The following memo was written by Jim Slygo, the Chief of the Waste Management Division (WMD) to Russell Harding, Deputy Director. It is dated August 23, 1993. I believe it to be very relevant to the Camp Grayling pollution issue. Emphasis has been added. - Editor

This is written to provide some background information and to put the resolution issued by the Au Sable Manistee Action Council (AMAC) regarding activities of the Camp Grayling National Guard training facility into perspective. The AMAC resolution centers around two points: the environmental effects of military training activities and the efficacy of the DMA mission relative to national defense. My response will address only the environmental issue.

The Department has had significant concerns regarding the potential environmental effects of military training activities at Camp Grayling for many years. These concerns were formally expressed in an administrative enforcement effort which in May of 1991, culminated in entry of a comprehensive Consent Order between the Department and the Michigan Department of Military Affairs (DMA), the governmental entity responsible for overseeing the operation and management of the Camp Grayling facility. In addition to numerous other requirements, the Consent Order obligated the DMA to perform a comprehensive study of a large artillery range, Range 40, which has been used throughout the history of the facility, and which was thought to be the portion of the facility most likely to have been impacted by past activities.

The first phase of the Range 40 Study was completed earlier this year and has confirmed the fact that soils, sediments, and groundwater at Range 40 have been impacted. However, due to factors including the size of the area, the nature and distribution of the contaminants, and the long operational history of the site, it remains difficult to identify the specific activities which caused the contamination. Pursuant to the requirements of the Consent Order, DMA is currently formulating proposals for follow-on studies to better characterize environmental conditions at the site and will be required to develop appropriate remedial responses.

This notwithstanding, the central point of AMAC's position appears to be valid. While we currently lack sufficient information to draw cause and effect conclusions, it seems clear that to the extent that previous training activities on Range 40 have resulted in contamination, continuation of those activities will likely result in the exacerbation of that contamination. Indeed, under these circumstances, the continuation of those training activities could constitute an unpermitted discharge to the waters of the State pursuant to the Water Resources Commission Act, 1929 PA 245, as amended (Act 245). Similarly, those activities could arguably constitute a "release" under the Michigan Environmental Response Act, 1982 PA 307, as amended (Act 307), as well as constitute a conduct " ... likely to pollute, impair, or destroy the air, water, or other natural resources or the public trust therein ..." pursuant to the Anderson Rockwell Environmental Protection Act, 1970 PA 127 (MEPA).

While the Department may not yet possess information sufficient to require the cessation of training activities at Range 40, we can and should continue to act as an agent for positive change through our oversight of the ongoing environmental studies at Camp Grayling. For example, information gathered over the past two years has led both the DMA and the Department to conclude that certain practices (such as burning excess artillery propellants) are too environmentally risky to continue. The majority of excess propellant is now being shipped back to its point of origin in Illinois for recycling. This is a very positive step by DMA in their waste minimization efforts.

I believe there are other areas of training which may also produce unacceptably high environmental risks, for which simulation is a valid alternative. At this time, specific sources, as well as specific alternatives, are not yet clear. Through the studies of Range 40, and subsequent studies required by the Consent Order, we believe those specifics will become clear to both the DMA and the DNR. The Department should continue to strongly encourage the DMA to employ environmentally responsible alternatives wherever possible.

Because the DMA will be involved in remediation activities, they also have a vital interest in finding alternatives to those activities which contaminate. WMD expects to work closely with ERD and SWQD to guide DMA responses to information as it becomes available. Such steps as these should become models to prevent problems, rather than responding with costly remediation after problems have occurred. RWOL