“Oops-dang” radioactive moments at Rocky Flats

Anonymous — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 06:00:00 +0000

“Oops-dang” radioactive moments at Rocky Flats Anonymous (not verified) Wed, 06/01/2011 - 00:00

Paul Danish

People gather near Rocky Flats to protest in this 1980 yearbook photo.

Japan’s nuclear mess brings to mind some local nuclear “oops-dang!” moments at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant south of Boulder.

Following the Dow Chemical Co.’s great plutonium fire of 1969 at Rocky Flats, which set U.S. nuke production back a year, the company announced no plutonium had left the building, despite how bad the fire was.

The late Ed Martel of NCAR was skeptical. A big plume of smoke had been seen, so he collected soil samples between Rocky Flats and Castle Rock.

And sure enough, plutonium showed up 30 miles from the plant. J’accuse!, he said in so many words.

Eventually a strangled voice emanated from the executive bunker at Rocky Flats.

“�� that plutonium — it probably came from the barrels, not the fire,” it said brightly.

“The barrels?” everyone chorused, forgetting about the fire.

Yep, the barrels. When atom bomb parts are being machined, they have to be lubricated to keep the lathes from binding up. The lubricating oil gets contaminated with plutonium shavings.

Rocky Flats’ way of handling the waste oil was to pour it into steel barrels and store them in an open field.

Eventually more than 3,000 barrels of plutonium-laced machine tool oil piled up.

Alas, unlike air traffic controllers, rust never sleeps. Corrosion and leakage ensued. Rocky Flats management sprang into action.

“Hire a couple of guys to pour the oil from leaky barrels into new barrels,” said The Suits.

Problem solved until Martel let Schrödinger’s cat out of the bag, so to speak [reference to a paradox devised by Austrian physicist Erwin Schrödinger].

Several half-lives of deliberation ensued. Eventually it was decided to ship the barrels off to Hanford, Washington, along with a few acre feet of the soil under them. A big asphalt patch was applied to the site. You might say they paved paradise and put up a parking lot.

Meanwhile, Carl Johnson, head of the Jefferson County Health Department, wondered what else might be coming out of Rocky Flats. So he tested the streams flowing off the plant site.

He found tritium, which is radioactive, in Walnut Creek that runs into Broomfield’s reservoir. Tritium is a hydrogen atom with two neutrons in its nucleus. If you happen to be in the atom bomb business, tritium is kind of a multi-purpose secret sauce.

Eventually, someone tested the locals to see if the tritium had worked its way into their bodies.

It had.

The highest levels were found in those who regularly worked out and drank a lot of water. The lowest levels were found among those who hung out in bars and drank a lot of beer. And if that ain’t true, it oughta be.

Japan’s nuclear mess brings to mind some local nuclear “oops-dang!” moments at the Rocky Flats nuclear weapons plant south of Boulder.

Off

Traditional

White

Boulder Should Go Nuclear

Anonymous — Mon, 01 Jun 2009 06:00:00 +0000

Boulder Should Go Nuclear Anonymous (not verified) Mon, 06/01/2009 - 00:00

Paul Danish

Cooling Towers

Like more than 900 cities, Boulder has voluntarily committed to meeting the Kyoto Protocol’s greenhouse gas reduction targets, i.e., cut its emissions 7 percent below 1990 levels or about 25 percent below 2008.

And, like all but two of those cities, it is failing to meet its goals.

Boulder spends more than $850,000 a year trying to get Kyoto compliant and has precious little to show for it. Last year, one city program spent more than $260,000 on things like energy audits, insulation rebates, compact florescent bulb discounts and preaching to the persuaded, which got it a thumping 0.6 percent of the way toward its goal.

Which is why I’ve turned into the local nuclear power nag.

Instead of trying to save the world one light bulb at a time, I think Boulder should invest in a nuclear power plant and solve its part of the climate problem once and for all.

Here’s the case:
According to city estimates, in 2007 Boulder produced 1.9 million metric tons of CO2, 57 percent of it from generating electricity from coal and natural gas. It decreased in 2008, but to be Kyoto compliant the city must cut its annual output by an additional 400,000 tons.

So if Boulder switched to nuclear generated electricity, it would meet its Kyoto target more than two times over. Bang. Problem solved.

But what about nuclear waste (I hear you say)? Do as La Belle, France (which gets 80 percent of its electricity from nukes), does. Recycle it.

But surely Boulder doesn’t need a whole nuclear power plant, I hear you say. It certainly doesn’t. Boulder’s electrical needs currently require about 100 megawatts of generating capacity. A typical state-of-the-art nuclear plant produces about 1,200 to 1,400 megawatts. Which means Boulder should partner with a dozen or so other cities failing to meet their Kyoto goals to build a nuclear plant. (Boulder loves to help other people solve their problems.)

But wouldn’t it take years to get a nuclear power plant up and running? Probably. But all the important stuff Boulder does takes 10 or 20 years.

Planning and building the Pearl Street Mall took 16 years. The idea of building the Boulder Turnpike took shape in the 1930s; it opened in 1952. Boulder started lobbying for �� in 1861. It opened in 1877.

But surely Boulderites would never seriously consider nuclear power, would they?

There’s a city election next November. That would be a good time put the question to the voters as an advisory referendum. The answer might surprise you.

Like more than 900 cities, Boulder has voluntarily committed to meeting the Kyoto Protocol’s greenhouse gas reduction targets. And, like all but two of those cities, it is failing to meet its goals.

Off

Traditional

White