INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRA.

FT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

conclusions. The Depanment believes EPA's draft I ppb RfD;D\\'EL

significantly understates an appropriate exposure level. and believes a true "SJll-"
level is higher than that proposed b~ EPA.

Since pannering with EPA. states. and other stakeholders'. 000 has inn=sted
over $24 million for research into the analytical. toxicological. and treatment
technolog~ aspects of perchlorate. \\!hen FY03 expenditures are considered. thJt
number increases to approximatel~ S3b million. Those totals do not include the
S85 million San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund administered by the l' .S. AnTI~
Corps of Engineers for remediation of California and Texas water supplies.

WHA T IS PERCHLORATE?

As you know perchlorate IS a chemical anion - commonl~. for our purposes

toda~. a pan of either ammonium perchlorate or potassium perchlorate. Both
compounds in their pure fOnTIS of white crystalline solids. Perchlorate is highly
soluble in water. and unfonunatel~. once in the environment is very mobile.

Perchlorate. which is used as a component of rocket fuel and militar:

munitions. is the least hazardous of known substances that can be used by the
militar: to accomplish its nmional dd'ense mission. It is also a critical component
of the fuel that powers the Space Shuttle. has been a component of fenilizers. and
is used in commercial applications Including fireworks. airbags. road flares and
matches.

An EPA stud~ investigating perchlorate in fenilizers found that until ver:

recentJ~ some fenilizers contained perchlorate up to 15% by weight. Perchlorate
has also been associated with naturall~ occurring mineral deposits found in some
areas of the world. including the United States. This may be the explanation for
wh~ perchlorate that has been detected In a large pan of Texas cannot be traced to
a source.

Scientists at EPA note that perchlonc acid and perchlorate salts have a rich
histor: in Industr:' and science. The~ functlon as Inen electrolytes in chemical
studies. catalysts in industrial and synthetic processes. and are by-products of
some industrial processes.

For National Defense and aerospace purposes. perchlorate as an oxidizer is

an essential component of propellants in rockets and missiles. and in some
explosives. Perchlorate made possible the missiles that secured us the victor:' in
the Cold War and that will shield the United States from rouge nations and
terrorist in the Strategic Missile Defense. Perchlorate is also the rocket fuel that

PREDECISIONAL DRA.FT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

made possible the exploration of space and satellites that are used for everyda;
things Iike ce II phones and sate line T\·.

Frankly. little is kno\\'n about the natural occurrence of perchlorate.

Research has shown that bacteria capable of reducing perchlorate to chloride
appear to be ubiquitous in the environment. Given this fact. one can easil;
conclude that naturally occurring sources of perchlorate are probabl; far more
widespread than anyone now knows. Regulatory agencies need to do more \\ ork.
to find where perchlorate is used and found and its origins.

WHAT IS DoD'S INTEREST?

DoD has had a long interest and involvement with perchlorate ... our
interest has been to ensure that public policy and decisions are made based upon
the sound science. Our im'olvement goes back to the 1980s when questions were
first being. raised (????) - need historical input from Lt Col Rogers

Despite scarce funding and competing demands. DoD has invested its
resources. both professional technical staff and funding for what was not then the
issue it is no\'. As you yoursel\ es have to balance the many competing demands
for limited public funding. you can imagine the challenge we had in making DoD
investments to:

• Improve analytical methods for detecting perchlorate and

• Conducting toxicological research

This is \"ork that is normall; done h; regulatory agencies. but for which they did
not ha\'e adequate funding to conduct.

As an example. in 1986. the Agenc; for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registr: (part of Health and Human Services) noted that data could not prove that
the perchlorate ion was present in the em' ironment. Based upon the available
database. ATSDR suggested that a one or two part per million (ppm) level would
not represent a substantial threat to human health.

In 1992 EPA's Superfund Technical Support Center first proposed interim

limits of 4 ppb. In 1995. the limited was increased to a 4-18 ppb rang based on
limited work done in a single stud; conducted in 1952. At that time. the best
analytical method available could only detect perchlorate to 400 ppb. DoD
partnered with EPA in 199i and sponsored work conducted bv DoD labs to
develop and validate the analytical methods necessar:' to bring the detection levels
down. first to 100 ppb. and then down to 4 pph,

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 Januar:' 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRA.FT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

This method. now known and used as EPA Method 31of.O. is the onl:
currently approved EPA method for perchlorate analysis. DoD chose to fund thb
effort because we felt that if there was a potential of a health risk at the of-I g ppb
-
ran!2e. then we needed to be able to accuratelv. measure to that level.

USE OF SOUND SCIENCE

In 1997 Toxicolo!2\' Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA). a non-profit

-
or!2anization dedicated to the best use of toxicolo!!\' data conducted additional

~.

literature searches and collected additional data on perchlorate to answer

outstanding questions about perchlorate toxicity that remained from EPA's of-18
ppb range. The new database was peer reviewed. with the conclusion being that
even though improved. the perchlorate database remained insufficient for use in
developing an RID.

Recognizing that additional work needed to be done to better characterize the

potential risks associated with perchlorate. DoD stepped up to the plate and
initiated a partnership with regulatory agencies and industry stakeholders intended
to quickly generate the data needed. DoD agreed to work with regulatory agencies
to develop stud: protocols and conduct research. and DoD and industry agreed to
fund the research and turn over tht data to regulatory agencies.

The data was turned over to EP:\ who incorporated it into the Agency's 1998
draft risk assessment for perchlorat~. The document evaluated the entire database
of information. including that generated b: the new studies. The 1998 draft risk
assessment was the subject of a I qqq EPA external peer review panel re\'ie\\ that
reached consensus that 32 ppb was a safe level for a perchlorate RID. However.
the peer review panel identified data gaps that. if filled. would serve to reduce
scientific uncertainty and could generate an RID as high as 200 ppb.

Once again DoD stepped up to the plate. and DoD and industry stakeholders
agreed to fund the additional studIes recommcnded by the 1999 peer review panel.
As was tht case previous]: . DoD agreed to work with regulatory agencies to
develop study protocols and conduct research. and DoD and industry agreed to
fund the research and turn over the data to rC!2ulaton
.... a!2encies. This .ioint
......
partnership has allowed EPA to generate data more rapidly and with less
duplication than it has any time previousl: .

The new studies were conducted. the requested information generated. and
the data provided to EPA who incorporated it into its second draft perchlorate risk
assessment in January :2002 which proposed a perchlorate RID equivalent to 1
ppb. In derivin!2 that number. EPA actuallv increased the overall uncertaint\'
factor from 100-to 300 despite the completion and analysis of the numerous'

PREDECIS10NAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRA,FT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

additional studies recommended b~ the first peer review panel in 1999 specificJII~
to reduce uncenainr;. ,

ANALYSIS AND HEALTH AND RISK

There is an old adage that ··the dose makes the poison" and frankly. wc
believe the jury is still out on what the dose is for perchlorate,

Compared to many en\'ironmental chemicals. much is known about ho\\

perchlorate affects the function of the thyroid. This data has been generated from
its use for over 50 years as a therapeutic agent for the treatment of
hypenhyroidism and thyrotoxicosis at doses approaching gram levels. levels that
are more than 15.000 times higher than EPA' s draft RID. The previously
referenced studies conducted for EPA' s first and second draft perchlorate risk
assessment have only served to strengthen the perchlorate human database.

What do we kno\\ about perchlorate? EPA's January 2002 risk assessment

notes that perchlorate is not a carcinogen. a mutagen. a reproductive toxicant. nor
is it an immunotoxic agent. Its mechanism of action (iodine uptake inhibition) has
been known for decades becausc of its therapeutic use. In addition. it does not
accumulate in the body. does not metabolize. and has a shon half-life. being
excreted In a matte-r of hours. Because of this shon half-life. perchlorate is no
longer the drug of chOIce - patients need to take it several times a day to achieve
efleCli\l~ therapeutic le\·els.

In comments submitted to EPA on Its draft risk assessment. the

organization that conducted the 199i revie\\ of the perchlorate database (TER..A.)
noted that it is more comprehensive than at least 23 other chemicals in EPA' s
Integrated Risk Information System (iRIS). as evidenced b~ estimations of overall
confidence. size of uncenaint~ factor. and r;.·pes of available data. Funhermore.
TERA found that EPA' s proposed perch lorate RID suggests that it is more toxic
than aldicarb (30-fold more toXIC I. arsenic (!CI-fold more toxic). methyl mercury
(3-fold more toxic). and warfarin llO-fold more toxic) ..

\Ve find one human data stud~ (the Greer study) to be panicularly
persuasive about the risks to human health posed by perchlorate exposure. The
Greer study was constructed to take ad\'antage of infonnation about the
pharmacology of perchlorate generated b~ its long history of use as a therapeutic
agent. The study established a dose-response curve for the inhibition of iodine
uptake and change in hormone levels in male and female volunteers of child­
-
beannQ a!!e
.....
for two weeks. This desi!!n
.... ­
enabled Greer and his collea!!ues to
estimate the perchlorate dose that did not inhibit iodide uptake. Given standard
toxicological defaults for bod~ weight and exposure assumptions. the Greer study

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIOi\:AL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

concluded that a No Effect Level in the range of 180-220 ppb, Other clinic:..ll :..Inc
epidemiological studies support these results,

Recent media reports ma~ ha\'e led to some confusion or misunderstandIng

about what is known about the science of perchlorate, Contrary to media reports
there is no "recommended safer: level for perchlorate in drinkIng water of Ippb,"
The widely cited figure of I ppb is not an EPA approved, recommended or
required drinking water level or cleanup level for perchlorate that has been
released into the environment, For instance:

• Perchlorate does not cause cancer

• Perchlorate does not cause Graves disease, and persons who ha\'e
Graves disease did not acquire it from exposure to perchlorate
• Any person who required surgery to treat a thyroid disorder did not
acquire that disorder from perchlorate.
• Perchlorate does not cause disease.
• Perchlorate does not cause hypothyroidism.
• Perchlorate is not an "endocrine disruptor" that mimics a normal
hormone,
• As an environmental phenomenJ. perchlorate has nothing in common
with arsenic or lead

I~LAND VALLEY

For making sound puhhc pohc~ - this select comminee and hody may have
a lot of Interest in perchlorate In th~ Inland Empire, Madame Chair. representing
the Inland Empire you ma~ h3\'~ a personal Interest in perchlorate

I have been informed there are on gOIng and pending legal actions
regardIng perchlorate, as well as more planned b~' man~ different parties, Many
legal and factual issues still need to he sorted out. So as not to prejudice any side.
I will not make specific remarks regarding the situation there,

Back!lround
The former Rialto AmmunitIOn Suppl~ Point (ASP) was begun in
December 1941. when 2.821.75 acres were acquired b~ DoD from several
different land owners. either through dm:ct purchase. declaration of taking or
lease. A portion of the acquired land was used by the DoD for the storage and
handling of ammunition prior to its shipment overseas. A major portion of the
land that wasn't needed for such an operation was leased out to local farmers for
graZIng. Several of the tracts were already Improved with small dwellings and

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 Januarv 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

farm buildings, None were disposed of and were used by DoD in addition to ne\\
buildings constructed,

In November 1945. the land was declared as surplus, It was handed cner hi
the War Assets Administration in April 1946 and custody was assumed by the
Farm Credit Administration in lui: 1946, The site is now divided into several
commercial and residential tracts, Subsequent owners have included. but are not
limited to:

• West Coast Loading Corporation

• B. F. Goodrich Corp,
• Red Devil Fireworks
• BROCO Explosives Company. later BROCO Environmental
• Deno\'a Environmental and
• San Bernardino Count: (Mid-Valley Landfill).

Many of the users of the property originally known as Rialto ASP have
conducted environmentally sensitive operations actually or potentially involving
perchlorates. One or more of the owners/operators have manufactured fireworks
or other similar pyrotechnic de\'lces that commonly use perchlorates. Se\'eral
documented accidents have occurred In\'olving these pyrotechnics.

Current FUDS ProQram Status

T() determine whether thb \\ as an eligible FUDS site. an InventOr)
Progress Report (lNPR) is completed In this inventOr)" stage the property is
identified. real estate records are searched to verify DoD ownership or control. and
a preliminar)' assessment of eligibilit: IS performed to determine if the property is
eligible under the FUDS program and ifpotential projects exist.

In September 1992. Rialto ASP was determined to be an eligible FUDS

properr:. As part of thl: program. the Corps of Engineers completed two eligibilit:,
assessments on the propert:. both of which suggested that perchlorate was not
present during the time of DoD ownership and control of the former Rialto ASP,
Subsequent to DoD ownership. records indicate that se\'eral DoD contractors
operated at the propcrr:. with contracts with both the Air Force and Navy. and
may have been indemnified for their actl\'nies, Therefore. in regard to liability.
the site appears to have little FUDS mterest. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
Los Angeles District (SPL) currentl: reflects two projects for this propen: '

One project. a tank removal has been completed with San Bernardino
Count:' acceptance of closure in November 2002, The other was a low priority
project related to the storage facilities. An Archive Search Report (ASR) has been
completed and there has been no evidence found at the site to suggest the presence

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 lanuar)" 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

of ordnance or an immediate danger from fonner DoD acti\·ities. Current

documentation indicates the site was onl~ used as a Depot for storage and
transshipment of full~ manufactured items \\'ith no testing. firing. or processmg 0:'
ordnance components or fillers on the site. (Was perchlorate used at this site" WJ:­
it found. not found?) .

Since the Inventory Project Report was done prior to the perchlorate Issue.
the U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers is perfonning a Site Ownership and
Operational Histo~ (SOOH) report covering the FUDS era (date:) and the post
FUDS era( date:). Focus is on perchlorate uses or perchlorate items that ma~ have
been present at the Rialto facilit). The purpose of this study will be to .confinn the
accurac~ of the present documentation. which. although not conclusive. strongl~
suggests that no perchlorate release IS likely to have occurred from Rialto ASP
while it was an Anny facilit: .

Post Transfer Activities

The SOOH would also examine activities following the closure of the
Anny facilities. For example. October I. ~OO~. an explosion and fire occurred at
the Denova facilit)·. Denonl was a successor in interest to Broco Environmental.
Broco Denova operated a hazardou~ waste treatment facilit)· on a portion of the
site of the fonner Rialto ASP. The explosion and fire occurred during an EPA
cleanup of the facility.
The explosion and fire occurred when workers anempted to open an aircraft
eJection seat propellant cartridge (essent1all~. a rocket motor used to power the
e.iection seat). DenovafBroc() \\ a~ appan.:ntl~ in the business of demilitarizing
these dC\'Ices.
Denova'Broco was one of sc\eral owners of the fonner Rialto ASP who
occupied the premises after the: were sold hy the Anny/GSA. Other propert:
owners include government contractors who may have used perchlorates on the
propert:· in their perfonnance of government contracts. These include BF
Goodrich (rocket motor research for the AF and Na\·y). Hughes Missile Systems.
and Ordnance Associates (a ]\ASA contractor on the Gemini program).
Other subsequent owners of the propert:· have included fireworks and
pyrotechnic manufacturers. Thesl' operations have an unknown housekeeping
record and at least two documented ma,1or accidents.
Finally. the Coumy of San Bernardmo operates the Mid- Valle~ sanita~'
landfill in the vicinity of Rialto ASP. Portions of the landfill an: on the fonner
Rialto ASP and another portion I~ Immedlatel~ adjacent. Given the histo~· of
other operations on the propert: it is possible that wastes hearing perchlorate from
other operations were disposed of at the landfill.

Conclusion

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - '} Janua~ ~003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIOi'\AL DRA.FT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

It is appropriate to proceed with the SOOH in an expeditious manner under

DoD's Defense Environmental Restoration Program authorities. The current goal
is to have this report completed b~ the end of Fiscal Year 200.3. There is no
evidence that the United States is liable for perchlorate contamination released
from the Rialto ASP Formerly Used Defense Site propert: during the time that the
United States government owned or operated the facilit)

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

This is an area where 000 has done a lot. Rather than slow-roll by waiting
for regulatory standards to be issued. and then pointing out that it may not even be
technically possible to do the treatment required by the standard. DoD decided
very early on decided to push the technical envelope and investigate the
development of innovative. cost-effective means of treatingrremoving perchlorate
in groundwater and soils (recall m~ earlier mention of 000 development ofbener
analytical detection methods).

Bi oreactors
The Air Force Research Laborator: (AFRL) Materials and Manufacturing
Directorate. at Tyndall Air Force Base. Florida. led the way in the development of
bioreactor systems-for treating process wastewater containing ~ery high levels of
perchlorate. Since 1997. a bioreactor based on the AFRL design has been treating
wastewater from rocket motor production and demilitarization operations at a
defense contractor facilit)· near Brigham Clt~. Utah. The first 000 facilit)· to
install a functional bioreactor for the treatment of perchlorate-contaminated
groundwater was the former Longhorn Arm~ Ammunition Plant (LHAAP) in
Karnack. Texas.

Ion Exchanee
000 has been investigating the use of ion exchange technology to treat
perchlorate contaminated groundwater supplies at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB).
Cali fomia. and at NWIRP McGregor, Texas. Edwards AFB will soon begin field
testing a new class of anion exchange resins in a conventional fixed bed ion
exchange system. The resins were Originally developed b~ scientists at the
Department of Enere\'
-'" (DOE) Oak Ridee- r..,;atlonal Laborator\'.. (ORNL) to treat
groundwater contaminated by an anIon that is chemically similar to perchlorate.

In Situ Bioremediation
Over the last several years, DoD's Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program (SERDP) has funded significant research into
understanding the mechanisms of in situ. or in place. biological reduction. Data
gathered as part of this effort indicate that perchlorate reducing bacteria are

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 Januar. 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRA.FT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

ubiquitous. strongly suggesting natural sources of perchlorate are rather

widespread in the environment. Recently. the NSWC Indian Head Division.
Indian Head. Man'land.
. and NWIRP McGre~!Or.
. .Texas.
. . .bef!an
... evaluating
..­ this
innovative means of biologically treating perchlorate-contaminated groundwater

in situ thus eliminating the need to pump the water to above ground treatment

devices.

Penneable Reactive Barriers

Penneable reactive barriers (PRBs) are a groundwater cleanup technolog~
that consists of a wall of reactive material installed in the path of a flowing
contaminated groundwater plume that treat the pollutants as they penetr.ate through
the wall. NWIRP McGregor has successfully demonstrated the ability ofPRBs to
substantially decrease the concentration of perchlorate in intercepted groundwater.

Ph\'toremediation
Phytoremediation is a treatment technology that uses natural plant
processes and microorganisms associated with the root system to remove. contain.
or degrade environmental contaminants in soil. sediment. and water. Research
funded by the Air Force Aeronautic Systems Center (ASC) Engineering
Directorate and conducted by the University of Georgia. and funded by the U.S.
Anny Operations Support Command and conducted by the University oflowa.
confinn the ability-ofphytoremediatlon to remove perchlorate from contaminated
water and soils.

Soil Biotreatment
Soil biotreatment technolog~ uses bacteria to degrade soil contaminants in a
manner similar to compostmg. It can be used either in situ or in soil excavated
and put into lined pits. 000 is conductIng field studies using both soil
biotreatment technology approaches to treat soils at the NWIRP McGregor. Texas.
and the Longhorn AAP. Karnack. Texas.

CONCLUSION

While 000 has been proacti\"el~ addressing the issue of perchlorate since
1996. we will not rest on past laurels and accomplishments. Everything that has
been done in the past has been done with the advice and consent of all stakeholder
partners. including EPA.

We are commined to protecting human health and the environment.

compliance with environmental laws. and ensuring that public health is not put at
risk by military operations.

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

We are commined to using the best available science to infonn public

policies and decisions to ensure that the American people are fully protected from
any risks caused by perchlorate. and has acted responsibly.

Since partnering with EPA. states. and other stakeholders. DoD has
invested over $24 million for research into the analytical. toxicological. and
treatment technology aspects of perchlorate.

Judging by recent media articles and the trade press. it is apparent that
DoD's proactive position and role in addressing perchlorate issues has been
distoned. The Department so as not to engender more heat has refrained trysting
to the scientific process and the del-iberative public policy process but now is the
time to shed more light on some of these issues.

We have always believed in having sound science supporting a public

policy and decisions. and have thus stayed away from recommending a number
believing that it is the responsibilit) of regulatory agencies to do so.

We value the validit)' and worth of the toxicological infonnation generated

b~ studies cited in EPA' s draft risk assessment. In fact. we funded a lot of them
using protocols developed in conjunction with EPA and CalEPA.

\Ve also continue to believe that proper process and appropriate models and
tools need to be used to evaluate the toxicological and health data to arrive at
sound decisions based on science.

Finall~. we support the use of sound science by regulatory agencies in an

open and transparent process in developing health-based risks and the subsequent
sening of regulatory standards. EPA has a long-standing policy that when human
data is available it should be used to derive RIDs. We agree with the approach
taken by CalEPA/OEHHA in its own reVle\\ of potential perchlorate risks that
full~ considers human data.

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 Unknown

From: Cotter. Sandra Ms OSD-ATL

Sent: Tuesday February 11. 2003 10 14
To: 'Richard B Belzer. Ph.D
Subject: FW EPA answers to questions on Perchlorate

P.lcnard,

-----O=l;:~a: ~essaGe-----
:ro:r.: ::::J::::lr~l·• • • •~.~rll~• •••••••••••••­
;:..-:

reference d:" v'isiof'.:

~ha:: Do~ see

let:e:­
~l:~ :~e ~~e~::_. ~es~onses. . :'.e\' c:e:.:.:-:'::ely have a stake ::: t.his ace
~ome 0:

:he r":n: :e(::

', .. ­ '-' .. may ce

:he e;.~:e:-.- .. '-. ' pe!"chlorate In crinkinc

:ilr.

2. :'T,

3ase~ 0;-: Q _ .::. ':C_ mee:.:.nc

rA~~ - ~- :~e :1=3: a::a=~~e~: ~~:~:d:~~ t~e q~est:~~; rospor:ses,

~ee: ~na:
::ea:.'...:pS {thlS ':'5 t:Je er:d c: the
response ::n.:es:.:.or:
.......
:.Jc.:...':"..:.:.:.es " r .... , a :ac.:.ll:y may be :aklng

:. :-:~".)~~:-. Exe::U:'l"Je Or-aeY" 12580, bu: i::

_
........ ­ ','r"
..... .
- .... _......
: "'--.3: .......... ...... ~ =: ":':;:-.. ,I
Although EPA o~~y oversees :ne
"-
;:-e::-s::-.
Sl:es (oo:~.

Chan'..:,:e
v:r: i ~:-. .:.. s nc::
51:):..
'ft.": leas: rr,or:~:-:..l.Y, 2Pf.., DeC, ar;:i :r:e statE :-e~~J':':S.~o:- :ea:r, r:',e-2:
p:~=ress C~. ~ne cleanup a~a ==~::-a=::~ pe~fo~~ance.

':'hank5'
Sarlo

2
 Page 1 of:

Unknown

From: Kratz. Kurt. OSO-ATL [Kurt Kratz@osd mil]

Sent: Monday April21 200315C2
To: COhen, Ben. Mr. 000 OGe
Cc: Sandra A Cotter
Subject: FW Feinstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate
Importance: High

-----Original Message----­
From: Koet:z, Maureen, SES, SAF/lE
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 5:08 PM
To: Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/lE
SUbject: FW: Feinstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate
Importance: High

Gentlemen.

Thanks,
MK
-----Original Message----­
From: Cornel!, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFIIE
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 2:36 PM
To: Koetz, Maureen, SES, SAF/lE; Ashworth, Richard, LtCol" SAF/IE
Subject: FW: Feinstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate
Importance: High

-----Original Message----­
From: Cullison, Geoffrey D CIV

Sent: Wednesday, April 16,200

To: Ger Kohns Es E-mail)

Cc: Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; Kratz, Kurt, ,

OSD-ATL; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Marqusee,

Jeffrey, Or, OSD-ATL; Yaroschak, Paul J, , IE; Dan Rogers (E-mail)

SUbject: FW: Feinstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate

Importance: High

 Page ~ of ~

Gerry.

For your review ana comment please Important Note susoense IS tomorrow

Q
GeDff

-----Original Message----­

From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:

To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Cornell, Jef( Lt. Col., SAF/IE; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD­

ATL; Marqusee, Jeffrey, Dr, OSD-ATL; Yaroschak, Paul J, , IE; Ganta, Krishna Mr ACSIM; Read, Marcia W Ms ASA­

I&E
Cc: 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; 'kowalczyk_daniel~bah.com'; CUllison, Geoffrey D, Mr, OPNAV; Ferrebee, Patricia,

Ms, OSD-ATL; Turkeltaub, Robert, Mr, OSD·ATL; Wieszek, Victor, Mr, OSD-ATL

Subject: Feinstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate

All.

Attached IS letter to SecDef from Senators Boxer, Feinstein. and Reid on perchlorate, and a preliminary draft

response orepared by Booz-Allen The letter was apparently mistakenly directed to Army for SecArmy response:

I've asked for Army to redirect the action to our office as clreeted by Kurt, and will ask for an extension. however,

It likely won't be extended much beyond Army's cue date of tomorrow Please review and comment on the

response

Jeff Marqusee, Kun asked that if not mentioned In our response, could you add language about $25 M the

Depanment has put towards technology development?

Thanks,

SC

04/18/03 11'14 FAX 703 614 5442 HCDA ODASA ESOH ~ OC 3

(":"""
... ..

*
_~

~nHrb ~brUB C>nudt

WASHIHOTOIII. DC
_,~_

April 2, 2003

The Honorable Donald Rumsfeld

SeaetarY of Defense
D!:pKItn'lCnt of De f (!Me
The Pentagon
WashmguJn, DC 20301

D~ Secretary Rumsfeld:

We write you to request that the DClpa.rtment ofDefenst ta1ce a more

aggressive a::Id positive role in cltaw.ng up defcnsc-reiated perchlorate
conta.minated water 5upphcs l.D a5 many as 2.2 S13tcs from Dalifomia and Nevada to
Massachusctt& and Maryland

We arc :lCl"1O'\WY WDCmlcO thzt the Dcparuncut's Fapo5Cld exemption from

environmental laws will hroil ;ts responsibi1ity to clean up percl1lorate. The !:ute
officials who are...swcrn to prote~ thelT ci'rizms' d.rinkmg water from perchlorate
and other thr'em have e~sed almn that thcU' efforts will be preempted by your
amendmrnt. See Statemenl ofEdwm F. LowrY: Director, California Depa.rt:r'Ot..nt of
TOXIC Sub~co~ Control.Pn:pareod fot th.lloUEe Comminl"~ an Armed Services.
Readiness Subcommitlee (MU'Ch 13. 2003); Lener from Colorado Attorney
Genc::-a; Ken SaJazlSr to the HODorable Bob Smith, Senate ComItnttee on
ElI'flIowucnt & Public 'Works (Dec:. 3D, 2D02}. nus is a ilenou. mar.er, because
perchlorate can impa.1r thyroId funcnanmg and affect the physu:al and mental
development of cbildreD.

To the best of om kDowlcd~, DeMl)' all th= perchlorate 'Droduced in lhe

tJmted Stales over the last tWf century was used by the Dep~ent and our space
progrur.. This means 1M! lfthe Defense Depe.ronent ducks resoonstblhty tor 1tS
actioD.3 he~, the burden ",rill fall OD hundreds of AmaleA'S co~unities, who!e
re.sidents will face not only coolamir.atlon of thm dnokinl water but the
staggering costa of clcamng up a problem they did Dot create. This is completely
~tCCPtable.

uO 5615 03
00/l>0'"
04/16/03 11:14 FAX 703 614 5442 HW>A ODASA ESOH ill 004

The JlWn trUth is tha1 the De'partm.ent ofDefeme has long been not only the
prunary con.sumcr ofperchJcnte, but also intlmltcly mvolved 10 lts manufaetunng.
Fm ex.ample~ between 1951 md 1962 the U.S. Navy owned and contracted for the
operation of the lugut perchlorate production facility in 1be CO\n1try located in
Headman. Neva$. Even after relinquishing its ownc:nhip of the (Bcihty, the
DepartmeIlt and ItS contractors conunued to be the primary customers of its
perchlorate. Perchlorau: nom thu f.a,;ility u 10:lCbing into Uft. M~ and the
Colorado River, U'Dpaeti.ng water supphC$ in California, Arizoca and Nevada.
While aggressive cleanup efforts are unrlell'Wl)' at the !itt. we Ire very conccnwL .-._.~. - - ' ­
lha1 the Depa:rtmeDt tw not aetlvely cng.agcd in cODtributins to that clcamup.

The DeparttneDt has altO been mvolveci in many other teTiow percblQf3te

conwnination sites 10 our states. The California Department of Hcaltb ScTviceI

h.a3 detected perchlonLtc in 292 public groundwaw wells. the majority of which

aTe 10cated near facilities operated by the Depanme.nt or its eontracton.

The Defense Department has said tha1 it is not willing to start clean-up of

perchlor2te tmtil there 111 a TWiona: standard. but finalizing the standard is currcnl1y

projected to take yeus. It is unacceptable for the Defense Depa:rtmel1t to adopt this

delay strategy wlulc pm-atc paroes and dncl:ing water utilitlec adopt costly

UWia:llD'C, to assure the punt)' of d.nnkmS ..,,,ter £upplies. Companies ba~ already

spent milhons on pnonty aet10ns to n:~ the threat to Amc:ricmJ5 - and we urge

the Dc:fcruc Department to do 50 as well

One obvious priority effort 1.5 to try to stem the flow of~oratc into the

Colorado River ~ the Htn!i.enot) facility described abo.ve. ~err.McGeeJwhicb

'operated the facility a!\er the Dc:fenJ.e DepartmeDI, h.aa built a. statc-of-d1e an i~

cxcb3nge facility and tak~ other measUres in' an attempt to addross the problem.

Yet tbc Def~ DGpACtm~t hal QQnC nott\ms. The federal sovensnsent cannot sit

idly by wht1e its actioDs ~ affeCtIng the quaLITY ot our dnnlang water .

We request that the Depanmcmt ~or1 bad to us on the top priority sltel

around the COWltry for 11 to reduce pachlonte contammation in dnnking water,

and what inlnaJ meUW'es the DepMtmeI1! would take in C.alifornll, Nevada,

Anzona, Texu and other states, gIven available funding We expect a serious md

detailul response as warrants a potontlal threat to Amencans' heAlth.

~'d

-_._-_._------------------------­
04/16/03 II: 15 FAX 703 614 5442 HCDA ODASA ESnll

We hope that you wiU join us m the spIrit of cooperanon to address this
impormnt 135ue. We look forward to heanng from you as !lOOn as possible.

Smcere.ly,

VP~L-~~'~f
Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator
id
'
U.S. Senator

EJtY<Rl' 0
Dear Senator XXXXX,

Thank. you for your recent letter in which ~'ou expressed concerns about the
relationship between the Department of Defense's proposed Readiness and Range
Preservation Initiative (RPPI) and perchlorate. Let me begin b~\ stating that the
Department is committed to sustaInIng C .5. test and training capabilities in a manner
that fullv satisfies that militarv readIness mission, is protective of public health, and·
provide~ exemplary stewards'hip ot the lands and natural resources entn,Jsted to the
DoD b~' Congress.

RPPI and Perchlorate

Some observers have expressed concern that the Department's proposed RPPI
legislation could intentionally or unintentionally affect our financial liability or cleanup
responsibilities with respect to perchlorate. Let me assure you that nothing in RPPI will
affect the Department's financIaL cleanup, or operational obligations with respect to
perchlorate or any other chemIcal

Under Section 106 of the ComprchensI\'e Environmental Response,

CompensatIOn, and Liability Act (CERCLAj, EPA has the authority to "issule] such
orders as mav be necessary to protect pu bhc health and welfare and the environment"
whene\'er it "determines that there ma\' be an imminent and substantial endangerment
to the public health or welfare or the en\'ironment because of an actual or threatened
release oi a hazardous substance from a facilitv." Such orders are in addition to
Injunctive relief, and are enforceable b\' fines of 525,000 a day. Nothing in the program
affects EPA's authority to Issue such orders. And because EPA's sweeping section 106
authority covers not onJ~' actual but "threatened release," our proposal would therefore
clearly enable EPA to address groundwater contamination b~for(' the contamination
leaves DoD land - which is also the ob,ectI\'e of 000' s existmg management policies.
Section 10b would also clearly cover on-range threats fro~ perchlorate or any other
chemIcal

In addition, nothing in RPPI affects the Safe Dnnking Water Act (SOW A), which
provides that EPA" upon receipt ot mformation that a contaminant which is present or
15 lzkeI}1 tl) enter a public water system or an underground source of drinking water may
present an imminent and substantIal endangerment to the health of persons ... may take
such actions as [EPA] may deem necessary to protect the health of such persons,"
eniorceable by civil penalties of up to 515,000 a day. Because this SDWA authority is
not limited to CERCLA "releases" or off-range migration, it clearly empowers EPA to
issue orders to address endangerment either on-range or off-range, and to address
possible contamination before it migrates off-range. In the event that perchlorate or any
other contamination from munitions migrates off-range, states and citizens can ust'
Resource Conservation and Recoven' Act (RCRA) authority if the contammation IS not
addressed under CERCLA, as discussed above. Such RCRA authorit~· would mcluLk
on-range measures needed to redress the mIgration.

Some commentators have also expressed concern that our' RRPI proposal would
create a legal regime that barred regulators from addressing contamination until it
reached the fencelines of our ranges, or that it at least reflects a 000 policy to defer an~'
action until that point. As the abo\'e discussion makes clear, EPA's continumg
authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to prevent likely contamination and under
section 106 of CERCLA to address tJlreatened releases clearly empower the Agenc~' to act
before contamination leaves 000 ranges. In addition, States and citizens_exercising
RCRA authorit:· under our RRPI RCRA provision addressing off-range migration could
use that authority to enforce on-range measures necessary to redress the migration.
Finally, it is most definitely not 000 policy to defer action on groundwater
contamination until it reaches the fencelines of our operational ranges, when it will be
far more difficult and expensive to address To the contTar~', on November 13, 2002,
000 issued a perchlorate assessment policy authorizing asessment "if there is a
reasonable basis to suspect both a potential presence of perchlorate and a pathway on [ ]
installation[s] where it could threaten public health."

The Use of Sound SCience in the RISk Settmg Process

Since 1997, the Department. In partnership with EPA, NASA, State and local
regulators and ~ative A:nerican trIbe~, has worked aggressively to identify what the
hazard from perchlorate is to the American public, and to inform and involve
stakeholders about developments m the techmcal and regulatory arenas. Central to this
effort has been the commitment to use sound sCience to generate credible decisions,
including accurate risk characterIZatIon and appropriate risk management strategies.

The Department has been at the toretront of perchlorate research, and has
invested over 525 million to better characterize the potential human health and
environmental risks associated with perchlorate, and to develop innovative treatment
technologies 000 worked closeh' With EPA to establish perchlorate study goals and
protocols, and has funded and conducted mam' mdependent studies to assess the
potential rIsks and effects of perchloratc ('\-posure. As a result of this close cooperation,
the sCience needed to accuratel~' characterIze the risk from pechlorate exposure was
generated in an accelerated manner. and the resultmg perchlorate database is more
robust than man .v in EPA's Integrated Rlsl-. Information System
. (IRIS}, as evidenced bv.
estimations of overall confidence, size at uncertainty factor, and types of available data.

vVhile 000 scientists do not necessarily agree with all of the conclusIOns stated in
EPA's January 2002 perchlorate risk assessment document, the Department continues to
work with EPA and other stakeholders to develop scientifically-defensible decisions
regarding perchlorate use, assessment. and cleanup. Scientists and officials from both
organizations are actively discussing how to obtain a disinterested, objective and
neutral interpretation of this increasinglY rich database from the Nation's leadm,e:
SCIentIsts. Once this review is completed, EPA can move fo!Vvard to finish its TIsk
assessment and to provide clear answers to State and local government leader,'" water
utility officials and address public concerns about perchlorate.

Commitment to Protecting the Pubhc

The Department is charged with protecting the United States - its people, \'alues,
and resources. DoD is the environmental steward of over 25 million acres of land ­
some 1.1 ~~ of the total land area in the United States - that have been entrusted by
Congress to the Department to use efficientl~' and to properly care for. In _executing
these responsibilities we are committ~d to more than just compliance with the
applicable laws and regulations. VVeare committed to protecting, preserving, and,
when required, restoring, and enhancmg the quality of the environment. Through the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) we are cleaning up contamination
from past practices on our installatIons and are building a whole new progralp to
address unexploded ordnance on our closed, transferring, and transferred ranges.

The fact that the Department has invested in excess of 525 million on perchlorate
research and treatment technology development alone is a clear indication of the
Department's commitment to protect the public health of the American people. This
commitment is further supported b\' our partnership with EPA to ensure that the
l\:aticm' 5 leading SCIentists are PW\'lJl'J an opportunity to re\'iew the perchlorate
database. Such a review will ensure that rIsk characterization and subsequent risk
management deciSIons are, in fact. b.:lSl'J on sound science.

Let me close by reiterating thalthe Department is committed to sustaining U.s.

test and traming capabilities m a manner that full~' satisfies that military readmess
mission, IS protective of human health, and pW\'ides exemplary stewardship of the
lands and natural resources entrusted to DoD b:-' Congress.

Sincereh',
Message Page 1 of3

Unknown

From: Richard B Belzer [rbbelzer@cox.net]

Sent: Tuesday, February 10, 2004 11:42
i
To: L1inda Wennerberg; Sandy Cotter; 'Dan Kowalczyk'; Daniel Rogers; 'Kurt Kratz'; 'Jeff Comell
Subject: Emerging Chemicals Update
Importance: High

DOD ACTIVITIES ON PERCHLORATE

-
• At Professor Klaassen's request, Dr. l\1attie and I will be meeting with in Kansas City on
Sunday afternoon and Monday, 15-16 February, to help him outline his review of the risk
assessment. Based on my conversations with him, Klaassen appears to believe that the
available human data are sufficient for risk assessment and that the controversial animal
studies are not needed. One question I hope to resolve is whether he believes any of
these studies ought to be repeated in order to resolve uncertainty about the potential for
neurodevelopmental effects.
• We will want to ensure that Klaassen is fUlly informed about the human PBPK work that.
Dave has pioneered. It would be especially useful to know whether he believes that
various proposed targeted research projects have significant value added.
• The defense reauthorization directed DoD to have another agency perform (a) a reView
of perchlorate science and (b) an epidemiological study of actual human health effects.
o The administration formally opposed component (a) on the ground that it
duplicated the NRC review.
o No funds were appropriated, but it could well be in DoD's interest to find the
resources to perform (b).
o Hiring ATSDR (as the language initially suggested) or NIH (which means NIEHS) to
perform either of these projects would be disastrous. ATSDR's epidemiological shop
is professionally awful, and NIEHS is in EPA's pocket.
o An innovative approach to (b) can be developed that is both cost-effective and
dispositive of the question. It would involve extensive cultivation of leading
university scientists in exposure assessment. Serendipitously, I know many of these
people.
• ARIQd u~tive~e~Ji n9-coYl~Lbe~cQnv~neg tQ_disJ:,U,S_S_QRtLQmuwQ pJQ_La.wClY fOJwar.d.

EPA SHENANIGANS ON PERCHLORATE

ll
• As you know by now, EPA hired a contractor to perform a peer review of the
II

controversial elements of its October Surprise. This review" will be a low-level affair
II

conducted by teleconference in May and probably not in public. Presumably, EPA thinks
that this will help them recover their scientific reputation, which took a shellacking during
the December 2003 NRC committee meeting at the hands of Dr. Wahlsten and the UNMC
experts.
• The proposed completion date (May 2004) suggests that it intends to follow up its
October Surprise with a June Surprise, and thereby get in the last word to the NRC.

9/6/2007

Message Page 2 of3

Alternatively, EPA may think that this "peer review" could be used politically to salvage
work that it expects the NRC to dismiss.
• SQiaLQ$~nOW, EPA did not cteaLthis project with the interagency WQLlgng--9fQUp. If
tb,at is the cas~thepJ:Qject coulcL~ raised at the next principals' meeliog, wi1:h~tbegoal
of .pulling its plug.The project is transparently mischievous and entirely~!JQlicatiY~_.ottbe
NRC review.

REGULATORY IMPACT ANALYSIS

• On several occasions I have been asked by AF to outline, edit or perform a Regulatory

Impact Analysis (RIA) for the perchlorate RfD. Each time I have expressed bountiful
enthusiasm for the effort provided that (a) there was clarity in the task description and
(b) the work was duly authorized by 05D. So far as I know, neither (a) nor Cblllc;n[e
occurred.
• I have assisted BAH in the preparation of an outline for an RIA and been asked to
estimate my level of effort. Without greater clarity in the assignment, I cannot provide a
reliable estimate. If you are still expecting a deliverable from me, please let me know.
• I see three general options, but choosing one depends on the eVidentiary standard that
DoD promised to meet or OMB is likely to demand:
o A quick-and-dirty showing that the perchlorate RfD is a "major rule". This presumes
that a low evidentiary standard is sufficient and that after DoD makes the case the
burden of proof would shift to EPA to show why the RfD should notbe considered
an "economically significant regulatory action" or, for shorthand, a "major rule".
,Given the predictable controversy that would arise if OMB were to designate the
perchlorate RfD a major rule, I am skeptical that this would be sufficient.
o A high-quality shOWing that the perchlorate RfD is a major rule. This presumes that
OMB requires a high-quality showing, including persuasive evidence that the matter
is ripe for review now and would be moot if postponed until a 5DWA
rulemaking (Le., the bureaucratic default). It also presumes that DoD would want.
or need to satisfy OMB's government-wide information quality standards and
proposed peer review reqUirements. From my experience, I believe that this is the
minimum evidentiary standard that would make OMB action along the lines DoD
wants credible and defensible.
o A comprehensive RIA for the perchlorate RfD. Ultimately, this is what EPA would be
reqUired to produce if OMB were to designate the RfD as a major rule. However,
there is ample experience shOWing that EPA would do this poorly if it were required
to do so. That would mean a long, drawn out defensive action with EPA. Because
EPA would be dependent on DoD for data, a strong case can be made that
performing the RIA "for" EPA would be less costly to DoD in the long run and
better serve its strategic objectives. The amount of time and expense depends on
whether additional data must be obtained.
• 05D guidance on this would be v-w- helpful,~erhaps after conveni09. a meetJillLtQ

discuss the benefits and costs to 000 of various options..)

EPA SHENANIGANS ON TCE

• As you know, AF has tried for over a year to obtain EPA's participation in a series of

9/6/2007

Message Page 3 of3

"peer consultations" that would be performed by TERA in Cincinnati. For almost all of
that time, EPA has dithered and stalled. Then it came up with its own plan for a rigged
NRC review whose transparent objective was to reclaim control of the process and shut
down AF. For several months I assisted Dr. Brian Howard in fending off EPA.
• In early February TERA held the first of these peer consultations on the subject of PBPK
modeling. At nearly the last minute, EPA agreed to participate. EPA then proceeded to
dominate the process by sending three of its personnel to the workshop. AF had only
two, one one of whom is a PBPK modeler. I am concerned that without a TCE strategy
000 will find itself living the perchlorate experience all over again.
• EPA was blocked by 000 in its efforts to secure IWG approval. However, theJ~is nO\~Lg
Q!JZZ: outside the government suggesting that EPA has contravened IWG instructiOl:LS_and
is moving forward anyyyay. This would be disappointing but unsurprising given past EPA
behavior.
o If confirmed, this might be a useful topic of discussion at the

next Principals' meeting.

o Alternatively, 000 might conclude that is better to think about whether, and if so
how, to play this card so as to maximize its value. (Among other things, this
depends on whether EPA knows that we know.)

DOD STRATEGY ON TeE

• So far as I know 000 does not have a strategy to manage the TCE issue. This is
something that we have talked about for a long time but set aside due to other, more
pressing crises such as perchlorate.
• There is considerable interest in this issue outside of the government, and a lot of effort
is being devoted to taking the temperature of 000, DOE, etc., before deciding how to
proceed.
• Because TCE is really heating up--and EPA does not appear to have set it aside on the
back burner as DoD has done--it is relatively important to get our arms around this
matter soon.

