Divine Strake: Size Matters

By Andrew Kishner, www.StopDivineStrake.com

The defense agency that came up with the stupid name Divine Strake and the more
idiotic purpose for the test – to study the blast effects of a nuclear explosion
– may not be as stupid as they seem. Their recently released draft Revised Environmental
Assessment, which is open for public comment through February 7, contends that the
tremendous mushroom sized cloud from Divine Strake, which will rise to 10,000 feet,
won’t be very big at all.

The Defense and Energy Departments have apparently fudged the numbers to make it
appear that the cloud from Divine Strake won’t exceed a threshold that would require
an operating permit from the EPA. The government estimated that Divine Strake’s
emissions of particulate matter measuring 10 microns or less in diameter, which
is considered an air pollutant by the EPA, would total 17.55 tons. That estimate
is ‘unreasonably low’ according to Algirdas Leskys, a data analyst with the Department
of Air Quality and Environmental Management (DAQEM) for Clark County, Nevada. In
his personal comments that he submitted of the government’s Environmental Assessment,
Leskys calculated - using a standard model employed by the DAQEM - that the federal
estimate should be 30 times greater, or 521 tons. Per the Clean Air Act, a single
source of emissions of any one air pollutant exceeding a threshold of 250 tons is
defined as a ‘major source’ of air pollution and requires a Title V operating permit
from the EPA.

Why would the Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which is responsible for Divine
Strake, fudge the numbers? The most likely reason is that it desperately wants
to avoid the harrowing process of obtaining a Title V permit, which would require
a hefty amount of public participation. The EPA actually encourages public participation
during its permitting process; the EPA is the one – not the Defense or Energy Departments
– who would review comments made during a public comment period (that most likely
won’t be announced two days before Christmas). Moreover, the EPA would grant public
hearings if requested: ‘Any person may comment on the permit or request a public
hearing, if one has not been scheduled, during the public comment period.’

Citizens and legislators in Utah, Nevada, Arizona, and Idaho, have been complaining
bitterly that the federal government failed to provide what was promised earlier
in 2006: public hearings. Instead of public hearings, trade show style meetings
were held earlier this month by DTRA in Las Vegas, St. George and Salt Lake City.
Those meetings were nothing more than glorified poster shows and forbid verbal comments
or any public discussion whatsoever– one activist was forced out of the building
when he shouted out to everyone in the room asking if they were against the test.

Instead of complaining about the lack of public hearings to DTRA, who has long exhibited
contempt for the democratic process and any opposition to nuclear testing, we need
to take democracy back into our own hands. We need to demand our right to public
hearings and third-party oversight that is granted to us by law.