For years, the Army’s activities in Makua Valley have been the subject of much notoriety. Its offenses range from threatening endangered species of plants and animals with its many accidental and out of control fires, to pushing for the eviction of people living at Makua beach, to detonating bombs near sacred Hawaiian sites.
This month, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency will probably decide whether to begin the process of formal closure and cleanup, pursuant to federal hazardous waste laws, of the open burning/open detonation area at Makua, an action that, to some, is an important step towards the eventual return of the lands held by the Army to the state.
In September, the EPA proposed to delay closing the OB/OD facility, claiming that this delay would avoid having the cleaned-up site be recontaminated by the Army’s ongoing training activities on adjoining land and at the site itself, necessitating a second clean-up action. The public was invited to comment on this proposal between September 21 and October 28. In addition, the EPA held a public meeting on September 30, where public comment was received.
Wai`anae resident Roger Furrer was one of several testifying against the proposal at the September 30 meeting. “If I ran a restaurant,” he asked rhetorically, “and I said, `I’m not going to clean up the kitchen today because it’s just going to get dirty tomorrow and I don’t have any cockroaches right now,’ I would get closed down.”
Similar public opposition expressed at that meeting prompted the EPA to extend the public comment period to mid-December. According to Paul Kalaiwa`a, with the Solid and Hazardous Waste Branch, the DOH, at least, is leaning towards closing the facility sooner than later.
Cleaning up the area now “really won’t change anything,” so far as public health is concerned, Kalaiwa`a says. “It’s a matter of addressing the issue sooner rather than later and addressing community concerns.”
A Brief History
The open burning/open detonation (OB/OD) area at Makua has received and treated a variety of unserviceable munitions off and on since 1943. On four acres of the 18-acre OB/OD unit, the Army has burned bags of propellant and destroyed explosives (grenades, missiles, rockets, etc.), pyrotechnics, metal and other inert parts, and explosive chemicals such as picric acid and aged ether.
For decades, these activities were not closely regulated. In 1976, Congress passed the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, which defined hazardous waste and now governs the operation and closure of hazardous waste treatment facilities. In 1980, the EPA began regulating OB/OD units under RCRA.
As a result, hazardous waste treatment facilities were required to apply to the EPA for operating permits. Existing OB/OD units, such as the one in Makua, were given “interim status” until the EPA could process their new permit applications.
In 1984, Congress set a November 1992 deadline for the EPA to issue permits to interim status OB/OD units. This deadline applied to permit applications submitted by 1989. The Army submitted part of its application in January 1989, and another part in August 1991, after the prescribed deadline. In November 1992, the Army lost its interim status and, consequently, ceased operating its OB/OD unit.
Despite the Army’s late entry, the EPA continued to process the permit application, amid mounting protests from the Wai`anae Coast communities and other parties, including environmentalists and Hawaiian activists.
According to a chronology published in an EPA newsletter last September, “In September 1994, the Army withdrew their application and notified the EPA that they were initiating the closure process. The Army indicated that there was no longer a recurring need to dispose of unserviceable weapons with the OB/OD unit, and that a change of mission in the Pacific region made the unit unnecessary. Waste ordnance is now shipped off the island for disposal to the continental United States (mainly, California) or locations in the Pacific region.”
Why Wait?
In 1992, the Army reported that it destroyed two tons of RCRA-regulated waste munitions at the Makua OB/OD unit. However, the Army continued to claim that the vast majority of waste burned at the OB/OD facility was not subject to RCRA regulation, even though it was chemically indistinguishable from the RCRA waste. The non-regulated waste, the Army later acknowledged, amounted to an additional 50 tons of munitions burned at the OB/OD facility over the same reporting period.
From 1993 through the middle of this year, the regulations under which waste munitions were defined and managed were the subject of protracted negotiation and litigation, involving the EPA, the Department of Defense, and the Military Toxics Project, a grass-roots group made up of citizens concerned over the environmental cleanup of military installations nationwide.
The litigation was brought to an end only on June 30, 1998, when the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia upheld the EPA’s regulations, based almost entirely on a draft rule prepared by the Department of Defense. Under the final regulations, an active military range is exempt from RCRA when performing OB/OD activities as part of an emergency response or as part of training. Under this rule, the Army can and does burn excess propellant and destroy unexploded ordnance within its OB/OD areas without being subject to RCRA regulation.
Six years have passed since the OB/OD unit at Makua has operated as a hazardous waste facility regulated under RCRA, yet neither the Army nor the EPA has made any real effort to address its closure until now.
