Radioactivity was the hot topic at the Capitol today as a panel of lawmakers took testimony about the need for warning signs at a future federal wildlife refuge and park–that will be adjacent to the  notorious former nuclear weapons plant  at Rocky Flats.  The conclusion reached by the 10-member House State Affairs Committee won’t be known until later in the week when the committee will vote on the bill Thursday.

The measure, sponsored by Rep. Wes McKinley, D,-Walsh, is purely about public safety said McKinley, delivered in the form of proposed signage that warns visitors of hazards possibly still lingering at the site–though the hazards have been deemed to be negligible by the EPA.

“Our job today is to determine whether to give informed consent or not,” said McKinley.

The Jefferson County property, which is owned and managed by the federal government, consists of the core area where the plant functioned and a buffer area surrounding the site.  The core area is controlled by the Department of Energy and will not be open to the public, while the buffer area, slated to be the publicly accessible wildlife refuge and park, is controlled by the Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Carl Spreng of the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment spoke in opposition to the additional signage that Mckinley is proposing, saying that warnings already slated for the site by the federal government were the result of extensive collaboration and agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency and the state health department. Spreng also said that despite being the biggest liability that Colorado has ever had, the Rocky Flats cleanup has had a positive effect on the state.

“This has been turned into an environmental plus for the state and the people of Colorado,” said Spreng.

The cleanup of the Rocky Flats Plant began in the early 90’s, becoming the largest federal Superfund site ever, and concluded in 2007 with the goal of transitioning the site into a wildlife refuge and park when federal funds become available for the project.  The projected timeline for it to be open to the public is about 15 years from now.

The discrepancy over the signage that McKinley is proposing hinges on the validity of claims that the site is not as safe as the federal government is saying.   Those who came to testify for the bill said the site is not sufficiently clean for public use, and they questioned the integrity of the cleanup, citing anecdotal evidence they say has been ignored.

John Lipsky, a retired FBI agent who participated in an FBI raid on the Rocky Flats plant in December of 1988, said he came to shed light on the importance of the additional signage in light of what he saw in that raid.

“I came to let you know that there are things that are being withheld,” said Lipsky who claims that radioactive waste from the plant went into the air and water and that a small atomic explosion occurred underground.

McKinley said that in March of 1992 Rockwell International, which contracted with the government and ran the plant, pled guilty to 10 environmental crimes. McKinley referenced a book he wrote about his experience on the grand jury that was formed to look into the Rocky Flats controversy.  McKinley served as foreman of that jury.

Opponents of the additional signage contended that the risk assessments performed by the government are conclusive, that there are no significant safety concerns, and that ongoing monitoring by the Department of Energy continues to support that conclusion.

Assistant city manager Clark Johnson of Arvada said 10 years of informed decision making is being overridden in McKinley’s bill and that the philosophy behind the bill is slightly askew in light of the scrutiny that has been afforded to the cleanup process.

“The majority of the site is so clean it’s ready for future development, which is why it’s being protected from development,” said Johnson. “Talking about what a horrible place this is doesn’t solve problems even if there was a problem.”

Harvey Nichols, a biology professor at the University of Colorado, said he came to support putting in place the additional signage but that he didn’t feel that it is at all a safe place to visit, especially for kids.

Rep. Mark Waller, R-Colorado Springs asked Nichols why he supported the signage if he wouldn’t take his kids there.

“It’s a bit disingenuous to say this bill is acceptable … but don’t ever take your kids there,” said Waller.

Nichols responded.

“If the place is going to be forced open by a federal mandate, then at least we can say ‘watch out’,” said Nichols.

McKinley also noted that Colorado’s state government had the power to put the signs on federal land.

“We do have a right to put up the signs because we have concurrent jurisdiction,” said McKinley.  “If they said no, we’d have one heck of a fight. “