Activism and Incompetence: Success and Failure at Rocky Flats Urban History Dr. Christopher Agee Fall 2010“When we discuss Rocky Flats, ...we are discussing a plant which, since 1953, has experienced 2 major fires, a large plutonium contamination of off-site soil, a release of radioactive tritium into the drinking water of Broomfield, and numerous other accidents of which wwe are aware," stated William Schroer of the Colorado Public Interest Research Group (CoPIRG) in April 1975. ' Summing up the problems with Rocky Flats Nuclear Weapons Plant, Schroer's statement struck at the core issue that antinuclear and environmental activists pursued: the closure of the facility. Yet, production at Rocky Flats continued for years after Schroer made this statement and years after activists spent trying to attain the shutdown of the facility. To the nuclear weapons industry, Rocky Flats was essential, making its shutdown an unlikely occurrence, Rocky Flats succeeded in carrying out its mission, which was to machine plutonium for use in nuclear weapons. In this respect, the facility executed its task, providing machined plutonium to other weapons facilities in the American nuclear weapons industry. However, the larger story of Rocky Flats is one that is full of failure on the side of the facility's managers, and of the protesters who challenged the location and mission of Rocky Flats. ‘The Atomic Energy ‘Commission (AEC), Dow Chemical Company, and Rockwell International all played significant roles in the plant management, Dow Chemical and Rockwell served as the two corporate managers throughout most of the plant's existence. The Atomic Energy Commission oversaw the facility for the government's nuclear program until the mid-1970s when the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA) replaced the AEC. On the activist side, the American Friends Service Committee played the largest role in Rocky Flats activism, providing national support to a large number of local organizations, including the Rocky Flat Action Group * «statement of william Schroer, Presented to the Lamm-Wirth Task Force on Rocky Flats, April 15, 1975, Colorado Public interest Research Group," Morey Wolfson Papers. Norlin Library, University of Colorado Boulder. Boulder, Colorado,(RFAG). The RFAG served as the primary opposition to Rocky Flats, networking with a variety of other local activist groups to try fo affect change at Rocky Flats. Both plant management and activists alike ultimately failed in their goals. For the plant management, while they successfully tured out machined plutonium, they failed dramatically in responding to public criticism and did little beyond offering blanket assurances that offered no support of merit. For the activists, failure came in thei inability to shut the plant down, despite their successes in bring greater attention to Rocky Flats. The 1960s and 1970s were a time of dramatic social change in the United States. The story of Rocky Flats drew in three activist organizations that represented elements of the changing social dynamic, the antiwar movement, the antinuclear movement, and the environmental movement. While the roots of all three stretched further back, all three gained greater shape and support throughout this time due to a variety of social conflicts. Despite their growth, all three faced varying degrees of success and failure in their efforts. ‘The antiwar movement, responding to the war in Vietnam, made headlines across the country for its protests and rallies. The civil rights movement in America provided the foundation for the antiwar movement, as groups dedicated to peace and justice mobilized groups of concemed citizens to protest government decisions concerning the escalation of war in Vietnam. The antiwar movement comprised a large base of citizens from all parts of society. This led to a good deal of intemal conflict surrounding which actions. With Vietnam, activists ranged from conservative to radical in tactics, which saw tactics ranging from political lobbying to nonviolent civil disobedience employed in efforts to stop the war. Ultimately, the goverment ended the war. The activists effectively failed to end the war, yet, as historian Mitchell K. Hall notes, "Ultimately, they earned partial victory. The public largely accepted the movement'smessage even as it often rejected the activists themselves. Unable to end the war directly, the ‘movement was strong enough to alarm the government, creating social conditions that limited policy options and made stopping the war possible"? The antiwar movement became strong enough to influence the government and contribute to the end of the war through raising public awareness and forcing the government to address the arguments the movement made. The antiwar movement managed to affect some change, but it still had its shortcomings and failures. As the war neared its end, however, the antiwar protesters looked for a new cause. The nuclear disarmament movement, which existed for years prior to Vietnam, stood as a cause the antiwar protesters could support. Historian Lawrence S. Witiner describes the three reasons that antiwar movement refocused their efforts towards disarmament following the war. The first reason is simply that the primary focus of the antiwar protestors, the Vietnam War, ended, leaving the activists without a target to protest. Second, an increase in U.S.-Soviet tension throughout the 1970s raised concern among many citizens that disarmament was the ideal option to not only stop the arms race, but to contribute to better relations between the two superpowers. Finally, in reassessing their goals, the antiwar activists recognized the arms race stood as a nationally known issue that raised questions around national defense and security. Activist ‘groups already engaged in protests against the growth of the civil and military nuclear industries, provided guidelines for the antiwar protestors to reshape their goals.’ ‘The antinuclear movement took shape in 1954 shortly after Rocky Flats began production. Activists driven by concerns surrounding the development of the hydrogen bomb, nuclear testing programs, and the rapid growth of the defense industry focused on nuclear 2 Mitchell K Hall. “The Vietnam Era Antiwar Movement", OAH ‘Magazine of History, Vol. 18, No. 5. {Oct., 2004). p. 16. http://www jtor-org/stable/25163716 Lawrence A. Wittner. "The Forgotten Years of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1975-78," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 40, no. 4 (July 2003). p. 435. http://w stor.org/stable/3648292 3proliferation as a primary concern. The arms race heated up throughout the 1950s, as both the United States and the Soviet Union continued to develop nuclear weapons and make veiled threats such as the concept of massive retaliation.