Category Archives: Commentary

DOE Comments on What Caused Rocky Flats Closure–Part II

Posted on by

Part I of this blog discussed comments from a senior DOE official who read the book, “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats” (which you can order at either CreateSpace.com or Amazon.com) about Soviet-funded international anti-nuclear organizations and changing public opinion about acceptable risk. I need to first address a response to the first post from the person who made the original comments. I skipped lightly over the issue of the lawsuits about hazardous waste laws, and thank goodness for people willing to set me straight! Here is a new comment about that issue. “DOE was not just being obstinate in fighting against coverage by these laws. The laws themselves specifically exempted DOE nuclear facilities…facilities like Rocky flats were directed to not comply…The wrinkle in the court case was in applying RCRA for the hazardous components of otherwise radioactive nuclear wastes, even if the hazardous component was very small compared to the radioactive component.”

Putting that issue aside, this posting is primarily about how Congress was influenced by the growing and vocal anti-nuclear movement to pass a new law that created massive impact on the ability of sites such as Rocky Flats to perform the duties assigned by Congress. As an occasional Libertarian I feel compelled to mention this is a classic example of how the government can create difficult and expensive problems by passing laws to satisfy a vocal part of their constituency. The information to follow is taken from the detailed comments of the DOE official who observed the problems first hand.

Congress passed the Price Anderson Reauthorization Act (PAAA) in 1988 in response to pressure from anti-nuclear protestors and concerns created by nuclear and industrial accidents. The reauthorization took away the blanket indemnification of contractors operating DOE facilities, and imposed legal conditions based on Nuclear Regulatory Commission practices for licensing commercial nuclear facilities. Contractors could only be indemnified only as long as they operated within a narrow “risk envelope.” The outcome was that the “expert based” approach to operations that had been employed successfully had to be replaced by strict procedural controls (as described in part in Chapter 11 of the book).

DOE oversight people were required to become adversarial policemen as contractors were being forced by the new law to replace knowledge-based operations with procedural controls. DOE headquarters reacted by bringing in large numbers of former Navy nuclear personnel, because it was seen that the Navy nuclear program was a successful model. “Sadly, many of these people did not understand nearly as much about operating facilities as those that hired them thought. Nuclear facilities with diverse operations are very different from naval reactors with very specific and limited operations. The cultural challenge (new oversight requirements, new managers that did not understand operations, and new oversight organizations that did not have a mission objective) was a perfect storm to affect the future of Rocky Flats operations.”

“It didn’t help Rocky Flats that Rockwell did not have a nuclear operations background, and was not corporately well equipped to deal with the new world” “The DOE staff likewise were not prepared for the new world. At Rocky Flats, the local DOE office had about 50 people; most involved in contract administration. To meet the new expectations, it suddenly had the workload of an organization several times larger. In addition, Washington HQ staff were not inclined to help the local office, and an adversarial relationship soon developed.”

The Soviets continued to be our enemy, court rulings put DOE sites out of compliance with waste management laws, and Congress passed a law that ended successful knowledge-based operations. Perhaps that explains why Rocky Flats was a difficult place to work.

　

 

DOE Comments about “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats”

Posted on by

I’ve mentioned that a person who was a senior DOE official provided comments about the book after reading it on line at this web site. I’ll first mention for people who don’t like to read on a computer screen that the book is now available in paperback and can be ordered from both Amazon.com and CreateSpace.com. The book continues to be free at the book link on this web site.

The comments began with the sentence, “The mid to late 1980’s were a perfect storm of national and international events that affected the future of Rocky Flats.” The events mentioned included funding of the international anti-nuclear movement by the Soviet Union, major international accidents, DOE’s loss of a lawsuit on regulation of wastes, and a Congressional act that had a major impact on operation of DOE facilities. I’ll discuss the first three here.

The book, “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats” discusses the declining reputation of Rocky Flats over time. There are several reviews about Soviet Espionage against the United States (Venona, Witness, Perjury, and Out of Bondage) in that link on this web site. However, I hadn’t considered the possibility of Soviet involvement in anti-nuclearprotests. A Wikipedia article, “Soviet influence on the peace movement,” discusses how the Soviets supported organizations such as the World Peace Council. That group received millions in funding from the Soviets, organized peace conferences, and refrained from criticizing the Soviets. There was a Congressional report in 1980 that listed six peace groups that received Soviet funding and were “closely connected” with the World Peace Council. I don’t doubt the anti-nuclear protests had a negative impact on the public’s perception of places such as Rocky Flats, because that was the intent of the protestors. I do doubt that most of the people participating in those protests knew or thought what they were doing was encouraged or was even funded by the Soviets. (I intend to do addtional research on this subject, and have requested references listed in the Wikipedia article.)

