plans for nuclear subs

fuelling, refitting, communica- tion and training. Corbett put the final bill at about $16 bil- lion.

Thus, according to many observers, the government is pursuing a Rolls Royce option, when a Volkswagen would do the job.

“We don’t feel that the nu- clear powered submarines are vital for the naval missions Canada performs,” says Dan Hayward, a research assistant at Ottawa's Center for Arms Con- trol and Disarmament, a think- tank which sees strong armed forces and arms control as com- plimentary.

‘Noting that the subs’ pri- mary role would be in the Atlantic and Pacific, Hayward would replace them with a com- bination of surface ships, diesel electric subs, aircraft and sonar devices in Arctic channels, at about one half DND's esti- mated cost.

Within the government it-

self, there is opposition to the |

_ subs from the federal trea- sury board, which reportedly

spring, worried about the fleet’s deluxe price as the national debt slides toward $300 billion, with yearly interest payments of about $1000 for every Cana- dian.

Costs also concern Doug Ross, a political scientist at the University of British Columbia and a long time advocate of in- creasing Canada’s defence bud- get to secure coastal waters and Canadian airspace.

Until 1986, when Beatty became defence minister, the navy was expecting a fleet of conventionally powered subs.

But now, some Ottawa ob- servers think Beatty is staking his political career on the nu- clear version, in a move calcu- lated to alleviate public fears about Arctic sovreignty, while showing Conservative leadership on defence issues.

Currently the minister is on a submarine —_—s shopping spree, comparing British Trafal- gar class vessels with the french Rubis design.

But since the final con- tracts will not be signed until late 1989-90, and the Conser- vatives must go to the polls by September 1989, the Canadian public could still cancel Beatty's line of credit.

As with cruise missile test- ing, which the government sup-

ETE LS ES CY SE REY Ea PL MAE DOR ETE ES _ “Some Ottawa observers think Beatty is stak- ing his political career on the nuclear version, in a move calculated to alleviate public fears about Arctic

sovreignty”’

“If we do go down the route of buying those subs, we are going to postpone buying other equipment which is needed ur- gently,” he says.

Although Ross believes the armed forces have suffered 20 years of budgetary neglect, he also believes the government is doing the country a disservice ‘by pursuing the plan without demonstrated support from the public and the opposition par- ‘ties.

With nuclear accidents, the Non-Proliferation Treaty, desta- bilizing strategies and back- breaking costs, Canadians may wonder how the sub fleet got up enough momentum to sail

through the department of na-

odelayed. the .white paper this tional defence in the first place.

ports, and declaring the coun- try a nuclear weapons free zone, which it opposes, the subs’ pur- chase draws a clear line be- tween the government on the one hand and the Liberals and the NDP on the other.

While the next election would appear to be dominated by free trade and questions of economic and cultural survival, there is a good case to be made that the defence policy of a nation sandwiched between the superpowers could affect sur- vival itself. Polls conducted soon after the subs were an- nounced showed about 50 per cent of Canadians supporting

.the purchase, but it seems pos- sible that a better educated public will torpedo the fleet. wf)

\abacly bsesnceietels ele aeons

by James Young

While the federal govern- ment says nuclear-powered sub- marines are worry- free, a re- cent independent report con- cludes several hundred Canadi- ans could die of cancer if a reac- tor accident happened in port.

The report, by University of California biology professor Jackson Davis, says up to 422 people would develop fatal can- cers after an accident in the har- bour at Esquimalt, near Victo- ria, B.C.

The severity of the accident would depend upon wind condi- tions and would expose the pop- ulation to radiation levels 500 to 10,000 times the limit estab- lished by the U.S. Nuclear Reg- ulatory Commission. An addi- tional 422 people could also be- come victims of severe genetic defects.

The report, commissioned by four Canadian peace groups, says these figures are ‘‘conser- vative,” and exclude both im-

; mediate fatalities and those re- ’ sulting from exposures of longer

than four hours. Casualties would be cen-

; tered within five kilometers of

‘the accident.

For this rea- son, Davis recommends the fed-

» eral government rehearse evac-

;

: uation procedures for this zone,

, if it intends to go ahead with the

cet a eeien reepie nie aon:

purchase of 10 to 12 nuclear- powered subs.

The report also cites one accident with a British Trafal- gar class submarine—one of the designs Canada is considering— which leaked 120 liters of con- taminated water into the Irish Sea.

In an article written by jour- nalist David Kaplan for the Cen- ter for Investigative Reporting in San Francisco, critics say that one of Canada’s nuclear- powered subs could turn into a floating Chernobyl or Three Mile Island.

A 1986 survey by the cen- ter revealed 141 accidents on U.S. nuclear- powered ships, 46 of which involved the nuclear power plants. These accidents included flooding, fires, me- chanical breakdowns, sinkings, and collisions with other war- ships, tankers, and “at least one

pahalesnnc vate at aia

This provides a sharp con- trast to the defence white pa- per, which says “after 34 years and more than 3,000 reactor years of operating experience, the U.S. navy has had no nu- clear accidents.”

Although the U.S. navy de- nies the 1963 sinking of the U.S.S. Thresher, a nuclear- powered sub, caused by a re- actor accident, other authorita- tive sources, including Admiral Ralph K. James, dispute this.

They say the disaster was due to the failure of a pipe which sent a stream of pressur- ized seawater onto the nuclear control board, causing the re- actor to shut down, the sub to sink, and the crew members to die.

Other U.S. naval accidents, involving nuclear-powered ves- sels have included:

e the U.S.S. Scorpion, a sub which sank in 1968;

e the U.S.S. Woodrow Wil- son, a sub which experienced a potentially disastrous loss of pressure in the reactor’s cooling system in 1971;

e the U.S.S. sub-tender which discharged ra- dioactive coolant into Apra Har- bour, Guam, in 1975, giving radi- ation levels 50 times higher than the permitted dose.

_As with civilian power plants, the Soviet record is even worse, with the sinking of at least four subs.

Both the CIA and the U.S. Navy report that the world’s first nuclear meltdown at sea occurred aboard the So- wiet icebreaker Lenin in 1966 or 1967. A second meltdown is ru- moured to have happened with a nuclear-powered sub in the Barents Sea in the late 1970s.

The most recent major ac- cident happened in October 1986, when a Soviet Yankee-Il class sub, carrying up to 16 nu- clear missiles, sank in the At- lantic after an explosion and fire.

Proteus, a

At a recent briefing for re- porters, senior Canadian mil- itary officials said there have been only four nuclear accidents aboard the world’s nuclear-

_ powered submarines. r