* Effectively, the antinuclear and antiwar efforts fall under the larger umbrella of peace activists, with each organization focused on stopping violent conflict or stopping the creation of the means for violent conflict. Organizations supporting peace efforts existed for many years prior to the Vietnam War and atomic energy. The American Friends Service Committee (AFSC), a Quaker organization, formed in 1917 to provide a means for conscientious objectors to support the effort without enlisting in the military. The role of the AFSC grew over time and saw the organization participate not only in the peace movement, but in supporting the civil rights movement, providing aid to developing countries, and providing services to minority groups.’ In the Rocky Flats story, the AFSC served as one of the larger national groups that offered its support and resources to the Rocky Flats Action Group (RFAG) and other local peace organizations. The final activist group, the environmental movement, began many years before anyone even conceived of Rocky Flats or atomic weapons. Since the early 1900s when President ‘Theodore Roosevelt and Chief Forester Gifford Pinchot sought to preserve and protect public land in the name of conservation, the environmental movement had taken form. The public, however, generally remained unaware of the growing movement. This changed in 1962 when marine biologist Rachel Carson published Silent Spring, a book credited as the start of the modem environmental movement. Carson's focus on the dangers of DDT, Strontium-90, and other toxic and radioactive materials, Silent Spring contributed to a growing environmental consciousness. In addition, Carson's book brought these issues before politicians. Carson's * Lawrence A. Wittner. Resisting the Bomb: A History of the World Disarmament Movement. United States of ‘America: Stanford University Press, 1997. pp. 3-4 * american Friends Service Committee. "AFSC History," http://afsc.org/afsc-history 4writings contributed to the eventual ban passed on DDT as well as the passage of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.° While the passage of the Environmental Policy Act validated the environmental movement, many historians mark the first Earth Day in 1970 as the start of the environmental movement. Authors Mare Mowrey and Tim Redmond, in Not in Our Backyard: The People and Events That Shaped America's Modern Environmental Movement, credit a 1969 oil spill in Santa Barbara, California as the first event that truly stirred the movement to action. Earth Day, held only a short year later, served as the rallying cry for the public to join an emboldened and outraged environmental movement. The start of environmental movement culminated with over twenty million participants in Earth Day across the country.” ‘The brainchild of Senator Gaylord Nelson of Wisconsin, Earth Day succeeded due to the tireless work of its national coordinator, Denis Hayes. Disillusioned with the antiwar movement, Hayes reached out to Senator Nelson upon hearing of his plans for a national day dedicated to the environment. Named national coordinator, Hayes worked endlessly to ensure the success of the country's largest rally. Yet, despite the turnout, despite the sentiment echoed by citizens and politicians across the country, Hayes was dissatisfied. As Mowrey and Redmond waite, "By almost any standard, it was a huge political success. But Hayes still wasn't happy. It was all so nice, he though, so comfortable. So utterly devoid of any real political action."* All three movements, which came together against Rocky Flats, suffered from the lack of ‘rue political action seen with Earth Day. Despite numerous protests, vigils, publications, and ® Ralph H, Lutts. "Chemical Fallout: Rachel Carson's Silent Spring, Radioactive Fallout, and the Environmental Movement," Environmental Review, Vol. 9, No. 3 (Autumn, 1985), pp. 210-225. http://www jstor.org/stable/3984231 ” Marc Mowrey and Tim Redmond, Not In Our Backyard: The People and Events That Shaped America's Modern Environmental Movement, New York: William Morrow and Company, Inc., 1993. pp. 40-41. * Mowrey. Not in Our Backyard, p, 40.other efforts, Rocky Flats remained open and active until the federal government closed the plant, The Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) raided the plant in June 1989 while investigating reported criminal violations of environmental law. The findings of the raid validated the charges of mismanagement that stemmed back to the early years of the plant's existence under the management of Dow Chemical.’ In 1992, President George H.W. Bush cancelled the production of W-88 warheads for Trident missiles. Rocky Flats sole purpose at the time involved producing the plutonium, triggers for those warheads. With that plan canceled, the role of Rocky Flats changed from nuclear weapons production to environmental restoration and waste management." The government changed the name to the Rocky Flats Environmental Technology Site and spent over ten years performing cleanup on the site. The EPA deemed the remediation of the site completed in 2008, though questions remain around how clean the site really is. Similar to how the Vietnam protesters drew attention the war but failed to exact real change, the Rocky Flats activists, ‘managed to bring the issue to the public consciousness, but failed to force the plant to close. In ‘each case, the goverament made the decision to end the war and to close the factory, regardless of the work of the activists. Rocky Flats opened in 1953 behind a veil of secrecy, with little information provided to the public regarding its mission, Owned by the United States government, overseen by the ‘Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), and managed by the Dow Chemical Company, the announcement of Rocky Flats took the Denver community by surprise. The announcement came ‘on March 23, 1951, and as the Rocky Mountain News reported, "[njews of the plant broke like a ® ryan Abas. "Rocky Flats: A Big Mistake From Day One," Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, December 1989. p. 19. hnttp://books google.com/books?id=8WUAAAAAMBAJilpg=PA18&0t5-ShFasNtZKNE&dq=project%20apples20rocky ‘5420flatsSpg=PAIBHv-onepage&a&f=false ® Colorado Council on Rocky Flats. The Handbook on Rocky Flats. (Boulder: Colorado