I can't believe they're still saying it's not about perchlorate!

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

===========================================================
Graduate in less than 13 months with AIU?s Online virtual
campus. Classrooms and student service as close as your
computer. Highly accredited, study anytime ? anywhere.
http://click.topica.com/caab6anaVxieSa8wsBba/ AIU
===========================================================



In his written testimony to the House Energy and Commerce Committee
yesterday (April 21, 2004), Ray Dubois, Deputy Under Secretary of
Defense for Installations and Environment stated, "Nothing in either
RRPI [the Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative] or our defense
authorization as a whole would affect our financial, cleanup, or
operational obligations with respect to perchlorate."

He explained, "The September 29, 2003 'Interim Policy on Perchlorate
Sampling' charges DoD components to continue their efforts to
consolidate existing perchlorate occurrence data at active or closed
installations, non-operational ranges, and FUDS [Formerly Used Defense
Sites], and to program resources to sample for perchlorate at previously
unexamined sites where there is a reasonable likelihood that perchlorate
may have been released by DoD activities and a complete pathway for
human exposure. Further, for operational ranges, the policy 'requires
the Military Departments to include perchlorate in future range
assessments,' and to assess for the potential for off-range migration."

Perhaps there is a disconnect within the Department of Defense. Career
military environmental officials recognize that this would be a
significant change in their obligations, but perhaps the political
appointees don't.

Under current law, U.S. EPA, state regulators, and tribal agencies have
the legal authority to challenge Defense Department decisions not to
sample for perchlorate. If perchlorate or other toxic munitions
constituents are found, even on an operational range where there is no
evidence of a "complete pathway for human exposure," regulators may
require cleanup.

RRPI would take away that authority and thus potentially eliminate
enormous "financial, cleanup, or operational obligations" for the
Defense Department. As I've written before, since the Military Munitions
Rule generally limits regulator authority to require characterization
and remediation on operational ranges, this reduced responsibility
appears to be the principal intent of the Defense proposals to exempt 25
million acres or so from the hazardous waste laws.

For Dubois' entire testimony, see
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/Hearings/04212004hearing1252/DuBois1935.htm

Lenny
--


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 278-A Hope St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/961-8918
<lsiegel@cpeo.org>
http://www.cpeo.org

===========================================================
$6.95 .com Domain Name Sale!
Limited Time! ICANN Accredited GoDaddy!
http://click.topica.com/caab7pQaVxieSa8wsBbf/ GoDaddy
===========================================================

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CPEO: A DECADE OF SUCCESS.  Your generous support will ensure that our
important work on military and environmental issues will continue.
Please consider one of our donation options.  Thank you.
http://www.groundspring.org/donate/index.cfm?ID=2086-0|721-0