The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 1210.005 2006-2008 Print Page ~ of 4 t. from: ~`ouncil Testimony (counciltestimony ~r.co.hawaii.hi.us} To: liawaiicauntycouncil(~,.yahoo.com Date: Tuesday, May 6, ?008 Z:S0:39 PM Sl~bject: FW: Wed May 7 8.34 AM-- Cty Cncl Res G39-48 depleted uranium From: Cory Martha} Harden [mailto:mh@?interpac.net~ sent: Tuesday, May 2oa8 9:5Z AM Ta: Undisclosed-Recipient:; Subject: Wed May 7 8:3U AM-- Cty Cncl Res 539-48 depleted uranium Resolution 639-98 Urging the United States Military to address the Hazards of Depleted Uranium VDU} at PQhakuloa County Environmental Management Committee, 8,39 AM, UVednesday, May 20Q8 comments by Dory Harden, Sierra Club, Maku Loa group, Pty Box 1137 ,Hilo ,Hawaii 9671 848-968-8965, mh interpac.net Thanks to Emily hlaeole far introducing this resolufian, and to other Councilmembers who helped along the way.1 support the resolution. Pohakuloa is gone of the most important places in Hawaiian tradifian and histary,~ ~Fina! S~ry#cer Environmenfa! lmpacf Stafernen#, May 2Q~4, p. 8 ~ 7C~~ Pohakulaa is also home to threatened and endangered species, same found only in Hawaii . Pohakulaa is not a disposal facility for radioacfive and chemical waste. The DU should be removed and taken to a such a facility. I don't know of any organiza~an, other than the military, that is allowed to leave explosive, toxic, and radioactive materials ding out in the open for decades. It only took forty years to forget the DU. if it's not removed, it will be forgotten again sometime in the next four and a half billion years-the half life of DU. And this should be a wake-up call that Pahakulaa may be contaminated with other forgotten dangers. The Army should do a thorough assessment, including a search of classified records, for other sources of dangerous DU and radioactivity. Sa please strengthen the resolution to call far ~c~rdering a complete halt to activifies a# the Pahakulaa Training Area that may disperse depleted uranium and other radioactive hazards, until after thorough assessment and cleanup of all such hazards." It appears the Army doesn't know what's on their ranges. The Army didn't know about the Davy Crockett weapons system. They don't know for sure where all the spotting rounds are. Incomplete records only paint to "likely" areas. And a scientist says their search area may have been too small. "Although no range was s,~eciT~ed for Davy Crockett system use in the available historical documents, the ASR ident'r~ied the M79 grenade launcher range as the range that was fikel~ used based on the location of the debris in the area and the designation as a secure range. while na historical informafion exists upon which to fix the potential firing fan far the Davy Crockett system, _ _~Comm~ ~~n ~ Ref. Tos p1, u~c~' Ref. Dctte httpalus.n~g2.mail.yahoo.com/dcllaunch?.rand=2jOma9s00o~bhc 516120x8 Print Page 2 of 4 field observations indicates severs! likel areas,.. jEmphasis added. DC! Characleriza~ion Repon~, Schofield, A pril 2~0~8, f ~ ~~Lj "Davy Crockett weapons are inexact. Their dispersion about the aiming points greatly exceeds that of 2a mm high velocity bullets. (spotting rounds] A~earch for DU Horn spotting rounds should extend out to 5a meters or more from the point of discovered impact of the Crockett weapons. It is not surprisesthat no DU was found close to Crockett impacts. Halstead hlarrison, Professor Emerifus of Atmospherr`c Scienoet ilniversil~r of VlJashing~ton, commenting on Aprit ZOQB Depleted Uranium Scoping Investigation for ll~akua, Schol'<eld, and Pohakuloa, in Apv7l 27, 208 e-mail to r»e j The Army didn't seem to know there was otd ordnance at Schofietd that "shouid be destroyed". It was found during the search far DU. u~rdnance that was discovered and passed by that should ~ destroyed...4amm grenade HE ...1a5mm HE,..75mm...2.3fin M8A3 Rockets Il~ultiple...lgSmmHE...1~5mm HE... 15517~16gmm.,.3in Stokes Unfazed with Plug in Nose,..75mm~ ]Emphasis added QCI Charactevfzation Report, Schofield, April2U~?8, p. 3-4j The Army didn't seem to know the DU was "fine particulate matter." As you know, chunks of DU are not dangerous, but minute, inhalabie particles are very dangerous. At first the Army said the DU was in the farm of "large metal fragments... flecks and grains and "large particle sizes. They said the large size prevented "migrafion, including by air. But later they said the DU was "fine parficulate". p, 5 ~lve believe that the primary reason for immobilization Hof the DU in Hawai'i~ is due to the large particle size of the uranium and the fact that the uranium primarily exists as la~cr a metal. fragments...Most DUfound inthe Schofield impact area is in the farm of flecks and grains.. p. fi Studies have...shown that the DU fragment size and the en~?iranmental conditions at the ranges in Hawaii [sic] serve to~revent mi ration, including by air... p, ~0 use of the M1o1 spotfing round would have resulted in the..,DU...being deposited in large. fr_ arc meets..." [Army lnformafion 8ook%t~ Depleted flraniurn in ~lawair' , ivovevn~er 20~7j 4iDU fragments have been observed throughout SBIA as discrete metal fragments and as fine parficulate matter. [Schofield Flurnan Health Risk Assessrnen~, April 208. p. vv`j "The risk is hi her once it U is fro merited and dis erred because it is mare Basil inhaled and the radiaflon is emitted within fur bady.