell and his staff had to get the waste ‘out of the road,’ in his words. He explained this figure of speech meant that contaminated chemicals and other waste needed to be taken out of the production areas and stored in barrels. Beginning in 1954, the plant started ‘temporarily’ burying barrels on-site, a practice hidden from the public for nearly two decades.”

    Your second issue has to do with safety. You note correctly that “There are several observations [in Ackland’s book] that worker safety and fire safety took a backseat to production, and the Building 771 fire in 1957 and the Building 776/777 fire in 1969 certainly proves there should have been more care taken with fire safety. . .” But then you go on to write that “In my experiences, safety concerns were given priority over schedule; the need to operate safely was discussed at least daily. There was never a doubt that we were working with dangerous materials, and that care was required to protect ourselves and our coworkers. Of course there were nearly two decades of operations before I began my Rocky Flats career, so I can’t testify how things were then.”

    You might have looked at pages 144-145 of my book, which discusses safety and quotes from a 1967 Dow Chemical report: “The plant’s top managers knew exactly what they were doing. They traded worker safety for higher productivity. ‘Over the past several years there has been a strong emphasis on seeking more efficient production methods in an effort to reduce the cost of producing plutonium for weapons,’ an internal Dow report blandly observed in November 1967. ‘This emphasis has resulted in some remarkable savings in cost in the face of more stringent processing requirements, but some of the changes have contributed to exposure increases.’ Higher worker exposures didn’t count in the AEC and Dow financial equation. The 1967 report stressed there was no turning back from the production changes. ‘It is not possible to revert to old processing techniques without causing large additional capital expenditures and gross increases in the operating costs associated with plutonium processing.’ ”

    The above documents a pattern which continued even after you began working at Rocky Flats in 1969, perhaps best illustrated by the treatment of workers who handled beryllium, whom you mention in your memoir.

    Finally, on a personal note, I was sorry to read about your bouts with cancer, whatever the origin, and want to wish you good health. I look forward to meeting you.

    All the best,
    Len Ackland

    • I do wish I had read “Making a Real Killing” before writting my book “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats.” I wrote a two part review of “Making a Real Killing” on that link of this web site, and recommend it to anyone interested in the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant. I disagree with some points, but there was contamination released from the site and there were accidents and fires. I will undoubtedly always become energized to defend what I think is a truely remarkable legacy despite some of the things we all wished hadn’t happened.

  4. You defend your former employers like a lawyer. Uhm, I am sure people who are informed , politically and technically, are amazed at your stance. You seem like a DOE pr rep. It is amazing , just my opinion, how foolish your outputs are. I think you defend the Federal side more than they themselves do. Sorry about this, hope it is not too harsh, but I am thinking you are in denial. It is obvious, given all the pr and secrecy, that some very negligent and dangerous things were done at that facility, and the site location was one of the stupidest site selections I have ever seen. Worse than Livermore. Worse than anything I have seen. Because the AEC wanted the workers to be a bit happier. The peak of activity is coming up. If you look at the Bateman equations for the Rocky Flats Pu the peak of activity is 60 years post release. I derived and solved those and wrote a program to look at the activity over time of various things, but I didnt notice that property of Pu until I read the LANL tech report about it. If you are having trouble psychologically accepting that you got sick from your service to the nation, take a look at the history of the area around the NTS and St George UT. God Bless you, even though I am not religious. And dont ever stop writing and posting. Keep working.

    • I read the comment with interest, and appreciate the thought that went into it.

    • Pu,
      I have a personal connection to the community just East of the Rocky Flats land, and your comments on the “peak of activity is 60 years post release” really interests me. I was wondering if your program that you wrote is available anywhere online to look into the activity of “various things”? If it is not, does your model analyze the activity within the body, in the environment or both? I would be very interested to learn more about this modeling that you speak of. By the way I just finished reading Mr. Ackland’s book and found it to be a great view into the history and deceit behind this government establishment. I find it interesting how someone can criticize his work, while having such a blatant bias being a former employee of the facility that was responsible for such an environmental disaster.

      • My autobiography about Rocky Flats is available free at the book link at http://www.rockyflatsfacts.com or for purchase on Amazon. I read Mr. Ackland’s book with great interest, thought it was an excellent book despite the fact that I disagreed with some of his assessments. I sent him comments and we have had brief back and forth discussions. We still don’t agree on everything, but have been quite polite to one another. The State of Colorado hired a large panel of experts to investigate the impact of Rocky Flats and spent millions of dollars and many years to do that investigation. The results of their study was that there was very little risk to anyone from what Rocky Flats did (and there are people who will disagree with that statement). You can see a summary of their findings at http://www.cdphe.state.co.us/hm/rf/rfhealth/riskestimates.pdf. One conclusion in a another document (and there are too many to mention) was that the risk of developing cancer from what Rocky Flats left behind was significantly less than the risk of being struck by lightning.

Comments are closed.