CREW: Department of Defense: Department of The Air Force: Regarding Perchlorate: Scanned Perchlorate October 2008 M

&./\..... .~. '.'.
'\.4'
.-. Outline
'41v
•••••.;~••••••••••••••••••••••••••••iIl l jl li4I.!&I.!,~,
_1.!&iII::h:,}"ili:4i.!il",JITi2PtJT1W15miftE"::i:;:t .J.S;, i: ;jX;~, :;: : t\1I~ ",; ; ; L;-")-"_"~ " -",~" ",_,~-, ", , ,=~, , , >,w~_ , " '," " ',"~u~,_~ " N, ,~, ~m.u.~.h-'N~ ~, ~ ~, " ,"m h,.~ ,'m, ,_
•.__ •. ,;.N.. __ .. . <'_._,.., ~.m~ ~ '<h_=-'-'~
..",>__ .-....;;l
Overview/History of:
• Animal Toxicity Studies
• Human Exposure Studies
• PBPK modeling
• Risk Assessment
31
;,~' \
'\ "
.A~'
,~ Provisional RfD (Dec 92)
~~.
'.' ktANM$c;/mamwm;:;;,t'j'j':'l1t<-.r _;::'-:Y';i"h-
• Correspondence to: EPA Region IX

", 1 1 -" e-- oj t --.-,',
• From: Superfund Health Risk !echnical Support Center (NCEA-

Cin)
• Principal study = Stanbury & Wyngaarden (1952)
• NOAEL = 0.14 mg/kg-day for 100% iodide release
• UF =1000
- intrahuman variability (10)
~ less than chronic data (10)
- database deficiencies (10)
• Drinkjng water equivalent level (DWEL) =
4 ppb based on 70 kg I 2 L water
32
l j
',,, Second Provisional RfD (1995)
.~.
~/"
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••IIII111I11111.IIlW.lIlIIlill-kI!lMil %filwil ,mwl!l !l?;,:l!lg«I\l:$I!l;~Ii -'·'I l,I!lI!l"'r;,;!-.~:i $;Ii -"/;ii"l'';Iio·/"ili'"'i i i ~'ili·;';"~Ili' ....,..i Ili"li"',it_ _......... """"""",,z_'_,'--_'_ _""_.""""'._d;;~_.-~_~_~__.·,·~_~~"";,,_".m_'~..u'~_R_ ~m"~_':"~~"~'~N_..z.
.•.
• Revision based on PSG submission to Superfund Health

Risk Technical Support Center (NCEA-Cin)
\
• Same principal study and NOAEL

• Different UF (new data available)
~ intrahuman variability (10)
- less than chronic data (10)
- database deficiencies decreased (3)
• DWEL =18 ppb based on 70 kg /2 L water

,
-resulted in action level of 18 ppb for

drinking water in CA (1997)
33
,i, j;;,
1998 EPA Draft Risk
''''4
•••. ~ Characterization Document
•••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••I111••••!Il,!!:X!!J.£!!!~!!!iEm:<r.!§'r1g2'4i11d'&!'J!,E"!!'JIlIl.I!ll:0.'1:L~Wlft'4tl~mYit2~iZ:,.::±1SL:.;ijZ~)...;~..:;~
__""".;~,,__ ~.~~·_·, ',·"'>_""'/~w;w'''''''''.."YU~,_n.',,.~,,_''',_·~·_'''"'''''·D.'''''',_'~'..w~mm._',;,~_,._'."_m_·~
__ ',_~~~."., ...~.,~,,~~=...:u,~~
• 0.1 mg/kg-day as lowest observed adverse effect level
(LOAEL) for thyroid histology in PND5 pups in .
neurodevelopmental study
• UF=100
- LOAEL to NOAEL (3)
- experimental animal to human (3)
- database deficiencies (3)
• DWEL = 32 ppb based on 70 kg I 2 L water
34
"\J\
~.l.•
.~
u.s. EPA Perchlorate Toxicity
First External Peer Review
egd,e";,,i'~'!~j:'-!'wr~?t*:-/"-':f ;"",> ,,;,>-/;, ..~:,~ ."':;;' j<..
• 10, 11 February 1999 in Ontar~o, CA

• Panel of 10 experts
• Reviewed studies initiated since May 1997
- Only half of studies were 1000/0 complete
- Preliminary Rat PBPK model only
• Reviewed Draft EPA Toxicology document
35
\a,J
. .. . .
~
,
Feb 1999 EPA
External Peer Review
2M t'+!}}fflADgr:,®?ryq?"~;":<f:':~'~:;'+:~ t m r
• Recommended additiona'i studies based on Major

Data Gaps' Remaining:
- Interspecies differences in perchlorate kinetics,
iodide inhibition and hormone response
- Determine relative sensitivity of fetal/postnatal
thyroid versus adult
• Recommended development of PBPK models,
especially human, to address data gaps
36
rt\\·
'\ ~
~J 2002 EPA Draft Risk

.-.-/'. Characterization Document
. £ttt'rtMk+\met.~¥§t'.f:,jry:,:rtr'W}"w;n )$~~'
• 0.01 mg/kg-day as lowest observed adverse effect I~vel

(LOAEL) based on effects on brain morphometry in pups
from PND21
• UF =300
- LOAEL(HEC) to NOAEL(HEC) (10)
- less than chronic data I data base deficiency (3)
- inaccurate characterization of immunotoxicity (3)
• DWEL =1 ppb based on 70 kg I 2 L water

37
\,,J
.
.".'.
/
Questions?
. . ,.J=i!?)fi4Wi¥JJ¥1?~::rr>~%&';Y-;':F'" _'' ;
Acknowledgements
• Deirdre Mahle
!t"" ~,<., '$;:' ,'" ;,; """U.wUU'=""_""""''''''''_~b·J''~'''''''_'''';_'~~ __''''_'__'_··_·' ' . ,,__ m_·_ _~,,- ~_·_
• Mel Andersen
• Tim Bausman • Jim McCafferty
• Rick Black • Elaine Merrill
• Gerry Buttler • Latha Narayanan
• Rebecca Clewell • John O'Lear
• Darol Dodd • Peggy Parish
• Eric Eldridge • Jennifer Riedel
• Jeff Fisher • Teresa Sterner
• Jeffery Gearhart • Paula Todd
• Dick Godfrey • David Tsui
• Chuck Goodyear • Susan Young
• Todd Ligman • Kyung Yu 38
INTERNAL DOD PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE
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 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

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 proceed.
None 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 m.ore
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 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 froIl} any risks caused by perchlorate.
• DoD does not support all of the conclusions of EPA's National Center
for Environmental Assessment draft perchlorate risk assessment
• DoD has invested 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, iIi- 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 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 RfDlDWEL

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 ofCalifomi~ 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.

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 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
intere~t 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 fu~ding 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
analytical method available could only detect perchlorate to 400 ppb. DoD
partnered with EPA in 1997 and sponsored work conducted by DoD labs 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 previou~ly, 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 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 numero~s

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 IS ,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 p.ot 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 Infonnation System (IRIS), as evidenced by estimations of overall
confidence, size of uncertainty factor, and types of available data. Furthennore,
TERA found that EPA's proposed perchlorate RID suggests that it is more toxic
than aldicarb (30-fold more toxic), arsenic (lO-fold more toxic), methyl mercury
(3-fold more toxic), and, warfarin (IO-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 infonnation about the
phannacology 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 honnone levels in male and female 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 is ·not an "endocrine disruptor" that mimics a normal
hormone.
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 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

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:

Many ofthe users of the property originally known as Rialto ASP have
conducted environmenta)ly sensitive operations actually or potentially involving
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 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 exa.mple, 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). DenovaIBroco was apparently in the business of demilitarizing
these devices.
DenovalBroco was one of several owners of the fonner Rialto ASP who
occupied the premises after they were sold by the Anny/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 program).
Other 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

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 contatrlination 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 of
bioreactor 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 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 environment,!-l 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.
We are 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.

We are committed to using the best available science to inform public

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 address'ing 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 CalEPA/OEHHA in its own review of potential perchlorate risks that
fully considers human data.

Message Page 1 of 1
Unknown
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 08:46
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE; Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSAIJACE
Subject: FW: DoD revisionOlRAedit111
Jeff, Dan,
Is Richard's statement consistent with what you know about our research?
Sandy
-----Original t'Jlessage----
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [mailto:
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 5:57 PM
To: 'Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL'
Subject: RE: DoD revisionOIRAeditlll
As I understand it, ODD-funded perchlorate health effects research has been focused on determining
the extent to which the fetus is especially vulnerable. To me, that is fully consistent with being
"focused on sensitive subpopulations." Indeed, since there isn't any risk to healthy adults (and EPA
does not claim that any such risk exists), virtually all of the research has been so focused.
RBB
-----Original Message--·-
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL [mailto:
Sent: Monday, 12 May 03 16:27PM
To:
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL
Subject: RE: DoD revisionOIRAeditlll
Thanks Rick, good comments. I'll include in our draft response.
-----Original Message----
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [mailto:
Sent: t'Jlonday, May 12, 2003 4:14 Pt'J1
To: Sandy Cotter
Subject: DoD revisionOIRAeditlll
Importance: High
Sandy,
t"ly comments in double underlined and double strikethrough. Please forward as

appropriate.
RBB ;2.U
I
8/24/2005
Message
•
Unknown
Sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 13:49
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-I&E; Rogers, Daniel,
Lt Col, AFLSAlPR; 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 Perchlorateflnland 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
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
9113/2005
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 Message,s)
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 we are


Recent media reports may have led to some confusion or misunderstanding about
no "recommended safety level for perchlorate in drinking water of lppb." The

• Perchlofate does not cause disease.
hormone.

rocket fuel and military munitions, is the least hazardous of known substances that


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 proceed.
None 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:


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.
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.
protected froIl). any risks caused by perchlorate.
• DoD does not support all of the conclusions of EPA's National Center
for Environmental Assessment draft perchlorate risk assessment
Written Testimony
health is not put at risk by military operations. Since 1997, DoD has been at the
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 sirrwltaneously considered
human health, analytical technology, treatment technology, and ecological effects.
DoD is committed to using the best available science to inform public

any risks caused by perchlorate and has acted responsibly. DoD, iIi conjunction
conduct the studies using the mutually agreed upon protocols. While DoD helped

conclusions. The Department believes EPA's draft 1 ppb RfDlDWEL

technology aspects of perchlorate. When FY03 expenditures are considered. that
$85 million San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund administered by the U.S. Anny
Corps of Engineers for remediation of Califomia and Texas water supplies.
compounds in their pure fonns of white crystalline solids. Perchlorate is highly

is used in commerclal applications including fireworks, airbags, road flares and
matches.

a source.


made possible the exploration of space and satellites that are used fpr everyday

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 'Yere
first being raised (??71) - need historical input from Lt Col Rogers
Despite scarce fu~ding and competing demands, DoD has invested its
investments to:




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

ppb range. The new database was peer reviewed, with the conclusion being that
developing an RID.

initiated a partnership w~th regulatory agencies and industry stakeholders intended
fund the research and tum over the data to regulatory agencies.
As was the case previously, DoD agreed to work with regulatory agencies to
fund the research and turn over the data to regulatory agencies. This joint
The new studies were conducted, the requested information generated, and
assessment in January 2002 which proposed a perchlorate RID equivalent to 1
factor from 100 to 300 despite the completion and analysis of the numerous

INTERNAL DOD PRE~DECISIONAL DRAFT
Compared to-many environmental chemicals, much is known about how

hyperthyroidism and thyrotoxicosis at doses approaching gram levels, levels that
are more than 15,000 times higher than EPA's draft RID. The previously

notes that perchlorate is !lot a carcinogen, a mutagen, a reproductive toxicant, nor
excreted in a matter of hours. Because of this short half~life, perchlorate is no

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), as evidenced by estimations of overall
confidence, size of uncertainty factor, and types of available data. Furthennore,
(3-fold more toxic), and· warfarin (1 O~fold more toxic). _

Greer study was constructed to take advantage of infonnation about the
phannacology of perchlorate generated by its long history of use as. a therapeutic

concluded that a No Effect Level in the range of 180-220·ppb. Other clinical and

there is no "recommended safety level for perchlorate in drinking water of 1ppb."
released into the environment. For instance:

• Perchlorate is·not an "endocrine disruptor" that mimics a nonnal
hormone.
INLAND VALLEY
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
I will not make specific . remarks regarding the situation ,there.
Background
The fonner Rialto Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) was begun in
land that wasn't needed for such an operation was leased out to local fanners for
PREDECISIONAL DRAFT 9 January 2003

fann buildings. None were disposed of and were used by DoD in addition to new
Fann Credit Administration in July 1946. The site is now divided into several
limited to:

conducted environment~lly sensitive operations actually or potentially involving

To detennine whether this was an eligible FUDS site, an Inventory
identified, real estate records are searched to verifY DoD ownership or control, and
eligible under the FUDS program and ifpotential projects exist.

present during the time of DoD ownership and control of the fonner Rialto ASP.
may have been indemnified for their activities. Therefore, in regard to liability,
the site appears to have little FUDS interest. The U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers,


ordnance components or fillers on the site. (Was perchlorate w~ed at this site? Was
it found, not found?)
Since the Inventory Project Report was done prior to the perchlorate issue,
the U.S. Anny 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 Anny facility.

Army facilities. For example, October 1,2002, an explosion and fire occurred at
site of the former Rialto ASP. The explosion and fire occurred during an EPA
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
Conclusion


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
This is an area where DoD has done a lot. Rather than slow-roll by waiting
technically possible to do the treatment required by the standard, DoD decid~d
Bioreactors
bioreactor systems-for treating process wastewater containing very high levels of
defense contractor facility near Brigham City, Utah. The first DoD facility to
groundwater was the former Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant (LHAAP) in
Karnack, Texas.
Ion Exchange
gathered as part of this effort indicate that perchlorate reducing bacteria are.


devices.
Penneable Reactive Barriers

Permeable reactive barriers (PRBs) are a groundwater cleanup technology
the wall. NWIRP McGregor has successfully demonstrated the ability ofPRBs to
substantially decrease the concentration of perchlorate in intercepted groundwater.
Phytoremediation
or degrade environment~l contaminants in soil, sediment, and water. Research
funded by the Air Force Aeronautic Systems Center (ASC) Engineering
Anny Operations Support Command and conducted by the University ofIowa,
confinn the ability~ofphytoremediation to remove perchlorate from contaminated
water and soils.
Soil Biotreatment
and put into lined pits. DoD is conducting field studies using both soil
CONCLUSION

risk by military operations. .

if' •
We are committed to using the best available science to infonn public

invested over $24 million for research into the analytical, toxicological. and
DoD's proactive position and role in addressing perchlorate issues has been

believing that it is the responsibility of regulatory agencies to do so.
We value the validity and worth of the toxicological infonnation generated

We also continue to believe that proper process and appropriate models and

taken by CalEPA10EHHA in its own review of potential perchlorate risks that

Unknown
11
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OS[).ATL
Sent; Tuesday, February 11, .2003 10:14
To: 'Richard B. Beller, Ph.D.'
SUbject: FW; EPA answers to questions on Perchlorate
Richard,
Please don't d~sseminate... comments from OMB.
;;~~;liifinal Message----- [mall to:

&
Sandra:
Here are my comments I sent to OMB's legislative reference division:
I am assuming from your e-mail cover sheet that DoD will get to see this
letter
with the question responses. They definitely have a stake in this and
soma of
the data refer to their properties.
1 have looked i~ over qUickly and have a few comment5:
Page 1 of letter (paragraph 3);
"The extent of exposure to

perchlorate in drinking water in the United
States is
not known and data are being collected at this time, but it may be
widespread. ~
1 think that last phrase is rather biased considering the first part of
the
sencance states ~hat the extent of exposure to perchlorate in drinking
water in
the US ie unknown. Can that phrase be dropped?
On pag~ ? of the first attachment providing the qU$stion responses, I am
concerned about the response to question (9).
The response never really answers the question about when EPA is going
to ,
finalize the RfD. Based On a high-level interagency official meeting
organized
by CEQ, EPA agreed to hold off on finalizing the RfD until the results
of the
NAS panel reviewing the Science behind EPA's health risk assessment are
comple~ed. ~hi$ is very important point to both DoD and NAS~.
On page 9 of the first attachment providing the question responSes, I

feel that
EPA mischaracterizes its in~olvement in cleanups (this is the end of the
response to question (15)).
"for federal facilities not on the NPL, a facility may be taking action
under
CERCLA authority delegated to it through Executive Order 12580, but it
1$ likely
that EPA would not be overseeing the action. w
1
- - - - - - - _ ..... -._...- - _....._....- - _.....- - -~._---_.- .. __ ....