10~--­

Indepencienl, and nonprofit.

r]or]p"rtISilrl,
, regulatory oversight
I
Richard B Belzer Regulatory Checkbook
President P.O. Box 319
Mt. Vernon, VA 22121
tel: 703-780-1850

I Belzer@RegulatoryCheckbook.Org
fax: 202-478-1626
mobile: 703-200-4260
Powered bV Pla\o Want a signature /ike this?

9/6/2007

Unknown

From: Kratz, Kurt, ,OSD-ATL

Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 09:50
To: Meehan, Patrick, Mr, OSD-ATL
Cc: Willging, Joseph, Mr, DoD OGC; Cotler, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: FW Dingell, Solis Say Defense Department Impeding Tests for Perchlorate

~~
-.:.:J
March

12-Dingell.doc

Latest broadside. I will start BAH cross checking the data here
with
the latest updates from the Services so we are ready to support EPA
again.
Kurt

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Wednesday, March 24, 2004 9:32 AM

To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL

Subject: FW: Dingell, Solis Say Defense Department Impeding Tests for

Perchlorate

Kurt,

Here's that followup letter from Dingell-Solis

-----Original Message----­
From: D'Amato, Paul, Mr, 000 OGC

Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 5:59 PM

To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Subject: RE: Dingell, Solis Say Defense Department Impeding Tests for

Perchlorate

Sandy,

Yes there is. I found copies of the letter (text only; not signed) on

GalleryWatch and the Energy and Commerce Committee Democrat's page

(http://www.hollse.gov/commerce democrats/press/1081tr87.htm). Attached

is a copy of the letter and attachment.

Paul

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 3:24 PM

To: D'Amato, Paul, Mr, 000 OGe

Subject: FW: Dingell, Solis Say Defense Department Impeding Tests for

Perchlorate

Paul,

Is there anyway of getting a copy of this letter?

-----Original Message----­
From: Richard B Belzer [mailto:rbbelzer@cox.netJ

Sent: Tuesday, March 16, 2004 10:08 AM

To: Sandy Cotter; 'Dan Kowalczyk'; Col .Dan Rogers; Joe Wil1ging; 'Kurt

Kratz'; 'Jeff Cornell'

Subject: BNA: Dingell, Solis Say Defense Department Impeding Tests for

Perchlorate

No. 50 Page A-26

1
 Tuesday March 16, 2004

ISSN
1523-567X

Regulation &
Law

Environment
Dingell,
Solis Say
Defense
Department
Impeding
Tests for
Perchlorate
at Facilities

Two members of Congress expressed concern March 15 that the Department

of
Defense "is not aggressively investigating" the existence of perchlorate
and
other contamination from munitions constituents at its facilities,
particularly in groundwater.

In a let~er to the Environmental Protection Agency, Rep. John Dingell

(D-Mich.) and Hilda Solis (D-Calif.) also said they were very concerned"

that DOD "is failing to provide complete and timely data to EPA and

state

regulators."

In one case, a federal facility wanted to test for perchlorate

contamination

but was blocked by the Pentagon, according to the letter to EPA

Administrator Mike Leavitt.

Perchlorate, an unregulated contaminant used in rocket fuel and

munitions,

has been found at many federal facilities, although not exclusively at

them.

"More often than not, it appears that at the base or installation level,

the

commanders and the state and EPA regulators can work in a cooperative

manner

to address issues, including sampling," the letter said.

'Unnecessary Conflicts.'

"Unfortunately, the lawyers and leadership at the Pentagon are forcing

unnecessary conflicts and challenges to EPA and state regulatory

authority,"

it said.

For example, Democratic staff members were informed of one situation

where a

defense facility wanted to test for perchlorate contamination but was

blocked by the Pentagon, according to the letter.

"Ultimately, the facility asked state regulators to send them a letter

requesting perchlorate sampling as a way to overcome the Pentagon's

recalcitrance," it said.

Dingell is ranking Democrat on the House Committee on Energy and

Commerce,

and Solis is ranking member on the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on

2
Environment and Hazardous Materials.

EPA Talking to Committee Again

On Feb. 5, Dingell and Solis wrote Leavitt expressing their cQncerns

that
apparently EPA's regional offices had been instructed not to talk to
congressional staff about the extent of perchlorate contamination from
federal facilities.

"We are pleased that you have removed the restrictions and that minority
staff members are now again communicating directly with regional
officials
who are knowledgeable" about the extent of perchlorate contamination at
defense facilities, Dingell and Solis said in the March 15 letter.

"In that spirit of cooperation, we would like to share with you our
staff's
assessment identifying 40 DOD facilities where known perchlorate
contamination of the surface water or groundwater" exists, they said.

In several cases, the contamination is known to have migrated off-base

and
affected drinking water supplies, the letter said.

The staff's assessment has identified 40 Defense Department facilities

where
perchlorate has been found in surface or groundwater, about 25 percent
more
than the 30 facilities identified by EPA its June 27, 2003, response to
the
committee, according to the letter.

DOD Sites With Contamination

According to information compiled by the Democratic staff of the House

Energy and Commerce Committee, the following Department of Defense sites

have known perchlorate contamination:

Alabama--Redstone Arsenal Missile Plant;

Arizona--Camp Navajo, Davis Monthan Air Force Base, Yuma Marine Corps

Air

Station;

California--Beale Air Force Base, China Lake Naval Weapons Station,

Edwards

Air Force Base, El Toro Marine Corps Air Station, Mather Air Force Base,

McClellan Air Force Base, Sierra Army Depot, Travis Air Force Base,

Vandenberg Air Force Base, O.S. Navy Firing Range;

Colorado--Pueblo Chemical Depot;

Georgia--Moody Air Force Base;

Iowa--Iowa Army Ammunition Plant;

Massachusetts--Massachusetts Military Reservation;

Maryland--Aberdeen Proving Ground, Adelphi Laboratory Center, Fort

Meade,

Naval Surface Warfare Center (at Indian Head and White Oak);

Missouri--Lake City Army Ammunition Plant;

New Jersey--Picatinny Arsenal;

3
New Mexico--Cannon Air Force Base, Fort Wingate Depot Activity, Hollomon
Air
Force Base, Kirtland Air Force Base, Melrose Air Force Range, White
Sands
Missile Range;

Oklahoma--McAlester Army Ammunition Plant;

Oregon--Umatilla Army Depot;

South Carolina--Poinsett Range at Shaw Air Force Base;

Texas--Camp Bullis, Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Longhorn Army

Ammunition Depot, McGregor Naval Weapons Plant, Red River Army Depot;

Utah--Hill Air Force Base, (Ogden and Great Salt Lake Desert), Utah Test
and
Training Range, Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance Plant facility at
Alliant
Techsystems;

Washington--Camp Bonneville; and

West Virginia--Allegany Ballistics Laboratory.

According to the information, about half of the sites are the subject of
superfund cleanups. Some of the sites have been closed by DOD and are
undergoing divestiture, the information said.

California Identifies Maximum Level

Meanwhile, the California Office of Environmental Health Hazard

Assessment
on March 11 identified the maximum level of perchlorate in drinking
water
that does not pose a significant risk to human health at 6 parts per
billion.

The action requires the Department of Health Services to establish a

drinking water standard for the chemical as close to that goal as is
economically and technically feasible. Perchlorate is used in rocket
fuel,
explosives, road flares, and air-bag inflation systems.

The OEHHA has been developing a public health goal for the chemical
since
1998 and in 2002 proposed a 6 ppb goal. However, the agency was unable
to
finalize the goal when a lawsuit mandated a second round of peer review
on
the proposal.

Perchlorate has been found in drinking water supplies throughout

California
and 29 other states. In California, wells tested have found levels
ranging
from 18 ppb to as high 260 ppb, mostly at sites once or still occupied
by
defense contractors or other companies that used the chemical.

4
 March 12,2004

The Honorable Michael R. Leavitt

Administrator
Environmental Protection Agency
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460-0001

Dear Administrator Leavitt:

On February 5, 2004, we wrote to you expressing our serious concerns about

restrictions that had been imposed to prevent the direct communication by Committee
minority staff with Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Regional staff. We are
pleased that you have removed the restrictions and that minority staff members are now
again communicating directly with regional officials who are knowledgeable about the
nature and extent of contamination from perchlorate and other military munitions
constituents at Department of Defense (DOD) facilities. The cooperation of the regional
staff is appreciated.

In that spirit of cooperation we would like to share with you our staff's assessment
identifying 40 DOD facilities where known perchlorate contamination of the surface
water or groundwater exists at DOD facilities. In several cases this contamination is
known to have migrated off-base and affected drinking water supplies. The assessment
reveals approximately 25 percent more facilities than the 30 that the EPA identified in its
response to us on June 27,2003.

We remain very concerned that DOD is not aggressively investigating the existence of
perchlorate and other contamination from munitions constituents at its facilities,
particularly in the groundwater under operational ranges, and is failing to provide
complete and timely data to EPA and state regulators. More often than not it appears
that at the base or installation level, the commanders and the state and EPA regulators
can work in a cooperative manner to address issues, including sampling. Unfortunately,
the lawyers and leadership in the Pentagon are forcing unnecessary conflicts and
challenges to EPA and state regulatory authority. For example, members of the
Committee minority staff were informed of a situation where a DOD facility wanted to
test for perchlorate contamination of the groundwater but was blocked by Pentagon
officials in Washington. Ultimately, the facility asked state regulators to send them a
letter requesting perchlorate sampling as a way to overcome the Pentagon's
recalcitrance.

Our letter to you of February 5, 2004, asked for comprehensive information concerning
contamination from military munitions constituents (perchlorate, TNT, RDX, HMX, White
Phosphorus) at DOD facilities. The response to that letter is now approximately three
weeks overdue. The hearings on the annual Defense Authorization bill have
commenced and it is extremely important that such information be made available to
Congress immediately. Thank you for your attention to this matter. If you need further
information, please contact us or have your staff contact Richard Frandsen with the
Committee Democratic staff at (202) 225-3641.

Sincerely,

JOHN D. DINGELL
RANKING MEMBER
COMMITTEE ON ENERGY AND COMMERCE

HILDA L. SOLIS
RANKING MEMBER
SUBCOMMITTEE ON ENVIRONMENT
AND HAZARDOUS MATERIALS

cc: The Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman

Committee on Energy and Commerce

The Honorable Paul E. Gillmor, Chairman

Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
 \

DoD Sites with Known Perchlorate Contamination

State State City Facility Status Contamination Max. Reference

"Advisories"
Identified Cone.
Wale,~ ppb
Soil ~ ppm

AL Huntsville Redstone Arsenal Missile Plant NPLGroundwater ----- EPA June 2, 2003
19,000 f--------
f---~-- ~----- ~-~------------~

Soil
-,-,._._---­
NL 000 NPL Oct03
-- ~---

c------­ --------~- ------ -- ---- --- .,---

---~--- --­
~ring~~eps
----
_ 37- - - - ~PAAp~2Q~L----~-----
-
AZ 14 ppb Bellemont ~----
Cam.~.!'Ja,,-ajo _____ ~~_~_________ ~_ Groundwater
-----­
----~
NL DoDOct03 ~-

Tucson Davis Monthan Air Force Base

-------_._- '----------------------­ --- _.- -._----- -----­
Soil 28 000 Survey2----------------~---

Yuma Yuma Marine Corps Air Station NPL Groundwater ---- -

4.21 000 NPL Oct03
_._--,-­ --_._---
~----- .--"­

--- --_._­ ---- -----

-----_._~------_.--
Surface Water 4.56
---~~------- - - - - -
000 NPL Oct03
-------------- ----
CA 4 ppb Marysville Beale Air Force Base
r-:-:---------- --------- ----- - - - - - ­
Groundwater 500 CA.
SWRCBIDTSC ---­
Rid~e~~~______~ ~~jna La~e !'I~~~_~eIlP.?~~_~tat!~ Groundwater 560
------------ --------- -----
CA SWRCBIDTSC ~--------_. __ .. ­

Edwards Edwards Air Force Base NPL Groundwater !§.Q,OOQ__ EPA June__2,._---- 2003
.. ,._------- -­
----- -- ---- -~._~------,_.

-'-"-'---'---'- _.,.-- .._. -_. --- _._-_.- -- --- -.-.---'- ,--

- - - - . ------­ ~~~QQ._---
Soil
-~
DoD~~v~~ ___________
EI Toro EI Toro Marine Corps Air Station NPL Groundwater 380 EPA June 2, 2003
Closed
----- _.- --- . -------_. _..- .'-- --- - --._­ _._._--­ f------------ ------
---------­ -_ _-----_.
~------,-
.•. -------.- - --­ ----~--

Rancho Cordova Mather Air Force Base· NPL ~inki~!t~~~ 120 EPA June 2, 2003
------- ------- -_._------_._--_.--­
--_._-_._ . ----._-­ - -_. ---._-- ---­
Closed Groundwater 1,800 EPA June 2, 2003
_--~-- -----~----- ~
f------­
r---~-- -------------
Sn~ramento McClellan Air Force Base NPL Groundwater 6 CA SWRCB/DTSC
Closed
-- ..- - - - - ­ ---- f---------­ _ ...
~--- f-----------------­
-­

Herlong Sierra Army Depot Groundwater

f-----­
8 CA SWRCBIDTSC ._--
Soil 7.52 CA SWRCBIDTSC -~'------~ -~-----_.

Fairfield Travis Air Force Base NPL Groundwater NL DoDOct03 -----_.--_. __ .

f-----
Vandenberg AFB Vandenberg Air Force Base Groundwater 517 CA SWRCBIDTSC
. - - - - - - - _....._­
Soil NL 000 Letter to CalEPA --_._----~----_.-

San Nicholas Island US Navy Firing Range Drinking Water 20 CADHS 2003 _. __ ._-.­
Soil 88 CA SWRCBIDTSC ~---_.-

CO Pueblo Pueblo Chemical Depot Groundwater 180 EPA June 2,2003

---------------
-- ~~ f-~

GA -------- ~oody AFB

~- --
~oody Air Force Base Soil 46.9 000 Survey2 -------_.----­
IA Middletown Iowa Army Ammunition Plant NPL Groundwater 9 EPA June ----
2, 2003--------- --._--­
30 Interview 02.25.04-EPA official

c­ -----------------
MA I ppb Bourne Massachusetts Military Reservation NPL Drinking Water 1:75­ DoD Oct03
r--------- ----­ -------_._-----~-

Groundwater 300 000 NPL Oct03

. ... .. --­
----~-----_ _----~-------- __
MD
I ppb Aberdeen Aberdeen Proving Ground NPL Drinking Water 5 DoD NPL Oct03
~-----~ -- - ---------­

Groundwater 24
f-----'-----­ -------
~!'A JU~~_~_2QQ3 _______ .___ _
Soil DoD NPL Oct03
0.015 __ f------- ---------------. ---
Adelphi Adelphi Laboratory Center· Groundwater NL DoD Survey2
f------7----------~--- -­

Odenton Fort Meade NPL Groundwater NL DoDOct03

Demoaatic Staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce March 1, 2004

 DoD Sites with Known Perchlorate Contamination
State State City Facility Status Contamination Max. Reference
..Advisories" Identified Cone.
Water~ ppb
Soil ~ppm

MD I ppb Indian Head Naval Surface Warfare Center NPL Groundwater 25,000 DoD Survey2
- ------------- ----- -----------~-------
------,-,------_. - - - - - ~~_Q.~11':'t:y2_ _______
Soil NL
--------.------- . 1--------- - ----------- --- --- -----­ --
Surface Water 3,000
. ---_.__ ..._---­
-~--_ ­ -~----
1)~I?~urv~x~ ____________
White Oak Naval Surface Warfare Center Closed Groundwater 798
---_._----- f--- - - - - - - --------- 1---------- ----------------- - - ­ -------- --_._-_.'._--­ ------- EPA April ~--
2003
---------- --------­
M----O- Independence Lake City Army Ammunition Plant NPL Groundwater 79 DoD Oct03
-- - ---_._--- f--------- ----------- ----- --- ---­
_._----_._- -­ -_. __.. "-- --- ---. - '. - _. --_.- _. - --_. _._-----
~_.- ------
Soil 0.015 DoD NPL Oct03
--------,_._---- 1-------­ --------------_... _----_._._-­
--------,­

NJ 1------- -----­ Dover - _._- .- ... _._-- ---_._­ ~c~~llnt.t\r~~nal

_._.- '
____ NPL Groundwater 627 EPA June 2, 2003
--- - .-.-.._------­ -----_._-_ . _. -- ---------------- --­
NM I ppb Clovis Cannon Air Force Base l?~inkinIL~~~r_ ._-46- --_.-----­ ~!':\.:\Pri!..200!__
Soil NL
.' -- --,._-----_.-. -­
DoD Oct03
--_.,----_. -- --_ .. -._-. _.'-.

--- --- .__... _._­ - -- - _.- ---­ -- Surface Water 6.1 DoD Oct03
--_.- _.- ._-_.._...._-_ .. ----­
~-_._------

--_._­ ~8.6_0_ __ EPA

Gallup Fort Wingate Depot Activity Groundwater
--_ . -
June 2, 2003
--- ---- -,,- --- --_._---------_._._--_.
-- ------- _._.._­ -~_.
_._--------- --_.. - --_. -_. -------­
Soil NL EPA June 2, 2003
.- .. - - - ----­ --_._--­ -_.- -_.- --._--- --_.- - _. __ ._ . . . - - .. - .. _---­
Alamogordo Hollomon Air Force Base ---_._-- _ .._- --­ -_.__ . ­ EP A.Ju~~.l003 .-._------.
Groundwater 40
Soil --------
NL
----
EPA June 2, 2003
- - - - - - -"._--­ _._---._---_. _---------- ­ ------ 1----
--
Surface Water 16,000 . EPA.-_._._-_._----_._-_._-­
June 2,2003
~.!~llquerque Kirtland ------_
Air Force Base .._­ Soil NL EPA June 2, 2003 ._-----------~--- -­
Melrose Melrose Air Force Range Water 40.7 EPA April 2003
Supply Well
1--­
Las Cruces White Sands Missile Range Groundwater 30,000 DoD Surve¥~_______
--
Soil NL EPA Apri!}003 ______
I--­ --------- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1-------­
OK
--
McAlester McAlester Army Ammunition Plant Surface Water NL DoD Oct03 ---~-- _._..
OR Hermiston
--
Umatilla Army Depot NPL Groundwater 10 EPA June 2, 2003 ..------­ ~-

SC Shaw AFB Poinsett Range Groundwater 8.4 DoD Oct03 ---- - --_._-­
TX 4 ppb, 7 ppb or San Antonio Camp Bullis Groundwater NL DoD Oct03
-- .--------_.._.. _. ------_._--_.­
10 ppb Texarkana Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant NPL Groundwater 23 EPA June 2, 2003
------_. __ ._-- ------_._­
Soil 0.009 DoDOct03
--------- 1------- f------ -------- -----------­
Surface Water 6 EPA June 2,2003
-- 1----- ---------------------­
Karnak Longhorn Army Ammunition Depot NPL -Groundwater 247,000 -- --- DoD NPL Oct03
_._--_.- . ... _--_._---_.-- ------­
Soil 163 DoD NPL Oct03
- - - - ----- --- --- ._-_ ...._--_._---­
-

Surface Water 11,000 ATSDR

Democratic Staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 2 March 1,2004

 DoD Sites with Known Perchlorate Contamination
State IState City Facility Status Contamination Max. Reference
" Advisories" Identified Cone.
Water -ppb
Soil = ppm

TX 4 ppb, 7 ppb or IMcGregor McGregor Naval Weapons Plant Closed· IQ~~,!_nd,!,_at~_ ~~QQQ_ EP~J:u~~, 2003 _
10 ppb ~~!~ .~~ ~~~ Jun~, 20Q~
~.':![\g;~ ~,00Q..__ DoD _
Surface Water
------------
5,600 DoD- - - -
----
Texarkana Red River Army Depot QrolJl1dwater !Q_ EPA Ju~b ~~~ _
Soil
----
NL
--------"
DoD Oct03
--~-----------,------

~()rJ11yater ~~__ D()D Su~r2 _

Surface Water
---_._~_._--
NL DoD Oct03
--- ---_._. _._------------_._--,-_.
UT Ogden Hill Air Force Base NPL ~!Il~!Il,g \\,ate~ ~!______ DoQ_q~t03
Groundwater 70
_ ••• ' __ ' C _ ' _ _ _ _ _~
DoD Oct03 ._. _

Soil
-_. ...--_._-----, NL
-
DoD Oct03
.- _.. _.- ---_.. ... _---- ---'----_.
'

Great Salt Lake Desert IHill AFB, ground~~er 84 !'). .<'Q Survey~ _
Utah Test and Training Range QlJ_t:nch \ya!e!. 4,6(i8_ . _ Q()Q.~lJ~~y2

Soil 0.25 DoD Survey2

-----j-----_.- ---_._--_. -- --------- ----------_.- _._-­

Magna Naval Industrial Reserve Ordnance NA NL DoD Survey2
Plant (NIROP) facility

WA Vancouver ~~~~~:~~~~jres~el1ls---------r~-se-d-I-: ~-o -r~:- .l-u -n -d -;~at~e-r =- - =~O=~=__::1~~~~~: ~_~~_~ ~-_=

WV +Rocket Cen~----t~liegany- Ballistics-Lab iNPL Groundwater 26,200
Surface Water 400
DoD Surv~~2 -_=~-
DoD NPL Oct03
- -­
1lIb:l:
'i:~ sourceor,,erchlonae c;oabmm"1Oft m~'lmc otlltDIiiCId from ~~-
'Closed .de closed atlder dle Der..... 8_ Rcail&;u,'-"i.iid-~(8RAq~~--OChc-_-cJ.c-'' '-, -' ' -.defo--=-c--lc-ioJ;..-.m"illbraet'
... ' ----:--.cloe-01'' I99=leom--.pdf---;;--------- -----.-- .---­
CIosed'_ .•ire closed by DoD one! ~o'" di,....... See DoDS....ey2 _
MD... OGC. IllUUDIUII conc..enlrallOft IqK)(1cd
NL ... tilled - -------­
NPL hie is on dle SoperfundNat...a1 Priori... Lilt. See hupJ"'-hoa•.lo,-kommm:c democ:raWDQDer.emp'iono1...~itel_pdf_ _ . _
ppb. parlI per billion _
PPID. ,au per lIIillioa.
IRq.I..... Trpe: IliiCd oa • PowerPoin, ............. bY ~HA Rq... 9 see hnpJIWWW_owreb_eaIO,-/rwqeb4l1ltmvpcn:hlOiliCljliCltiirab••'IPCiclIlOrIleLOlAii&",02OMOi'Olppl_
.ite.
;_Thi. dItIlq)RI'Cll!!JO'~I~ iaformaltol! ~"'ie~ ~~ 11 doe! Dot repreal tt.e CuU IUlh"cne: of DoD coetam"'~.bccaue alVltclDMlc lllCftllleal of DoD tita-q DOl t.eea conduclcd

ISURa:
~TSDR. Ap>ey ror Toxic S•......,.. one! Dioc_ Reti.",. Public Heal1ll A : Loothont Army Am...i.... PI.., 1Caruek. Harri-. Conaty, Texa. See h1lp:/"'-alldrc:de_,,,,IHACIP~"""_~~! -=-~~~:-~=~

ICADHS 2003: CaIifomi. Dep_r .rlleallb Semon. Decem.... 1,2003 P _ ia Califom.. llrinI<i.. W_: MoaitoriDl Upoblo See hllp-''''. ........_eal••lpo1ddwemJehaa"'aI~~~~h.... ~_______ _ .

ICA SWRCBlDTSC. Calif..... Stale W_ Rcoo...,.. Caotro18oanl.t Depor1m 'afToxie S.......... Caotrol. See h~~aekc:r3 _ee:oinleral:ti,ccom,.Iie..pordlloralclreport c:oarOlOod.,_ __ _ _

DoD 0.,_.., orDer.... Doeum.... Oft pere_ _ II dle Naval W ladoolrial Rcoen·c Plan' McGtqor. T See bnps:l'--.de.ix.•od.illdcaixlPublielLibrory/W_lPen:hlo<llclM~I'3or:html ._ ._

DoD LelIe<lnCalEPA: Depo.tmeatafDer. .... Doeum..treleooed~"""'_J""'3.201l)lnCalEPASeebapt:"\"'..,, iU....illde_lieJLj~IW_IPen:~___ __ _

DoDNPL0<dl3. Depoouaeot afDe_ Doc:-"'" ..IeOiOllbydiiid Oct. 6, 200310 Rep. 10"" D D....Uone! Rep_ IUd. solil_
See h1lpo:/lmnv.~00d_.ilI....r~pooaeoeelCilClOSun:'"plJocilliY_ ...pr.q:-pdl
_ ... • i OJ rolCP_ JOhD D.Ilift,dland ICP- "dd' Soh. soc
WiPiJlWWWaeonLOSd_.iIIdCiiiilhhliclLitiiWY/W_IPen:~ ...Plliii~iiiiU200JPdl" --
DoDS 2_ afDer__ 2OO1~_a~"""OftA~"'I,200)lndleMiaarityStaJr.Cammi_ ..~.te-...... ------.- - - . ----- - --­
OIl _ ,......... Aa~and iibIO· .. Mayor. EP *<1... 9. Oft pcidiICliile soc
1llijiJ:C OiII_iiiiOitOO...,dCl.lltoc:ailiOCljlCic.iilEtWiio...Coi.JJlcc---....~ --- -- -­
EPA Juc: 2. 2003: &nimom..... rroloelion Apocy__.., eotitIcd"Kaawo P...hJorale Rcle_ ia dle US • N.r _ 2. 2003.* 0- by ....... _ J_ 27, 200) In~o: D"'cll one! Itg>HJid!~liI- ---==~: __ n_ ­

"""''''''022U4-EPAalToeiai.

Democratic Staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 3 March 1, 2004

i\' ,

Unknown

From: Koetz Maureen SES SAF/IE

Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 13:53

To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; 'Belzer@RegulatoryCheckbook.Org'

Cc: Meehan, Patrick, Mr, OSD-ATL; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ledbetter, George, COL, 000 OGC;

Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Willging, Joseph, Mr, 000 OGC
SUbject: RE: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

Nice job.

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 12:27 PM
To: 'Belzer@RegulatoryCheckbook.Org'
Cc: Meehan, Patrick, Mr, OSD-ATL; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ledbetter,
George, COL, DoD OGC; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Koetz Maureen SES SAF/IE;
Willging, Joseph, Mr, DoD OGC
Subject: RE: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

OMB indicated they will accept our revised text for the 2nd paragraph:

"Given recent concerns over potential risks associated with perchlorate,

and to adequately plan, program, and budget for possible new regulatory
requirements, the Department The Department has issued a policy that
provides for perchlorate sampling by the Services at installations where
there is both an exposure pathway and a reasonable basis to suspect the
presence of perchlorate in quantities that could threaten public
health."

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 10:38 AM
To: 'Belzer@RegulatoryCheckbook.Org'
Cc: Meehan, Patrick, Mr, OSD-ATL; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ledbetter,
George, COL, DoD OGC; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Koetz Maureen SES SAF/IE
Subject: RE: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

Rick,
The Dingell Solis response is the follow-up letter, not the original,
which is still being worked with OMB. We settled our differences with
EPA on the follow-up letter, and it's in for signature. Here's the
language we agreed to on the Dingell letter:
"The Department has continued to make progress in cooperation with the
EPA and other federal agencies, States, and local groups, in evaluating
the potential threat posed by perchlorate, and remains firmly committed
to implementing a standard that is scientifically supportable, and fully
protective of human health and the environment."

I'm suggesting the following change to the Feinstein letter which

retains our point about "regulations", adding the word "possible" which
would address EPA's comment, if indeed, that was truly their concern.
I've added your suggested changes:

"Given recent concerns over potential risks associated with perchlorate,

and to adequately plan, program, and budget for possible regulatory
requirements, the Department The Department has issued a policy that
provides for perchlorate sampling by the Services at installations where
there is both an exposure pathway and a reasonable basis to suspect the
presence of perchlorate in quantities that could threaten public
health."

Comments?
1
-----Original Message----­
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [mailto:rbbelzer@cox.netj
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 10:20 AM
To: 'Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL'
Cc: 'Meehan, Patrick, Mr, OSD-ATL'; 'Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL';
'Ledbetter, George, COL, 000 OGC'; 'Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGC'; 'Koetz
Maureen SES SAF/IE'
Subject: RE: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

BOXER LETTER

Regarding EPA's concern that 000 is claiming the authority to

"establish" a
standard but 000 only wants to ensure that the standard EPA establishes
is
scientifically supportable, I propose the following compromise language:

"000 ... remains firmly committed to implementing scientifically

supportable
standards that protect human health and the environment."

This gives EPA "implementing" but takes away "fully" preceding

"protective".
The latter language permits EPA to set a standard stringent enough to
protect the most sensitive hypothetical zygote. 000 faces more risk from
the
adverb "fully" than it does from the argument over "establish" vs.
"implement. Also, by restricting its obligations to "scientifically
supportable standards," 000 preserves its right to object to EPA
standards
that are not scientifically supportable.

Regarding CEQ'S comments, 000 should decline CEQ's proposed language

about
"current or potential pathway for exposure in a manner that could
threaten
public health ... " That language is just too open-ended. ALL exposures
are on
POTENTIAL pathways. A day-care center COULD be built next to the launch
pads
at Vandenberg. The "could threaten" construction removes any obligation
on
EPA's part to demonstrate a genuine threat. In combination with the
already
agreed-upon language prior to this, in which even "suspecting the
potential
presence" of perchlorate is enough, CEQ's proposed language is virtually
unconditional surrender.

We need to rein this in. It is not the case that you cannot reopen
previously settled text if EPA (or its stalking-horse, CEQ) insist on
unacceptable changes elsewhere.

An alternative construction to consider:

"The Department has issued a policy that provides for perchlorate

sampling
by the Services at installations where there is both an exposure pathway
and
a reasonable basis to suspect the presence of perchlorate in quantities
that
could threaten public health."

This language preserves 000 discretion, and limits its obligations to

installation where there is BOTH a bona fide exposure pathway AND
evidence
2
of releases large enough to pose a threat to public health. It also

finesses

~he question of whether rhe sampling policy nall ows " sampling (in both

DoD's

text and EPA's edits) or "directs" it (CEQ's much stronger -cext).

DINGELL-SOLIS

I am unclear what to do with suggested edits related to this letter.

Before

leaving town Lt. Col. Cornell sen~ me a second re-write to review per

verbal

instructions he received from Ms. Kaetz on 28 July. I have been

revievJing

that document. Should I not continue?

RBB

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Friday, 08 August 03 09:39N1
To: 'Richard B. Belzer PhC'
Cc: 1'1eehan, Patrick, ~/Jr, OSD-A'l'L; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ll.TL; Ledbetter,
George,
COL, DoD OGe; Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGC; Koetz Maureen SES SAF/IE
Subject: FW: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

HlCk,
P':"ease see the comments received from EPA below on our response :0
EPA/CEQ
recommended revisions on the Boxer/Feinstein/Reid letter
[boxerlette~12.doc). Also attached are comIuants submitted by EPA on
both
the Boxer letter and the Dingell-Solis follow-up letter. hny suggestions
or;
hew we might respond?

Thanks,
SC
-----Original Message----­
From: D'Amato, Paul, t--lr, DoDOGC
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 6:05 PM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: Fv-i: Pevised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

Sandy,

Official comments from EPA, neither of which are surprising.

Paul

CACJTION: This message may contain information protected by the

attorney-client, attorney work produc:, deliberative process, or other
privilege. Do not disseminate without the approval of the Office of :he
000
General Counsel.

-----Oriqinal Message----­
From: .
2003 5: 32 PIll
To:
Subject: Re: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

3
,. .

from EPA - have Sanda call me to discuss. The bottom line will be, take
8?P~' s
edits or ,vait to September. ~'Je'll get back to you on the attachments.

(Embedded
image moved
to file: 08/07/2003 05:24:26 PM
picI4585.pcx)

Record Type: Record

To:

cc:

Subject: Re: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

I have sent this to my program office. but here is a preliminary

reading.

On the letter itself, EPA takes exception to saying "in anticipation of

the eventual regulation of perchlorate~, because it is not set in stone
that. we need to regulate perchlorate under Sm'i!A until the
assessments/regulatory process is completed.

l-\lso. in their alternative paragraph. they end it by saying "once

established~.... Again, why not just leave it clean and replace the
last sentence with what EPA suggested: DOD's restoration program will
abide by any cleanup requirements established by regulatory agencies.

4
Unknown

From: Koetz Maureen SES SAF/IE

Sent: Friday, August 08,200313:30

To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'

Cc: Meehan, Patrick, Mr, OSD-ATL; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC;

Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC

Subject: RE: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

I think Richard's suggestions are correct, and should go forward. The

trouble with the prposed change to the Feinstein letter is that it does
not acfurately say what the policy says. That may be EPA's view of a
preferable world, but it's not what DOD issued; we can't lie. And we
should really guard against agreeing to guidance. And the groundwater
issue is preceisely what we have to get at.

MK

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 10:22 AM
To: 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Cc: Meehan, Patrick, Mr, OSD-ATL; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATLi Ledbetter,
George, COL, DoD OGC; Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGC; Koetz Maureen SES SAF/IE
Subject: RE: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

I've prepared the following paragraph as a possible alternative, and

will submit to OMB, unless there are objections.

"Given recent concerns over potential risks associated with perchlorate,

and to adequately plan, program, and budget for possible regulatory
requirements, the Department has issued a policy that allows 000
Components to conduct chemical sampling for perchlorate at their
installations if there is a reasonable basis to suspect both the
potential presence of perchlorate and a pathway that could threaten
public health."

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Friday, August 08, 2003 9:39 AM
To: 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Cc: Meehan, Patrick, Mr, OSD-ATL; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ledbetter,
George, COL, DoD OGC; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGCi Koetz Maureen SES SAF/IE
Subject: FW: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

Rick,
Please see the comments received from EPA below on our response to
EPA/CEQ recommended revisions on the Boxer/Feinstein/Reid letter
(boxerletter12.doc). Also attached are comments submitted by EPA on
both the Boxer letter and the Dingell-Solis follow-up letter. Any
suggestions on how we might respond?

Thanks,
SC
-----Original Message----­
From: D'Amato, Paul, Mr, DoD OGC
Sent: Thursday, August 07, 2003 6:05 PM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: FW: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

Sandy,
1
'.

---------
Official corr~ents from EPA, neither of which are surprising.

Paul

CAUTION: This messaqe may contain information protected bv the

attorney-client, atforoey work product, deliberative proc;ss, or other
priv~lege. Do not dlsseminate wlthout the approval of the Office of the
)00 General Counsel.

Sent:_nursdav, August
To: , _ _• •
0:1;
SUbject: Re: Revised Boxer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

from EPA - have Sand6 call me to discuss. The bottom line will be, take
EPA's
edits or wait to September. We'll get back to you on the attachments.

[Embedded
image moved
to file:
pic14585.pcx)

Record Type: Record

. ~o:

cc;
Subject: Re: Revised Bexer/Feinstein Letter and Enclosures 4 and 5

r have sent this to ffiy program office, but here is a preliminary

reading.
On the letter itself, EPA takes exception to saying "in anticipation of
the even~ual regulation of perchlorate", because it is not set in stone
that we need to regulate perchlorate under SDWA until the
assessments/regulatory process is completed.

Also, in their alternative paragraph, they end it by saying "once

established" .... Again, why not just leave it clean and replace the
last sentence with what EPA suggested: DOD's restoration program will
abide by any cleanup requirements established by regulatory agencies.

2
'. Page 1 of2

Unknown
------~---_._-,.-_._.~. ---------­
From: Ledbetter, George, COL, 000 OGe
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 13:43
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Cc: Willging, Joseph, Mr, DoD OGC
SUbject: FW: draft 2 WGA response
Importance: High

Sandy, Joe and I discussed this letter, We like most of the changes but edited out some or-the stuff, We are
concerned about the discussion of RRPI since our memory of the letter we are responding to addresses this issue
only briefly and this response devotes too much to it. I will be leaving at 1400 so address future (for today)
questions to Joe,

CAUTION: This message may contain information protected by the attorney-client, attorney
work product, deliberative process, or other privilege. Do not disseminate without the approval
of the Office of the DoD General Counsel.

-----Original Message----­
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [mallto:rbbelzer@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 11:58 AM
To: 'Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL'; 'Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAFjIE'; 'Ledbetter, George, COL, 000 OGC'
ee: 'Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL'; 'Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSA/JACE'; 'Dan Kowalczyk'
Subject: RE: draft 2 WGA response
Importance: High

r have made a number of suggested edits in red line/strikeout. I have taken as given the highly
cautious and defensive tone of this draft.
Still, there are couple places where I thought the text seems likely to backfire rather badly, such
as the oft-repeated statement that there are no enforceable federal or state standards for perchlorate.
That statement invites outrage on the part of DoD's critics in general, and in your audience in
particular. For many of these people, the mere absence of standards is eqUivalent to the existence of a
public health crisis. Therefore, text which states that there are no standards invites them to intensify
the clamor for standards that are precautionary rather than scientific. The objective of this letter should
be to bring WGA on your side, not drive them away. There is some risk that this letter, even with my
suggested edits, will have precisely that effect.
In a similar vein, a reference to the impending NAS review is helpful because it keeps the focus
on science-not remediation cost. (Elsewhere the letter slips into an implicit complaint about cost, which
undermines DoD's claim that the issue is about science.)
RBB

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Friday, 30 May 03 12:47PM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/lE; Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC
Ce: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATLi Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSAjJACE; Dan Kowalczyk; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Subject: RE: draft 2 WGA response
 Page 2 of2

Sorry,
I've made some additional edits...please review and coordinate.

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 11:12 AM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAFjIE; Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSAjJACE; Dan Kowalczyk; 'Richard B. Belzer
PhD' .
Subject: FW: draft 2 WGA response

Please review the attached response to WGA, and provide your coordination.

-----Original Message----­
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [mailto:rbbelzer@cox.net]
Sent: Wednesday, May 21, 2003 3:22 PM
To: Sandy Cotter; Kurt Kratz; Jeff Cornell; Dan Kowalczyk; Col. Dan Rogers
Cc: Ben Cohen
Subject: draft 2 WGA response

Attached FYI.
Revised version has more info about how RfDs are misunderstood and
misinterpreted, emphasizing uncertainty aspects that work in our favor.

RBB

9/11/2007

Mr. Thomas A. Nassif

President
Western Growers Association
P.O. Box 2130
Newport Beach, CA 92658

Dear Mr. Nassif:

Thank you for your letter dated- May 7, 2003 concerning trace levels of
perchlorate detected in the Colorado River and the!!: potential impacts on hea1th~
aflti-welfare and as well as the produce industries and the economies of the region.
First, let me assure you that the Department is sensitive to this issue and is
currently working with the 1..1 .S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA} and
other stakeholders to develop scientifically-defensible decisions for perchlorate
use, assessment, and cleanup.

Our first and foremost consideration is the protection of the health of the
Americian people. We will respond to public health risks threats in a manner
commensurate with their severity and based upon the best available scientific
understanding of their likelihood, severity and extentthreat. However, any decision
to e)(pend scarce environmental remediation resources to respond to rlGIE:f) respond
should be informed by reliable scientific evidence conceming whether-traee levels
of perchlorate pose any risk to human health or the environment.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPAj has issued interim
guidance containing recommended clean-up levels for perchlorate in groundwater,
but these levels have a-yery limited and dated scientific foundation. Substantial
new research has been conducted. and after this information has been fully
evaluated-including a review by the National Academy of Sciences-EPA will
be able to revise these levels based on an objective. realistic and scientifically
balanced characterization of the risk. Pending the completion of this there is
cun'entl)' no regulatory standard for perchlorate in drinking water. Until eftort, a
tederal or state cleanup standard is determined, the Department will continue to
work directly with state and local officials on the best strategies to manage public
exposure and safeguard public water supplies.
 The Administration is firmly committed to using the best available science
to inform public policies and decisions. Since 1997, the Department, in partnership
with EPA, NASA, and state and local regulators, has been at the forefront of
research to characterize the potential risks associated with perchlorate. The
Department ,..-atHi-plan§. to continue to work with our government and industry
partners to ensure that all significant data and requirements are considered and
inform our public health decisions.

The Department of Defense's request for clarifications to some

environmental rules is not connected in any way to the clean up of perchlorate or
other substances on military installations or training ranges. The ongoing cleanup
programs at our active military installations, as well as at our closed installations,
will continue as they are, and if a hazardous substance is found to be migrating off
of an active training range, normal procedures for dealing with the cleanup will be
implemented.

In closing, I appreciate your concerns, and look forward to meeting with

you on this matter at your earliest convenience. In addition to your efforts to
educate concerned citizens, you might consider participating in the
interagencylindustry effort, to help ensure our future cleanup standards are
scientifically sound, knowledge is shared, and the drinking water remains safe.
Sincerely,

Raymond F. DuBois

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

(Installations and Environment)

 Unknown

From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL

Sent: Friday, October 24,200314:12
To: Meehan, Patrick, Mr, OSD-ATL; Koetz Maureen SES SAFflE; Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGC;
Schregardus, Donald; Cornell Jeff Lt. Col SAFflE; Belzer@RegulatoryCheckbook.org; Fatz,
Raymond J Mr ASA-I&E; Rogers Daniel Col AFLSAIJACE; Newsome, Richard E Mr ASA-I&E:
Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGC
Cc: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: FW: Draft talkers: Monday's perchlorate presentation to NAS

Draft NAS 10-27-03

talkers. doc. "
Just came in. Note the turn around time of 1600 today to Lisa Matthews
of EPA. I can consolidate if you get to Sandy Cotter or myself by 1530
today.
Kurt

-----Original Message----­
From: Stolpe, Elizabeth A.
Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003

Perino, Dana
Subject: FW: talkers: Monday's perchlorate presentation to NAS

Pls. review and provide comments back to Lisa Matthews as soon as

possible or by COB (4:00p) today

Talking Points

EPA Presentation to the

National Academy of Sciences
Committee to Address the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion
Monday, October 27, 2003

§ The federal government takes perchlorate seriously. Several

federal agencies are vigorously studying the possible health effects of
perchlorate to get answers that are informed by the best science,
quickly.

§ Science rarely yields definitive, black and white answers. The

scientific process is the art of reducing uncertainties; uncertainties
are not typically eliminated entirely.

§ In the interest of reducing the scientific uncertainties

surrounding perchlorate and in the interest of better characterizing the
risks of exposure to perchlorate at different levels, EPA, DoD, DOE and
NASA, members of a broader Interagency Working Group on Perchlorate,
referred scientific issues and EPA's 2002 draft health assessment on
perchlorate to the National Academy of Sciences for review. EPA intends
to determine a reference dose for perchlorate, informed by the outcome
of the NAS perchlorate panel's review. The NAS is the world's
pre-eminent, deliberative Bociety of distinguished scholars engaged in
scientific research. They are the nation's scientific advisors.

§ EPA's 2002 External Review Draft perchlorate health assessment

was submitted to an external expert peer panel for review. That panel's
review generated comments (Peer Panel Report, June 2002). As part of
the scientific process, EPA's National Center for Environmental
Assessment is submitting its responses to those comments and public
comments to the NAS perchlorate panel.

§ Those responses and recommendations for revisions are in the

form of a document called, "Disposition of Comments and Recommendations
for Revisions to 2002 EPA Perchlorate External Review Draft" (October
2003) .

§ EPA's 2002 draft health assessment and some of our

recommendations for revision will be presented by EPA scientists William
Farland and Annie Jarabek to the NAS perchlorate panel on Monday.

§ The responses and recommendations for revisions are merely

background information for the NAS perchlorate panel. They are not a
new EPA health assessment, they are not new guidance for EPA and they do
not represent a new EPA position on perchlorate. This is just the
deliberative, collegial, collaborative scientific process. It's how
science is done.
-----Ori inal Message----­

For your review:

(See attached file: Draft NAS 10-27-03 talkers.doc)

Michael

2
 Talking Points

EPA Presentation to the

National Academy of Sciences

Committee to Address the Health Implications of Perchlorate Ingestion

Monday, October 27,2003

• The federal government takes perchlorate seriously. Several federal agencies are
vigorously studying the possible health effects of perchlorate to get answers that
are informed by the best science, quickly.

• Science rarely yields definitive, black and white answers. The scientific process
is the art of reducing uncertainties; uncertainties are not typically eliminated
entirely.