The commenter also provided an insightful analysis of how nuclear and industrial accidents affected the public’s acceptance of risk. Three Mile Island and Chernobyl strengthened the anti- nuclear movement. The Challenger explosion startled the nation, and the leak of a toxic gas in Bhopal, India that killed thousands was an international scandal. “When it became clear that the causes of these accidents had similar causes to the allegations that had been made about Rocky Flats, the public’s view toward Rocky Flats further hardened.”

I don’t intend to spend much time on the issue of DOE losing lawsuits in which they contended they weren’t required to comply with hazardous waste laws, since I gave that quite a bit of attention in the book. I’m working on writing a posting about how Congressional action created immense “unintended consequences” for DOE facilities.

Paperback Version of “An Insider’s View of Rocky Flats”

Posted on by

Requests for a “book that can be held” in addition to the online and downloadable e-book (PDF) versions currently available on this website, have prompted me to produce a print version that I am happy to announce is now available through both Amazon and CreateSpace. You can read a short description of the book at those links.  Amazon offers free shipping for orders over $25, if you want to combine an order with other books you’ve been wanting. 

First and foremost, and to disprove that I have become a greedy Capitalist, electronic forms of the book will continue to be free to any and all who want to read it online or download it. I encourage you to scan the content to decide whether you want to own the paperback. I also encourage you to watch this blog over the next couple of weeks to see important information provided by people who wanted to share some valuable insights.

I’m pleased that a printed hardcopy book is now available and I intend to buy copies to give to family. To those who might want an autographed copy, I would also be happy to sign purchased copies, although you will have to hand or send me the book. Your choice will be whether you want my “business signature, Farrel D. Hobbs,” or my “personal signature, Farrel.”

Getting that out of the way, who should buy this book? I recommend it to former Rocky Flats workers who are conflicted about whether Rocky Flats delivered an overall positive or negative benefit to our nation. I recommend it to people who are interested in sorting out the factual history of Rocky Flats from the inaccurate and sensationalized urban myths.

I am pleased that an ardent critic of Rocky Flats has commented, “… his narrative is very even tempered …” and, “[h]is engaging account will be of interest to any who cares about the legacy of Rocky Flats … including peace and environmental critics.” I am also pleased that a DOE official who had some connection with Rocky Flats has referred to the “…valuable website,” which includes a link to electronic forms of this book.

The paperback version of the book is currently available at both Amazon.com and CreateSpace.com at the links given above for $9.95 + S&H.

What are Young Americans Getting from College?

Posted on by

Data from Doctor Housing show that student loan debt has surpassed credit card debt. Student debt has reached $829 billion because of rising tuition costs, increasing numbers of people going to college, and lack of savings by families for college. College students are graduating with an average debt of $30,500, but it isn’t uncommon for that amount to be $100,000 or more. Many students graduate from paper mills or even highly rated colleges and universities with degrees that don’t provide a path to employment. Some people deal with the issue of not being able to afford payments by continuing to attend classes, since the payments on the debt aren’t due while they are in school.

What are the colleges providing to these young people besides a degree and massive debt? A new study found that 45 percent of the students learned very little in the first two years of college and about a third of them have not improved their performance in academic skills by the time they graduate. The 3000 students participating in the study spent 16 percent of their time in class or studying and 75 percent socializing and sleeping. Many professors are focusing on research that will build their academic reputations, and are less interested in teaching.

People should begin to evaluate college options the way they would study a business opportunity. Will there be jobs in the chosen field of study that will pay for the student loan debt and perhaps even provide a decent living beyond that? There are plenty of data about which degrees provide the best opportunity for a decent job. It shouldn’t be a surprise that completing more difficult courses of study, such as engineering, gives a better chance to land a job that pays decently. I’m guessing that the easier courses of study result in fewer job opportunities and jobs that don’t pay much. That probably won’t deter the flood of students into easy courses that won’t detract from having fun in college.

What about the role of the colleges? I’ve read that it is becoming easier to get good grades, which keeps more students in the classes. The reduction in the quality of education has been accompanied by increasing costs. One report stated that economists predict the cost of attending state colleges will soar to $120,000 by 2015. Tuition costs have increased just under 467% since 1986 compared to the overall inflation rate of 107%. Of course the government contributed to the problem by making it easy to get government-backed student loans. Colleges raised tuition to take full advantage of the flood of new students with their easily-acquired loan money. Some are adding luxurious amenities in the form of fancy dorms, gyms, live music in the cafeteria, and Starbucks gift cards to lure students.

