Defense Environment Alert
January 14, 2003

ARMY REFUTING ALABAMA SENATOR'S CHARGES ON TOXICITY STANDARDS

Army sources are refuting charges by Alabama Sen. Richard Shelby (R) that the Army is weakening general population toxicity threshold levels used for programs that respond to chemical agent emergencies at the stockpile and disposal sites across the country.

In a letter sent last month, Shelby accuses the Army of watering down the definitions of air exposure levels that will be used by chemical emergency planning offices to give the general public directions on how to proceed in case of a chemical agent release due to an accident or a terrorist attack at a stockpile site. The issue has reached the Army chief of staff level, one source says. The Army has not yet formally responded to Shelby's letter, Shelby's office says.

At issue is the way in which the Army is interpreting acute exposure guideline levels (AEGLs) that have been developed by an EPA-administered national advisory committee and reviewed by the National Research Council (NRC). The standards have not yet been formally published, but have been finalized. The Army plans to adopt the new levels by next September for use in its Chemical Stockpile Emergency Preparedness (CSEP) Program.

AEGLs, which are short-term, one-time air exposure levels, have been developed for hundreds of hazardous chemicals, and will provide three health effect levels and multiple exposure periods to base public health protection instructions in case of chemical emergencies. The new standards improve upon previous ones in that they address dosage over time, according to Army fact sheets. They are based on new models that integrate an additional margin of safety, taking into account sensitive populations such as the elderly and children, the Army says. The levels are used in computer modeling to identify geographic areas that would be affected by a chemical release.

The controversy is in part over statements the Army makes in a November 2002 draft policy that gives guidance on minimum decision criteria in adopting the new standards for the CSEP program, but leaves site-specific, off-post decisions up to local emergency planners. "The three different AEGL health effect levels allow emergency planners and responders to prioritize resources and activities associated with a chemical release," the draft policy says.

The draft policy says at AEGL-1 -- the lowest level at which health effects may be seen -- no protective action for citizens is needed, although it may be used as a notification level. AEGL- I involves effects ranging from no symptoms to mild discomfort, the Army says. The draft policy calls for taking actions to prevent or minimize exposures above AEGL-2, "above which some temporary but potentially escape-impairing effects could occur." AEGL-3 is the most severe, possibly resulting in "severe, incapacitating, and possibly lethal outcomes," it says.

But Shelby argues these descriptions "play down" the effects of the AEGLs. He contends the Army, in concert with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), is revising the AEGL definitions developed by the EPA-run committee. He makes these charges in a Dec. 12 letter to Army Assistant Secretary for Acquisition, Looistics and Technology Claude M. Bolton Jr. "Last month, it appears the Army and FEMA began a quiet process to reject the EPA's AEGLs by replacing them with their own AEGL definitions and toxicity thresholds," Shelby writes. "This initiative would clearly serve to weaken the EPA's AEGLs by 'playing down' and redefining the effects of exposure to toxic chemicals and AEGL levels 1, 2 and 3."

Shelby's letter shows this by comparing the AEGL definitions EPA published in a May 2001 Federal Register notice on proposed AEGL values, and the Army's proposed revisions. He particularly takes issue with the Army's recommendation in the draft policy not to require protective action at AEGL- 1. Given the community's dependence on the Army to inform it of a chemical event, he says the "newly defined AEGL- I could easily become a 'black hole' which could be abused by the Army in an effort to gloss over a chemical event."

And, he says he is "very disturbed" by the way the Army describes AEGL-2 exposures. "Unlike the EPA, which states that the effects of AEGL-2 exposure could result in 'long-lasting adverse health effects,' the Army's definition says nothing about this and suggests that the effects would be 'merely temporary."' Shelby's letter and related documents are available on InsideEPA.cotn. See page 2for details.

But an Army environmental scientist says Shelby's letter erroneously portrays the facts. The health effects the Army is accused of re-defining are merely describing those effects that would result from exposure to a particular chemical warfare agent, and have been reviewed and endorsed by several members of the national advisory panel that established the AEGLs, according to the source and letters from the panelists. These members call the Army's descriptions consistent with AEGL technical support documents reviewed by the committee, according to the letters. The definitions EPA published in the Federal Register in May 2001 were generic, unspecific to a particular chemical, and take a conservative interpretation of definitions, the source explains.

In fact, this source points out that a November 2002 "frequently asked questions" paper that generally recites the Army's definitions was endorsed by a CSEP committee that included state and local representatives, in addition to the Army and FEMA representatives. "The AEGL definitions are very generic in order to reflect a broad range of chemicals and types of effects," the paper says. "In the case of nerve agents, the AEGL -2 does not represent any permanent effects," but rather a "temporary effect that could impair ones [sic] ability to evacuate if driving in the dark," it says.

"It is possible that no one would experience any effects at AEGL-1 or even slightly above the AEGL I for both nerve agents and mustard," it further says.

This source also refutes the allegation from Shelby that the Army is the one that decided to increase the permissible civilian population exposure level for VX. Shelby says an Army meteorologist in the CSEP program shows the Army's "'new' AEGLs for VX are dramatically higher than the 'old' AEGLs published by the EPA last year." But the Army scientist says the decision to change the exposure level was the NRC's, and the Army was not involved in that determination.