~ from an environmental chemistry professor who did naf give permission to use his name, April 3~, X408 a-mail, j This dangerous, airborne DU may go undetected, because the Arn1~ ~'na~ be doing the wrong kind of air testing. But 1 can't tell, because in six months of repeated requests tom Sierra Club, they have not sent details about their air tesfing methods.. The Army is using risk assessment standards that have been +questioned. The standards are from the Environmental Prote~ian Agency EPA}, but the Union of Concerned Scienfists says Bush appointees have "edited scientific documents, manipulated scientific assessments, and generally sought to undermine the science behind dozens of EPA regulations". "Health risks were esfimated for DU based on the chemical toxicity of uranium. The maximum hazard index ~HI~ of 2E-1 was calculated...This is below the USEPA`s acceptable risk limit far http://us.mg2.mail.yahao.cam/dcllaunch?.rand=2jOma9s00abhc 5/6/2008 Print Pagc 3 of 4 t non-carcinogenic effects of ~ .o. These results for non-carcinogenic risks indicate that there are no adverse impacts expected due to chemical exposure to DU...The RESiducal Radioactivity ~`RESRAD~ computer code...was used to estimate risk due to the radiological toxicity of QU for each of the potenfial receptors. A maximum risk of 3E-~ was calculated to quantify the excess lifefime cancer risk. {ELCR}This value falls within the USEPA's acceptable risk ran e...indicating that there are no likely adverse impacts expected from DU exposure based on its radiological toxicity, and the DU levels are safe...An additional dose and risk evaluation was performed to evaluate the potential health impacts to an off-site subsistence farmer...The results of the dose and risk assessments showed that t~th the radiological and chemical risks are within the USEPA acceptable risk ran e.~Hence, there are no likely adverse effects to off-site receptors resulting from the presence of QU at the SBiA and the DU levels are safe.,.The results of the risk assessment presented in this document demonstrate that the presence of QU in soil at the SBIA results in radiological dose as wel[ as chemical and radiological risk that falls with the EPA limits for what [sicJ considered safe bXthe USEPA and NRC. No significantly increased asks exist at SB for the human receptors evaluated in this BHHRA. As a result! no adverse human health impacts are likely to occur as a result of exposure to uranium in soil. This is true for human receptors located on-site.,.as well as human receptors beyond the SBIA boundaries.,." Emphasis added. Schofield Human Health Risk Assessment, April 2008, p. vii-viii"~ "...This is a faulty conclusion. First, the USEPA standards do not concur with accepted scientific evidence that there does not exist a radiation dosage threshold below which na carcinogenic effects will occur...it is likely that some adverse effects will occur as a result of exposure tv uranium in soil and its progeny, ~rhich includes radon gas released to the atrnvsphere. ",fie-mail to me froth J.U. Thompson of Pahva, refired physics professor, April 25, 2008,] `~pvlitical appointees of the George ail. flush administration have edited scientific documents, manipulated scientific assessments, and generally sought to undermine the scr`ence behind dozens of EPA regulatrons...~ 73'~ of sdentists reported ~interferenc~=' in Region 9, which includes Ha~vai'i . j"Interference at the EPA, ~'tlnian vt Concen~ed Scientists, April 20Q8~ `jgrowing numbers of researchers, both in and vuf of government, saytheir lndirtgs--on pollution, climate change, reproductive health, stem-cell research and other areas in which science often Ends itself at odds with religions, ideological or corporafe interests-are being discounted, distorted yr quashed by Bush Adrrrinistrativn appointees.' j~The Political Science Pest" Time Magazine, February 5, 200fiJ ~NGEA National Center for Environments[ Assessme~tl .has recommended ATSDR minimum risk levels ~MRLs} for some chemicals such as uranium},.,r [Schvtleld Human Health Risk Assessment, April 2408, p. 4-~0~ The National Center far Envirvrrrnental Assessrnenthad the highesf percentage of scientists reporting interference of all EPA divisions {84 percent. [Interference at the EPA, " Union of Cot7cerned Scientists, Aprr'I 2008) Please strengthen and pass this resolufion. I~ahaio. http://us.mg2.mail.yahc~.com/dcllaunch?,rand=2~Oma9s00obhc 5/b12008