Although EPA only' overs~es the cleanup on NPL sites, this statement is
misleading because it makes it sound like EPA is not involved at all in
non-NPL
cleanups. 000 funds at least one EPA person at each of its cleanup
sites (both
NPL and non-NPL) to be involved in the cleanup process. For example, at
Chanute
AFB, which is not currently.on the NPL, the DoD funds one EPA personnel
slot.
At least monthly, EPA, 000, and the state regulator team meet to discuss
progress on the cleanup and contractor performance.
Thanks!
Edna
2
Page 1 of I
Unknown
From: Cullison, Geoffrey D Cl I
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 12:46

{fl
To:
Cc: 1I•••II"."••
Gerry Kohns Esq (E-mail)
Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms. OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD.ATL:
Kratz, Kurt, ,OSD-ATL; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGe; Choudhury,
Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Marqusee, Jeffrey, Dr, 05D-ATL; Yaroschak, Paul J, ,IE; Dan Rogers (E
mail)
Subject: FW: Feinstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate
Importance: High
Gerry.
For your revIew and comment please. Important. Note suspense Is tomorrow.
For everyone,
I'd love to be able to open the reply to Boxer et at with "Dear Senator XXXXX, I am appalled that you, a lawyer
and a United State$ Senator, would sign out such an incredible piece of emotional drivel as your 2 April, 2003
letter to Secretary Rumsfeld. Had you, or your staff bothered to actually read the language of the RRPI initiative,
you would have known that ttlera Is no intention of the DoD using RRPI to avoid its legal obligations to address
perchlorate contamination on or off (etc..)
Crud!
Q
Geoff
Geoffrey D, C~lli$on. CNO N4j3D
llil So CI,o.k $, ,Arl"'ll"'~. VA 22lllN7l$
-----Origlnsl MEl"age----
From: COtter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL• • • • • • • • • • • •
sent: Wednesday, April 16, 200311:55
To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSO-ATl: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE; Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGe; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD~
ATL; Marqu5ee, Jeffrey, Dr, OSD-ATL: Yaroschak, Paul 3, , IE; Ganta, Krishna Mr ACSIM: Read, Marcia W Ms ASA·
I&E
Cc: 'Richard 8. Belzer PhD'; Cullison, Geoffrey 0, Mr, OPNAV; Ferrebee, Patrlda,
Ms, OSO·ATL; Turkeltaub, Robert, Mr, OSD-ATl; Wieszek, Victor, Mr, OSD-ATL
Subject: FeInstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate
All,
Attacned is letter to SeeDef from Senators Boxer, Feinstein, and Reid on perchlorate, s_nd a preliminary draft
response prepared by Booz·A1len. The letter was apparently mistakenly directed to Army for SecArmy response.
I've asked for Army to recllreet the aetlon 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 technolo9Y development?
Thanks,
SC
9/13/2005
04/16/03 IJ:14 FAX 703 614 5442 HQDA ODASA ESOH ~003
April 2, 2003
TheHon~~e~n&dR~fdd
Sc«et8rY of Defense
Department ofDefeD!e
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 20301 '
Dear SecTCtaIy Rumsfeld:

We write you to request that the Dcpartmc:nt ofDefense take a maR
aggr~vc and positive role in cJc:amng up defense-related pcrclUorate
c.ontaminatcd water supplies in as many as 22 states 1iom California a:nd Nevada to
Massachusetts and Maryland.
We arc; seriously cOncmed that the I)q3artmcut's proposed exemption from

mtv1ronmentallaws will limit its responsibflity to clean up perthlOl'3te. The state
officials who are.swarn to protect their citizens' drinking water nom perchlorate
and other threats have expressed alarm that their efforts will 'be preempted by your
amendment. See Statement of EdwiD F. Lowry, Director, California Dcp.artment of
Toxi~ SUbstaDco:ll Control Preplll'ed fln the House Com:mittf\~ on Armed Semccs,
Readiness Subcommittee (March 13, 2003); Letter from Colorado Attorney
General Ken Salazar to the HODorable Bob SIJrith. Senate Committee on
EI&'t'irow.u~J1t &. Public:: Works (Dec. 30,2002), This is a IIeriouli matter, because
perchlorate can impair thyroid fimctionmg and affect the physical arid mental
development of children.
To the best ofour knowledge, nearly all the perchlorate produced iJ\ the
United States over the last half ce;.ntury was used by the Department and our space
program. This means tbat ifthe Defense Department ducks :responsibility for its
actions here, the burocu will fallon hundreds of Americals oommunities whasc
residents will face not Only contamination of their drinkina watCT but the'
staggering costs ofcleaning up a problem they did Dot create. This is completely
tmateePtablc.
U05615 03'
00/t>0'd
04/16/03 11:14 FAX 703 614 5442 HQDA ODASA ESOH III 004
The plain truth is that the Department ofDefense has 10118 been not only the
primary consumer ofperchlorate, but also intimately involved in its tnanufaeturing.
FOI example, between 1951 :md 1962 the U.S. Navy owned and contraeted for the
operation of the largest perehlorate production facility in the country Located in
Henderson, NC\'ada. Even after relinquishing its ownmhlp ofthe facility, the
Department and its contractors continued to be the primary customers of its
perchlorate. Perchlorate from this faQlity it loaching iDto Lak!e Mead and the
Colorado River, impacting water suppliC6 in Califomia, ~ BDd Nevada. .
While aggressive cleanUp efforts are underway at the site, we are very concemed. ._._._. -- '
that the DepartmeDt has not actively engaged in cOQtribllbng to that cleanup.
The Depanment has alao been involved in many other .moos pm:blcnte
contamination sites in our states. The California Department of Realth Service.
has detected perchlonne in 292 public groundwater wells. the majority of which
arc located near facilities operated. by the Department or itS contractors.
The DeCense Depirtmc:n.t has said that it is not willinS to start clean..up of
perehlorate until there is a national standard. but finali2ing the standard is cmrenl1y
projected to take ycars. It is unacceptable for the Defense Department to adopt this
delay strategy while private parties and drinking water utilities adopt costly
moa:lUl'C8 to assure the purity of cirinlci.nS water supplies. Cor:npanic:s have already
spent millions on prioritY actions to reduce the threat to AmcriC8IIB - and we urge
the Defense Department to do so as well.
One obvious priority effort is to try to stem the flow ofJ'e!ch1oratc into the
Colorado ltiver from the Hcndcr30n faal\ty described above. KerrpMcGee, which
'operated the facility after the Defense Department, baa built a state-of·me an ion
exchange facility and taken other measUres in'an. attempt to ~s the problem.
Yet the D~rcn.w DopAl1mcmt bu done nothing. The fc:dcral pvemment cannot sit
idly by where its actions are affecting the quality or our drinldng water. .
We request that the Depanmont report bad to us on the top priority sitcl
around the country for it to reduce perchlorate contamination in drinking water,
and what initial measures the Department would take in California., Nevada,
Arizona, Texu and other states. given available funding. We' e~ a serious and
detailed response as warrants a potential threat to Americans' health.
8~'d
04/16/03 11:15 FAX 703 614 5442 IlQDA ODASA F.SOB ~005
We bope that you will join us in the spirit ofcooperation to address this
important issue. We look forward to hearing from you·as soon as possible:.
Sincerely,
~~"""'~_.J,..#Ge-'~ ..:
,.,
Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator
f-w U.s~ Senatar
EJe/9(!l'd
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 fimincial, 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 cle~rly cover on-range threats fro~ 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 d~inking 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 workeq closely with EPA to establish p'erchlorate 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,
Page 1 of2
Unknown
______• M_...·. .·.".· .
From: Kratz, Kurt, ,OSO·ATl

Sent; Monoay. Apr1l21, 200315:02
To; Cohen, Ben, Mr, OoOOGe
Cc: Sandra A Cotter
Subject: FW: FeinsteinlBoxer/Reid letter on Perchlorate
Importance: High
Ben,
Did you take this into account?
Kurt
·····Original Message-····
From; Koetz, Maureen, SES, SAF/IE
Sent: Wednesday, April 16,20035:08 PM
To: Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 aGe; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATl: COrnell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE
.Subject: fW: Feinstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate

Importance: High
Gentlemen,
I think this proposed letter Is very good, but It Is not the leiter needed for this situation. First. I believe we should
admit that the CERCLAIRCRA provisions were susceptible to these interpretations since we retained unilateral
authority to say what a range was. Yes. one has 10 stretch, but we shouldn't vaciUate between the OPPClSltion
being all wet and I am not a crook speeches. It also gets into a lot of detail that is not for SECDEF letter. 1
believe.
I think the testlmony in California said the right things. could we skinny it down to a letter? And I think this Is 1he
time to suggest that unsubstantiated assertions ot risk help no one. least of all states who wish to maintain the
economic base from operating industrial activities. We plan to take all appropriate responses to perchlorate, the
seience doesn't support it beil'l9 to levels being suggested. Maybe mention the EO and our view that risk
assessment numbers are good when they are subject to appropriate risk management review.
Thanks,
MK
·····Original Message·····
From: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE
sent: Wednesday, April 16,20032:36 PM
Tal Koetz, Maureen, SES, SAF/IE~ Ashworth, Richard, ltCol., SAF/IE
SUbject; FW: Feinstein/Boxer/Reid letter on Perchlorate
Import8nce~ HIgh
·····Original Message·--·
From: Cullison, Geoffrey 0 CIV [mallto• • • • • • • • • •
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 12:46 PM
To; Gerg Kohns ESNEomall)
Cc Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms; OSDpAiI.; COtter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; Kratl, Kurt, ,
OSD-ATL; COrnell, Jeff, Lt. COl., SAF/IEi COhen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGe; ChOUdhUry, Shah, Mr, OSO·ATL; Marqusee,
Jeffrey, Dr,OSO·ATL; Yaroschak, Paul 3, • lEi Dan Rogers (E-mail)
Subject; FW: Felnsteln/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate
Importance: High
_ _9_/l3f20:..::.0.;:....5_ _ -----_.
Page 2 of2
Gerry,
For your review and comment please. Important Note suspense III tomorrow.
For everyone,
I'd love to be able to open the reply to Boxer et a/. with "Desr Senator XXXXX, 'am appalled that you, a lawyer
and a United States Senator, would sIgn out such an incredible piece of emotional drIvel as your 2 April, 2003
letter to Secretary Rumsfeld. Had you, or your staff bothered to actually read the language of tbe RRPI initiative,
you would have 'mown that there is no intention of the 000 using RRPI to al/oid its legal obligatIons to address
perchlorate contamination on or off (etc..)
Crud!
Q)
Geoff
----Original Message---
Frain: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
sent: Wednesday, April 16, 200311:55

To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD~ATL; Cornell, .leff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGCi ChoudhUry, Shah, Mr, 0$0
ATL; MarQusee, Jeffrey, Dr, OSD·ATL; Yaroschak, Paul 3" IE; Ganta, Krishna Mr ACSIM; Read, MarcIa WM5 fl.SA
I&E
ee: 'RIchard B. Belzer PhD'; uillson, Geoffrey 0, Mr, OPNAVi Ferrebee, Patricia,
Ms, OSO'ATLi Turkeltaub, Robert, Mr, OSD-ATl; Wieszek, Vlctor, Mr, OSD-ATL
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-Allen. The letter was apparently mittakenly directed to Army for Sec;Army response.
,'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 t\\at if not mentioned in our response, could you add language aboul $25 M. the
Department has put towards technology development?
Thanks.
SC
9/1312005
04/16/03 11:14 FAX 703 614 5442 HQDA ODASA ESOH ~003
April 2. 2003
The Honorable Donald Rumsfcld

Seaetary of Defense
DepartmeDt ofDefeMe
The Pcnlagon
Washington, DC 203C11 .
Dear SecrcWy Rumsfeld~
We write you to request that the Department ofDefense tab a more

aggressive and positive role in cleaning up defense-related perchlorate
contaminated water supplies in 8$ many as 22 s1ates ftom California and Nevada to
Massachusetts and Mazyland-
We are seriously cOnc=ned that the DepartmCJIt', propolCd exmnption from

environmental laws wi1l1imir its responsibnity to clean up percl1lorate. The state
officials who are..swam to protect their citizens' drinking wster -from perchlorate
and otber threm have e~ed alann that their efforts will be preempted by your
amendment. See Statement ofEdwi:D F. Lowry, Director, California DcpartrtJt.nt of
Toxi~ SubstaDcos Control Prepared for the House Committf'lP. on Armed Services,
Readiness Subcommittee (March 13,2003); Letter from Colorado Attorney
Gonera1 Ken Salazar to the HODorable aob SQlith, Senate Committee on
Ell'lirowutlnt &. Public Works (Dec. 30, 2002}. This is a S.CriOU5 ~tter. because
perchlorate W1. impair thyroid functioning and affect the physical arid mental
development of children.
To the best oroW" knowledge, nearly all the pcrchlOTatcproduced in the

United States over the last half CQltury was used by the Department and our space
program. This means that ifthe Defeme Department dUcks responsibility for its
actioD! here, the burden will fallon hundreds of America's oommunities, whose
residents will face not Only contamination oftheir drinkina water but the
staggering costs ofcleaning up a problem they did not create. This is completely
unatcCJ)table.
U05615 03
80-1>0·d
04/16/03 11:14 FAX 703 614 5442 HCDA ODASA ESO" III 004
The ))1ain truth is that the Department ofDefense has lOllS 'been not only the
primary consumer ofperchlorate, but also intimately involved in its manufacturing.
For example, between 1951 mel 1962 tbe U.S. Navy owned and contracted fOl"the
operation of the largest perehlo[ate production facility in the countIyloc:atcd in
Henderson, NCVG. Even after relinquislring its ownership ofthe facility, the
Dep2l'tment and its contraetDrs continued to be the primmy customers of its
perchlorate. Perchlorate from this facility is leaching into LUe Mead and the
Colorado River, impacting water suppliC6 in Califomi" ~ and Nevada. .
While aggressive cltaDlJp efforts are underway at·the site, we are very concemed. ._._.~. -_ '
that the DepartmeDt has not actively engaged in ccmtribnting to that cleaup.
Th~ DepartrneDt has alao bc= involved in many other.moos perchlorate

contamination sites in our states. The California Department of Health Service.
lw derectedperc:hlotJte in 292 public groundwater wells. the majority of which
are located near facilltica operated. by the Department or: its eontrac.tors.
The Defense Deplrtmcnt has said that it is not willing to start clean..up of
pere'hlorate until there il a national standard. but finalizing the standard is cUJ'I'ently
projected to take years, It is \m8cceptable for the Defense Department to adopt thi~
delay strategy while private parties and d.riclcing watcl' utilities adopt costly
moa:lUfC8 to assure the purity of drinkin, ....ater supplies. Companies have already
spent millions on ptiority actions to reduce th~ threat to Amcricau - and we urge
the Defense Department to do so as well.
One obvious priority effort is to try to stem the flow of~orate into the
Colora.do lUver from the Henderson facility described above. Kert~McGeei which
'operated the facility after the Defense Dcpartmem, baa built a. atatc-of-d1e Ut ion
exchange facility and taken other mcasUrC$ iIian attempt to address Ihe problem.
Yet the D~r~Oopamn~t_ clone nothina. The: fcdcra1 fOVemment cannot sit
idly by whac its acnoDs iR affecting the quality o~ our drinldDg water. .
We request that the Deparlmont report back to us on the top priority rites
around the country for it to reduce perchlorate contamination in drinking water,
and what initial measures the Department would take in California, Nevada,
Arizona. Texu and other states, given available funding. We expect aserious md
detailed response as warrants a potential threat to Americans' health.
8B/S0'd
04/16/03 11:15 FA! 703 614 5442 HQDA ODASA F.SOB ~005
We hope that you wiU join us in the spirit of cooperation to address this
important issue. We look forward to hearing from you·as !lOOn as possible.
Sincerely,
,." . .""'-.....J~iC...,;J,z:
Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator
Dear Senator XXXXX,
that fully satisfies that military readiness mission, is protective of public health, and
DoD by Congress.
affect the Department's financial, cleanup, or operational obligations with respect to
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 facilitv." Such orders are in addition to
'"
injunctive relief, and are enforceable by fines of $25,000 a day. Nothing in the program
affects EPA' 5 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 fraIT! perchlorate or any other
chemical.
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
enforceable by civil penalties of up to $15,000 a day. Because this SDWA authority is
possible contamination before it migrates off-range. In the event that perchl'orate 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.
reached the fencelines of our ranges, or that it at least reflects a DoD policy to defer any
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 qnd a pathway on (]
installation[s] where it could threaten public health."
invested over $25 million to better characterize the potential human health and
technologies. DoD workeq closely with EPA to establish perchlorate study goals and
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
organizations are actively discussing how to obtain a disinterested, objective aoo
assessment and to prOVide clear answers to State and local government leaders, water
utility officials and address public concerns about perchlorate.
and resources. Dop 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
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP) we are cleaning up contamination
from past practices on our installations and are building a whole new program to
Let me close by reiterating that the Department is committed to sustaining U.S.

