Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 1210.027 2006-2008 COMMENTS IN SUPPORT OF RES. 639-08 RE. DEPLETED URANIUM COUNTY COUNCIL, 8:30 AM WED. JULY 2, 2008, BEN FRANKLIN BUILDING Cory Harden, Sierra Club, Moku Loa group, PO Box 1137, Hllo, Hawaii 96721 808-968-8965, mh ,~interoac.net Thank you for providing a public forum-for Dr. Pang, so the community can hear from a knowledgeable source with an environmental perspective. As you know, several scientists have also expressed concerns about Army's DU studies and/or Sierra Club comments on them: J.D. Thompson of Pahoa, retired physics professor, Stephen Allen, Assistant Professor of Chemistry, Hawaii Pacific University; and Halstead Harrison, professor emeritus of Atmospheric Science, Washington State University. Also, Peter Strauss, an environmental consultant from San Francisco, is reviewing the Army scoping study on behalf of Sierra Club. His resume and the review are attached. From his review- Army numbers indicate 240 spotting rounds. Strauss' indicate 2000 The Army said there were about 100 pounds of DU at Pohakuloa. [November 2007 Waimea DU meeting) Each spotting round is has 6.7 ounces of DU alloy. (Army DU Information Booklet, November 2007] 100 pounds, divided by 6.7 ounces, equals about 240 spotting rounds. There were about 400 firings of-the Davy Crockett. [e-mail from Peter Strauss to Cory Harden, 6-30-08] The Army said there were about 5 spotting rounds per warhead. [November 2007 Waimea DU meeting) 5 spotting rounds, times 400 firings, equals 2000 spotting rounds." It's very difflcuit to-find DU. Aerial reconnaissance, ground surveys, all soil sampling all present problems. [e-mail from Peter Strauss to Cory Harden, 6-30-08] DU under lava outcrops won`t be picked up by radiation detectors, said to Colonel Killian when I spoke to him at the May 20 Council meeting. How many lava outcrops does Pohakuloa have? A characterization survey should be done. "1 think this is a conclusion and recommendation [by the Army consultant, for a characterization survey] that !s reasonable. Of course what the Army does. with the Characterization Survey is crucial-whether it leads to cleanup or no action." [e-mail from Peter Strauss to Cory Harden, 6-30-08] This characterization survey hasn't been completed for Pohakuloa-but live-fire and practice bombing that could disperse airborne DU go on as usual. Radiation surveys have been done, but some last only 5 minutes "For background surveys using portable instruments, measurements are ggnerally taken for five minutes." (e-mail from Russell Takata, State Department of Health, to Jim Albertini, 1-22-08] *Strauss says 1000, but 1 hadn't sent the number of 5 spotting rounds per warhead. ~~~, ,~,, l2/v.2~ Ref. To• Prsaset.~r uMGs Ref. Date JI1L 2 2flQ8 ~. J ~ 1 have two other concerns- The Army didn't announce the 2005 DU finding until after citizen groups announced it. The Army says it was confimTing the find. They don't say why confirmation took four months, or why their announcement came a few hours after the citizen announcement. The Army has not answered Sierra Club questions from November 2007 and May 2008. Please support the resolution. Please keep the cease five-fire clause. And since the Army says the spotting round system was classified, please strengthen the resolution by adding "the Army should do a thorough assessment, including a search of classified records, for other sources of dangerous DU and radioactivity on alt current and former milifiary bases in Hawaii.