Council on Rocky Flats, 1993), p22.thunderbolt over the community. There had been no hint the AEC was considering the Denver area for a production facility.""" The AEC quietly acquired the land for the plant after selecting the location due to a variety of factors including climate, relative isolation, living accommodations, transportation, water supply, and favorable winds. ! Rocky Flats initially stood as a symbol for economic growth in the Denver metropolitan area. On the day of the announcement, the Denver Post proclaimed "There's Good News Today: U.S. To Build $45 Million A-Plant Near Denver.""" The Denver Post echoed the rhetoric used by the AEC and Dow Chemical, focusing on the economic boost the nearby facility would provide. Downplaying the significance of processing radioactive materials, the focus on economic growth and employment placed Rocky Flats in a positive light. The initial announcement estimated the plant required approximately two thousand construction workers, and once operational, a staff of ‘one thousand employees to run. Newspaper articles focused on employment and budget ‘numbers, from the initial forty-five million dollar investment required to build the plant to the approximately twenty-eight hundred construction employees who carried out the construction and the fourteen million dollar construction payroll."* Headlines from the early years of Rocky Flats typically focused on the economic boost the facility provided. Denver Post city editor William Haselbush reflected later, "There was joy in the jobs and the money being spent and the (Denyer-area) growth continuing."'* In 1963, the Rocky Mountain News reported that Dow Chemical contributed approximately twenty-six million dollars to the local economy and © Robert. Perkin. “Denver Gets Atom Plant," Rocky Mountain News. March 24, 1951,. p. 1. ® ackand, p. 61. * Denver Post "There's Good News Today: U.S. To Build $45 Million A-Plant Near Denver." March 23, 1951 ** Robert H. Hansen, "Rocky Flats to Run Ahead of Schedule," Denver Post. August 28, 1952, p.. * Katherine Corcoran. "Plant's opening in '50s heralded as start of state's Atomile Age," Denver Post. June 20, 1989, 7employed over twenty-eight hundred people, with estimates that employment numbers would grow by over five hundred in the following eighteen months.'* Some officials and citizens, however, did have concems about Rocky Flats. While the majority of media coverage focused on the economic benefits of Rocky Flats, the facility stood to pose certain problems to local communities. Their concerns were twofold. The first issue focused on the increased likelihood that the Soviets now perceived the Denver metropolitan area as a valuable target. As joumalism professor Len Ackland writes in Making a Real Killing: Rocky Flats and the Nuclear West, when asked about the possibility of Denver as a target, many politicians acknowledged the possibility but generally downplayed the likelihood of such an occurrence." The second concer focused on the impact the influx of workers would have on the surrounding communities. Discussions took place regarding issues related to housing, schools, utilities, and related costs, as leaders remained uncertain of the impact of Rocky Flats on their communities. Yet despite these concerns, the economic possibilities dominated the headlines and stood for the positive development Rocky Flats brought to Colorado. With the Rocky Mountain Arsenal only a short distance away and the 1956 relocation of the North American Aerospace Defense Command to Cheyenne Mountain, Rocky Flats cemented Colorado's role as a significant piece of the American national defense industry."* The AEC and Dow Chemical shrouded Rocky Flats in secrecy from the start. Much like the selection process of the Rocky Flats site occurred in secret; the daily operations of the plant remained unknown to the public. In June 1954, the AEC answered a series of questions submitted by the Rocky Mountain News. While many answers provided some general «Dow Chemical Expense is $26,000,000," Rocky Mountain News. April 10, 1963, p. 68. Len Ackland. Making a Real Kling: Rocky Flats and the Nuclear West, Updated Ed. Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2002, p.62. Ackland, Making a Reat Killing. pp. 62-63; "Boulder Leaders Cheer Atom Plant,” Boulder Daily Camera. March 24, 1951; "Atom Plant Workers to Increase State's Housing Problems,” Rocky Moumtain News. March 25, 1951.p.5. 8information on the secretive facility, others simply referred the reader back to question one, which clearly stated that the mission of Rocky Flats was classified and that "[fJurther information regarding the function of the plant would be of value to unftiendly nations, and cannot be disclosed under security regulations.”"® Hugh Catherwood, the budget director for Denver during this time, later summed up the public's view on the secrecy of the plant, stating, "I don't remember any discussions on the building of that plant. In those days, you saw Reds under the beds. It was considered patriotic not to ask any questions."”° Activist Tom Rauch noted the federal government's use of fear in the early days of the Cold War, stating, "Our nation’s leaders stressed that we were in a battle to death with the Soviet Union. We needed to build up military forces. People were saying, 'Yes, we need this place.’ "”' Secrecy reigned supreme at Rocky Flats, and in the early years, the public accepted this as necessity. ‘The AEC and Dow Chemical maintained a high level of security at the facility, which included numerous layers of fences and armed patrols. The plant required all employees to undergo an extensive background check by the Federal Bureau of Investigation that examined “his loyalty and background for the past fifteen years” in order to receive the required clearance to work for the AEC. Employees had access only to areas relevant to their job in order to ensure they would not know too much about the facility. Additionally, management consistently trained and reminded employees not to speak of their work outside the facility to cnsure that the plant's purpose remained secret. Aside from knowing that the plant handled radioactive materials and did not build bombs, the public remained largely unaware of what the plant actually did.” The Secrecy surrounding the plant remained in place throughout much of Dow Chemical's tenure as © “There's No Atomic Blast Danger at Rocky Flats,” Rocky Mountain News, June 1, 1954 ® katherine Corcoran. "Plant's opening in 50s heralded as start of state's Atomic Age,” Denver Post. une 20, 1989. ® Katherine Corcoran. “Plant's opening in ‘50s heralded as start of state's Atomic Age," Denver Post. une 20, 1989. ™ Don Sterling. "Many Details Disclosed on Rocky Flats A-Plant,” Denver Post, October 12, 1951. p. 20. 