Repeatedly, the Department of Land and Natural Resources has claimed that the litigation brought by the Sierra Club Legal Defense Fund is not about environmental issues at all, but rather is an attempt to derail the STARS program.
However, the documents that the state has relied upon in issuing the negative declaration for the STARS program predict emissions from launches that will violate the state’s own guidelines for hydrogen chloride, or HCl, and possibly for carbon monoxide as well. In addition, each launch will release ozone-depleting fluorocarbons into the atmosphere, violating the spirit if not the letter of state laws banning their release.
Hot Air
When the first-stage rocket motor burns, hydrogen chloride makes up 17 percent of the exhaust products. Carbon monoxide (CO) constitutes nearly a quarter of the exhaust. In preparing its environmental impact statement, the Army used computer models to calculate ambient air concentrations of the exhaust products at various distances from the launch site, using weather conditions that existed at the PMRF on June 22 and 23, 1978, and factoring in a wind speed of one meter per second, or slightly more than two miles an hour. (The lower the wind speed, the less the dispersion, and, presumably, the higher the concentrations of contaminants will be in areas close to the source.) Printouts of the modeling results show that even in a normal launch under these circumstances, people more than three miles from the launch pad (well outside the 10,000-foot ground hazard area) would be exposed to HCl concentrations well above the state air-quality standard of 0.025 parts per million. (The modeled 30-minute mean concentration is 0.041 parts per million.)
If the Army decided to blow up the missile after launch (as happens from time to time), HCl concentrations would exceed state standards more than six miles from the Kaua`i Test Facility.
On other occasions (notably in the initial environmental assessment), the Army predicted even higher concentrations. Michael Jones, a professor of physics at the University of Hawai`i, sought to clarify the many discrepancies and to fill the holes in the Army’s data. In an affidavit filed with the state court, Jones recited his frustrated attempts to obtain answers.
‘No Comment’
“In July of 1992, I talked to Tyler Sugihara in the Hawai`i Department of Health [Clean Air Branch] about these calculations,” Jones wrote on December 6, 1992. “He said he was not aware of the differences in the REEDM predictions in the EA supplement and in the EIS. On July 22, I faxed him Tables 4-3 and 4-5 from the Draft EIS, the comments I had submitted, and the responses to them. The July 27 letter to me from Bruce Anderson, deputy director for environmental health, suggested that I call George Mathews, the air quality expert at Advanced Sciences, Inc. [a contractor for the Army]. I called Mr. Mathews and left a message for him to call me. He did not return my call so Mr. Sugihara agreed to call him. On August 3, Mr. Sugihara told me that Mr. Mathews told him that he had been advised by legal counsel of his company not to talk to me.”
In September, portions of the Administrative Record were made available to Jones, but these did not allay his concerns. “Document 228 in this Record clearly indicates that REEDM predicts that the 8-hour average hydrogen chloride concentrations will exceed the Hawai`i guideline. Documents 249 and 250, which were claimed to provide evidence to confirm the validity of REEDM, had only their cover pages present. I reported these findings to Mr. Sugihara. He told me he had been instructed not to comment or do further work on STARS issues.”
In any event, the Environmental Impact Statement walks over the state guideline on HCl, stating that “a more appropriate guideline” is one developed by the National Research Council’s Committee on Toxicology. That agency’s “short-term public emergency guidance level” (SPEGL, for short) recommends a one-hour exposure limit of 1 part per million, which, the EIS states, will “protect sensitive members of the public, such as infants, children, the elderly, and people with respiratory diseases.” Should concentrations exceed that limit, the EIS says, there is still no cause for concern: “Concentrations of hydrogen chloride below 5 ppm show no lasting effects.”
Endless Circles
Apart from the public health consequences of elevated levels of hazardous chemicals, there is the prospect that launches may result in acid rain. This, in turn, might well affect cane growing nearby as well as seed-corn plantings alongside and to the south of the PMRF. If rains carry the acid further inland, areas of native forest could be affected.
The EIS dismisses these concerns, stating in the section on air quality that the amount of hydrogen chloride released in the booster ground cloud is “relatively small” and that, in any case, no launches will be made when it is raining. To put these concerns “into perspective,” the EIS states, the STARS emissions were compared with those from the incomparably larger space shuttle and Titan rockets. To no one’s surprise, the relative impacts of STARS were minimal — about 1 percent of those from the space shuttle, the EIS states.