mission, is protective of human health, and proVides exemplary stewardship of the
Sincerely,
Page 1 of:!
Unknown

Sent: Wednesday, Aprl116, 200316:05
To: 'Richard B. BelZer PhD'; 'Kowalczyk Daniel'
Cc; Pat Ferrebee (E·mail); Weszek, Victor, Mr. OSD-ATL; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATl; Kratz, Kurt.
,OSD-ATl: Turkeltaub, Robert, Mr, OSO-ATl

SUbJect: FW; Feinstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate
RicK, Dave.
Please see Army comments. lill be out of the office tomorrow, but will be back in on Friday. Please revise per
Ben Cohen!s prepared testimony, sent to you previously. Paul Yaroschsk's comments, and Army comments, and
provide revised draft back to Pat Ferrebee and Vic Wleszek tomorrow, AM. They will send out revised version oul
to components for review and comment.
se
----Original Message----
From: Bell, David E Mr OGC [mallto
sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 3:51 PM

To: Read, Marcia W Ms ASA-l&E; Teller, Craig E COL LITCTR
ce: Holsinger Nathan S. [Shawn] [TRADOC) (E-mail); LovejoYI James K COL Dell; 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
MarcIa: •
Plel!lse see my embedded comments and edits. We need to be very careful NOT to fait into the trap that
perchlorate is per S8 a HS sUbject to CERClA I also note my discomfort with suggesting that R.CR.A could be
used -- don't think it's necessary 10 go there. I would limIt Ihe response to one similar to Sen's testimony.
Dave
Cc: Ganta, Krishna Mr ASA-I&E; Buescher, John Mr ASA·I&E; Cotter, sandra Ms OSD-ATl
SUbJect~ FW.: Feinstein/Boxer/Reid letter on Perchlorate
Ail-
Please reView Ihe attached proposed reply and provide cmtslconcurrenc::e "to John Buescher by Thursday, April
17..
Matt-Can you consolidate cmts and ~ovlde to Sandy Cotter?

Marcia
-----Orlginal Message---
From: Cotter, Sandra Ms OSD-ATL
Sent~ WednesdaYI April 16, 2003 11:55 AM
To: Krat2, Kurt OSO-Ail; Cornell, Jeff, It. Col., SAFflE; Cohen, Ben Mr 000 OGC; ChoUdhury, Shah Mr OSD-ATL;
Marquie8, Jeffrey Dr OSD-ATLi Yaroschak, Paul J IE; Ganta, Krishna Mr ASA-I~; Readl Marcia W Ms ASA-I8&E
ee: 'Richard B, Belzer PhD'; CUlllsonl Geoffrey 0 Mr OPNAV; Ferrebeel Patricia Ms
OSD-ATl; TUrkeltaub, Robert Mr OSD-ATl; Wieszek, Vietor Mr OSC-ATl
Subject: FeInstein/Boxer/Reid Letter on Perchlorate
9/13/2005
Page 2 of2
All,
Attached is letter to SecDef from Senators Boxer, Feinstein, and Reid on perchlorate, and a preliminary draft
response prepared 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 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
9/13/2005
04/16/03 11:14 FAX 703 614 5442 HODA ODASA ESOH il QOJ
,:1 ~: Q2
April 1, 2003
The Honorable Donald Rumsfe1d

Seaetary of Defense
DepmttnCDtofDef~e
The Pentagon
Washington, DC 203111 .
Dear SccrcWy Rumsfeld:

We write you to request that the Dcpanmcnt ofDefense ta'ke a more
aggressive and positive role in ckaning up defense-related pcrc:.h1orate
contaminated water supplies in as many as 2.2 stat" from California and Nevada to
Massachusetts and Maryland
We are lIcriously cOncemC'<i that the ~arunCDt'S Faposod exemption from

cnvironmentallaws will limit its responsibnity to clean up pen:hlorate. The state
officials who are.swam to protect their citizens' drinking water from perchlorate
and other ~ have expressed alarm that thetr effom will be preempted by your
amendment. See Smtcment ofEdwm F. Lowry, Director, California Dcp~ of
Toxtc Sub3'taDcos Control Prep:ared for the House Committ~~ on Armed Services,
Readiness Subcommittee (Much 13,2003); Lener from Colorado Attorney
General Ken Sala:z;:a:r to the HODorableBob SIJIith. Senate Cotnmittee on
Eu't'iruw1Jt:ot & Public Works (Dec. 30, 2002~. Th.is 19 a s.criOU& matter, 'because
perchlorate can impair thyroid funcoonmg and affect the physical arid mental.
develClpment of children.
To the best of our knowh:dgc, nearly all the perchlorate produced in 1he
Uni~ States over the last ba.lf taltwy was used by the Department and our space
program. This means that if the Defense Department ducks l'esponsib11ity for Its
actioD! here, the burden will fall on hundreds of America's oommunities, wb()sc
residents will face not only contamination ofthcir drinkina water but the
staggering cost. of cleaning up a problem they did not create. This is completely
unacceptable.
U05615 03
80/t>0'd
04116/03 11:14 F/Al703 614 5442 HQDA ODASA ESOH :2J 004
The J)Wn truth is that the Department of Defense has long 'been not only the
primary eon.NIIlCJ' ofperchl<nte. but also intImately involved In ita manufacturing.
Fm ex.ample, 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. Evrn after relinquishing its owncr&hip of the facility, the
Department and its contractors continued to be the primary customers of its
perchlorate. Perchlorate nom this facility it loaehing into l.Ue Mea.d and the
Colorado River, impacting water suppllCfi in California, ArizoDa and Nevada.
While aggressive cleanup efforts are underway at the site. we 3I!'C very conccmc4. ._._._. - - '
tha.l the Oepart:meDt has not acuvcly engaged in cOI)tn1nU:iDg to that elamup.
The DcparttneDt hn alao bCCD involved in many other serious perchlorate
c9nt:amin.arion sites in our states. The California Department of Hcslth ServiccJ
11M detected perchlorate in 292 public groundwater wells. the majority of which
ate 10cated near facilities operated by the Department or i.tS contractors.
The Defense Department has said that it is not willing to &tart clean-up of
perchlonte until there i& a national standard. but finalizing the standard is ourrently
projected to take yem. It is unacceptable for the Defense Depll1lDent to adopt this
delay .nrategy while pnvatc parties and dnnkin$ water utilities adopt costly
moa:lUrCS \0 assure the punty of dnnlanS water supJ)lics. Compani~ havo alroedy
spent millions on pnarity actions to re~ the threat to AmcriCIDLS - and we urge
the Defense Department to do 50 as weU.
One obvious priority effort is to try to stem the flow of ~ch1orat; into the
Colorado River from the Hr:nder3on facility described above'l!S.err.Mc~ which
'operated the facility after the Defense Department, baa built a. statc-of-tb.c~ ion
cxcbange facility and taken other mcasUre$ in' an attempt to addnss the problem.
y ~t the D~r~ DopAttmlmt bu done nothin£l. The federal pemnsent eannot sit
idly by where its actio~s are affecting tbe qualITy ot. our drtn.ldr1g \VatCt'. .
We request that the !>epanmont report bad to us on the top priority sites
aroIJDd the country for it to reduce perchlorate contamination in drinking water,
and what initial mcUW"Cs the Department would take in California, Nevada,
Arizona. lau and other states, given available funding We expect ascriouaand
detailed response as warranls 8 potential threat to Americans' health.
~'d
---------------------------.....,;._ ..
04/16/03 }1:15 FAX 703 614 5442 HQDA ODASA ES08 f€ 005
We bope that you wiU join us in the Epirit of cooperation to address this
important J3sue. We look forward to hearing from you as .9OOn as possible.
Sincerely,
,.,f~~......JI,..IC:;c..·.:J:(::
Dianne Feinstein
U.S. Senator
Ele/9l?J' a
Dear Senator XXXXX,
that fully satisfies tfla+.-its military readiness mission, is protective of public health, and
000 by Congress.
affect the Department's financial, cleanup, or operational obligations with respect to
b nJer Section J 06 of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,

Compen~;ation, and Liability Act (CER(LA), EPA has the authority to "issu[e] such
orders a~; may be necessary to pmtect public health and ",<,eHare and the environment"
\.... henc\"er it "determines that there may be an imminent and substantial endangerment
t(l the public health or welfare Of the erwironment becaw;e of an actual or thR'aft'lIed
rele,l~;t' of a hazarJoU?; substance from a facility." Such order!; are in addition to
injunctive relief, and are enforceable b.'1· fine~; of SJ5,OOO a day. Nothing in the program
affect!> EPA'!. authorit:· to is!;ue !;uch order:;, And because EPA'5 s'f...eeping section 106
authorit~, cover!; not only actual but "threatened relea!,e," our proposal 'Nould therefore
clearl~' enable EPA to addres!; ground\'~'ater contamination before the contamination
leave:; 000 land which i!; also the objective of DoD'~; e)(isting management policies.
Section 106 would also clearl:' ((wer on range threats fro~ perchlorate or any other
chemical.
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
enforceable by civil penalties of up to S15,000 a day. Because this SDWA authority is
possible contamination before it migrates off-range. In the event that perchlorate or an)'
other contamination from munitions migrates off range, states and citizens can U!il'
Resource ConselTation and Recoven' Act (RCRA) authority if the contaminatioA i~. not
addressed under CERCLA, as di!icussed above. Such RCRA authority ..vould include
on range measures needed to redress the migration.
reached the fencelines of our ranges, or that it at least reflects a 000 policy to defer any
section 106 of CERCLA to address threatened releases of hazardous substances clearly
empower the Agency to act before contamination leaves 000 ranges. In a;adition,
States and citizens e)wrcising RCRA authority unaer our RRPI RCRA provision
addressing off range migration could use that authority to enforce on range measures
neceS!iary 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 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."
l
invested over 525 million to better characterize the potential human health and
technologies. 000 worked closely with EPA to establish rerchlorate study goals and
the science needed to accurately characterize the risk from pechlorateperchlorate
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 000 scientists do not necessarily agree with all of the conclusions stated in
organizations are actively discussing how to obtain a disinterested, objective and
assessment and to provide clear answers to State and local government leaders, and
water utility officialsL and address public concerns about perchlorate.
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 been entrusted by
Congress to the Department to use jfficiently and to properly care for properl\'. In
executing these responsibilities we are committed to more than just compliance with the
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP)L we are cleaning up contamination
from past practices on our installations and are building a whole new program to .,
management decisions are, in fact, pased on sound science.
~
'"
Let me close by reiterating that the Department is committed to sustaining U.s.
mission, is protective of human health, and provides exemplary stewardship of the
Sincerely,
Page 1 of 3
From: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAFIIE

Sent: Monday, June 02,2003 15:34
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: FW: Food safety I perchlorate I western growers association - Comments on DuBois Letter's RRPI
Characterizations
fyi - Ms. Koetz's comment

From: Koetz, Maureen, SES, SAF/IE
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 3:26 PM
To: Groner, Laurence, Civ, SAF/GCN; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/IE
Cc: Miclat, Marriane, Civ, SAF/PAM; Rusden, Michael, Col, AFMOA/SGZE; VanHook, Deneice, Col, AFMOA/SGZP;
Ashworth, Richard, Col, SAF/IE; Daly, Patrick, Col, AF/ILEV; 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
Might want to also reinforce our defiriition of operation range (does not include commercial sites where testing is
performed) since that seems to be what's causing the confusion.
From: Groner, Laurenc-e, Civ, SAF/GCN
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 10: 13 AM
To: Corneli, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/IE; Koetz, Maureen, SES, SAF/IE
Cc: Miclat, Marriane, Civ, SAF/PAM; Rusden, Michael, Col, AFMOA/SGZE; VanHook, Deneice, Col,
AFMOA/SGZP; Ashworth, Richard, Col, SAF/IE; Daly, Patrick, Col, AF/ILEV; Sheuerman, Philip, Civ,
SAF/GCN; Guy, Gina, SES, SAF/GCI\I; 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
Thanks, Jeff. Very interesting correspondence.
And the DuBois letter gets a couple of things wrong - or at least has the capacity to mislead-
concerning the RRPI legislation in his penultimate paragraph. While I don't know that they will have any
impact at all, if they do it could be to further stoke distrust of DoD's description of its objectives as
reflected in the RPPI legislation.
Example: The paragraph says DoD's CERCLA/RCRA RRPI proposal "is not connected in any way to
the clean up of perchlorate or other substances" on active ranges, and that DoD'&. "ongoing cleanup
programs" at active, inactive and closed installations "will continue as they are." But indeed the RPPI
proposal would make clear that "constituents" of military munitions (e.g. perchlorate) are expressly not
required to be cleaned up on active ranges (unless they have migrated off-site).
Example: The paragraph says that if "a hazardous substance" migrates off an active range "normal
[cleanup] procedures" will be implemented. Putting aside for the moment what the letter means by
"normal" such procedures, this is all well and good (and accurate) but irrelevant. At least at the present
time, DoD does not consider perchlorate to be a "hazardous substance" (a term of art under CERCLA);
9/13/2005
Page:l of 3
rather at 'most We would call it a "pollutant or contaminant" (another term of art, with differe·nt k!gal
requirements), So to respond to the Western Growers' concern over cleanup of a 'pollutant 01
contaminant" with OUr plans for e1eanop of a "hazardous substance" is misleading.
Phil Sheuerman and I would recommend recasting the paragraph. First, tlle DoD letter should give
RPPI the same relative treatment the Wesrern Growers' letter doe" i.e., as a minor point, by devoting. say,
just one sentence to it, and not in a separate paragraph. second; perl1aps we could dispose of the RRPI
point altogether by saying something like, "With respect to relevant portions of the R- P_P-1:_
legislation, they are not intended to affect cleanup of contaminants migrating off an operational military
. range."
Larry
l..auren~ M, (ironer
AoFlodal@ Cenoral CDuIWel
De\'Jllrtment of the AIr ~orct
1740 AirF"mr Pentagon
IiiiiiiiiiiII
..... 'I'lIi$ (Omm"m",I/,," is rrill/Ltge" as Ill/ortley l4'(tI'k I'rMuC'. al/,(lrnty·<:/W,1I ,,,,,,m,miat/Cln. gr <llh,r prflllltgtil IIIl1lerial. 0.\ ,"', disl>1mlllllt
wlll"'tlllilt pri<or llPl'rwa( of /lie Air fCl,Cf Offi<:t ojGel!l'l'II/ C()ll".t/. ..•••
-·--Orlglnal Message·--
From: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Cot, SAF/IE
Sent: Friday, May 30, 20032:17 PM
To: Koetz, Maoreen, SES, SAF/IE
C:c: Mic;lat, Marrfane, elv, SAF/PAM; Rusden, Michael, Col, AFMOA/SGZE: VanHook, Oeneice, Col,
AFMOA/SGZPi Ashworth, RIChard, Col, SAF/IE; Groner, Laurence, elV, SAF/GCN; Daly, PatrIck, Col,
AF/ILEV
Subject: Food safety / perchlorate I westem growers assocIation
Ma'am· FYI; Thought you (or anyone cc'ed) may want to read this very spartan response
letter and perhaps comment· but a response is not required, as OSD is the POC and no
formal tasker has been sent out. My opinion is that the growers probably need the same
level and type of engagement as the water boards (attached info for reminder and for those
that haven't seen before). I suggested earlier that USDA be coord'ed on this but that
strategy was rejected at this time by OSD (although outside of this letter we are of course
free to engage with USDA).
vr,
jeff
····-orlginal Message-····
From: Cotter, sandra, Ms, OSO·ATl
sent: Friday, May 30,200311:12 AM
To: COrnell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAP/IE; ledbetter, George, COL, 000 OGe
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Rogers, DanIel, Col, AfLSA/JACE; Dan Kowalczyk; 'Richard B. Belzer I
PhO'
Subject: fW: draft 2 WGA response
Please review the attaChed response to WGA, and provide your coordination.
911312005
Page 3 of3
9/13/2005
1 Message Page t of I
Unknown
--_._-~_..._--_.....-~
~....- •...•
From: Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATl
Sent: Thursday, April 17 ,2003 14:49
To: Cohen. Ben, Mr, DoD OGe: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFIIE; Choudhury, Shah. Mr, aSO-ATl:
Ross, etalne. Ms, SAFIIEE; Rogers, Daniel, Lt Col, AFLSAIPR
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, ,OSO-ATL: Colter. Sandra, Ms, OSO-ATL
Subject; FW: Hot Issue for Woodley
Importance: High
All,
Attached is the first draft of a response to the Barbara Boxer ~uestions on perc;hlorate. 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 m;ssed anyone that should see these, please COpy them.
Thanks.
PatF.
···--Orlginal Message---··
From: RIchard B. Belzer PhD
Sent: Thursday, April 17, 2003 9:20 AM
To: 'Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSO-ATL:; 'Cornell, Jeff, U. Col., SAFfZE'; 'Rogers, Daniel, Lt Col, AFLSA/PR.'
Cc:: 'Kratz, Kurt, ,OSO-ATL'; 'Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-An'; 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, Ms, OSD·ATl [maHto
sent: Thursdai 17 Aiil 03 08: 18AM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE; ROQers, Daniel, Lt Col, AFlSA/PR
ee: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-A"rLj 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 Ku rt Kratz and Sandy
Cotter.
Thanks,
PatF.
···--Original Message---·
sent: Wednesday, April 16, 20039:27 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 Rlek Belzer and work with him
to finish this off. Other help would come from Sandy Colter. aen Cohen, Jeff Cornell, BAH, and Dan
Rogers. Might want to turn it over to Sandy it she is not still crashing on the Feinstein letter.
Kurt
9/13/2005
Questions from Senator Barbara Boxer for
John Paul Woodley,
Nominee for Assistant Secretary for Civil Works, Department of the Anny
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 o(the question permits onlv "ves" or "no" answers
depending on the (acts. The qUeestiol1 asks abou, contacts Mr. Woodlev initiated. not
contacts \1Jith /vIr. lVoodlev that were initiated bv others.
b) If so, with whom did you talk and what was the nature of your conversation(s)?
Answers depend on 'he answer to (a). If/a) was "no, ., then (h) does no' applv.
Beware that i(Sen. Boxer mat' be fishing or have specific information that she hopes
Mr. Woodlev 1-viil not reveal.
c) What is your view about the agreement detailed in the article?
"The agreement between Goodrich and agencies of the State of California is a

