CSWAB RANGE RULE COMMENTS

[olah@igc.org]

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.