° Mahalo. Yage 1 of l ,., __ . . Cory (M~rtha~ ~Mard~n ~ , . ., From. "peter " <petestrauss1 t~comcast net> ~ ~ .. . To: "'Cory (Martha) Harden"' <mh~iriterpac.neh' Sent: Monday, June 30, 2008 11:40 AM , . , Subject: progress report Cory: 1 have read the report that you send me and some other background material. First, I want to tell you of two minor difficulties. I have not been able to locate the document entitled "Archive Search Report on the Use of Cartridge, 20mm Spotting M101 for the Davey Crockett Light Weapon M28, (USAGE, St. Louis District, May 2007). The results are summarized in the document that you sent me, but ~ cannot evaluate the Archive Search. This is a 500 plus page document, so I don't believe I would be able, given our limited scope of work. But even if I did receive the report, I don't think it would be valuable at this time, as will be explained later. Second, (excuse me for my lack of knowledge), but I have not been able to find the definition of "pistons". These were used in firing the Davey Crockett weapon,, but it is not apparent from any of the material I have read what function they performed. I suspect that they were cartridges that transferred kinetic energy from the weapon system to the projectile. (Because there were up to 400 pistons found at Pohakuloa Training Area (PTA), confirmation exists that the weapon system was fired.) tf you have first hand knowledge, ptease inform me, or send me the name and conthct information for a person from the Army who does have this information. Because there were 30-140 pistons found at four locations at PTA, and one projectile, evidence exists that the Davey Crockett Weapon System was used. The unarmed weapon is made of DU. If this estimate is correct (and 1r my assumption that each piston results in one firing), 400 firings of the weapon took place. In addition, spotting rounds were used to help the weapon system operator to be more accurate. I have no idea whether multiple spotting rounds were fired for each weapon system firing (f have a query into the USAGE on this issue), but I assume that there were more than one. The spotting round was made of a DU/molybdenum allow. In effect, ~` judging from the number of pistons, you may have over 1,000 DU objects on the ground. It should be noted that none of the spotting rounds were explosive and DU is added to :provide weight to the projectile. It is not clear whether the Davey Crockett practice projectiles had an explosive charge. Note that the Army did the Archival search, followed by aerial reconnaissance, ground reconnaissance with radiation detection where accessible, and soil sampling with mass spectrometry analysis. No groundwater analysis beneath the site was undertaken. a. Aerial reconnaissance is a good method to identify if there is evidence of weapon use, but is not a good method for determining the number of firings. Vegetation blocks visual recognition. ~ Radiation detectors (if used on the helicopter, wouldnot pick up alpha waves (DU is primarily an alpha emitter - it has a lot of energy, but does not travel 'far. Also, it can be shielded by a piece of paper. Uranium is a low.gamma emitter, and it's unlikely that a helicopter would be able to distinguish readings from natural background. b. Ground surveys using radiation detectors suffer from the same difficulties as they are in air, although if you were immediately above an item you would detect it, so long as it is not shielded. c. Soil samples and laboratory analysisis the.most reliable technique. However, this depends on locating the sites where the. rounds have fatten. d. Soil samples that were taken from around the perimeter of the site are not reliable indicator of what is on the site. e. Groundwater is the major source of drinking water for the island. I would recommend that drinking water sources be sampled to see if there are indications of DU. Note that the report has the following conclusion about PTA: The results of the. PTA scoping survey confirmed several areas with pistons used to fire the Davy Crockett weapon system. Visual observations confirming the •presence of the DC pistons, qualitative measurements, and recovery of an intact Davy Crockett spotter round all support that the Davy Crockett system was used