private matter between these patties. 1 do not have any views about their
aureement. "
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 officials may have obtained from
Goodrich. Thei'efore. I do not know whether anv such infornlation could have (or
perhaps has) been obtained from the Depattment of Defense. However. the
premise of vour question is problematic, for the Department is cooperating fullv
with state ofticials on matters related to allegations that DoD released perchlorate
011 or at the properties in question."
e) What role have you played in deciding whether, and to what extent, the DoD
cooperates?
"The Department of Defense is fully cooperating with state officials, and I fully
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 currentlv lmknown. Hence, there is no 'specific level'
to which I refelTed in my testimony. Based on the results of an extensive research
program that DoD scientists have themselves performed according to the highest
professional and ethical standards. the Department believes that exposures above the
draft proposed Reference Dose meet the definition of fullv protecting human health
and the environment. The Department believes that the highest level that fullv
protects human health and the environment should be ascertained using the best
available, high-qualitv scientific information that has been fullv reviewed bv
independent scientists. For that reason. the Department fully supports the
Administratron's initiative to refer specific matters of scientific controversy to a
committee of the National Academy of Sciences,"
b) In determining this level, do you believe that it should be set to protect the most
vulnerable populations--children, pregnant women, the elderly, and low-income and
minority populations?
"The maximum level of perchlorate exposure that poses 110 appreciable risk to
vulnerable subpopulations is not currently known. Ascertaining these values is
inherently much more complex scientificallv than deriving such a value for the
{leneral 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 you do not mention-the developing
fetus-is widelv believed to be vulnerable to thyroid injury. Whether it is in fact more
vulnerable to perchlorate. and if so. at what doses and w1der what circumstances, is
actuallv a highly complex scientific problem.
"The Department believes that it is important to clearly distinguish the assessment of

risk from policy decisions concerning what risk management actions to take. This
principle is not new: it has been an integral part of risk analvsis practice for /0 Years.
Risk assessments should be objective. realistic and scientificallv balanced so that
government officials fully appreciate the consequences of the risk management
choices they 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 Januarv 2002. EPA published an external review draft document entitled.
"Perchlorate Environmental Contamination: Toxicological Review and Risk
Characterization" (the "2002 Draft Assessment"). The document was p'tlblished
because EPA's peer review policy requires that external peer reviews 'be conducted in
public with opportunity for public participation and comment. The document does not
state that perchlorate has adverse effects on human health at an exposure level of I
ppb. Rather. this value is the drinking water equivalent level derived from the
Reference Dose that EPA proposed in that extemal review draft prior to peer reviev.'.
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 draft document anYWay. The Department is
concerned that this practice may undermine 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?
"In its 2002 external review draft health assessment, EPA proposed a Reference Dose
of 0.00003 mg/kg-da\!, not 1 pat1 per billion. This draft health assessment was then
reviewed bv an extemal panel pursuant to EPA's peer review policy and procedures.
That panel issued its report in June 2002. and as the summaI'\' of that report indicates,
"peer reviewers presented their own opinions on technical topics; no eff011s were
made to reach consensus on anv issue." Thus, while it is tme that EPA proposed a
Reference Dose that equates to an oral exposure in drinking water of I ppb, it is not
the case'that the external peer review panel endorsed or supported this proposal.
"A number 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 Academv of
Sciences to review these underlving science questions to provide greater illumination
concerning what exposures levels are likely to protect human health and the
environment."
e) Do you agree that perchlorate has adverse health effects at low levels?
"Whether perchlorate has adverse efTects at low levels depends on the definition of
"adverse" and what levels are understood to be "low." There is clearlY an exposure
level that is 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 for persons who arc hvpcrthvroid.) 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 Academv:'
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 whether exposures below xx ppb might pose a risk to human health. and
if so. under what conditions. Ironically, much of the discussion of the. perchlorate
issue has proceeded under the implicit but en'oneous 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.
"'[here is a specific basis for our current belief that exposures below xx Rpb do not
cause a significant health effect. The human clinical trial performed by the late
University of Oregon endocrinologist Monte Greer and his colleagues shows that the
threshold fot 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. nonnal
and fully reversible biochemical phenomenon. For an adverse effect to occur iodide
uptake must be substantiallv inhibited for an sustained period; this. in t~m1, must lead
to a large and uncompensated perturbation in thvroid honnone levels: and these
sustained. uncompensated changes in thyroid hormone levels must then impact the
developing fetus. If perchlorate exposure 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 effects can occm. All current drinking water
exposures are well below this threshold, and that it what gives the Department
confidence that there is no significant health effect 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 circumstances. In general. it is preferable that in protecting the
health of the American people it is best to reduce the amount bv~which we err by
getting the science right before we consider a range of risk management alternatives,
"The Department is concerned that decisions to en on the side of safety mav also err
on the side of compromising the national securitv 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 tradeoff's:'
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 Army has informed vvvv that it performed an extensive
records search and discovered no evidence that its activities at the fom1er Rialto
Army Ammunition Plant released anv perchlorate during the 194x-y period in which
it operated the sit. As vou know, this plant was used for the transshipment of
munitions to the Pacific Theater during·WarId War II and was not enl1.aged in the
manufacture of perchlorate or of munitions."
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 liable for cleanup
costs is a matter of settled la\,.'. 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 in
l1.eneral or in regard to specific sites. which either add to or take away ftom 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 $25 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 vastly exceeds
what all other federal agencies combined have devoted to answering these scientific
questions.
"The DepaI1ment has also spent over $xx million dollars for research and
development into perchlorate treatment technologies. This amount vastly exceeds
what all other federal agencies combined have devoted to answering these technical
and engineeri og 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 Department has devoted additional funds for R&D into possible substitutes.
Currently available substitutes pose much creater risk to our soldiers. sailors and
airmen. Indeed, perchlorate may be the least riskY energetic compound kmw./l1.
"Research into alternatives might bear fruit sometime in the future. but all should
keep in mind that energetic compounds carrv inherent dangers b\' virtue of the
chemical reactions bv which thev work. In addition. anv alternative tl1at looks
promising from an operational standpoint will have to be thorough Iv and
comprehensively studied to ascertain whether it poses a risk to human health and the
environment. We realize that there is creat interest in various quarters in possible
alternatives. However. the Department is not willing to substitute an alternative
compound for which risks to human health and the environment are either unknown
or are known to pose greater risks than perchlorate.
c) What were the outcomes of your efforts?
"These efforts are ongoing. as the research and development process is a painstakinl.!.
one."
d) How was your understanding of the nature and toxicity of perchlorate enhanced?
"The Department has shared the results orits research widelY. first with the
Environmental Protection Agency. and then with the entire membership of the
Intergovernmental Perchlorate Steering Committee, on which sit several
representatatives of state regulatof\' agencies. Finally. DoD scientists have
participated in numerous conferences and s\!mposia on matters related to perchlorate.
"Before beginning m\! service as Deputv Under Secretary of Defense (Environment).

I knew very little at all about the nature and toxicitv of perchlorate. I am not bv
training a scientist myself. Learning as much as I possibly can has been a vital part of
m\! responsibilities. I have relied heavilv on the outstanding expertise of professional
scientists within and associated with the Department. Many of these scientists have
actually preformed the primarY research on which the regulatorY agencies reI\' to
develop their own understanding of the nature and toxicitv of perchlorate. I have been
priyilelZed to have more direct access to the views of these scientists and therefore
been able to discern whv scientists disagree on some fairlY important issues related to
perchlorate."
e) What did the Department of Defense determine with regard to the extent of
perchlorate contamination on military facilities?
IRA bv someone else...
From: Kratz. Kurt.. OSD-ATL
Sent: Monday. April 14. 200316:13
To: Cornell. Jeff. Lt. Col.. SAFIIE
Cc: Choudhury. Shah. Mr, OSD-ATL: Cotter. Sandra. Ms. OSD-ATL
SUbject: FW: NAS Questions/Observations
Jeff,
Mr. DuBois has asked
for'the latest update of the NAS charge and venue
issue. Can you give me an update?
Thx,
Kurt
From: Rogers, Danielr·Lt Col, AFLSA/PR
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2003 1:52 PM
To: 'Richard B. Belzer PhD i Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATLi Cornell, Jeff, Lt.
Col., SAF/lE: 'Dan Kowalczyk'; Rogers, Daniel, Lt Col, AFLSA/PR

Cc: 'Jonathan Glledhill '
Subject: NAS Questions/Observations
Rick, Dan and Jonathan,
Here are some observations made by an expert friend on the NAB review:
Questions for the NAS----
In the summary paragraph.
Will the committee evaluate the extensive reports on the toxicity and
medical use of perchlorate in humans?
The human data base for perchlorate is extensive. It includes clinical

evaluations, occupa~ional studies, and epidemiological investigations.
Perchlorate has been used as a medicine for diffe~ent conditions and has
been given to children to test for thyroid function. Moreover, other
credible organizations have used human 1ata as a basis of their
perchlorate RfD. Important expert4se on the panel would be epidemiology
and clinical medicine, with an emphasis on thyr01d problems.
In the technical background text; paragraph beginning with "Toxicity

testing ... "
Is the NAS panel also going to view the cri~1cal background studies to
EPA's draft toxicology review and r1sk characterization?
As the NAS states, the principal target organ is the thyroid gland as
demonstrated with extensive experimental animal testing. However, in
the studies that NAS cites, perchlorate is not a ~regular· developmental
tox1cant in 2 species, nor a reproductive toxicant. Nor has its
\ ~O
1mmunotoxicity been demonstrated in two studies that specifically look

for this (Joan, please check this statement on immunotoxicity. Thanks.
Mike). Its developmental neurotoxicity is suspected, and rightly so,
S1nce thyroid toxicants can cause severe brain damage. However, this
effect is has not been unequivocally demonstrated in experimental animal
studies due to methodological issues. Many additional data and
interpretations of existing studies were given in public comments that
would aid the panel's evaluation. Important expertise on the panel
would be evaluation of experimental animal tOXicity studies.
·~1·
In the text on plan of action.
Is the NAS panel going to review the extensive human information and
state its opinion as to whether the rat is the correct an~mal for EPA's
model?
EPA developed a model which principally used experimental animal results

to indicate likely effects in humans. The animal model used, the rat,
is known to have a very different response than humans to thyroid
disrupting chemicals. Other scientists feel that the extensive human
data should be used as the basis of the RfD instead. Important
expertise on the panel would include scientists that have experiences is
both human and rat thyroid work. (Note to Dan: Kurt Klaassen might be
good here. He chaired EPA's first panel review.)
Will the NAB panel review the protocols fBr the brain morphometry
studies and give an opinion on the reliability of the resulting data?
Changes in brain morphometry in rats are controversial due to incorrect

protocols used in the principal study monitoring these effects. In
order to understand the controversy, the NAS panel will need expertise
in this brain morphometry.
Will the NAB panel review the findings of scientists of different

expertise and affiliations that are found in the public comments to
EPA'S 2002 draft toxicology review and risk characterization text?
Public comments to EPA'S draft RfD are extenslve and support, or take
issue with, many of EPA's key decisions. The NAS panel will need
experts in RfD determination in order to evaluate and integrate this
mass of information for the critical effect and appropriate use of
uncertainty factors. t
~ ~
~
Will the NAB panel attempt to relate iodine uptake inhibition and
hormone changes in humans?
Inhibition of iodine uptake is recognized in EPA's text and by

scientists elsewhere as a precursor to the critical effect of hormone
change· in pregnancy. These two effects, however. have not been
correlated to date. Moreover, depending on a precursor to a critical
effect as a basis of an RfD is not cons~stent with current EPA methods
for determining RfDs. Again, the NAS panel will need experts in RfD
. determination in order to evaluate this issue.
In addition to specifying future research, will the NAB panel review the
ongoing research efforts of scientists that are specifically
investigating areas of uncertainty in the perchlorate RfD?
.
. Epidemiological investigations of pregndnt women in naturally occurring
perchlorate-exposed populations, and long term clinical perchlorate
administration are ongoing. Interim results will be available during
the,time of the NAB review. Other publications are likely to appear on
var~ous aspects of perchlorate toxicity during the time of the NAB
rev~ew as well, including the development of an RfD for perchlorate by
an lndependent, non~profit organization.
2
ME ••
From: Cotter. Sandra Ms. OSD·ATL
Sent: Monday, June 23. 2003 09:17
To: Kratz, Kurt.. OSD-ATL
SUbject: FW: RE: 030617 TalkIng POints for 27 June WH Meeting on TeE
ICPI)'AII
Xurt:,
More on the T£~ review •.•Air Porce is moving out on this,
---~-Original Message-~--- .
From; Riehard a. Belzar lmailco:rbbelzer@cox.uetl
Sent: Saturday, June 21. 2003 11:2. AM
To: Rogers, Daniel, col, AFLSA/JACE; Cotter. Sandra. Ms. OSD-ATL;
I Bel zerliRegulatoryclleckbook . or;'; I pan Kowalczyk': Cornell, Jet t, L~.
col, SAP/IE; Kratz, Kurt. , OSD-ATL
Subje~t: Re: RE: O~~61' Talking Points for 21 June WH Meeting on TeE
1 agree with Col. Rogers: EPA's proposed HAS review ia premature and is
intended to tue control of the review proces8, away from DoD. Mark my
wo~ds: The next tning ~PA will ask for is 000 DOney to pay for it.
Stick to tbe TEM review. Do NOT negotiate it away. EPA bas had. plenty
of opportunity to p.r~icipate an4 has chosen not to do so. Brian Howard
knows all the aetails. 000 should not reward them for trying to string
this ou.t, or su.curnb to OSTPd .•• , DacJtdoor EPA) pressure to do so.
For the 6121 meeting, r strongly urge DoD ~o change the s~ject. Instead
-
of debating TERA v. NAS, challengo EPA to act ~n gooe faith by directing
its Regional oftices and encourag~ng the Statel to apply the .xist~ng
MeL regulatory standard instead. In perchlorate. EPA ia using a DoguS
r~latory etand.rd beca.use they do not nave a legitimate one. In TeE.
they bave a leg1timate one and don t want to apply it ~ecause they think
I
~hey can ge~ more by using the draft risk asae8sment. ~nvite them to
launcb a new SOWA rulemakiog if they think so highly of ehi. r18k
assessment.
At aome point, EPA must be directed to tollow the rules.
REB
'"
'" Traml "Rogers. Daniel. Col. AFL5A!JACEft
'" Date: 2003706/19 Thu AM 06:11;06 BOT
\50
,. Te: ·Cotter, SClmlr~, MS. OSD-An" • • • • • • • • • • • •
'" Be l,zerltRegulatoryCheelc:book •org • "
" I
cBelzeroRegulatoryCheckbook.Or >.
'" 'Dan Kowalczyk' • • • • • • • • •

,. ·Cornell, Jeff.
"Kratz., Xurt. • OSD-/'>.Tl." .

