Whelden responds to alleged EIS data omissions

Responding to allegations of data omissions in the U.S. military’s impact documents, the Marine Corp Forces Pacific said they would be evaluating public comments and doing additional analysis where necessary on impacts from proposed live-fire training on Pagan and Tinian.

MARFORPAC executive director Craig Whelden was responding to Saipan Tribune’s questions on why a 2012 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency study on the “Site Characterization of Munitions-Constituents” and its referenced studies were not discussed in military environmental documents.

EPA confirmed these data omissions, among others, on Tuesday.

Whelden was also asked why the military asserted “less than significant” impacts to groundwater despite lack of evaluation of munitions-constituents impact, lack of baseline data, and an over-dependence on storm water erosion controls.

These concerns have been echoed by local agencies and government consultants in their review of military impact documents.

“While we have not yet received either the CNMI government or EPA’s comments on the DEIS, we have received input from others on water-related issues,” Whelden said in response.

“As you know, the period between the draft and final EIS is an opportunity for [Department of Defense] to evaluate all the comments received during the public review period and, where necessary, conduct additional analysis on our impacts based on these comments. We expect to undertake such a review of our ground water impact analysis based on these and other comments received,” he said.

Dentons, the firm hired to review the environmental impact documents, notes that the military’s live-fire project is “subject to a wide range of federal and CNMI laws, including the Clean Water Act, the National Historic Preservation Act, the Endangered Species Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act,” and others.

“The [EIS] does not contain data and information necessary to demonstrate compliance with these requirements. On the contrary, the limited evidence presented in the document suggests that the CJMT would violate both federal and CNMI law,” Dentons said in its findings regarding the legal adequacy of the military’s live-fire project.

The Environmental Science Associates, which has been hired along with Dentons for the EIS review, says there is no way to evaluate the risk to human health and safety from the document or predict the risk to groundwater contamination with these data omissions.  

“No data has been presented even on the existing conditions of the groundwater and soil,” ESA director Jim Keany earlier said.

He said the U.S. military needs to:

-Develop a sampling scheme for groundwater and soil to determine the baseline, using the suggested protocols in the EPA paper;

-Use this EPA paper and other science documents to develop an analysis framework for predicting levels of soil contamination and risk to groundwater;

-Analyze the information and have it peer-reviewed by reputable scientists with relevant experience and knowledge;

-Develop a long-term soil testing program and a protocol for cleanup of all munitions on an annual basis; and

-Develop a supplemental EIS that includes this information and allow agency and public comments.