Our tribal challenge to SFAAP FOSET issued 23 July 1999.

[hdqrs@worldnet.att.net]

United Tribe of Shawnee Indians
P.O. Box 505
De Soto, Kansas 66018-0505
913.583.3236
http://home.att.net/~hdqrs
hdqrs@worldnet.att.net

August 6, 1999

Mr. Thomas G. Stutz
Commander's Representative
Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant
P.O. Box 640
De Soto, Kansas 66018-0640

Advance copy by e-mail with copy to others:

The purpose of this letter is to:

1.  "Challenge" the SFAAP "Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact"
(FOSET) issued 23 July, 1999, by Mr. Thomas G. Stutz; and 


2.  Provide our tribal recommendation for a mandate on environmental
restoration of SFAAP to be contained in the final FOSET; and


3.  Establish the United Tribe of Shawnee Indians record of challenge to
the SFAAP "Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact" (FOSET) issued 23
July 1999, by Mr. Thomas G. Stutz; and


4.  Confirm our previous demand for an environmental impact statement
(EIS).

"CHALLENGE WITH JUSTIFICATION COMMENTS & QUESTIONS"

THE PROPOSED SUNFLOWER FOSET LEAVES OUT ESSENTIAL INFORMATION


The Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer (FOSET) for the 9,000 plus
acre Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant, (SFAAP) located with the bounds of
the United Tribe of Shawnee Indians 1825, 1831 and 1854 treaty
reservation makes a mockery of the public participation provisions of the
early transfer law.


Additionally the "Early Transfer" of SFAAP allows the total SFAAP site to
be transferred in a dirty (Contaminated) condition, without any
environmental restoration.


The proposed FOSET for the Sunflower Army Ammunition Plant (SFAAP)
released by the Commanders Representative of the United States Army
leaves out information that any member of the public, Indian or
non-Indian, would require to constructively comment on the proposed early
(Prior to Cleanup) transfer.


The FOSET says, "the ongoing environmental investigation and remediation
of hazardous substances on the property after the transfer will be
accomplished by ... Oz Entertainment Company (OEC)," which plans to
develop a theme park over much of the Plant's 9,000-plus acres. 


However, nothing in the FOSET attests to the capability or financial
capacity of Oz Entertainment to complete the cleanup - a necessity for
any early transfer where the transferee assumes responsibility for
remediation. For many months state and federal agencies have said that
they, Oz, and private insurance companies are working on agreements
establishing Oz's responsibility. But the public has not had the
opportunity to see any such documents.


QUESTION 1. 


Where are such documents and agreements establishing Oz's responsibility
for the total cleanup of SFAAP?


Many times the FOSET refers to a "proposed Consent Order between KDHE
[Kansas Department of Health and Environment] and Oz Entertainment
Company (OEC), which has not been completed or agreed to by the
respective parties.  It is anticipated that the Consent Order between
KDHE and Oz Entertainment Company (OEC) will be obtained and provided as
a separate enclosure to or along with this FOSET prior to the Final FOSET
being signed and submitted to the Governor for approval."   When the
"proposed Consent Order between KDHE [Kansas Department of Health and
Environment] and Oz Entertainment Company (OEC) is complete additional
time will be needed for public comment.


The FOSET contains no description of the cleanup standards or strategies
Oz will be required to follow if it takes control of the property. This
consent order is not an ancillary document. It's the heart of the issue -
the official cleanup plan. Without the opportunity to review the cleanup
plan, members of the local community have no way to determine whether the
early transfer will expose them or theme park visitors and workers to
unacceptably high levels of toxic contamination.


The health and environmental risks at Sunflower aren't just an abstract
possibility. Even before redevelopment and public access were proposed,
Sunflower's high level of contamination qualified the facility for the
"Superfund" National Priorities List, but regulators deferred the
listing. Instead, cleanup is proceeding under the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA).


QUESTION 2.


We would ask of the Department of Defense/United States Army, are you
willing to expose the children of this Great Country to "toxic
contamination" by the Early transfer process that allows the state to
issue junk star bonds based on blue sky that Oz can become a reality and
proceed with the environmental restoration/cleanup of SFAAP, mandated
cleanup and at the same time allow the cleanup standards to be controlled
by the state?  Noting that SFAAP hazardous, NPL, 50 rating, qualifies
SFAAP as a Super Fund Site.


