If you can, please attend and speak out -- about this exorbitant monstrosity being proposed as basic services are being cut to the American people, nuclear weapons programs are being continued in the wake of the Fukushima disaster, their military weapons testing using us and marine life for target practice on the coasts of North America, as well as about these hearings being deliberately poorly publicized!

        We will do our best to film this and get it up on the internet!

        REC

 

 

            Sent: Wed, April 20, 2011 12:47:48 PM

            Subject: Navy in Seattle on April 21, 6 pm to 9 pm. at the Seattle Central Library to promote a second Explosives Handling Wharf

            Hi all,

 

            The Navy is conducting a public comment session for the proposed explosives wharf at Bangor.  Come and bring some questions and see for yourself.

            

            According to the website, at https://www.nbkeis.com/ehw, the Navy will pay for parking.  It would be nice to pack the small room—it seats 70-75 people.

            

            It is at the downtown library and the Navy will validate parking for cars parked in the Library’s garage.  Speakers have 3 minutes to make a public statement but they had a second opportunity to speak on Tuesday because there were so few speakers.   Below is a summary of the first scoping meeting on Tuesday night for me.  Below that is an op-ed that was in the Kitsap Sun.

            

            Peace, and thank you, Glen

            

            6 pm to 9 pm

            Thursday, April 21, 2011

            

            Seattle Central Library*

            Wright-Ketcham Room

            1000 Fourth Ave.

            Seattle, WA 98101

            *

            

            Parking will be validated for attendees’ cars parked in the Library’s garage. The Library is also on bus routes and close to light rail stations.

            

            

            I went to the first Navy scoping meeting on Tuesday in Poulsbo for the proposed second Explosives Handling Wharf.

            

            On Monday, I sent my statement about the incorrect notice in the Federal Register to Christine Stevenson, EIS Project Manager, and a Navy spokesperson for the base.  I spoke with Kristine Reeves, a staff person for Senator Murray, about it on Tuesday evening at the meeting.  She asked for a copy of the statement.  I sent it to her on Wednesday morning.

            

            On Tuesday evening at the meeting, the Navy verbally announced three times that the deadline was May 2 for comments.  It was also incorrectly stated in all of the literature they had.

            

            Only three members of the public and a Kitsap County Commissioner spoke at the meeting.  The three: a resident in Bremerton; a former Navy Captain and attack submarine commanding officer; and an expert on underwater noise, who had worked on underwater naval issues years ago—all spoke strongly against building the second Explosives Handling Wharf.

            

            I was somewhat surprised to find a Navy representative, Mark Roberts, with Strategic Systems Programs of the Navy who seemed willing to talk about the missile program.  He told me that the Navy cannot conduct loading or unloading operations at the two wharves at the same time.  I had always thought that.  He said it was for safety.  I believe it is because it is not allowed by Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board (DDESB) regulations.  According to the regulations, the Navy cannot have missile hatches open on submarines at both wharves at the same time.  Of course this greatly restricts the use of the second EHW.

            

            I am not sure whether maintenance work can happen at one EHW while the other is in use.  If it is not allowed by DDESB regulations, they might be able to get a variance for the work.

            

            Mark Roberts said that they could still bring a submarine into one EHW while loading operations are being conducted at the other EHW.  I am not sure if this is true.   Generally, all activities that are not related to the loading operations are supposed to stay out of the ESQD arc for that activity.  I am not sure whether a submarine crew can be that close to the other EHW while they are loading missiles.

            

            I could not get a good answer from Mark Roberts on the definition of an “operational day.”  He said it is not a time, such as 8 hours or 24 hours.  It is for a planned activity.  He could not tell me whether work for two or more “operational days” could be completed in one calendar day.  I had the impression that it depends on the work, and that it might be possible.

            

            http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2011/apr/15/my-turn-public-needs-to-know-about-navy

            

            Public Needs to Know about Navy Operations

            

            What value is an open government if information is denied when the public needs it the most?  Or when information becomes secret that is embarrassing to an agency or may bring an unfavorable public response to a governmental action?

            

            The U.S. Navy is currently conducting an environmental review for a massive new wharf in Hood Canal, to be used to load Trident nuclear missiles onto submarines.  The current estimate for the proposed four-year project is $782 million.  The Navy acknowledges that it has loaded Trident submarines at the Bangor submarine base for nearly 30 years with just one wharf.  Now, with already reduced numbers of ballistic missile submarines, and much greater reductions in missiles and nuclear warheads in the near future, the Navy wants a second wharf.

            

            The Navy claims it needs the wharf for the so-called Life Extension Program for the Trident D-5 missile.  The Navy has stated that in the future, it will need twice the number of “operational days” to handle its 130,000-pound missiles as it does now.

            

            In its environmental assessment, the Navy stated the 1,250 to 1,500 pilings for the wharf and overwater structure will cause “insignificant” cumulative impacts to Hood Canal.  The Navy notes that some endangered species such as the Puget Sound orca, are occasionally seen in Hood Canal.  The Navy adds that they have not dropped a missile, causing a catastrophic accident in Hood Canal in the past 30 years.

            

            According to the Navy, that is all the public needs to know.  They want the wharf and the rest is just a formality.

            

            For the past two years, the Navy has denied my Freedom of Information Act requests for records explaining the need for the wharf, such as the Navy’s Business Case Analysis and related records.  Making records unavailable for public discussion, the Navy claims to have lost some records after gathering them for processing, and has withheld official determinations by the Navy’s General Counsel.

            

            The Navy does not want the public to know that its proposed $782 million wharf is unnecessary while crucial social services in education, health care, and transportation are being cut for lack of funds.

            

            The Navy does not want the public to know about the explosives hazards involving missiles at the wharf.  One Trident SSBN submarine contains enough rocket propellant to equal 3.7 million pounds of TNT.  The 24 missiles on a submarine now each carry about four nuclear warheads.  Although the risk of a catastrophic accident is small at the base, the risk of an accident increases the more often the missiles are handled.

            

            The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is located at https://www.nbkeis.com/ehw.  Some appendices to the Draft EIS, which would normally provide meaningful information, are completely withheld, such as Appendix A, Purpose and Need;  Appendix B, Alternatives Considered; and Appendix C, Explosives Safety Arcs…”

            

            I first learned to file FOIA requests in 1986 when I discovered that a derailed train near Shelton contained large amounts of high explosives, despite denials from Navy officials.  I have learned that FOIA suits against the Navy are difficult and time consuming.  The case recently decided 8-1 in my favor by the United States Supreme Court, Milner v. Navy, has taken over seven years.  Although the Navy lost, I still do not have the records.

            

            The Navy should tell citizens in the Puget Sound region the truth about its operations instead of hiding behind a veil of secrecy.

            

            The Navy is conducting a public comment session for the proposed wharf at Bangor on April 19 in Poulsbo, April 20 in Chimacum and April 21 in Seattle.  Each session is from 6 to 9 p.m.  Come and bring some questions and see for yourself.

            

            Glen Milner lives in Seattle and is a member of Ground Zero Center for Nonviolent Action in Poulsbo, Washington.  Please see website www.gzcenter.org.