OCR Text |
Show Feedback national defense structure. I cannot, however, in good conscience continue to support sup-port this move without further fur-ther information and guarantees guar-antees concerning the safety of the move. Let me briefly outline some of my concerns. First, I understand that the test now used to sample the am -bient air in the bomb containers con-tainers is much more sensitive sen-sitive than tests conducted previously that discovered earlier leaking bombs. That presents a possibility in my mind that these bombs may have been leaking earlier, but that the test that was done might not have been sensitive enough to identify the previous leakers. Is there any way we can tell when the bombs beean to leak? Can we at least determine whether they began to leak since the last testing was done? Is it possible that other bombs are leaking? The amounts of the leaks are minuscule, but are the leaks significant enough that, had they not been contained in the bomb's protective shell, they could have caused dam age to health or property? Tests have been made that indicate it is highly improbable improb-able that the bomb containers would rupture if they were dropped from a truck. I think it is essential that we make an evaluation as to whether the shipment containers' con-tainers' integrity would be maintained in the event of an emergency crash landing of any one of the airplanes carrying the bombs. It would also be of interest in-terest to me whether the storage containers could sustain accidental jarring as a result of a rough takeoff or landing. For example, due to the deteriorated condition con-dition of the bombs in the containers, if a significant jar were to crack the bombs, will the shipment containers adequately protect the crew flying the planes? This ques -tion becomes significant -when you consider the potential po-tential catastrophe that could result from a flight crew becoming be-coming overcome by this deadly gas. The flight path of the airplanes air-planes used to carry the bombs has been selected to minimize any conceivable danger to any populated area. Understanding that it is very unlikely that one of the(frans -ports will ' experience any trouble, and understanding that even in a crash they be protected in their indi- Dear Mr. Wilson: The President's gas rationing ra-tioning plan has been defeated! de-feated! I voted against the unworkable plan presented to the Senate, but in spite of my efforts it passed on a 38 to 59 vote. Thankfully Thank-fully the House of Representatives Represen-tatives responded to the will of the people and voted the rationing plan down. The energy problems we have now are a direct result of governments Imposed allocation al-location plans, entitlements, and price controls. More government interference in the market place Is not the answer in the short run or in the long run. We must build more refineries re-fineries and distribution lines, as well as develop alternative energy supplies. We are not utilizing our coal resources in this country and Utah tar sands contain more petroleum reserves than are found in Saudi Arabia. Ara-bia. A short run approach to relieve the spot shortages would be to trade Alaska crude oil to Japan for their Mexican and Indonesian oil. There is surplus of crude oil on the west coast because of inadequate refining capacity. There are all kinds of things that can be done to re -lieve the energy shortage. More government bungling in the form of rationing plans is not the answer. I appreciate knowing that we agree on these very critical cri-tical issues, and urge your continuing activity on their behalf. Sincerely, Jake Gam THe Honorable Clifford L. Alexander Secretary of the Army Washington, D.C. 20310 Dear Mr. Secretary: I am writing to request a moratorium on a proposed move of the Weteye nerve gas bombs from the Rocky Mountain Arsenal in Colorado Colo-rado to the Tooele Army Depot De-pot in Utah. The safety of the people of Utah and Colorado Colo-rado is my prime concern. Until I am absolutely certain cer-tain that this transfer can be completed without incident inci-dent and an absolute guarantee guaran-tee of the safety of the citizens citi-zens of these two great Western Wes-tern states, and the personnel person-nel involved in the move, I cannot, in good conscience, support the move of the "bombs. The most recent inspections inspect-ions of the bombs containing the deadly nerve agent GB revealed six additional leaking leak-ing bombs that can be added to the leakers previously discovered. In light of the immediate time table contemplated con-templated by the U. Army for the move, these leakers have given all of the people of Utah great cause for concern. con-cern. As you know, I have been a supporter, and have even defended the proposal to move the bombs because of the persuasive arguments that these weapons constitute consti-tute a significant pat of the vidual casing, I still wonder won-der what we would expect should one of the planes crash and some of its cargo of nerve agent be leaked to the environment? What plans have you made to deal with such an emergency? Assuming Assum-ing an unimaginable worst case of a plane crash with many bomb casing ruptures, how many people would be expected to die in such an emergency on the flight path closest to a populated area? What is the projected final cost of the move estimated at this time? According to the briefing given to the Congressional delegation in Octoberof 1978 all of the leaks to that time had occurred in exactly the same place on each bomb. Is this true of the newly discovered leaks? In October, Octo-ber, it was suggested that -while the whole stockpile is deteriorating, the deterioration deter-ioration Is slow, and the stockpile would be viable for many years, after the move to Tooele. Is this still believed to be true? How many years will the stockpile be viable after the move and how many bombs would be expected to leak each year, and how many are necessary to be considered con-sidered a "deterrent?" Your amended statement at the announcement of the planned June 11 move of the bombs said discovery of more leakers would trigger an immediate reevaluation of the whole plan. What does this reevaluation entail? Has it been done yet, or will It await the completion of testing? test-ing? You should know that I still favor the production of a binary bomb over the transfer of the Weteyes, and as the Weteye proves to be more troublesome at each turn, I wonder whether the binary bomb would not be more economical in the long and short run. Mr. Secretary, I think you can understand the concerns of Utah. While we, as a group support the defense efforts of the United States to the utmost, recent evidence evi-dence has shown that our support of the government cannot be blind support. We asked too few questions about atom bomb testing in Nevada Nev-ada testing which we saw and still see as necessary, and now Utahns are paying a price in damagedhealth, lost loved ones and grief that they should not have to bear. In an effort to prevent such tragedies in the future, I respectfully ask these questions. ques-tions. It is not my intention inten-tion to be unreasonable about the merits of moving these bombs to Utah; but without the guarantees for which I have asked the Weteye bombs will come to Utah only after I have exhausted every means available to me to prevent the move. Sincerely yours, Orrin G. Hatch United States Senator |