> Subject: RE: 030617 Talking POl.nta tor 27 June HI'! Meeting' on TeE
'" sandy,
,. We :ve had the TEI1:A evalua.tion on the

....orkJ.l1g' with
drawing' board for 6 months
:> EPA ::0 have thu become a part of the review. The idea. whic:h 'Walil a
1\ ~
> 5urpriee, of going to NAB while the science is still under development
is an
:> end-around on the part of EPA. After talking with Jeff and Me Raetz
last
> Friday and after reading Rickie e~mail, I think it may be beeter juSt
to go
:> into ,:c.he meeting With the SOW for TER1l. and ask the IWG if anyone wants
to
:> otfer comments. We should approach it as more 1ntorma~1on tor the NAS
:> review if one i- needed.
:>
:> vIr
:> der
:>
:> DANIEL E. ROGE~S, Colonel, USAF
:> Professional Responsibilicy Administrator and
:> chief, Environmental Law and Littgation
>
:>
:>
>
> ~-··-Original Me••age----·
:> Frol\'l: Cot.ter, Sandra~ Ms, OSD-ATL
:> Sent: Wednesday, June 18, 3003 1~:11 PM
:> TO: 'PoelzerliRegulatorycheekbook.Org'i Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSA/JACE;
Dan
:> Kowalc~yki Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/IE1 IJatz, Kurt, • OSO-ATL
> Subject: RE: 030617 Talking Points for 27 JUDe WH Meeting on TeE
>
:>
:> R1.<:k,
:>
> Although t.his prov1des i.nsigQt as far as our position going into this
:>meeting, not clear at what precisely ve think is wrong with the
assessment.
~ Do yeu have any baqkgrQund on this?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Be
:>
:>
>
> ·--.~Original "*88&ge----
:> Fromt Richard B. Belzer PhD [mailto~rbbelze~ox.net)
> Sent: Tuesday, June 17. 2003 8:03 PM
> To: Sandy Cotter; Col. Dan RQgers, Dan Kowalczyk; Jeff Cornell, Kurt
Krat.z
:. Subject: 030617 Talking Points for :i/7 June WI! Meeting on TeE
>
>
:>
:> Sandy,
:>
:>
:>
:> Here is the TP paper 1: promi••<1 you regarding TeE. As yO'U will see, it
is
:> based on the premise that ODD need. to ehaQge the agenda of the 6/27
:> meeting. Instead of allo""ing it to proceed. based on EPA'. premises,
DoD
:> should seek to use the meeting to advance its own interests.
:>
:>
2
;(
>
> If 000 were to follow this approach, then neither Brian Howard nor any
other
> 000 or DoD-affiliated TCE expert needs to attend. Indeed, Brian could
> provide Jeff C. written documentation of the fact that the TERA review
is
> already underway and that EPA had been invited to participate but
chosen not
> to do so. Jeff can deliver this message quite effectively, and his
limited
> knowledge of TCE would give him the ability to refuse to talk 'about
TCE
> science matters.
>
>
> ,
> It would be helpful if Jeff w~re to bring with him a list of examples
where
> EPA and/or the States were setti~g cleanup standards or taking other
actions
> based on the 2001 draft risk assessment, the controversial vapor
intrusion
> guidance, and any other EPA "backdoor regulation."
>
>
>
> RBB
>
>
>
3
From: Kratz. Kurt•. aSO-ATL
Sent: Thursday, November 1.3,2003 '12:28
To: Belzer@RegulatoryCheckbook.org
Cc: 'Kowalczyk Daniel'; Cotter, Sandra. Ms, aSD-ATL
Su!)j8Ct: HOT! - ACTION draft EPA perohlorate response
Importance: High
EPA RFC 11702
draft response 1...
Hot suspense. COI1IlIenes on reply?

Kurt
-~---Original Message----
~~~t~tth.~S.Li8&@.panmil··liif.ov
....
Sent; T,nursda: November 13 200J 12: 01
Subject; ac'1"IoN draft BPA perch1.orate response

Importance; High
Note to Interagency Workgroup on perch1orate;

FYI, attached below is an Infor.mation QUality Guidelines ~equest on
perchlorate advisory levels and EPA's final draft response. Pleae. send
any comments on the draft response to me by 5: 00 pm Friday Novemoer 14. I
Thank YOI1.
(See attacbed file: SPA RFC 11702 draft respons. 11.7.wpdl

Incoming request:
http://www.epa.gcv/oei/qualityguidelinea/afreqcorrectionsub/ll102.pdf
Lisa Matthews .
Execl1tive Assistant to the Science Advisor
U• S. Envircmm.en .1 Protection Agency
h
1
EPA draft as of 1117/03
[On EPA OEI letterhead]
November 7. 2003
Dr, George Seaver

19Mystery Lane
Cataumet, MA 02534
RE: Response to Request for Correction (RFC) pursuant to United States (U.S.)
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) Infonnation Quality Guidelines (RFC # 11702)
Dear Dr. Seaver.
This letter is in response to your request for correction dated July 5,2003 raising concerns
about what you describe as differing "advisory levels" regarding perchlorate at EPA headquaners
and at the EPA Regional level (specifically, Region 1). Following athorough review, we believe
your request is incomplete according to the Guidelines for Ensuring and Maximizing the Quality.
Objectivity, Utility and Integrity of Infonnation Disseminated by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA Infonnation Quality Guidelines), In your request, you state that "THE FEDERAL
AND THE REGION 1 EPA HAVE DIFFERENT ADVISORY LEVELS FOR PERCHLORATE
(4 TO 18 VS 1 PPB)," I would like to take this opponunity to reiterate EPA's assessment
guidance on perchlorate and provide you with further guidance should you wish to submit a
future request for correction.
EPA does not have disparate guidance for perchlorate as you suggest. EP A issued a
memorandum at the beginning of this year to update information concerning the status of the
Interim Assessment Guidance for Perchlorate originally transmitted on June 18, 1999 (Noonan,
1999: Horinko. Jan. 2003 and clarifying memo Mar. 2003). EPA developed the 2003
memorandum because EPA regional offices and states have sought advice as the number of sites
identified as potentially contaminated with perchlorate has increased. This document provides
guidance to EPA staff involved in environmental cleanups. It also provides infonnatibn to the
public and the regulated community on how the Agency intends to assess possible perchlorate
contamination. It reaffinns the recommendations in the 1999 Interim Guidance regarding
perchlorate-related assessment activities. The 1999 Interim Guidance recommended ,that Agency
risk assessors and risk managers continue to use the standing provisional reference dose ("RID")
ran.ge of 0.0001 to 0.0005 mglkg-day for perchlorate-related assessment activities. The 1999
guidance stated, "If environmental authorities decided to pursue site-specific clean-up or other
water management decisions based on this RID range by applying the standard default body
weight (70 kg) and water consumption level (2 Uday), the resulting provisional clean-up levels
or action levels would range from 4-18 parts per billion ("ppb")". This guidance is not a
regulation and does not substitute for CERCLA, RCRA, or other EPA regulation. More
infonnation on the stanis of the guidance and a set of frequently asked questions can be found at
the Federal Facilities Restoration and Reuse web site
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/docurnents/perchlorate merno.htrn and
http://www.epa.gov/swerffrr/documents/perchlorateqa.htm.
. .
The EPA Itifonnation Quality Guidelines -apply to infonnation the Agency disseminates
to the public that is prepared by the Agency to support or represent an EPA viewpoint or to
fonnulate or support a regulation, guidance or other Agency decision or position. In this
particular case, the IQGs apply to the infonnation that EPA relied upon to fonnulate EPA
guidance on perchlorate. EPA cannot determine whether or not the EPA or OMB Infonnation
Quality Guidelines have been satisfied because your request does not reference any infonnation
subject to the IQGs. Should you wish to file a future request on this topic, in addition to other
items, EPA requests that you include specific reference to infonnation that EPA relied upon to
develop the perchlorate guidance and how you may believe such infonnation does not comply to
the EPA or OMB IQGs. Please refer to Section 5.3 of the IQGs for further description of when
the IQGs apply. You can download the IQGs at: http://www.((pa.gov/oei/qualityguidelines.
Thank you for your interest in this issue. Should you wish to submit a new Request for
Correction under the Infonnation Quality Guidelines, please provide the following:
• a description of the infonnation you believe does not comply with the Office of
Management and Budget or EPA IQGs, including specific citations to the
information and to the guidelines, if applicable
• an explanation of how the infonnation does not comply with the IQGs
• a recommendation for corrective action
• an explanation of how the alleged error affects or how a correction would benefit
you
Sincerely,
Mark Luttner, Director

Office of Infonnation Collection
;1:., \
/
Unknown (
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD~ATL

Sent: Thursday, June 25. 2003 13:24
To: Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFlSAlJACE; 'Kowalczyk Daniel': Cornell. Jeff. 1I. Col, SAF/IE: 'Richard
B. Belzer PhD'
Cc: Kratz. Ktlrt.. OSD-ATL: Ferrebee. Patricla, Ms, OSD*ATL
Subject: RE: 2.003·0313~rE-New Assignment
Please disregard my previous message.

Be
-----Original Massage----
Sent: Th~rsday, June 2£, 2003 10:22 AM
To: Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSA/Jk:E/ 'Kowalczyk ,Daniel'; Cornell, Jeff,
Lt. Col, SAr/IE; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL/ Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATL
SUbject: FW: 2003-0313-IE--New Assignment
Importance: High
All,
Are we close to completing information collection for this action?
Please let me know.
SC
-~---original Message----
From: Espinal John M Civ 11 CS/SCSL (FOIA)
Senc: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 1:42 PM
To: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, O~D~ATL
llllportance: High
Ma'am, if you are requesting the AF to search or provide documents
relating to the subject FOIA, you must go through OSD's 'FOIA. They will
in-turn task our office, If you have any questions, please contact aSD
FOlA 80 for guidance.
! can be reached at 696-7268. Thanks, John.
From: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. col, SAF/IE
Sene: Tuesday, June 10, 2003 12:14 PM
To: Cotter, Sand~a, Ms, OSD-ATL; Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSO-ATLI Kratz,
KurT:, , OSD-ATL
Ce: Espinal John M Civ 11 CS/SCSL (ForA); Cox, Kerri. eiv. SAr/GCAi
Rogers, Daniel, Col, AfLSA/JACE; Daly, Patrick, Col, AF/ILEV; Ashworth,
Richard, Col, SAF/lE; Koatz, Maureen, SEa, SAF/lEi Groner, Laurence,
eiv, SAF/CCNj Ross, ~laine, Ms, SAF/IEE: Lowas, Albert, SES, AFRPA;
Beda, CarolAnn, AFRPA; Whitten Rodney eiv AFBCA/EV; Carrillo, David,
eiv, AF I!LEV~
Subject; FW: 2003-0313-IE--New Assignment
Irnpor~ance: Hiqh
Sandy; please let me know as soon as we have an extension date for this
FOI, we would like 30 days from the time that we received the request (5
Jul 03). Also, I have been working hard to try and find the correct
procedures for a FOIA request of this type. SomehoW, someway our FOIA
office (11 CS/SCSL(FOIAl, John Espinal, 696-1269) needs to receive some
contact from the OSD FOIA office for us to proces.s this according to law
(and with the confidence of their professional expertise), Please help
me make this concact happen ... if you have POC info for the right folks
1
.'1'
I
I
~~~u'~SD, please pass it along so Mr. Espinal can help us out by handling
the taskinqs and legal review. By the way this is not preventing our
I
work on this ... heads up has been given to affected agencies, but it$ my
understanding [f.roll\ conversations with SAF/GCN a'nd GCAJ that we'll need
I
to close official loops to have the info revie~ed and released.
jeff
I
Lt Col Jeff Cornell, USAF, BSe, PhD
Cleanup & Munitions Response Program Manager
I
I
rrom: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
I Sent: Thursday, June 05, 2003 9:05 AM
To: Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSA/JACEI Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/IE; Dan
Kowalc~yk
I CC! Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGe; Kratz, Rurt, , OSD-ATL I
I
Attached is a FOrA for all information related to perchlorate. I think
we can safely e~clude ~ny drafts or pre-decisional documents and any I
instance/doc~ment involving ~eliberat1ons by counsel.
Response is due the 10th. Ple#se prOVide preliminary thoughts on
documents you feel should be released under this request by COB today. I
SC
-----Original Message---- I
From: ChoUdhury, Shah, Mr... OSD-ATL
Sent: wednesday, June 04, 2003 6:47 PM I
To: Cotter, Sandra, M$, OSD-ATL
Subject: FW: 2003-D313¥IE--New As~i9nment
4 Jun 03
Sandy--another perchlorate action. I have not done anything with thiS,
I
nor have I told Sarah to change AO to you.

I
Shah
I
I
I
This is a~ automatic notification. Please do not reply.
You have been assigned a task;
- Item ID: 2003-0313-I£
- ATL Task? No
I:
Red Tagged? No
- Tasker Org: IE
I
- Tasked org(s): IE
- Tasked Ferson: Shah Choudhury
- Task Due Oate 6/10/2003

I
-Tasker ')'elephone:
I ~ Open Initials: sh
I
~
- When Added: 6/3/2003 3:39:40 PM
- Task Track URL:
https:/llewis.acq.osd.mil/tasktrack/ie.nsf/··*··/160rr5D3CSCa39238S256D3
I
A006C005
-- ----- --- -- - --~- - - - - -_.- - -- ---

I
I
I
(" '~
- Subject: ForA 03-F-1442, 000 PerchloraLe AssessmenL Policy. Guidance
and/or Cleanup
- CommenLS: On 6/3/2003 15:50:45, Sarah Hagan wrote: Hard copy placed
in
CL box.
3
Page 1 of 1
Unknown

Sent: Friday, May 23, 2003 11 :03
To: Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSAIJACE
Cc: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATL; Ledbetter,
George, COL, DoD OGC; Dan Kowalczyk; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Subject: RE: Dingell-Solis Letter--DoD Perchlorate Sampling
Does anyone have a copy of the enclosures mentioned in our draft response (attached)?
From: Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 20032:12 PM
To: Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSAfJACE
Cc: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATL; Cotter,
Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGC
Subject: Dingell-Solis Letter--DoD Perchlorate Sampling
Importance: High
20 May 03
Dan-please draft a response' for the attached letter from Representatives Dingell and Solis by COB 21
May 03 ... I will be the Cleanup Office action officer. Please cc Kurt Kratz, Pat Ferrebee, and Sandy
Cotter on the draft response.
This is the letter mentioned in 19 May 2003 Wall Street Journal article that Mr. Woodley discussed
yesterday with you and I. The planned response for the attached should parallel the discussion in the
transmittal of the interim draft occurrence data to EPA as directed by Mr. Woodley's yesterday.
Thanks. Shah
From: Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: Tuesday, May 20, 2003 10:18 AM
To: Hagan, Sarah, Mrs, OSD-ATL
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD·ATL
Subject: FW: Is the attached a Cleanup Action
Importance: High
Sarah,
Yes, this is our action.
Pat F.
From: Hagan, Sarah, Mrs, OSD-ATL
To: Ferrebee, Patricia, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: Is the attached a Cleanup Action
Importance: High
Need to turn this back today if it isn't ours. Let me know. Thanks
Sarah
10/3/2005
The Honorable John D. Dingell

