RE: [CPEO-MEF] APGSCC Perchlorate article

[themissinglink@eznetinc.com]

This type of political pressure being applied to the EPA to keep from
imposing guidelines for toxicity levels is exactly the kind of capricious
behavior that will allow lawsuits against the EPA/DOD to succeed.

Groups everywhere should be filing petitions under the National Contingency
Plan to force the EPA to conduct preliminary assessments into the
perchlorate.  This is non-discretionary on the part of the EPA.

? 9605. National contingency plan
.	(d) Petition for assessment of release
Any person who is, or may be, affected by a release or threatened release of
a hazardous substance or pollutant or contaminant, may petition the
President to conduct a preliminary assessment of the hazards to public
health and the environment which are associated with such release or
threatened release. If the President has not previously conducted a
preliminary assessment of such release, the President shall, within 12
months after the receipt of any such petition, complete such assessment or
provide an explanation of why the assessment is not appropriate. If the
preliminary assessment indicates that the release or threatened release
concerned may pose a threat to human health or the environment, the
President shall promptly evaluate such release or threatened release in
accordance with the hazard ranking system referred to in paragraph (8)(A) of
subsection (a) of this section to determine the national priority of such
release or threatened release.

I did it successfully with Fort Sheridan when the BCT refused to address the
chemicals in artillery fired into Lake Michigan because it was "public
property and not part of the BRAC process".  You don't need to be a lawyer
to file this.  Anyone interested can send me an email and I will send you a
copy of the document I filed so you can use it as a template.

And again, I would implore you to contact your local university to see if
you can get their law school, engineering school, and chemistry department
to assign a few students for independent study on your particular issues.
It is free and carries the weight of the institution.

Steven Pollack

-----Original Message-----
From: CPEO Moderator [mailto:cpeo@cpeo.org]
Sent: Monday, February 10, 2003 8:36 AM
To: cpeo-military@igc.topica.com
Subject: [CPEO-MEF] APGSCC Perchlorate article


The following article is from the January 2003 edition of COMING CLEAN,
newsletter of the Aberdeen Proving Ground Superfund Citizens Coalition.

For more information, contact  Glenda Bowling <gbowling@comcast.net>


Has the DOD Succeeded in Harnessing the EPA?
"Unprecedented" Pressure to Remain Silent on Perchlorate Risks Leaves
Aberdeen Residents in Limbo


Since May 2002, APGSCC has been reporting on the perchlorate
contamination in the City of Aberdeen wells and on our efforts to get
treatment of the contaminated wells to insure that Aberdeen residents
will not be exposed to higher concentrations of perchlorate in the
drinking water.

POTENTIAL RISKS CALL FOR PROTECTION NOW!
We know from extensive research on perchlorate and the thyroid in
general, that exposure to concentrations above 1 ppb in the drinking
water could pose a health risk to certain sensitive individuals,
including pregnant women, babies, children and people with some chronic
diseases.

While critics argue that we do not have sufficient information for the
EPA to set a standard, we will never have complete scientific
information about perchlorate (or any other chemical, for that matter).
When there are ongoing human exposures, we believe that the EPA and the
state have the right and the responsibility to take action to reduce
those exposures while the scientists sort out the details of the data.
It is simply not acceptable to allow humans to continue to be exposed to
a chemical that could pose a health risk.  Stop the exposures now...ask
more questions later!

DOD PRESSURES EPA INTO SILENCE


The cost to clean up the perchlorate in Aberdeen is only about a million
dollars, which is well within the scope of APG's restoration budget.
But the use of perchlorate by the military has been so wide-spread
across the US, that there are hundreds of communities, particularly in
the Southwestern US that have perchlorate in their drinking water.
Meanwhile, in the Southwestern US military contractors who manufacture
solid rocket fuel continue to release massive amounts of perchlorate
into the environment where it contaminates surface and groundwater
resources.

Given a 1 ppb drinking water standard, it is likely that the Department
of Defense (DoD) will need to spend billions of dollars to clean up
sites contaminated by testing and training activities, as well as by
rocket fuel production by defense contractors.

In an attempt to avert these costs, DoD has mounted an effective
campaign to harness EPA so that they will remain silent on the
perchlorate issue. According to one high-level EPA scientist who spoke
with an APGSCC technical advisor on the condition of anonymity, the
pressure has been "unprecedented".

It is unacceptable that the DoD applies or is allowed to apply this type
of pressure to the EPA. NO POLLUTER has the right to pressure the EPA
into adopting or abandoning specific policies that are favorable to the
polluter.  EPA has the right and duty to conduct its scientific reviews
in the absence of such pressure.

Moreover, APGSCC resents the fact that the cleanup of contamination at
APG is being blocked due to the problem the DoD has on the national
level. The hard-won process that we have developed in solving APG's
environmental problems is in jeopardy due to the interference of the DoD
in local issues.

COMING CLEAN is published by the APGSCC, advocates for the citizens of
Harford, Baltimore, Cecil, Kent Counties, and Maryland.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~