at PTA. While the soil samples collected around the perimeter of the site did not indicate the presence of DU, these data do not represent a statistically significant data set. A statistical field sampling design focused on the suspect Davy Crockett impact areas would yield more representative results. CABRERA recommends that the Army conduct a characterization survey of the b/30/2008 E~ `` Yagel atl ~' ~~ impact range, with an emphasis on defining the impact areas, eliminating areas where possible from further evaluation, and developing data appropriate to support a human health:•t~si4 ssrtieu~,i;; ~ -0vr4= ~`<~ `~ I think that this is a conclusion and recommendation that is reasonable. Of course what the Army does with its Characterization Survey is crucial -whether it leads to cleanup or no aCtron: ,~ ~.,r~, ~~ ~ ~ ~; r'`'-- ~= ~^ .. ~~~~ ,~s~~ ,,.~ Peter Strauss .. _ .,:~<. =: . ,,, ,:" ~~~- ::. .. ,_ .: , , . ~'..'.. . ~. Of ..... .., . ;~ Y_.-'v .. 441 ! ~ sn M, F5 ... 2.: ... .. . - - .. ., ., .; , ,a __- • ~.. .. _. . _ .. r., *if0 ,. ..- .... .,, ,.- _ ~ rte, r J *.r4. .; .'1„, ., t~Y i4, r., ~ ~. 1 'r rya. "'!. £'. I_ ~ Z .~ w ~~ ..: .. :. .I~-- ~ :w - a '~ ... { ~ x. _ ,1 . ~ s r. .:. }.l.r ', 4,.: 4s ..`: ~~' ~ .... ". :.~f ti y k'L.r ~, s,F, L'v, '"f . ,. . ri. ... "'l. i .. ... Y. t +~' , .. .. 3 ,. ~ ~. 1. ., „ t ., q . .. ~ ,.. .. C„~w~ .. .. ... f :,, ilia, rte r t,';; .. , , ~ i ;v . ,:.. .. - ~.: .. } :~ ,.. _ _ :.. 5 . +J!~h~ r ~,i` tT. i..S .s rY..fk .. [ ~ .~ ~ ~ :~ ; ' - ;' J. ~ .. t T ~ S i~.) w~,. c. 'P ~'~ - .. _... ~ -, ~ ., nzc.~ ~ ,~ .~.... Ai 2~3 :` -. ~ f '~~:; ,.~.+v`!? .>,.}!~ ~,r ~~ .F~~" a~°~,°~ _. ,'~~ r i'(! k s~: } a _ , 4J??B t /. ..~ 3 ~~, g~ V ~ h e ~ 1 : 4r' 6 ~ , . .. ~. ry. ~_r, t i r . ., f r ,. c.. f..Y .. U . ,. ,. ,lei, rat ,,,» ... s, ~ u_ < S .~ 1.?~`t~ -... ., .3 F 1. t.,. ~- -.tie ~" g ~~ "', M~~.. «?y"~ , k^ - Y.~1'~~b~ ~s, ~~ } . :~.ry Fr ~ 3 ~- bt ~~ i.. .. ,..s- . ~ ,. ~~ +.-~§ ._ . . , ., j r r ~ r~ . i ~ ~ w ~ 1-1 t S.. r. r., F t~ . .. . . . ' ~ .._ .~T' , _ ... s.z 7 .. ..~ J . r _ .L .. _ rG .~., ?Y 44 ,. , ~ _ T, r,rt fP~ ~4.`t. .. ... 4. 1., +~ fr 1~~ .~: +n. $~t ~x e f ~ni . r :.!'x; , ,:'.': _~: ;,i'~~ « :,?~i3ZS ry fit, ,.. 'S ~.. .i~7 ., .w ..~ ? yr '5:. .. _ ' ....., , ,rra ,. .,-. H~ ~t .. . .. 1 .. _ .., ,.. ~ __ ~ i? . J ~7, 1 ... .tit r'(t,} %''•Y t dni~~t ~" " .. ,. ~~ Sas :. ~r } '~,*-,. ' ~ q~.-. ti ~(~ t~trwt 4ti=f "+ C./ ; I j\ ~i 3 f C .... . Ir , ~ e ., i I^ ~ .~. ......;.: '~ „':Y:. ~.:'Ft.' f'~~))~.i ~~.:=: > .... ~: _'.. Lrea }'_ ' .. .. .F .-. _ ~ ,.l ~h;. ,~ ....fir :z >e9 tf ~.. ... a.F: i.. ~ _. ~. .. ,W l+:l U .~.., ...W ..~~r ..i `~. ., .,s t ,. a,l ?f. .... .. .. f" "'~,: stt; ~J VC,.`.,5 ... r! r .r - 6i3oi2oos Peter M. Strauss President, PM Strauss & Associates Peter M. Strauss is the President of PM Strauss & Associates in San Francisco, which he founded in August 1997. Since 1977, Mr. Strauss has specialized in assessing energy and environmental issues, having spent 27 years as a management and technical consultant, and two years as a Senior Environmental Engineer for a corporation. Mr. Strauss specializes in providing technical assistance and expert witness testimony on behalf of community groups and consumer-oriented governmental agencies. Since, its founding in 1997, Mr. Strauss has continued to work on US EPA-sponsored Technical Assistance Grants that he was managing while at MHB Technical Associates. PM Strauss & Associates was awarded seven additional `Technical Assistance Grants and three TAPP projects (McClellan AFB, Naval Weapon Station Seal Beach Detachment, Concord, and for the Former Naval Air Station at Alameda Point). Mr. Strauss provided a technical review of innovative clean-up technologies for the Center for Public Environmental Oversight (CPEO), has assessed the environmental conditions of DoD bases in Panama, analyzed long- term