From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | 3 Jan 2005 22:49:33 -0000 |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] OEHHA scientist comments on perchlorate in BMDS PEIS |
[In November, 2004 Robert Howd, toxicologist at California's Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment submitted the following personal comments on the Army's draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Ballistic Missile Defense System. -LS] In the draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement for the Missile Defense System (1 September 2004), I would like to point out incomplete and misleading statements about perchlorate toxicity and standards in the bottom paragraph on Vol. 1, p. 4-56. This discussion provides the viewpoint of the DoD and the Perchlorate Study Group, an Industry Workgroup, on perchlorate toxicity, but ignores all risk assessments conducted by actual risk assessment agencies. The U.S. EPA has been evaluating perchlorate toxicity for years, in association with several defense agencies (as stated), and has released a draft risk assessment which proposes a drinking water equivalent level of 1 ppb. The State of California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment has published our risk assessment which estimates a health-protective level of perchlorate in drinking water of 6 ppb. The State of Massachusetts has recently released their evaluation with a recommended drinking water level of 1 ppb to protect pregnant women and fetuses (or other sensitive sub-populations), and 18 ppb for healthy adults. The U.S. EPA guidance applicable to water contaminant plumes emanating from industrial and DoD sites has used a standard of 4-18 ppb for several years. To not consider and apply these relevant and applicable standards to the evaluation of potential environmental impact of the deployed missile systems seems to me to be putting both the DoD and the public at risk, both from legal liability and potential chemical hazards. I recommend that this section of the report, and any financial and toxicological calculations based on it, be revised to include the viewpoints expressed by the regulatory agencies whose job it is to regulate the public and environmental exposure to perchlorate. Acknowledging these opinions need not wait for the finalization of the U.S. EPA's current draft risk assessment for perchlorate, currently under review by the National Academy of Sciences, nor the promulgation of the California Maximum Contaminant Level for perchlorate in drinking water, scheduled for 2005. Thank you for consideration of these comments. Robert A. Howd, Ph.D. Chief, Water Toxicology Unit Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment Oakland, CA 94612 The above comments represent my personal opinions, and have not been reviewed or approved by OEHHA prior to submission. -- 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 _______________________________________________ Military mailing list Military@list.cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org/mailman/listinfo/military | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Boston Globe criticized DOD on environment Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Rounds found in Pennsylvania woods | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Boston Globe criticized DOD on environment Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Rounds found in Pennsylvania woods |