Editorial: Test is a real bomb

Thursday, Jan. 4, 2007 | 7:02 a.m.

F ederal officials proposing to detonate 700 tons of chemical explosive at the Nevada Test Site are rushing public meetings and sidestepping a formal environmental study in hopes of quickly moving forward with the controversial test.

The test explosion, called Divine Strake, is a joint project of the National Nuclear Security Administration, which manages the Test Site, and the Defense Threat Reduction Agency, which would conduct the blast. The test is part of an effort to develop a bomb capable of destroying heavy underground bunkers used to house military headquarters and weapons stockpiles.

According to a story by the Las Vegas Sun on Wednesday, the ammonium nitrate-fuel oil explosive is the same compound used by Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh, who used 2 1/2 tons of it. The Test Site detonation, by comparison, would use 700 tons, making it Nevada's largest-ever open-air chemical explosion.

A planned June detonation was put on hold after the test drew criticism and concern from state officials in Nevada and Utah, environmentalists, American Indians and advocates for "downwinders" - residents who suffered illnesses as a result of nuclear tests at the Test Site. Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., and then-Nevada Gov. Kenny Guinn were among those who demanded a complete environmental study to make certain that the explosion posed no risks to residents or the environment.

Sun reporter Launce Rake writes that the National Nuclear Security Administration announced on Dec. 22 that an environmental impact study from 1996 is sufficient to determine that the test poses minimal environmental effects. That same day the Defense Threat Reduction Agency announced it would conduct three public meetings - one of which is in Las Vegas on Tuesday - before moving forward.

The National Nuclear Security Administration's claims and the timing of these announcements are absurd. Thousands more people live closer to the Test Site than lived there a decade ago. Nevadans and Utahns deserve better decisions than those based on 10-year-old data. And making these announcements on a Friday, three days before Christmas, when most people's attention is focused elsewhere, makes it abundantly clear that federal officials don't want to adequately assess the risks of this test or field the public's questions. This irresponsible, bullying approach is unacceptable.