Why We are Suing the US Navy

by Glen Milner

In March 2001, a coalition of three peace and twoenvironmental groups filed a 60 day notice stating their intent to suethe Navy regarding the Trident II (D-5) missile upgrade at NavalSubmarine Base Bangor. The Navy never responded to our concerns andinstead chose to push ahead with its $6.5 billion upgrade. Our lawsuitwas filed by attorney David Mann, of Bricklin and Gendler, in June2001.

Our environmental suit goes beyond the Navy’s failure to consult withfish and wildlife agencies or to prepare an environmental impactstatement analyzing the impacts of bringing the more powerful TridentD-5 missile to Bangor. We are also challenging the Navy for failing toaddress the environmental impact of an accidental detonation orexplosion involving Trident D-5 missile components.

The D-5 missile weighs 130,000 lbs. compared to 73,000 lbs. for theTrident I (C-4) missile, currently deployed at Bangor. The rocketpropellant alone in the 24 D-5 missiles on one Trident submarine hasthe net explosive weight equal to 3.7 million pounds of TNT. Theenvironmental threat of these conventional explosives, in addition tothe 192 nuclear warheads deployed on each of the Bangor-basedsubmarines, has never been addressed.

On October 26, 2001, we received the first formal response to ourlawsuit from U.S. Attorney Brian C. Kipnis, assigned to the defense ofthe Navy. A Motion for Dismissal was filed with the court, arguing theNavy’s “neither confirm nor deny” policy for nuclear weapons shouldapply to the Endangered Species Act and the National EnvironmentalPolicy Act. The Navy is asking the court to give an internalDepartment of Defense policy standing over federal law. Even thoughthe Bangor base is the last active nuclear weapons depot on the WestCoast and the place of deployment for approximately 1760 nuclearwarheads, the Navy is asking we forget a nuclear environmental threatexists.

Department of Defense Directive 5230.16 explains its “neither confirmnor deny” policy is to enhance the effectiveness of nuclear deterrenceand contribute to the security of nuclear weapons. The same directivegives a predetermined statement to be issued in the case of a nuclearaccident involving the release of radioactive material. The directivestates, “(radioactive) dust poses little risk to health unless takeninto the body by breathing or swallowing, although it is unlikely thatany person would inhale or swallow an amount that would causeillness.” The same directive states that short-term exposure toplutonium outside the body poses “a negligible health risk.”

A potential accident addressed in our lawsuit involves nuclearshipments to and from the Bangor base and during the loading andunloading of Trident D-5 missiles onto the submarines. An accident atthe Explosives Handling Wharf could cause the detonation of explosivepropellant in the D-5 missile and spread plutonium across the PugetSound area.

The Navy has already demonstrated a capacity for disaster at Bangorand at the Explosives Handling Wharf. In February 2000, two weeksbefore the salmon migration period, a containment platform at theExplosives 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 Navycommunications expressed more concern about the media potentiallyfinding out about the accident than about damage to theenvironment.

Our lawsuit maintains the Navy’s strategy of secrecy does little toalleviate the danger involved with Trident weapons components on thebase. A full disclosure of the environmental threat of the Trident D-5missile upgrade is due the public. Until then, work at the base shouldstop.

Glen Milner lives in Seattle and is a member of the Ground ZeroCenter for Nonviolent Action. Please seewww.gzcenter.org.