stewardship policy and implementation sites at DOE sites, analyzed the effectiveness of regulation of the Waste Isolation Pilot Project, and analyzed the use and accident history of plutonium~at LLNL.. Mr. Strauss also has provided expert witness testimony for the Cook County State's Attorney in Chicago, Illinois and for the New Jersey Division of Ratepayer Advocate. Prior to founding PM Strauss & Associates, Mr. Strauss was the Director of Environmental Management with MHB Technical Associates in San Jose, CA. For eleven years, Mr. Strauss directed the firm's practice in environmental management, focusing on issues relating to hazardous waste management and cleanup. He was the project manager for nine US EPA-sponsored Technical Assistance Grants, and performed various studies relating to toxic discharges from power plants, low-level radioactive waste, and spent nuclear fuel. In many cases, Mr. Strauss has been requested to evaluate the adequacy of Environmental Impact Statements. He has also developed an Environmental Compliance Plan for a county transportation agency. He has conducted studies to determine fmancial responsibility for cleaning up contamination at over 60 manufactured gas plant sites in New Jersey and California. Mr. Strauss also has provided expert witness testimony regarding the environmental effects of large construction projects in San Francisco, Livermore and Los Angeles. Prior to joining MHB, Mr. Strauss assisted industrial and governmental clients to develop hazardous waste programs and environmental compliance plans. He consulted with several state governments on hazardous waste and solid waste issues. Projects included drafting hazardous waste .regulations for New Hampshire and Connecticut, advising Massachusetts on policy options regarding financial assurances for permitting hazardous waste facilities and drafting solid waste regulations for New Hampshire. From 1981. to 1983, Mr. Strauss was a Senior Environmental Engineer with Utah International, Inc., an international mining corporation. He analyzed the effects of proposed environmental regulations on the Company and helped it be responsive to environmental regulations. From May 1977 through April 1980, Mr. Strauss was a consultant with Resource Planning Associates, Inc. (RPA}, a management consulting firm specializing in energy, environmental policy and technology. Mr. Strauss received a Bachelor of Arts Degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1970 and a Master of Science Degree in Managerial Science and Policy from the College of Environmental Science and Forestry,. State University of New York in 1977. Mr. Strauss is a member of the Interstate Technology and Regulatory. Council (ITRC), an organization designed to investigate innovative technologies and provide guidance to state regulatory agencies. Mr. Strauss has given presentations on cleanup related issues before several Restoration Advisory Boards and at a symposium in Nizhny Novgorad, Russia. Mr. Strauss also gave presentations on various environmental issues, including "Windows of Opportunity: How and When Decisions Are Made' ; "Plutonium Use at Livermore Lab: Playing With Poison' ; "Hazards of Chemicals Found in the Bayview-Hunters Point Area", "Adaptive Management: What Can Go Wrong", and "Vapor Intrusion Mitigation Innovations by NASA". Mr. Strauss was also asked to peer review Environmental Cleanup at NavyFacilities: Adaptive Site Mana eg ment. National Research Council, January 2003. EPA honored Tri-Valley CARES (a client of Mr. Strauss' since 1989) in 2000 as the "Most Effective Hazardous Waste~Community". The Executive Director and Mr. Strauss presented a paper at the National Technical Assistance Grant Conference in Nashville. He recently gave a presentation in San Francisco regarding global warming and its possible effects on structures and landfills that are close to the Bay.