Once Welcomed, Colorado Arms Plant Now Is an Unwanted Neighbor

When the Red Scare, the Cold War and the arms race were on in the 1950s, residents here enthusiastically embraced the idea of a defense program coming to a rocky expanse east of the Flatiron Mountains in Colorado.

It was there, between the towns of Golden and Boulder, that the government built a nuclear weapons plant, and residents saw security and opportunity in the news, not danger.

It’s a different story now.

The Rocky Flats plant, which makes weapons components from plutonium, has become the target of safety and environmental concerns over the years. There have been fires, lawsuit settlements and studies showing higher cancer rates and plutonium contamination.

Potential Danger

Suburbs have stretched out toward plant gates over the years, bringing the population closer to potential danger.

And even though the plant has grown to a $500-million-a-year operation affecting 20,000 jobs, some residents wish the facility, once so warmly welcomed, would just go away.

“The people who live near and who work inside these facilities have the right to be free of fear,” said U.S. Rep. David Skaggs, a Democrat whose district includes Rocky Flats.

Rocky Flats is an example of the dilemma faced along America’s Nuclear Highway, Interstate 25. With the work on nuclear weapons and even “Star Wars’ research come not only jobs and growth, but also danger and health hazards.

The plant spawned its own boom. A planned community, Broomfield, sprouted in nearby fields. Superhighways like I-25 and U.S. 36--the Denver-Boulder Turnpike--were under construction nearby, and the plant’s responsibilities grew along with the nation’s nuclear arsenal.

Toxic Cloud Unleashed

Even accidents like a 1957 fire that blew through more than 600 air purifying filters to release a plutonium-laced cloud of smoke did not cause much concern, only worry that the plant’s work might be interrupted.

A 1969 fire did millions of dollars in damage, but again the reports stressed the potential production delay. A fireman exposed to plutonium was interviewed several days after the blaze and was reported doing fine.

But concern about plant safety did grow, and plant officials began regular briefings with municipal and government officials. They also upgraded the plant to keep plutonium, which ignites when exposed to air, in an inert atmosphere to prevent fire.

A series of studies by Carl Johnson, then director of the Jefferson County Health Department, showed plutonium contamination on land and water downwind from Rocky Flats, a higher incidence of cancer than average in the region and serious problems with contaminated land and water from the residue of the plutonium processing at Rocky Flats.

Rebutted Findings

The operation, originally under Dow Chemical but now run by Rockwell International under contract to the Department of Energy, rebutted Johnson’s findings, but people began to worry about their neighbor.

As the 1980s arrived, with homes built close enough for homeowners to stand in their back yards and see the rows of prison-type yard lights illuminating Rocky Flats at night, the demand for scrutiny and oversight of the plant grew to a clamor.

In a precedent-setting decision in 1986, Rockwell and energy department agreed that the Colorado Department of Health could review and regulate hazardous wastes at the plant.

At the same time, work-related lawsuits by former employees began cropping up in court. Two employees won settlements after claiming that prolonged exposure to radioactive materials had caused their cancer.

A lawsuit over traces of radioactive materials in neighboring fields triggered a decade-long battle that ended with a $10-million settlement.

Subhed

Skaggs and U.S. Rep. Patricia Schroeder, a Denver Democrat, have suggested creation of an independent panel to regulate environmental, health and safety concerns.

“DOE wants to say these are the levels (of emissions) that are safe and we don’t have those levels, therefore we are safe,” Schroeder said. “That’s the crux of the whole debate. (I’ve) never gotten what I would call independent data.”

Rocky Flats management says it’s working toward that goal.

Rockwell spokesman Pat Etchard said the company welcomes the extra attention. “We can’t release everything for obvious reasons,” he said. “(But) putting things up for public debate usually clears things up and gets issues out front.”

Meanwhile, communities near Rocky Flats are trying to grapple with the dilemma of depending on jobs while fearing the hazards.

Operations Shutdown

Arvada’s compromise was to call for a shutdown of plutonium operations, but to add workers for cleanup duties. Broomfield officials endorsed the plant’s safety efforts after meeting with plant officials.

Because of the long time span estimated needed for a move--20 years--local governments are concerned but not worried about the potential loss of jobs. The required cleanup operations at the site if it were closed would keep workers busy for many years.

But the price tag of a move--put at around $4 billion by Rockwell--is a major obstacle.

Sen. Timothy E. Wirth (D-Colo.), has suggested delaying $380 million in scheduled improvements at Rocky Flats until its future is pinned down.

“We should not be embarking on an expensive program . . . without having a thorough plan for the future of the nuclear weapons complex,” he said.