The EIS points readers to the section on biological, soil, and water resources for further discussion. That section, however, apart from claiming no effects, refers to the section on air quality.
Ironically, inadequate discussion of the effects of HCl emissions was one of the reasons cited by the state in its arguments in federal court seeking to require the Army to prepare an EIS. U.S. District Judge David Ezra took note of this in his order requiring preparation of a supplemental environmental assessment. “The state says the Army failed to take a hard look at the effect of HCl emissions on Kaua`i’s environment,” Ezra wrote. “It faults the Army for concluding that simply because the STARS launches will result in lesser HCl emissions than those occurring elsewhere, such emissions will not affect Kaua`i’s environment significantly…. The Army does not answer this argument in its briefs. Upon inquiry from the court at oral argument, counsel for the Army admitted it relied on the comparison with Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral and did not do an independent study of the effect of HCl emissions on Kaua`i’s environment specifically… Aside from the comparison with Vandenberg and Cape Canaveral, the Army points to nothing in the record that would support the FONSI” — finding of no significant impact — “with respect to HCl emissions.”
Federal law requires “an evaluation of the project’s effects in the immediate locale,” Ezra wrote, adding: “The court finds the EA deficient in its discussion of HCl effects.”
Ozone, Schmozone
Each STARS missile will, when launched, release about 200 pounds of Halon 2402 into the atmosphere. The Halon, employed in the thrust vector control system, is one of the family of chloro- and bromo-fluorocarbon chemicals implicated in the depletion of stratospheric ozone. The Army attempts to minimize the effects of these releases by showing that the addition they make “to the stratospheric burden of ozone-depleting substances is too small to estimate quantitatively.” Over the 10 years of the STARS program, the Army says, the chlorine released would account for just one ten-thousandth of one percent of the total global ozone loss during that time.
Actually, when judged on the basis of its ozone-depleting properties, Halon is one of the most dangerous fluorocarbon chemicals. Despite this, the EIS states: “No significant air quality impacts have been identified” that would require mitigation.
The Army’s Strategic Defense Command has a policy to reduce its use of fluorocarbons, particularly of Halon 1211 and 1301, which are primarily used in fire extinguishers. That policy, spelled out in a memorandum dated February 2, 1992, provides that as of July 1, 1992, “it will be unlawful to release/vent Halon 1211 and 1301 into the atmosphere. Violation will be subject to severe penalties in the form of fines and possible confinement.” (The memo does not say what fraction of total global contributions of Halon these applications represent, but one can imagine it is substantially less than that represented by the STARS rocket.)
The Army did study alternatives to the use of Halon 2402 in the STARS program. Strontium perchlorate was found to be an acceptable substitute, but the Army decided against its use, citing “the possibility of an explosive reaction.”
Hawai`i’s Ozone Layer Protection Statute went into effect January 1, 1991. In the environmental assessment, the Army paid this no heed whatsoever. In the EIS, passing mention is made. Because Halon 2402 (also known as Freon 114B2) does not appear on the state list of regulated chlorofluorocarbons, the Army states that the statute does not apply “to the type of freon or the specific activities involved with the Strategic Target System program.”
State Oversight
Were the Army required to obtain a permit to operate from the state Department of Health Clean Air Branch, the state would be in a better position to limit emissions through the permitting process.
One of the thousands of documents in the Administrative Record addresses this point. In a “contact report” dated November 6, 1991, Mathews of Advanced Sciences, Inc., describes a telephone discussion he had with the DOH’s Sugihara.
“Missile launch facilities have been considered more like mobile sources than stationary sources,” Sugihara is reported to have stated. “The Clean Air branch has not required a permit. Sugihara does not see this changing.”
Were the Army to conduct a static firing, however, a permit would be required, Mathews reports.
Sugihara did not cite any rule to back him up on this, according to Mathews’ report. In fact, it would seem as though there is none. In §11-60-1 of Hawai`i Administrative Rules is found the definition of “stationary source.” This “means any building, structure, facility or installation which emits or may emit any air pollutant subject to regulation under the Clean Air Act, Chapter 11-59, administrative rules, or this chapter.”
As a “facility or installation” that emits regulated air pollutants through the launches of rockets, the Kaua`i Test Facility would seem to meet the definition.
Volume 3, Number 9 March 1993
Leave a Reply