9corporate manager, despite growing concems about Rocky Flats that began to appear in the 1960s and expanded dramatically in the 1970s. Accidents were common at Rocky Flats. In the early years, however, the public generally remained unaware of these accidents. The AEC and Dow Chemical maintained the stance that the plant was safe, despite the fact that it processed highly dangerous materials that scientists at the time did not fully understand.” In addition to plutonium, Rocky Flats processed uranium and beryllium, among other radioactive and nonradioactive materials.”* In 1992, an environmental report issued by the environmental consulting firm ChemRisk stated that over the plant's lifespan there had been thousands of small accidents and radioactive material releases, in addition to six ‘major accidents.”* Yet in 1954, neither scientists nor government officials understood the nature of plutonium. Both groups acknowledged the lack of understanding regarding plutonium, yet, the government pressed forward in growing the atomic weapons industry. The Atomic Energy Act of 1946 summed up the lack of understanding surrounding atomic materials, stating, "It is a field in which unknown factors are involved."* As Ackland writes, “Plutonium|'s] characteristics and behavior were not fully understood. Yet weapons scientists and engineers had figured out how to take a few pounds of plutonium metal, make it into a spherelike shape, and detonate it in order to ereate a nuclear explosion capable of killing tens of thousands of human beings at a time.””” The spherelike shape Ackland refers to were the plutonium pits, or "triggers," as they were better known, which were similar in size and shape to a hockey puck, yet significantly more deadly. ® Colorado Council on Rocky Flats. The Handbook on Rocky Flats. p. 12. * Colorado Council on Rocky Flats. The Handbook on Rocky Flats. (Boulder: Colorado Council on Rocky Flats, 1993), p22, ® Colorado Council on Rocky Flats. The Handbook on Rocky Flats. p. 25. * U.S. Congress. Atomic Energy Act of 1946, Public Law 585, 79th Cong, 2d sess., 1946. bhetp://www.osti.gov/atomicenergyact.pdf * Ackland. Making a Real Killing, p, 114. 10Rocky Flats processed plutonium into these triggers, which the facility shipped to another facility for use in nuclear weapons. Plutonium is a pyrophoric metal, meaning that exposure to oxygen can cause it to ignite. ‘While the design of the plant’s equipment sought to prevent contact of plutonium with oxygen, the systems in place at the time still had their flaws, given that scientists were still learning about ‘the metal. Employees used glove boxes filled with nitrogen and armed with oxygen-level alarms to handle the plutonium processing.* A plutonium fire became the first major accident to garner any public attention that started on the night of September 11, 1957 in a glove box and burned upwards through the filter system in Building 771. Rocky Flats firefighters controlled the blaze using water, despite standard procedure dictating the use of carbon dioxide extinguishers. Water, when introduced to plutonium, can result ja an explosion or a criticality, where a nuclear reaction occurs, releasing large amounts of radiation depending on the amount of materials involved, Fortunately for Rocky Flats and the surrounding communities, the efforts of the firefighters succeeded and did hot result in any type of catastrophe. Despite narrowly escaping disaster, the media and public paid little attention to this incident, with few media outlets actually reporting news of the fire, The Rocky Mountain News ran a brief article with the headline “$50,000 Blaze Hits Atom Plant at Rocky Flats” which offered little concrete information about the fire. The AEC said little except a brief assurance that the fire released no radioactive materials "of ‘eonsequence."” A Teport issued in 1970 contradicted this statement, revealing that officials found plutonium ‘samples traced back to the 1957 fire up to eight miles away from the facility. While the AEC and 22 Colorado Council on Rocky Fats. The Handbook on Rocky Fats p. 12. "$50,000 Blaze Hits Atom Plant at Rocky Flats," Rocky Mountain News. September 13, 1957 p46. 1Dow Chemical did not release this information until years later, throughout the 1960s, the public started taking greater notice of the issue of contamination.” Reports of increased employee exposure combined with worries about leaking storage barrels at Rocky Flats led to greater questioning of the safety of Rocky Flats.*" Despite these concems, the turning point in the public's relationship with Rocky Flats came on Mother's Day 1969. In the foothills north of the city, Rocky Flats firefighters and employees averted catastrophe through a combination of skill and luck, Firefighters decided to use water, just as in 1957, despite the potential for a criticality. The strategy worked and after almost twelve hours, officials deemed the fire extinguished.” Rocky Flats and metropolitan Denver again escaped a potential catastrophe. The fire caused an estimated fifty million dollars in damages to the facility and resulted in the shutdown of production for close to a year. The AEC offered assurances that the production shutdown would not affect the American nuclear program, as other facilities remained able to move forward with their production responsibilities.”> While the local news outlets reported the fire, unlike in 1957, the secretive nature of the plant resulted in many questions remaining unanswered. Also unlike 1957, the media did not forget about the Rocky Flats fire, as both local and national press continued to run stories related to the facility. As Ackland notes, the 1969 fire served as a turning point in the public relationship with Rocky Flats.™* Both the media and the publie started to take notice at this point. The failure of the AEC and Dow Chemical to be open with the public contributed to the rise in public interest and protests, as well as the eventual downfall of the plant, * Ackland. Making a Real killing, p. 126. Ackland. Making a Rea! kiling, p. 126. ® ackland. Making a Real Kiling, pp. 152-156. * Year's Delay Possibility Probers Told," Denver Post. June 24, 1969. . 