• In the interest of reducing the scientific uncertainties surrounding perchlorate and

in the interest of better characterizing the risks of exposure to perchlorate at
different levels, EPA, DoD, DOE and NASA, members of a broader Interagency
Working Group on Perchlorate, referred scientific issues and EPA's 2002 draft
health assessment on perchlorate to the National Academy of Sciences for review.
EPA intends to determine a reference dose for perchlorate, informed by the
outcome of the NAS perchlorate panel's review. The NAS is the world's pre­
eminent, deliberative society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific
research. They are the nation's scientific advisors.

• EPA's 2002 External Review Draft perchlorate health assessment was submitted
to an external expert peer panelfor review. That panel's review generated
comments (Peer Panel Report, June 2002). As part of the scientific process,
EPA's National Center for Environmental Assessment is submitting its responses
to those comments and public comments to the NAS perchlorate panel.

• Those responses and recommendations for revisions are in the form of a

document called, "Disposition of Comments and Recommendations for Revisions
to 2002 EPA Perchlorate External Review Draft" (October 2003).

• EPA's 2002 draft health assessment and some of our recommendations for
revision will be presented by EPA scientists William Farland and Annie Jarabek
to the NAS perchlorate panel on Monday.

• The responses and recommendations for revisions are merely background

information for the NAS perchlorate panel. They are not a new EPA health
assessment, they are not new guidance for EPA and they do not represent a new
EPA position on perchlorate. This is just the deliberative, collegial, collaborative
scientific process. It's how science is done.
Me5iSage Page 1 of 1

Unknown

From:
Sent:
Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL
Friday, January 10,200313:25

37
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; 'Kowalczyk Daniel'; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/lE; Richard B. Belzer,

Ph.D.; Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC

Subject: Draft Testimony klk 01-10-03.doc

Please comment. Sandy send to Services for coord.

Thx,
Kurt

9/7/2007

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Department of Defense Testimony

Select Committee on Urban and Economic Development

California State Senate

January 29, 2003

INTRODUCTION

Madame Chair, the Department of Defense appreciates your kind

invitation to participate in this hearing and I am pleased to here to make
these remarks.
Mr. DuBois, the DUSD(I&E) and Mr. Woodley, the ADUSD(E) send
their regrets for being unable to attend. Making remarks on their behalf
is .
My remarks have been coordinated with OMB, CEQ, (NASA?) and
EPA, and thus represent more than simply the views of the Department of
Defense.
(Public Affairs Messages)

We are absolutely committed to protecting the human health and

environment of the public and our forces. Period.

No issue has more clearly demonstrated this than perchlorate.

a. Since 1992, DoD has led the world in developing treatment
technologies to mitigate any adverse impact from perchlorate emissions.
b. Since 1997, DoD aggressively led and funded (tens of millions of$) a
national cooperative comprised of federal, state, public, tribal, academic, and
industry experts and stakeholders to investigate and understand human
health and environmental aspects of perchlorate contamination.

Our goal has been and continues to be: support of a national process leading
to effective mitigation of risk from perchlorate contamination ­
commensurate with the level of risk presented.

However, recent work by EPA's National Center for Environmental

Assessment (NCEA) scientists, not yet thoroughly reviewed by the science
community nor vetted through required elements (interagency review,
costlbenefit analysis) of proper administrative procedure has been magnified
in importance by the media, activist groups, and in some cases environmental
regulatory agencies.
We believe that information in the recent EPA NCEA documents is not the
final word on the issue of risk presented by perchlorate contamination, and

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

we are joined in this view by HQ EPA, NASA, USDA, and the FDA, and
much of the academic and industrial communities.

We believe the conclusions about human health risk from perchlorate in

groundwater stated in the NCEA document are noLscientifically supportable.
Further, instead of further scientific and government interagency review, the
questionable views of this document are being used as a basis for litigation
and regulatory enforcement.

Recent media reports may have led to some confusion or misunderstanding

about what is known about the science of perchlorate. Contrary to media
reports there is no "recommended safety level for perchlorate in drinking
water of Ippb." The widely cited figure of 1 ppb is not an EPA approved,
recommended or required drinking water level or cleanup level for
perchlorate that has been released into the environment. For instance:

• Perchlorate does not cause cancer

• Perchlorate does not cause Graves disease, and persons who have
Graves disease did not acquire it from exposure to perchlorate
• Any person who required surgery to treat a thyroid disorder did
not acquire that disorder from perchlorate.
• Perchlorate does not cause disease.
• Perchlorate does not cause hypothyroidism.
• Perchlorate is not an "endocrine disruptor" that mimics a normal
hormone.
• As an environmental phenomena, perchlorate has nothing in
common with arsenic or lead.

Herein lies our common problem. While we are strongly committed to

complying to all requirements of any properly developed regulation of
perchlorate use, emission, or characterization, we are not yet at that point.
And in this case, the overstatement of risk from perchlorate, and the failure
to as a society and as a government to step back from the current situation
and perform a better administrative and scientific review, will have
significant negative impacts on this region's water supply and economy.
Perchlorate, which is used as a component of rocket fuel and military
munitions, is the least hazardous of known substances that can be used by the
military to accomplish its national defense mission. It is also a critical
component of the fuel that powers the Space Shuttle, has been a component of
fertilizers, and is used in commercial applications including fireworks,
airbags, road flares and matches.

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
An EPA study investigating perchlorate in fertilizers found that until
very recently some fertilizers contained perchlorate up to 15% by weight.
Perchlorate has also been associated with naturally occurring mineral
deposits found in some areas of the world, including the United States. This
may be the explanation for why perchlorate that has been detected in a large
part of Texas cannot be traced to a source.

Let me re-emphasize that last point: overstatement of the risk from

perchlorate will have as great or a greater detrimental effect on California's
water supply and economy as it will on national security. We should be
partners in facing this challenge, and in asking the hard questions about how
to procNIme of us can be cavalier about such matters as these. Your
constituencies would not tolerate a situation in which a great percentage of
their water supply was made unavailable due to a media frenzy about a
potential risk which is neither fully evaluated, nor, as scientific evidence
would suggest, defensible. Neither can the federal government allow national
security to be made more difficult for reasons that are not fully investigated.

For DoD's part, we are continuing in our leadership role to bring the issues at
hand to all affected government agencies, to the states, and to the public.
We have developed and distributed a plethora of educational materials
and have actively engaged with the media.
Weare continuing to robustly fund toxicological and treatment
technology development research.
We have initiated a program to encourage development of more
environmentally-friendly alternatives to perchlorate.

As for the Rialto Ammunition Plant, there is no reason to believe that

the military contributed to any perchlorate contamination prior to transfer of
the Rialto Ammunition Plant to the Farm Credit Administration in 1946.

Subsequent to that transfer there have been several owners, among

them:. West Coast Loading Corporation
• B. F. Goodrich Corp.
• Red Devil Fireworks
• BROCO Explosives Company, later BROCO Environmental
• Denova Environmental and
• San Bernardino County (Mid-Valley Landfill).

Many of the users of the property originally known as Rialto ASP have
conducted environmentally sensitive operations actually or potentially
involving perchlorates. One or more of the owners/operators have

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

manufactured fireworks or other similar pyrotechnic devices that commonly

use perchlorates. Several documented accidents have occurred involving
these pyrotechnics.

The proper way of determining liability among these owners is to

and the Department of Defense will contribute to the process as a good citizen
should.
(Summarize oral remarks - full statement in record)

In summary:

• If during the proper regulatory/judicial review the DoD is

determined to be liable for perchlorate contamination, we will
cleanup the contamination to the regulatory standard.
• DoD is committed to protecting human health and the environment,
and compliance with environmental laws.
• DoD is committed to using the best available science to inform
public policies and decisions to ensure that the American people are
fully protected from any risks caused by perchlorate.
• DoD does not support all of the conclusions of EPA's National
Center for Environmental Assessment draft perchlorate risk
• BBseMm~liubvested significantly to further an integrated approach to
managing the potential risks associated with perchlorate.

Written Testimony

Let me reiterate that DoD is committed to protecting human health

and the environment, compliance with environmental laws, and to ensuring
that public health is not put at risk by military operations. Since 1997, DoD
has been at the forefront of research to better characterize the potential risks
associated with perchlorate, working in partnership with EPA, NASA, state
and local regulators, and Native American tribes. In fact, the Department
championed the use of an integrated approach to managing potential risks
that simultaneously considered human health, analytical technology,
treatment technology, and ecological effects.
DoD is committed to using the best available science to inform public
policies and decisions to ensure that the American people are fully protected
from any risks caused by perchlorate and has acted responsibly. DoD, in
conjunction with EPA and leading toxicologists, prioritized perchlorate
studies and set study protocols. In addition, DoD worked closely with EPA
and the states to fund and conduct the studies using the mutually agreed upon
protocols. While DoD helped set study protocols, and funded and conducted

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

studies used by EPA in its January 2002 draft risk assessment, the
Department does not support all of EPA's conclusions. The Department
believes EPA's draft 1 ppb RfD/DWEL significantly understates an
appropriate exposure level, and believes a true "safe" level is higher than that
proposed by EPA.

Since partnering with EPA, states, and other stakeholders, DoD has
invested over $24 million for research into the analytical, toxicological, and
treatment technology aspects of perchlorate. When FY03 expenditures are
considered, that number increases to approximately $36 million. Those totals
do not include the $85 million San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for remediation of
California and Texas water supplies.

WHAT IS PERCHLORATE?
As you know perchlorate is a chemical anion - commonly, for our
purposes today, a part of either ammonium perchlorate or potassium
perchlorate. Both compounds in their pure forms of white crystalline solids.
Perchlorate is highly soluble in water, and unfortunately, once in the
environment is very mobile.
Perchlorate, which is used as a component of rocket fuel and military
munitions, is the least hazardous of known substances that can be used by the
military to accomplish its national defense mission. It is also a critical
component of the fuel that powers the Space Shuttle, has been a component of
fertilizers, and is used in commercial applications including fireworks,
airbags, road flares and matches.

An EPA study investigating perchlorate in fertilizers found that until

very recently some fertilizers contained perchlorate up to 15% by weight.
Perchlorate has also been associated with naturally occurring mineral
deposits found in some areas of the world, including the United States. This
may be the explanation for why perchlorate that has been detected in a large
part of Texas cannot be traced to a source.

Scientists at EPA note that perchloric acid and perchlorate salts have a
rich history in industry and science. They function as inert electrolytes in
chemical studies, catalysts in industrial and synthetic processes, and are by­
products of some industrial processes.

For National Defense and aerospace purposes, perchlorate as an

oxidizer is an essential component of propellants in rockets and missiles, and
in some explosives. Perchlorate made possible the missiles that secured u~ the

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
victory in the Cold War and that will shield the United States from rouge
nations and terrorist in the Strategic Missile Defense. Perchlorate is also the
rocket fuel that made possible the exploration of space and satellites that are
used for everyday things like cell phones and satellite TV.

Frankly, little is known about the natural occurrence of perchlorate.

Research has shown that bacteria capable of reducing perchlorate to chloride
appear to be ubiquitous in the environment. Given this fact, one can easily
conclude that naturally occurring sources of perchlorate are probably far
more widespread than anyone now knows. Regulatory agencies need to do
more work to find where perchlorate is used and found and its origins. ­

WHAT IS DoD'S INTEREST?

DoD has had a long interest and involvement with perchlorate ... our
interest has been to ensure that public policy and decisions are made based
upon the sound science. Our involvement goes back to the 1980s when
questions were first being raised (????) - need historical input from Lt Col
Rogers
Despite scarce funding and competing demands, DoD has invested its
resources, both professional technical staff and funding for what was not then
the issue it is now. As you yourselves have to balance the many competing
demands for limited public funding, you can imagine the challenge we had in
making DoD investments to:

• Improve analytical meth6ds for detecting pe~chlorate and

• Conducting toxicological research

This is work that is normally done by regulatory agencies, but for which they
did not have adequate funding to conduct.

As an example, in 1986, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (part of Health and Human Services) noted that data could not
prove that the perchlorate ion was present in the environment. Based upon
the available database, ATSDR suggested that a one or two part per million
(ppm) level would not represent a substantial threat to human health.

In 1992 EPA's Superfund Technical Support Center first proposed

interim limits of 4 ppb. In 1995, the limited was increased to a 4-18 ppb rang
based on limited work done in a single ,study conducted in 1952. At that time,
the best analytical method available could only detect perchlorate to 400 ppb.
DoD partnered with EPA in 1997 and sponsored work conducted by DoD labs

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

to develop and validate the analytical methods necessary to bring the

detection levels down, first to 100 ppb, and then down to 4 ppb.

This method, now known and used as EPA Method 314.0, is· the only
currently approved EPA method for perchlorate analysis. DoD chose to fund
this effort because we felt that if there was a potential of a health risk at the 4­
18 ppb range, then we needed to be able to accurately measure to that level.

USE OF SOUND SCIENCE

In 1997 Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA), a non:.profit

organization dedicated to the best use of toxicology data conducted additional
literature searches and collected additional data on perchlorate to answer
outstanding questions about perchlorate toxicity that remained from EPA's
4-18 ppb range. The new database was peer reviewed, with the 'conclusion
being that even though improved, the perchlorate database remained
insufficient for use in developing an RID.

Recognizing that additional work needed to be done to better

characterize the potential risks associated with perchlorate, DoD stepped up
to the plate and initiated a partnership with regulatory agencies and industry
stakeholders intended to quickly generate the data needed. DoD agreed to
work with regulatory agencies to develop study protocols and conduct
research, and DoD and industry agreed to fund the research and tum over
the data to regulatory agencies.
The data was turned over to EPA who incorporated it into the Agency's
1998 draft risk assessment for perchlorate. The document evaluated the
entire database of information, including that generated by the new studies.
The 1998 draft risk assessment was the subject of a 1999 EPA external peer
review panel review that reached consensus that 32 ppb was a safe level for a
perchlorate RID. However, the peer review panel identified data gaps that, if
filled, would serve to reduce scientific uncertainty and could generate an RID
as high as 200 ppb.
Once again DoD stepped up to the plate, and DoD and industry
stakeholders agreed to fund the additional studies recommended by the 1999
peer review panel. As was the case previously, DoD agreed to work with
regulatory agencies to develop study protocols and conduct research, and
DoD and industry agreed to fund the research and tum over the data to
regulatory agencies. This joint partnership has allowed EPA to generate data
more rapidly and with less duplication than it has any time previously.

The new studies were conducted, the requested information generated,

and the data provided to EPA who incorporated it into its second draft

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
perchlorate risk assessment in January 2002 which proposed a perchlorate
RID equivalent to 1 ppb. In deriving that number, EPA actually increased
the overall uncertainty factor from 100 to 300 despite the completion and
analysis of the numerous additional studies recommended by the first peer
review panel in 1999 specifically to reduce uncertainty .

ANALYSIS AND HEALTH AND RISK

There is an old adage that "the dose makes the poison" and frankly, we
believe the jury is still out on what the dose is for perchlorate.

Compared to many environmental chemicals, much is known about

how perchlorate affects the function of the thyroid. This data has been
generated from its use for over 50 years as a therapeutic agent for the
treatment of hyperthyroidism and thyrotoxicosis at doses approaching gram
levels, levels that are more than 15,000 times higher than EPA's draft RID.
The previously referenced studies conducted for EPA's first and second draft
perchlorate risk assessment have only served to strengthen the perchlorate
human database.
What do we know about perchlorate? EPA's January 2002 risk
assessment notes that perchlorate is not a carcinogen, a mutagen, a
reproductive toxicant, nor is it an immunotoxic agent. Its mechanism of
action (iodine uptake inhibition) has been known for decades because of its
therapeutic use. In addition, it does not accumulate in the body, does not
metabolize, and has a short half-life, being excreted in a matter of hours.
Because of this short half-life, perchlorate is no longer the drug of choice­
patients need to take it several times a day to achieve effective therapeutic
levels.
In comments submitted to EPA on its draft risk assessment, the
organization that conducted the 1997 review of the perchlorate database
(TERA) noted that it is more comprehensive than at least 23 other chemicals
in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), as evidenced by
estimations of overall confidence, size of uncertainty factor, and types of
available data. Furthermore, TERA found that EPA's proposed perchlorate
RID suggests that it is more toxic than aldicarb (30-fold more toxic), arsenic
(10-fold more toxic), methyl mercury (3-fold more toxic), and warfarin (10­
fold more toxic).
We find one human data study (the Greer study) to be particularly
persuasive about the risks to human health posed by perchlorate exposure.
The Greer study was constructed to take advantage of information about the
pharmacology of perchlorate generated by its long history of use as a
therapeutic agent. The study established a dose-response curve for the
inhibition of iodine uptake and change in hormone levels in male and female

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

volunteers of child-bearing age for two weeks. This design enabled Greer and
his colleagues to estimate the perchlorate dose that did not inhibit iodide
uptake. Given standard toxicological defaults for body weight and exposure
assumptions, the Greer study concluded that a No Effect Level in the range of
180-220 ppb. Other clinical and epidemiological studies support these results.

Recent media reports may have led to some confusion or

misunderstanding about what is known about the science of perchlorate.
Contrary to media reports there is no "recommended safety level for
perchlorate in drinking water of 1ppb." The widely cited figure of 1 ppb is
not an EPA approved, recommended or required drinking water level or­
cleanup level for perchlorate that has been released into the environment.
For instance:
• Perchlorate does not cause cancer
• Perchlorate does not cause Graves disease, and persons who have
Graves disease did not acquire it from exposure to perchlorate
• Any person who required surgery to treat a thyroid disorder did
not acquire that disorder from perchlorate.
• Perchlorate does not cause disease.
• Perchlorate does not cause hypothyroidism.
• Perchlorate is not an "endocrine disruptor" that mimics a normal
hormone.
• As an environmental phenomena, perchlorate has nothing in
common with arsenic or lead.

INLAND VALLEY

For making sound public policy - this select committee and body may
have a lot of interest in perchlorate in the Inland Empire. Madame Chair,
representing the Inland Empire you may have a personal interest in
perchlorate
I have been informed there are on going and pending legal actions
regarding perchlorate, as well as more planned by many different parties.
Many legal and factual issues still need to be sorted out. So as not to
prejudice any side, I will not make specific remarks regarding the situation
there.
Background
The former Rialto Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) was begun in
December 1941, when 2,821.75 acres were acquired by DoD from several
different land owners, either through direct purchase, declaration of taking
or lease. A portion ofthe acquired land was used by the DoD for the storage
and handling of ammunition prior to its shipment overseas. A major portion

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
of the land that wasn't needed for such an operation was leased out to local
farmers for grazing. Several of the tracts were already improved with small
dwellings and farm buildings. None were disposed of and were used by DoD
in addition to new buildings constructed.

In November 1945, the land was declared as surplus. It was handed

over to the War Assets Administration in April 1946 and custody was
assumed by the Farm Credit Administration in July 1946. The site is now
divided into several commercial and residential tracts. Subsequent owners
have included, but are not limited to:

• West Coast Loading Corporation

• B. F. Goodrich Corp.
• Red Devil Fireworks
• BROCO Explosives Company, later BROCO Environmental
• Denova Environmental and
• San Bernardino County (Mid-Valley Landfill).

Many of the users ofthe property originally known as Rialto ASP have
conducted environmentally sensitive operations actually or potentially
involving perchlorates. One or more of the owners/operators have
manufactured fireworks or other similar pyrotechnic devices that commonly
use perchlorates. Several documented accidents have occurred involving
these pyrotechnics.
Current FUDS Program Status
To determine whether this was an eligible FUDS site, an Inventory
Progress Report (lNPR) is completed. In this inventory stage the property is
identified, real estate records are searched to verify DoD ownership or
control, and a preliminary assessment of eligibility is performed to determine
ifthe property is eligible under the FUDS program and if potential projects
exist.
In September 1992, Rialto ASP was determined to be an eligible FUDS
property. As part of the program, the Corps of Engineers completed two
eligibility assessments on the property, both of which suggested that
perchlorate was not present during the time of DoD ownership and control of
the former Rialto ASP. Subsequent to DoD ownership, records indicate that
several DoD contractors operated at the property, with contracts with both
the Air Force and Navy, and may have been indemnified for their activities.
Therefore, in regard to liability, the site appears to have little FUDS interest.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (SPL) currently
reflects two projects for this property.
One project, a tank removal has been completed with San Bernardino
County acceptance of closure in November 2002. The other was a low

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

priority project related to the storage facilities. An Archive Search Report

(ASR) has been completed and there has been no evidence found at the site to
suggest the presence of ordnance or an immediate danger from former DoD
activities. Current documentation indicates the site was only used as a Depot
for storage and transshipment of fully manufactured items with no testing,
firing, or processing of ordnance components or fillers on the site.

Since the INPR was done prior to the perchlorate issue, the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers is performing a Site Ownership and Operational History
(SOOH) report covering the FUDS era and the post FUDS era. Focus is on
perchlorate uses or perchlorate items that may have been present at the ­
Rialto facility. The purpose of this study will be to confirm the accuracy of
the present documentation, which, although not conclusive, strongly suggests
that no perchlorate release is likely to have occurred from Rialto ASP while it
was an Army facility.

Post Transfer Activities

The SOOH would also examine activities following the closure of the
Army facilities. For example, October 1,2002, an explosion and fire occurred
at the Denova facility. Denova was a successor in interest to Broco
Environmental. Broco/Denova operated a hazardous waste treatment facility
on a portion of the site of the former Rialto ASP. The explosion and fire
occurred during an EPA cleanup of the facility.
The explosion and fire occurred when workers attempted to open an
aircraft ejection seat propellant cartridge (essentially, a rocket motor used to
power the ejection seat). Denova/Broco was apparently in the business of
demilitarizing these devices.
Denova/Broco was one of several owners of the former Rialto ASP who
occupied the premises after they were sold by the Army/GSA. Other property
owners include government contractors who may have used perchlorates on
the property in their performance of government contracts. These include BF
Goodrich (rocket motor research for the AF and Navy), Hughes Missile
Systems, and Ordnance Associates (a NASA contractor on the Gemini
prograt6)her subsequent owners of the property have included fireworks and
pyrotechnic manufacturers. These operations have an unknown housekeeping\
record and at least two documented major accidents.
Finally, the County of San Bernardino operates the Mid-Valley
sanitary landfill in the vicinity of Rialto ASP. Portions of the landfill are on
the former Rialto ASP and another portion is immediately adjacent. Given
the history of other operations on the property it is possible that wastes
bearing perchlorate from other operations were disposed of at the landfill.

Conclusion

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

It is appropriate to proceed with the SOOH in an expeditious manner

under DoD's DERP authorities. The current estimate is to have this report
completed by the end of Fiscal Year 2003. There is no evidence that the
United States is liable for perchlorate contamination released from the Rialto
ASP Formerly Used Defense Site property during the time that United States
government owned or operated the facility

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

This is an area where DoD has done a lot. Rather than slow-roll by
waiting for regulatory standards to be issued, and then pointing out that it
may not even be technically possible to do the treatment required by the
standard, DoD decided very early on decided to push the technical envelope
and investigate the development of innovative, cost-effective means of
treating/removing perchlorate in groundwater and soils (recall my earlier
mention of DoD development of better analytical detection methods).

Bioreactors
The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Materials and
Manufacturing Directorate, at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, led the way
in the development ofbioreactor systems for treating process wastewater
containing very high levels of perchlorate. Since 1997, a bioreactor based on
the AFRL design has been treating wastewater from rocket motor production
and demilitarization operations at a defense contractor facility near Brigham
City, Utah. The first DoD facility to install a functional bioreactor for the
treatment of perchlorate-contaminated groundwater was the former
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant (LHAAP) in Karnack, Texas.

Ion Exchange
DoD has been investigating the use of ion exchange technology to treat
perchlorate contaminated groundwater supplies at Edwards Air Force Base
(AFB), California, and at NWIRP McGregor, Texas. Edwards AFB will soon
begin field testing a new class of anion exchange resins in a conventional fixed
bed ion exchange system. The resins were originally developed by scientists
at the Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
to treat groundwater contaminated by an anion that is chemically similar to
perchlorate.
In Situ Bioremediation
Over the last several years, DoD's Strategic Environmental Research
and Development Program (SERDP) has funded significant research into
understanding the mechanisms of in situ, or in place, biological reduction.
Data gathered as part of this effort indicate that perchlorate reducing

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
bacteria are ubiquitous, strongly suggesting natural sources of perchlorate
are rather widespread in the environment. Recently, the NSWC Indian Head
Division, Indian Head, Maryland, and NWIRP McGregor, Texas, began
evaluating this innovative means of biologically treating perchlorate~
contaminated groundwater in situ thus eliminating the need to pump the
water to above ground treatment devices.

Permeable Reactive Barriers

Permeable re'active barriers (PRBs) are a groundwater cleanup
technology that consists of a wall of reactive material installed in the path of a
flowing contaminated groundwater plume that treat the pollutants as they
penetrate through the wall. NWIRP McGregor has successfully
demonstrated the ability ofPRBs to substantially decrease the concentration
of perchlorate in intercepted groundwater.
Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is a treatment technology that uses natural plant
processes and microorganisms associated with the root system to remove,
contain, or degrade environmental contaminants in soil, sediment, and water.
Research funded by the Air Force Aeronautic Systems Center (ASC)
Engineering Directorate and conducted by the University of Georgia, and
funded by the U.S. Army Operations Support Command and conducted by
the University of Iowa, confirm the ability of phytoremediation to remove
perchlorate from contaminated water and soils.

Soil Biotreatment
Soil biotreatment technology uses bacteria to degrade soil
contaminants in a manner similar to composting. It can be used either in situ
or in soil excavated and put into lined pits. DoD is conducting field studies
using both soil biotreatment technology approaches to treat soils at the
NWIRP McGregor, Texas, and the Longhorn AAP, Karnack, Texas.

CONCLUSION

While DoD has been proactively addressing the issue of perchlorate

since 1996, we will not rest on past laurels and accomplishments. Everything
that has been done in the past has been done with the advice and consent of
all stakeholder partners, including EPA.

Weare committed to protecting human health and the environment,

compliance with environmental laws, and ensuring that public health is not
put at risk by military operations.

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT :- 9 January 2003

'.

INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
We are committed to using the best available scien'ce to inform public
policies and decisions to ensure that the American people are fully protected
from any risks caused by perchlorate, and has acted responsibly.

Since partnering with EPA, states, and other stakeholders, DoD has
invested over $24 million for research into the analytical, toxicological, and
treatment technology aspects of perchlorate.

Judging by recent media articles and the trade press, it is apparent

that DoD's proactive position and role in addressing perchlorate issues has
been distorted. The Department so as not to engender more heat has
refrained trysting to the scientific process and the deliberative public policy
process but now is the time to shed more light on some of these issues.

We have always believed in having sound science supporting a public

policy and decisions, and have thus stayed away from recommending a
number believing that it is the responsibility of regulatory agencies to do so.

We value the validity and worth of the toxicological information

generated by studies cited in EPA's draft risk assessment. In fact, we funded
a lot of them using protocols developed in conjunction with EPA and
CalEPA.
We also continue to believe that proper process and appropriate
models and tools need to be used to evaluate the toxicological and health data
to arrive at sound decisions based on science.

Finally, we support the use of sound science by regulatory agencies in

an open and transparent process in developing health-based risks and the
subsequent setting of regulatory standards. EPA has a long-standing policy
that when human data is available it should be used to derive RIDs. We agree
with the approach taken by CalEPAJOEHHA in its own review of potential
perchlorate risks that fully considers human data.

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

)1

Message Page I of 1

Unknown.._.,.._. ~ ~.,..,_~.__~.<,.,_~"<
_ _,,_. ._,,_,,._._. 3~=?__,, ,
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 15:21
To:
SUbject: FW: Draft Testimony klk 01-1 0-03,doc

Jack,
I just received your changes, so haven't had an opportunity to incorporate.

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:49 PM

To: Yaroschak, Paul J; Newsome, Richard E Mr ASA-I&E; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFjlE; 'Lil/o, Dennis'

Cc: Cullison, Geoffrey D; Read, Marcia W Ms ASA-l&E; Buescher, John Mr ASA-l&E; Rogers, Daniel, Lt Col,

AFLSAjPR; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL

Subject: FW: Draft Testimony klk 01-10-03.doc

All,

Attached is draft testimony prepared for the CA Senate Hearing on Perchlorate/Inland Empire. Please review and

provide any comments you might have ASAP. Mr, DuBois is expecting to review this evening. Army, you may

want to consider scaling back the Rialto discussion in the testimony proper, and retain for Q and As.

SC

-----Original Message----­

From: Kratz, Kurt, ,OSD-ATL

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:25 PM

To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; 'Kowalczyk Daniel'; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFjlE; Richard B. Belzer, Ph.D.;

Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC

Subject: Draft Testimony klk 01-10-03.doc

Please comment Sandy send to Services for coord.

Thx.
Kurt
,

" .

INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Department of Defense Testimony

Select Committee on Urban and Economic Development

California State Senate

January 29, 2003

INTRODUCTION

Madame Chair, the Department of Defense appreciates your kind

invitation to participate in this hearing and I am pleased to here to make
these remarks.
Mr. DuBois, the DUSD(I&E) and Mr. Woodley, the ADUSD(E) 'send
their regrets for being unable to attend. Making remarks on their behalf
IS .....•.
My remarks have been coordinated with OMB, CEQ, (NASA?) and
EPA, and thus represent more than simply the views of the Department of
Defense.
(Public Affairs Messages)

We are absolutely committed to protecting the human health and

environment of the public and our forces. Period.

No issue has more clearly demonstrated this than perchlorate.

a. Since 1992, DoD has led the world in developing treatment
technologies to mitigate any adverse impact from perchlorate emissions.
b. Since 1997, DoD aggressively led and funded (tens of millions of$) a
national cooperative comprised of federal, state, public, tribal, academic, and
industry experts and stakeholders to investigate and understand human
health and environmental aspects of perchlorate contamination.

Our goal has been and continues to be: support of a national process leading
to effective mitigation of risk from perchlorate contamination ­
commensurate with the level of risk presented.

However, recent work by EPA's National Center for Environmental

Assessment (NCEA) scientists, not yet thoroughly reviewed by the science
community nor vetted through required elements (interagency review,
cost/benefit analysis) of proper administrative procedure has been magnified
in importance by the media, activist groups, and in some cases environmental
regulatory agencies.
We believe that information in the recent EPA NCEA documents is not the
final word on the issue of risk presented by perchlorate contamination, and

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

we are joined in this view by HQ EPA, NASA, USDA, and the FDA, and
much of the academic and industrial communities.

We believe the conclusions about human health risk from perchlorate in

groundwater stated in the NCEA document are not scientifically supportable.
Further, instead of further scientific and government interagency review, the
questionable views of this document are being used as a basis for litigation
and regulatory enforcement.

Recent media reports may have led to some confusion or misunderstanding

about what is known about the science of perchlorate. Contrary to media
reports there is no "recommended safety level for perchlorate in drinking
water of 1ppb." The widely cited figure of I ppb is not an EPA approved,
recommended or required drinking water level or cleanup level for
perchlorate that has been released into the environment. For instance:

• Perchlorate does not cause cancer

• Perchlorate does not cause Graves disease, and persons who have
Graves disease did not acquire it from exposure to perchlorate
• Any person who required surgery to treat a thyroid disorder did
not acquire that disorder from perchlorate.
• Perchlorate does not cause disease.
• Perchlorate does not cause hypothyroidism.
• Perchlorate is not an "endocrine disruptor" that mimics a normal
hormone.
• As an environmental phenomena, perchlorate has nothing in
common with arsenic or lead.

Herein lies our common problem. While we are strongly committed to

complying to all requirements of any properly developed regulation of
perchlorate use, emission, or characterization, we are not yet at that point.
And in this case, the overstatement of risk from perchlorate, and the failure
to as a society and as a government to step back from the current situation
and perform a better administrative and scientific review, will have
significant negative impacts on this region's water supply and economy.
Perchlorate, which is used as a component of rocket fuel and military
munitions, is the least hazardous of known substances that can be used by the
military to accomplish its national defense mission. It is also a critical
component of the fuel that powers the Space Shuttle, has been a component of
f~rtilizers, and is used in commercial applications including fireworks,
airbags, road flares and matches.

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
An EPA study investigating perchlorate in fertilizers found that until
very recently some fertilizers contained perchlorate up to 15% by weight.
Perchlorate has also been associated with naturally occurring mineral
deposits found in some areas of the world, including the United States. This
may be the explanation for why perchlorate that has been detected in a large
part of Texas cannot be traced to a source.

Let me re-emphasize that last point: overstatement of the risk from

perchlorate will have as great or a greater detrimental effect on California's
water supply and economy as it will on national security. We should be
partners in facing this challenge,. and in asking the hard questions about how
to procNrohe of us can be cavalier about such matters as these. Your
constituencies would not tolerate a situation in which a great percentage of
their water supply was made unavailable due to a media frenzy about a
potential risk which is neither fully evaluated, nor, as scientific evidence
would suggest, defensible. Neither can the federal government allow national
security to be made more difficult for reasons that are not fully investigated.

For DoD's part, we are continuing in our leadership role to bring the issues at
hand to all affected government agencies, to the states, and to the public.
We have developed and distributed a plethora of educational materials
and have actively engaged with the media.
We are continuing to robustly fund toxicological and treatment
technology development research.
We have initiated a program to encourage development of more
environmentally-friendly alternatives to perchlorate.

As for the Rialto Ammunition Plant, there is no reason to believe that

the military contributed to any perchlorate contamination prior to transfer of
the Rialto Ammunition Plant to the Farm Credit Administration in 1946.

Subsequent to that transfer there have been several owners, among

them:. West Coast Loading Corporation
• B. F. Goodrich Corp.
• Red Devil Fireworks
• BROCO Explosives Company, later BROCO Environmental
• Denova Environmental and
• San Bernardino County (Mid-Valley Landfill).

Many of the users of the property originally known as Rialto ASP have
conducted environmentally sensitive operations actually or potentially
involving perchlorates. One or more of the owners/operators have

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

manufactured fireworks or other similar pyrotechnic devices that commonly

use perchlorates. Several documented accidents have occurred involving
these pyrotechnics.

The proper way of determining liability among these owners is to

and the Department of Defense will contribute to the process as a good citizen
should.
(Summarize oral remarks - full statement in record)

In summary:

• If during the proper regulatory/judicial review the DoD is

determined to be liable for perchlorate contamination, we will
cleanup the contamination to the regulatory standard.
• DoD is committed to protecting human health and the environment,
and compliance with environmental laws.
• DoD is committed to using the best available science to inform
public policies and decisions to ensure that the American people are
fully protected from any risks caused by perchlorate.
• DoD does not support all of the conclusions of EPA's National
Center for Environmental Assessment draft perchlorate risk
• Jil61~MIMliubvested significantly to further an integrated approach to
managing the potential risks associated with perchlorate.

Written Testimony

Let me reiterate that DoD is committed to protecting human health

and the environment, compliance with environmental laws, and to ensuring
that public health is not put at risk by military operations. Since 1997, DoD
has been at the forefront of research to better characterize the potential risks
associated with perchlorate, working in partnership with EPA, NASA, state
and local regulators, and Native American tribes. In fact, the Department
championed the use of an integrated approach to managing potential risks
that simultaneously considered human health, analytical technology,
treatment technology, and ecological effects.
DoD is committed to using the best available science to inform public
policies and decisions to ensure that the American people are fully protected
from any risks caused by perchlorate and has acted responsibly. DoD, in
conjunction with EPA and leading toxicologists, prioritized perchlorate
studies and set study protocols. In addition, DoD worked closely with EPA
and the states to fund and conduct the studies using the mutually agreed upon
protocols. While DoD helped set study protocols, and funded and conducted

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT.,-- 9 January 2003

i

INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

.
"".
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
studies used by EPA in its January 2002 draft risk assessment, the
Department does not support all of EPA's conclusions. The Department
believes EPA's draft I ppb RfD/DWEL significantly understates an
appropriate exposure level, and believes a true "safe" level is higher than that
proposed by EPA.

Since partnering with EPA, states, and other stakeholders, DoD has
invested over $24 million for research into the analytical, toxicological, and
treatment technology aspects of perchlorate. When FY03 expenditures are
considered, that number increases to approximately $36 million. Those totals
do not include the $85 million San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund
administered by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for remediation of
California and Texas water supplies.

WHAT IS PERCHLORATE?
As you know perchlorate is a chemical anion - commonly, for our
purposes today, a part of either ammonium perchlorate or potassium
perchlorate. Both compounds in their pure forms of white crystalline solids.
Perchlorate is highly soluble in water, and unfortunately, once in the
environment is very mobile.
Perchlorate, which is used as a component of rocket fuel and military
munitions, is the least hazardous of known substances that can be used by the
military to accomplish its national defense mission. It is also a critical
component of the fuel that powers the Space Shuttle, has been a component of
fertilizers, and is used in commercial applications including fireworks,
airbags, road flares and matches.

An EPA study investigating perchlorate in fertilizers found that until

very recently some fertilizers contained perchlorate up to 15% by weight.
Perchlorate has also been associated with naturally occurring mineral
deposits found in some areas of the world, including the United States. This
may be the explanation for why perchlorate that has been detected in a large
part of Texas cannot be traced to a source.

Scientists at EPA note that perchloric acid and perchlorate salts have a
rich history in industry and science. They function as inert electrolytes in
chemical studies, catalysts in industrial and synthetic processes, and are by­
products of some industrial processes.

For National Defense and aerospace purposes, perchlorate as an

oxidizer is an essential component of propellants in rockets and missiles, and
in some explosives. Perchlorate made possible the missiles that secured us the

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

.
'" DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
victory in the Cold War and that will shield the United States from rouge
nations and terrorist in the Strategic Missile Defense. Perchlorate is also the
rocket fuel that made possible the exploration of space and satellites that are
used for everyday things like cell phones and satellite TV.

Frankly, little is known about the natural occurrence of perchlorate.

Research has shown that bacteria capable of reducing perchlorate to chloride
appear to be ubiquitous in the environment. Given this fact, one can easily
conclude that naturally occurring sources of perchlorate are probably far
more widespread than anyone now knows. Regulatory agencies need to do
more work to find where perchlorate is used and found and its origins. ­

WHAT IS DoD'S INTEREST?

DoD has had a long interest and involvement with perchlorate... our
interest has been to ensure that public policy and decisions are made based
upon the sound science. Our involvement goes back to the 1980s when
questions were first being raised (????) - need historical input from Lt Col
Rogers
Despite scarce funding and competing demands, DoD has invested its
resources, both professional technical staff and funding for what was not then
the issue it is now. As you yourselves have to balance the many competing
demands for limited public funding, you can imagine the challenge we had in
making DoD investments to:

• Improve analytical methods for detecting perchlorate and

• Conducting toxicological research

This is work that is normally done by regulatory agencies, but for which they
did not have adequate funding to conduct.

As an example, in 1986, the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease

Registry (part of Health and Human Services) noted that data could not
prove that the perchlorate ion was present in the environment. Based upon
the available database, ATSDR suggested that a one or two part per million
(ppm) level would not represent a substantial threat to human health.

In 1992 EPA's Superfund Technical Support Center first proposed

interim limits of 4 ppb. In 1995, the limited was increased to a 4-18 ppb rang
based on limited work done in a single study conducted in 1952. At that time,
the best alilalytical method available could only detect perchlorate to 400 ppb.
DoD partnered with EPA in 1997 and sponsored work conducted by DoD labs

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

to develop and validate the analytical methods necessary to bring the

detection levels down, first to 100 ppb, and then down to 4 ppb.

This method, now known and used as EPA Method 314.0, is the only
currently approved EPA method for perchlorate analysis. DoD chose to fund
this effort because we felt that ifthere was a potential of a health risk at the 4­
18 ppb range, then we needed to be able to accurately measure to that level.

USE OF SOUND SCIENCE

In 1997 Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment (TERA), a non-profit

organization dedicated to the best use of toxicology data conducted additional
literature searches and collected additional data on perchlorate to answer
outstanding questions about perchlorate toxicity that remained from EPA's
4-18 ppb range. The new database was peer reviewed, with the conclusion
being that even though improved, the perchlorate database remained
insufficient for use in developing an RID.

Recognizing that additional work needed to be done to better

characterize the potential risks associated with perchlorate, DoD stepped up
to the plate and initiated a partnership with regulatory agencies and industry
stakeholders intended to quickly generate the data needed. DoD agreed to
work with regulatory agencies to develop study protocols and conduct
research, and DoD and industry agreed to fund the research and tum over
the data to regulatory agencies.
The data was turned over to EPA who incorporated it into the Agency's
1998 draft risk assessment for perchlorate. The document evaluated the
entire database of information, including that generated by the new studies.
The 1998 draft risk assessment was the subject of a 1999 EPA external peer
review panel review that reached consensus that 32 ppb was a safe level for a
perchlorate RID. However, the peer review panel identified data gaps that, if
filled, would serve to reduce scientific uncertainty and could generate an RID
as high as 200 ppb.
Once again DoD stepped up to the plate, and DoD and industry
stakeholders agreed to fund the additional studies recommended by the 1999
peer review panel. As was the case previously, DoD agreed to work with
regulatory agencies to develop study protocols and conduct research, and
DoD and industry agreed to fund the research and tum over the data to
regulatory agencies. This joint partnership has allowed EPA to generate data
more rapidly and with less duplication than it has any time previously.

The new studies were conducted, the requested information generated,

and the data provided to EPA who incorporated it into its second draft

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
perchlorate risk assessment in January 2002 which proposed a perchlorate
RID equivalent to 1 ppb. In deriving that number, EPA actually increased
the overall uncertainty factor from 100 to 300 despite the completion and
analysis of the numerous additional studies recommended by the first peer
review panel in 1999 specifically to reduce uncertainty.

ANALYSIS AND HEALTH AND RISK

There is an old adage that "the dose makes the poison" and frankly, we
believe the jury is still out on what the dose is for perchlorate.

Compared to many environmental chemicals, much is known about

how perchlorate affects the function of the thyroid. This data has been
generated from its use for over 50 years as a therapeutic agent for the
treatment of hyperthyroidism and thyrotoxicosis at doses approaching gram
levels, levels that are more than 15,000 times higher than EPA's draft RID.
The previously referenced studies conducted for EPA's first and second draft
perchlorate risk assessment have only served to strengthen the perchlorate
human database.
What do we know about perchlorate? EPA's January 2002 risk
assessment notes that perchlorate is not a carcinogen, a mutagen, a
reproductive toxicant, nor is it an immunotoxic agent. Its mechanism of
action (iodine uptake inhibition) has been known for decades because of its
therapeutic use. In addition, it does not accumulate in the body, does not
metabolize, and has a short half-life, being excreted in a matter of hours.
Because of this short half-life, perchlorate is no longer the drug of choice­
patients need to take it several times a day to achieve effective therapeutic
levels.
In comments submitted to EPA on its draft risk assessment, the
organization that conducted the 1997 review of the perchlorate database
(TERA) noted that it is more comprehensive than at least 23 other chemicals
in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), as evidenced by
estimations of overall confidence, size of uncertainty factor, and types of
available data. Furthermore, TERA found that EPA's proposed perchlorate
RID suggests that it is more toxic than aldicarb (30-fold more toxic), arsenic
(10-fold more toxic), methylmercury (3-fold more toxic), and warfarin (10­
fold more toxic).
We find one human data study (the Greer study) to be particularly
persuasive about the risks to human health posed by perchlorate exposure.
The Greer study was constructed to take advantage of information about the
pharmacology of perchlorate generated by its long history of use as a
therapeutic agent. The study established a dose-response curve for the
inhibition of iodine uptake and change in hormone levels in male and femaJe

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

volunteers of child~bearing age for two weeks. This design enabled Greer and
his colleagues to estimate the perchlorate dose that did not inhibit iodide
uptake. Given standard toxicological defaults for body weight and exposure
assumptions, the Greer study concluded that a No Effect Level in the range of
180-220 ppb. Other clinical and epidemiological studies support these results.

