Published May 5, 2003

Department of Defense Seeks Exemptions From Environmental Cleanup

Hidden in the Dept. of Defense Authorization Bill are exemptions from five environmental laws for DoD sites, including a provision that will excuse DoD from cleaning up perchlorate, a toxic rocket fuel ingredient, which contaminates drinking and ground water sources in the U.S. A newly released study by Environmental Working Group finds that the rocket fuel chemical potentially contaminates the nation's winter lettuce supply, which is grown with water from the Colorado River that has been contaminated by a former defense contractor site.

Congress begins working on this authorization bill the week of May 5, 2003 and has the power to require this mess be cleaned up by those responsible for it, or to hand them a get out of jail free card.

From an editorial in The Los Angeles Times:

Six years ago, after scientists found potentially toxic levels of the chemical perchlorate in two missile manufacturing plants in Utah and in several water wells in California, Agriculture Department officials proposed conducting a $215,000 study to investigate whether the Pentagon's use of the chemical in manufacturing rocket fuel during the Cold War could have caused the pollution. The Pentagon refused to pony up the money, less than one-quarter of the cost of a single cruise missile.

The complete article can be viewed at the LA Times website

The Wall Street Journal reports:

Last year, the EPA suggested perchlorate may pose health dangers to humans, particularly to infants, in drinking-water concentrations above one part per billion. The Pentagon and some of its contractors, which could face billions of dollars in cleanup liability for the contaminant, say perchlorate is safe in drinking water at levels to as much as 200 parts per billion. The Bush administration recently referred the debate to the National Academy of Sciences for further review.

In its current form, the Senate's defense reauthorization bill includes the administration's proposals to improve combat "readiness" by exempting the Pentagon and some of its private contractors from environmental laws on "operational training ranges." Opponents argue that could include nearly any site, whether publicly or privately owned, in use or not in use.

The complete article can be viewed at www.wsj.com (subscription required)

Additional Editorials

• SF Chronicle: At war with the environment?
• Charlotte Observer: Defense officials haven't shown pollution rules hurt readiness
• Star Tribune: War on environment -- Needless loopholes for the Pentagon