1; James Foster. "Rocky Flats Shutdown is Minimized by AEC," Rocky Mountain News. ne 25, 1968. p.5. * Ackland. Making a Real Killing, p, 159, 12With the AEC and Dow Chemical remaining quiet and issuing blanket assurances about the safety of Rocky Flats, science brought elements of truth behind Rocky Flats into the public eye. Following the 1969 fire, Ed Martell, a nuclear scientist who belonged to the Colorado Committee for Environmental Action, sought answers related to the fire and to how much radiation the plant actually released. Martell also called for an independent study of radiation. releases in the area. Initially rebuffed by Dow Chemical in all respects, Martell tumed to his military connections for answers and received assurance that the AEC was investigating the fire and issuing a report to answer questions. The report, released in December 1969, stated that the fire released no plutonium outside the plant. Martell and other scientists, engaged in their own soil studies surrounding the plant, disagreed, having found traces of plutonium in the area around the plant, Martell found the highest traces of plutonium in the suburbs of Arvada, Broomfield, and Westminster. He also discovered contamination in the Great Wester Reservoi ‘The AEC and Dow Chemical confirmed the findings in Martell's report upon launching their own study to determine Martell's accuracy. Regardless of the confirmation, the AEC denied the plutonium found came from the 1969 fire, Rather, they attributed the material to the 1957 fire and (o leaking toxic waste barrels stored onsite.” This announcement contributed to the growing skepticism towards the competence of Dow Chemical and the AEC, as previous assurances of safety appeared to lose credibility. The Colorado Department of Health sought answers from Dow Chemical explaining why the health department leamed of the release of radioactive ‘materials through the media, and not directly from the plant in a timely fashion. Following these episodes, the first calls to relocate Rocky Flats came from a few independent scientists, but the AEC largely ignored these calls. Since the fires at Rocky Flats were contained and had not ® Ackland. Moking a Rea! Killing, pp. 161-165. * Roger Rapaport. The Great American Bomb Machine, New York: B Dutton & Co, Inc, 1971. pp. 40-49,Proven catastrophic, the government saw no reason to relocate a key part its nuclear weapons production industry.” Scientists led the first calls for action at Rocky Flats. Their early calls for independent studies, improved safety measures, a greater degree of transparency, and the first talk of relocation were just the beginning. While the scientists began the movement against Rocky Flats, the peace and environmental activists took it significantly further. In the battle against Rocky Flats, all three activist groups shared reasons for closing or relocating the plant. For the antinuclear activists, Rocky Flats served as a symbol of the nuclear armament. For the antiwar activists, the end of the Vietnam War enabled them to refocus their efforts on disarmament, For the burgeoning environmental movement, Rocky Flats stood as a perfect symbol for pollution, as reports of contamination in the air, soil, and water started filling the newspapers.°* A variety of individuals made up the activist groups. Local citizens and college students formed the base of the groups, and later expanded to include a variety of nationally known figures including Daniel Ellsberg, the analyst responsible for leaking the Pentagon Papers, and Poet Alan Ginsberg. A 1977 petition against Carter's building of the neutron bomb shows support from nearly every town in the Denver metropolitan area, as well as supporters from Utah, California, and New Jersey, amongst other places, demonstrating a widespread interest in the cause.” The addition of celebrities to the activist groups contributed to growing media interest in the activists’ cause. In the early 1970s, national support was infrequent, allowing the anti-Rocky Flats movement to take shape locally. Groups such as Martell's Colorado Committee for Ackland. Making a Real Killing, pp 164-165. Fred Gillies. "Rocky Flats Scene of Radiation Incidents," The Denver Post, p. 3. Steve Wynkoop. "Cattle's Lungs Hold Plutonium,“ Denver Post. Oevember 5, 1974. ; "Plutonium contamination in area presents high tisk, scientists says," Broomfield Sentinel, June 13, 1974.; Glenn Troelstrup. “Flats Hazards Seen as Greater Threat Than Previosuly Admitted," The Denver Post, June 3, 1977. “Names on neutron bomb petitions circulated at 9/24/77 action,” Morey Wolfson Papers. Norlin Library, University of Colorado Boulder, Boulder, Colorado. 4Environmental Action, the Boulder Workshop in Nonviolence, Citizens Concerned About Radiation Pollution, and Environmental Action of Colorado took the first steps in changing what the plant represented. The tone of the media also changed from the late 1960s into the 1970s as Teports on expansion and economic growth changed into reports of contamination and safety hazards. Dow Chemical and the AEC, after enjoying years of relative quiet in the name of national security, found themselves the focus of growing efforts to shut the plant down. The actions of the early 1970s focused primarily on public education and raising public awareness about the dangers of Rocky Flats. Nationally, the antinuclear movement remained relatively quiet as protestors focused most of their attention on Vietnam. Martell's report provided the activists with facts to bring to citizens to attempt to engage them in activism, In 1972 Judy Danielson, a member of Citizens Concerned About Radiation Pollution (CCARP), went door-to-door at homes near the plant asking residents for a soil sample that would be tested for contamination. CCARP planned to present the samples to that year's Congressional candidates and to ask them to have the soil analyzed. The action garnered some media attention and continued to raise public awareness of the dangers posed by Rocky Flats.” In 1972, the American Friends Service Committee focused on shutting down production of the B-1 nuclear bomber. The AFSC hired Danielson, along with Pam Solo, a fellow activist, to serve as the Denver staff for the organization. Denver, however, did not serve as a home to a contractor involved in the production of the bomber making it difficult to stir interest in the AFSC campaign. They needed a local connection to draw public interest in Denver. Dr. John Cobb, a member of the AFSC, suggested Rocky Flats. In relation to the B-1 bomber, Rocky Flats served as a part of the larger nuclear defense industry. Additionally, Rockwell International, one “ Ackland. Making a Real Killing, p. 169. 