Recent media reports may have led to some confusion or

misunderstanding about what is known about the science of perchlorate.
Contrary to media reports there is no "recommended safety level for
perchlorate in drinking water of Ippb." The widely cited figure of 1 ppb is
not an EPA approved, recommended or required drinking water level or­
cleanup level for perchlorate that has been released into the environment.
For instance:
• Perchlorate does not cause cancer
• Perchlorate does not cause Graves disease, and persons who have
Graves disease did not ,a,cquire it from exposure to perchlorate
• Any person who required surgery to treat a thyroid disorder did
not acquire that disorder from perchlorate.
• Perchlorate does not cause disease.
• Perchlorate does not cause hypothyroidism.
• Perchlorate is not an "endocrine disruptor" that mimics a normal
hormone.
• As an environmental phenomena, perchlorate has nothing in
common with arsenic or lead.

INLAND VALLEY

For making sound public policy - this select committee and body may
have a lot of interest in perchlorate in the Inland Empire. Madame Chair,
representing the Inland Empire you may have a personal interest in
perchlorate
I have been informed there are on going and pending legal actions
regarding perchlorate, as well as more planned by many different parties.
Many legal and factual issues still need to be sorted out. So as not to
prejudice any side, I will not make specific remarks regarding the situation
there.
Background
The former Rialto Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) was begun in
December 1941, when 2,821.75 acres were acquired by DoD from several
different land owners, either through direct purchase, declaration of taking
or lease. A portion ofthe acquired land was used by the DoD for the storage
and handling of ammunition prior to its shipment overseas. A major portion

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

.'

INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

of the land that wasn't needed for such an operation was leased out to local
farmers for grazing. Several of the tracts were already improved with small
dwellings and farm buildings. None were disposed of and were used by DoD
in addition to new buildings constructed.

In November 1945, the land was declared as surplus. It was handed

over to the War Assets Administration in April 1946 and custody was
assumed by the Farm Credit Administration in July 1946. The site is now
divided into several' commercial and residential tracts. Subsequent owners
have included, but are not limited to:

• West Coast Loading Corporation

• B. F. Goodrich Corp.
• Red Devil Fireworks
• BROCO Explosives Company, later BROCO Environmental
• Denova Environmental and
• San Bernardino County (Mid-Valley Landfill).

Many of the users of the property originally known as Rialto ASP have
conducted environmentally sensitive operations actually or potentially
involving perchlorates. One or more of the owners/operators have
manufactured fireworks or other similar pyrotechnic devices that commonly
useperchlorates. Several documented accidents have occurred involving
these pyrotechnics.
Current FUDS Program Status
To determine whether this was an eligible FUDS site, an Inventory
Progress Report (INPR) is completed. In this inventory stage the property is
identified, real estate records are searched to verify DoD ownership or
control, and a preliminary assessment of eligibility is performed to determine
if the property is eligible under the FUDS program and if potential projects
exist.
In September 1992, Rialto ASP was determined to be an eligible FUDS
property. As part of the program, the Corps of Engineers completed two
eligibility assessments on the property, both of which suggested that
perchlorate was not present during the time of DoD ownership and control of
the former Rialto ASP. Subsequent to DoD ownership, records indicate that
several DoD contractors operated at the property, with contracts with both
the Air Force and Navy, and may have been indemnified for their activities.
Therefore, in regard to liability, the site appears to have little FUDS interest.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District (SPL) currently
reflects two projects for this property.
One project, a tank removal has been completed with San Bernardino
County acceptance of closure in November 2002. The other was a low

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT ,- 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

priority project related to the storage facilities. An Archive Search Report

(ASR) has been. completed and there has been no evidence found at the site to
suggest the presence of ordnance or an immediate danger from former DoD
activities. Current documentation indicates the site was only used as a Depot
for storage and transshipment of fully manufactured items with no testing,
firing, or processing of ordnance components or fillers on the site. (Was
perchlorate used at this site? Was it found, not found?)

Since the Inventory Project Report was done prior to the perchlorate
issue, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers is performing a Site Ownership and
Operational History (SOOH) report covering the FUDS era (date?) and the
post FUDS era(date?). Focus is on perchlorate uses or perchlorate items that
may have been present at the Rialto facility. The purpose of this study will be
to confirm the accuracy of the present documentation, which, although not
conclusive, strongly suggests that no perchlorate release is likely to have
occurred from Rialto ASP while it was an Army facility.

Post Transfer Activities

The SOOH would also examine activities following the closure of the
Army facilities. For example, October 1, 2002, an explosion and fire occurred
at the Denova facility. Denova was a successor in interest to Broco
Environmental. BrocolDenova operated a hazardous waste treatment facility
on a portion of the site of the former Rialto ASP. The explosion and fire
occurred during an EPA cleanup of the facility.
The explosion and fire occurred when workers attempted to open an
aircraft ejection seat propellant cartridge (essentially, a rocket motor used to
power the ejection seat). DenovalBroco was apparently in the business of
demilitarizing these devices.
DenovalBroco was one of several owners of the former Rialto ASP who
occupied the premises after they were sold by the Army/GSA. Other property
owners include government contractors who may have used perchlorates on
the property in their performance of government contracts. These include BF
Goodrich (rocket motor research for the AF and Navy), Hughes Missile
Systems, and Ordnance Associates (a NASA contractor on the Gemini
progra16)her subsequent owners of the property have included fireworks and
pyrotechnic manufacturers. These operations have an unknown housekeeping
record and at least two documented major accidents.
Finally, the County of San Bernardino operates the Mid-Valley
sanitary landfill in the vicinity of Rialto ASP. Portions of the landfill are on
the former Rialto ASP and another portion is immediately adjacent. Given
the history of other operations on the property it is possible that wastes
bearing perchlorate from other operations were disposed of at the landfill.

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

..

INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

Conclusion
It is appropriate to proceed with the SOOH in an expeditious manner
under DoD's Defense Environmental Restoration Program authorities. The
current goal is to have this report completed by the end of Fiscal Year 2003.
There is no evidence that the United States is liable for perchlorate
contamination released from the Rialto ASP Formerly Used Defense Site
property during the time that the United States government owned or
operated the facility

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY

This is an area where DoD has done a lot. Rather than slow-roll by
waiting for regulatory standards to be issued, and then pointing out that it
may not even be technically possible to do the treatment required by the
standard, DoD decided very early on decided to push the technical envelope
and investigate the development of innovative, cost-effective means of
treating/removing perchlorate in groundwater and soils (recall my earlier
mention of DoD development of better analytical detection methods).

Bioreactors
The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Materials and
Manufacturing Directorate, at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, led the way
in the development ofbioreactor systems for treating process wastewater
containing very high levels of perchlorate. Since 1997, a bioreactor based on
the AFRL design has been treating wastewater from rocket motor production
and demilitarization operations at a defense contractor facility near Brigham
City, Utah. The first DoD facility to install a functional bioreactor for the
treatment of perchlorate-contaminated groundwater was the former
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant (LHAAP) in Karnack, Texas.

Ion Exchange
DoD has been investigating the use of ion exchange technology to treat
perchlorate contaminated groundwater supplies at Edwards Air Force Base
(AFB), California, and at NWIRP McGregor, Texas. Edwards AFB will soon
begin field testing a new class of anion exchange resins in a conventional fixed
bed ion exchange system. The resins were originally developed by scientists
at the Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge National Laboratory (ORNL)
to treat groundwater contaminated by an anion that is chemically similar to
perchlorate.
In Situ Bioremediation
Over the last several years, DoD's Strategic Environmental Research
and Development Program (SERDP) has funded significant research into
understanding the mechanisms of in situ, or in place, biological reduction.

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
Data gathered as part of this effort indicate that perchlorate reducing
bacteria are ubiquitous, strongly suggesting natural sources of perchlorate
are rather widespread in the environment. Recently, the NSWC Indian Head
Division, Indian Head, Maryland, and NWIRP McGregor, Texas, began
evaluating this innovative means of biologically treating perchlorate­
contaminated groundwater in situ thus eliminating the need to pump the
water to above ground treatment devices.

Permeable Reactive Barriers

Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) are a groundwater cleanup
technology that consists of a wall of reactive material installed in the path of a
flowing contaminated groundwater plume that treat the pollutants as they
penetrate through the wall. NWIRP McGregor has successfully
demonstrated the ability ofPRBs to substantially decrease the concentration
of perchlorate in intercepted groundwater.
Phytoremediation
Phytoremediation is a treatment technology that uses natural plant
processes and microorganisms associated with the root system to remove,
contain, or degrade environmental contaminants in soil, sediment, and water.
Research funded by the Air Force Aeronautic Systems Center (ASC)
Engineering Directorate and conducted by the University of Georgia, and
funded by the U.S. Army Operations Support Command and conducted by
the University oflowa, confirm the ability of phytoremediation to remove
perchlorate from contaminated water and soils.

Soil Biotreatment
Soil biotreatment technology uses bacteria to degrade soil
contaminants in a manner similar to composting. It can be used either in situ
or in soil excavated and put into lined pits. DoD is' conducting field studies
using both soil biotreatment technology approaches to treat soils at the
NWIRP McGregor, Texas, and the Longhorn AAP, Karnack, Texas.

CONCLUSION

While DoD has been proactively addressing the issue of perchlorate

since 1996, we will not rest on past laurels and accomplishments. Everything
that has been done in the past has been done with the advice and consent of
all stakeholder partners, including EPA.

Weare committed to protecting human health and the environment,

I

compliance with environmental laws, and ensuring that public health is not
put at risk by military operations.

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
We are committed to using the best available science to inform public
policies and decisions to ensure that the American people are fully protected
from any risks caused by perchlorate, and has acted responsibly.

Since partnering with EPA, states, and other stakeholders, DoD has
invested over $24 million for research into the analytical, toxicological, and
treatment technology aspects of perchlorate.

Judging by recent media articles and the trade press, it is apparent

that DoD's proactive position and role in addressing perchlorate issues has
been distorted. The Department so as not to engender more heat has
refrained trysting to the scientific process and the deliberative public policy
process but now is the time to shed more light on some of these issues.

We have always believed in having sound science supporting a public

policy and decisions, and have thus stayed away from recommending a
number believing that it is the responsibility of regulatory agencies to do so.

We value the validity and worth of the toxicological information

generated by studies cited in EPA's draft risk assessment. In fact, we funded
a lot of them using protocols developed in conjunction with EPA and
CalEPA.
We also continue to believe that proper process and appropriate
models and tools need to be used to evaluate the toxicological and health data
to arrive at sound decisions based on science.

Finally, we support the use of sound science by regulatory agencies in

an open and transparent process in developing health-based risks and the
subsequent setting of regulatory standards. EPA has a long-standing policy
that when human data is available it should be used to derive RIDs. We agree
with the approach taken by CalEPAlOEHHA in its own review of potential
perchlorate risks that fully considers human data.

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

 Page) of:!

Unknown

From: Buescher, John Mr A S A - I & E - ' ­

Sent: Wednesday. April 16, 2003 16:48

To: Cotter, Sandra Ms OSD-ATL

Subject: FW: Feinstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate

Ms. Cotter,
,.i:.....

This IS the only response so far today

John Buescher
DASA(ES9H) RestoratIon Support Contractor
Plexus Scientifj orporation

~----Original Message----­
From: Bell, David E Mr OGC
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 3:51 PM
To: Read, Marcia W Ms ASA-I&E; Teller, Craig E COL LITCfR .

Cc: Holsinger Nathan S. [Shawn) [TRADOC) (E-mail); Lovejoy, James K COL OCLL; Mahon Jack Mr.(E­ :~. ;

mail); Steffen Phillip (E-mail); Ganta,Krishna Mr ASA-I&E; Buescher, John Mr ASA-I&E; Cotter sandra (E­
mail); Cohen, Ben Mr DoD OGC
Subject: FW: Feinstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate

AII-
Please revIew the attached proposed reply and provide cmts/concurrence to John Buesch~r by Thursday.
Apnl17

Matt-Can you consolidate cmts and provide to Sandy Cotter?

Marcia
-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra Ms OSD-ATL
sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:55 AM
To: Kratz, Kurt OSD-ATL; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. COl., SAFflE; Cohen, Ben Mr DoD OGe; Choudhury, ShIh Mr
OSD-ATLi Marqusee, Jeffrey Dr OSD-ATL: Yaroschak, Paul) IE; Ganta, Krishna Mr ASA-l&E; Read, Marcia
 Page 20f2

W MsAsA-I&E
Cc: 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; Cullison, Geoffrey 0 Mr OPNAV; Ferrebee,
Patricia Ms OSD-All; Turke U I obert Mr OSD-Allj Wieszek, Victor Mr OSO-All
Subject: feinstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate

All,
Attached is letter to SeeDef from Senators Boxer, Feinstein, and Reid on perchlorate, and a preliminary
draft response prepared by Booz-A1len. The letter was apparenUy mistakenly directed to Army for
SecArmy response. J've asked for Army to redirect the action to our office, as directed by Kurt. and will ask
for an extension, however. it likely won't be extended much beyond Army's due date of tomorrow. Please
review and comment on the response.
Jeff Marqusee; Kurt asked that if not mentioned in our response, could you add language about $25 M. the
Department has put towards technology development?
Thanks,
SC

/{'

..'
.~;

f~'
• •

04118/03 11-: U PAl 703 814 5442 BQDA ODASA BSOI IiII003

....... .."'...,..

--
Apri12. 2003

The Honorable Dcmal4 R.umafc1d

Secrecary oCDofcnse
Departmel2t ofDefeue
The Pentagon
WuhiD~ DC 203C1t • . -... -- . -.-
Dear Secrctuy Rumsfeld:
We write you to request that the DClpartmcut ofDcCawe c.b • marc
al~YC and positive rol~ in cl~ up clcfcuc-rc1ated pwcb1arate

contlJTJinated water supplies in .. many • n l1lIlos' fnxn CaUfomJa _4 Novada to

Mauachusetta and Maryland.

We arc seriously cQnccmc4 that the Dcpaunart'. praposed exwsmptiOD from

rmviraDmentallaWi willlimia its reaporJlibnity 10 clean up pcrddcnte. 1be stale

officials who are swam to protect their citizeDs' drinkiDa W1Iter Uom pcrehIorate

and o1M threats have expmscd alarm 6;Iat their efforts will be preempted by your

atnenehrtent. Sa Statement ofBdwin P.I.owry, Director. Califomia Dc:partmatt of

Toxi~ Sub3t&DCOlI ContEol Php-.d for the Howe CoamDttto.e an Anned Serric;cs.

R.e.dmess SUbeonaniaee (March 13.2003); Letter from COloradoAttomcy

General Ken Salaz.r to the HoDorable Bob SIJIitb. Senate Committee on

EIl'iinJawont " Public WCJJ'b (Dec. 30,,20(2). TbiJ iI.1lCrious DL1ttel', 'beCause

perchlorate C'a impair dJyroid fimctionmg and affect tho physiCil arid mm1ll

development of ebiJdreD. .;

To the best ofoar kaowlQ!8C. nearly all the perch10ratc produced iIl1be

'l1Dittd States over the lUI half cc:ntwy wu used by the Dcpartmcmt IDd OlD' space

proJRD1. ThiJ meaD. !bat if the I>efmse Department ducks respaasibility tor 111

or
aetioaa herw, the burdeD Will fall OIl hUDdrecls America's communities, whoM.

Telidc:nt' trill &ce not cmly comaminaticm ottbeir driDkina water but the

staggering coati ofcleaning up a problem they did DOt crea1C. 1bia is completely

uaaeceptablc.

U05615 03'

.j

'J'f'.'
04/18/03 11:14 FAI 703 814 5442 BQJ)A ODASA ESOB aJ004

..

The pbm muh is dw the Department ofDefeDaebas 10lIl 'beea. nat oaly the
primary COIIIUDf ofpercblcnle, but I1Jo mtiJlllte1y i1rvo1ved ill ill manuf8CtuIiDI.
Fm aample, between 19S1 mcl1962 1M U.s. Navy o1Vl!ed'IIId ~ Cor Cbe
operation ortbc lars- pere1Ilor:ate productiaa facility mthe CCIQDtry located in
HeDdrnaa.'Ncvada. EYeD. rcliDquilhinl ill owncnbip oftha tici1iIy. the
Department and ita contractors continued to be the primIry custDml:lS of its
perchlorate. :PereblQla~ from this facility illNCbinl iIdO LaJee Mead IIl4 the
Colorado River. impaetiDg '9Vater suppliC5 in Ca1ifomia, ~ . . Nevada. -.
Wbilf! awc:saivc cleaaup efForts _lIJ'derway utile site. we in very ~ . - - - ­
that the DepattmeDt has nor aeuvcJy c:apged in~. to that cl_up.

The DepartmeDt bas alto heeD iDvolwd in may other eerioas perchlorate

contamination sitcl in our stites. 1bc Califomia DcpatlliMlt ofRcaltb Scnica

bas dclected ~cblozate in 1~ public grolJlld'water weDs.1he .tarity at' whk:b

are located near faQlltiea opente4lry the DepartmeDt or its COI\trKtorI.

The Def'eDso Depanmc:ut bas said that it is not wDliDa to ItItt clean-up of

pere1l1orate until there i. a nmcmalstmdard. but finaliziDl the standard il oUl1"ell1ly

projected to take ycarl. It is unacceptable lor the Defmse DeplibDel11 to adopt thia

dday stn.tegy while private plrties IDCi drizIlizls wD:r utilities adopt coaly

lD9a~e to auve Ch8 pul"il1 of driDJciD, waur cupp1ia. Compmica havo aheedy

spem millions on priority actions to reduce the Ibreat to AmcriGIIIII- aDd we urse

the DcfenK Department 10 do so as wdl.

One obvious priority cff'Ott D10 try to stem the flow of~catc into the

Colorado lUvet from 1he HcrukmoD faQlity desc:oW above. KcrrpMc:Gee. which

'operared the &.cility I1\ermeDef=ae DepartmeDt, hal built ~ ltatcoO~1he lit ion­

exchange ~iJjty and IabD othea'measUres iziIn attempt CD ~ the problem.

Yet the D~fc::DKDo,pamncnt bas dQbC DOtbins- The fc:dcral ~ camot 811

idly by where i1B aWODS IrO affecID;lg the quality o~ our dtiDldD& water.

We request tbI1 1M Dcpanmont report Dac:k to 118 on the top priority Plel

and "'hat initial mcuurca1bc Dqw1meD1 would tab in California, Nev.

around the COW1try for it to reduce perchlorate contamiDatioa in drinlriJIa water,

Arizona, T\;ZU and other states, given ,vail.ble fimdiDg. We expect a seriouIIDd

detailed fO'pan.. as warrarataa potential threat 10 Americal1l' heal1h.

,---------------------------- .

04/18/03 11:15 FAI 703 814 1442 HQDA GDASA 1508 ~005

We hope that you wl11 join us ia the spirit of ~1ti0ll to Idc1rta til

isuportut _Co We look forward to beariDI !ram ycu·u IODIl U pOSlible.

SiDeerc1y•

•
~""~~fO-.~
Diaane PeiNtein
U.S. StlIWor

.. ~
Dear Senator XXXXX,

Thank you for your recent letter in which you expressed concerns about the
relationship between the Department of Defense's proposed Readiness and Range
Preservation Initiative (RPPI) and perchlorate. Let me begin by stating that the
Department is committed to sustaining U.S. test and training capabilities in a manner
that fully satisfies ~its military readiness mission, is protective of public health, and
provides exemplary stewardship of the lands and natural resources en~ted to the
DoD by Congress.

RPPI and Perchlorate

Some observers have expressed concern that the Department's proposed RPPI
legislation could intentionally or unintentionally affect our financial liability· or cleanup
responsibilities with respect to perchlorate. Let me assure you that nothing in RPPI will
affect the Deparhnent's financial, cleanup, or operational obligations with respect to
perchlorate or any other chemical.

Under Section 10e of t1=le COffl:preheI15p.!e 'Bnvif'oAffl:ental Response,

Compensation, and Liability P"ct (C~RCLA), Q?A llas t1=le aathority to "issa(eJ-saeft
orders as may be necessary to protect public health and weliaf'e and the eftvif'oflfftent"
vihenever it "determines that there may be an i:fm::Riftent and sabst-antial endangerment
to t1=le public health or welfare Of the envif'oAffl:ent because of an acft1al S1' IkJfesteneti
release of a hasrdous substance hom a faciJity." SUeft ord€flS are in addiaon to
injunctive relief, and are enforceable by fines of $28,000 a day. :Nothing in t1=le progMfR
affects EPA's authority to issue such orders. And because }WA's sw:eeping section 10(;
authority covers FlOt only actual but "thl'eateFled release," om proposal woald ther.re
clearly eFlable ~PA to address gl"oundwatef' contaffl:ination Befe1'e the contamiflation
leaves DoD land VlNch is also the objective of DoD's mdsting management policies.
Section 10e woald also clearly cov'er on range tlli'eats hOffl: perchlorate or any other < .. ~ .~

chemical.
';"0/'"
.~

In addition, nothing in RPPI affects the Safe Drinking Water "Act (SDWA), which ....~
. ....
'- r.;:,
)

provides that EPA "upon receipt of information that a contaminant which is present or
is likely to enter a public water system or an underground source of drinking water may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons...may take "1'
.:;..tji,
.-1,'<
such actions as [EPA] may deem necessary to protect the health of such persons," ,
enforceable by civil penalties of up to $15,000 a day. Because this SDWA authority is
not limited to CERCLA "releases" or off-range migration, it clearly empowers EPA to
issue orders to address endangerment either on-range or off-range, and to address
possible contamination before it migrates off-range. In the Cl'lent that pereWorate Of afty
i C

other CORtaFR:iflatiOR Rom ffilfftitiORS migmtes off faage, states cmdciMeRS caiLHse
ResO\:lfce COfl5ervatioR aRd Rec<wCf'Y l<\Ct (RCRl\) aHthori'ty if the CORtafft:i.ftatiOR is Rot
addressed HRder CJ1RCLA, as discHssed aaoT/e. SHd~ RCRA aHt:herity TJlo\:IJ:d inelade
OR raRge measHres Reeded to fedfess t:he migpatioft.

Some commentators have also expre~sed concern that oUr RRPI proposal would
create a legal regime that barred regulators from addressing contamination until it
reached the fencelines of our ranges, or that it at least reflects a 000 policy to defer any
action until that point. As t:he aaoT/e d:iseusSiOR m:akes €leaf, EPA's continuing .
authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to prevent likely contamination and under
section 106 of CERCLA to address threatened releases of hazardous substances clearly
empower the Agency to act before contamination leaves 000 ranges. 1ft ~dditioft;
States aRd eitii5eRS e*ereising RCRA aatftority 1:llldef om RRPI RCRI. pfovisioR
addressing off range migpatioR co\:IJ:d ase that aatftority to eniOfEe OR flange measHfCS
RecessafY to redress the migration. Finally, it is most definitely not 000 policy to defer
action on groundwater contamination until it reaches the fenc~es of our operational
ranges, when it will be far more difficult and expensive to address. To the contrary, on
November 13, 2002,000 issued a perchlorate assessment policy authorizing asesSment
"if there is a reasonable basis to suspect both a potential presence of perchlorate and a "'':"

pathway on [] installation[s] where it could threaten public health."

The Use of Sound Science in the Risk Setting Process

Since 1997, the Department, in partnership with EPA, NASA, State an~ local
regulatorst and Native American tribes, has worked aggressively to identify what the ' I
hazard from perchlorate is to the American public, and to inform and involve .;
stakeholders about developments in the technical and regulatory arenas. Central to this
effort has been the commitment to use sound science to generate 'credible decisions,
including accurate risk characterization and appropriate risk management strategies.
", ...
The Department has been at the forefront of perchlorate research, and has
invested over $25 million to better characterize the potential human health and
environmental risks associated with perchlorate, and to develop innovative treatment
technologies. DoD worked closely with EPA to establish perchlorate study goals and
protocols, and has funded and conducted many independent studies to assess the
potential risks and effects of perchlorate exposure. As a result of this close cooperation,
the science needed to accurately characterize the risk from peehlofateperchlorate
exposure was generated in an accelerated manner, and the resulting perchlorate
database is more robust than many in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), o~;;
as evidenced by estimations of overall confidence, size of uncertainty factor, and types '",

of available data. ?l
0;:';('"
'1,

While DoD scientists do not necessarily agree with all of the conclusions stated in ::;:~:<.-:~

EPA's January 2002 perchlorate risk assessment document, the Department continues to
"'I:;j~
work with EPA and other stakeholders to develop scientifically-defensible decisions
'.
:",·,~:;t.
'~t
.' "~

.~.,

•.::i'Jl
regarding perchlorate use, assessment, and cleanup. Scientists and officials from both
organizations are actively discussing how to obtain a disinterested, objective and
neutral interpretation of this increasingly rich database Hom the Natiofl:'s leading
sciefttists. Once this review is completed, EPA can move forward to finish its risk
assessment and to provide clear answers to State and local government leaders, and
water utility officials, and address public concerns about perchlorate.

Commitment to Protecting the Public

The Department is charged with protecting the United States - its people, values, .
and resources. DoD is the environmental steward of over 25 million acres of land ­
some 1.1 % of the total land area in the United States -lands that have bet:n entrusted by
Congress to the Department to use efficiently and to properly care for properly. In .
I
executing these responsibilities we are committed to more than just compliance with the
applicable laws and regulations. We are committed to protecting, preserving, and,
when required, restoring, and enhancing the quality of the environment. Through the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), we are cleaning up contamination
from past practices on our installations and are building a whole new program to-"
address unexploded ordnance on our closed, transferring, and transferred ranges.

The fact that the Department has invested in excess of $25 million on perchlorate .
research and treatment technology development alone is a clear indication of the
Department's commitment to protect the public health of the American people. This
commitment is further supported by our partnership with EPA to ensure that the .
Nation's leading scientists are provided an opportunity to review the perchlorate
database. Such a review will ensure that risk characterization and subsequent risk
management decisions are, in fact, based on sound science.

Let me close by reiterating that the Department is committed to sustaining U.S.

test and training capabilities in a manner that fully satisfies that military readiness
mission, is protective of human health, and provides exemplary stewardship of the
lands and natural resources entrusted to DoD by Congress.

Sincerely,

~"«:'-,

.,.;~~,
~.. .,
 Unknown 7/
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD·ATL

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 09:04

To: Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATL; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL

SUbject: FW:From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Importance: High

030514 7Q Boston Glol:1e.doc

Globe.doc

Ku:ct,
At~ached are Richard Belzer's responses, received late yesterday
afternoon, and responses I had worked up (Globe.doc) , based on previous
papers, QFRs, testimony.
For your action.

-----Original Message----­
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [mailto:rbbelzer@cox.netJ

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 4:31 PM

To: 'Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL'; 'Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSA!JACE'

Co: 'Dan Kowalczyk'; 'Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL'

Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Importance: iU.qh

Sandy at 211.,

I have lool<;ed over the Globe's gues·:::.ions and concluded that the material
in our Text Vau1~ WQuld not help advance DoD's strategic objectives--not
with respect to either perchlorate or RPPI.
Instead of merely **detending** itself from false and scurrilous charges
and innuendo, I advise 000 to be more **offensive·· and
forthright--Ruffisfeldian, if you will--and use the opportunity to put out
st,atements expressly intended to undermine and reverse the prevailing
media message.

In that optimistic spirit I offer ehe attached proposed responses. I

have no~ inserted material in~o Q2 because I don't have the answers on
that. If someone else does, I'd be happy to massage it into a positive,
engaging style.

'·"· c-l"~ -'-11 if you have questions or want to discuss. Cell phone

iiiiiII
~.".') ...L . v\'r.;t 'c'
..:J { Co:::; •

.1 f I don't answer the office phone.

RBB

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 03 14:00PM

To: 'Richard B. Be.lzer PhD'; Rogers, Daniel, Col, f.l.F1JS,;jJACE

Cc: Dan Kowa1czyk; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-I\TL

Subj ee::: Flo,]: From Bobby Cal van, BOSLon Globe correspon(jent

Dan, Richard,

Can you send any QFRs you might: have in files, that we've prepared on

perchlorate, that we can use to respond on this? Already have Boxer's

QFR

sent last week. Need anything you have right away.

 Sandy
--~--Oriqinal Message-·--­
From: Irw~n, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:35 PM

To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; rerg~son, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-AT1

Cc: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATLj Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; May,

Lisa,

Maj, OSD-AT1; A.rmstron9, Brett, LTC!!>), OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra,. Ms,

Osb-ATL: Beard; Bruce, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Sen, Mr, DoD OGC

Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

I am the OSD/FA officer backing-up Glenn Flood on this -- I just got an

email from the Boston Globe a~d the reporter has NOT filed yet, giving
us an
opportlmi ty to at least put forth a DoD response. The Globe is an
extremely
liberal, left-leaning p~blication which LOVES to use phrases like MDoD
refused to comment" or "DoD had nothing to say" ... The original request
from
the reporter has been kicking around since May 9, and if we do not
respond,
we have lost the oppo~tunity to at least make the effort to tell our
side of
the story, and the Globe will either tell it for us, or say we refused
to
respond.
It would be my very stron9 recommendation that we 9ive the repo~ter
something, and by today. Reporters usually file by 5 p.m. -- any later
'Cohan
that and the opportunity is lost.

Cheryl Irwin
Press Operations
DoD PUblic Affairs
'r:..._.
www~il <http://www.defenselink.mil>

-----Original Message----­
From: Krat7., Kurt, , OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, Mu¥ 14, 2003 1:19 PM
To: FergY60n, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Cc: Woodlay Jr., Jonn, Mr, OSD-ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR,
OSD-ATL: May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-A~r,; Armstrong, Brett., LTC!P), OSD-ATLl

rrwin,

Cheryl, CIV, OASD-8A; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSP-ATL; Beard, Bruce. Mr,

OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr. DOD OGe

SUbject: RS: From Bobby calvan, Boston Globe

correspondent
Sorry ~hyllis, I waa out at meetings. Jeff is TOY. Can't get
an
immediato answer. Have asked Marrianne and Dan R0ge.rs fOl:" the latest PA
guidance as developed by the inter-agency group, and what our agreement
is
with the inter-agency on perchlorate interviews. Do you need us to
still
p~t something together quickly, or are we OTaE?
Bruce - do you hatre a standard answer for 77 I think that is
the
most important message for us to send.
Thx,
Kurt

-----Orig~nal Message----­
From: rerguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL

2
i'

Sandy

-----Original Message----­
tram: Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA
Sent: WednesdBy, May 14, 2003 1:35 PM
To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Cc: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSO-ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; May,
Lisa,
Maj, OSD-ATl; Armstrong, Brett, LTC(Pl, OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms,
OSD-ATL; Beard, Bruce, Mr, aSO-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGC
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

I am the OSD/PA officer backing-up Glenn Flood on this -- I just got an

email from the Beston Globe and the reporter h~s NOT filed yet, giving
us an
opportunity to at least pu~ forth a 000 response. The Globe is an
extremely
liberal, left-leaning publication which LOVES to use phrases like "000
refcsed to comment" or "000 had nothj.ng to say" ... The original request
from
the repor~er has been kicking around since May 9, and if we do not
respond,
we have lost the opportunity to at least make the effor~ to tell our
side of
the story, and the Globe will either tell it for us, or say we refused
to
cespond.

It would be my very strong recoTI~endation that we give the reporter

something, and by today. Reporters usually file by 5 p.m. -- any later
than
that and the opportunity is lost.

Cheryl Irwin
Press Operations
000 Public Affairs

www.detenselink.mil <http://www.defenselink.mil>

-----Original Message----­
From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:19 PM
To: Ferguson, Phyllis, MS, OSD-ATL
Cc: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR,
aSD-ATL; May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-ATL; Armstrong, Brett, LTC(?), aSD-AIL;
Irwin,
CIV, aASD-!?t\i Cotter, Sandra, [/ls, OSD-ATL; Beard, Bruce, Mr,
C:hery~.,
OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 aGe
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe
correspondent

Sorry Phyllis, 1 was out at meetiQgs. Jeff i5 TDY. Can't get

an
imrnediat:e answer. Have asked MarTi-anne and Dan Rogers for the latest PA
quidanc:eas developed by the inter-0-gency group, and wha:: our agreemt'Ont.
is
with the inter-agency on perchlorate interviews. Do you need us to
still
put something together quickly, or are we OTBE?
Bruce - do you have a standard answer for 7? I think that is
the
most impor::ant message for us to send.
Thx,
Kurt
-----Original Message----­
From: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
2
 Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:56 AM
To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Woodley Jr., John,
Mr,
OSD-ATL
Cc: Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; Ferguson,
Phyllis,
Ms, OSD-ATL; Armstrong, Brett, LTC(P), OSD-ATLi Irwin, Cheryl, CIV,
OASD-PAi
May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-ATL
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe
correspondent
Importance: High

Mr. Woodley & Kurt - Cheryl Irwin,

Defense
Press Office, checked the Boston Globe and Cal van has not yet printed
his
article as far as she can tell. Cheryl asked that we please try to
answer
the seven questions by noon today, so as to respond to this inquiry.
What
is the status from Jeff?

-----Original Message----­
From: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:34 AM
To: Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ferguson,
Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATLi Armstrong, Brett,
LTC(P), OSD-ATL
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston
Globe
correspondent

Cheryl ­
I just got this email message this
morning.
We have staff working responses to the 7 questions.
I called the phone number at the bottom
of
the email from Bobby Calvan - it a dental office (Dr. Crytabol
(?) ) .•• did

not leave a message.

When I dialed the number in the email

below,
I got a very sleepy lady that hung-up on me ... ??

Unless notified otherwise, we are

stopping
work on these questions since per your email, Calvan filed his story
last
night.

-----Original Message----­
From: Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 4:43 PM
To: Ferguson, Phyll"is, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: FW: From Bobby Calvan, Boston
Globe
correspondent

Phyl -- this guy is filing tonight -­

and it
3
would be good it he had a 000 comment
p.m.
but if you have something -- anything
to
him (see his email address below).
I have to leave tonight at 5
for him please just forward it
He cal also be reached at

Many thilnlcs -­
-----Original Messaqe----­
. . . . . . . . .rom: Bobby Cal van

[mailto • I

<mail to: [mailto:

~:~t: Flidilll gay 09, 2003 3:19 PM

<mailto:cheryl.irwin@osd,mil>

Subject: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe

correspondent

Ms. Irwin,
Thanks for returning my call. I'm doing
a
story on perchlorate for the
national desk of the Boston Globe, and

would

like a statement from the

D@partment of Defense to include in the

story r'm working on.

1. first off, I'd like to know what the

DQpar~ment is doing to clean up
sites contiminated by perchlorate.
2. Has the Department created a list of
sites that have perchlorate?
3. What is the Oepartment's position on
perchlorate clean up. Does the
Department consider perchlorate a
pr,oblem'?
4. What is the Department's .role and
pbshion on establishing a safety
standard for perchlorate? Is there a
standard the Department considers safe?
5. What does the O$partment believe to
be
the proper response to the
perchlorate issue?
6. If the Depa~tment were to clean up
perchlorate-contiminated sites and
resulting water-quality problems, how
much
would it cost and how long would
it take?
7. What is the Department's response to
those who say that the Department's
bid for exemption from environmental
rules
is based on the Department's
desire to exempt itself and its
contractors
from clean~ng up perchlorate and
other substances?
I thank you in advance for your help.
Sincerely,

4
\-JOuld be good if he had a 000 comment I have to leave tonight at 5
p.m.
but if you have something -- anything for him please j~st forward it
to
him (see his email add~ess below). He cal also be reached at

J:~:rany thanks -­

-----Original Message----­
From: Bobby Calvar1

-~-_
correspondent

. . =---_..'" 2003 3:19 PM

Subject: From Bobby Calvan, Bos~on Globe

Ms. Irwin,

Thanks fo~ returning my call. I'm doing

story on perchlorate for the

national desk of the Boston Globe, and

would

like a statement frem the

Department of Defense to include in the

story I'm working on.

1. First off, I'd like to know what ~he

Department is doing to clean up

sites contiminated by perchlorate.

2. Has the Department created a list of

sites that have perchlorate?

3. What is the Department's position on

perchlorate clean up. Does the

Department conside~ perchlorate a

problem?

4. Wh,n is the Department's role and

position on establishing a safety

standard for perchlorate? Is there a

standard the Department considers safe?

5. What does the Department believe to

be

the proper response to the

perchlorate issue?
6. If the Department were to clean up

perchlorate-contiminated sites and

resulting water-quality problems, how

much
would it cost and how long would
it take?
7. What is the Department's response to

those who say that the Depa~tment's

bid for e:..:emptien from environmental

rul.es

is based on the Department's

desire to exempt itself and its

contractors

from cleaning up perchlorate and

other substances?

I thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

4
 Bobby Cal van
(916) 478-2728

Add photos to your messages with MSN 8.

Get

2 months FREE*.

http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail

<http://join.msn.com/?page=features/featuredemail>

5
 Bobby Ca.lvan

Add photos to your messages with MSN 8.

Get:

2 mom:hs FREE"".

htt:p://join.msn.com/?page=feat:ures/featuredemail

<http://join.msn.com/?paqe=features/featuredemail>

5
1. "First off, I'd like to know what the Department is doing to clean up sites
contaminated by perchlorate."
In any instance where the Department is aware of unsafe levels
ofexposure, DoD acts quickly to prevent it. The Department is
committed to protecting public health and the environment, as well as
its own personnel.
The task ofsensibly managing perchlorate contamination is
much more complicated. This is being addressed once unsafe exposure
is stopped or prevented There are no simple fixes or technologies that
can be pulled off-the-shelfand installed.
We are concerned about diverting resources a way from the
cleanup ofother contaminants where exposure may pose a greater risk
to public health. That would put more people at risk, and we are
committed not to do tha t.
2. "Has the Department created a list of sites that have perchlorate?"

3. "What is the Department's position on perchlorate clean 'up? Does the

Department consider perchlorate a problem?"
In any case where perchlorate exposure poses a significant risk
to public health or the environment due to its activities, DoD will first
do what it can to prevent unsafe exposures. Beyond that, DoD wJ11
investigate each instance ofcontamination and make site-specific
cleanup decisions that achieve long-term public health protection in a
cost-effective manner.
If we faJ1 to do this, we may inadvertently divert scarce
resources from other activities where public health or environmental
risks are larger. We are concerned tha t some ofthe clamor for
immediate action is leading us in precisely this direction.
4. "What is the Department's role and position on establishing a safety
standard for perchlorate? Is there a standard the Department considers
safe?"
DoD is very interested in setting scientifically-based standards
for perchlorate, and has no interest in delaying such standards. We are
concerned, however, that some regulatory authorities may be leaning
toward setting standards based on what levels ofperchlorate can be
detected rather than what levels ofperchlorate exposure pose a
genuine human health risk. Just because a chemical can be detected

-1­
 using very sophisticated equipment does not mean that it poses any
risk.
In any case where a standard is set based on what level can be
detected rather than what level actually poses a health risk, the end
result is be that resources will be diverted away from public health
protection. More members ofthe public will be harmed.
The level ofperchlorate exposure that poses a risk to human
health is a matter ofgenuine disagreement. That's why DoD, along
with NASA, the Department ofEnergy and EPA, support the
upcoming scientific review by the National Academies ofScience,
Engineering and Medicine.
This review is intended to clarify for all whether perchlorate
exposure at environmental levels poses a risk to public health.
Different agencies have different views about this, but we all hope that
distinguished independent scientists empanelled under the auspices of
the National Academies can resolve the fundamental underlying
science questions.
We should also be clear that the federal government is not
asking the National Academies to resolve complex policy questions
surrounding perchlorateo In particular, we are not asking them to
decide for us how much perchlorate exposure is "safe." The word "safe"
is inherentlyjudgmental and non-scientific, and no matter how expert
the panelists might be in their various scientific disciplines they have
no special competence on matters ofpublic policy.
The federal government also is not asking the National
Academies to balance the competing policy interests ofthe various
agencies. DoD is committed to being a faithful steward ofthe lands
committed to its management for national defense.
The Department is also concerned about fulfilling its primary
mission-ensuring our Nation's security. As regulatory agencies
contemplate lower and lower standards for perchlorate based on what
can be detected rather than what poses a risk to public health, the
Department's capacity to protect national security may be
compromised.
5. "What does the Department believe to be the proper response to the
perchlorate issue?"
DoD believes tha t the first order ofbusiness needs to be to get
the science right. That means objectively determining whether
environmental exposures to perchlorate pose any public health risk,

-2­
 - - - - - - - - - -

and ifso, under what conditions and to which members ofthe public.
This information isn't just critical-it is essential.
Once the science is resolved, then regulatory agencies need to
determine what level ofexposure to permit. DoD believes that
regulatory agencies should not set standards that lack adequate
scientific support or standards which forbid exposures that that pose
no risk.
That's wrong for at least three reasons.
First, it wastes the taxpayers' money. That's just as true for
State and local taxpayers who would have to pay for extensive
drinking water treatment as it is for federal taxpayers who would pay
for DoD remediation actions.
Second, it would compel DoD, as well as State .and local
governments, to reallocate resources away from protecting people from
genuine environmental risks. That doesn't protect public health; it
puts more people at risk.
And third, it could make it extremely difficult for the
Department to effectively perform its primary national defense
mission. Compromising that mission is a risk we should not take
lightly.
6. "If the Department were to clean up perchlorate-contaminated sites and
resulting water-quality problems, how much would it cost and how long
would it take?"
DoD cannot say at this time how-much it would cost, but we
believe the direct costs could be substantial ifregulatory agencies
establish very low standards. Generally, remediation cost tends to rise
very fast as standards are made just a little more stringent.
The cost ofcleaning up perchlorate also depends on where the
perchlorate is located and the technology to be used. These depend on a/
number ofcomplex site-specific considerations. But, in any case where
groundwater is involved and the regulatory authority requires that
cleanup achieve a very low level, we would expect to be engaged in
treatment for an indefinite period oftim~ertainlydecades, and
possibly more than a century.
For virtually any contaminant in ground water, there simply is
no way to achieve very low standards quickly. This means the
"problem" ofperchlorate will not go away ifregulatory agencies set
very low standards.

-3­
'i'

7. "What is the Department's response to those who s'ay that the

Department's bid for exemption from environmental rules is based on the
Department's desire to exempt itself and its contractors from cleaning up
perchlorate and other substances?"
The premise ofyour question is not correct: The Department of
Defense is not seeking to exempt itselfor its contractors from cleaning
up perchlorate and other substances. There is nothing in our Range
Readiness and Preservation Initiative (""RPPI") that would do such a
thing. We are aware that there are people who say this, and all we can
say is that they appear to have been misinformed. Cleanup programs
at both active and closed military installations would continue
unchanged ifRPPI were enacted.
The provisions ofRPPI that have generated this imaginary
connection to perchlorate are intended to clarify how some
environmental rules apply to certain DoD facllities under certain
restrictive conditions. They are not connected in any way to the clean
up ofperchlorate or other substances on military installations or
training ranges.
Live-fire training-for example, firing artillery shells onto a
military range--has never been regulated under the rules governing
the generation and disposal of "hazardous waste'~ Indeed, perchlorate
isn't a hazardous waste even when it is disposed.
The Department ofDefense has sought this clarification because
we have been troubled by the extent to which some want to regulate
live-fire training in precisely this incongruous manner. Statutory
language that codifies current regulatory practice will resolve this
uncertainty. However, the Department's concern is intensified when
unsubstantiated and misleading claims are made about either the
practical effect ofRPPIor about the Department's motives in securing
these needed reforms.
The purposes ofRPPIis stated clearly and succinctly in the
draft bill­
• Protect the lives and well-being ofAmericans by ensuring
mJ1itary readiness;
• Solve problems created by encroachment on military activities
and areas;
• Reaffirm the principle that these areas have been set aside
primarJ1y for national defense purposes;
• Shield these areas from encroachment;

-4­
 • Manage these areas in a manner that protects public health and
the environment without compromising military readiness.
• Re-establish an appropriate balance between military readiness
and environmental stewardship; and
• Establish a framework to ensure long-term sustainabilityof
military ranges.
Perhaps there are those who disagree with these objectives.
Perhaps they do not agree that military readiness is important, or they.
believe that in all cases military readiness should be subordinate to the
reflexive application ofmyriad environmental la ws and reguiations. It
is certainly their right to believe these things.
If that is the case, however, the American people would be better
served by a frank debate about these dJfferent points of view.
Meanwhile, the public will be poorly served Jfall they read in the
newspaper is a cascade ofunsubstantiated and misleading claims from
well-organized interest groups with hidden policy agendas.

