Why We are Suing the US Navy
by Glen Milner
In March 2001, a coalition of three peace and two
environmental groups filed a 60 day notice stating their intent to sue
the Navy regarding the Trident II (D-5) missile upgrade at Naval
Submarine Base Bangor. The Navy never responded to our concerns and
instead chose to push ahead with its $6.5 billion upgrade. Our lawsuit
was filed by attorney David Mann, of Bricklin and Gendler, in June
2001.
Our environmental suit goes beyond the Navy’s failure to consult with
fish and wildlife agencies or to prepare an environmental impact
statement analyzing the impacts of bringing the more powerful Trident
D-5 missile to Bangor. We are also challenging the Navy for failing to
address the environmental impact of an accidental detonation or
explosion involving Trident D-5 missile components.
The D-5 missile weighs 130,000 lbs. compared to 73,000 lbs. for the
Trident I (C-4) missile, currently deployed at Bangor. The rocket
propellant alone in the 24 D-5 missiles on one Trident submarine has
the net explosive weight equal to 3.7 million pounds of TNT. The
environmental threat of these conventional explosives, in addition to
the 192 nuclear warheads deployed on each of the Bangor-based
submarines, has never been addressed.
On October 26, 2001, we received the first formal response to our
lawsuit from U.S. Attorney Brian C. Kipnis, assigned to the defense of
the Navy. A Motion for Dismissal was filed with the court, arguing the
Navy’s “neither confirm nor deny” policy for nuclear weapons should
apply to the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental
Policy Act. The Navy is asking the court to give an internal
Department of Defense policy standing over federal law. Even though
the Bangor base is the last active nuclear weapons depot on the West
Coast and the place of deployment for approximately 1760 nuclear
warheads, the Navy is asking we forget a nuclear environmental threat
exists.
Department of Defense Directive 5230.16 explains its “neither confirm
nor deny” policy is to enhance the effectiveness of nuclear deterrence
and contribute to the security of nuclear weapons. The same directive
gives a predetermined statement to be issued in the case of a nuclear
accident involving the release of radioactive material. The directive
states, “(radioactive) dust poses little risk to health unless taken
into the body by breathing or swallowing, although it is unlikely that
any person would inhale or swallow an amount that would cause
illness.” The same directive states that short-term exposure to
plutonium outside the body poses “a negligible health risk.”
A potential accident addressed in our lawsuit involves nuclear
shipments to and from the Bangor base and during the loading and
unloading of Trident D-5 missiles onto the submarines. An accident at
the Explosives Handling Wharf could cause the detonation of explosive
propellant in the D-5 missile and spread plutonium across the Puget
Sound area.
The Navy has already demonstrated a capacity for disaster at Bangor
and at the Explosives Handling Wharf. In February 2000, two weeks
before the salmon migration period, a containment platform at the
Explosives Handling Wharf at Bangor collapsed and fell 70 feet,
dumping 6,000 lbs. of toxic waste into Hood Canal. Over 5,000 lbs.
dissipated into endangered salmon habitat. Early internal Navy
communications expressed more concern about the media potentially
finding out about the accident than about damage to the
environment.
Our lawsuit maintains the Navy’s strategy of secrecy does little to
alleviate the danger involved with Trident weapons components on the
base. A full disclosure of the environmental threat of the Trident D-5
missile upgrade is due the public. Until then, work at the base should
stop.
Glen Milner lives in Seattle and is a member of the Ground Zero
Center for Nonviolent Action. Please see
www.gzcenter.org.
|