Ranking Member
Committee on Energy and Commerce
U:S: House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515-6115
Dear Representative Dingell:
Thank you for your May 16, 2003. letter to Secretary Rumsfeld regarding the
Department's perchlorate survey. In January 1998, representatives from the Department
of Defense (DoD), US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and other interested state
regulatory officials and stakeholders joined together to form the Inter-Agency Perchlorate
Steering Committee (IPS C). The charter ofthe IPSC is to facilitate and coordinate
accurate accounts of related technological issues (occurrence, health effects, treatability
and waste stream handling, analytical detection, and ecological impacts) and to create
information transfer links for interagency and intergovernmental activities regarding
these areas of concern.
Shortly aftef forming this innovative partnersl11ip, EPA informally requested DoD
to provide information related to the use. storage and treatment of perchlorate associated
rocket and missile systems throughout the United States. DoD completed an initial data
call from the service components and provided that information to EPA (Enclosure 1). In
May of 2000, a working group in the Department of Defense undertook a more
comprehensive request for information from our active installations. The voluntary
survey request included a number of questions including those listed in your letter. Our
intent was to determine whether installations had sampled for or been requested by the
regulatory community to sample for perchlorate. Additionally: we were seeking
information about propellant disposal areas, open-burn-open detonation areas, ordinance
or solid rocket testing and/or maintenance facilities. We also asked for information
regarding items containing perchlorate stored/used/housed at the installation.
At the end of May 2002, the Air Force asked ARA, the contractor for
consolidating the survey inputs, to finalize the contract even though responses from DoD
facilities were incomplete. Per your request. the incomplete data is attached (Enclosure
2). The maps you requested are also attached (Enclosure 3). The Department is
concurrently providing this data to EPA. Independent from the contracted survey. the
Department has been tracking additional information on DoD related perchlorate
activities (Enclosure 4).
Over the past three years, DoD has been proactive in providing leadership to the
Inter-Agency Perchlorate Steering Committee by providing resources to expand the
nation's understanding of analytical capabilities to detect perchlorate, research its
potential health effects, develop innovative technologies for future treatment and
remediation, and evaluate possible eco-system impacts in areas where perchlorate has
been released into the environment. All of these efforts have been possible through the
cooperative relationship and personal dedication of the entire membership of the IPSC.
A similar letter is being sent to Representative Solis.
Sincerely,
Enclosures:
As Stated
cc:
Honorable W. 1. "Billy" Tauzin,
Chair, Committee on Energy and Commerce
Honorable Paul E. Gillmor

Chair, Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials
COORDINATION RECORD
SUBJECT: Response to Representatives Dingell and Solis on DoD Perchlorate Survey
Acquisition Resources & Analysis
OSD Legislative Affairs
ODOC (E&I)
Army
Navy
Air Force
Page) of2
Unknown
-----_._--~--------_._----_._--,--_ ..._•._~
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSO-AlL
Sent: Tuesday, May 13.2003 10:25
To: Rogers, Daniel, Cal, AFL.SAlJACE
Cc: Belzer (E-mail)
Subject: RE: 000 revisionOlRAedit111
ThanKS Dan.
Message---
-~---Orlginal
From: Rogers, DanIel, COl, AFLSA/JACE
Cc: Belzer (E-maIl)
SUDjed:: RE: DoD revlslonOlRAecllt111
I off~r the following:

The Initial 8 studies done in 1998/99 by DoD/EPA and the Industry group focused on the fun
range of possible health effects. As a result of comments by the 1999 EPA Peer review, follow
on work done In 2000/2001 by the same group focused more closely on determining the extent
to which the fetus Is especially vulnerable. To me, that Is fulfy consistent with being "focused on
sensitive sulJpoputatJons." It also demonstrates/validates our commitment to the scIence data
base on perchlorat~ research.
More times than not we snould be more inclusive in our answers rather
than just answer the question presented. IIII do h'ly best to help.
thah~
CoJ Dan Rogers

Air Forc~Offt.ce ofProfessiona\ Responsibility
AFLSA/l'R
112 Luke Avenue. Suite 343
Bollin AFB, DC 20032
or
Chief, Environmental Law and Litillatial1

lACe
-·--orlginal Message-···
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSO·ATL
To: Cornell, Jeff, lat. eel., SAF/IE; Rogers, Daniel, Col, ";:lSA/JACE
10/3/20D5
Message Pace:2 of2
Subject: FW: DoD revisionOlRAeditll1

Jeff. Dan,
Is Richard's statement consistemt with what yOl! know about our research?
Silndy
·····Origlnal Message·····
From: RIchard B. Belle... PhD [maflto:rbOe!zer@c;ox,netJ
sent: Monday. May ll, 20035:57 PM
SUbjectl R.E: DoD revlslonOlRAed1t111
As I understand it, DoD-funded perchlora~e health effects research has been focused on
determining the extent to which the fetus is especially vulnerable. To me, that is fully
consistent wIth beIng "focused on sensitive subpopulatlonS," Indeed, since there Isn't any
risk to healthy adults (and EPA does not claim that any such risk exists), virtually all of
the research has been so focused.
RBB
.·-·-orlginal Message---·
From: COtter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL [mallto
To: 'regcheck@lmall.com'
CC: Kratz, Kurt, • OSD~ATL

Subject: RE: OoD revlslonOIRA«!tt111
Thanks Rick. good comments. I'll include in our draft response.
---original Message·····
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD (mailto:
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 4:14 P
To: sandy COtter
SUbJect: 000 revisionOlRAeclitl11
Importance: High
Sanely,
My comments in double underlined and double strikethrough. Please
fo~ardas appropriate.
RBB
10/312005
'\4essage Page I of2

,}.,:,\.. )
Unknown
,------------- ....
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD~ATL
Sent: Tuesday. May 13. 2003 10:25 .~.: t' ~ "(.~ :~.;~ ~l'" :.!f~
To: Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSAlJACe . ~. >":: '::, ~ ( ;•• ~\~ :
Cc: Belzer (E-rnSiO '.

SUbject: RE: 000 revisionOlRAedlt111
Thanks Olin.
-----Ortglnal Message----
From: Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFlSA/JACE
Sent: Tuesday, May 13,20039:41 AM
To: Cotter, sandra, Ms, OSDwATL
Cc: Belzer (E-mail)
SUbJect: RE: 000 revisionOIRAedltll1
I offe.r the following:

The initial 8 studies done In 1998/99 by DoD/EPA and the Industly group focused on the full
range of possfble health effects. As a result of comments by the 1999 EPA Peer review, follow
on work done In 2.000/2001 by the same group focused more closely on determining the extent
to which the fetus is especially vulnerable. To me, that is fully consistent with being "focused on
sensItIve subpopu/ations." It also demonstrates/validates our commitment to the sclence data
base on perchlorate' research.
More times than not we should be more inclusive in our answers rather
than just answer the question presented~ I'll do my best to heJp.
thanks
Col Dan Rogers

Air Force Office of Professional Responsibility
AFLSA/PR
112 Luke Avenue, Suite 343 .
, t': ••
or
-
Chief, Env ironmcmtal Law and Litigation
lACE
·····Original Message--
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSO·ATL
sent: Tuesday, M8)I 13,2003 8:"l6 AM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE; Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFI.SAlJACE
10/3/2005
- - ----~~~~~~~~~~~---
Subject: FW: 000 revlslooOlRAedltlll

Jeff, Dan.
Is Richard's statement consistent wilh wl1at you know about our res6;rch7
Sandy
···~·Orlginal Message---·
From: Ri<;hard B. Belzer PhD [mallto:rbbelzer@oox.net]
sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 5:57 PM
To: 'Cotter, Sandra, Ms,OSO·ATL'
SUbject: RE: 000 revlslonOJRAedit111
As I understand It, DoD-funded perchlorate health effects research has been focused on
determinIng the extent to which the fetus Is especially vulnerable. To me, that Is fully
consIstent with being "focused on sensitive subpopulatlons." Indeed, slhce there Isn't any
risk to healthy adults (and EPA does not claim that any such risk eXists), VIrtually all of
RBB
--··-Orl9Inal Message····
From: Cotter, ~ndra, Ms, OSl)·ATL [mallto (b)(1)
To: 'regcheck@mall.com'
Cc: Kratt, Kurt, ,OSC-All.
Subject: RE: DoD revlslonOIRAedltlll
Thanks Rick. good comments. "II include in our drClft response.
····-original Message--·_·
From: RIchard B. Beller PhD [maUto~rhbelzer@CO)(.het]
sent: Monday, May 12,20034:14 PM
Tel: Sandy Cotter
Subject: 000 revISIonOlAAeclit1l1
Importance: High
Sandy,

forward as appropriate,
RBB
10/3/2005
......
-- ., Message Page 1 of:!
Unknown
----------------------------~_ ..,,-_ .
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD·ATL
Sent: Tuesday. May 13.2003 10:25
To: Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSAIJACE
Cc: Belzer (IE-mail)

Subjetct;. RE: OeD revisionOlRAedit111
Thanks Dan.
····-Original Message----
From: Rogers, Daniel, COl, AflSA/JACE
Sent: Tuesd8Y, May 13, 2003 9~41 AM
Cc: Belzer (E-mail)
Subject: RE: DoD revisionOIRAedltll1
I offer the following:
The Initial 8 studies done In 1998/99 by DoD/EPA and the Jndustry group focused on the full
range o'f possible hearth effee:ts. As it result of comments by the 1999 EPA Peer review, follow
on work done in 2000/2001 by the same group focused more closely on determining the extent
to which the fetus Is especIally vulnerable. To me, that Is fully consistent with being "focused on
sensitive subpopulatlons." It also demonstrates/Validates our commItment to the science data
base on perChlorate-research.
More times 'than not we should be more incfuSive in our answers rather
than just answer the question presented. II" do my best to he~p.
thanks
Col Dan Rogers

Air Force Office ofProfes~ional Responsibility
AFLSA/PR
I 12 Luke Avenue, Suite 343
Bollin AFe. DC 20032
or
Chief, Environmental Law and litigation
lACE
----OrIginal Message~·--
FrOn'i~ COtter, Sandra, MS, OSD-ATL
sent: Tuesday, May 13, 2003 8:46 AM
To: ~rnell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; Rogers, Oanlel, Col, AFLSA/JACE.
10/3/2005
';;
,r :1 Message Page 2 of:!
Subject: FW: 000 re'llslonOlAAeditl11

Jeff, Dan,
Is Richard's statement consistent with what you know about our' research?
Sandy
·_·-·Ori£linal Message·····
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [milllto:rbbelzer@cox.net]
sent: Monday, May 12,20035:57 PM
To: 'Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSP-ATt.'
Subject: RE: DoD revislonOlAAedlt111
As I understand it, DoD-funded perchlorate health effecl5 research has been focused on
determIning the extent to which tile fetus Is especially vulnerable. To me, that is tully
consistent with being "focused on sensitive subpopulatlons." Indeed, since there Isn't any
risk to healthy adults (and ePA does not claim that any such risk exIsts), virtually ali Of
RBB
-----Orl9Inal Message·····
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSO-ATL £mallto (b)(1 )
Sent: Monday, 12 May 03 16:27FM
To: 'regcheck@mall.com'
ce: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD·ATL
sUbject: RE: DoD revisionOlRAedlUl1
Thanks Rick. good comments. "I/Include in our draft response.
•--origlnal Message-·~··
From: Richard S. Belzer PhD (mallto:rbbelzer@cox.netl
To: sandy Cotter
Subject: DoD revisionOIAAedltl11
%mpC)rtance: High
sandy,
forward as appropriate.
RBB
10/3/2005
-_ ... _ - - - - - - - - - - -
\
I
I
fvfessage Page 1Qf3 I
I
I
I Unknown
I
I
I
I
From:
Sent:
Atkins. Angela G Ms ACSIM/SMI Inc.
Monday, January 13.200312:17
I
To: Newsome, Richard E Mr ASA·I&E, Cotter, Sandra Ms OSO·ATL
I
I
Cc: Moeller, Dale Mr ASA-I&E I
I
Subject: RE: Draft Testimony ldk 01.10-03.doc
,
I
Our prior testimony Input;s attached.
I
I
I
I Angela G. Atkins
I
I
I
Contmct Emf\ronmental Support tor:
omce of Director, Environmental Programs
I
600 Army Pentagon, Room 'IE682 I
I
Washington, DC 20310 I
I
I
I
----Original Message-·--·
I
I
from: Newsome, RIchard EMr ASA-I&E I
I Sent: Monday, January 13, 2003 12: 10 PM
To: Cotter, sandra Ms OSD·ATL
I Cc:: Moeller, Dale Mr ASA·I&E; Atkins, Angela G Ms ACSIM'SMI Inc.
I Subject: FW: Draft Testimony Idl( Ol-iO-03.doc
lmportan~: High
I
I ~~ .
I don't know if you wetnt or have time for e piecemeal eppr9C1Ch to edits to the Perchlorate testimony, but
I clo agree that the tone of the first version was too combatatlve. I presumed that tl1 e major Issue was to
present a first cut that could be subsequently modified. Ms. Atkins of the Army steff has made some
suggested edits to the test.imony that would put a softer edge on it which I think are desirable, Please use
I as appropriate when you update the tectimony.
I RId<
--···Origlnat Message----
I From: Moeller, Dale Mr ASA·r&.E
I sent: Monday, JllInuary 13,200311:37 AM
e
To: Newsome, Richard Mr AsA-l&.E
I Subject:: FW: Draft Testimony klk Ol-10-03.doc
Importance: High
I
Rick,
I I feel that Angela makes a very gOOd point hale anti this coupled with your comments should be
I forwarded LIP to 050. .
I Dale
I -----Originat Message----
I from: Atkins, Al'1gela G Ms ACSIM/SMI In(:.
I To; Read, MarcIa W Ms ASA-l&E; Moeller, Dale Mr ASA-I&E
Cc: Gatg, Malcolm J ACSIM/CH2M HIll..; Gantll, Krishna Mr ACSIM; Holsinger, Shawn Mr; Mid< Major (E
I
10/3/2005
I
I
- ------~------------
I
1
~essage Page 2of3 I
I
I
I
I
mall)·
Subject: RE: Dr~ft Testimony klk 01·1O·03.c!oc
I
I
I Marcia/Dale - ,
I
I
The general tone of this draft testimony is way too combative; too much rehashing of past sins. I have
attached my strikeout along with Dr. Major's (CHPPM) comments on top at Marcia's 5trikeout I strongly
I
recommend l1lat we encourange 080 to redraft tile testimony more along the lines of Army's input from I
I yesterday.
I
I ,
I
I
Contract Environmental Support for:
Office of DIrector. EnvIronmental Programs
I
600 Army Pentason, Room 1EBS2 I
I W hi ton 0 20310
I
I
I
I ----Original Message--··
I
From: Read, Marcia W Ms ASA-I&E I
sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 2:57 PM