-5­
i

Questions and Answers

Boston Globe

1. Q. First off, I'd like ,to know what the Department is doing to clean up sites
contaminated by perchlorate?
A. The Department's goal has been and continues to be support of a national process
leading to mitigation of risks from perchlorate. However, any mitigation must be
commensurate with the actual risks. While Federal Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) has issued interim guidance containing recommended clean-up levels for
perchlorate in groundwater, there is currently no regulatory standard for
perchlorate in drinking water. The EPA is nearing completion of a toxicolQgy and risk
assessment review that will eventually establish formal daily exposure and risk levels for
perchlorate. Once finalized, the resulting oral reference dose (RID) will be used by EPA
to establish national drinking water and cleanup standards. In the meantime, we will
work with EP A and the States to address any situation where there is agreement
that perchlorate poses an imminent and substantial danger to the public.

2. Q. Has the Department created a list of sites that have perchlorate?

A. The Department is currently in the process of identifying properties that may have
perchlorate.

3. Q. What is the Department's position on perchlorate clean up. Does the Department
consider perchlorate a problem?
A. The Department is the environmental steward of over 25 million acres of land that
have been entrusted by Congress to the Department to use efficiently and to care for
properly. We are committed to protecting, preserving, and, when required, restoring, and
enhancing the quality of the environment. Through the Defense Environmental
Restoration Program (DERP), we are cleaning up contamination on our installations. Our
first and foremost consideration in any cleanup is the protection of the health of the
American people. We will continue to respond to public health threats in a manner
commensurate with their severity and based upon the best available scientific
understanding of the threat. However, any decision to expend resources to respond to
risks should be informed by reliable scientific evidence. The Department continues to
work with EPA and other stakeholders to develop scientifically-defensible decisions
regarding perchlorate use, assessment, and cleanup. We believe that EPA's efforts to seek
peer review of the 2002 perchlorate risk assessment will establish such a scientifically
based determination of when perchlorate exposure warrants action.

4. Q. What is the Department's role and position on establishing a safety standard for
perchlorate? Is there a standard the Department considers safe?
A. The Administration is committed to developing health risk assessments that are
objective, realistic, and scientifically balanced, and basing risk management decisions on
this scientific foundation. Since 1997, the Department, in partnership with EPA, NASA,
State and local regulators, and Native American tribes, has worked aggressively to
determine whether low-level perchlorate exposure poses a risk to the American public,
and to inform and involve stakeholders about research developments in this area. The
Environmental Protection Agency is engaged in a process of investigation intended to
arrive at a reference dose for ammonium perchlorate. A reference dose is an estimate, to
within an order of magnitude, of the level of exposure to a substance that would not be
expected to cause an adverse health impact on humans, including all sensitive
populations. In 2002, the Enviroiunental Protection Agency produced an external review
draft document that, if issued in final form by the Agency, would establish a reference
dose for perchlorate of 0.00003 mg/kg-day. I understand that the Agency does not intend
to issue the document in final form at this time, but instead to submit the document to the
National Academy of Sciences for further review. EPA has informed us that it will
complete and disseminate a final risk assessment when the NAS scientific review is
concluded and the NAS comments are addressed. ­

5. Q. What does the Department believe to be the proper response to the perchlorate
issue?
A. The Administration is committed to using the best available science to inform public
policies and decisions. DoD believes that the research undertaken by DoD, NASA, EPA
to evaluate the potential risks associated with perchlorate is a clear indication of that
commitment. To date, the Department has invested over $29 million in this research
effort. It should be evident from all the work that DoD has done in this area, that we
support appropriate cleanup and will spend whatever amounts are necessary to protect
public health and the environment.

6. Q. If the Department were to clean up perchlorate-contiminated(sic) sites and resulting

water-quality problems, how much would it cost and how long would it take?
The Department does not currently have any estimates available regarding cost or time
requirement for such an effort.

7. Q. What is the Department's response to those who say that the Department's bid for
exemption from environmental rules is based on the Department's desire to exempt itself
and its contractors from cleaning up perchlorate and other substances?
A. The Department of Defense's request for clarifications to some environmental rules is
not connected in any way to the clean up of perchlorate or other substances on military
installations or training ranges. The specific request related to munitions on ranges
centers on the definition of what constitutes a hazardous waste. Live fire training events
- firing an artillery shell onto a military range during training - have never been
regulated as a waste producing event and the Department seeks to have that clarified in
two of our environmental laws that deal with cleanup and handling of hazardous waste.
The ongoing cleanup programs at our active military installations, as well as at our closed
installations, would continue as they are. Also, if a hazardous substance is found to be
migrating off of an active training range, normal procedures for dealing with the cleanup
would take over the process - through the Safe Drinking Water Act or through one of the
hazardous waste laws, such as Superfund.
There has never been any intent to change in any way through this legislation the
Department of Defense's obligation to clean up the military lands under its control.
Unknown n
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Thursday, May 15,200313:49
To: 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSAIJACE
Subject: FW: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Dan, Rick,

Please see Mr. Woodley's message below... any quick suggestions for language you could provide, would be greatly

Globe.doc

appreciated.

-----Original Message----­
From: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL
Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 1:45 PM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Cc: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; Beard, Bruce, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD
OGC; Kratz, Kurt, ,OSD-ATL
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Sandy-these are good, but 1would also like to see mention of our research efforts into effective cleanup
technologies and potential perchlorate substitutes in munitions and solid rocket fuel.

Best,

..I P Woodley

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Thursday, May 15, 2003 1:27 PI"1

To: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL

Cc: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATLj Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATLj Beard, Bruce, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben,

Mr, DoD OGC; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL

Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Mr. Woodley,

Kurt approved the attached prepared responses, for your review.

VIR,

Sandy Cotter « File: Globe.doc »

-----Original Message----­
From: Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:35 PM
To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Cc: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-AlL;
Armstrong, Brett, LTC(P), OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; Beard, Bruce, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen,
Ben, Mr, DoD OGC
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

I am the OSD/PA officer backing-up Glenn Flood on this -- I just got an email from the
Boston Globe and the reporter has NOT filed yet, giving us an opportunity to at least
put forth a DoD response. The Globe is an extremely liberal, left-leaning publication
1
•

'i which LOVES to use phrases like "DoD refused to comment" or "000 had nothing to
say"...The original request from the reporter has been kicking around since May 9, and
if we do not respond, we have lost the 0Pl?0rtunity to at least make the effort to tell our
side of the story, and the Globe will eithertell it for us, or say we refused to respond.

It would be my very strong recommendation that we give the reporter something, and by
today. Reporters usually file by 5 p.m. -- any later than that and the opportunity is lost.

Cheryl Irwin

Press Operations

DoD Public Affairs

www.defenselink.mil< http://www.defenselink.mil>

-----Original Message----­
From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD·An
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:19 PM
To: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Cc: Woodley Jr., John, t<lr, OSD·ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; May, Usa, t<laj, OSD-ATL; Armstrong,
Brett, LTC(PJ, OSD-ATL; Irwin, Cheryl, crv, OASD-PA; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; Beard, Bruce, Mr,
OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGe
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Sorry Phyllis, I was out at meetings. Jeff is TDY. Can't get an immediate answer. Have asked
Marrianne and Dan Rogers for the latest PA guidance as developed by the inter-agency group, and
what our agreement is with the inter-agency on perchlorate interviews. Do you need us to still put
something together quickly, or are we OTBE?
Bruce - do you have a standard answer for 7? I think that is the most important message for us to
send.
Thx,
Kurt
-----Original Message----·
F"om: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday. May 14,20039:56 AM
To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-A1'L; Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL
Cc: Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, 05D-A1'L; Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL; Armstrong, Brett. LTC(P),
OSD-ATL; Irwin. Cheryl, CIV, OASD·PA; May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-ATL
Subjel't: RE: From Bobby CalV<lll, Boston Globe correspondent
Imporlance: High

Mr. Woodley & Kurt - Cheryl Irwin, Defense Press Office, checked the Boston Globe
and Calvan has not yet printed his article as far as she can tell. Cheryl asked that we
please try to answer the seven questions by noon today, so as to respond to this
inquiry. What is the status from Jeff?

-----Original Message----­
From: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 20039:34 AM
To: Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSO-ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR,
OSD-ATL; Armstrong, Brett, LTC(P), OSD-ATL .
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Cheryl ­
r just got this email message this morning. We have staff
working responses to the 7 questions.
I called the phone number at the bottom of the email from Bobby
2
 Calvan - it a dental office (Dr. Crytabol (?)) ... did not leave

'i'
a message.

~'Jhen r dialed the number in the email below, I goe a very

sleepy lady that hung-up on me ... ??

Unless notified otherwise, we are stopping work on these

questions since per your email, Calvan filed his story last
night.

-----Original Message----­
From: Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 4:43 PM
To: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: FW: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

PhyI -- this guy is filing tonight -- and it would be good if

he had a DoD comment -- I :Jave to leave tonight at 5 p.m. but
if you have something -- anything -- for him please just
fonlard i t to ~ e m a i l address below). He cal a.,Lso
be reached a t ~ Many thanks -­

Sent:
T O : _. . . . . .~
Subject: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe

1·1s. Irwin,

Thanks fer returning my call. I'm doing a story on perchlorate for

the
na~ional desk of the Boston Globe, and would like a statement from
trle
Department of Defense to include in the story I'm working on.

1. First off, I'd like to know what the Departmen~ is doing to

clean up
sites contiminated by perchlorate.
2. Has the Department created a list of sites that have
perchlorate?
3. What is the Department's position on perchlorate clean up. Does
the
Department consider perchlorate a problem?
4. What is the Department's role and position on establishing a
safety
standard for perchlorate? Is there a standard the Department
. . - ?
conSlaers sare.
5. What does the Department believe to be Lte proper response to
the
perchlorate issue?
6. If :.he Department were to clean up perchlorate-contirninated
si.tes and
resulting water-quality problems, how much would it cost and how
long would
it 'Cake?
7. What is the Department's response ~o those who say that the
Department's
bid for exemp~ion from environmental rules is based on the
Dep'd,rtrnent I S
desire to exempt itself and its contractors from cleaning up
perchlorate and

3
•

other substances?

1 thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Add photos to your messages ,'lith ~1SN 8. Get 2 months FREE<

::ht9?-:1.!J.2iD:msn. com[£P~~f.eatures!feat~_dema:il>

4
 Questions and Answers

Boston Globe

1. Q. First off, I'd like to know what the Department is doing to clean up sites
contaminated by perchlorate?
A. The Department's goal has been and continues to be support of a national process
leading to mitigation of risks from perchlorate. While the u.s. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) has issued interim guidance containing recommended clean-up levels for
perchlorate in groundwater, there is currently no regulatory standard for perchlorate in
drinking water. Until a federal or state cleanup standard is determined, the Department
will continue to work directly with state and local officials on the best strategies to
safeguard public water supplies. ­

2. Q. Has the Department created a list of sites that have perchlorate?

A. In 1998, the Department sent a list of sites to EPA for known areas where perchlorate
was used, treated, stored or disposed of. That list was published by the EPA in its 1999
Draft Risk Characterization Document.

3. Q. What is the Department's position on perchlorate clean up. Does the Department
consider perchlorate a problem?
A. Our first and foremost consideration in any cleanup is the protection of the health of
the American people. We will continue to respond to public health threats in a manner
commensurate with their severity and based upon the best available scientific
understanding of the threat. However, any decision to expend resources to respond to
risks should be informed by reliable scientific evidence. The Department continues to
work with EPA and other stakeholders to develop scientifically-defensible decisions
regarding perchlorate use, assessment, and cleanup.

4. Q. What is the Department's role and position on establishing a safety standard for
perchlorate? Is there a standard the Department considers safe?
A. The Environmental Protection Agency is engaged in a process of investigation
intended to arrive at a reference dose for ammonium perchlorate. A reference dose is an
estimate, to within an order of magnitude, of the level of exposure to a substance that
would not be expected to cause an adverse health impact on humans, including all
sensitive populations. Since 1997, the Department has spent $2 million on research to
help determine whether low-level perchlorate exposure poses a risk to the American
public, in coordination with EPA and state scientists, which will ensure decision makers
have all the available information necessary to apply to the decision making process.

5. Q. What does the Department believe to be the proper response to the perchlorate
issue?
A. The Administration is committed to using the best"available science to inform public
policies and decisions. DoD believes that the research undertaken by DoD, NASA, and
EPA to evaluate the potential risks associated with perchlorate is a clear indication of that
commitment. The department will continue to work with state and federal agencies to
evaluate the potential risks associated with perchlorate and help educate concerned
citizens to ensure knowledge is shared and the drinking water remains safe.

6. Q. lfthe Department were to clean up perchlorate-contiminated(sic) sites and resulting

water-quality problems, how much would it cost and how long would it take?
A. Until a final determination is made about a regulatory standard, the amount needed for
anyone to treat perchlorate is difficult to estimate.

7. Q. What is the Department's response to those who say that the Department's bid for
exemption from environmental rules is based on the Department's desire to exempt itself
and its contractors from cleaning up perchlorate and other substances? ­
A. The Department of Defense's request for clarifications to some environmental rules is
not connected in any way to the clean up of perchlorate or other substances on military
installations or training ranges. The specific request related to munitions on ranges
centers on the definition of what constitutes a hazardous waste. Live fire training events
- firing an artillery shell onto a military range during training - have never been
regulated as a waste producing event and the Department seeks to have that clarified in
two of our environmental laws that deal with cleanup and handling of hazardous waste.
The ongoing cleanup programs at our active military installations, as well as at our closed
installations, would continue as they are. Also, if a hazardous substance is found to be
migrating off of an active training range, normal procedures for dealing with the cleanup
would take over the process - through the Safe Drinking Water Act or through one of the
hazardous waste laws, such as Superfund.
There has never been any intent to change in any way through this legislation the
Department of Defense's obligation to clean up the military lands under its control.
 ................ _---------------------­
Message Page 1 of 1

From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD~ATL

Sent: Tuesday, January 28, 2003 18:44

To:
Cc: Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD~ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; 'Richard B. Belzer, Ph.D.'; Cornell,
Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE
Subject: Perchlorate written testimony as supported by OMS and EPAdoc

As agreed to by OMS
Kurt
 Department of Defense Testimony

Select Committee on Urban and Economic Development

California State Senate

January 29,2003

WRITTEN TESTIMONY

INTRODUCTION

The Department is finnly committed to protecting human health and the

environment. No issue has more clearly demonstrated this fact than perchlorate.
Since 1997, the Department, in partnership with EPA, NASA, state and local
regulators, and Native American tribes, has been at the forefront of research to
characterize the potential risks associated with perchlorate. To date, the
Department has invested over $24 million in this research effort. When FY03
expenditures are considered, this number will jump to approximately $36 million.

The Department's goal has been and continues to be support of a national process
leading to mitigation of risks from perchlorate. However, any mitigation must be
commensurate with the actual risks. While EPA has issued interim guidance
containing recommended clean-up levels for perchlorate in groundwater, there is
currently no regulatory standard for perchlorate in drinking water. The widely cited
figure of 1 ppb, which is derived from a draft EPA risk assessment that is still
undergoing internal and external peer review, has not been adopted, recommended,
or proposed as a cleanup standard for either ground or drinking water.

The Administration is committed to using the best available science to

inform public policies and decisions. The Department, in partnership with the
Environmental Protection Agency and leading scientists, has identified significant
issues in the interpretation of scientific knowledge about perchlorate, and will
continue to work with the Environmental Protection Agency to address the most
important scientific uncertainties first, ensuring the perchlorate risk assessment
adequately considers all significant data and requirements.

WHAT IS PERCHLORATE?
 Perchlorate is the chemical anion C104-. It usually takes the form of either
potassium perchlorate (KC104 ) or ammonium perchlorate (NH4 C10 4 ). Both
compounds in their pure forms are white crystalline solids, are highly soluble in
water, and can be transported easily through water and soil.

Potassium perchlorate has long been used as a diagnostic chemical and for
medical treatment of certain diseases. In the 1950s, Drs. Stanbury and Wyngarten at
the Thyroid Clinic of the Massachusetts General Hospital demonstrated perchlorate
to be the preferred substance for treating hyperthyroidism (also known as Graves'
disease). Treatment involved administering doses of 200 milligrams (mg) three
times per day-- a total daily dosage of 600 mg. potassium perchlorate. Dosages
ranging from 600 to 1000 milligrams per day were also given to children and to
pregnant women. Doses less than 200 milligrams per day were shown to be
ineffective at suppressing iodide uptake that would exert the desired therapeutic
effect on the thyroid gland.

In the 1960s, two cases ofhematotoxicity (aplastic anemia; agranulocytosis)

were reported in patients administered dosages of 1,000 to 2,000 milligrams per
day. It is not known to this day whether these two cases were the effect of
treatment or whether they occurred because of drug contamination. In any event,
the reporting of these findings in the medical literature recommended 1,000
milligrams as an upper limit of exposure. These historical facts tend to get lost in
the daily newspaper and television reports about perchlorate.

Current potential environmental exposures in the range of .002 mg per day to

.04 mg per day are extremely low when compared to therapeutic applications. Even
so, we're not disregarding the possibility that low-level exposures may pose a risk.
Indeed, as we stated previously, the Department has led the way in research to
determine whether, in fact, low doses pose a risk. Nevertheless, it is important to
understand that just because a compound has a particular effect at a high dose does
not mean that it will have the same effect at very low doses.

PERCHLORATE APPLICATIONS:

Ammonium perchlorate is a component of solid rocket fuel and is used as a

propellant in a number of military munitions. Ammonium perchlorate is also used
in commercial applications such as fireworks, airbags, road flares, and matches.

For National Defense purposes, ammonium perchlorate is an essential

component of rocket and missile propellants, and is found in some explosives.
Perchlorate made possible the missiles that secured the U.S. victory in the Cold War
'.
and that will shield the United States from rogue nations and terrorists via National
Missile Defense.

Perchlorate is also the rocket fuel that made possible the exploration of space
and satellites that are used for everyday things from cell phones to satellite TV.
Every time you see the space shuttle hurtling into space from Cape Canaveral, you
are witnessing an extraordinary feat made possible by ammonium perchlorate.

Substances that perform this function are called "energetics" because they
release huge amounts of energy when combusted or reacted. Of all the energetic
materials that the Department has tested, and based on our current knowledge,
perchlorate is by far the safest-safest for the environment, safest for public health,
and safest for the military and civilian personnel who operate rockets and/or fire
munitions in the field. We simply could not accomplish our mission of defending
the United States without ammonium perchlorate.

There are other applications of perchlorate besides aerospace, defense, or

industrial operations. An EPA study found that until very recently some fertilizers
contained up to 15% by weight of perchlorate. Perchlorate has also been found in
naturally occurring mineral deposits in some areas of the world, including the
United States. This may explain why it is sometimes difficult to trace sources of
perchlorate contamination.

Frankly, beyond EPA's study, little is known about the natural occurrence of
perchlorate. Some research has shown that bacteria capable of reducing perchlorate
to simple chloride are ubiquitous in the environment. Given this fact, it is possible
that naturally occurring sources of perchlorate are widespread, but were never
detected because there was neither the will nor the means to detect it. Given current
concerns about the health affects of low levels of perchlorate in the environment, it
would seem to me to be of vital importance that we undertake studies immediately
to determine how widespread natural, low~level concentrations are in the
environment.

CHRONOLOGY OF RESEARCH

DoD has had a long interest and involvement with perchlorate, dating back
to the 1980s when questions first arose about possible environmental impacts
associated with the chemical.
 Despite scarce funding and competing demands, DoD has invested
substantial professional and technical resources to address perchlorate issues.
Normally, the burden for funding this type of research would have been borne by
U.S. EPA and State regulatory agencies. Specifically, DoD has invested in:

Improvements in analytical detection methods for perchlorate;

Toxicological research into health effects of perchlorate;

Development of treatment technologies for perchlorate; and

Studies of ecological impact of perchlorate.

In 1992 U.S. EPA's Superfund Technical Support Center first proposed an

interim value of 4 ppb. In 1995, the limit was increased to a range of 4 to 18 parts
per billion (ppb) in order to reflect a change in uncertainty factors.

At that time, the best available analytical method could only detect
perchlorate to 400 ppb. DoD partnered with EPA and the State of California in
1997 to develop an analytical method that could reliably detect lower levels of
Perchlorate. As a result, we can now accurately detect conc€(ntrations of
Perchldrntl9lll7\\hteTeKieek>§yrwIll001~JPPbin Risk Assessment (TERA), a non-profit
organization based in Cincinnati, Ohio, conducted an independent peer evaluation
of the perchlorate toxicological data. The Panel concluded that the database was
insufficient to support quantitative Risk Assessment.

Recognizing that the Department had both the expertise and the resources to
assist EPA in better characterizing the potential risks, DoD initiated a partnership
with both the regulatory agencies and industry stakeholders to quickly generate the
data needed to support a perchlorate reference dose. DoD worked with U.S. EPA
and experts from California as well as academia to develop the study protocols and
conducted the actual research used by the regulatory agencies.

In less than fourteen months, the results of eight separate studies were turned
over to EPA, who in tum incorporated them into their 1998 external review draft
risk assessment. EPA's external peer review recommended that additional studies
be conducted.

Once again DoD volunteered to assist EPA, and along with our industry
partners funded the additional studies recommended by the peer review. As was the
case previously, DoD worked with EPA and the other experts to develop the study
protocols, and DoD and industry funded and conducted the research. The additional
data was incorporated into EPA's second draft Perchlorate risk assessment in
January 2002.

However, for reasons still not fully understood, U.S. EPA chose to add data
uncertainty factors which acted to drive the allowable level down to 1 ppb in
drinking water, even though all previously identified data gaps had been adequately
addressed. Perhaps most troubling is the fact that EPA ignored previous human
data in proposing this value. Nonnally, when human data is available, it is used in
deriving human RIDs. In fact, we agree with the approach taken by California
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Environmental Health Hazard
Assessment in their perchlorate risk assessment, an approach which fully
considered the available human data.

We are currently working with the U.S. EPA, Department of Energy, and
NASA, to clarify the application and interpretation of the available scientific
infonnation, as well as, the application of uncertainty factors. It should be evident
from all the work that DoD has done in this area, that we support appropriate
cleanup and will spend whatever amounts are necessary to protect public health and
the environment. However, until we - EPA, NASA, DoE and DoD - have agreed
upon the best available scientific infonnation and develop the correct number to
protect human health, we should not divert scarce resources to cleanup to levels
beyond what is necessary to protect human health and the environment.

The Defense Department is committed to ensuring that the best available,

most objective science governs, and that there is a full and open accounting of our
efforts.

TREATMENT TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH

 Treatment technology is another area where DoD has contributed a great deal
of effort and resources. Rather than waiting for regulatory standards to be issued,
DoD decided early on to invest in development of innovative, cost-effective means
of treating/removing Perchlorate in groundwater and soils (recall the earlier mention
of DoD development of better analytical detection methods). The following are
different types of demonstrated treatment technologies that are a direct result of
these efforts. It should be noted however, that chose of appropriate technologies is
highly site-specific, with significant variability in costs and feasibility across sites.

Bioreactors
The Air Force Research Laboratory (AFRL) Materials and Manufacturing
Directorate, at Tyndall Air Force Base, Florida, led the way in the development of
bioreactor systems for treating wastewater containing high levels of perchlorate.
Since 1997, a bioreactor based on the AFRL design has been treating wastewater
from rocket motor production and demilitarization operations at a defense
contractor facility near Brigham City, Utah. The first DoD facility to install a
bioreactor for the treatment of perchlorate~contaminatedgroundwater was the
former Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant (LHAAP) in Karnack, Texas.

Ion Exchange
DoD has been investigating the use of ion exchange technology to treat
perchlorate contaminated groundwater supplies at Edwards Air Force Base (AFB),
California, and at Naval Weapons Industrial Reserve Plant (NWIRP) McGregor,
Texas. Edwards AFB will soon begin field~testing a new class of anion exchange
resins in a conventional fixed bed ion exchange system. The resins were originally
developed by scientists at the Department of Energy (DOE) Oak Ridge National
Laboratory (ORNL) to treat groundwater contaminated by a chemical similar to
perchlorate.

In Situ Bioremediation
Over the last several years, DoD's Strategic Environmental Research and
Development Program (SERDP) has funded significant research into understanding
the mechanisms of in situ, or in place, biological reduction of contamination. Data
gathered as part of this effort indicate that perchlorate reducing bacteria may be
ubiquitous in the environment, strongly suggesting that natural sources of
perchlorate may be widespread. Recently, the Naval Surface Warfare Center
(NSWC) Indian Head Division, Indian Head, Maryland, and NWIRP McGregor,
Texas, began testing this method in situ for perchlorate-contaminated groundwater
thus eliminating the need to pump the water above ground for treatment.
Permeable Reactive Barriers
Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) are a groundwater cleanup technology
consisting of a wall of reactive material designed to intercept contaminated
groundwater, treating the pollutants as they penetrate the wall. NWIRP McGregor
has successfully demonstrated the ability ofPRBs to substantially decrease the
concentration of perchlorate in groundwater.

Phytoremediation
Phytoremedi~tion is a treatment technology that uses natural plant processes
and microorganisms associated with the root system to remove, contain, or degrade
environmental contaminants in soil, sediment, and water. Research funded by the
Air Force Aeronautic Systems Center (ASC) Engineering Directorate and
conducted by the University of Georgia, and funded by the U.S. Army Operations
Support Command and conducted by the University of Iowa, confirm that
phytoremediation can be used to remove perchlorate from contaminated water and
soils.

Soil Biotreatment
Soil biotreatment technology uses bacteria to degrade soil contaminants in a
manner similar to composting. It can be used either in situ or in excavated soils.
DoD is conducting field studies using both technologies to treat soils at the NWIRP
McGregor, Texas, and the Longhorn AAP, Karnack, Texas.

RIALTO AMMUNITION SUPPLY POINT

Assertions that the former Rialto Ammunition Supply Point (Rialto ASP), a
Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS)property, was a possible source of the
perchlorate in production wells used by the Inland Empire Utilities Agency is not
supported from a review of the history of DoD activities on the property. In 1945,
the War Department, the predecessor to the Department of Defense (DoD), declared
Rialto ASP excess and the depot was transferred to the Farm Credit Administration
in 1946. The United States Army Corps ofEngineers (USACE) reviewed archived
documents on Rialto ASP. From this review, USACE determined that the depot
was used for storage and transshipment of fully manufactured items with no testing,
firing, or processing of ordnance components or fillers on the site. USACE officials
did not find any evidence of perchlorate release while the Army owned the property
during World War II. However, evaluation of activities conducted on the property
by subsequent owners which included industrial and commercial enterprises,
disclosed business operations which historically involved perchlorate usage.
 USACE representatives will continue to cooperate and provide information
on DoD activities at the Rialto ASP to local officials, to include the Inland Empire
Perchlorate Task Force.

CONCLUSION

While DoD has been proactive in addressing the issue of perchlorate since
1996, we will not rest until everything that can be done has been done with the
advice and consent of all stakeholder partners, including the states and EPA.

Weare committed to protecting human health and the environment,

complying with environmental laws, and ensuring that public health is not put at
risk by military operations.

Based on recent media articles and the trade press, it seems as though DoD's
efforts to address perchlorate issues have been misunderstood. Weare committed
to using the best available science to inform public policies and decisions to ensure
that the American people are fully protected from risks caused by perchlorate. The
Department supports further open discourse on this subject, and the development of
scientifically-defensible, risk based ~tandards. We welcome the support of this
committee and others to ensure fair and frank communications continue on this
Issue.
 Unknown
From:
Sent:
To:
Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Wednesday, April 16, 200311:27
'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
/?5
Subject: FW: Senators Urge DoD to Take 'Aggressive' Role In Perchlorate Clean Up

Draft Letter to

Congress 8 Apr.••

-----Original Message----­
From: Turkeltaub, Robert, Mr, OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ns, OSD-ATL
SUbject: FW: Sena~ors Urqe DoD to Take 'Aggressive' Role In Perchlorate
Clean Up

-----Original Message----­
From: Kowalczyk Daniel
3m1t: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:14 AM
To: Choudhury Shah Mr OSD-AIL
Cc: \'Jierman Hayes Kathryn '; Turkel taub Eobert i'lr 03D-ATL; Rogers Daniel
I

I.t Col AFLSJ.l./?R

Subject: Re: Senators Urge DoD to Take 'Aggressive' Role In Perchlorate
Clean Up

Shah,

Hope this helps. Feel free to contact me with qu~Stions or comments.

vir

Dan

"Cllcudklury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL" wrote:

>
j "'7 Apr 03
> Dan K--please see Mr. Kratz's email below. Attached draft QFRs may
> help you in drafting the response. Dan R has concurred with the draft

> (JFRs.
>
> Dan R--in response to Friday's question '" No, we have not seen the
> l.etter from the Senators; but wait with bated breattl.

> Shah
>
> -----Original Message----­
> from: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL
? Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 12:00 PM
> To: Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL
> Cc: 'Kowalczyk Daniel'; 'Wierman Hayes Kathryn'
> Slluject: FliJ: Senators Urge DoD to Take 'Aggressive' Role In
> Perchlorate Clean Up
>­
> Shah,
> I assume this means a letter is coming to the SEeDEF. We should be

1
> the ones to respond. Please task BAH to draft a reply by noon
> tomorrow. Response should be along the lines of:
> 1) The "Department's proposed exemption from
> environmental laws" will not limit its responsibility to clean up
> perchlorate (explanation of RRPI and the fact that it does not limit
> off range cleanup) .
> 2) The Department is working aggressively to identify what the hazard

> from perchlorate is to the American public (explanation of steps taken

> to support sound science in the risk setting process) .

> 3) Our commitment to protecting the US public.
> Thx,
> Kurt
>
> -----Original Message----­
> From: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:34 PM
> To: Grone, Philip, Mr, OSD-ATL; DuBois, Ray, Mr, OSD-ATL; Kratz, Kurt,

> , OSD-ATL; Sullivan, Maureen, Ms, OSD-ATL

> Cc: Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; Armstrong, Brett, LTC(P), OSD-ATL;
> May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-ATL; Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL
> Subject: FW: Senators Urge DoD to Take 'Aggressive' Role In
> Perchlorate Clean Up
>
> FYI - Press Release from Glenn on Perchlorate below
>
> -----Original Message----­
> From: Flood, Glenn, CIV, OASD-PA
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:30 PM
> To: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL
> Cc: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
> Subject: Senators Urge DoD to Take 'Aggressive' Role In Perchlorate
> Clean Up
>
> FYI----­
> GF
>
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
>
> Thursday, April 3, 2003
>
> Senators Feinstein, Reid, Boxer Urge Department of Defense to Take
> 'Aggressive' Role In Perchlorate Clean Up
>
> Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Harry Reid

> (D-NV), and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) have urged the Department of
> Defense to take an 'aggressive and positive' role in the cleanup of
> perchlorate in groundwater supplies in California and across the
> nation.
>
> Widely used during the Cold War, perchlorate is a primary ingredient
> in rocket fuel. According to a recent report by the California
> Department of Health Services, perchlorate has been detected in water
> supplies in 22 states including the Colorado River. In California,
> perchlorate has been found in 292 groundwater wells operated by 80
> different agencies.
>
> Specifically, the Senators urged the Department of Defense to:
>
> * Provide information on the sites that pose the greatest threat to
> Americans' health; and
>
2
> * Describe the initial measures the Department would take to reduce

> perchlorate contamination at those sites.

>
> In a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the Senators
> wrote: "We write you to request that the Department of Defense take a
> more aggressive and positive role in cleaning up defense-related
> perchlorate contaminated water supplies in as many as 22 states from
> California and Nevada to Massachusetts and Maryland.
>
> "We are seriously concerned that the Department's proposed exemption
> from environmental laws will limit its responsibility to clean up
> perchlorate. The state officials who are sworn to protect their
> citizens' drinking water from perchlorate and other threats have
> expressed alarm that their efforts will be preempted by your
> amendment .... This is a serious matter, because perchlorate can impair
> thyroid functioning and affect the physical and mental development of
> children.
>
> "To the best of our knowledge, nearly all the perchlorate produced in
> the United States over the last half century was used by the
> Department and our space program. This means that if the Defense
> Department ducks responsibility for its actions here, the burden will
> fallon hundreds of America's communities, whose residents will face
> not only contamination of their drinking water but the staggering
> costs of cleaning up a problem they did not create. This is completely

> unacceptable.
>
> "The plain truth is that the Department of Defense has long been not
> only the primary consumer of perchlorate, but also intimately involved

> in its manufacturing.

>
> "For example, between 1951 and 1962 the U.S. Navy owned and contracted

> for the operation of the largest perchlorate production facility in

> the country located in Henderson, Nevada. Even after relinquishing its

> ownership of the facility, the Department and its contractors

> continued to be the primary customers of its perchlorate. Perchlorate

> from this facility is leaching into Lake Mead and the Colorado River,
> impacting water supplies in California, Arizona and Nevada. While
> aggressive cleanup efforts are underway at the site, we are very
> concerned that the Department has not actively engaged in contributing

> to that cleanup.

>
> "The Department has also been involved in many other serious
> perchlorate contamination sites in our states. The California
> Department of Health Services has detected perchlorate in 292 public
> groundwater wells, the majority of which are located near facilities
> operated by the Department or its contractors.
>
> "The Defense Department has said that it is not willing to start
> clean-up of perchlorate until there is a national standard, but
> finalizing the standard is currently projected to take years. It is
> unacceptable for the Defense Department to adopt this delay strategy
> while private parties and drinking water utilities adopt costly
> measures to assure the purity of drinking water supplies. Companies
> have already spent millions on priority actions to reduce the threat
> to Americans - and we urge the Defense Department to do so as well.
>
> "One obvious priority effort is to try to stem the flow of perchlorate

> into the Colorado River from the Henderson facility described above.
> Kerr-McGee, which operated the facility after the Defense Department,
3
> has built a state-of-the art ion-exchange facility and taken other
> measures in an attempt to address the problem. Yet the Defense
> Department has done nothing. The federal government cannot sit idly by

> where its actions are affecting the quality of our drinking water.
>
> "We request that the Department report back to us on the top priority
> sites around the country for it to reduce perchlorate contamination in

> drinking water, and what initial measures the Department would take in

> California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas and other states, given available
> funding. We expect a serious and detailed response as warrants a
> potential threat to Americans' health.
>
> "We hope that you will join us in the spirit of cooperation to address

> this important issue. We look forward to hearing from you as soon as
> possible."
>
> A copy of the Senators' letter is available upon request.
>
> ###
>
> -----------------------------------------------­
> You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at
>
> http://www.cpeo.org/newsgrp.html
>
> If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe,
> please send a blank message with no sUbject to:
>
> cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com
>
> ==A================================================================
> This email was sent to: roxanne yonn@urscorp.com
>
> EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here:
> http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxieS.aVDXOt.cm94YW5u
> Or send an email to: cpeo-military-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
> http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
> ==A======~========================================~~==========~====
>
>

> Name: QFR-SAC

MILCON 18Mar03-#13-l5-16-l7 ver0304D3.doc
> QFR-SAC MILCON 18Mar03-#13-lS-16-17 ver030403.doc Type: WINWORD
File (application/mswordl
> Encoding: base64

Daniel Kowalczyk
8002 Allen Hamilton
8283 Greensboro Dr
McLean, VA 22102

4
Dear Senator XXXXX,

Thank you for your recent letter in which you expressed concerns about the
relationship between the Department of Defense's proposed Readiness and Range
Preservation Initiative (RPPI) and perchlorate. Let me begin by stating that the
Department is committed to sustaining U.s. test and training capabilities in a manner
that fully satisfies that military readiness mission, is protective of public health, and
provides exemplary stewardship of the lands and natural resources entrusted to the
DoD by Congress.

RPPI and Perchlorate

Some observers have expressed concern that the Department's proposed RPPI
legislation could intentionally or unintentionally affect our financial liability or cleanup
responsibilities with respect to perchlorate. Let me assure you that nothing in RPPI will
affect the Department's financial, cleanup, or operational obligations with respect to
perchlorate or any other chemical.

Under Section 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), EPA has the authority to "issu[e] such
orders as may be necessary to protect public health and welfare and the environment"
whenever it "determines that there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment
to the public health or welfare or the environment because of an actual or threatened
release of a hazardous substance from a facility." Such orders are in addition to
injunctive relief, and are enforceable by fines of $25,000 a day. Nothing in the program
affects EPA's authority to issue such orders. And because EPA's sweeping section 106
authority covers not only actual but "threatened release," our proposal would therefore
clearly enable EPA to address groundwater contamination before the contamination
leaves DoD land-which is also the objective of DoD's existing management policies.
Section 106 would also clearly cover on-range threats from perchlorate or any other
chemical.

In addition, nothing in RPPI affects the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which
provides that EPA "upon receipt of information that a contaminant which is present or
is likely to enter a public water system or an underground source of drinking water may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons...may take
such actions as [EPA] may deem necessary to protect the health of such persons,"
enforceable by civil penalties of up to $15,000 a day. Because this SDWA authority is
not limited to CERCLA "releases" or off-range migration, it clearly empowers EPA to
issue orders to address endangerment either on-range or off-range, and to address
possible contamination before it migrates off-range. In the event that perchlorate or any
other contamination from munitions migrates off-range, states and citizens can use
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authority if the contamination is not
addressed under CERCLA, as discussed above. Such RCRA authority would include
on-range measures needed to redress the migration.

Some commentators have also expressed concern that our RRPI proposal would
create a legal regime that barred regulators from addressing contamination until it
reached the fencelines of our ranges, or that it at least reflects a DoD policy to defer any
action until that point. As the above discussion makes clear, EPA's continuing
authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to prevent likely contamination and under
section 106 of CERCLA to address threatened releases clearly empower the Agency to act
before contamination leaves DoD ranges. In addition, States and citizens exercising
RCRA authority under our RRPI RCRA provision addressing off-range migration could
use that authority to enforce on-range measures necessary to redress the migration.
Finally, it is most definitely not DoD policy to defer action on groundwater
contamination until it reaches the fencelines of our operational ranges, when it will be
far more difficult and expensive to address. To the contrary, on November 13, 2002,
DoD issued a perchlorate assessment policy authorizing asessment if there is a
/I

reasonable basis to suspect both a potential presence of perchlorate and a pathway on []

installation[s] where it could threaten public health./I

The Use of Sound Science in the Risk Setting Process

Since 1997"the Department, in partnership with EPA, NASA, State and local
regulators and Native American tribes, has worked aggressively to identify what the
hazard from perchlorate is to the American public, and to inform and involve
stakeholders about developments in the technical and regulatory arenas. Central to this
effort has been the commitment to use sound science to generate credible decisions,
including accurate risk characterization and appropriate risk management strategies.

The Department has been at the forefront of perchlorate research, and has
invested over $25 million to better characterize the potential human health and
environmental risks associated with perchlorate, and to develop innovative treatment
technologies. DoD worked closely with EPA to establish perchlorate study goals and
protocols, and has funded and conducted many independent studies to assess the
potential risks and effects of perchlorate exposure. As a result of this close cooperation,
the science needed to accurately characterize the risk from pechlorate exposure was
generated in an accelerated manner, and the resulting perchlorate database is more
robust than many in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), as evidenced by
estimations of overall confidence, size of uncertainty factor, and types of available data.

While DoD scientists do not necessarily agree with all of the conclusions stated in
EPA's January 2002 perchlorate risk assessment document, the Department continues to
work with EPA and other stakeholders to develop scientifically-defensible decisions
regarding perchlorate use, assessment, and cleanup. Scientists and officials from both
organizations are actively discussing how to obtain a disinterested, objective and
neutral interpretation of this increasingly rich database from the Nation's leading
scientists. Once this review is completed, EPA can move forward to finish its risk
assessment and to provide clear answers to State and local government leaders, water
utility officials and address public concerns about perchlorate.

Commitment to Protecting the Public

The Department is charged with protecting the United States - its people, values,
and resources. DoD is the environmental steward of over 25 million acres of land ­
some 1.1 % of the total land area in the United States - that have been entrusted by
Congress to the Department to use efficiently and to properly care for. In executing
these responsibilities we are committ€d to more than just compliance with the
applicable laws and regulations. We are committed to protecting, preserving, and,
when required, 'restoring, and enhancing the quality of the environment. Through the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) we are cleaning up contamination
from past practices on our installations and are building a whole new program to
address unexploded ordnance on our closed, transferring, and transferred ranges.

The fact that the Department has invested in excess of $25 million on perchlorate
research and treatment teclmology development alone is a clear indication of the
Department's commitment to protect the public health of the American people. This
commitment is further supported by our partnership with EPA to ensure that the
Nation's leading scientists are provided an opportunity to review the perchlorate
database. Such a review will ensure that risk characterization and subsequent risk
management decisions are, in fact, based on sound science.
i-

Let me close by reiterating that-the Department is committed to sustaining U.s.

test and training capabilities in a manner that fully satisfies that military readiness
mission, is protective of human health, and provides exemplary stewardship of the
lands and natural resources entrusted to DoD by Congress.

Sincerely,
Unknown

From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11 :27
To: 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Subject: FW: 'Senators Urge 000 to Take 'Aggressive' Role In Perchlorate Clean Up

Draft Letter to

Congress 8 Apr...

-----Original Message----­
From: Turkeltaub, Robert, Mr, OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 11:13 AM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: FW: Senators Urge DoD to Take 'Aggressive' Role In Perchlorate
Clean Op

-----Original Message----­
From: Kowalczyk Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, April 08, 2003 11:14 AM
To: Choudhury Shah Mr OSD-ATL
Cc: 'Wierman Hayes Kathryn'; Turkeltaub Robert Mr OSD-ATL; Rogers Daniel
Lt Col liFLSA/pR
Subject: Re: Senators Urge DoD to Take 'Aggressive' Role In Perchlorate
Clean Up

Shah,

Hope this helps. Feel free to contact me with questions or comments.

vir

Dan

"Choudhury, Shah, My, OSD-ATL" wrote:

>
> 7 Apr 03
> Dan K--please see Mr. Kratz's email below. Attached draft QFRs may
> help you in drafting the response. Dan R has concurred with the draft

> QFRs.
>
> Dan R--in response to Friday's question ... No, we have not seen the
> letter from the Senators; but wait with bated breath.
>
> Shah
>
> -----Original Message----­
> From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL
> Sent: Monday, April 07, 2003 12:00 PM
> To: Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL
> Cc: 'Kowalczyk Daniel'; 'Wierman Hayes Kathryn'
> Subject: FW: Senators Urge 000 to Take 'Aggressive' Role In
> Perchlorate Clean Up
>
> Shah,
> T assume this means a letter is coming to the SEeDEF. We should be
> the ones to respond. Please task BAH to draft a reply by noon
> tomorrow. Response should be along the lines of:
> 1) The "Department's proposed exemption from
> environmental laws" will not limit its responsibility to clean up
> perchlorate (explanation of RRPI and the fact that it does not limit
> off range cleanup).
> 2) The Department is working aggressively to identify what the hazard

> from perchlorate is to the American public (explanation of steps taken

> to support sound science in the risk setting process) .