There are undoubtedly many factors to consider for a family making a decision about which college and which course of studies. A recent report observes”…the average lifetime incomes of comparably talented graduates of public and private institutions are about the same for most students.” I remain convinced that the ultimate success of a student graduating and entering the business world depends on individual skill, discipline, and a desire to perform well. There is a constant drumbeat of demand for more money for education at all levels, but increasing the amounts spent hasn’t improved education.

Pakistan is More Dangerous than Egypt

Posted on by

The focus of the world is on the demonstrations and clashes in Egypt, and there are many reasons why that is worrisome. There is always cause for concern when economic pressures make large numbers of people willing to march against a repressive government. However, we should be more concerned about Pakistan, which has about 100 nuclear weapons and is not the picture of political stability.

Pakistan has been a nominal ally of the United States and has been at war with India three times. BBC News reported the recent assassination of Governor Salam Taseer by one of his bodyguards. The guard said he killed Taseer because the Governor had voiced opposition to the blasphemy law when he came to the defense of a Christian woman who had been sentenced to death for allegedly insulting the Prophet Muhammad. Taseer had also recently spoken out about “illiterate clerics” who had issued the fatwa religious decrees resulting in assassination of the two Bhuttos. There were demonstrations calling the guard a hero for carrying out the assassination of a man who was defending a blasphemer, and other demonstrations mourning the loss of the Governor who had advocated moderate reforms.

The NY Times reported there are tens of thousands of Pakistanis working in their nuclear weapons programs, and part of their efforts involve building reactors to make a new generation of plutonium weapons. (You can see Pakistan join the nuclear club toward the end of the 15 minute “Video of Nuclear Detonations 1845-1998” available in the December 2010 archive on this site. India exploded its first bomb in 1974 and Pakistan’s was in 1998.) Pakistan countered criticism of their expanding nuclear programs with reports emphasizing their belief they are following “…a responsible policy of maintaining credible minimum deterrence…”

There are reports that the United States has provided hundreds of millions to Pakistan to secure their nuclear materials and weapons. However, it is difficult to imagine the possible futility of those expenditures and the consequences if Pakistan would fall to a government friendly to Iran.

Which President Authorized Wiretaps?

Posted on by

George W. Bush faced a storm of criticism and threats of impeachment because he authorized the National Security Agency to use warrantless wiretaps on foreign enemies, but those enemies were communicating with U.S. citizens. Regardless of your position on his actions, his name isn’t the only possible correct answer. The question posed in the title is a trick, because it should say “Which President didn’t authorize wiretaps?” The Time Magazine archives contain several articles on the matter. An article dated May 10, 1976 says there had been six Presidents beginning with FDR who had taken the liberty to authorize wiretaps on suspected “subversives.” I think they missed one, because Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon are mentioned. I’ve found references that Eisenhower was receiving reports from the FBI providing him intelligence collected on his critics. Perhaps he just left authorization from Truman in place. Ford authorized warrantless wiretaps,  so that makes it seven of seven for the time period covered.

Roosevelt’s Attorney General and J.Edgar Hoover had resisted doing wiretaps, but the President overcame their objections with a memo he sent to Attorney General Jackson on May 21, 1940. The book “Roosevelt’s Secret War” says the memo acknowledged the Supreme Court had ruled against the legality of wiretaps. FDR then writes, “I am convinced the Supreme Court never intended any dictum in the particular case which it decided to apply to grave matters involving the defense of the nation.” He then proceeded to authorize wiretaps “of persons suspected of subversive activities.” He did implore that the wiretaps be limited to “…to a minimum and to limit them insofar as possible to aliens”

Not all of the wiretapping was done under the guise of national security. “A squad of FBI men used informants, undercover agents, and bugging to let Lyndon Johnson know what was happening behind the scenes at the 1964 Democratic convention in Atlantic City.” The Nixon administration “…was installing illegal wiretaps and using the Internal Revenue Service to hound its domestic ‘enemies’…”

I haven’t found a President since FDR that didn’t authorize or accept results of warrantless wiretaps “under certain conditions.” President Obama even took the position to maintain the secrecy of the wiretapping authorized by George W. Bush. The thorny issue of how far a President should or can go in infringing on individual rights in the name of national security undoubtedly is not resolved. I’m confident that the Presidents were doing what they thought was necessary to protect the country (except for maybe Johnson and Nixon). However they weren’t listening to Benjamin Franklin’s warning when he said, as listed in Wikiquotes, “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”  We’ll have to guess what his ghost would say about the actions of many Presidents.