In the EPA’s September newsletter, the agency explains why closure now would be premature. First, as stated above, OB/OD operations not subject to RCRA may continue at the Makua OB/OD unit as part of training activities. Second, contamination discovered in the most recent soil and groundwater studies does not appear to pose any immediate threat to humans. And finally, because the OB/OD unit is within the active training facility, other military training activities may also impact the site.
All this, plus the fact that the Army has run of the land for 30 more years and has made no indication that it will close the range any time soon, makes the EPA think it best to wait.
“Final closure approval of the former OB/OD unit should be delayed until all exempted military activities at the MMR are discontinued in order to address the concerns described above, prevent duplication of efforts by the EPA, the HDOH, and the Army; and to conduct cleanup activities for the entire MMR,” the newsletter states.
Environmental Sampling
Studies conducted at Makua in 1993 and 1994 at the Army’s request, as well as one done in March 1985, indicate low-level concentrations of hazardous chemicals in the area’s soil and groundwater.
A March 26, 1985 letter to the Commander of Fort Shafter reported that Royal Demolition Explosive (RDX), 2,4-dinitrotoluene (DNT) and 2,6-DNT were found in soil samples taken at Makua. The Makua Military Reservation Sampling Plan published in September 1993 and the Makua Military Reservation Soil and Groundwater Analysis Report published in March 1994 discovered elevated contamination levels within the OB/OD unit area that exceed the EPA’s public health criteria for lead, arsenic, 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT.
The effects of most of these chemicals have been described in a Cease Fire Order issued by EPA Region I for the Massachusetts Military Range on Cape Cod. There, training activities were suspended in 1997 after several of these chemicals were found to be present in high concentrations in the Cape Cod aquifer — the sole source of drinking water for at least 200,000 people.
“Human exposure to 2,4 or 2,6-DNT in occupational settings, presumably via inhalation, may result in an increase in the death rate due to ischemic heart disease and has been associated with central nervous system effects and effects on blood,” according to the order.
“In oral exposure to high levels of 2,4-DNT or 2,6-DNT, reproductive effects have been noted in animals. Oral exposure studies in animals have also revealed effects on the blood, nervous system, liver and kidney. Both 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT have been found to cause liver cancer in laboratory rats of both sexes. 2,4-DNT has been found to cause kidney tumors in male mice.”
The EPA has classified the mixture of 2,4-DNT and 2,6-DNT as a probable human carcinogen.
Lead can adversely affect the brain and central nervous system. Exposure can interfere with the formation of red blood cells, can cause anemia, kidney damage, impaired reproductive function, interference with vitamin D metabolism, mental retardation, delayed physical development, and high blood pressure. Lead has the potential to bioaccumulate and has been demonstrated to affect bacteria and fungi on leaf surfaces and soil essential to decomposition.
Ingestion of arsenic has been linked to skin, bladder, and liver cancer, and in low doses can cause vomiting, diarrhea, gastrointestinal damage and cardiac abnormalities. High levels of exposure can cause death.
According to Halliburton NUS Corporation, the subcontractor that prepared the 1994 study, the excessive contaminants found in soil and groundwater samples at the boundary of Makua Military Reservation do not threaten public health because the nearby public doesn’t have any long-term interaction with the site.
The EPA and the DOH agree.
The 1994 report states that soil, groundwater, surface water, and atmospheric modeling results shows that lead, 2,6-DNT, and arsenic will not exceed health criteria at the installation boundary via any pathway. Also, 2,4-DNT-contaminated groundwater is not expected to reach the installation boundary for at least 2,000 years, the study states.
By their authors’ own admission, these studies are not perfect. Because of possible unexploded ordnance beneath the surface, drilling for groundwater sampling was limited to locations outside the impact area, the study states. Also, “MMR policy precludes field activities (including environmental sampling) in areas of vegetation where the soil surface cannot be easily seen…. This limits candidate sampling in the MMR impact area to the cleared area of the OB/OD unit and adjacent fuel-break roads.”
The Sooner, the Better
Despite the assurances contained in the studies and provided by the EPA, the public has remained skeptical and has asked for more studies. In addition, members of the Wai`anae community are asking the EPA to help them seek the opinion of outside experts to review technical documents. Many are wanting to see the OB/OD unit closed as soon as possible.
When the EPA held the September 30 meeting at the packed Wai`anae Coast Comprehensive Health Center, these and other concerns were emotionally presented by several of those who testified.
One concern was that none of the studies considered fire to be an exposure pathway. What would happen, a speaker asked, if the materials contaminated with arsenic, lead, DNT were to catch fire? Would airborne particulates be contaminated? And if they were, could the drift affect the nearby residential community?
On average, there have been more than two fires per month over the last ten years, according to testimony by Marjorie Ziegler of the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund.