> 3) Our commitment to protecting the US public.
> Thx,
> Kurt
>
> -----Original Message----­
> From: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:34 PM
> To: Grone, Philip, Mr, OSD-ATL; DuBois, Ray, Mr, OSD-ATL; Kratz, Kurt,

> , OSD-ATL; Sullivan, Maureen, Ms, OSD-ATL

> Cc: Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; Armstrong, Brett, LTC(P), OSD-ATL;
> May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-ATL; Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL
> Subject: FW: Senators Urge DoD to Take 'Aggressive' Role In
> Perchlorate Clean Up
>
> FYI - Press Release from Glenn on Perchlorate below
>
> -----Original Message----­
> From: Flood, Glenn, CIV, OASD-PA
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 1:30 PM
> To: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL
> Cc: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
> Subject: Senators Urge 000 to Take 'Aggressive' Role In Perchlorate
> Clean Up
>
> FYI----­
> GF
>
>
>
> FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
>
> Thursday, April 3, 2003
>
> Senators Feinstein, Reid, Boxer Urge Department of Defense to Take
> 'Aggressive' Role In Perchlorate Clean Up
>
> Washington, DC - U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.), Harry Reid

> (D-NV), and Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.) have urged the Department of
> Defense to take an 'aggressive and positive' role in the cleanup of
> perchlorate in groundwater supplies in California and across the
> nation.
>
> Widely used during the Cold War, perchlorate is a primary ingredient
> in rocket fuel. According to a recent report by the California
> Department of Health Services, perchlorate has been detected in water
> supplies in 22 states including the Colorado River. In California,
> perchlorate has been found in 292 groundwater wells operated by 80
> different agencies.
>
> Specifically, the Senators urged the Department of Defense to:
>
> * Provide information on the sites that pose the greatest threat to
> Americans' health; and
>
2
•

> * Describe the initial measures the Department would take to reduce
, > perchlorate contamination at those sites.
~
>
> In a letter to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, the Senators
> wrote: "We write you to request that the Department of Defense take a
> more aggressive and positive role in cleaning up defense-related
> perchlorate contaminated water supplies in as many as 22 states from
> California and Nevada to Massachusetts and Maryland.
>
> "We are seriously concerned that the Department's proposed exemption
> from environmental laws will limit its responsibility to clean up
> perchlorate. The state officials who are sworn to protect their
> citizens' drinking water from perchlorate and other threats have
> expressed alarm that their efforts will be preempted by your
> amendment .... This is a serious matter, because perchlorate can impair
> thyroid functioning and affect the physical and mental development of
> children.
>
> "To the best of our knowledge, nearly all the perchlorate produced in
> the United States over the last half century was used by the
> Department and our space program. This means that if the Defense
> Department ducks responsibility for its actions here, the burden will
> fallon hundreds of America's communities, whose residents will face
> not only contamination of their drinking water but the staggering
> costs of cleaning up a problem they did not create. This is completely

> unacceptable.
>
> "The plain truth is that the Department of Defense has long been not
> only the primary consumer of perchlorate, but also intimately involved

> in its manufacturing.

>
> "For example, between 1951 and 1962 the U.S. Navy owned and contracted

> for the operation of the largest perchlorate production facility in

> the country located in Henderson, Nevada. Even after relinquishing its

> ownership of the facility, the Department and its contractors

> continued to be the primary customers of its perchlorate. Perchlorate

> from this facility is leaching into Lake Mead and the Colorado River,
> impacting water supplies in California, Arizona and Nevada. While
> aggressive cleanup efforts are underway at the site, we are very
> concerned that the Department has not actively engaged in contributing

> to that cleanup.

>
> "The Department has also been involved in many other serious
> perchlorate contamination sites in our states. The California
> Department of Health Services has detected perchlorate in 292 public
> groundwater wells, the majority of which are located near facilities
> operated by the Department or its contractors.
>
> "The Defense Department has said that it is not willing to start
> clean-up of perchlorate until there is a national standard, but
> finalizing the standard is currently projected to take years. It is
> unacceptable for the Defense Department to adopt this delay strategy
> while private parties and drinking water utilities adopt costly
> measures to assure the purity of drinking water supplies. Companies
> have already spent millions on priority actions to reduce the threat
> to Americans - and we urge the Defense Department to do so as well.
>
> "One obvious priority effort is to try to stem the flow of perchlorate

> into the Colorado River from the Henderson facility described above.
> Kerr-McGee, which operated the facility after the Defense Department,
3
.~ > has built a state-of-the art ion-exchange facility and taken other
> measures in an attempt to address the problem. Yet the Defense
> Department has done nothing. The federal government cannot sit idly by

> where its actions are affecting the quality of our drinking water.
>
> "We request that the Department report back to us on the top priority
> sites around the country for it to reduce perchlorate contamination in

> drinking water, and what initial measures the Department would take in

> California, Nevada, Arizona, Texas and other states, given available
> funding. We expect a serious and detailed response as warrants a
> potential threat to Americans' health.
>
> "We hope that you will join us in the spirit of cooperation to address

> this important issue. We look forward to hearing from you as soon as
> possible."
>
> A copy of the Senators' letter is available upon request.
>
> ###
>
> -----------------------------------------------­
> You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at
>
> http://www.cpeo.org/newsgrp.html
>
> If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe,
> please send a blank message with no subject to:
>
> cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com
>
> ==A================================================================
> This email was sent to: roxanne yonn@urscorp.com
>
> EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here:
> http://igc.topica.com/u/?aVxieS.aVDXOt.cm94YW5u
> Or send an email to: cpeo-military-unsubscribe@igc.topica.com
>
> TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE!
> http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html
> ==~=================================================== =============
>
>

> Name: QFR-SAC

MILCON 18Mar03-#13-15-16-17 ver030403.doc
> QFR-SAC MILCON 18Mar03-#13-15-16-17 ver030403.doc Type: WINWORD
File (application/msword)
> Encoding: base64

Daniel Kowalczyk

Booz Allen Hamilton

8283 Greensboro Dr

McLean VA 22102

4
"

Dear Senator XXXXX,

Thank you for your recent letter in which you expressed concerns about the
relationship between the Department of Defense's proposed Readiness and Range
Preservation Initiative (RPPI) and perchlorate. Let me begin by stating that the
Department is committed to sustaining U.S. test and training capabilities in a manner
that fully satisfies that military readiness mission, is protective of public health, and
provides exemplary stewardship of the lands and natural resources entrusted to the
DoD by Congress.

RPPI and Perchlorate

Some observers have expressed concern that the Department's proposed RPPI
legislation could intentionally or unintentionally affect our financial liability or cleanup
responsibilities with respect to perchlorate. Let me assure you that nothing in RPPI will
affect the Department's financial, cleanup, or operational obligations with respect to
perchlorate or any other chemical.

Under Section 106 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), EPA has the authority to "issu[e] such
orders as may be necessary to protect public health and welfare and the environment"
whenever it"determines that there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment
to the public health or welfare or the environment because of an actual or threatened
release of a hazardous substance from a facility." Such orders are in addition to
injunctive relief, and are enforceable by fines of $25,000 a day. Nothing in the program
affects EPA's authority to issue such orders. And because EPA's sweeping section 106
authority covers not only actual but "threatened release," our proposal would therefore
clearly enable EPA to address groundwater contamination before the contamination
leaves DoD land - which is also the objective of DoD's existing management policies.
Section 106 would also clearly cover on-range threats from perchlorate or any other
chemical.

In addition, nothing in RPPI affects the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which
provides that EPA" upon receipt of information that a contaminant which is present or
is likely to enter a public water system or an underground source of drinking water may
present an imminent and substantial endangerment to the health of persons ... may take
such actions as [EPA] may deem necessary to protect the health of such persons,"
enforceable by civil penalties of up to $15,000 a day. Because this SDWA authority is
not limited to CERCLA "releases" or off-range migration, it clearly empowers EPA to
issue orders to address endangerment either on-range or off-range, and to address
possible contamination before it migrates off~range. In the event that perchlorate or any
other contamination from munitions migrates off-range, states and citizens can use
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) authority if the contamination is not
addressed under CERCLA, as discussed above. Such RCRA authority would include
on-range measures needed to redress the migration.

Some commentators have also expressed concern that our RRPI proposal would
create a legal regime that barred regulators from addressing contamination until it
reached the fencelines of our ranges, or that it at least reflects a DoD policy to defer any
action until that point. As the above discussion makes clear, EPA's continuing
authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to prevent likely contamination and under
section 106 of CERCLA to address threatened releases clearly empower the Agency to act
before contamination leaves DoD ranges. In addition, States and citizens exercising
RCRA authority under our RRPI RCRA provision addressing off-range migration could
use that authority to enforce on-range measures necessary to redress the migration.
Finally, it is most definitely not DoD policy to defer action on groundwater
contamination until it reaches the fencelines of our operational ranges, when it will be
far more difficult and expensive to address. To the contrary, on November 13, 2002,
DoD issued a perchlorate assessment policy authorizing asessment "if there is a
reasonable basis to suspect both a potential presence of perchlorate and a pathway on []
installation[s] where it could threaten public health."

The Use of Sound Science in the Risk Setting Process

Since 1997, the Department, in partnership with EPA, NASA, State and local
regulators and Native American tribes, has worked aggressively to identify what the
hazard from perchlorate is to the American public, and to inform and involve
stakeholders about developments in the technical and regulatory arenas. Central to this
effort has been the commitment to use sound science to generate credible decisions,
including accurate risk characterization and appropriate risk management strategies.

The Department has been at the forefront of perchlorate research, and has
invested over $25 million to better characterize the potential human health and
environmental risks associated with perchlorate, and to develop innovative treatment
technologies. DoD worked closely with EPA to establish perchlorate study goals and
protocols, and has funded and conducted many independent studies to assess the
potential risks and effects of perchlorate exposure. As a result of this close cooperation,
the science needed to accurately characterize the risk from pechlorate exposure was
generated in an accelerated manner, and the resulting perchlorate database is more
robust than many in EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), as evidenced by
estimations of overall confidence, size of uncertainty factor, and types of available data.

While DoD scientists do not necessarily agree with all of the conclusions stated in
EPA's January 2002 perchlorate risk assessment document, the Department continues to
work with EPA and other stakeholders to develop scientifically-defensible decisions
regarding perchlorate use, assessment, and cleanup. Scientists and officials from both
, organizations are actively discussing how to obtain a disinterested, objective and
neutral interpretation of this increasingly rich database from the Nation's leading
scientists. Once this review is completed, EPA can move forward to finish its risk
assessment and to provide clear answers to State and local government leaders, water
utility officials and address public concerns about perchlorate.

Commitment to Protecting the Public

The Department is charged with protecting the United States - its people, values,
and resources. DoD is the environmental steward of over 25 million acres of land ­
some 1.1 % of the total land area in the United States - that have been entrusted by
Congress to the Department to use efficiently and to properly care for. In-executing
these responsibilities we are committed to more than just compliance with the
applicable laws and regulations. We are committed to protecting, preserving, and,
when required, restoring, and enhancing the quality of the environment. Through the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) we are cleaning up contamination
from past practices on our installations and are building a whole new program to
address unexploded ordnance on our closed, transferring, and transferred ranges.

The fact that the Department has invested in excess of $25 million on perchlorate
research and treatment technology development alone is a clear indication of the
Department's commitment to protect the public health of the American people. This
commitment is further supported by our partnership with EPA to ensure that the
Nation's leading scientists are provided an opportunity to review the perchlorate
database. Such a review will ensure that risk characterization and subsequent risk
management decisions are, in fact, based on sound science.

Let me close by reiterating that the Department is committed to sustaining U.S.

test and training capabilities in a manner that fully satisfies that military readiness
mission, is protective of human health, and provides exemplary stewardship of the
lands and natural resources entrusted to DoD by Congress.

Sincerely,
Unknown

From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, aSD-ATL

Sent: Wednesday, May 14,200313:44
To: Kratz, Kurt, , aSD-ATL
Cc: Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 aGC
Subject: RE: WGA response

infoalert.htm perchlorateFAQ. ht
m
Kurt,
I've attached two fact sheets prepared by WGA on perchlorate. Some of
the statements were included in the letter to SecDef.

Their membership list was password protected, but there are points of
contact on each of these press releases, one of which I've seen quoted
in recent newspaper articles. Below is WGAs mission statement:

Western Growers Association is an agricultural trade association whose

members grow, pack, and ship 90 percent of the fresh vegetables and
approximately 70 percent of the fresh fruit and nuts in California and
Arizona. Their production constitutes more than one-half of the nation's
fresh produce.

Mission Statement: Providing quality services which enhance the

competitiveness and profitability of WGA Members in the California and
Arizona fresh produce industry.

WGA's many services include: legislative representation, legal and labor

relations consultation, accident and health benefits, public relations
and crisis communications, life insurance, pension and retirement plans,
marketing collections, transportation, and international trade.

Membership in the association is classified as either regular or

associate. Regular membership is open to growers, packers, or shippers
of fresh produce from California or Arizona. Associate membership is
open to allied industry companies including financial institutions, seed
companies, custom harvesters, crop protection tool manufacturers,
equipment dealers and others.

The association's industry involvement is guided by an elected 45-member

board of -directors and is comprised of both regular and associate
members. WGA President Tom Nassif directs the association's member
services activities.

Formed in 1926 in California's Imperial Valley, WGA was known as Western

Growers Protective Association. It began as a marketing protective
organization to combat rate hikes instituted by the railroads.

WGA is headquartered in Irvine, California, and its field offices are

located in the major production areas of both California and Arizona:
Bakersfield, El Centro, Fresno, Modesto, Oxnard, Sacramento, Salinas,
San Marcos, Santa Maria, Valencia, Watsonville, California, Phoenix and
Somerton, Arizona.

-----Original Message----­
From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:19 AM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Cc: Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGe

1
 Sanoy,

F,L.3. ,;ise 1 c;c,};: on th'c w,~b si te Jist(~d i:l tt:.is l~;tteZ" a,nd find 0:':':::' WI':C; i.. s ·~,r:

this as;;C\ciation. Also Cd) 1 and tinc out Irit\() \%ulc be .,;:orning from th;,'

asscciation end ',-:hen t.h{~·y could be h.\~;'\~

K

r:'r::< ,

-----J=i~inal Messdge----­
Frr..nn: Cctttr, S,an,jra, Hs, os.L;:-;\T'~
~;~(~~nt: 'TuesddY, .May 13, 2"003 B: 50 A}~
.~. '3elzer@R0gula:cryChe=~boGk.Org·
C>::: r=:'5t~, Ku::t" , OS:J-.J:.TL; CorrH~.L~_, J-e'f~, Lt. Cljl. I SAF lIE; Ro~·at.~rs,
Da:'liel, Col, AfL3;,/~Ji\GEi ::haudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-A'IL; Cc;hen, Ben, +lr,
DoD OGe
S'Ub:ie.::.t: RE :WG~~ resp\)!~s-e

3..t if you co~ld pr~pa.re

',:'fL w"'cul'O re':ll.i.y appre-c::iate an lnltiiil d::".aft.
Cou~d you have 50met~inq by ~omo~~ow1 By the way, we have related
l.(~tte!' frt;,IT: Fei:ts::ein trL~:tt jus: carr~e ir~, 5t.t!clle:d. ~\es:honld p~obably
be consis'>~nt in our respans·2. The Feinste"in l.ett-cr has an eVG'n sh·orter
suspense. Would you _ike to draft tna~ response as wel:7
Thanks,
sc
- - --,--0:-': g'ina 1 r'~Je s s a"·~-·~- -"- -­
f'ro~: Richard E. 8el~et PhD it~eilto:r~belzer@~ox.netJ
Sen:: Mc~jay, May 12, 2~01 5:2f 2M
:'0: t'::ot::e:-, S,~):'''id-r·..: t, =·ls., osn-;'·;.':~L·; 'Cc'r-nell, .]r:;f£, Lt. C~~.:.,/ Sl,F,.IE I
;

• D<:':!l 1<0;"1 a I.e l y k '

Cc: 1Krat~, Kurt, , OSD-ATL'; • CtOJd:lury, Shah, l-lr, OSC-Arl'

Subj Q.C:: t'lCA response

Iltpcrtance: Rig!':

I would be ··~hrilled·· to take a crack at the firlt draft f0r this.

I)oes JoJ's respo~se =cquire inter"age~~:y clearance? {Des~=~d answer here
··No,t.} :5 c~~~ ~0pt ~ree to wr~:~ w~ld:ev~r it ~ar)t5~ (08sired answer
t:e~~:~ .:.., "',-(;~jl'. ,I

Res

-----J~~~~~~: Message----­
~rorr;: C"ottc:-, San::1ra, t~s, OSD-ATl.
S~nt: Monday, 12 Hay OJ 13: <;r)FH
'":.\:;;: Cor:'i-{~ll, ]·;::ff, :.t. Cc1.. , S;:.:-/2:E; tD,?t:l !<o,.valc~yk·i 1r<1,::r.ard tj. 321::·.;;!~
P:-1D'
C,;,:c: Kratz, Kurt, OSD-;-:.·:~; Choudh";.lry, 3::fJh, Mr, OSD-J~TL
SUbj~':;:: RE: [F'.,o: nl: ls :1::'5 d C>;ar.up Task?)

':'~e
1·2,sp<>ns-e ~ d'J~~ on ~t~e Z:'st ~ In order to mee~ che deadline, we

40;;

snould

pC0bilbly havoc' a draft prepared to begi:'! the ~oordina::.ion by t(>m':n:r-ot....

,Ieff,

Dan, Rick, I understand the~e are =ertain poin~s you'd like ~o make wit~

f€ g ards to the WGA, and fDA. Which of you would like to :ake a shot a~

pu:tj!"1;';J to-gt~..:t:-ler -:he ird.tlal rcspons(~? Plt~ase let :ne k:'lc~,,: as sO'on as

;~;OS5'lt ~ i;: ..
S~ii"ld'~/

-----0~lg~nal Message----­
F'r'::71: Cohen, i}en, ~Ir, :)·:)r~' GGe
 ,.

~p
.'-.;"",,'­

*'

Unknown

From: Kowalczyk Daniel

Sent: Monday, July 14,200315:29
To: Sandra Cotter; Kurt Kratz
Cc: Richard Belzer; Col Dan Rogers; U Col Jeff Cornell
Subject: INPUT ON COMMENTS TO DINGELL ENCLOSURE 1

Importance: High

Dingel_Solis_DODre
sponse Enclo...
Sandy,

As discussed, I have tried to incorporate in a briefer format responses

to EPA comments on DINGELL/SOLIS letter, retaining Dr. Belzer's comments
as much as possible.

vir

Dan

Daniel Kowalczyk
8002 Allen Hamilton
8283 Greensboro Dr
McLean VA 2? 0?
 SUMMARY OF DoD/EPA COOPERATION ON PERCHLORATE

DoD and EPA have a long history of cooperation on the perchlorate issue. This
history spans the continuum of numerous actions, from initial research into the
biological degradation of perchlorate in water to an Air Force-led interlaboratory
validation exercise of the analytical method that resulted to EPA Method 314.0 (EPA's
only approved analytical detection method for perchlorate in drinking water) to the
funding and conduct of critical scientific studies of human and eco-risk from
perchlorate exposure. Were it not for DoD research and development, the low levels of
perchlorate that are now being detected all over the country would not have been found
at all, and the scientific literature would not provide sufficient information to
understand or assess human health risks from perchlorate exposure.

As a result of this unique partnership, and the Department's over $25 million
investment in science and technology, the scientific database that EPA must have before
it can determine whether perchlorate warrants regulation under the Safe Drinking
Water Act (and if so at what level) is being developed in record time. This cooperation
continues as DoD and EPA, in partnership with NASA and DOE, work together in an
interagency working group convened to addressunresolved science and science policy
issues. This current initiative is expected to result in a National Academy of Science
commitment to review the underlying science behind EPA's 2002 external review draft
health assessment and scientific comments that EPA has received from the public and
the 2002 peer review panel.. DoD believes that its long history of cooperation with
EPA on the issue of perchlorate has served to augment and accelerate the regulatory
process, not hinder it.

1996 - Tyndall AFB Cooperative Research and Development Agreement began

investigation into optimizing the use of bacteria to anaerobically degrade
perchlorate from rocket motor wash out activities.

1997 - Air Force team leads interlaboratory validation study of the Aerojet
improvement that lowered the analytical detection method from 400 ppb to 100
ppb, and the California Department of Health Services 4 ppb analytical detection
method that resulted in EPA's Method 314.0 for perchlorate in drinking water.
/March 1997 TERA Peer Review - Toxicology Excellence in Risk Assessment
(TERA) conducted an external peer review of available toxicology data. See
http://www.tera.org/Perchlorate/eleven.htm The review found that the
perchlorate database was inadequate for derivation of an RID and recommended
additional studies to develop a credible database and reduce uncertainty. The
review panel noted eight areas of scientific uncertainty for which additional
research was needed.

April 1997 - DoD obtains study funding and participates with EPA and the
defense consortium known as the Perchlorate Study Group (PSG) in establishing
the study protocol review process.

May 1997 - Experts from DoD, EPA,PSG, and California regulatory agencies
meet to exchange information and develop a prioritized list of perchlorate studies
to conduct. DoD promises to assist in protocol development and partner with
PSG to secure necessary funding. ­

September/October 1997 - DoD participates with EPA and other stakeholders in

a perchlorate conference sponsored by the American Water Works Association
Research Foundation (AWWA-RF.)

January 1998 -IPSC formed - The Interagency Perchlorate Steering Committee

(IPSC) is formed, with EPA and DoD as co-chairs. IPSC membership includes
personnel from DoD, EPA, other federal agencies, state and local regulators,
and Native American tribes, with DoD and EPA sharing key leadership
responsibilities. The IPSC adopts an innovative, integrated approach that
focuses on developing and serving as an information clearinghouse for a
summary of the state of the science in critical areas: analytical methods /
occurrence surveys, health effects, treatment technologies, and ecological effects
/ environmental transport and transformation.

1998 Public Meetings - The IPSC sponsors a series of public stakeholder

meetings in Henderson, NV; Salt Lake City, UT; and Phoenix, AZ. The
purpose of the meetings was to transparently inform stakeholders about IPSC
activities and to discuss the current understanding of perchlorate science in the
key areas critical to an integrated approach to addressing the emerging
contamination issues.

December 1998 - EPA releases its first draft of the toxicological review and risk
characterization of perchlorate contamination for external peer review.

February 1999 - The first external peer review of EPA's perchlorate risk
assessment document was conducted. The panel concluded that further work
was needed before the EPA draft RID of 0.0009 mg/kg-day could be definitively
evaluated, but that this value was likely to be conservative. The chairman of the
peer review panel specifically recommended that human clinical trials be
conducted to estimate a no-etIect level (NOEL) dose. The panel developed
several technical findings, and identified several concerns with the EPA draft
risk assessment.

1999 Follow-on Public Meetings - Additional stakeholder meetings held in

Temple, TX; and Dallas, TX.

March 1999 - January 2000 - DoD and the PSG requests and obtain-additional
funding for the perchlorate studies recommended by the peer review panel; then
distributes to DoD and DoD-contract scientists in order to quickly generate the
requested data.

January 2000 - October 2001 - DoD scientists or DoDIPSG contracted scientists

conduct recommended studies, provide study data to EPA for use in revising the
second perchlorate risk assessment.

December 2000. DOD hosts a reviewer (Mel Andersen) to review progress on

PBPK modeling efforts at WPAFB.

January 2002- EPA releases its second perchlorate risk assessment document,
with notation not to quote or cite, with a draft RID estimate of 0.00003 mg/kg­
day (drinking water equivalent level of 1 ppb).

March 2002 - External peer review of EPA's second external review draft risk
assessment is conducted in Sacramento, CA.

April-May 2002 - DoD and EPA officials meet to discuss previously voiced
concerns about the second EPA perchlorate risk assessment and concerns about
the composition and conduct of the second peer review panel.

June 2002 - EPA releases the report from the second peer review panel

Winter 2002 - EPA, DoD, NASA, DOE, OMB, CEQ, and OSTP convene
interagency working group to discuss federal agency issues with the science
underlying the second external review draft perchlorate risk assessment, science
policy issues, and regulatory issues.

MarchiApril 2003 - Interagency working group agrees to request an independent

NAS review of available perchlorate science, develops charge questions for the
NAS committee.
August 2003 - Expected start date of 12-15 month NAS perchlorate review,
jointly funded by EPA, DoD, NASA, and DoE
Unknown
From: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/IE
Sent: Monda, June 16, 2003 10:16
To:

Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; 'Belzer@RegulatoryCheckbook.org '; Marqusee, e rey, r, SD­

ATL, Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGC; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; Lowery Robert Civ
AFCEEfCCR-S; ROge,.rs.D.an.ie.,.,c.o."iA.F.LSiiN.JAilC.E.;Walsh, John, Mr" OSD-P&R; Ashworth,
Richard, Col, SAFflE:.
Subject: Perchlorate Issues reqiring attention

Importance: High

Pd.l: T don't: at. all agree with paul's assessment. on this mat::er - and ~
don't believe this ever would have happened if the principals had met as
scheduled. Kurt, I'll send an email to Pual expressing DoD's desires to
submit a list (I'm certain Ms. Kaetz and others feel very strongly), but
I'm leaving for overseas later today and will be limited in my ability
to follo>-J up.

Bob Lowery, Al (Bob, please forward to AI, I can'c access the worldwide
from home): Please include kurt kratz and sandy cotter and dan rogers
on all correspondence so that t.hey remain appriased (and can provide
quidance in my absence) on the California meetings. Working under the
premise that at least Ms. Koetz, Kurt, Dan Rogers and MG McManus will be
t.r:avelling out to CJ!.. at/near the last week of July. Bob, also please
ensure you have at least periodic contact with MG Jeffords and Larry
Barret (Cl\ DRS) ~

John W - Please pass any word back to Kurt, Dan R, Ms. Koetz and myself
as soon as Lhe medical spokesperson from OSD has been named. As soon as
we have our man or woman, we can begin the process of delivering
materials/briefings.

Col P.oqers: Please ensure tax/medical community is thinking about early

august as the date to be COMPLETELY prepared to provide DoD's case on
perch.lorate to the NAS Panel ... no firm date yet, but we've only' got one
shot at it so the coordinated briefing, and supporting materials need to
be assembled. We can use the SERDP SAB or other SERDP/ESTCP assets a5
appropriate as a "murder board" for the presentation.
Also, either you or Kurt will need to interface with OSTP to make
certain that they understand our intention to provide a 3D-minute
briefing to the IWG on Jun 27 about our proposal for TeE .... need to
emphasize that \'!e have been loiorking wiLh EPA with this tor months, and
also a reminder that I promised to the IWG at the last meeting (and the
offer was accepted) for this presentation. otherwise EPA's is the only
voice heard on the TeE issue ... you know ~he full story ... 1'11 be
available on m' cell hone until 1600 today - anyone with questions
please call

jeff

PS - Dan and Kurt - we've set up an 0830 conference call for you every
MWF - it has worked well for me - we moved from 0730 to acomodate Kurt's
schedule.

--~--Oriqinal Message-~---
Sent: 6/16/2003 8:51
Subject: Perchlorate Issue

Perchlorate IWG:
There seems to be agreement approaching unanimity that it would be
preferable if
the IWG (and of course each of its individual member agencies) did NOT
submit
any nominations to the NAS Board reviewing perchlorate. While I know
each of you
may have names for nominees, if needed, I'd like to verify the sense of
the
group on this issue. If scme agency feels strongly tha~ there should be
nominations from the Fed agencies, please let me knm" immediately.

Since my blackberry is not working and I'll be away from my desk, please
call my
cell at
Paul

2
· , Message Page 1 01'2

Unknown

From: Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL

Sent: Saturday, April 19, 200323:39
To: Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFIIE; Marqusee,
Jeffrey, Dr, OSD-ATL; Rogers, Daniel, Lt Col, AFLSNPR
Cc: Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms. OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
SUbject: Perchlorate--Sen Boxer Confirmation Questions for Mr. Woodley
Importance: High

19 Apr 03

Mr. Cohen/Kurt--for your review/approval. My edits and comments in attached. Rick Belzer did a decent job with

the responses ... I merely corrected some facts. The edits incorporates Army's input on Rialto.

Jeff/Jeff--please take close look at all parts of Question 3, and correct as needed.

AII--Kurt wants to forward this to Mr. Woodley before COB Monday (21 Apr 03), so your early input is

appreciated. Please copy Kurt Kratz and Sandy Cotter in your response.

Thanks. Shah

-----Orig ina I Message----­

From: Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Thursday, April 17,20032:49 PM

To: Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Ross, Elaine, Ms,

SAFjIEE; Rogers, Daniel, Lt Col, AFLSA/PR

Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Subject: FW: Hot Issue for Woodley

Importance: High

All,

Attached is the first draft of a response to the Barbara Boxer questions on perchlorate. Mr. Woodley would like to

see a draft of these tomorrow morning. Please send any comments or revisions by COB today and copy Sandy

Cotter and Kurt Kratz. If I missed anyone that should see these, please copy them.

Thanks,

Pat F.

-----Original Message----­
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [mailto:rbbelzer@cox.net]

sent: Thursday, April 17,20039:20 AM

To: 'Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATL'; 'Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE'; 'Rogers, Daniel, Lt Col, AFLSAjPR'

Cc: 'Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL'; 'Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL'; Dan Kowalczyk

SUbject: RE: Hot Issue for Woodley

Importance: High

First serious draft of suggested responses to Sen. Boxer.

RBB
-----Original Message----­
From: Ferrebee, Patricia, l"ls, OSD-ATL

Sent: Thursday, 17 April 03 08: 18AM

To: 'rbbelzer@cox.net'; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Co/./ SAFjlE; Rogers, Daniel, Lt Col, AFLSAjPR

Message Page 2 of2

Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Subject: FW: Hot Issue for Woodley

Richard,

I understand from the e-mail below that you are working on a reply to 3 questions from Boxer. The draft

reply is due today. Could you please forward the draft responses to me and copy Kurt Kratz and Sandy

Cotter.

Thanks,

Pat F.

-----Original Message----­

From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL

Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:27 PM

To: Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATL

Subject: Hot Issue for Woodley

Draft for reply to Boxer's 3 questions due back today. Would you query Rick Belzer and work with him
to finish this off. Other help would come from Sandy Cotter, Ben Cohen, Jeff Cornell. BAH, and Dan
Rogers. Might want to turn it over to Sandy if she is not still crashing on the Feinstein letter.
Kurt

9/5/2007

Questions from Senator Barbara Boxer for

John Paul Woodley,
Nominee for Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Department of the Army

1. In Peter Waldman's article in the Wall Street Journal on January 10,2003, "Defense Firm to
Help Inquiry Into Industry Water Pollution," he outlined the agreement reached between
Goodrich Corp., a Defense contractor, and California agencies to clean perchlorate contaminated
sites in California's Inland Empire and to share relevant company information with parties
involved in the groundwater contamination issue.

a) Did you contact any California officials, including elected State Senators or
Representatives, their staff members, or members of the region's Perchlorate Task Force
about the subject matter of this article?

The phrasing o(rhis sub-part of'the question permits onl}! "ves 0' or "no" anSH'ers
depending on the (acts. The question asks about contacts Mr. Woodley initiated, not
contacts l·vith .Mr. Woodley that were initiated bv others. Also note that question is
specific to Mr. Waldman's article.
- Inland Empire Perchlorate Regulatory Task Force has sought contact with various
DoD officials.
- Also 29 Jan 03 California Select Committee hearing.

b) Ifso, with whom did you talk and what was the nature of your conversation(s)?

Amnvers depend on the answer to (a). Ii(a) ,vas "no, ,0 then (h) does not apply,
Berl'are that i{Sen. Boxer ma}' be fishing or hm'e specific infbrmation that she hopes
Mr. Woodley will not reveal.

c) What is your view about the agreement detailed in the article?

"The agreement between Goodrich and agencies of the State of Califomia is a

private matter between these parties. I do not have any views about their
agreement..,

d) The information obtained from Goodrich as a result of the legal agreement with state
officials could have been obtained by the state from the Department of Defense (DoD).
Why won't the DoD cooperate in the state's investigation?

"I do not know what information California ol1icials may have obtained from
Goodrich. Therefore. I do not know whether any such information could have (or
perhaps has) been obtained from the Department of Defense. However, the
premise of yom question is problematic. for the Department is cooperating fully
with state officials on matters related to allegations that DoD released perchlorate
on or at the properties in question.,.

e) What role have you played in deciding whether, and to what extent, the DoD
 cooperates?

"The Depm1ment of Defense is fully cooperating with state officials and Federal
regulators, and 1 fullv support those efforts."

2. The Department of Defense (DoD) and its contractors were the largest users of perchlorate
in California. Perchlorate is an explosive salt used in rocket fuel. It has been linked to thyroid
hormonal imbalance, affecting metabolism and brain development, particularly among infant
children. During your tenure as the Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environment),
you submitted written testImony to a California State Senate committee investigating perchlorate
contamination that stated "Until we have agreed upon the best available scientific information
we should not commit scarce resources to cleanup to levels beyond what is necessary to protect
human health and the environment."

a) Please explain the specific level to which you are referring and how you believe it
should be determined?

"The maximum level of perchlorate exposure that poses no appreciable risk to human
health and the environment is currently unknown. Hence, there is no 'specific level'
to which I referred in mv testimony. Based on the results of ane~£teBsive research
program that DoD scientists have themselves performed according to the highest
professional and ethical standards, in collaboration with the US Environmental
Protection Agency as well as other credible scientific literature on the subject. the
Department believes that exposures above the draft proposed Reference Dose meet
the definition of fully protecting human health and the environment. 'rhe Department
believes that the highest level that fully protects human health and the environment
should be ascertained using the best available, high-quality scientific infc)rmation that
has been fully reviewed bv independent scientists. For that reason. the Department
fully supports the Administration's initiative to refer specific matters of scientific
controversy to a committee of the National Academv of Sciences."

b) In determining this level, do you believe that it should be set to protect the most
vulnerable populations--ehildren, pregnant women, the elderly, and low-income and
minority populations?

"The maximum level of perchlorate exposure that poses no appreciable risk to

vulnerable subpopulations is not currently known. Ascertaining these values is
inherently much more complex scientificallY than deriving such a value for the
general population, and indeed. it cannot be done without first answering this "easier"
scientific question. Thus, until the "easy" question is answered it is impossible to
answer these harder ones.

"A serious complication is that the identification of vulnerable subpopulations is not

as simple as it may sound. It is not transparent or obvious which subpopulations are
in fact more '·vulnerable." One subpopulation vou do not mention-the developing
fetus-is widely believed to be vulnerable to thyroid injury. Whether it is in fact
 more vulnerable to perchlorate. and if so, at what doses' and under what
circumstances, is actually a highly complex scientific problem.

"The Depmiment believes that it is important to cleat'lv distinguish the assessment of

risk from policv decisions concerning what risk management actions to take. This
principle is not new: it has been an integral part of risk atlalvsis practice for 20 veal's.
Risk assessments should be ohjective, realistic and scientifically balanced so that
government officials fully appreciate the consequences of the risk management
choices thev make."

c) You refer to the lack of agreement on the scientific evidence on perchlorate. Are you
aware of the scientific studies showing that perchlorate has adverse affects on human
health down to levels of 1 part per billion?

"In January 2002, EPA published an external review draft document entitled,
"Perchlorate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological Review and Risk
Characterization" <the "2002 Draft Assessment"). The document was published
because EPA's peer review policy requires that external peer reviews be conducted in
public with opportunitv for public paliicipation atld comment. The document does
not state that perchlorate has adverse effects on human health at all exposure level of
I ppb. Rather, this value is the drinking water equivalent level derived from the
Reference Dose that EPA proposed in that external revie\v draft prior to peer review.
At the bottom of each page, EPA advised all readers: "Draft--Do Not Quote or Cite."
It is unfortunate that some readers have ignored this caveat and chosen to quote and
cite selected information from this drafi document anYWay. 'fhe Department is
concerned that this practice may undernline EPA's peer review program."

d) Are you aware that over the last decade, EPA has undertaken four reviews of the
science regarding perchlorate? Are you aware that in the review published in 2002,
based on the scientific evidence, EPA recommended a reference dose of 1 part per
billion?

"Tn its 2002 external review draft health assessment, EPA proposed a Reference Dose
of 0.00003 mg/kg-day, not 1 pati per billion. This draft health assessment was then
reviewed by an external panel pursuant to EPA's peer review policy and procedures,
That panel issued its repOli in JW1C 2002, and as the summary of that report indicates,
"peer reviewers presented their own opinions on technical topics: no effOlis were
made to reach consensus on any issue." Thus, while it is true that EPA proposed a
Reference Dose that equates to an oral exposure in drinking water of 1 ppb, it is not
the case that the extemal peer review panel endorsed or supported this proposal.

"A m.unber of scientific questions have been raised concerning the 2002 external
review draft health assessment. questions that the subsequent external peer review did
not resolve, Therefore, the Administration has asked the National Academy of
Sciences to review these underlying science questions to provide greater iIluminati"on
 concerning what exposures levels are likely to protect hwnan health and the
enviromnent."

e) Do you agree that perchlorate has adverse health effects at low levels?

"Whether perchlorate has adverse effects at low levels depends on the definition of
"adverse" and what levels are understood to be "low." There is clearly [probably?]
an exposure level that is [would be?] demonstrably adverse, but that level is better
described as quite "high"-tens to hundreds of thousands of times higher than
environmental exposures. (Even in this case, the effects in question are therapeutic
rather than adverse lor persons who are hyperthyroid.) Which specific effects are
best characterized as adverse (as opposed to adaptive or even inconsequential). and
under what conditions to which groups of people. is one of the scientific questions
that the Administration has included in its Charge to the National Academy."

f) Why in your statement to the California State Senate do you imply that the evidence
does not indicate that there is a significant health effect from exposure to perchlorate?

"Exposures in California to perchlorate at levels above xx ppb due to Defense

Department activities have been eliminated. Therefore, the remaining scientific
question is ,,,'hellier exposures below xx ppb might pose a risk to human health, and
ifso under '.¥hat conditions. Ironically, much of the discussion of the perchlorate
issue has proceeded under the implicit but elToneous assumption that actual
exposures remain high. It is also unfortunate that our significant efforts to eliminate
instances of high exposure over the past several years continue to be ignored.

==There is a specific basis for our current belief that exposures at environmental
levels belo'll X){ ppb do not cause a significant health effect. The hwnan clinical trial
performed by the late University of Oregon endocrinologist Monte Greer and his
colleagues shows that the threshold for iodide uptake inhibition is 180 ppb or
greater. We believe that iodide uptake inhibition is not an adverse effect, and that it
is in fact a mundane, nOl1nal and fully reversible biochemical phenomenon. For an
adverse effect to occur iodide uptake must be substantially inhibited for an sustained
period; this, in tW'Il, must lead to a large ,md uncompensated pe11urbation in thyroid
hormone levels; and these sustained, uncompensated changes in thyroid honnone
levels must then impact the developing fetus. If perchlorate exposme is kept below
the threshold for iodide uptake inhibition. then no adverse effects along this event
path are even feasible because not even adaptive or trivial eHects can occur. All
current drinking water exposures are well below this threshold, and that it what
gives the Department confidence that there is no significant health eil-ect from
exposure to perchlorate."

g) Do you agree that in protecting the health of the American people, the government
should err on the side of safety, as opposed to cost?

"It is premature to address the question of precisely what risk management decisions
 are best, and in what circwnstances. In general. it is preferable that in protecting the
health of the American people it is best to reduce the amount by which we crr bv
getting the science right before we consider a range of risk management alternatives.

"'fhe Department is concerned that decisions to err on the side of safety may also e~r
on the side of compromising the national security of the United States. This is a
tradeoff that we would all like to avoid. Ensuring that we get the science right
minimizes the chance that we will have to face such tradeoffs."

h) The DoD has told local officials from the Inland Empire that the military was not
responsible for perchlorate contamination. Is it your view that the DoD and its
contractors are not responsible for the contamination? ­

"The Secretary of the Arnw through the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has
informed the Inland Empire Perchlorate Regulatory Task Force, Santa Ana Regional
Water Quality Control Board, and the US Environmental Protection Agency Region
IX;yyyy that a broadit perfonned an extensive records search has been performed and
thus far no evidence has been discovered no evidenee that its-activities at the fonner
Rialto Afmy-Ammunition Supply Point (ASP)AmmunitiQn Plant released anv
perchlorate during the 1941-45*""y period in which it operated the site. As vou
know, this f!am-transportation point was used for the storage and transshipment of
mWlitions to the Pacific Theater during World War II and was not engaged in the
manufacture of perchlorate or of munitions. USACE representative will continue to
cooperate and provide information on DoD activities at the Rialto ASP to local
officials,"

i) If the DoD and its contractors are responsible for contamination, do you believe the
DoD and its contractors should pay for the clean-up?

·'Whether. and if so, to what extent, the Department of Defense is liahle for cleanup
costs is a matter of settled law. The Department will fulfill its legal responsibilities
as those responsibilities are adjudicated in accordance with applicable law. It would
be inappropriate for the Department to make specific commitments. whether ill
genera] or in regard to specific sites. which either add to or take away from what the
law provides."

3. In your response to Senator Jeffords' question regarding perchlorate, you answered: "In
my capacity as Assistant Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environment), I have been
involved in working with representatives of the military services and state and federal
regulatory agencies to enhance our understanding of the nature and toxicity of perchlorate
and the extent of perchlorate contamination on military facilities. As a matter of pollution
prevention, I also have encouraged development of cleanup technologies and research into
potential alternative substances to perchlorate in military munitions."

a) Please be more specific with regard to your work to "enhance our understanding of
the nature and toxicity of perchlorate and the extent of perchlorate contamination on
military facilities."

"The Department of Defense has spent over $2-§4 million to develop the scientific
knowledge that would reveal the extent to which low-level exposure to perchlorate
poses any risk to human health and the environment. This amount vastlv exceeds
what all other federal agencies combined have devoted to answering these scientific
questions.

"The Department has also spent over $24** million dollars for research and
development into perchlorate treatment teclmologies. This amount vastly exceeds
what all other federal agencies combined have devoted to answering these technical
and engineering questions."

b) Please be more specific with regard to your encouragement of clean-up technology

development and research into potential alternative substances to perchlorate in military
munitions.

"The Depatiment [gasjaeM(Jt~tli~a(£ttlDltl;It\la'~~iur;~~m"lnt~(Q&sslBlesh"st1tutes]

[is very interested in finding safe and effective alternatives to perchlorate and has
included this in its environmental R&D program]. Currently available substitutes
pose much greater risk to our soldiers. sailors and ainnen. Indeed, perchlorate may
be the least riskv energetic compound known.

"Research into alte111atives might bear fmit sometime in the future. but all should
keep in mind that energetic compounds carry inherent dangers by virtue of the
chemical reactions by which they work. In addition, anv alternative that looks
promising from an operational standpoint will have to be thoroughlv and
comprehensively studied to asccliain whether it poses a risk to human health and the
~nvironment. We realize that there is great interest in various quarters in possible
alternatives. However. the Department is not willing to substitute an alternative
compound for which risks to hmnan health and the environment are either unknown
or are known to pose greater risks than perchlorate or are operationally unsuitable.

c) What were the outcomes of your efforts?

"These efforts arc ongoing, as the research and development process is a painstaking
one."

d) How was your understanding of the nature and toxicity of perchlorate enhanced?

"The Department has shared the results of its research widely, first with the
Environmental Protection Agency. and then with the entire membership of the
Intergovernmental Perchlorate Steering Committee, on which sit se'f'eral
represeiltatatives of state regulatory agencies. Finally, DoD scientists have
participated in numerous conferences and ~rmposia on matters related to perchlorate.
 ::Before beginning my service as Deputy Under Secretary of Defense (Environment),
I knew very little at all about the nature and toxicity of perchlorate. I am not bv
training a scientist myself. Learning as much as I possiblY can has been a vital paI1 of
my responsibilities. r have relied heavily on the outstanding expertise of professional
scientists within and associated with the Department. M<tny of these scientists have
actually prefomled the primary research on which the regulatory agencies rely to
develop their own understandinQ of the nature and toxicity of perchlorate. I have
been privileged to have more direct access to the views of these scientists and
therefore been able to discern why scientists disagree on some fairlv imp0l1ant issues
related to perchlorate."

e) What did the Department of Defense determine with regard to the extent of
perchlorate contamination on military facilities?

TBA by someone else..."These efforts are ongoing. An important step toward

determining the extent of presence of perchlorate at DoD installations was the DoD
perchlorate assessment policy that I issued on November 13,2002."
 )

iVlessage Page 1of 3

From: Cotter Sandra Ms, eSD-ATL

Sent: Tuesday, January 14.2003 11 :40
To: 'White, Thomas M (Mike) Mr USACHPPM'
Cc: Kratz, Kurt. , OSD-ATL; Choudhury. Shah. Mr, OSD-ATL; Newsome., Richard E Mr ASA-I&E
Subject: RE Draft Testimony klk 01-10-Q3doc

Thanks Mike, much appreciated. I will incorporate.

-----Original Message----­
From: White, Thomas M (Mike) Mr USACHPPM
Sent: Tuesday, January 14,2003 11:18 AM
To: Sandy Cotter (E-mail)
Cc: White, Thomas M (Mike) Mr USACHPPM; Weese, Coleen B Dr USACHPPM; Major, Michael A Dr
USACHPPM; Kistner, Stephen L Mr USACHPPM
Subject: FW: Draft Testimony klk Ol-W-03.doc

Sandy. Pleilse find commenls on the testimony below. Comments are from Coleen Weese, MD.
USACHPPM Program Manager for Environmental Medicine. Directorate of Occupational and
Environmental Medicine

The CHPPM Directorate of Toxicology commented last Friday and you should have their comments.
Please {et me know if you need any additional assistance.