According to the FOSET:


"There are Fifty-Two (52) Solid Waste Management Units (SWMUs) currently
identified in the 1993 RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) at SFAAP.  Two
(2) additional SWMUs have been identified since the 1993 RFI.  Two (2)
SWMUs have been remediated.  This leaves a total of Fifty-two (52) active
SWMUs currently at SFAAP.  The current status of the Fifty-two (52) SWMUs
to date show, 11 SWMUs requiring additional sampling to fill data gaps
prior to remedy selection; 6 SWMUs which can proceed to closure
documentation for No Further Action (NFA); 33 SWMUs that require remedial
design and remedial action; and 2 SWMUs that require Long Term Monitoring
(LTM). 


The Fifty-two SWMUs different site types include: 


5 Landfills

4 Lagoons

6 Ponds

6 Disposal Areas

5 Ditches

10 Production Areas

16 Miscellaneous"


A FOSET enclosure describing each of the SWMUs not only makes it clear
that the FOSET documents don't have the answers, but that the Army and
its regulators are in the early stages of the remediation process for a
good portion of the property.  


Most of the descriptions were developed before the Army's closure
decision, on the assumption that the property would remain in industrial
use. Without a clear idea what is required to clean up the plant, it is
difficult, if not impossible, for those affected most to evaluate the
proposal to turn the plant and the cleanup program over to Oz.


QUESTION 3.


Will the Department of Defense/United States Army, only require Oz to
cleanup the SFAAP property to "Industrial Standards"?   Does the State of
Kansas have for publication their Industrial Standards?  If so have them
published with the FOSET!


The following are excerpts from the descriptions of five SWMUs, from the
draft FOSET enclosure. They illustrate both the seriousness of the
contamination and the need for additional study.


B POND AND SLUDGE DISPOSAL AREA


The Draft RFI report indicates that manganese in the groundwater is
associated with noncarcinogenic risk due to potential residential
exposure.  There is the potential for carcinogenic risk due to
nitroglycerin in groundwater.  The groundwater at the site is not
currently used as a drinking water source and is unlikely to be used as
such in the future; therefor, no remedial action for groundwater is
recommended.  The risk assessment indicated that beryllium in the sludge
poses cumulative carcinogenic risk to commercial/industrial workers. 


The risk assessment indicated that potential risk exists through exposure
to Kill Creek surface water by recreational receptors.  Dieldrin is the
primary contributor due to ingestion of fish. It is recommended that the
ponds be closed.


OLD/NEW SANITARY LANDFILLS 


The Draft RFI report states that the primary concerns at SWMUs 18/19 are
the constituents detected in groundwater (sulfide; is-1,
3-dichloropropane, ammonia nitrogen) and dioxins/furans in the shallow
soil.  The risk assessment indicates that the contaminated groundwater at
the site poses potential carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks to
residential receptors through ingestion of groundwater and inhalation of
organic constituents from groundwater.  Institutional controls to provide
an access restriction to the site and a groundwater-monitoring program to
determine the need for future action is recommended. 


CONTAMINATED MATERIALS BURNING GROUND


Burning Ground consists of approximately four acres located in the west
central portion of SFAAP.  The site has been in use since 1943 to
decontaminate scrap metal and to burn other combustible material that

has been contaminated with explosives or propellants.  Prior to 1970,
burning of contaminated materials occurred in two open trenches which
were approximately 15 feet deep.  However, in about 1970, two unlined 30
x 300-foot pads were installed where the trenches were located.  The pads
are separated by an earth berm and are still in use.  Contaminated
material accumulates at the site until the pad is full, which generally
takes approximately one to two months.  Burning is initiated using diesel
fuel, waste oils, and scrap wood (including telephone poles).  After a
burn, metal items are collected for salvage.  SFAAP randomly samples the
remainder of the residue for EP toxicity metals, and upon negative
results disposes the ash in the sanitary landfill.  After one pad is
burned, the other pad begins receiving materials for the next burn. 
During a site visit in 1990, burn areas were observed away from the main
burn pads.

