From: | olah@igc.org |
Date: | Tue, 23 Jul 1996 12:02:58 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | CSWAB RANGE RULE COMMENTS |
From: Laura Olah <olah@speagle.com> Aimee: For distribution. Thanks, Laura. SUMMARY OF COMMENTS on the United States Department of Defense Draft Proposed Military Range Rule prepared by Citizens for Safe Water Around Badger E12629 Weigand's Bay South, Merrimac, Wisconsin 53561 (608)643-3124 Laura Olah, Executive Director JULY 23, 1996 Preface The 1992 Federal Facilities' Compliance Act was passed to ensure oversight of activities at federal facilities comparable to the regulatory oversight of private industry and intended to curtail the catastrophic damage to human health and the environmental caused by the U.S. military. The military is the nation's largest polluter because until now, it has held itself above outside oversight. The environmental legacy of the federal government's mission-oriented activities is felt in communities throughout the country. Environmental cleanup of the 24,000 sites on federal facilities in the United States may ultimately cost as much as $400 billion and will extend well into the next century. By passing the Federal Facilities Compliance Act, Congress sent a clear message that external oversight was essential to protect human health and the environment from further damage and to force compliance with existing waste disposal laws. Proposed Delegation of Authority from EPA to DoD Of critical and foremost concern to community members and tribes is the disastrous and erroneous presumption by the Department of Defense that if the Department promulgates Military Range Rules pursuant to its own statutory authorities, then DoD regulations would subsequently supersede or "sunset" the proposed RCRA regulations (page 4). We challenge the legality of delegation of authority to the DoD, exempting the Department from enforcement actions and compliance with state, local and tribal human health and environmental standards, and further enabling the military to unilaterally dictate federal environmental and human health policy. Moreover, this presumption of power directly contradicts the FFCA as Congress specifically charged the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency with developing a "fair and coherent approach to identifying when military munitions become a hazardous waste". Perpetuation of Damage to Wisconsin's Human and Natural Resources Our community and tribal lands have long suffered the devastating consequences of self-regulation, and the DoD's 15 April 1996 proposed Military Range Rule exemplifies the military's intent to perpetuate the very practices that have poisoned our human environment. The Military Range Rule, for example, proposes continued use of forested, vegetated lands and surface waters as bombing ranges while at the same time openly acknowledging the inability to restore or remediate existing bombing sites -- compromising human health and sustaining irreparable harm to our natural resources. More than 50 percent of Wisconsin's Upper LaCrosse River watershed is occupied by Fort McCoy, a massive 93 square mile training ground for active and reserve military personnel. Shelling by explosives -- including those containing white phosphorus -- has transformed the wetlands surrounding the LaCrosse River into a cratered moonscape. Aerial photos show trout streams and their banks pocked by huge holes left by howitzer shells. Severe erosion of the river's fragile sandy bottom has ruined trout habitat and washed tons of sand downstream off base. In nearby Juneau County, the Air National Guard has targeted over 4,600 acres of a thriving county forest ecosystem for expansion of the Hardwood Bombing Range -- the Guard plans to add more bombing target locations, develop a drop zone and an assault landing strip. Under the proposed Military Range Rule, surface waters and forestlands damaged from range activities will assuredly never be remediated or even stabilized. The proposed Rule maintains: "Since many of the ranges covered by today's rule have not been active for many years, the vegetation and growth often hinders the ability to detect the Military Munitions. Methods to address the problems of dense vegetation, such as deforestation and controlled burns, can cause other environmental problems. Underwater items often are buried by silt or covered by marine growth. In addition, Military Munitions on water ranges can be greatly affect by coastal storm sand tidal actions that can immerse the Military Munitions in a bed of sediments or uncover Military Munitions that were previously embedded in sediments. Furthermore, the depth or condition of a water range may make analysis, much less retrieval, effectively impossible, or may pose an unreasonable risk to the health and safety of range response personnel" (page 17). Toxic, Additive and Carcinogenic Risks not Addressed The proposed rule also disregards the overwhelming evidence that in addition to accumulative damage to ecological receptors, exposure to emissions from the burning or detonating of military munitions poses a deadly and toxic risk to humans. Numerous studies indicate communities near munitions disposal sites have a significantly higher incidence of cancer deaths. The incidence of female non-Hodgkin's lymphoma and male kidney/ureter cancer deaths near Wisconsin's Badger Army Ammunition Plant, for example, are 50% higher than the balance of the State. A significant finding of an epidemiological study of the communities near Massachusetts' Camp Edwards was a dose response relationship between residence proximity to the nearby artillery training area, where propellant bags were burned, and the risk of lung and breast cancer. Emission factors from detonating military munitions include toxic and carcinogenic substances such as carbon monoxide, methane, benzene, 2,4 dinitrotoluene, 2,6 dinitrotoluene, and nitrogen oxides. Dinitrotoluenes (DNT's), a component of propellants and found in nearly all conventional munitions is a powerful carcinogen. According to Overview of the Health Effects of Selected Munitions Chemicals published by the USEPA and the Department of the Army, 2,4-DNT is classified B2 (probable human carcinogen) and may be a carcinogenic activity promoter -- the cancer potency is associated with hepatocellular