Mike
-----Original Message----­
From: Major, Michael A Dr USACHPPM
sent: Tuesday, January 14, 2003 9:16 AM
To: Weese, Coleen B Dr USACHPPM
Cc: White, Thomas M (Mike) Mr USACHPPM; Angela Atkins (E-mail); Malcolm J ACSIM/CH2M HIll Garg
(E~maij)
Subject: RE: Draft Testimony klk Ol-10-D3.doc

Coleen

This is a very good review. you found numerous Issues no one else had noticed.

Thanks Again
Mick
·----Original Message--~--
From: Weese, Coleen B Dr USACHPPM
sent: Tuesday, January 14, 20038:38 Ar-.l
To: Major, Michael A Dr USACHPPM; White, Thomas M (Mike) Mr USACHPPM
Cc: Kistner, Stephen L Mr USACHPPM
Subject: RE: Draft Testimony klk Ol-1O-03.doc

MicklMike: I reviewed the attached I am not sure who you need to supPly these comments to. but
here they are
,
!vlessage
Page ~ of 3

COleen

!Weese, Coleen B Dr USACHPPMj ·-Original Message-._.­

From: Major, Michael A Dr USACHPPM

Sent: Monday, January 13,2003 1:04 PM

To: White, Thomas M (Mike) Mr USACHPPM; Weese, Coleen B Dr USACHPPM
Subject: AN: Draft Testimony kfk 01-lO-03.doc
Importance: High

Mike. Coleen

. Here is the original request I will also forward my response.

Mick

·····Original Message··--.

From: Atkins, Angela G Ms ACSIMjSMI Inc,

Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 2:26 Pfvl

To: Mick Major (E-mail)

Cc: Garg, Malcolm J ACSIMjCH2M HILL

SUbject: FW: Draft Testimony klk Ol-10-03.doc

Importance: High

MicK-

This is bad. Are you there? Can you suppor1? I know its getting late on a Friday.

Angela
--·-·Original Message·_·_·
From: Read, Marcia W Ms ASA-l&E
Sent: Friday, January 10, 20032:16 PM
To: Kingery, Kristine M Ms ACSIM; Moeller, Dale Mr ASA-I&E; Van Brocklin, Connie H Ms
ACSIM; Bell, David E Mr OGe; Atkins, Angela G Ms ACSIMjSMI Inc.; Holsinger, Shawn Mr
Cc: Buescher, John Mr ASA-I&E
Message Page 3 of3

Subject: FVV: Draft Testimony klk 01-10-03.doc

Please review and provide cmts to Dale Moeller in this office ASAP.
Thanks.
Marcia
-----Original. Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra Ms OSD-ATL
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:49 PM
To: Yaroschak, Paul J; Newsome, Richard E Mr ASA-I&E; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE;
'Lillo, Dennis'
Cc: Cullison, Geoffrey D; Read, Marcia W Ms ASA-I&E; Buescher, John Mr ASA-l&E; Rogers,
Daniel Lt Col AFLSAfPR; Kratz, Kurt OSD-ATL
Subject: FVV: Draft Testimony klk 01-10-03.doc
All,
Attached is draft testimony prepared for the CA Senate Hearing on Perchlorate/Inland
Empire. Please review and provide any comments you might have ASAP. Mr. DuBois is
expecting to review this evening. Army, you may want to consider scaling back the Rialto
discussion in the testimony proper, and retain for Q and As.

SC

-----Original Message----­
From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:25 PM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; 'Kowalczyk Daniel'; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE; Richard
B. Belzer, Ph.D.; Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC
Subject: Draft Testimony klk 01-10-03.doc

Please comment. Sandy send to Services for coord.

Thx,
Kurt

9/5/2007

Unknown

From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 200308:58
To: Ledbetter, George. COL, 000 OGC
SUbject: RE: Food safety I perchlorate I western growers association -- Comments on DuBois Letter's RRPI
Characterizations

George,
Here's the latest version

-----Original Message----­
From: Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:42 AM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: RE: Food safety / perchlorate / western growers association -- Comments on DuBois Letter's
RRPI Characterizations

Jeff is a good check. Can you email me the version we are currently addressing. I've lost the stick on
this one.

CAUTION: This message may contain information protected by the attorney-client,

attorney work product, deliberative process, or other privilege. Do not disseminate
without the approval of the Office of the DoD General Counsel.

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 2003 8:39 AM
To: Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC
SUbject: FW: Food safety / perchlorate / western growers association -- Comments on DuBois
Letter's RRPI Characterizations

-----Original Message----­
From: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/IE
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:40 PM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: RE: Food safety / perchlorate / western growers association -- Comments on DuBois
Letter's RRPI Characterizations
i-----------------------­
Page 2 of 4

thanks,
jetJ
-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:37 PM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/IE
Subject: RE: Food safety / perchlorate / western growers association -- Comments on
DuBois Letter's RRPI Characterizations

-----Original Message----­
From: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/IE
Sent: Monday, June 02, 20033:34 PM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: FW: Food safety / perchlorate / western growers association -­
Comments on DuBois Letter's RRPI Characterizations

fyi - Ms. Koetz's comment

-----Original Message----­
From: Koetz, Maureen, SES, SAF/IE
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:26 PM
To: Groner, Laurence, Civ, SAF/GCI'J; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/lE
Cc: Miclat, Ili1arriane, Civ, SAF/PAM; Rusden, Michael, Col, AFI1i10A/SGZE; VanHook,
Deneice, Col, AFMOA/SGZP; Ashworth, Richard, Col, SAF/lE; Daly, Patrick, Col,
AF/lLEV; Sheuerman, Philip, Civ, SAF/GCN; Guy, Gina, SES, SAF/GCN; 'Brian LTC
ASA-I&E Rogers (E-mail)'; White, Carolyn, Civ, AFLSA/JACE; McHugh, Paul, Civ,
AFLSA/JACE; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC;
Sheuerman, Philip, Civ, SAF/GCN; 'David Bell (E-mail)'
Subject: RE: Food safety / perchlorate / western growers association -- Comments
on DuBois Letter's RRPI Characterizations

-----Original Message----­
From: Groner, Laurence, Civ, SAF/GCN

Sent: Monday, June 02,2003 10:13 AM

To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/IE; Koetz, Maureen, SES, SAFjlE

Cc: Miclat, Marriane, Civ, SAF/PAM; Rusden, Michael, Col, AFIVlOA/SGZE;

VanHook, Deneice, Col, AFMOA/SGZP; Ashworth, Richard, Col, SAF/IE; Daly,

Patrick, Col, AF/1LEVi Sheuerman, Philip, Civ, SAF/GCN; Guy, Gina, SES,

SAF/GCN; Brian LTC ASA-I&E Rogers (E-mail); White, Carolyn, Civ,

AFLSA/JACEi McHugh, PaUl, Civ, AFLSA/JACEi Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC;

Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC; Sheuerman, Philip, Civ, SAF/GCN' David

Bell (E-mail) ,

Subject: RE: Food safety / perchlorate / western growers association -­

Comments on DuBois Letter's RRPl Characterizations

.. ---------------~-
Page 3 of4
~.

Thanks, Jeff. Very interesting correspondence.

Larry

Laurence M. Groner

Associate General Counsel

Department of the Air Force

1740 Air Force Pentagon

••••• Tills conllnlmication is privileged as attorney work prod"ct, attomey-clienl commlmication, or o/l1a
 Page 4 of 4
, '
Li"

"
privileged nratcnal. 00 not disseminate without tile prior approval of 8le Air Force Office of Gcneml Col/nsel
"'It"'••

-----Original Message----­
From: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/lE
Sent: Friday, May 30, 20032:17 PM
To: Koetz, Maureen, SES, SAF/IE
ee: Miclat, Marriane, Civ, SAF/PAM; Rusden, Michael, Col,
AFMONSGZE; VanHook, Deneice, Col, AFMONSGZP; Ashworth,
Richard, Col, SAF/lE; Groner, Laurence, Civ, SAF/GCN; Daly, Patrick,
Col, AF/lLEV
Subject: Food safety / perchlorate / western growers association

vr,
jeff

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Friday, May 30,2003 11:12 AM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/lE; Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC
Ce: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSA/JACE; Dan
Kowalczyk; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Subject: FW: draft 2 WGA response

Please review the attached response to WGA, and provide

your coordination.
Mr. Thomas A. Nassif
President
Western Growers Association
P.O. Box 2130
Newport Beach, CA 92658

Dear Mr. Nassif:

Thank you for your letter dated May 7, 2003 concerning perchlorate in the
Colorado River and the potential impacts on health and welfare as well as the
produce industries and the economies of the region. First, let me assure you that
the Department is sensitive to this issue and is currently working with EPA and
other stakeholders to develop scientifically-defensible decisions for perchlorate
use, assessment, and cleanup.

Our first and foremost consideration is the protection of the health ofthe
Amercian people. We will respond to public health threats in a manner
commensurate with their severity and based upon the best available scientific
understanding of the threat. However, any decision to expend resources to respond
to risks should be informed by reliable scientific evidence.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued interim
guidance containing recommended clean-up levels for perchlorate in groundwater,
there is currently no regulatory standard for perchlorate in drinking water. Until a
federal or state cleanup standard is detennined, the Department will continue to
work directly with state and local officials on the best strategies to safeguard
public water supplies.

The Administration is finnly committed to using the best available science

to infonn public policies and decisions. Since 1997, the Department, in partnership
with EPA, NASA, and state and local regulators, has been at the forefront of
research to characterize the potential risks associated with perchlorate, and plan to
continue to work with our government and industry partners to ensure that all
significant data and requirements are considered ~nd infonn our public health
decisions.
 The Department of Defense's request for clarifications to some
environmental rules is not connected in any way to the clean up of perchlorate or
other substances on military installations or training ranges. The ongoing cleanup
programs at our active military installations, as well as at our closed installations,
will continue as they are, and if a hazardous substance is found to be migrating off
of an active training range, normal procedures for dealing with the cleanup will be
implemented.

In closing, I appreciate your concerns, and look forward to meeting with

you on this matter at your earliest convenience. In addition to your efforts to
educate concerned citizens, you might consider participating in the .
interagency/industry effort, to help ensure our future cleanup standards are
scientifically sound, knowledge is shared, and the drinking water remains safe.
Sincerely,

Raymond F. DuBois

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

(Installations and Environment)

Mr. Thomas A. Nassif

President
Western Growers Association
P.O. Box 2130
Newport Beach, CA 92658

Dear Mr. Nassif:

Thank you for your letter dated May 7, 2003 concerning perchlorate in the
Colorado River and the potential impacts on health and welfare as well as the
produce industries and the economies of the region. First, let me assure you that
the Department is sensitive to this issue and is currently working with EPA and
other stakeholders to develop scientifically defensible decisions for perchlorate
use, assessment, and cleanup.

Our first and foremost consideration is the protection of the health of the
American people. We will respond to public health threats in a manner
commensurate with their severity and based upon the best available scientific
understanding of the threat. However, any decision to expend resources to
respond to risks should be informed by reliable scientific evidence.

While the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued interim
guidance containing recommended clean-up levels for perchlorate in groundwater,
there is currently no regulatory standard for perchlorate in drinking water. Until a
federal or state cleanup standard is determined, the Department will continue to
work directly with state and local officials on the best strategies to safeguard
public water supplies.

The Administration is firmly committed to developing risk assessments that

are objective, realistic, and scientifically balanced. Since 1997, the Department, in
partnership with EPA, NASA, and state and local regulators, has been at the
forefront of research to characterize the potential risks associated with perchlorate,
and plan to continue to work with our government and industry partners to ensure
that aU significant data and requirements are considered in our public health
decisions.
"

The Department of Defense's request for clarifications to some

environmental rules does not affect in any way current state and federal policies
and practices for to the clean up of perchlorate or other substances on military
installations or training ranges. The ongoing cleanup programs at our active
military instaUations, as well as at our closed installations, will continue as they
are, and if a hazardous substance is found to be migrating off an active training
range, normal procedures for dealing with the cleanup will be implemented.

In closing, I appreciate your concerns, and look forward to me~ting with

you on this matter a~))]venience. Please contact Mr. Kurt Kratz of
my staff, t e l e p h o n e _ for arrangements.
Sincerely,

Raymond F. DuBois

Deputy Under Secretary of Defense

(Installations and Environment)

 a
fi---------------
,
Unknown
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms. OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 14:00
To: 'Richa.rd B. Belzer PhD'; Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSNJACE
Cc: Dan Kowalczyk; Kratz, Kurt, ,OSD-ATL
SUbject: FW: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Dan, Richard,

Can you send any QFRs you might have in files, that we've prepared on perchlorate, that we can use to respond on this?

Already have Boxer's QFR sent last week. Need anything you have right away.

Sandy

---·-Original Message----­
From: Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:35 PM

To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL

Cc: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-An; May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-ATL; Annstrong, Brett, LTC(P),

OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; Beard, Bruce, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, MT, DoD OGC

Subject: RE: From Bobby calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

I am the OSO/PA officer backing-up Glenn Flood on this -- I just got an email from the Boston Globe
and the reporter has NOT filed yet, giving us an opportunity to at least put forth a 000 response.
The Globe is an extremely liberal, left-leaning publication which LOVES to use phrases like "000
refused to comment" or "000 had nothing to say"...The original request from the reporter has been
kicking around since May 9, and if we do not respond, we have lost the opportunity to at least make
the effort to tell our side of the story, and the Globe will either tell it for us, or say we refused to
respond.

It would be my very strong recommendation that we give the reporter something, and by today.
Reporters usually file by 5 p.m. -- any later than that and the opportunity is lost.

Cheryl Irwin

Press Operations

www.defenselink.mil <http://www.defenselink.mil>

-----Original Message···-­
From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-An
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:19 PM
To: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Cc: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-ATL; Armstrong, Brett, LTC(P), OSD-ATL;
Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD·PA; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; Beard, Bruce, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGe
Subject: RE: From Bobby (alvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Sorry Phyllis, I was out at meetings. Jeff is TDY. Can't get an immediate answer. Have asked Marrianne and Dan

Rogers for the latest PA guidance as developed by the inter-agency group, and what our agreement is with the inter­

agency on perchlorate interviews. Do you need us to still put something together quickly, or are we OTBE?

Bruce - do you have a standard answer for 7? I think that is the most important message for us to send.

Thx,

Kurt

·-·-·Original Message----­
From: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Scnt: Wednesday, May 14,20039:56 AM
To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Woodley Jr., John, Mr, OSD-ATL
1
1. _

Cc: Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL; Armstrong, Brett, LTC(P), OSD-ATL; lnvin,
Cheryl, C1Y, OASD-PA; May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-ATL
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe cOITespondent
Importance: High

Mr. Woodley & Kurt - Cheryl Irwin, Defense Press Office, checked the Boston Globe and Calvan has
not yet printed his article as far as she can tell. Cheryl asked that we please try to answer the seven
questions by noon today, so as to respond to this inquiry. What is the status from Jeff?

-----Original Message----­
From: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 9:34 AM
To: Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL; Ungaro,Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL;
Armstrong, Brett, LTC(P), OSD-ATL
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Cheryl ­
I just got this email message this morning. We have staff working
responses to the 7 questions.
I called the phone number at the bottom of the email from Bobby Cal van it
a dental office (Dr. Crytabol (?l) •.• did not leave a message.
lilhen I dialed the number in the email below, I got a very sleepv lady that
hung-up on me ... ??

Unless notified otherwise, we are stopping work on these questions since

per your email, Calvan filed his story last night.

-----Original Message----­
From: Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 4:43 PM

To: Ferguson, Phyllis, 1'105, OSD-.Z\TL

Subject: FW: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Phyl -- thi.s guy is filing tonight -- and it would be good i.f he bad a DoD
comment -- I have to leave tonight at 5 p.m. but if you have somethi.ng -­
anything for him please just forward it to him (see his email address
below). He cal also be reached at Many thanks -­

-----Oriainal Messaae----­
From: Bobby Calvan i~2.ih!:~_

~ent~ Filday, May 09, 2003 3:19 PM

To:

Subject: From Bobby Calvan, Boston

Ms. In'Jin,

Thanks for returning my call. I'm doing a story on perchlorate for the
national desk of the Boston Globe, and would like a statement from the
Department of Defense to include in the story I'm working on.

1. First off, I'd like to know what the Department is doing to clean up
sites contiminated by perchlorate.
2. Has the Department created a list of sites that have perchlorate?
3. What is the Department's position on perchlorate clean up. Does the
Department consider perchlorate a problem?
<\. 'i'ihat is the Department s role and posi tion on establishing a safety
I

2
I' '._-------------­
standard for perchlorate? Is there a sta~dard the Departmen~ considers
safe?
5. What does the Department believe to be the proper response to the
perchlorate issue?
6. If the Department were to clean up perchlorate-contiminated sites and
resulting water-quality problems, how much would it cost and how long would
it take?
7. What is the Department's response to those who say that the Department's
bid for exemption from environmental rules is based on the Department's
desire to exempt itself and its contractors from cleaning up perchlorate
and
other substances?

I thank you in advance for your help.

Sincerely,

Bobby Calvan

l\dd photos to yo'ur messages with MSN 8. Get 2 months FREE*.

<http: ,1,1 i~)in .J!,ISn ._,?om/3pag<::,=fe_?.t ures/ fe.atu_~'ede.lllail>

3
..

Unknown

From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 17:35
To: 'Selzer@RegulatoryCheckbook.Org'
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Rick,

I had prepared responses based on what you gave me previously, and other

information, bue I like your.s much better. When :-<urt gets in the

morning, I'll go over these with him. Good job ...

-----Origina1 Message----­
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [mailto:rbbelzer@cox.net]

Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 4:31 PM

To: 'Cotter, Sandra, (vls, OSD-.zi.TL'; 'Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSJ\.!JlI.CE'

Cc: 'Dan l<:o\tJa.lczyk'; 'Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL'

SUbject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

Importance: High

Sandy et a1.,

I have looked over the Globe's questions and concluded that the material
in our Text Vault would not help advance DoD's strategic objectives--noc
l.vi ch respect. to ei,ther perchlorat:e or R??I.

Instead of merely **defending*· itself from false and scurrilous charges

and innuendo, I advise DoD to be more *·offensive·· and
forthriqht--R.urnsfeldi,an, if you Nill--and use Lhe oppon:unity to put out
statements expressly intended to undermine and reverse the prevailing
media message.

In that optimistic spirit I offer the attached proposed responses. I

have not inserted material into Q2 because I don't have the answers on
that. If someone else does, I'd be happy to massage it into a positive,
engaging style. '

if you have questions or want to discuss. Cell phone

r don't answer the office phone.
RBB

-----Origina1 Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, 14 May 03 14:00PM
1'0: 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSA/,JACE
Cc: Dan Kowalczyk; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL
Subject: FW: From Bobby Cal van, Boston Globe correspondent

Dan, Eichard,
Can you send any OFRs you might have in files, that we've prepared on
perchlorate, that we can use to respond on this? Already have Boxer's
QFR
sent last week. Need anything you have right away.
Sandy

-----Orlglnal Message----­
From: In'lin, Cheryl, crv, OP..SD-?A
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:35 PM
To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, aSD-ATL
Cc: Woodley Jr., John, Mr, aSD-ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; May,
Lisa,
'.
Maj, aSO-ATL; Armstrong, Brett, LTC(?), aSO-ATLi Cotter, Sandra, Ms,
aSO-ATL; Beard, Bruce, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGe
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe correspondent

I am the OSD!PA officer backing-up Glenn Flood on this -- I just got an

email from the Boston Globe and the reporter has NOT filed yet, giving
us an
opportunity to at leasL put forth a DoD response. The Globe is an
extremely
liberal, left-leaning publication which LOVES to use phrases like "000
refused to conunent" or "000 had nothing to say" ... The original request
from
the reporter has been kicking around since May 9, and if we do not
respond,
we have lost the opportunity to at least make the effort to tell our
side of
the story, and the Globe will either tell it for us, or say we refused
to
respond.

It would be my very strong recommendation that we give the reporter

something, and by today. Reporters usually file by 5 p.m. -- any later
than
that and the opportunity is lost.

Cheryl Irwin

Press Operations

~
,,, P bl' Af"";

~rs
Wtti\'<. defenselink. mil <ht:tp: / !W\>IW. defenselink. mil>

-----Original Message----­
From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:19 PM
To: Ferguson, Phyllis. Ms, OSD-ATL
Cc: Woodley Jr., John. Mr, OSD-ATL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR,
aSD-ATL; May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-ATL; Armstrong, Brett, LTC(P), OSD-ATLi

In,,in,

Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSO-ATL; Beard, Bruce, Mr,

OSD-i\TL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DcD aGe

Subject: 1<1':: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe

correspondent

Sorry Phyllis, I was cut at meetings. Jeff is TDY. Can't get

an
immediate answer. Have asked ~Jarrianne and Dan Rogers for the latest PA
guidance as developed by the inter-agency group, and what our agreement
is
with the inter-agency on perchlorate interviews. Do you need us to
still
put something together quickly, or are we OTBE?
Bruce - do you have a standard answer for 7? I think that 1· <' , U

the
most important message for us to send.

Thx,

Kurt

-----Original Message----­
From: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, aSD-ATL
Sent: v~ednesday, t'1ay 14, 2003 9:56 AM
To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Woodley Jr., John"
r'1r,
OSD-I\TL
Cc: Ungaro, Rona Id, CDR, 03D-.I;.TL; Ferguson,
Phyllis,
Ms, OSD-ATLj Armstrong, Bret~, LTC(?), OSD-ATL; Irwin, Cheryl, CIV,
07\SD-PA;
2
May, Lisa, Maj, OSD-ATL
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston Globe
correspondent
Importance: High

Mr. Woodley & Kurt - Cheryl Irwin,

Defense
Press Office, checked the Boston Globe and Calvan has not yet printed
his
article as far as she can tell. Cheryl asked that we please try to
answer
the seven questions by noon today, so as to respond to this inquiry.
tvhat
is the status from Jeff?

-----Original Message----­
From: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: I'Jednesday, May 14, 2003 9: 34 Pli"1
To: Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSO-ATL; Ferguson,
Phyllis, Ms, OSO-P.TL; Ungaro, Ronald, CDR, OSD-ATL; Armstronq, Brett,
LTC(P), OSD-ATL
Subject: RE: From Bobby Calvan, Boston
Globe
correspondent

Cheryl ­
~his email message this
I just got
morning.
We have staff working responses to the 7 questions.
I called the phone number at the bottom
of
~he email from Bobby'Calvan - it a dental office (Dr. Crytabol
(?) ) ..• dJd
not leave a message.
When I dialed the number in the email
below,
T got a very sleepy lady that hung-up on me ... ??

Unless notified otherwise, we are

stopping
work on these questions since per your email, Calvan filed his story
Jast
niqht.

-----Original Message----­
From: Irwin, Cheryl, CIV, OASD-PA
Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 4:43 PM
To: Ferguson, Phyllis, Ms, OSD-ATL
SUbject: FW: From Bobby Calvan, Boston
Globe
correspondent

Phyl -- this guy is filing tonight -­

and it
would be good if he had a DoD commenL J have to leave tonight at 5
p.m.
but if you have something -- anything for him please just forward it
to
him (see his email address below). He cal also be reached at

t'1any thanks -­

3
 -----Original Message----­
From: Bobb' Calvan

Subject: From Bobby Calvan, Boston G16be

oo.r respondent

Thanks for returning my call. I'm doing

a
story on perchlorate for the
national desk of the 80ston Globe, and

would

like a statement from the

Department of Defense to include in the

story I'm working on.

1. First off, I'd like to know what the

Department 15 doing to clean up

sites contiminated by perchlorate.

2. Has the Department created a list of

sites that have perchlorate?
J. What is the Department's position on
perchlorate olean up. Does the
Department consider perchlorate a
problem'?
4. What is the Department's rele and
position on establishing a safety
standard for perchlorate? Is there a
standard the Departmen~ considers safe?
5. What does the Department believe to
be
the proper response to the
perchlorate issue?
6. If the Department were to clean up
perchlorate-contiminated sites and
resulting water-quality problems, how
much
would it cOSt and how long would
,,- take?
7. What is the Department's response to
~hose who say that the Department's
bid for exemption from environmen~al
rules
is based on the Department's
desire to exempt itself and its
contractors
from cleaning up perchlorate and
other substances'?

I thank you in cdvance for your help.

Sincerely,

Bobbv Calvan

Add photo-s to your messages with MSN 8.

Get
2 months FREE*.
4
 •
•
Unknown
From: Cotter. Sandra, Ms. OSD-ATl
Sent: WedneSday. May 07. 200314:13
To: 'regcheck@mail.com'
Subject: RE: OMB/EPA/DoE responses on the Feinstein. Boxer, and Reid Letter

O:·18·EPA·DoE.doc

-----G:iginal Message----­
From: Richard B. Belzer PnD [rni1ilto:rbbelze.r@cox.m;t~

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 20C3 2:09 Pt.r

'rG': tCo~ter, Sandra, ~ls, OSD-ATL t
Bubje~;;::; R.E: O,r1B/EPAlDcE ::-f:sponses on the Feinstein, Boxer; and Fe:d
.Let ::er
Importanc0: Hi.gh

-----Original Hessage----- _
From: CCit.t€!", Sandra, Ms, OSD--A71 [mailco:S:J..:':,jra.C::,:ter
Sen:: Wednesday, 07 May 03 14:CSPM
To: 'r>cegcheck@mall~ccrn1
Subject:: RE: Ot·1B/EP..11/DcE C-"?Sf,.)OBSeS on the ?-?:.nste,:,L, 3c);-:~r, ~nd R€id
Lett,er

''leSt
1 t 11 hook yOll up .... wha t· s your nurnk,er?

-----Original Hessage----­
frc~: Richard B. Belz~r PhD [mailto:rbbelzer@cc~'Get:
Sent: ~Jednesday, May 07, 2003 2:06 PN
Tc: 'Cotter, Sandra, !i.1s, OSD'-A~rl'
S,1bJect: Rl:~: ONE/EPAlDoE responses on the F,;:inst2:1n, Boxer, and Reid
Letter
Importance: Hi,:;h

Is the telecom on schedu10?

RBE

-----Origlnal Message----­
from: Cotter, Sandra, Hs, OSO-A'!'L [mailr.c;sandra.Cotter_
Senl: Wednesday, 07 Nil)' 03 lO:50AM
To; CClrm}.d, Jeff, Lt:. Col., SI,F/IS; Cilcuc:r,ury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL;
Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD eGC; l.edbetter, George, COL, DoD OGe; Kratz, Kurt, ,
OSD-AT1i 'Richard B. Eelzer PhD'; Dan Kowalczyk
Subject: ClHB/EVA/to£ responses en the Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid Letter
~hen: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:00 PM-3:00 PM (GMT-D5:001 Eastern Time
(US .&
Canada; ,
~1:H;:r€: 3C76S
We've received comments from OMB, from OIRA, EPA, and DoE. We'd like to
meet to discuss comments and our responses at 2:00 PM today if possible,
in
Kurt Kratz's office. Rick, Dan, we can try to include you by phone, if
you
wish.

se
«DOD Draft Response to Boxer 050503_comments.wpd» «Draft Response
to
BoxerOlRAedit.doc» «DoE.doc»

2
Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
Washington, DC. 20510

Dear Senator Reid,

Thank you for your recent letter in which you expressed concerns that the
Department of Defense's (DoD's) proposed Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative
(RRPI) legislation will limit our legal responsibility to address Defense-related
perchlorate contamination in drinking water supplies. The Department is committed to
sustaining our test and training capabilities in a manner that fully satisfies the military
readiness mission, is protective of public health both on our installations and in
neighboring communities, and provides exemplary stewardship of the lands and natural
resources entrusted to the DoD by Congress.

Perchlorate regulation may impact the ability of the Defense Department, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and other agencies to execute
fundamental aspects of their missions. (OIRA Suggest deleting: As you know,
perchlorate salts are used as a combustion accelerant and explosives in solid·fueled
rockets and missiles, munitions, explosives, and pyrotechnics. DoD and NASA are far
from the only users of perchlorate: it has been used in numerous other items, including
fireworks, flares, automobile airbags, pharmaceuticals, and nitrate-based fertilizer
products. and replace wi agreed upon usage language: Perchlorate is a chemical that
has been used in various items, including missile and rocket propellants, munitions,
fireworks, flares, fertilizer, automobile airbags, and pharmaceuticals. Perchlorate has
important applications for national defense and space exploration. In addition, the
response does not respond to the statement that "nearly" all the perchlorate produced
in the US is used by defense and space programs. Is this true? can DoD provide us
with a statistic (%usage). this would be informative.)
-(EPA: Factually inaccurate. It is only in some caliche containing fertilizers. EPA
study conducted with the fertilizer institute has shown restricted usage of this type
of fertilizer for major crops. Manufacturer of HuHdog Soda (SOM) claims to
changed content as well. Suggest: and some caliche-based fertilizer products of
restricted usage.)

(OIRA suggests deleting this paragraph: This is not necessary as a

question/statement regarding perch/orates national defense applications and national
security was not mentioned in the letter.) It is, however, correct that perchlorate's
national defense applications are of fundamental importance to national security.
Perchlorate salts are the primary oxidizers in composite propellants and explosives. They
are critical to the safe and effective performance of systems ranging from tactical missiles
such as Sidewinder, AMRAAM, and Tomahawk to strategic missiles such as Minuteman,
the Space Shuttle boosters, and all boosters in development for national missile defense.
Over 100 rocket motors currently in production use perchlorate, as do a very large array
of weapons and weapons systems ranging from smoke, obscurant, flare, and illumination
devices to grenades, projectiles of all kinds, mines, high explosives, and even
cartridges-hundreds of types of munitions and weapons in all. No satisfactory
substitute for perchlorate in these applications currently exists. (EPA: NASA article
(see attached) suggests paraffin-based replacement offers increased control of burn
and is better for environment.)

Your letter expresses concern that the Department's proposed RPPI legislation
could limit its financial liability or cleanup responsibilities with respect to perchlorate.
Nothing in RRPI affects the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which gives the US
Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to take such actions as it "may deem
necessary to protect the health" of persons facing "an imminent and substantial
endangerment" resulting from a contaminant that is present in, or is likely to enter, a
public water system or an underground source of drinking water. These actions are
enforceable by civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day. Because this authority is not
limited to CERCLA "releases" or off-range migration, it empowers EPA to issue orders
to address endangerment either on-range or off-range, and to address possible
contamination before it migrates off-range.

Some observers have also expressed concern that RRPI could protect DoD
contractors from liability for cleanup of perchlorate or other chemicals. This was not the
intent of our proposal, and as DoD testified recently before Congress, EPA and DoD have
developed revised legislative language making this point unambiguously clear.

Since 1997, the Department, in partnership with EPA, NASA, State and local
regulators, and Native American tribes, has worked aggressively to determine whether
(EPA) low leYel ambient contamination (what is a "low" level for endocrine
disruption when hormones by definition are designed to act at nanomolar and
picomolar levels?) of perchlorate pose exposure poses a hazard to the American public,
and to inform and involve stakeholders about research developments in this area. The
Administration is committed to developing health risk assessments that are objective,
realistic, and scientifically sound balaneed, to serve as the basis of credible and basing
risk management decisions OR this seientifie foundation.

(DIRA: This paragraph leads the reader to believe that most ofthe 29$ million is
spent on human health research, where in fact 25$ million goes to treatment
technology development, thus it needs to be reworked. Suggested edits are: The
Department has been at tile fore/ivJnt 6factively involved in research into the potential
health effects of perchlorate, the conditions under which these risks might arise, and to a
limited extent, whether the extent to which there may be subpopulations of special
vulnerability (EPA: DoD asked that the studies addressing special vulnerability be
thrown out, e.g., the developmental neurotoxicity studies). DoD has invested over
$29 million to develop innovative treatment technologies and helped ~ better
characterize the potential human health and environmental risks associated with
perchlorate, (ffld 16 devel6fJ inn6vt1tive tFeR-1ment teeltneleg;es (EPA: the majority of
this cost is for treatment technology used for recovery and not for "low" level
operations.). The Department hilS made a significant investment in pereh16rRte
rel6ted FCseareh. In doing this, DoD worked closely with EPA to establish the research
agenda and study protocols. D6D scientists have themselves eendueted many
independent studies t8 assess the petential risks and effects if!pereh16Fate expesUFe.

(OIRA: This paragraph is not necessary. Perchlorate is not on the IRIS

dataIJase thus comparing a draft assessment to this database is irrevelant. Suggest
deleting it all.) As a result of this close cooperation and DoD's proactive participation,
the science needed to characterize the potential risk fF6m associated with low- ambient
levels of perchlorate exposure was generated in an accelerated manner. The resulting
perchlorate database is more robust than many in EPA's Integrated Risk Information
System (IRIS), as evidenced by estimations of overall confidence, size of uncertainty
factor, and types of available data. Particularly helpful is the availability of the
developmental neurotoxicity studies which assess the key endpoints of concern and
human pharmacokinetic data that allowed the AFRL to develop interspecies
extrapolation models. hUlBan ciiniclli trial data which permit the derivation of safe
exposure levels without having to reI" on highly uncertain and conservath'c
extrapolations from animals, in this case rats. ( EPA:-Disagree. The extrapolations
were far from 'highly uncertain' and 'conservative' because: (1) The human and
lab animal data give the same estimates (2) the human data tell us nothing about
susceptible populations (3) rats are not sensitive for neurotoxic effects, in fact, they
may be insensitive (4) these are not clinical trials designed to give pharmacokinetic
information for modeling puposes and (5) the RID estimate is not an estimate of a
hsafc exposure level.")
(DoE: ... [This paragraph is] confusing to the flow of the response. The thoughts of the
response paragraphs as written say DOD has been working proactively on science with
EPA; that the perchlorate database is robust, especially with respect to human clinical
trial data; and that DOD has genuine and well-founded disagreements with EPA's draft
health risk assessment. We think the paragraph that suggests the perchlorate
database is robust is confusing, in that one could infer that this robust human clinical
trial information was used in EPA's draft health risk assessment -- and be confused
when DOD then suggests they have disagreements with EPA. We recommend deleting
the paragraph on the database, so the flow would read that DOD has been working
proactively on science with EPA; and that based on that science, DOD has genuine and
well-founded disagreements with EPA's draft health risk assessment.)

DoD scientists heve genuine Rnd Jf>lelJ-flmnded disagreements with SfJlHe 8-fthe
inferences end conclusions in EPA's hnUfHy 2002 d1'6{tpCl'ehI9ftlte health
tlSSe5sment dfJculHent, which conttlinspreliminfHy risk esHlHetes thllt could be used to
eshlblish en fJjfieielReference DfJse (RfD). Enclosed, please find a copy of the
testimony that the Department presented to the California State Senate concerning
perchlorate research on this question. The Department continues to work with EPA and
other stakeholders to develop scientifically-defensible decisions regarding perchlorate
use, assessment, and cleanup.
With the full support of DoD, NASA, and the Department of Energy, EPA hes been
wo1'king HJ I'evise the 2002 drtift hefllth flssessment, tlHd has decided to submit the
perchlorate health science issue to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in order to
resolve several underlying scientific questions (DIRA Incorporates DoE comment.)
EPA has informed us that it will complete and disseminate a final risk assessment when
the NAS scientific review is concluded and the 2002 peer and public review comments
as well as the NAS comments are addressed. (EPA: Let us not forget EPA still has the
last review panel comments to incorporate)

Your letter expressed concern that a perchlorate standard might be years away
because ofthe time necessary to complete a SDWA standard, in addition to the time
required for the NAS study to be completed. We understand this concern, and support
EPA's efforts to move forward to promulgate a standard as expeditiously as possible. In
the meantime, we will work with EPA and the States to address any situation where there
is agreement that perchlorate poses an imminent and substantlal danger to the public.
(DIRA: Perhaps it might be useful to say something here about how the provisional
range can be used as a screening tool in site-speCifiC risk assessment activities, ie for
cleanups conducted under CERCLA. Thus moving the focus away from the MCL
which is years away, butfocusing on thefact that cleanups can currently be conducted
where necessary. More should be mentioned regarding current cleanups as well as
actions being taken at the Henderson facility. )

You also expressed concern that the Department is not currently participating in the
funding of private cleanup activities at sites such as the Henderson facility. As you
know, existing laws provide well-established mechanisms by which private parties can
recover from the Department cleanup costs that are our responsibility, which are
available to private parties who believe that the Defense Department should participate in
the cost of perchlorate cleanup activities. Our RRPI proposal would have no effect on
these provisions. (DIRA: ...does not address concerns regarding the Colorado River
and Henderson facility. DoD should discuss what is happening at that site.)
 Finally, you have requested a detailed response on high-priority sites involving
perchlorate in drinking water, and the initial measures the Department might take to
address them, given available funding. This information is currently being collected. I
have asked the Deputy Under Secretary (Installations & Environment) to provide a list to
you of active installations containing the information you requested on an expedited
basis, which I expect would be by late May. (DIRA: the response shouldfocus more
on DoD cleanup efforts and what is currently being done. The boxer letter talks about
concerns regarding cleanup responsibilities as well as delays in cleanup while waiting
for a drinking water standard. DoDs response to the delay concern states only that they
support EPA efforts to moveforward. It would be beneficialfor DoD to respond to this
in a positive fashion by mentioning the types ofcleanups that are currently occurring.
This could tie into the section where DoD discusses the $25million they spend on
treatment technology.)

The Department is the environmental steward of over 25 million acres of land that
have been entrusted by Congress to the Department to use efficiently and to care for
properly. In executing these responsibilities we are committed to full compliance with
the applicable laws and regulations. We are committed to protecting, preserving, and,
when required, restoring, and enhancing the quality of the environment. Through the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), we are cleaning up contamination
on our installations and are building a new program to address unexploded ordnance on
locations off of operational ranges.

The fact that the Department has invested in excess of $29 million on perchlorate
research and treatment technology development (EPA: as previously stated, probably
only 50% of it was devoted to helath studies) is a clear indication of the Department's
commitment to protect the health of the American people. This commitment is further
supported by our continued partnership with EPA to ensure that the Nation's leading
scientists are provided an opportunity to review the perchlorate database. Such a review
will ensure that risk characterization and subsequent risk management decisions are, in
fact, based on sound science.

The Department is committed to sustaining U.S. test and training capabilities in a

manner that fully satisfies our military readiness mission, is protective of human health,
and provides exemplary stewardship of the lands and natural resources entrusted to DoD
by Congress. A similar letter has been provided to Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer.

Sincerely,
Enclosure
UnknQwn

From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 16:54
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC;
Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; 'Dan
Kowalczyk'
Subject: RE: OMB/EPA/DoE responses on the Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid Letter

OMB-EPA-DoE DoD revision. doc

/ithDoD responses.. ,
If you agree with the attached responses and revised letter, I'll forward to OMB.

-----Original Message----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 20034:08 PM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Ledbetter, George,
COL, DoD OGC; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; 'Dan Kowalczyk'
Subject: RE: OMB/EPA/DoE responses on the Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid Letter

I've inserted the responses we discussed (blue text) into the redline/strikeout version containing OMB/EPA/DoE's
comments and changes, for use with OMB. «File: OMB-EPA-DoE with DoD responses.doc »

-----Original Appointment----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 10:50 AM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Ledbetter,
George, COL, DoD OGC; Kratz, Kurt, ,OSD-ATL; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; Dan Kowalczyk
Subject: OMS/EPA/DoE responses on the Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid Letter
When: Wednesday, May 07,20032:00 PM-3:00 PM (GMT-OS:OO) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: 3C765

We've received comments from OMB, from OIRA, EPA, and DoE. We'd like to meet
to discuss comments and our responses at 2:00 PM today if possible, in Kurt
Kratz's office. Rick, Dan, we can try to include you by phone, if you wish.

sc
«File: DOD Draft Response to Boxer 050503_comments.wpd» «File: Draft Response to
BoxerOlRAedit.doc» «File: DoE.doc »

1
Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
Washington, DC. 20510

Dear Senator Reid,

Thank you for your recent letter in which you expressed concerns that the
Department of Defense's (DoD's) proposed Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative
(RRPI) legislation will limit our legal responsibility to address Defense-related
perchlorate contamination in drinking water supplies. The Department is committed to
sustaining our test and training capabilities in a manner that fully satisfies the military
readiness mission, is protective of public health both on our installations and in
neighboring communities, and provides exemplary stewardship of the lands and natural
resources entrusted to the DoD by Congress.

Perchlorate regulation may impact the ability of the Defense Department, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and other agencies to execute
fundamental aspects of their missions. (OIRA Suggest deleting: As you know,
perchlorate salts are used as a combustion accelerant and explosives in solid-fueled
rockets and missiles, munitions, explosives, and pyrotechnics. DoD and NASA are far
from the only users of perchlorate: it has been used in numerous other items, including
fireworks, flares, automobile airbags, pharmaceuticals, and nitrate-based fertilizer
products. and replace wi agreed upon usage language: Perchlorate is a chemical that
has been used in various items, including missile and rocket propellants, munitions,
fireworks, flares, fertilizer, automobile airbags, and pharmaceuticals. Perchlorate has
important applications for national defense and space exploration. [Okay, with th('
change. I In addition, the response does not respond to the statement that "nearly" all
the perchlorate produced in the US is used by defense and space programs. Is this
true? can DoD provide us with a statistic (%usage). this would be informative.) [What
we can SHY is "\Vhile it is clear that defense and sp~lce uses dominllte perchlorate production, the
numbl'r of sites at which low levels of perchloratc arc dctccted is increasingly associated with nOI1­
(kft'nst' and nun-space uses." J
-(EPA: Factually inaccurate. It is only in some caliche containing fertilizers. EPA
study conducted with the fertilizer institute has shown restricted usage of this type
of fertiJizer for major crops. Manufacturer of Bulldog Soda (SOM) claims to
changed content as well. Suggest: and some caliche-based fertilizer products of
restricted usage.) IWe have the NY State Department of Health and lJSGS studies, that do not
agree with EPA's statements.)

(DIRA suggests deleting this paragraph: This is not necessary as a

question/statement regarding perchlorates national defense applications and national
security was not mentioned in the letter.) [This information provides tlIt' llcccessul'J balanct'
to the science emphasis place on this issue itl the letter.] It is, however, correct that
perchlorate's national defense applications are of fundamental importance to national
security. Perchlorate salts are the primary oxidizers in composite propellants and
explosives. They are critical to the safe and effective performance of systems ranging
from tactical missiles such as Sidewinder, AMRAAM, and Tomahawk to strategic
missiles such as Minuteman, the Space Shuttle boosters, and all boosters in development
for national missile defense. Over 100 rocket motors currently in production use
perchlorate, as do a very large array of weapons and weapons systems ranging from
smoke, obscurant, flare, and illumination devices to grenades, projectiles of all kinds,
mines, high explosives, and even cartridges-hundreds of types of munitions and
weapons in all. No satisfactory substitute for perchlorate in these applications currently
exists. (EPA: NASA article (see attached) suggests paraffin-based replacement
offers increased control of burn and is better for environment.) roo not accept. DoD is
in the process of evaluating alternatives, but there ~lre 110 cun'ent safe substitutes in use at this
time.]

Your letter expresses concern that the Department's proposed RPPI legislation
could limit its financial liability or cleanup responsibilities with respect to perchlorate.
Nothing in RRPI affects the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which gives the US
Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to take such actions as it "may deem
necessary to protect the health" of persons facing "an imminent and substantial
endangerment" resulting from a contaminant that is present in, or is likely to enter, a
public water system or an underground source of drinking water. These actions are
enforceable by civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day. Because this authority is not
limited to CERCLA "releases" or off-range migration, it empowers EPA to issue orders
to address endangerment either on-range or off-range, and to address possible
contamination before it migrates off-range.

Some observers have also expressed concern that RRPI could protect DoD
contractors from liability for cleanup of perchlorate or other chemicals. This was not the
intent of our proposal, and as DoD testified recently before Congress, EPA and DoD have
developed revised legislative language making this point unambiguously clear.

