Ordnance Casualties

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

A little more than a year ago, an Army Corps of Engineers contractor
completed a survey of casualties in the United States resulting from
civilian encounters with unexploded ordnance and discarded military
munitions. (Quantitech, Inc., "Development of a Database for
Ordnance-Related Civilian Accidents," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
Huntsville, AL, DACA87-00-D-0048 D.O. #0002, January 31, 2003.

 "Most of the accident data that contributed to the development of the
database came from Archives Search Reports (ASRs) compiled or contracted
by the St. Louis and Rock Island Corps Districts. By June 2002, 1,121
ASRs had been completed out of 2,280 identified OE sites (approximately 50%)."

Quantitech researchers found: "As of June 2002, 1,121 ASRs had been
completed by the Rock Island and St. Louis Districts (see Appendix C for
a complete listing). Although not all sites have ASRs developed to date,
the study nevertheless revealed several important facts. The earliest
documented civilian accident occurred in 1913 at Sabine Pass in Texas.
Including that accident, this study could only identify 38 documented
ordnance related incidents involving civilians among 32 of the 1,121
ordnance sites scattered around the 50 United States, Virgin Islands,
and Puerto Rico, for which ASRs have been completed. There were 102
victims (since several incidents affected more than one individual),
including 38 who died and 64 who were injured. Seventy-five percent of
the victims were children, in the incidents where ages were known. Where
accident dates were known, approximately 61% of the incidents occurred
in the 1940s and 1950s, in the years immediately following site closure.
The causes of these incidents were categorized as to whether or not the
item was picked up (in 92% of the cases it was). The UXO classes
contributing to the largest number of victims were artillery shells
mortar rounds, and fuzes."

Is the report accurate, and if so, what does it mean?

Official knowledge about the number of ordnance-related accidents and
non-injury encounters with ordnance has always been limited by the fact
that no agency routinely collected this information. This study, as well
as a similar survey conducted by U.S. EPA, fills many of the gaps. The
unpublished EPA study, conducted by DPRA Inc. about a year earlier,
listed 67 deaths and 137 serious injuries from 83 explosions. The EPA
survey, however, included accidents caused by ordnance originating on
both former and active facilities, while most of the Army Corps
incidents were caused by ordnance on or from formerly used defense sites only.

It's quite possible that these surveys undercount casualties in the two
or three decades after World War II. But particularly since the
maturation of the Internet as a news source, it's unlikely that agencies
and watchdog groups such as CPEO have missed much. We routinely search
the Net for news of ordnance-related incidents and accidents, and I feel
confident that any serious injury or accident in the U.S. today would
show up immediately in the daily or weekly press.

Considering that tens of millions of domestic land acres are suspected
to contain unexploded ordnance or discarded munitions, these numbers are
surprisingly low. Still, I believe that there is a need for the Defense
Department to more aggressively respond to the ordnance threat.

First, though ordnance encounters have apparently declined since the
1950s and 1960s, they may rise again as the development of housing and
parks in previously remote areas puts many more people in close
proximity to buried munitions, and excavation creates additional
opportunities for direct contact. Even as we learn more about the
release of toxic explosives and propellants into the environment, the
explosive threat remains unabated. Most high explosive retain their
punch indefinitely, and many become more unstable over time.

Second, while the principal goal of munitions response is to prevent
casualties, the public generally considers accidental encounters with
ordnance - like children finding shells in their backyards - to be
unacceptable as well.

Third, measured against the entire U.S. population, the risk of ordnance
casualties to civilians is relatively low. However, unlike many other
environmentally induced injuries and diseases, ordnance casualties can
be traced back to their source: military munitions. That is, after the
fact, the risk is 1 in 1, and people wonder why prudent steps were not
taken to prevent the explosion. 

Finally, the data in these two studies reinforces what explosive
ordnance experts have been saying for years. Most accidents happen when
people tamper with ordnance. This suggests that there should be a
greater emphasis on site security and public education. I don't think
access controls and comic books for kids are a long-term substitute for
removal, but until removal takes place, they are cost-effective
approaches that will protect the public when pursued in a sensible way.

-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CPEO: A DECADE OF SUCCESS.  Your generous support will ensure that our 
important work on military and environmental issues will continue.  
Please consider one of our donation options.  Thank you.
http://www.groundspring.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2086-0|721-0