and mammary glands and there is evidence that 2,6-DNT isomer has both initiation and promotion activity and, the Army concludes, may be a complete carcinogen. Of additional concern are the multiple potential exposure pathways for human exposure including inhalation, soil ingestion, dermal contact, and food ingestion and the increased and additive risks associated with each of these exposure pathways. Non-carcinogenic health risks are increased as well: toxic metals-contaminated ash, disbursed by open burning, exposes soldiers and nearby residents through inhalation, soil ingestion, dermal contact, and food ingestion. Other pollutants including NOx, CO, VOC's and TSP increase and compound risks to human health. Spotting charges in so-called 'dummy' bombs contain toxic substances such as red phosphorus, white phosphorus and titanium tetrachloride. In addition to fire hazards, burning red phosphorus emits toxic fumes of oxides of phosphorus and can react with reducing materials. White phosphorus is dangerously reactive in air and if inhaled can cause photophobia with myosis, dilation of pupils, retinal hemorrhage and congestion of the blood vessels. The chemical toxicity of Depleted Uranium or DU is extensively documented by the U.S. military. According to U.S. Army reports, DU and natural uranium have essentially the same chemical behavior and toxicity. In the same way that lead, chromium and other heavy metals are toxic, DU is chemically toxic and is a significant contributor to human health risk. Once internalized, DU readily migrates throughout the body, concentrating in the bone, kidney and liver and inducing nephrotoxicity, renal failure and other deadly disease. Chronic exposure to DU has been associated with placental transfer leading to low birth rates, chemically-induced teratogenic effects, and skeletal abnormalities in offspring. The proposed rule resists instituting effective range management -- including recording keeping, accountability and oversight -- yet warns of the inherent dangers in unrestrained and undocumented range activities: "... information requirements include the identification of the effects of exposure, i.e. the types of injuries accidental explosion of a military munition can cause (and) the acute, chronic and carcinogenic effects of exposure to other constituents ... available data on the constituents known or suspected of being on the range are critical to developing a health and safety plan for onsite workers" (Pages 49-50). Deficiencies of Military's Proposed Risk Methods One of the most serious deficiencies of conventional risk methods is that they fully ignore the impact of time and of accumulating impact to future generations. Consequently, true risks as measured through time are vastly underestimated. This short-sighted approach provides no accountability or commitment to steward current lands and resources for the future. Risks to cultures and cultural values are just as real as risks to human health and the environment. This is especially true for American Indian and Indigenous communities, whose very culture, lifestyles, and identity depend on a clean, healthy environment whose integrity has not been violated. Within a compliance agreement framework, risk evaluations invariably fail as they do not incorporate the spectrum of information related to affected communities. The focus tends to be on defining how much pollution or how little cleanup is acceptable, rather than on a more holistic approach of more broadly defining what is truly desirable and achievable. The Range Rule's proposed approach ignores the critical importance of the unspoken values, biases, and judgment process embedded in the community and its culture. A Closed Decision-Making Process Valid public, tribal and regulatory participation, as proposed in the Military Range Rule, is non-existent. A concurrence role described by the Rule is a narrow "opportunity to review and comment on final decision documents" which affords no authority, no participatory power and no appeals process to affected tribes and stakeholders. The proposed Range Rule suggests the DoD will further be allowed to edit, delete, control or even ignore public, tribal and regulatory concerns: "Following the comment period, DoD will develop written responses to significant comments received during the comment period, (DoD will) consider any issues brought out be these comments, and (DoD) will prepare a formal decision document and all supporting information will become part of the Administrative Record for the Military Range, and DoD will mail a copy of the decision document to all appropriate government agencies and the current Property Owner" (page 47). Public and Government Agency Involvement is completely non-participatory -- reduced to "ask(ing) questions and receiv(ing) information on notice of completed, ongoing, and planned activities" (page 51). Disregard for Environmental Justice Principles The most insidious aspect of this rule is its complete disregard for environmental justice principles. The proposed Military Munitions Rule will place, without question, a definitive and extraordinary risk to the human environment by disabling and disempowering community and tribal members in decisions that will most assuredly and disproportionately damage their health, their well-being and their environment. Moreover, virtually all response actions in the proposed Military Munitions Rule are triggered by risk as defined by the military, compounding existing health and environmental risks to the very communities we should be protecting. Communities and tribes, particularly those that are not well organized, will be placed at greatest risk as this rule denies them protection afforded by regulatory compliance, denies a legal appeals process, denies comparable access to information and denies participation in the decision-making process. In fact we assert the Military Munitions Rule effectively targets the very communities intended to benefit by President Clinton's 1994 Environmental Justice Executive Order and is in every respect an injustice to ourselves and the generations to come. | |
Prev by Date: TX AG RESPONSE TO 346 AMMEND -Reply Next by Date: Broken Arrow cover up in UK (31kB) | |
Prev by Thread: Clinton and CW destruction Next by Thread: Broken Arrow cover up in UK (31kB) |