Planned blast at NTS is postponed

Thursday, May 11, 2006 | 7:22 a.m.

The federal government has agreed to delay its scheduled blast of 700 tons of explosive at the Nevada Test Site.

Federal officials confirmed that the detonation, originally scheduled for June 2, would be delayed by at least three weeks to provide time to resolve a legal challenge filed by opponents last month.

The move also gives the federal Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which is planning the explosion as a military test, and the National Nuclear Security Administration, which runs the Test Site northwest of Las Vegas, time to respond to requests for information from Nevada air quality officials, and to schedule the town hall-style meetings in Nevada and Utah requested by congressmen.

Reno attorney Robert Hager said Friday that the government had agreed to the delay. Hager represents the group challenging the blast - including the Winnemucca Indian Colony, "downwinders" affected by above-ground nuclear bomb tests in the 1950s and 1960s and others. The group is asking the federal courts to stop the bomb because of environmental concerns.

Darwin Morgan, a spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration, which prepared a revised environmental assessment requested by the state, said the test blast is delayed, not canceled. He said it will not occur before June 23.

Hager said the postponement shows "the inadequacy of the safety of this project They still don't get it."

Although the blast would be with conventional, non-nuclear explosives, peace activists and nuclear nonproliferation advocates are concerned that it could lead to the development or use of small nuclear weapons for "bunker busting." The test could be used to develop conventional or nuclear weapons to knock out buried structures, according to the Defense Department.

Sharon Hejazi, assistant chief counsel to the National Nuclear Security Administration, said Monday that the government believed that there would be no significant environmental impacts from the test and that the delay was needed only to respond to the legal challenge.