15of the contractors involved in production of the B-1, entered bids for the contract to run Rocky Flats. The activists found the local connection they sought." With the support of the AFSC and in conjunction with other environmental and peace groups, Danielson, Solo, and Environmental Action of Colorado coordinator Morey Wolfson formed the Rocky Flats Action Group (RFAG) in 1974. The RFAG comprised many local groups, pulling from the peace, environmental, and antinuclear activists in the area. As Danielson sums up, "We were building a broad movement concerned about Rocky Flats. It included people opposed to nuclear weapons for moral reasons, environmentalists, workers concemed about their own health and also job security, neighbors of the plant concemed about health risks and property values, and social justice advocates who saw how the arms race stole resources from us all.” Under the slogan, "Local Hazard/Global Threat,” the RFAG's activities included education programs, publications, political engagement, and demonstrations and protests. These efforts grew in scope through the 1970s and eventually gained national attention as the public became aware of the dangers that both civilian and military nuclear facilities posed. In the first years of the AFSC’s activities in Denver, Danielson and Solo focused on politicians for support, In the 1974 election, Democrats Richard Lamm and Timothy Wirth ran for governor and Congress respectively, During their campaigns, activist groups and the union at Rocky Flats sought their support in investigating safety concerns around Rocky Flats. Both Lamm and Wirth won their respective clections, and followed through on campaign promises to investigate the plant. Near the end of 1974, the Lamm-Wirth Task Force on Rocky Flats formed to investigate the plant and recommend improvements for its future. interview by kim Grant, tape recording transcript, October 28, 2006. Transcript for Rocky Flats Activists (OH4420) http://www.boulderiibrary.org/oralhistory/ "Judy Danielson, interview by kim Grant, tape recording transcript, October 28, 2006. Transcript for Rocky Flats Activists (OH1441v). http://www.boulderlibrary.org/oralhistory/ 16Prior to the formation of the Lamm-Wirth task force, Rocky Flats began seeing a greater deal of negative press. In 1973 the Colorado Department of Health's announcement that scientists found the radioactive element tritium in Walnut Creck, part of Broomfield's water supply drew more ire from government officials, the media, and citizens alike. Dow Chemical and the AEC previously faced controversy over contaminated soil beginning in 1970 with Broomfield city officials lambasted the Colorado Department of Health for delaying the results of their study and for not allowing the city to inform its residents of the issue.*? The initial announcement from the Colorado Department of Health placed no blame for the contamination on Rocky Flats. Yet an investigation by the AEC determined that the tritium. came from the plant. The Lawrence Livermore laboratory in California accidently shipped plutonium metal contaminated with tritium to Rocky Flats. The AEC and Dow Chemical issued assurances, supported by the findings of the Colorado Department of Health, that the water supply remained safe and that the contamination was minor. Nevertheless, the Broomfield City ‘Council quickly moved forward with plans to alter the city's water supply so Walnut Creek no Jonger fed into the Great Western Reservoir; and sought to charge any costs to the AEC and Dow Chemical."* Broomfield city officials also called for an end to the pollution of Walnut Creek. In a letter sent by the city to its residents on November 13, 1973, the city formally stated their position, saying, "[I]t is the City's position that the release of any levels of tritium or any other radioactive materials from the Rocky Flats plant into our water supply is totally unnecessary and roomfield's water slightly radioactive," Broomfield Camera, September 27, 1973. (no page). “City of Broomfield Letter to Residents, November 13, 1973." Rocky Flats Clippings File. Denver Public Library, Denver, Colorado. “city Council unanimous on Walnut Creek diversion," The Market Place. September 26, 1973. p. 1A. 7unwarranted,"° The letter went on to outline actions planned by the city in regards to the pollution. Despite the urgency placed on the tritium issue, residents of Broomfield generally were accepting of the contamination. Interviews conducted by the Front Range Daily Star found that the majority of residents interviewed showed little to no concem over the tritium contamination.” While city officials showed outrage and took action in response to the tritium announcement, the reaction of residents to the tritium issue reflected an apathy that existed among the majority of citizens in the metropolitan area, Despite the negative press Rocky Flats received and the efforts of activist groups to educate the public, the general response remained quiet. Many homeowners near the plant worried the negative press would drive down home values in the area, rather than worrying about health concerns. Throughout 1973 and 1974, ‘newspapers published headlines related to tritium in the water supply, plutonium in the lungs of cattle, and another study released by Martel raising the issue of a higher cancer rate in the area. Throughout the tritium issue, the AEC and Dow Chemical remained steadfast in their position, offering assurances of safety and failing properly to address the concerns of the public. Officials were originally concerned with a housing shortage once the AEC announced plans for Rocky Flats. Years later, the housing concerns pertained to the safety of nearby residents, the continuous expansion of the suburbs, and property values. Like the tritium issue, housing remained in the news throughout the 197 In September 1978, the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) announced a plan to withhold Federal Housing Authority (FHA) financial assistance to new subdivisions located close to Rocky Flats “"*Giy of Broomfield Letter to Residents, November 13, 1973." Rocky Flats Clippings File, Denver Public Library, Denver, Colorado. 12 Residents accept tritium,” The Front Range Daily Star, Vol. 20, No. 73, September 21, 1973. (no page), “steve Wynkoop. "Cattle's Lungs Hold Plutonium, * Denver Post, Devember 5, 1974. no page); “Plutonium ‘contamination in area presents high risk, scientists says," Broomfield Sentinel, june 13, 1974, (no page). 