Roanoke Times
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: SUNDAY, April 8, 1990 TAG: 9004070295
SECTION: MISCELLANEOUS PAGE: A11 EDITION: METRO
SOURCE: San Francisco Chronicle
DATELINE: OAKLAND LENGTH: Medium
Although 168 cities and counties in 26 states have passed mostly symbolic measures declaring themselves "nuclear free," Oakland's law severely restricts the storage and transport of nuclear materials in the city and has far-reaching economic consequences.
"None of the others has been as sweeping as Oakland's," said Michael W. Robinson, a spokesman for the Justice Department.
For instance, the law could force the Navy to cease operations in Oakland within two years and could close a U.S. Department of Energy office in downtown Oakland that oversees weapons research throughout the country.
The first major hearing on the government's lawsuit is scheduled for later this month in U.S. District Court in San Francisco. The suit seeks to overturn Oakland's "Nuclear Free Zone Act" on the grounds that the federal government has exclusive control over nuclear weapons and nuclear energy policies.
Henry Hughes, co-director of the "Alameda County Nuclear Free Zone Coalition," defends the law as "a local health and safety issue."
"It opens up to the light of day something that's always been very hush-hush," he said. "People have a right to know what's going by their front windows."
Nationally, he said, there have been 173 vehicle accidents since 1975 involving shipments of nuclear materials by the Department of Energy. There have been nine in California since 1979.
Oakland City Councilman Wilson Riles Jr. points to the Oct. 17 earthquake as a disturbing example of the law's merit.
"If radioactive materials were moving through the Cypress corridor when it collapsed, we could have had a much larger disaster," Riles said. Forty-two people died in Oakland when a two-tiered section of Interstate 880 collapsed.
Hughes said the law has already had an impact. He claimed that a 21-ton shipment of radioactive material bound for South Korea was rerouted from the Port of Oakland to an East Coast port and through the Panama Canal last December because the government feared a storm of adverse publicity.
The law's supporters note that facilities such as the Lawrence Livermore Laboratory, Alameda Naval Air Station and Oakland Army base make Oakland and its suburbs a hub of U.S. nuclear weapons system.
Although government lawyers would not comment on the case, their suit states that shipments of radioactive materials are regularly transported through Oakland as they move between the Alameda Navy base and Mare Island Naval Shipyard in Vallejo as well as to other locations in California.
The ordinance - approved by 57 percent of Oakland voters in November 1988 - bans the making of nuclear weapons and the storage of radioactive materials in the city. It is much more restrictive than measures in other cities because it prohibits Oakland from doing business with companies that are nuclear weapons contractors. For instance, the city cannot buy Westinghouse light bulbs.
A physicist who does nuclear weapons work for the government in his Oakland home has sued the city, challenging the section of the law that compels him to abandon his livelihood within two years. Under the law, he must file annual reports that describe his classified or top secret work and post a sign in front of his house declaring, "Nuclear Weapons Work Conducted Here."
These requirements "hold [the physicist] up to public ridicule for engaging in a politically . . . disfavored industry," said the suit, which was filed on behalf of five individuals and businesses by the Pacific Legal Foundation in Sacramento.
As the government prepares to battle Oakland in court, the nuclear-free zone movement is proliferating. Voters in Alameda and Marin counties will decide on June 5 whether to adopt a similar law. San Francisco will have a referendum in November.
Alameda County Supervisor Mary King of Oakland, who campaigned against the Oakland ordinance, said she opposes the June 5 ballot measure in her county because "the symbolism is dishonest."
"It presumes that we are safer from nuclear war or nuclear environmental disaster by designating an area a nuclear-free zone," she said. "But we won't be safer if we have the law in Alameda County but not in the next county over. And if we have it in other counties, but not in the rest of the country, how safe are we?"
by CNB