I To: Atkins, Angela G Ms ACSIM/SMI Inc. I
ee: Moeller, Dale Mr ASA-I&E I

I Subject: RE: Draft Te~timony k~k 01-1t3-03.doc
I
I OK, please talk to Dale and let him know what's going on. I need to leave for the day.
Marcia
I
I ----·Orfgi"al Message·'···
from: Atkins, Angela G Ms ACSIM/SMI Inc.
I sent: Friday, JanU8iY 10, 2003 2:25 PM
To: Read, Marcia W Ms ASA-I&E
I Subject: RE: Draft Testimony klk 0l-10-03.doc
This draft Is very objectionable. I'm going up to discuss with OAIM-ED-TR, will be back. at my
desk. by 1500. ...
I
----Originm Message----
I fJ:Qrn: Read, Marcia W Ms ASt\-I&E
sent: Friday, January 10, 20032:16 PM
I To: Kingery, Kristine M Ms ACSIM; Moeller, Dale Mr ASA-I&.E; Van Br.ocklln, COnnie H
I Ms ACSIMi Bell, David E Mr OGe; Atkins, Angela G Ms ACSIM/SMI Inc,; Holsinger,
Shawn MOr •
I Cc: Buescher, John Mr ASA·llkE
Subject: FW: Draft Testimony klk Ot-l0-03.doc
I
Please review and provide cmts to Dale Moeller in this oHjc;e ASMJ.
I Thants.
I Mareia
····-Onglnal Message----
I From: Cotter, Sandra Ms OSD-ATL
I To: Yaroschak, Paul J; New:;ome, Rlcharil E Mr ASA-r&E; Cornell, Jeff, Lt. COl.,
SAF/1E: 'Llllo, Dennis'
I C(! Cullison, Geoffrey 0; Read, Marda W Ms ASA~I&E~ BUEscher, John Mr ASA-I&£;
I Rogers, Daniel It Col AFLSA/PR; Kratz, Kurt OSD~ATl .
Subject: fW: Draft Testlmonv klk 01-tO-OJ.doc
I
I 10/3/2005
I
I
--------------------
-Message Page 3 of3
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
sent: Friday, January 10, 2003 1:25 PM
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 Ol-lO-03.doc
Thx,
Kurt
10/312005
9 January 2003
POINT PAPER
SUBJECT: Points about Perchlorate to be addressed during DOD Testimony to the California Senate
1. Perchlorate serves as an oxidizer in rockets and missile fuel and in many pyrotechnic formulations.
Once released to the environment, the high water solubility and poor retention of perchlorate in soil
facilitates rapid leaching to groundwater. Due to recent advances in the analytical quantification methods
for perchlorate it has now been found in at least 20 states and is being detected in the groundwater at
some DOD installations. Perchlorate has high stability in aerobic groundwater and tends to persist in
these environments for decades. Review of the current literature on the toxicity of perchlorate indicates
that the sole mechanism of toxicity of this compound involves inhibition of the normal absorption of
iodine. This inhibition primarily affects iodine uptake by the thyroid.
2. The most serious DOD releases have occurred in conjunction with Air Force-contractor activities
involving maintenance and demilitarization of large rocket motors. The Air F~rce is the DOD lead
agency in the evaluation of the toxicity of perchlorate and has been involved in the effort to develop a
chronic oral Reference Dose (RID) for over a decade. The Army and Navy are involved in the process
through a DOD perchlorate-working group.
3. The USEPA and the State of California regulatory community have independently developed draft
guidance for permissible levels of perchlorate in drinking water. The two draft Risk Assessments were
prepared at roughly the same time but represent divergent viewpoints. The USEPA selected a rodent
study (Argus Research Laboratories Inc. 200 I) on which to derive their draft drinking water value of
1ppb. Although the study was well done and rigorous, serious questions remain about both the study
design and the methods used to collect the data. In addition, rodents are believed to be poor models for
thyroid function in humans because of their greater sensitivity to thyroid toxicants. The California
regulators chose a recent study done with human volunteers as the starting point for derivation of their
RID and corresponding drinking water range of2 ppb to 6 ppb. This study was unusual in that it used
human subjects and it also examined the primary effect (perchlorate inhibition of the active transport of
iodine by the sodium/iodide symporter in the thyroid).
4. The DoD toxicologists consider the California Draft Risk Assessment to be superior to the USEPA
assessment for the purposes of deriving a regulatory limit for perchlorate in drinking water. However,
both risk assessments yield very conservative drinking water values. It is estimated that healthy adults
consuming a normal American diet would have no adverse effect from ingestion of drinking water even at
concentrations of perchlorate of 280 ppb. The lower values seen in the draft risk assessments arise
primarily because of uncertainty factors employed in the risk assessments because of Ia::k of data on the
effects of perchlorate on individuals with thyroid disease and for the protection of the fetus during
pregnancy. Implementation of the current draft values would affect the use of perchlorate-containing
pyrotechnic devices in training at Army Installations. The affect on Air Force and Navy operations would
be much more serious as perchlorate is a major component in rocket fuel and efforts to find a substitute
compound have been unsuccessful.
5. DoD efforts to obtain higher regulatory limits on perchlorate focus on improving the current draft risk
assessments advanced by the USEPA and the State ofCalifomia. The DoD scientists of the perchlorate
working group and toxicologists representing the perchlorate industry met for two days in late December.
The DoD scientists were able to reach consensus on the majority of the scientific issues relating to
perchlorate and proposed a plan of action to work with the EPA to develop a better and more realistic risk
assessment. At the close of the meeting Mr. Kratz (DoD chief of cleanup) chaired a session where the
scientists and the public affairs representatives presented their progress: He was receptive to the idea of
renewing our efforts with the EPA and said he would like to begin these negotiations at his level.
6. The DoD is now considering whether it will ask the EPA to withdraw the current draft risk assessment
and their proposed drinking water value and allow the DoD to submit further research to better address
the uncertainty in the toxic effects of perchlorate. The additional data will support a change to increase
the allowable limits of perchlorate in drinking water. The DoD perchlorate-working group is currently
preparing a position paper on the scientific issues and a plan for new testing that will address the current
concerns of the EPA about gaps in the perchlorate toxicological database. Due to the potential for
disagreement between the DoD and the EPA on the establishment of regulatory values for perchlorate in
drinking water, the National Academy of Science's Committee on Toxicology (COT) was tasked by the
Air Force to review the available data, make recommendations for additional studies and propose safe
human health exposure values if sufficient data exists.
7. There is currently no federal drinking water maximum contaminant level (MCL) for perchlorate, and
such regulatory values are normally required to justifY the costs of sampling for the presence of toxicants
on military reservations. However, On 13 Nov 2002, Mr. John Woodley, Jr., Assistant Deputy Under
Secretary of Defense (Environment), signed a memorandum stating that "DOD components may ascertain
and assess for perchlorate ifthere is a reasonable basis to suspect both a potential presence of perchlorate
and a pathway on their installations where it could threaten public health." This memorandum was
provided to the Deputy Assistant Secretaries of the Army, Navy, and Air Force, in addition to the Support
Services Director of the Defense' Logistics Agency. Implementation of this directive has been difficult
because the existing validated method for quantification of perchlorate in drinking water could only
quantifY perchlorate when present in concentrations equal to or greater than 4 ppb. Thus the EPA's draft
drinking water value of 1 ppb was not quantifiable. Since early 2002, the EPA laboratories and other
commercial laboratories have reportedly reduced the minimum reporting limit to 1-2 ppb and several
commercial labs are now detecting perchlorate at less than 1 ppb. Efforts to remove perchlorate from
drinking water have been successful and several methods are now available that can reduce concentration
in drinking water to non-detectable levels.
8. In summary, substantial changes are anticipated in the areas of toxicology and in the risk assessment
and continued improvement in the analytical methodology is anticipated. Withdrawal of the current EPA
risk assessment could be accomplished in the near term and new toxicity studies could be done in about a
year after the research plan is agreed to and funding for the work is secured. In the interim, DOD will
take prudent steps to learn more about where perchlorate contamination exists and potential impacts on
human health.
Unknown
From: Kratz, Kurt•• OSD-ATL
Sent: Monday. June 02,200309:04
To: Cornell, Jeff, It. COl, SAFflE
Cc: . Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; CoUer, Sandra, Ms, OSD·ATl; Cohen, Ben, Mr DoDOGC
Subject: RE: NAS Perchlorate Proposal and IWG mtg on June 3
Jeff,
What is the status of choosing the panel?
Kurt
From: Marqusee, Jeffrey, Dr, OSD-ATL
Sent; Monday, June 02, 2003 B:54 AM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAF/IE; Kr~tz, Kurt, , OSO-~TL; PaulO COL'
OTSG Smith (E-mail)
Cc: Richard B. Belzer Ph. D. iE-mail)
Subject: RE: NAS Perchlorate Proposal and rWG mtg on June 3
Jeff
The SOW looks good. I am surprised NAS has agreed to get a draft in 12
months but that is good. Historically they have not done things that
fast.
Jeff
Dr. Jeffrey Marqusee
SERDPfESTCP Program Office
901 North Stuart Street, Suite 303
Arlin ton, VA 22203

TE:L:
FAX:
E-Mail ; ... ,;....
From: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col, SAFflE
Sent: Friday, May 30, 2003 3;41 PM
To: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Marqusee, Jeffrey, Dr, OSD-ATL; Paul D COL
OTSG Smi~h (E-mail)
Cc; Richard B. Belzer Ph. D. (E-mail)
Subject: FW: NAS Perchlorate Proposal and lWG mtq on June 3
Importance; High
Col Smith - FINALLY received the NAS SOW (last document), so I'm hoping
the attached information allows you to proceed with the transfer of $$
to the NAB for this effort. P~ease keep in mind that OSO.agreed to a
S230K effort - if NAS asks for less, we'll need to discuss (but you
don't necessarily have show our hand).
All: Would appreciate your thou~htsfcomrnents on the attached materials.
jeff
l
Cc:
Subjec~: NAS Perchlorate Proposal and IWG mtg on June 3
Importance: High
Note to IWG on ~erchlorate:
Attached tor your review is the technical proposal from the NAS in
response to our Statement of Work for the perchlorate review. Please
focus your review as to the acceptability of the personnel and approach.
(See attached file: LET. Perchlorate Ingestion. Hennessey. doc) (See
attached file: Perchlorate. key personnel.doc.xlsl (See attached file:
Biosketch of Bllen K.doc) (See attached Jile: Perchlorate Ingestion.Cover
Page.doc) (See attacned file: Proposal.~rchlorate.RevisedApril 17,
2003.doc) (See attached file: mantus.perchlorate availability.doc)
Also attached for review are the budget documents for the perchlorate
task. Please focus your review on the ~cceptability of PIopos~d labor,
travel and ODCs. Do you consider the number and mix of people to be
appropriate? Are the number and duration of trips reasonable? Is the
amount proposed for ODCa reasonable?
(See attached file: PERCHLORATE YR 2.POF) (See attached file: PERCHLORATE

YR 1.PDF) (See attached file: PERCHLORATE Cumulative Summary. PDF)
The IWG on Perchlorate will meet on Tuesday, June 3 from 3:00 to 4:00 pm
(location to be determined) to discuss the NAS ~echnical proposal.
Please let Paul Anastas and me know if you or your representative will
be able to a~tend. Our goal is to provide any comments on. the proposal
to the NAS by the end of next week. )
As background, here is the final Statement of Work we provided to the

NAS:
(See attached tile: final Task Order SOW S-13-03.wpd) (See attached file:
final Task Order SOW S-13-03.docl
Finally, per our Statement of -Work, the sponsoring agencias will be

given an opportunity to nominate candidates for consideration by the NAS
as review panel members. Any nominations (with an accompanying CV) need
to be provided to the NAS within the next two weeks. We will discuss
the process for submitting nominations at Tuesday's meeting.
-- Lisa Matthews
EPA Contracting Officer's Representative
and Executive Assistant to the EPA Science Advisor
---
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
if
L
2
1
Unknown
Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OS[)..ATL.
III
From:
Sent: wedneSdal' May 07, 200314:13
To:
SUbJect: RE: OMS/EPA/DoE responses on the Feinstein, Saxer. and ReId L.etter
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [mail to:
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:09 PM

Subject: RE: OMB/EPA/DoE responses on the Feinstein, Bo~er, and Reid
Letter
Importance: Hiqh
RBB
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL [mailto;
Sent: Wednesday, 07 May 03 14:0SPM
To: _
Subject: RE: OMS/EPA/DoE xesponses on ~he Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid
Letter
Yes,
I'll hOOK you up ••. what's your number?
-----Oriqinal Message----
From: RiChard B. B&lzer PhD [mailto ..
Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:06 PM
SUbject: RE: OMB/EPA/DoE responses on the Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid
Letter
Importance: High
Is the telecorn on SChedule?
RBB
From: Cott~r, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL [mailtol
Sent: Wednesday, 07 May 03 lO:50AM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/It; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; .
Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Ledbetter, George, COL, DoD OGe; Kratz, Kurt, ,
OSD-AlL; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; Dan Kowalczyk
Subject: OMS/EPA/DoE responses on the Feinstein, BOKer, and Reid Letter
When: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 2:00 ~M-3100 ?M (GMT-OS:OO) ~astern Time
(US "
Canada) .
Where: 3C765
1
We've received comments from OMS, 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
«DOD Draft Response to Soxer 050503_comments.wpd» «Draft Response
to
SoxerOlRAedit.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 ofDefense'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 commined 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. phannaceuticals. and nitrate-based fertilizer
products. and replace w/ agreed upon usage language: Perchlorate is a chemical tllat
has been used in various items, including missile and rocket propellallts, munitions,
fireworks. flares, fertilizer, automobile airbags. and pllarmaceuticals. Percillorate 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 tile US is used by defense and space programs. Is tllis 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 Bulldog Soda (SOM) claims to
changeu 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 perchlorates 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 securit: .
Perchlorate salts are the primary oxidizers in composite propellants and explosives. The)
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 liabilit:· 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 S 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 000
contractors from liabilit:' for cleanup of perchlorate or other chemicals. This was not the
intent of our proposal.-and as DoD testified recently before Congress. EPA and 000 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) lew le'<'el ambient contamination (what is a "low" level for endocrine
disruption when hormones b~ 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 balanced. to serve as the basis of credible and basing
risk management decisions on this scientific feundation.
(DIRA: 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 treatmen.t
,technology development, thus it needs to be reworked. Suggested edits are: The
Department has been 6t tJle/8,ejT9nt e/actively 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 tfr better
characterize the potential human health and environmental risks associated with
perchlorate. 6nd 19 devehJp inn9v6til'e tre6tment techn9l-egies (EPA: tbe majori~' of
this cost is for treatment technology used for'recovery and not for "low" level
operations.). The Dep61'HHent l'IlIS m6de 6 signific6nt in}'esllHent in perelll-9,ate
,eloted ,ese6,eh. In doing this. DoD worked closely with EPA to establish the research
agenda and study protocols. D9D scientists have t-.'Iemselves c6ndNeted me"y
il1depe~,demstudies t9 assess the p9te"tial risks 6nd effects 6j'jJerelz19,ete exp6su,e.
(DIRA: 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 a/l.) As a result of this close cooperation and DoD's proactive participation.
the science needed to characterize the potential risk fFe.m associated with law- 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 Infonnation
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 neurotoxici~' studies which assess the key endpoints of concern and
human pharmacokinetic data that allo",ed the AFRL to develop interspecies
extrapolation models. human clinical trial data which permit the deriyation of safe
exposure le·..els without ha·..iAg to rely on highly uncertain and conseryati>t'e
c~itrapol8tions from animals. in this case rats. ( EPA:-Disagree. The extrapolations
were far from 'highly uncertain' and 'conservative' because: (I) 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 bl' insensitive (4) these are nol clinical trials designed to give pharmacokinetic
information for modeling'puposes and (5) the RID estimate is not an estimate of a
"safe exposure level.")
(DoE: ...[rhis paragraph is]
r
d
DeD scientists have genuine al"I wellieululeti tiisagreeme§"ts with seme 6fthe
inferences anti cenclusiens in EPA's January 20(}2 tlrBjtpei"cllle1'tlte health
BSsessment titJcument, which centains preliminal'j' Fisk estimates that ceultl he used te
estahlish an efficial Reference Dese (RjD). Enclosed. please find a copy of the
testimony that the Department presented to the California State Senate concerning
perchlorate research en this ques!ien. 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 hBS heen
werking 19 rel-'ise #Ie 2()(}2 tiFaft "ealth assessment, anti 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 infonned 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 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 CERCL4. Thus mOl'ing thefocus awayfrom the MCL
which is years away, butfocusing on the fact that cleanups can current~v be conducted
where necessary. More should be mentioned regarding current cleanups as well as
actions being taken at the Hendersonfacili(r. )
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.)
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 we// as delays in cleanup while waiting
for a drinking water standard. DoDs response to the delay concern states on{r 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 ofcleanups that are currently occurring.
This could tie into the section where DoD discusses the $25mil/ion 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.
research and treatment technology development (EPA: as previously stated, probabl~'
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
Sent: Wednesday, May 07,200311 :15
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGC;
Ledbetter, George, COL, 000 OGC; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; 'Dan
Kowalczyk'
Subject: RE: OMBfEPAJDoE 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: 000 Response to Senator Boxer on Perchlorate {Document link: E.
Holly Fitter)
Holly-
Attached are suggested edits to the 000 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 000 provide
us with a statistic (%usage). this would be informative.
-the response does not address concerns regarding the Colorado River and Henderson
facility. 000 should discuss what is happening at that site.
-the response should focus more on 000 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. 000& response to the delay concern
states only that they support EPA efforts to move forward. It would be beneficial for 000
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

