Trident: Subs v. the Environment

The navy has had its hands full upgrading its Trident nuclear submarines, a process it began in 2000. First there was a 10-year funding delay, due to the end of the Cold War, for backfitting eight of the subs with larger, heavier, and more powerful Trident II (D5) missiles. Next were the protesters—like those who greeted the Alaska, the first of four Ohio-class subs to be upgraded, as it made its way into Puget Sound Naval Shipyard on April 28, 2000. They are concerned about the billions that will be spent upgrading a fleet that may have to be downgraded by 2007 if the United States continues to comply with START III. (See “$9 Billion For What?,” July/August 2000.)

Now an environmental lawsuit is challenging the deployment of Trident II missiles at the naval submarine base at Bangor, Washington, the 7,000-acre home of the Trident Pacific Fleet. The base borders on Hood Canal, 15 miles west of Seattle, and was used as a navy ammunition depot from the 1940s until it was officially renamed in 1977. It is currently home to eight Trident submarines and is the last active nuclear weapons depot on the West Coast. An estimated 1,600 W76 warheads and 160 warheads for cruise missiles are based at Bangor.

The Trident II missile upgrade radically changes the operation and maintenance of Trident submarines at Bangor. The Trident II missile weighs 130,000 pounds, compared to 73,000 pounds for the Trident I (C4). The larger missile not only forces the navy to backfit the submarines, but also the equipment and facilities where missiles and warheads are assembled and loaded. And this is where the navy has gotten into trouble.

The navy maintains that a 1989 environmental assessment is sufficient for compliance with environmental laws related to its construction projects at Bangor. The service also states that it has dramatically cut back on its plans for Trident II missile support facilities from $248 million in 1989 dollars to $25 million in 2000 dollars. Pacific Life Research Center documents show costs of up to $189 million for construction of facilities for the D5 missile.

The maintenance facility at the Bangor, Washington, submarine base.

In March 2001, a coalition of environmental and peace organizations filed a 60-day notice against the navy for its Trident II upgrade activities. The notice, intended to open a dialogue between plaintiffs and defendants, is required under the Endangered Species Act before a lawsuit is entered in federal court. But the navy never responded, and attorney David Mann filed a lawsuit in June 2001 on behalf of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action, Waste Action Project, Cascadia Wildlands Project, Peace and Justice Alliance, and Washington Physicians for Social Responsibility.

“The navy has a duty to disclose the full impacts of its D5 missile program and to take action to reduce or eliminate threats to salmon and the Puget Sound environment,” said Mann.

According to the suit, the navy failed to consult with fish and wildlife agencies or to prepare an environmental impact statement analyzing the effects of bringing Trident IIs to Bangor. The suit also challenges the navy for failing to address the environmental impact that would result from an accidental detonation or explosion of missile fuel during transportation, storage, handling, loading, or unloading.

The Alaska is guided into an explosives handling wharf at Bangor.

The plaintiffs claim that the navy's moving forward with the Trident II missile upgrade at Bangor violates the Endangered Species Act and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). A successful suit would force the navy to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service and to initiate a review under NEPA. The suit also seeks a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, or permanent injunction halting all Trident II upgrade activities until the navy has complied with NEPA and the Endangered Species Act.

Other issues brought before the court include:

Conventional explosives. The rocket propellant in one Trident II missile has a net explosive weight equal to 155,000 pounds of TNT, compared to 74,500 pounds for the C4 missile. The net explosive weight of the 24 Trident IIs on one submarine is 3.7 million pounds. The navy has not addressed the environmental threat of conventional explosives or deployed nuclear warheads at Bangor.

Rocket propellant. In 1990, a three-scientist group headed by Sidney Drell of Stanford University told the House Committee on Armed Services that the risk for unintended detonation of the propellant in the Trident II missile and the conventional explosives in its W88 and W76 nuclear warheads was greater than previously estimated. At the height of the Cold War, operational safety was compromised for greater range and payload by using a more highly explosive rocket propellant. The design of the Trident II also positions the warheads in a circle around the third stage rocket motor, presenting additional safety problems. An accident could spread plu-tonium from the warheads over a large area.