Also located on the site is an open top tank, approximately eight feet in
diameter, which was used to burn waste solvent.  Adjacent to the tank is
an elevated platform, which appeared to have been used as an unloading
dock for liquids to be emptied into the tank.  At the time of a 1992 site
visit the tank appeared to contain water.


Ground water and surface water runoff from the burn area flow northwest
to Captain Creek or the adjacent Oxbow Lake.  Waste Generated -
Combustibles, solvents, explosive and propellant residues, and metals
were handled at this location. ...The draft RFI report recommends further
sampling to better define extent of contamination...


PASTE AREA HALF TANKS AND SETTLING PONDS


According to the Survey, the lagoons were abandoned and in disrepair. As
a result, unidentified quantities of NC [nitrocellulose] and NG
[nitroglycerin] were known to be in and around the lagoons.  Drilling was
not recommended in the area because lagoon sediment samples were
demonstrated to constitute a reactivity/ignitability hazard in analysis
at the SFAAP laboratory.


Reportedly, overflowing of the metal flumes and half tanks most likely
occurred.  There was no secondary containment.  Due to overgrowth, the
location of the remaining Half Tanks and of the Ponds is not clear.


Waste Generated - The material collected in the Half Tanks consisted of
partially colloided and colloided propellant solids containing lead
salts.  Releases to the Settling Pond included lead salts, NC, NG and

uncolloided propellant.  The pond sediments were also thought to contain
plasticizer (2-NPDA), wax and possibly some carbon black.  The propellant
N5 is a colloided form of the paste. 


Recommendations from Draft RFI Report - None to date.


CALCIUM CARBIDE DISPOSAL AREA


An evaporation pond was reported to be located in the southwest portion
of the landfill.  White and black stains were observed along the edges of
the pond during site visits in 1989 and 1990. 


There is some concern that the surface water runoff from this site drains
to Pyott's Pond via the South Acid Area Drainage Ditch discussed in the
previous section .


Waste Generated - The calcium cyanamide landfilled at this site may
contain calcium carbonate, calcium cyanamide, ammonium, nitrate, sulfate,
guanidine nitrate (GN), and metals.  Byproducts which can be

expected are carbide, cyanide, ammonia, and nitrates.  


Recommendations from Draft RFI Report - The draft RFI report recommends
further investigation to assess the potential for off-site migration of
contaminants.


Department of Defense Guidance requirements:


In April, 1998, the Defense Department issued a guidance defining the
procedures for the early transfer of military properties. The Army, as
responsible party at SFAAP, is required to submit supporting documents
with their Finding of Suitability for Early Transfer (FOSET).  


QUESTION 4.


Why were the supporting documents were not issued with the FOSET?


The FOSET should demonstrate that the Army must ensured that the
transferee - the state of Kansas or private parties to which it in turn
passes responsibility - have "the financial and technical capabilities
for performing the required remedial actions." It should also "require
the transferee to provide a surety bond, insurance, or other financial
instrument to ensure that cleanup will be completed, without cost to the
United States, if the transferee fails to do so."


RECOMENDATION:


Mandate in the FONSET that the state of Kansas/Oz shall provide a surety
bond, insurance, or other financial instrument, to ensure that the
environmental restoration (EPA Industrial Standards) of SFAAP, shall be
completed, within five (5) years, without cost to the United States from
date of the SFAAP transfer to the state of Kansas.


In additions to the above, the United Tribe of Shawnee Indians hereby
incorporate our previous challenge submitted on the GSA proposed draft
EA.  Subject challenge was submitted to Ms. Donna Meyer U. S. General
Services Administration, dated March 8, 1999, hereby attached.  Subject
challenge can also be located and viewed at:
http://home.att.net/~hdqrs/ea.htm


Thank you for the opportunity to establish our tribal challenge to the
"The Proposed Finding of No Significant Impact" (FOSET) issued 23 July
1999, by Mr. Thomas G. Stutz and provide our comments and
recommendations.


Sincerely,


            /S/

Jimmie D. Oyler, Principal Chief

United Tribe of Shawnee Indians