18due to the potential dangers posed by the facility. Though they later amended this decision to farther investigate the issue, this action by the HUD raised more questions for activist groups. Diane Choate, the Rocky Flats Monitoring Committee (RFMC) project administrator, sought answers in order to educate the populace surrounding the plant. Regardless of the answers, activists remained the primary group calling for change at Rocky Flats. As Choate stated, “Apathy exists, but only because homeowners are worried that a negative report on radiation hazards would send property values plummeting.” While many local residents remained indifferent towards the plant, the activist movement towards Rocky Flats gained speed. Significant change came to Rocky Flats between 1974 and 1975. The AEC opened bids for new contracts to run the plant. Dow Chemical announced it would not enter the process to continue running the plant operations. H. Peter Metzger, a journalist, summed up the overall fecling towards Dow Chemical’s management of the plant in 1972, writing, "If all goes well until June 30, Denver will have survived 24 years of Dow Chemical Company's management of the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant without an atomic disaster. Considering Dow's history at Rocky Flats, that will be remarkable - because Dow has so mismanaged the government-owned half-billion dollar plant that its Colorado operation has become a textbook case on how not to do things. To make matters worse, Dow's management frequently attempted to conceal its mistakes over the years by lying to the public." Public criticism of the plant made headlines following the 1969 fire all the way through Dow Chemical removing itself as the operating corporation. While The AEC also underwent change, as the government divided the agency. The AEC ““ Mark Stevens. “Denver plutonium plant upsetting the neighbors”. Christian Science Monitor. October 27, 1978, po. “H, Peter Metzger. "Rocky Flats: A review of Dow's stewardship," Rocky Mountain News lune 22, 1972. Trends section, p. 2. 19‘became the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), which later turned into the Department of Energy (DOE).*' Prior to realignment, the ABC selected Rockwell Intemational to manage the plant. Rockwell International handled the public relations side of the plant significantly better than Dow Chemical had done. A year after Rockwell took over operations Congressman Timothy Wirth and other government officials praised the plant for the improved level of openness and increased efforts to make the community aware of the operations of the plant. Rockwell International did not try to hide behind claims of national security as Dow Chemical previously had. National security remained of vital interest to the mission of Rocky Flats, but as new plant ‘manager Bob Williams stated, "There is a point where we have to draw a curtain down, but there is so much of this stuff that you can talk about."”” However, a healthy level of skepticism. remained amongst activists and the media, regardless of the openness pledged by Rockwell International. As Todd Malmsbury, a journalist, noted in a July 1976 article, "[A] few staunch critics view Rockwell's amiability as largely irrelevant. Some go farther and flatly state that Rockwell's posture is a ploy to anesthetize the press and public so that criticism of Rocky Flat's ns deadly mission...is largely ignored."* Rockwell International's public relations campaign managed to improve the plant's image. For activist groups, the issue remained that the plant produced parts for nuclear weapons, The Rocky Flats Action Group proved to be leaders in protesting the plant. Comprised of environmental and peace activists, the RFAG staged their first protest at Rocky Flats in 1975, S* ackland. Making a Real Killing, p.176. 2 Bill Jordan. "New Director of Rocky Flats Pledges To increase Openness," Boulder Camera (date/page missing). Todd Malmsbury. "Rockwell Tries to Brighten Rocky Flats' Tarnished Image," Boulder Camera, July 25, 1976, 20with a turnout of twenty-five people. While the early protests at Rocky Flats did not penetrate the national consciousness, they contributed to local public awareness of Rocky Flats and recruited new members, The Lamm-Wirth report, officially released in October 1975, provided more information and political backing for the activists who sought the closure or relocation of the plant. The report called for an investigation to determine if the plant could phase out its suclear mission through relocating those activities, an action called for by earlier groups of scientists. The most telling line in the report stated, "The certainty that such a plant would not today be located at Rocky Flats, as well as our feelings that accidents will continue to occur even under the best of circumstances, dictates our belief that such a plant should not be located at Rocky Flats."** Additional recommendations focused on improving safety measures, creating emergency plans for surrounding communities, and creating an independent monitoring group for the facility, the Rocky Flats Monitoring Committee (RFMC). Designed to continue the mission of the original task force, the RFMC monitored the activities at the plant. Yet, not all considered the REMC to be a success. Pam Solo, of the AFSC and the RFAG, served on the REMC and left meetings feeling "totally numb and sick,"** Solo explained that whenever she pushed the committee to take real action to shut down or repurpose the plant, it refused to engage in such discussion. While the creation of the committee is notable as it stood as the first committee to oversee a nuclear facility, its existence resulted in little change. Between the growth of the RFAG and the results of the Lamm-Wirth report, local citizens took interest in the Rocky Flats issue. While the majority of citizens still displayed * Lawrence A. Wittner. "The Forgotten Years of the World Nuclear Disarmament Movement, 1975-78," Journal of Peace Research, Vol. 40, no. 4 (uly 2003}. p. 435. http://ww.jstor.org/stable/3648292 = "Rocky Flats Should Be Closed," Advertisement, Boulder Camera. Aprit 23, 1978. p. 48 * LeRoy Moore. "Democracy and Public Health at Rocky Flats: The Examples of Edward A. Martell and Carl J, Johnson” The Collaborative initiative for Research Ethics in Environmental Health p. 64. http://wwww.researchethies.org/uploads/paf/Democracy%20and%20Public%20Health%20at%20Rocky%20Flats, pdf 2aindifference towards the plant, more citizens took up the cause. In 1978, Judy Danielson and Pam Solo received permission from the AFSC to stage a large-scale, non-violent, civil disobedience action at the plant. Co-sponsored with the AFSC and the Fellowship of Reconciliation (FOR), the RFAG carried out a number of activities to draw attention to the rally. While Rocky Flats remained a local issue to activists, it became inseparable from the larger global disarmament movement. A flyer for the rally states, "In 1978, Rocky Flats is the place to focus nationwide public demand for an end to all U.S. nuclear power and ‘weapons production."