New wharf at Bangor questioned

WASHINGTON – The Cold War ended in 1991. But you might not know it looking at Naval Base Kitsap Bangor.

The base’s eight nuclear submarines typically sail on patrol three times a year for up to 100 days at a stretch, much as they did before the Soviet Union disintegrated.

Three of those submarines might be on alert at any given time, and the entire fleet carries enough nuclear warheads on its Trident missiles to obliterate every major city in Russia and China.

Now the Navy wants a $715 million second munitions wharf to accommodate upgrade work on the missiles. The Pentagon is scheduled to issue its final environmental impact statement early this year, one of the last major hurdles before the four-year construction can begin in July.

The Navy says expanding wharf capacity to load and unload weapons at Bangor is critical to defense readiness. But critics are trying to block it, calling it a costly, unneeded project for a bygone era.

The United States and Russia last year began a new round of whittling down their nuclear arsenals. Last week, the Obama administration released a much-awaited strategic shift in defense priorities, calling for, among other things, both fewer nuclear weapons as well as less reliance on them for national security. And diminished federal budgets have even top Pentagon officials mulling the possibility that the United States eventually may drop one leg of its sea-land-air nuclear stance.

For Tom Rogers of Poulsbo, those are more than enough reasons to scrap plans for the second weapons-handling wharf.

Rogers, a retired Navy captain turned anti-nuclear activist, was one of five dozen people who showed up at a public hearing in April at North Kitsap High School. The meeting was to discuss environmental consequences of building the 152,000-square-foot wharf on Hood Canal. But most of the attendees who spoke instead questioned why one needed to be built at all.

“Why are we doing this? We’re spending a whole lot of taxpayer money on a Cold War relic,” Rogers said in an interview. “All we are doing is making defense contractors rich.”

Rogers, 65, served three decades on attack submarines at Naval Base San Diego. He believes the massive American nuclear stockpile makes little difference to such unstable nuclear states as North Korea or possible would-be player Iran. And it encourages potential enemies such as Russia or China to keep up their own inventory.

“We’re not deterring anyone with those weapons right now,” Rogers said. “This is ridiculous spending.”

The Navy, however, argues the existing 1970s-era munitions wharf is simply inadequate. Over many years, the military will be upgrading the Trident II D5 missiles to extend their service through 2042.

WHARF “CRITICAL”

The Navy estimates it would need 400 days of wharf access a year to remove and reinstall electronics components and perform other work. That’s twice the number of days the existing wharf is currently available due to maintenance work and pile replacements.

Six other Trident submarines are based in the Atlantic in Kings Bay, Ga. Of the total fleet of 14 submarines, 12 are operational at a time.

In March, Adm. Gary Roughead, chief of naval operations, testified in Congress that a second munitions wharf in the Pacific is “critical to nuclear weapons surety and our national security.”

Roughead said the Navy has budgeted $715 million for the wharf. The fiscal 2012 military construction spending bill includes $78 million as the first installment.

Rep. Norm Dicks, D-Belfair, the top Democrat on the House Appropriations Committee, said the Navy made “a very strong case” to justify the project.

Dicks said that compared to their predecessor Trident I C4 missiles, the newer missiles are more complex and handling them takes longer.

“I looked at this very carefully. And I’m aware about the concerns about the necessity,” he said. “I think this is a worthy project.”

Dicks added that the project will create sorely needed jobs. Kitsap County officials, who generally favor the project, also cited the new paychecks from the construction and related mitigation work.

According to the Navy’s estimates, the wharf is expected to create 4,370 direct jobs and 1,970 indirect jobs. The Navy plans to use workers hired through local union halls.

Dicks contends the second wharf is warranted, even though the number of submarines at Bangor likely will shrink in the future. The Navy is looking to replace the current fleet starting in 2029 with a new class of submarines.