Salmon. In 2000, the Puget Sound chinook salmon and Hood Canal chum salmon were identified as threatened species under the Endangered Species Act. The shoreline adjacent to the base is part of the designated critical habitat for these species. The navy failed to share its plans with the National Marine Fisheries Service, and the suit asks that work on the waterfront and Bangor's Explosives Handling Wharf be performed outside Hood Canal's March 1 to May 1 salmon migration window.

Dangerous shipments. The backfit to the Trident II missiles will start a new series of shipments of explosive rocket motors both into and out of the Bangor base. The propellant in the Trident I rocket motors leaving the base is more volatile than when the rockets first arrived almost 20 years ago. As a class A explosive propellant, it is the most volatile propellant allowed by law on highways and railways.

Broken promises. Agreements concerning the shipment of Trident components negotiated in the 1970s by former Washington Sen. Warren Magnuson, a Democrat, between the state and the Defense Department allowed the navy to ship Trident components only by rail, at restricted speeds, and with specific rules on monitoring of shipments and notification of Washington state officials for each shipment. These rules are no longer followed.

Abandoned rails. The Energy Department no longer has the ability to transport nuclear warheads by rail to and from the base. The specially built railcars for nuclear weapons, once a focus of large demonstrations across the United States, have been scrapped. The so-called “White Train” brought Trident W76 warheads to Bangor for the last time in February 1985.

The Energy Department announced in April 2000 a plan to begin rebuilding the W76 warheads with new arming, fuzing, and firing systems. This would require that all 1,600 W76 warheads at Bangor be transported— along public highways—to the Pantex plant in Texas, and back again to the base to be reinstalled on submarines beginning in 2005.

Early rulings

On October 25, 2001, Brian C. Kip-nis, an attorney representing the navy, filed a motion for dismissal of issues involving nuclear weapons due to the navy's “neither confirm nor deny policy.” The navy argued that information confirming the existence of nuclear weapons at Bangor is not releasable under the Freedom of Information Act and therefore cannot be addressed in court. Even if the navy admitted that the Trident system was designed to carry and capable of carrying nuclear weapons, the service could not officially acknowledge or discuss their presence.

Plaintiffs argued that numerous Freedom of Information Act responses from the Energy Department and the navy prove the existence of nuclear weapons at the base. Plaintiffs stated the navy's “neither confirm nor deny” policy is an internal operating decision and does not take precedence over the Endangered Species Act or the National Environmental Policy Act.

On January 18, 2002, Judge Franklin Burgess agreed with the navy that the environmental effects of an accident involving nuclear weapons could not be discussed. Burgess ruled with the plaintiffs, however, by ordering the navy to present documentation regarding the “environmental effects of a conventional explosion of a Trident missile or missile components” at the base. Earlier Freedom of Information Act responses to plaintiffs involved in the lawsuit had revealed that no study has ever been made regarding the consequences of a conventional explosion at Bangor.

On February 22, 2002, the navy made a surprise announcement that the Kentucky ana Pennsylvania Trident II submarines based on the East Coast would be moved to Bangor on May 1 and July 1—six months ahead of previous schedules and well before construction of Trident II missile support facilities are expected to be completed.

Then, on April 26, the navy announced in the Bremerton Sun that it had changed its plans again. The two subs would arrive in late fall, after an anticipated ruling in the environmental lawsuit.

Either way, plaintiffs are concerned that missile loading and unloading operations at the explosives-handling wharf will begin sooner than 2003, the date previously declared by the navy. Naval documents released through the Freedom of Information Act show projected missile “handling” at the wharf twice a month for three days each period. This seems to correspond with a three-day missile handling period for each submarine's 112-day patrol cycle.

As a result of the announced advanced deployment of the Kentucky, the navy admitted that loading and unloading operations would be moved up but not before the lawsuit was completed by the end of the summer.

In Kitsap County courts, activists who have demonstrated against the Trident missile system have won the last three cases brought against them. Juries ruled in 1985 that demonstrators blocking the rail shipment of nuclear weapons into the base, and in June 1999 that demonstrators blocking the highway into the base, were obeying international law. A Kitsap County judge in December 1999 ruled that demonstrators were not merely directing or blocking traffic but were instead exercising free speech.

“The lawsuit is our best chance to bring our military in compliance with federal law,” said Brian Watson of Ground Zero. “The environmental health of our region should logically take precedence to the Trident submarine system—one of the last relics of the Cold War.”•