EPA toxicologist Patrick Wilson admitted that while he did not “have a good idea of that,” some of the contaminants, like the lead, would not become airborne. “Some of the organics, the [DNTs] that you see in the facts sheet, have the potential of evaporating and getting into the air. But the feeling is, in a fire, they would be destroyed by the fire,” Wilson said.
Wai`anae resident William Aila asked why two brackish ponds, or muliwai, near Makua beach have not been tested for contaminants. “In the Hawaiian concept of managing resources, what happens at the top of the mountain definitely affects what happens one mile out to sea,” he said.
Carl Warren, project manager for the EPA Region 9, answered that samples taken from the OB/OD boundary and the valley’s two streams indicate that the contaminants are not migrating. (Warren admitted, however, that the stream samples are only surface samples taken six inches deep. It is possible, Aila said, that erosion swept contaminants down.)
Aila noted that the ponds have been full of water for more than a year, perhaps indicating that they are receiving groundwater seeping from the valley, he said. “And any chemicals that are deposited…would surely show up there. So I would highly recommend some sampling real soon, and your assessment is incomplete because the sampling was not done.”
On this point, the 1993 study found, “Although groundwater is not currently being used as a drinking water supply at MMR, a shallow fresh-water aquifer exists under highly transmissive water table conditions in alluvial sands at the OB/OD unit. These alluvial sediments are likely to be in hydraulic connection with the basal fresh-water lens.”
The 1994 study adds that, in the past, U.S. Geological Survey test holes along the coast at Makua indicated that freshwater from the basal lens aquifer has the potential to escape to the sea as underflow. At the hearing, Warren noted that no aquifers had been tested.
Despite the panel’s attempts to defend the validity of their studies, by meeting’s end, area residents were demanding that the Army “get out of Makua.”
One incredulous testifier, Seth Rightmer, asked Warren, “The decision is whether to clean up the most contaminated site on the base right now or to let those contaminants diffuse into the environment for 30 more years?”
Warren: “That’s — yes.”
Ziegler had more practical requests of the EPA: That it give the community time and money to retain professionals to provide technical assistance.
She added, “Although the [Army] lease from the state ends in 2029, which is only 30 years, that’s not a long time, really, [MMR closure] could be sooner… Closure of this one small site, small but significant site, is part of that closure. And I think that maybe we need to look at it like that. Not that it’s going to be a waste of money to close it down because it’s going to get dirty later, but, [that] we’re going to clean this site up and we’re going to look at other activities that are ongoing and see how those activities affect this site. This is part of the closure.”
Closure Now?
According to closure and post-closure standards for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment, storage and disposal facilities as defined by the 1997 Munitions Rule, the Army will have to “remove or decontaminate all waste residues, contaminated containment system components, contaminated subsoils, and structures and equipment contaminated with waste, and manage them as hazardous waste.”
If, after exhausting efforts to remove or decontaminate the area, the Army finds that not all contaminated soil can be treated, it “must close the facility and perform post-closure care in accordance with [requirements for] landfills.
If the EPA’s proposal to delay closure goes through, the EPA has drafted an agreement with the Army to ensure proper closure. The draft agreement includes a description of closure activities to date for the unit, a schedule that calls for full regulatory closure of the OB/OD unit at the time the Army ceases activities at Makua, submission of soil and sediment sampling activities for the unit, provisions to minimize impacts to biota from closure, language requiring that the Army clean unexploded ordnance and contaminated OB/OD soil areas that exceed health-based criteria, and annual inspection and reporting requirements for the unit to make sure it remains closed.
What Next?
Representatives from the EPA will return to O`ahu this month to do an end-of-the-year evaluation of the DOH Solid and Hazardous Waste program. While on the island, they are scheduled to meet with several members of the Wai`anae community to discuss the future of the OB/OD unit.
In the meantime, community members (including the citizens group Malama Makua and its counsel, the Earthjustice Legal Defense Fund) may enlist the help of Technical Outreach Services for Communities, or TOSC, an organization that assists communities affected by hazardous waste. One speaker at the September public meeting, after criticizing the methods and the scope of the Army’s two major environmental studies, complained that the community was on an “unlevel playing field,” since it lacked professional expertise of its own.
In a November 11 letter to the DOH, Catherine McCracken, a community involvement specialist with the EPA, said TOSC would be willing to provide the Wai`anae community with some assistance in reviewing the Army’s technical documents. TOSC is made up of engineers and scientists from Stanford and Oregon State universities.
Also, since the September 30 meeting, the Department of Health has been engaged in discussions with the EPA about the possibility of excavating “hot spots” where sampling has indicated contamination levels higher than the remediation goals contained in the federal Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act. CERCLA, or the Superfund law, governs cleanup actions at severely contaminated areas.
— Teresa Dawson
Volume 9, Number 6 December 1998