Since 1997, the Department, in partnership with EPA, NASA, State and local
regulators, and Native American tribes, has worked aggressively to determine whether
(EPA) 10\\' level ambient contamination (what is a "low" level for endocrine
disruption when hormones by definition are designed to act at nanomolar and
'picomolar levels?) I non has three problems with these.' changes: 1) the notion that EPA is
advancing that any level of perchlorate could be a dsk, not recognizing that there could he ..
tlu'eshold al whkh perchloraie could cause a dsk; hence the term, "mnbient" as opposed to "Iow­
level", 2) thai perdllorate is an cmdocrine disnIptor, when there is no clear evidence to that effel.:t,
and 3) the use of the term contamimltion, inste~ld of exposure is pcjoralive. I perchlorate pose
exposure poses a hazard to the American public, and to inform and involve stakeholders
about research developments in this area. The Administration is committed to
developing health risk assessments that are objective, realistic, and scientifically sound
balaneed, to serve as the basis of credible and basing risk management decisions 00
this seientific fOlHIdation. [Suggest we prcservelangmlge tal<ell from the September 20tH
OMB guidallce on I'egulatory review, that requires "scie.'utifically balanced' and "b~sing dsk
ll1anag(~mcni decisions on these objective, realistic, and scientifically balanced" ~lsscssll1ents.1

(OIRA: This paragraph leads the reader to believe that most o/the 29$ million is
spent on human health research, where in/act 25$ million goes to treatment
technology development, thus it needs to be reworked, Suggested edits are: The
Department has been Bt the jOFe-jMnt ~factive(v involved in research into the potential
health effects of perchlorate, the conditions under which these risks might arise, and to a
limited extent, whether the extent to which there may be subpopulations of special
vulnerability (EPA: DoD asked that the studies addressing special vulnerability be
thrown out, e.g., the developmental neurotoxicity studies). DoD has invested over
$29 million to develop innovative treatment technologies and helped to- better
characterize the potential human health and environmental risks associated with
perchlorate, Bnd to de-relop innoyatiye treBtmen' technologies (EPA: the maj ority of
this cost is for treatment technology used for recovery and not for "low" level
operations.). The DepBrtment hBs mBtle BsignijieBnt inyestment inpeFChlol'flte
Fe/Bted re5eBTCh. In doing this, DoD worked closely with EPA to establish the research
agenda and study protocols. DtJlJ scientists kaye themselves condueled mRny
independent studies t6 assess the potentiall'isks "".,d effects o[pe-t'CltlfJfflEe eXp6SUre.
[Agree in part; we will revise tbe first sentence to read "The Department has spent some $4 million
Oil f(~search into
the potential heuHh efTects of perchlorate, the conditions uuder which theSt' risks
might arise, and the extent to which there may be subpopulations of special vulnerahility.'· ''.In
doing this. DoD worked closely with EPA to estahlish the research agenda and study protocols."
(add the following from the next panlgraph "As a result of this close cooperation and DoD's
proactive p~lrticipation, the science needed to characterize the potentiall"isk associated with low
levels of percblorate ex}wsure was generated in an accelerated manner." "DoD has also invested
over $25 million to develop innovative treatment technologies for pcrchlomtc, ilTcspectivc of
whether the rhemical posed a risk "I
(OIRA: This paragraph is not necessary. Perchlorate is not on the IRIS
database thus comparing a draft assessment to this database is irrevelant. Suggest
deleting it all.) [Okay] As a result of this close cooperation and DoD's proactive
participation, the science needed to characterize the potential risk fFem associated with
lew- ambient levels of perchlorate exposure was generated in an accelerated manner.
The resulting perchlorate database is more robust than many in EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), as evidenced by estimations of overall confidence, size of
uncertainty factor, and types of available data. Particularly helpful is the availability of
the developmental neurotoxicity studies which assess the key endpoints of concern
and human pharmacokinetic data that allowed the AFRL to develop interspecies
extrapolation models. human clinical trial data which permit the derivation of safe
exposure levels without having to rely on highly uncertain and conservative
extrapolations from animals, in this case rats. ( EPA:-Disagree. The extra polations
were far from 'highly uncertain' and 'conservative' because: (1) The human and
lab animal data give the same estimates (2) the human data teU LIS nothing about
susceptible populations (3) rats are not sensitive for neurotoxic effects, in fact, they
may be insensitive (4) these are not clinical trials designed to give pharmacokinetic
information for modeling puposes and (5) the RID estimate is not an estimate of a
"safe exposure leveJ.") [EPA's points arc true only if you manipulate the uncertainty factors.
This is the Ill'art of OUI' dispute. 'Ve don't believe the extnlpolation models art' appl'opriate.
EPA's changed text skew the facts, suggesting that the human data was only intended to populate
lhe animal model. We've not been persuadt'd this point is tme at all.[
(DoE: ...[This paragraph is] confusing to the flow of the response. The thoughts of the
response paragraphs as written say DOD has been working proactively on science with
EPA; that the perchlorate database is robust, especially with respect to human clinical
trial data; and that DOD has genuine and well-founded disagreements with EPA's draft
health risk assessment. We think the paragraph that suggests the perchlorate
database is robust is confusing, in that one could infer that this robust human clinical
trial information was used in EPA's draft health risk assessment -- and be confused
when DOD then suggests they have disagreements with EPA. We recommend deleting
the paragraph on the database, so the flow would read that DOD has been working
proactively on science with EPA; and that based on that science, DOD has genuine and
well-founded disagreements with EPA's draft health risk assessment.)

D8D scientists !lave genuine Rlfd welJf8unded disagl'eements with seme 8fthe
inferences and conclusiens in EPA's .Jiffluary 2(}()2 dI'Rftperchl8ra1e !lealth
lISsessment documelft, which ceHtBins prelimi,"Bry risk estimates that ceuld be used 18
establish Bn fJjJicial Reference Dese (RjD). [This is an important. point for OoD; It has be(~n
reportl'd in the press. that the only thing DoD cart's about is the money it will cost to cleanup these
sites. This just isn't the case. We will changt' tht' sentence instead as follows: "noD ~lIld scientists
lwve significant disagreements with some oUhe inferences and conclusions in .I']>A's January 2002
draft Jlerchlorate health assessment document, which cOlltains preliminary risli estimates that
t'ould be USt'd to establish an official [~ef~rence Dose (IUD). E;nclosed, please find a copy of the
testimony that the Department presented to the California State Senate concerning
perchlorate research en this questieH. lokaYI The Department continues to work with
EPA and other stakeholders to develop scientifically-defensible decisions regarding
perchlorate use, assessment, and cleanup.
With the full support of 000, NASA, and the Department of Energy, EPA hIlS been
werking t8 revise the 2002 tiJ'fl/t health llSSessment, alfti [ okay] has decided to submit the
perchlorate health science issue to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in order to
resolve several underlying scientific questions (DIRA Incorporates DoE comment.)
EPA has infonned us that it will complete and disseminate a final risk assessment when
the NAS scientific review is concluded and the 2002 peer arid public review comments
as well as the NAS comments are addressed. (EPA: Let us not forget EPA still has the
last review panel comments to incorporate) [Do not agree with EPA's change to this
sentence. DoD is (~oncernt'd what EPA might be infelTing with this changt'; it is lcaYing open the
possibility of trumping the At'ademy with other datn. We hayc all agret'd that agencies will submit
comments to NAS. not only )~P A. ]

Your letter expressed concern that a perchlorate standard might be years away
because of the time necessary to complete a SDWA standard, in addition to the time
required for the NAS study to be completed. We understand this concern, and support
EPA's efforts to move forward to promulgate a standard as expeditiously as.. possible. In
the meantime, we will work with EPA and the States to address any situation where there
is agreement that perchlorate poses an imminent and substantial danger to the public.
(OIRA: Perhaps it might be useful to say something here about how the provisional
range can be used as a screening tool in site-specific risk assessment activities, ie for
cleanups conducted under CERCLA. Thus moving the focus away from the MeL
which is years away, but focusing on the fact that cleanups can currently be conducted
where necessary. [ Can't ngn'e to this as a maUel' oflaw.) More should be mentioned
regarding current cleanups as well as actions being taken at the Henderson facility. ) I
What we provide in the following paragraph is appropdate. We do 1I0t have cleanup I"csponsibility
at the Hl'ndcrson facility, at least not din'edy. This is a matter to bring to Kerr-MeGee's attention,
not the Department.)

You also expressed concern that the Department is not currently participating in the
funding of private cleanup activities at sites such as the Henderson facility. As you
know, existing laws provide well-established mechanisms by which private parties can
recover from the Department cleanup costs that are our responsibility, which are
available to private parties who believe that the Defense Department should participate in
the cost of perchlorate cleanup activities. Our RRPI proposal would have no effect on
these provisions. (OIRA: .. .does not address concerns regarding the Colorado River
and Henderson facility. DoD should discuss what is happening at that site.) I See
comment pmvided above.)

Finally, you have requested a detailed response on high-priority sites involving

perchlorate in drinking water, and the initial measures the Department might take to
address them, given available funding. This information is currently being collected. I
have asked the Deputy Under Secretary (Installations & Environment) to provide a list to
you of active installations containing the information you requested on an expedited
basis, which I expect would be by late May. (OIRA: the response shouldfocus more
on DoD cleanup efforts and what is currently being done. The boxer letter talks about
concerns regarding cleanup responsibilities as well as delays in cleanup while waiti~g
for a drinking water standard. DoDs response to the delay concern states only that they
support EPA efforts to moveforward. It would be beneficialfor DoD to respond to this
in a positive fashion by mentioning the types ofcleanups that are currently occurring.
This could tie into the section where DoD discusses the $25million they spend on
treatment technology.) I We intend to IH'ovide the Senat<H's with a list of sites we nre ~lddressing
at this tim(~. It is 110t however appropriate to discuss cleanup, in absence of a cleanup standard.
Wc a,'c currently cxamining a way forward with OMB, but be~'ol1d that, cannot address at this
time·l

The Department is the environmental steward of over 25 million acres of land that
have been entrusted by Congress to the Department to use efficiently and to care for
properly. In executing these responsibilities we are committed to full compliance with
the applicable laws and regulations. We are committed to protecting, preserving, and,
when required, restoring, and enhancing the quality of the environment. Through the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), we are cleaning up contamination
on our installations and are building a new program to address unexploded ordnance on
locations off of operational ranges.

The fact that the Department has invested in excess of $29 million on perchlorate
research and treatment technology development (EPA: as previously stated, probably
only 50% of it was devoted to helath studies) I Sec previous commentl is a clear
indication of the Department's commitment to protect the health of the American people,
This commitment is further supported by our continued partnership with EPA to ensure
that the Nation's leading scientists are provided an opportunity to review the perchlorate
database. Such a review will ensure that risk characterization and subsequent risk
management decisions are, in fact, based on sound science.

The Department is committed to sustaining U.S. test and training capabilities in a

manner that fully satisfies our military readiness mission, is protective of human health,
and provides exemplary stewardship of the lands and natural resources entrusted to DoD
by Congress. A similar letter has been provided to Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer.

Sincerely,

Enclosure
Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
Washington, DC. 20510

Dear Senator Reid,

Thank you for your recent letter in which you expressed concerns that the
Department of Defense's (DoD's) proposed Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative
(RRPI) legislation will limit our legal responsibility to address Defense-related
perchlorate contamination in drinking water supplies. The Department is committed to
sustaining our test and training capabilities in a manner that fully satisfies the military
readiness mission, is protective of public health both on our installations and in
neighboring communities, and provides exemplary stewardship of the lands and natural
resources entrusted to the DoD by Congress.

Perchlorate regulation may impact the ability of the Defense Department, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and other agencies to execute
fundamental aspects of their missions. Perchlorate is a chemical that has been used in
various items, including missile and rocket propellants, munitions, fireworks, flares,
fertilizer, automobile airbags, and pharmaceuticals. Perchlorate has important
applications for national defense and space exploration. While it is clear that defense and
space uses dominate perchlorate production, the number of sites at which low levels of
perchlorate are detected is increasingly associated with non-defense and non-space uses.

It is, however, correct that perchlorate's national defense applications are of

fundamental importance to national security. Perchlorate salts are the primary oxidizers
in composite propellants and explosives. They are critical to the safe and effective
performance of systems ranging from tactical missiles such as Sidewinder, AMRAAM,
and Tomahawk to strategic missiles such as Minuteman, the Space Shuttle boosters, and
all boosters in development for national missile defense. Over 100 rocket motors
currently in production use perchlorate, as do a very large array of weapons and weapons
systems ranging from smoke, obscurant, flare, and illumination devices to grenades,
projectiles of all kinds, mines, high explosives, and even cartridges-hundreds of types
of munitions and weapons in all. No satisfactory substitute for perchlorate in these
applications currently exists.
 Your letter expresses concern that the Department's proposed RPPI legislation
could limit its financial liability or cleanup responsibilities with respect to perchlorate.
Nothing in RRPI affects the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which gives the US
Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to take such actions as it "may deem
necessary to protect the health" of persons facing "an imminent and substantial
endangerment" resulting from a contaminant that is present in, or is likely to enter, a
public water system or an underground source of drinking water. These actions are
enforceable by civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day. Because this authority is not
limited to CERCLA "releases" or off-range migration, it empowers EPA to issue orders
to address endangerment either on-range or off-range, and to address possible
contamination before it migrates off-range.

Some observers have also expressed concern that RRPI could protect DoD
contractors from liability for cleanup of perchlorate or other chemicals. This was not the
intent of our proposal, and as DoD testified recently before Congress, EPA and DoD have
developed revised legislative language making this point unambiguously clear.

Since 1997, the Department, in partnership with EPA, NASA, State and local
regulators, and Native American tribes, has worked aggressively to determine whether
low-level perchlorate exposure poses a hazard to the American public, and to inform and
involve stakeholders about research developments in this area. The Administration is
committed to developing health risk assessments that are objective, realistic, and
scientifically balanced, and basing risk management decisions on this scientific
foundation.

The Department has spent some $4 million on research into the potential health
effects of perchlorate, the conditions under which these risks might arise, and the extent
to which there may be subpopulations of special vulnerability. In doing this, DoD
worked closely with EPA to establish the research agenda and study protocols. As a
result of this close cooperation and DoD's proactive participation, the science needed to
characterize the potential risk associated with low levels of perchlorate exposure was
generated in an accelerated manner. DoD has also invested over $25 million to develop
innovative treatment technologies for perchlorate, irrespective of whether the chemical
posed a risk.

DoD and scientists have significant disagreements with some of the inferences and
conclusions in EPA's January 2002 draft perchlorate health assessment document, which
contains preliminary risk estimates that could be used to establish an official Reference
Dose (RID). Enclosed, please find a copy of the testimony that the Department
presented to the California State Senate concerning perchlorate research. The
Department continues to work with EPA and other stakeholders to develop scientifically­
defensible decisions regarding perchlorate use, assessment, and cleanup.
·With the full support of DoD, NASA, and the Department of Energy, EPA has decided to
submit the perchlorate health science issue to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS)
in order to resolve several underlying scientific questions. EPA has informed us that it
will complete and disseminate a final risk assessment when the NAS scientific review is
concluded and the NAS comments are addressed.

Your letter expressed concern that a perchlorate standard might be years away
because of the time necessary to complete a SDWA standard, in addition to the time
required for the NAS study to be completed. We understand this concern, and support
EPA's efforts to move forward to promulgate a standard as expeditiously as possible. In
the meantime, we will work with EPA and the States to address any situation where there
is agreement that perchlorate poses an imminent and substantial danger to the public.

You also expressed concern that the Department is not currently participating in
the funding of private cleanup activities at sites such as the Henderson facility. As you
know, existing laws provide well-established mechanisms by which private parties can
recover from the Department cleanup costs that are our responsibility, which are
available to private parties who believe that the Defense Department should participate in
the cost of perchlorate cleanup activities. Our RRPI proposal would have no effect on
these provisions.

Finally, you have requested a detailed response on high-priority sites involving

perchlorate in drinking water, and the initial measures the Department might take to
address them, given available funding. This information is currently being collected. I
have asked the Deputy Under Secretary (Installations & Environment) to provide a list to
you of active installations containing the information you requested on an expedited
basis, which I expect would be by late May.

The Department is the environmental steward of over 25 million acres of land that
have been entrusted by Congress to the Department to use efficiently and to care for
properly. In executing these responsibilities we are committed to full compliance with
the applicable laws and regulations. We are committed to protecting, preserving, and,
when required, restoring, and enhancing the quality of the environment. Through the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), we are cleaning up contamination
on our installations and are building a new program to address unexploded ordnance on
locations off of operational ranges.

The fact that the Department has invested in excess of $29 million on perchlorate
research and treatment technology development is a clear indication of the Department's
commitment to protect the health of the American people. This commitment is further
supported by our continued partnership WIth EPA to ensure that the Nation's leading
scientists are provided an opportunity to review the perchlorate database. Such a review
will ensure that risk characterization and subsequent risk management decisions are, in
fact, based on sound science.

The Department is committed to sustaining U.S. test and training capabilities in a

manner that fully satisfies our military readiness mission, is protective of human health,
and provides exemplary stewardship of the lands and natural resources entrusted to DoD
by Congress. A similar letter has been provided to Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer.

Sincerely,

Enclosure
Unknown

From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Wednesday, May 07,2003 16:08
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC;
Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGe; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD·ATL; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; 'Dan
Kowalczyk'
Subject: RE: OMB/EPNDoE responses on the Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid Letter

I've inserted the responses we discussed (blue text) into the redline/strikeout version containing OMB/EPNDoE's

~
OMB-EPA-DoE
lithDoD responses."
comments and changes, for use with OMB.

-----Original Appointment----­
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Wednesday, May 07,2003 10:50 AM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/lE; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Ledbetter, George,
COL, DoD OGC; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; Dan Kowalczyk
Subject: OMB/EPA/DoE responses on the Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid Letter
When: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:00 PM-3:00 PM (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time (US & Canada).
Where: 3C765

We've received comments from OMB, from OIRA, EPA, and DoE. We'd like to meet to
discuss comments and our responses at 2:00 PM today if possible, in Kurt Kratz's
office. Rick, Dan, we can try to include you by phone, if you wish.

sc
«File: DOD Draft Response to Boxer 050503_comments.wpd» «File: Draft Response to
BoxerOlRAedit.doc» «File: DoE.doc»

1
Honorable Harry Reid
United States Senate
Washington, DC. 20510

Dear Senator Reid,

Thank you for your recent letter in which you expressed concerns that the
Department of Defense's (DoD's) proposed Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative
(RRPI) legislation will limit our legal responsibility to address Defense-related
perchlorate contamination in drinking water supplies. The Department is committed to
sustaining our test and training capabilities in a manner that fully satisfies the military
readiness mission, is protective of public health both on our installations and in
neighboring communities, and provides exemplary stewardship ofthe lands and natural
resources entrusted to the DoD by Congress.

Perchlorate regulation may impact the ability of the Defense Department, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and other agencies to execute
fundamental aspects of their missions. (OIRA Suggest deleting: As you know,
perchlorate salts are used as a combustion accelerant and explosives in solid-fueled
rockets and missiles, munitions, explosives, and pyrotechnics. DoD and NASA are far
from the only users of perchlorate: it has been used in numerous other items, including
fireworks, flares, automobile airbags, pharmaceuticals, and nitrate-based fertilizer
products. and replace wi agreed upon usage language: Perchlorate is a chemical that
has been used in various items, including missile and rocket propellants, munitions,
fireworks, flares, fertilizer, automobile airbags, and pharmaceuticals. Perchlorate has
important applications for national defense and space exploration. [Olmy, with the
change.) In addition, the response does not respond to the statement that "nearly" all
the perchlorate produced in the US is used by defense and space programs. Is this
true? can DoD provide us with a statistic (%usage). this would be informative.) rWhat
we can say is "'Vhile it is clear that defense amI space uses dominate perchlorate production, the
number of sites at which low levels of perchlorate aJ'e detected is increasingly associated witb nOll­
ddt'nse and non-space uses."1
-(EPA: Factually inaccurate. It is only in some caliche containing fertilizers. EPA
study conducted with the fertilizer institute has shown restricted usage of this type
of fertilizer for major crops. Manufacturer of Bulldog Soda (SOM) claims to
changed content as well. Suggest: and some caliche-based fertilizer products of
restricted usage.) [We have the NY State Department of Health and VSGS studies, that do 1I0t
agree with EPA's statements. No, this contradicts agreed UpOll sOUl'ces of information. EPA likes
to cite this study, seeming to side with a ll'ade commission]

(OIRA suggests 4eleting this paragraph: This is not nece~sary as a

question/statement regarding perchlorates national defense applications and national
security was not mentioned in the letter.) IThis information provides the neccessary bnlancc,
or a l'ounlerbalance, to the science emphasis pla{~(~ on this issue in the letter. J It is, however,
correct that perchlorate's national defense applications are of fundamental importance to
national security. Perchlorate salts are the primary oxidizers in composite propellants
and explosives. They are critical to the safe and effective perfonnance of systems
ranging from tactical missiles such as Sidewinder, AMRAAM, and Tomahawk to
strategic missiles such as Minuteman, the Space Shuttle boosters, and all boosters in
development for national missile defense. Over 100 rocket motors currently in
production use perchlorate, as do a very large array of weapons and weapons systems
ranging from smoke, obscurant, flare, and illumination devices to grenades, projectiles of
all kinds, mines, high explosives, and even cartridges-hundreds of types of munitions
and weapons in all. No satisfactory substitute for perchlorate in these applications
currently exists. (EPA: NASA article (see attached) suggests paraffin-based
replacement offers increased control of burn and is better for environment.) [no not
accept. EPA is not an authority on this sub.ied and should not attempt to opine on possible
ah{~rnatives. DoD is in the process of evaluating alternatives, but t·here are arc no CUrI'ent safe
substitutes.]

Your letter expresses concern that the Department's proposed RPPllegislation

could limit its financial liability or cleanup responsibilities with respect to perchlorate.
Nothing in RRPI affects the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which gives the US
Environmental Protection Agency broad authority to take such actions as it "may deem
necessary to protect the health" of persons facing "an imminent and substantial
endangerment" resulting from a contaminant that is present in, or is likely to enter, a
public water system or an underground source of drinking water. These actions are
enforceable by civil penalties of up to $15,000 per day. Because this authority is not
limited to CERCLA "releases" or off-range migration, it empowers EPA to issue orders
to address endangennent either on-range or off-range, and to address possible
contamination before it migrates off-range.

Some observers have also expressed concern that RRPI could protect DoD
contractors from liability for cleanup of perchlorate or other chemicals. This was not the
intent of our proposal, and as DoD testified recently before Congress, EPA and DoD have
developed revised legislative language making this point unambiguously clear.

Since 1997, the Department, in partnership with EPA, NASA, State and local
regulators, and Native American tribes, has worked aggressively to detennine whether
(EPA) low le~Tel ambient contamination (what is a "low" level for endocrine
disruption when hormones by definition are designed to act at nanomolar and
picomolar levels?) I Dol) has three problems with thesl' changes: 1) the notion that EPA is
advancing that any level of pel'chlorate could be a l"isk. not recognizing that there could be a
threshold at ~which perchlorate could C~IUS(' a risk; hence the term. "mllbil'nt" as opposed to '4low­
level",2) that perchl()I·at(· is an endocrine disruptor: th('I"e is no ('viden,~(' to that efl'ect. and 3) the
use ofthe ternl contamination. jnste~uj of exposure. I perchlorate pose exposure poses a
hazard to the American public, and to inform and involve stakeholders about research
developments in this area. The Administration is committed to developing health risk
assessments that are objective, realistic, and scientifically sound balanced, to serve as
the basis of credible and basing risk management decisions on this scientific
ffimHiati&n. 'Suggest we preserve September 2001 OMH guidance on .·egulatory review, that
requirc.'s "scientifically balanced' and "basing risk management decisions on these (~bjective,
realistic, and scientificall~· balanced" assessments.)

(OIRA: This paragraph leads the reader to believe that most o/the 29$ million is
spent on human health research, where in/act 25$ million goes to treatment
technology development, thus it needs to be reworked. Suggested edits are: The
Department has been at the fOf'eft'ent efactively involved in research into the potential
health effects of perchlorate, the conditions under which these risks might arise, and to a
limited extent, whether the exteut to which there may be subpopulations of special
vulnerability (EPA: DoD asked that the studies addressing special vulnerability be
thrown out, e.g., the developmental neurotoxicity studies). DoD has invested over
$29 million to develop innovative treatment technologies and helped ~ better
characterize the potential human health and environmental risks associated with
perchlorate, and t6 develep inn6vative treatment teehn6legies (EPA: the majority of
this cost is for treatment technology used for recovery and not for "low" level
operations.). The Deptlt'tment ntIS "'tide tI signiflCiHft invesHflent in pCl'ChleMte
t'CJ«led f'eseflf'Clt. In doing this, DoD worked closely with EPA to establish the research
agenda and study protocols; DeD scientists have themselves c6ndueted many
independent studies 16 assess the p6tentiall'islfs llnd effects Q-fpel'Ch/ef'{lte exp6SIIFC.
IAgn'e in pat·t; we will revise the til'st sentence to read "The Department hns spent some $4 million
on l"t'seal"ch into the potential health effects of perchlorate, the conditions under which these risks
might arise. and the extent to which there m~Q' be subpopulations of special vulnerahility." "In
doing this. Dol) worked closely with EPA to establish the reseal"eil agenda and study protocols."
(add the following from the next paragraph"As a result ofthis close cooperation and DoD's
proactive participation, the science needed to charactedze tltl' potential risk associated with low
levels of perch «)l'ate exposure was generated in all accelerated manner." "Dol) has also invested
o\'er $25 million to develop innovative treatm('nt technologiC's for perchlontt", irrespective of
wlwther the chemical posed a risl.., "J
(OIRA: This paragraph is not necessary. Perchlorate is not on the IRIS
database thus comparing a draft assessment to this database is irrevelant. Suggest
deleting it all.) [Ok1IY] As a result of this close cooperation and DoD's proactive
participation, the science needed to characterize the potential risk.ffflm. associated with
lew- ambient levels of perchlorate exposure was generated in an accelerated manner.
The resulting perchlorate database is more robust than many in EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS), as evidenced by estimations of overall confidence~ size of
uncertainty factor, and types of available data. Particularly helpful is the availability of
the developmental neurotoxicity studies which assess the key endpoints of concern
and human pharmacokinetic data that allowed the AFRL to develop interspecies
extrapolation models. human eUnica. trial data whieh pernlit the derivation of safe
exposure levels without having to rely on highly uncertain and conseF\'ative
extrapolations from llnimals, in this ease ruts. ( EPA:-Disagree. The extrapotations
were far from 'highly uncertain' and 'conservative' because: (1) The human and
lab animal data give the same estimates (2) the human data tell us nothing about
susceptible populations (3) rats are not sensitive for neurotoxic effects, in fact, they
may be insensitive (4) these are not clinical trials designed to give pharmacokinetic
information for modeling puposes and (5) the RID estimate is not an estImate of a
"safe exposure level.") IEJ~A's points are true only if you manipulate the uncertainly factors.
This is the heart of our dispute. \Ve don't bdieve the extnlpolation models art' approl?riate.
EPA's changed text sl{ew the fads, suggesting that the human data was only intended to populatl'
Iheir animal model. We've 110t been persuaded this point is trltt.' at all.]
(DoE: ... [fhis paragraph is] confusing to the flow of the response. The thoughts of the
response paragraphs as written say DOD has been working proactively on science with
EPA; that the perchlorate database is robust, especially with respect to human clinical
trial data; and that DOD has genuine and well-founded disagreements with EPA's draft
health risk assessment. We think the paragraph that suggests the perchlorate
database is robust is confusing, in that one could infer that this robust human clinical
trial information was used in EPA's draft health risk assessment -- and be confused
when DOD then suggests they have disagreements with EPA. We recommend deleting
the paragraph on the database, so the flow would read that DOD has been working
proactively on science with EPA; and that based on that science, DOD has genuine and
well-founded disagreements with EPA's draft health risk assessment.)

DoD scientists !laye genuine and well/6unded disagreements with some o-fthe
inferences and ceHclusions in EPA's January 2002 dffljtpe1'Ch/erate health
assessment OOCflment, which con/Bins preliminBry ris« estimales that could he used to
estBq/ish an efflcia/ Reference Dese (RjD). IThis is an important point for DoD~ It hHS bt'cn
reported in tlw press, that the only thing DoD cares about is the money it will cost to ckanup these
sites. This just isn't the l'Hse. IJEPA doesn't want it to appear that they agree with this statement
suggest dmnging Ihe sentelll~e as follows: "Dol) and scicnlists have significant disagreements with
SOffit' of the inferences and conclusions in El'A's .January 2002 draft per'chlorate health assessment
document, which contains pr'eliminllry risk l'stimates that could be used to establish an official
Reference l)ose (RID). Enclosed, please find a copy of the testimony that the Department
presented to the California State Senate concerning perchlorate research en this
question. [okaYI The Department continues to work with EPA and other stakeholders to
develop scientifically-defensible decisions regarding perchlorate use, assessment, and
cleanup.
With the full support of DoD, NASA, and the Department of Energy, EPA has been
working to revise the 2002 dffljt lfeRlth aSsessment, and I okayJ has decided to submit the
perchlorate health science issue to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) in order to
resolve several underlying scientific questions (OIRA Incorporates DoE comment.)
EPA has informed us that it will complete and disseminate a final risk assessment when
the NAS scientific review is concluded and the 2002 peer and public review comments
as well as the NAS comments are addressed. (EPA: Let us not forget EPA still has the
last review panel comments to incorporate) [Do not agree with EPA's change to
this sentence. DoD is concerned what EPA might be inferring with this change; it
could suggest that EPA is leaving open the option of trumping the Academy with
other data. We have all agreed that agencies will submit comments directly to NAS,
not only EPA. I

Your letter expressed concern that a perchlorate standard might be years away
because of the time necessary to complete a SDWA standard, in addition to the time
required for the NAS study to be completed. We understand this concern, and support
EPA's efforts to move forward to promulgate a standard as expeditiously as possible. In
the meantime, we will work with EPA and the States to address any situation where there
is agreement that perchlorate poses an imminent and substantial danger to the public.
(OIRA: Perhaps it might be useful to say something here about how the provisional
range can be used as a screening tool in site-specific risk assessment activities, ie for
cleanups conducted under CERCLA. Thus moving the focus away from the MCL
which is years away, but focusing on the fact that cleanups can currently be conducted
where necessary. I Can't agree to this as a matter of law.) More should be mentioned
regarding current cleanups as well as actions being taken at the Henderson facility. ) I
'Vhat we p,"ovide in the folhrwing paragraph is appropriatt~. We do not have deanup responsibility
at the Hendcrson facility, at least not directly. This is a mattcr to bring to Kt'rr-McGee's attention.
not the I)epartment.l

You also expressed concern that the Department is not currently participating in the
funding of private cleanup activities at sites such as the Henderson facility. As you
know, existing laws provide well-established mechanisms by which private parties can
recover from the Department cleanup costs that are our responsibility, which are
available to private parties who believe that the Defense Department should participate in
the cost of perchlorate cleanup activities. Our RRPI proposal would have no effect on
these provisions. (OIRA: .. .does not address concerns regarding the Colorado River
and Henderson facility. DoD should discuss what is happening at that site.) r Sec
comment providt'd above.]

Finally, you have requested a detailed response on high-priority sites involving

perchlorate in drinking water, and the initial measures the Department might take to
address them, given available funding. This information is currently being collected. I
have asked the Deputy Under Secretary (Installations & Environment) to provide a list to
you of active installations containing the information you requested on an expedited
basis, which I expect would be by late May. (OIRA: the response should/ocus more
on DoD cleanup efforts and what is currently being done. The boxer letter talks about
concerns regarding cleanup responsibilities as well as delays in cleanup while waiting
for a drinking water standard. DoDs response to the delay concern states only that they
support EPA efforts to move forward. It would be beneficialfor DoD to respond to this
in a positive fashion by mentioning the types ofcleanups that are currently occurring.
This could tie into the section where DoD discusses the $25mi//ion they spend on
treatment technology.) I W(~ intend to provide the Senators with a list of sites Wt' art' addressing
at this time. It is not however appropriate to dis(~uss cleanup, in absence of a ckanup standard.
We are currently examining ~1 way fonv~lrd with OMB. but beyond that. cmmot address at this
time.'

The Department is the environmental steward of over 25 million acres of land that
have been entrusted by Congress to the Department to use efficiently and to care for
properly. In executing these responsibilities we are committed to full compliance with
the applicable laws and regulations. We are committed to protecting, preserving, and,
when required, restoring, and enhancing the quality of the environment. Through the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), we are cleaning up contamination
on our installations and are building a new program to address unexploded ordnance on
locations off of operational ranges.

The fact that the Department has invested in excess of $29 million on perchlorate
research and treatment technology development (EPA: as previously stated, probably
only 50% of it was devoted to helath studies) [ See previous commentj is a clear
indication of the Department's commitment to protect the health of the American people.
This commitment is further supported by our continued partnership with EPA to ensure
that the Nation's leading scientists are provided an opportunity to review the perchlorate
database. Such a review will ensure that risk characterization and subsequent risk
management decisions are, in fact, based on sound science.

The Department is committed to sustaining U.S. test and training capabilities in a

manner that fully satisfies our military readiness mission, is protective of human health,
and provides exemplary stewardship of the lands and natural resources entrusted to DoD
by Congress. A similar letter has been provided to Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer.

Sincerely,

Enclosure
Unknown

From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 200311:15
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFIIE; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC;
Ledbetter, George, COL, 000 OGC; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; 'Dan
Kowalczyk'
Subject: RE: OMB/EPNDoE responses on the Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid Letter

In addition to changes suggested in the attachments, OIRA also had general comments:

Nancy Beck
05/07/2003 09:19:22 AM

Record Type: Record

To: E. Holly Fitter/OMB/EOP@EOP

cc: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message

bcc:

Subject: Re: DoD Response to Senator Boxer on Perchlorate (Document link: E.

Holly Fitter)

Holly-
Attached are suggested edits to the DoD response. In addition to these edits, we have some
broader concerns we would like to see addressed:
- the response does not respond to the statement that "nearly" all the perchlorate
produced in the US is used by defense and space programs. Is this true? can DoD provide
us with a statistic (%usage). this would be informative.

-the response does not address concerns regarding the Colorado River and Henderson

facility. DoD should discuss what is happening at that site.

-the response should focus more on DoD cleanup efforts and what is currently being done.

The boxer letter talks about concerns regarding cleanup responsibilities as well as delays

in cleanup while waiting for a drinking water standard. DoDs response to the delay concern

states only that they support EPA efforts to move forward. It would be beneficial for DoD

to respond to this in a positive fashion by mentioning the types of cleanups that are

currently occurring. This could tie into the section where 000 discusses the $25million

they spend on treatment technology.

thanks,

Nancy

(See attached file: Draft Response to BoxerOIRAedit.doc)

1
•. Unknown

From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Thursday, May 08,200313:54
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFIIE; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Kratz, Kurt, ,OSD-ATL;
Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL
Cc: 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; 'Dan Kowalczyk'
Subject: FW: LRS Action - NDDI4995 - Department of Energy's Report on Perchlorate--OMB Request
for DoD Review.

NDI499S-DOE_Ltr_\IDI499S-Domenici'sNDI499S-DOE_Ltr_

on_Perchlorate... _incoming_It... on_Perchlorate...

Please see attached DoE response to_Senator Domenici's

letter on
Perchlorate. Comments to OMB by noon tomorrow.

-----Original Message----­
From: Buchner, Deanna, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 12:47 PM

To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Ferrebee,

Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Cc: Meehan, Patrick, Mr, OSD-ATL; Leonard, Donald, Mr, OSD-ATL

Subject: FW: LRS Action - NDDI4995 - Department of Energy's Report on

Perchlorate--OMB Request for DoD Review.

,, . ~
...
-----Original Message-----
From: LRS Tracking@acq.osd.mil (mailto:LRS Tracking@acq.osd.mil]

Sent: Thursday, May 08, 2003 12:29 PM

To: DEANNA.BUCHNER@osd.mil; DONALD.LEONARD@osd.mil;

Patrick.Meehan@osd.mil; Patricia.Huheey@osd.mil

Cc: laura.perritt@osd.mil; Ashleigh.Blair@osd.mil

Subject: LRS Action - NDDI4995 - Department of Energy's Repqrt on

Perchlorate--OMB Request for DoD Review.

** This is an automated e-mail msg, please do not reply. **

** Post any feedback via the links below. **

Subject: Department of Energy's Report on Perchlorate--OMB Request for

DoD Review.

Designator: NDDI4995

Suspense: 5/9/2003 1:00 PM

AT&L has the lead. If you wish to comment, please let us know.

- LRS Tracking System => http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/lrs.nsf/

- This LRS Action => http://emissary.acq.osd.mil/lrs.nsf/link/161p

1
,

The Honorable Pete V. Domenici

United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Domenici:

This responds to your January 3,2003, letter requesting information on the

possible impact of the chemical perchlorate on the Department of Energy (DOE).
Five DOE sites have suspected or confirmed low concentrations of perchlorate
contamination: the Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico;
the Pantex Plant in Texas; and the Energy Technology Engineering Center and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 in California. At DOE sites,
perchlorate contamination is associated with past, not ongoing, operations.

DOE has already issued a Record of Decision to clean up perchlorate

contamination at the Livermore site. Until we better understand the nature and
extent of perchlorate contamination at our other sites, we cannot accurately
estimate our cleanup liability or how it might be affected by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) draft reference dose.

We have not commissioned our own scientific review of EPA's draft risk
assessment, but we are aware of the controversy surrounding the science
underlying the assessment. We have two major concerns at this point. First, EPA
is still in the process of resolving issues regarding the underlying science to
ensure the perchlorate draft reference dose represents an appropriate risk range.
Second, States and EPA regions sometimes use draft standards in establishing
required cleanup levels for contaminated sites. This mean that the draft standard
could drive the cleanup process at affected agencies, even if the EPA eventually
adopt a different final standard.

Because of these concerns and because there are differing interpretations of the
science associated with the impact on human health from low level exposure to
perchlorate, on March 19,2003, EPA, DOE, the Department of Defense and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration requested that the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) review the science about the health impacts of
perchlorate. The federal agencies currently are working with NAS to finalize a
scope of work for the study. NSA preliminary has estimated that it will take 15
months to complete its study once the project is initiated.

If you have any further questions, please call me or Ms. Shannon D. Henderson,
,­

Sincerely,

Spencer Abraham
,

The Honorable Pete V. Domenici

United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Domenici:

This responds to your January 3, 2003, letter requesting information on the

possible impact of the chemical perchlorate on the Department of Energy (DOE).
Five DOE sites have suspected or confirmed low concentrations of perchlorate
contamination: the Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico;
the Pantex Plant in Texas; and the Energy Technology Engineering Center and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 in California. At DOE sites,
perchlorate contamination is associated with past, not ongoing, operations.

DOE has already issued a Record of Decision to clean up perchlorate

contamination at the Livermore site. Until we better understand the nature and
extent of perchlorate contamination at our other sites, we cannot accurately
estimate our cleanup liability or how it might be affected by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) draft reference dose.

We have not commissioned our own scientific review of EPA's draft' risk
assessment, but we are aware of the controversy surrounding the science
underlying the assessment. We have two major concerns at this point. First, EPA
is still in the process of resolving issues regarding the underlying science to
ensure the perchlorate draft reference dose represents an appropriate risk range.
Second, States and EPA regions sometimes use draft standards in establishing
required cleanup levels for contaminated sites. This mean that the draft standard
could drive the cleanup process at affected agencies, even if the EPA eventually
adopt a different final standard.

Because of these concerns and because there are differing interpretations of the
science associated with the impact on human health from low level exposure to
perchlorate, on March 19,2003, EPA, DOE, the Department of Defense and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration requested that the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) review the science about the health impacts of
perchlorate. The federal agencies currently are working with NAS to finalize a
scope of work for the study. NSA preliminary has estimated that it will take 15
months to complete its study once the project is initiated.

If you have any further questions, please call me or Ms. Shannon D. Henderson,
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental
Affairs, at

Sincerely,

Spencer Abraham
 Cl5 .. Cl7/(/J 15:59 FAX 2025885870
DOE GC-71
f-------------·-------

PETE V. DOMENICI 2003-00045"1 -1/14 A 11: 18 COMMmtl:Sj

NEW MEXICO BUDGET
APPFlOPlllA11ONS
ENERGY AND NA1VAAl

tinittd ~tatf.B eSrnatf IU:SOU~

INDI"'~ AFFAI~S

WASHINGTON. DC 206,6-3101 GO\lEIlNMEN1AL AFF....RS­

,-, Jcmuary 3. 2003

~eHonorable Spencer Abraham
Secretary, U.s. DeparuncntofEnergy
1000 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20585

Dear Mr. Secretary:

- 1 am writing to obtain infonnation on the po&&ible iD1psct of the chemical,

percbloraLc, Oll the Depazurient of Energy. Perchlorate is a CODtaminant lbat has beea
discovered jp numerous public water supplies throughout the southwest and in various '
other states in the United States. Ammonium perchlorate has been 'Used in, the
manufacture of rockets. Ilumitions 8JJd explosives. It is my UDdm.tanding that the U.S.
Envirorunental Protection Agency (EPA) pia to recommend lL reference dose that may
have significaot cost and operational impacts for federal agencies tha1 bave pm:hlorate
contamination issues.

EPA bas identified several sites across the nation with perchlorate contamioat:ion,
some of which include Departmear of Energy (DoE) sites aDd facilities. As a t'CSlllt,
please provide infonnUiOD on the e)ClM[ to which. DoE is affected by- perchlorate
contamination. Specifically,l am intet"CSted in learning about tb.e following:
• the number of sites that are potentially impatred and 1hciI locations.
• whether cleanup !or perchlorates has beec })revicusly required,
• the cleanup liability DoE wIll inc1lI' for FY03 and outlying years ifcleanup must
be completed to the EPA draft reference dose. and
• potential impacts to DoE operations thac would result if EPA's drat\. reference:
dose is adopted as a drinking "Water standard.

Finally. it is my ll11derstanding tha.t oth.er federal agencies bave held discussions

with EPA to ex.prCS$ concerns with its 2001 dIaft risk assessment [or pccehlorate, Please
provide any infon:naticn 00 whether:
• DoE hu conducted a scientific revitw of EPA·/; draft risk. assessment science,
• any concerns DoE may have with the draft risle assessment, and
• any d.iscussioD5 that DoE may have bad with EPA \Vim respect to perehlorate
standa:nis for cleanup activities.

_ •••MUI.QtlY/-<to",1lI\1cI
,,,,NTlO DM 1lIie'tC~ ,., EK
i

The Honorable Pete V. Domenici

United States Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Dear Senator Domenici:

This responds to your January 3, 2003, letter requesting information on the

possible impact of the chemical perchlorate on the Department of Energy (DOE).
Five DOE sites have suspected or confirmed low concentrations of perchlorate
contamination: the Los Alamos and Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico;
the Pantex Plant in Texas; and the Energy Technology Engineering Center and
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300 in California. At DOE sites,
perchlorate contamination is associated with past, not ongoing, operations.

DOE has already issued a Record of Decision to clean up perchlorate

contamination at the Livermore site. Until we better understand the nature and
extent of perchlorate contamination at our other sites, we cannot accurately
estimate our cleanup liability or how it might be affected by the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) draft reference dose.

We have not commissioned our own scientific review of EPA's draft risk
assessment, but we are aware of the controversy surrounding the science
underlying the assessment. We have two major concerns at this point. First, EPA
is still in the process of resolving issues regarding the underlying science to
ensure the perchlorate draft reference dose represents an appropriate risk range.
Second, States and EPA regions sometimes use draft standards in establishing
required cleanup levels for contaminated sites. This mean that the draft standard
could drive the cleanup process at affected agencies, even if the EPA eventually
adopt a different final standard.

Because of these concerns and because there are differing interpretations of the
science associated with the impact on human health from low level exposure to
perchlorate, on March 19,2003, EPA, DOE, the Department of Defense and the
National Aeronautics and Space Administration requested that the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) review the science about the health impacts of
perchlorate. The federal agencies currently are working with NAS to finalize a
scope of work for the study. NSA preliminary has estimated that it will take 15
months to complete its study once the project is initiated.

If you have any further questions, please call me or Ms. Shannon D. Henderson,
I;'

f
Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary for Congressional and Intergovernmental
Affairs, at (202) 586-5450.

Sincerely,

Spencer Abraham