*” In an effort to bridge gaps that formed between peace and environmental activists, simultaneous demonstrations were set for April 29th and 30th at Rocky Flats and a nuclear power plant in Barnwell, SC. The local threat posed by Rocky Flats broke into the national consciousness due to its connections with other nuclear facilities. During this time, the goals of the peace and environmental activists shifted, reflecting the changing nature of the groups. Environmentalists shifted their focus to nuclear power plants. Peace activists remained focused on nuclear weapons and disarmament. The April 1978 demonstration closed that gap and brought enormous media exposure to both causes.’ The same flyer that announced the demonstration referred to 1978 as a "nuclear crossroads for the global community." This was due to the first United Nations Special Session on Disarmament slated to occur later that year. Activists saw an opportunity to engage the public on a much broader level than previously and encouraged the public to join the movement. The flyer also laid out the specific items the activists called on the government to take action on. ‘These include a national initiative moving towards national and global disarmament, the closing of Rocky Flats and © "Nuclear Crossroads’, yer. Kathy Partridge Papers. Norlin Library, University of Colorado Boulder. Boulder, Colorado. E Ackland. Making a Real Kiling, pp 185-56. * Ackland. Making a Reol Killing, p. 185. 22assurances of financial security for its employees, a shift away from defense spending towards ‘humanitarian spending, and investments into alternate nergy to move away from nuclear power.” While the goals presented in the flyer focused on national action, the RFAG concentrated on local efforts, not only to ensure local participation, but also to continue their original plan of ‘educating the local citizens. A full-page ad taken out in the Boulder Camera read in large letters, "ROCKY FLATS SHOULD BE CLOSED." Information followed this proclamation stating that a disaster at the plant would affect air, earth, water, and people. The messaging of the ad focused significantly more on the local aspect without abandoning the fact that national priorities were also at stake. It also included a schedule of events and a list of local business and groups in support of the action." ‘The REAG generally considered the demonstration a success. An estimated 5,000 people went to Rocky Flats in protest of the ongoing mission, significantly more than the initially Predicted 1,000 protesters. Speakers and supporters included Daniel Ellsberg, a former Pentagon analyst; Representative Pat Schroder; Stokely Carmichael, a civil rights leader; and a Japanese delegation that included two survivors from Hiroshima. Of the 5,000 attendees, organizers estimated that 1,000 were from out of state, demonstrating the local interest in Rocky Flats that had grown over the years. The organizers succeeded in drawing local and national attention to Rocky Flats through the rally. Amongst the organizers, however, issues brewed around a proposed blockade of the railroad tracks leading into Rocky Flats. The original blockade proposal called for the act of civil "Nuclear Crossroads", fer, 1978, Kathy Partridge Papers. Norlin Library, University of Colorado Boulder. Boulder, Colorado, Rocky Flats Should Be Closed,” Advertisement, Boulder Camera, April 23, 1978. p. 48. Fred Gilles. "Protesters Will Gather, Ask Closing of Flats Weapons Plant,” Denver Post. April 16, 1978. p. 3. 23disobedience to last overnight. Daniel Ellsberg and other activists decided to extend the blockade however, and one activist went as far as to set up a teepce on the tracks as a symbol of peace. The blockade lasted for the remainder of the year, with over five hundred arrests made. As organizer Judy Danielson explained, their decision to extend the blockade raised concerns that the media focus would change from the issues to the protesters themselves, thus nullifying the effect of the rally. There were other fears that the protesters on the tracks could damage relationships that Danielson and others spent a long time building between plant officials and employees, government officials, and local residents.” It also concerned Danielson and Pam Solo that the protesters on the tracks were not local residents, but students or other individuals who were carrying out the action for the thrill of defiance. Later, Danielson and Solo acknowledged positive benefits to the action on the tracks. The blockade contributed to recruiting a greater number of people into the organization as it stood as action with purpose, preventing trains from moving on the blockaded tracks. ‘The 1978 rally brought Rocky Flats national attention at a time when disarmament and nuclear power both made headlines on a regular basis, Protests continued into the 1980s and grew in number, culminating rally of 30,000 people in Denver on June 9, 1982. Despite the continued efforts of the activists, the desired shutdown of Rocky Flats did not occur until the government mandated the plant close and operations cease. Using means from public education to political lobbying to civil disobedience, the activists failed to be the direct cause of the facility's closure. Rather, it was the failure of the government and the corporate managers to properly design, operate, and maintain the plant that led to its closure. In this respect, the "Judy Danielson, interview by Kim Grant, tape recording transcript, October 28, 2006. Transcript for Rocky Flats Activists (OH1441¥). http://www. boulderlibrary.org/oralhistory/ Ackland, Moking a Reel Kling, p.187. Marcia Klotz A Citizen's Guide to Rocky Flots: Environmental and Safety Issues at the Nuclear Weepons Plant. Boulder, CO: Rocky Mountain Peace Center, 1988. p. 14. 24activists had a hand in the closure, as they brought both media and government attention to the facility. While the federal raid on Rocky Flats investigated environmental lawbreaking at Rocky Flats, activists were unable to gain the government's attention to launch an investigation significantly cartier over similar issues. 25