Sent: Wednesday, May 07, 2003 16:54
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt, Col. SAFflE; Choudhury. Shah. Mr. OSD-ATL; Cohen. Ben, Mr. DoD OG::
Ledbetter, George, COL. 000 OGC: Kratz, Kurt. , OSD-ATL, 'Richard B, Belzer prO 'D<,'
K9walczyk'
Subject: RE: OMB/EPA/DoE responses on the Feinstein, Boxer. and Reid Letter
5/ I
If you agree with the attached responses and revised letter, I'll forward to OMB,
-----Original Message·---
Sent: Wednesday, May 07,20034:08 PM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; Choudhury, Shah, Mr, OSD-An; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Ledbetter, George,
COL, DoD OGC; Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'; 'Dan Kowalczyk'
S"ubject: RE: OMB/EPA/DoE responses on the Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid Letter
I've Inserted the responses we discussed (blue text) into the red line/strikeout version containing OMS/EPA/DoE's
comments and changes, for use with OMB, «File' OMB-EPA-DoE withDoD responses.doc »
---··Original Appointment--·-
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-An; 'Richard B. Selzer PhD'; Dan Kowalczyk
SiJbject: OMS/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
v.:",'v-=- :::-",::el.','e:::: corr~'T1e;-.:s f:::-c:-:- O:,:=:, f:-c:;:. OIM, EPA, and DoE. We'd like t:o meet:
:: ::::l.s::uss ::o;nme.;:ts a:-;8 C:'-'::::- :'es:::::;;:ses at 2:00 PM today if possinle, i;: Kurt
~:::-a:='~ ::fl.ce. E:=~, Da;:, we :a~ ::::-~ to :nclude yo~ by phone, :: you wish.
s:
«File: DOD Draft Response to Boxer 050503_comments.wpd» «File: Draft Response to
BoxerOlRAedit.doc» «File: DoE.doc »
Dear Senator Reid.
Thank you for your recent lener in which you expressed concerns that the
(RRPl) legislation will limit our legal responsibility to address Defense-related
perchlorate contamination in drinking water supplies. The Department is commined to
Perchlorate regulation may impact the ability of the Defense Department National
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. phannaceuticals. 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 propel/ants. munitions,
fireworks,flares,fertilizer, automobile airbags, and pharmaceuticals. Perch/orate has
important applications for national defense and space exploration. (Oku~" with thl'
challgl·.j In addition, the response does not respond to the statement that "near(r" 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.) lWlllIt
"l' call s:t~ is "'''hill' it is clear that defell!ie and !iran' USl'S dominate perdllonltl' pmductioll, the
numher of sites at which 10\\ lel'cls of pl'l'chlorlltl' an' dl'tel'tcd is im'rcasingly associall·d with non
(kfl'nsl' am] nOIl-spacl' lIses:·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.) IWe han the ","Y State: Df>panml'nt of Health and L'SGS studie\, that (10 1I0t
agree with EPA's statements./
(OIRA suggests deleting tltis paragraph: This is not necessary as a

question/statement regarding perchlorates national defense applications and natiollal
security was 1101 melltioned in tlte letter.) IThis information pro\"ides the necCl'ssar~ Ilalanl'('
to the sciellce emphasis plan' 011 It is. however. correct that
th is issue in the letter.]
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 Shunle 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.) 100 not aCCl'pt. DoD is
in the prm:ess of e\aluating altcrllati\e,. hut the:rl' ~In' no cUI'rent safe substitutes in IISl' at this
time·1
Your letter expresses concern that the Department" s proposed RPPI legislation
could limit its financial liability or cleanup responsibilities with respect to perchlorate.
endangennenC' 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 $15.000 per day. Because this authority is not
limited to CERCLA "releases" or off-range migration. it empowers EPA to issue orders
to address endangennent either on-range or off-range. and to address possible
Some observers have also expressed concern that RRPI could protect DoD
contractors from liability for cleanup of perchlorate or other chemicals. This was not the
intent of our proposal. and as DoD testi fied recently before Congress. EPA and 000 have
Since 1997. the Department. in partnership with EPA. NASA. State and local
regulators. and Native American tribes. has worked aggressively to determine whether
(EPA) law le".-el ambient contamination (what is a "'low" level for endocrine
disruption when hormones by definition are designed to act at nanomolar and
, picomolar levels?) I DoD has three prohlems with these changes: I) the notion th~t F.I'.\ i..
ad'aneing that lUl~' level of perchlorate could be a risk, not recognizing that there could he :I
threshold at which pl.'rchlorate could CHUst' a risk: ht'nce the term, "am bit.'n"· as opposl'd 10 "10\\
le\·c\". 2) that pl'rchJorate is an l'ndocrinc disruptur. whcn tl1l'rc is no clear e\'ilknce to that l'fkrl.
and 3) thl.' usc of the term contamination. instead of l'XI)()SlIre is pejoralhe. I perchlorate pose
exposure poses a hazard to the American public. and to infonn and involve stakeholders
about research developments in this area. The Administration is committed to
developing health risk assessments that are objective. realistic. and scientifically sound
balaneed. to serve as the basis of credible and basiRg risk management decisions &fl
this seieRtifie feuRdatioR, I Suggest wc preser\'C lallgullge taken from the September 2(1(11
OMB guidance Oil regulato~' rcvie,'. that requires "scicntificaJly halanced' and "hasing I'ish.
management decisions on these objectin. realistic. and scicntificaJl~' balanced" assessments. I
(OIRA: This paragraph leads the reader to believe that most ofthe 29$ million is
spent on human health research, where infact 25$ million goes to treatment
technology development, th us it needs to be reworked. Suggested edits are: The
Department has been at the/iJ,ejT61lt 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 extent to whieh 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 IfJ- better
characterize the potential human health and environmental risks associated with
perchlorate. llHd 16 delJe!6[J in1l8l'a/il'e tr'eatment tecl11l8hJgies (EPA: the majority of
this cost is for treatment technology used for recovery and not for ··Iow" level
opera tions.). The DepaF1l'neHt has made a sig},i/icant inlJcstIHcnt in peFc!lllJHlte
related rese8rcll. In doing this. 000 worked closely with EPA to establish the research
agenda and study protocols. D6D scientists hal>'e t!,emsellJes clJnducted mallY
i1ldepe1lde}'t studies t6 assess the p6te},tia! risks alld ef/ec1s e/peFCld8rate exp8SUFe.
IAgree in rart: ,\t.' will revise the first senlCllce to read "Th,' Depllrtment has spent SOll1l.' S..J million
on research into the rotcntial health effects of perchlorate. the conditions under which thesl' risl..,s
might arise. an(1 the extent to which then' ma~ /It· 'iubro[lulations of srecial vuJnerability:' ''In
doiug this. \}oD worked c1oscl~ \\ ith EPA to t'stahlish the research agcndll and stud~' JU'otol'ols:'
(add thl' follo\\ ing from the next paragraph "As a re.. ult of this cloSt, cooperation and J)oD's
proaetin participation, the science needed to charactel'i,e tilt, ru(entiall'isk associated with 11m
levels of rerchJorate exposure was gelll'rllled in an accell'l'lIted maunel':' "1)01) lUIS also invested
o\-er S25 million to de\'elop inno\'ati\e treatmt'nt tt'chnoloj!il's 1'01' perchlonltl'. ilTesrerlin' of
"hether the chemical posed n risk. •• J
(OIRA: This paragraplt is not necessary. Perchlorate is not on the IRIS
database titus comparing a draft assessment to tltis database is irreveJant. Suggest
deleting it all.) IOkll~'] 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
Infonnation System (IRIS), as evidenced by estimations of overall confidence, size of
uncertainty factor. and types of available data. Particularly helpful is the availabili~ 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. humon elinieol triol dota \>\'hieh permit the deriyation of saft'
exposure le"lels without having to rel~' on highl~' uneertain and eonsen'uti'le
extrapolations from animals, in this ease Fats. ( EPA:-Disagree. The extra polations
were far from 'highly uncertain' and 'consen'ative' because: (1) The human and
lab animal data give the same estimates (2) the human data tell us nothing about
susceptible popujations (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.") IEPA'll point!l an' true onl~ if you manipulate th(' unt't'rtaint~ factur!l.
This is the hl.'art of ou r dispute. \\ I.' dun't believe tht, extrapolation models arc app.-npriate.
EPA'!l changed text ~ke\\ the fm'tll, suggt·~ting that the human data was only intended to pO(lubltt·
tht, animal mode\. Wt"\(.' not been pt'rsuadt'd this point is truc at all.1
(DoE: ... [This paragraph is]
r
DoD scientists have genuine andweltflJunded disagFeements with some of the

inferences and conclusions in EPA's .Janua?)' 2001 drRjtpeFel,Jorate hea/tll
assessment document, which contains preliR,ina?y ris.'. estimates that coulilbc used to
establish an official Reje,ence Dose (RjD). [Thi!l is an important poiut for Dol>: II has bet'n
rt'!ulrkd in th(' press, that the onl~ thin:! DoD t'an's about i!l the munt'~' it will t~ost to cleanup tltt'St'
sites. This just isn't the t'ase. \\ I.' will change tht' sClltcnce instead as follows: "»ol) lllld scientists
h:!H' significanl disagn'l'mt'nt~ with SUnlt· of till' iofl'n'nces and condusion!l in EPA 's JlIIlUar~ 2002
dl'aft pCI'chlorak health assessment dOCUlIlcllt. whidl colllain", prclimilllll'y risl. estimatt's that
could bl' ust'll to estahlish an official Ul'f('I'ClIl'(' 1>0<;1.' (Rm). '·.nclosed. please find a copy of the
testimony that the Department presented to the California State Senate concerning
perchlorate research on this question. loka~'l 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 has been
wo1'king to revise the 1{}(}2 draft health assessment, and I oka.,:\ 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.)
EP A has infonned us that it will complete and disseminate a final risk assessment when
the NAS scientific review is concluded and the 2002 peer a,nd public review comments
as well as the NAS comments are addressed. (EPA: Let us not forget EPA still has the
last review pane] comments to incorporate) 11>0 nol agrt't' "ith EPA's change to thi~
scntl'ncc. Do}) is concerned "hat EPA might be infening "ith this change: it is leming opt'n tIll:
possibilit~· of trumping the Academ~ \\ ith other data, \\ e han- all agn.,t'd that agt'ncies \\ ill suhmit
commcnts to I\;AS. not onl~ EPA. I
because of the time necessary to complete a SDWA standard. in addition to the time
EPA's efforts to move forward to promulgate a standard as expeditiously a~ possible. In
(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 thefocus awayfrom the MCL
which is years away, butfocusing on the fact that cleanups can currently be conducted
where necessarJI. I Can't agrl'e to this as a mattei' of law.] More should be mentioned
regarding current cleanups as welJ as actions being taken at the Henderson facility. ) I
What '\t' pn" ide ill the following paragraph i!'l appropl'iatc. 'Ve do not ha,'c cleanup r0onSibili~
at tht, Ht'llderson facilit~. at lenst not din:t·tl~. This is a matter to bring to[err-MeGce's lUt'lltioll.
not the J)epartment.!
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
recover from the Department cleanup costs that are our responsibility, which are
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.) I See
(:omment prm'ided ah()n~.J

address them. given available funding. This infonnation is currently being collected. I
you of active installations containing the infonnation you requested on an expedited
basis. which I expect would be by late May. (DIRA: the response should focus more
on DoD cleanup efforts and what is current(J,' being done. The boxer letter talks about
concerns regarding cleanup responsibilities as welJ 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 beneficia/for DoD to respond to this
in a positive fashion by mentioning the types of cleanups that are current~r occurring.
This could tie into the section where DoD discusses the $25mil/ion they spend on
treatment technology.) I \\c intend to pro\'idl' thc Scnatol's with a list of site" \H an' audn'ssing
at Ihis liml'. It is not howe,ver appropriatl' 10 discus" cleanup. in ~bsenCl' of a cleanup stanuan.l.
We arc cllrrcntl~ namining a ",a~' forwaru "ilh O!\IB. but beyond that. cannot audn'ss at thb
timl'·1
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP), we are cleaning up contamination
research and treatment technology development (EPA: as previousJy stated. probabJl
only 50% of it was devoted to helath studies) I See previous comment I is a clear
indication of the Department's commitment to protect the health of the American people.
This commitment is ~rther supported by our continued partnership with EPA to ensure
that the Nation' s leading scientists are pro\'ided an opportunity to review the perchlorate
management decisions are. in fact. based on sound science.

manner that fully satisfies our military readiness mission, is protective of human health.
Sincerely.
Enclosure
Dear Senator Reid,
perchlorate contamination in drinking water supplies. The Department is committed to
readiness mission. is proteqive of public health both on our installations and in
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.
pr~jectiles 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 financialliabilit)' or cleanup responsibilities with respect to perchlorate.
endangennent" 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
intent of our proposal. and as DoD testified recently before Congress, EPA and DoD have
Since 1997. the Department. in partnership with EPA, NASA, State and local
regulators. and Native American tribes. has worked aggressively to detennine whether
low-level perchlorate exposure poses a hazard to the American public, and to infonn 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 fuII support of 000. 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.
because of the time necessary to complete a SDWA standard, in addition to the time
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
these provisions.

address them. given available funding. This information is currently being collected. I
you of active installations containing the information you requested on an expedited
basis. which I expect would be by late May.
Defense Environmental Restoration Program (DERP). we are cleaning up contamination
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 w'ith 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 commined to sustaining U.S. test and training capabilities in a

by Congress. A similar lener has been provided to Senator Feinstein and Senator Boxer.
Sincerely,
Enclosure
-- - _._- --------------
Unknown
Sent: Monday. May 12,200316:57
Subject: RE: Revised 000 Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency Comment LRM E HF6~
Sensitivity: Confidential
Thanks Dan
From: Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSA/JACE
Cc: Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Ledbetter, George, COL, 000 OGC
Subject: FW: Revised DoD Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment LRM EHF69
Importance: High
Sandy,
Here is the paragraph:
"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 part!es 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."
I would leave the paragraph just the way it is above. The Army COE is
working with DoJ on the cleanup liabilities and litigation in Henderson
and expanding on the answer would, in my opinion, be counter productive
to the purpose of the letter.
vir
der
Col Dan Rogers

Air Force Office of Professional Responsibility
AFLSA/PR
112 Luke Avenue, Suite 343
Bolling AFB, DC 20032
DSN: Fax: DSN:
Commercial:
or
Chief, Environmental Law and Litigation

JACE
-----Original Message--~--
From: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE
To: Rogers, Daniel, Col, AFLSA/JACE
•
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATLi Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Cotter, Sandra, Ms,
1
('""
OSD-ATL; 'Dan Kowalczyk'; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Subject: RE: Revised DqD Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment LRM EHF69 .
Dan - you just went through the indemnification issue in our last
meeting with Mr. Gibbs - can you help out on the Henderson question
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 10:32 AM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; 'Dan Kowalczyk'; 'Richard B. Belzer
PhD'
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGC
Subject: RE: Revised 000 Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment LRM EHF69
All,
I've drafted responses to each of OIRA's comments/changes, imbedded in
the text of the letter. There was one comment, however, from Edna
Curtain about the Henderson cleanup that I was not able to decide on a
response. Do we want to elaborate on our statement about PRP aspects of
this property, or leave it the way it is? Any suggestions would be
helpful. Please review and get back to me with any changes as soon as
possible.
Thanks,
Sandy
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 3:51 PM
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/lE; 'Dan Kowalczyk'
Subject: FW: Revised 000 Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment LRM EHF69
Please see attached response from OMS, specifically comments from OMS on
page 2, paragraph 4, regarding funds spent on human health v. ecological
assessment. OMB suggests that 000 did no research on sensitive
subpopulations and are asking that we delete that portion of the
sentence.
Please advise ... is OMB correct, or have we indeed funded research on
sensitive sUbpopulations?
Thanks,
SC
From: D'Amato, Paul, Mr, 000 OGC
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 10:53 AM
Cc: Perritt, Laura, Ms, OSD-ATL
Comment LRM EHF69
Sandy,
Below and attached are OIRA's comments on your revised letter. EPA will
provide comments on Monday. If I understand all of the attachments
correctly, the only one you have to worry about is the one on the far
right side; the other Word files are your revised letter and the Text
attachments are the Edna Curtin comments I sent you yesterday.
Holly makes a good suggestion about not preparing another revised letter
until we receive all of the additional comments. Also, Holly included
phone numbers for Edna Curtin and Nancy Beck if you want to discuss
2
~ t
their comments with them.
Paul
CAUTION: This message may contain information protected by toe

attorney-client, attorney work product, deliberative process, or other
privilege. Do not disseminate without the approval of the Office of the
DoD General Counsel .
. ." "......... [mailto;

AM
Agency
Back at you Paul. Attached are OIRA comments on the revised DOD
perchlorate
letter. I will not have EPA comments until Monday. As the note
indicates, I
also need DOD to incorporate the comments that were sent over yesterday
from
Edna after you had already provide ~he revised letter. I would suggest
that
you pass these comments to the substantive person, but tell them to hold
off on
sending any revisions until I can provide all final (I hope) comments.
In the
interim, however, Edna Can be reached at 395- 3852 and Nancy at 395-3256
if your
DOD wants to discuss the two latest sets of comments.
Nancy Beck
05/0B/2003 07:09:40 PM
Record Type: Record
To: E. Holly Fitter/OMB/EOP~EOP

cc: Paul R. Noe/OMB/EOP@EOP, Margo Schwab/OMB/EOP@EOP, James A.
Laity/OMB/EOP@EOP
bce:
Subject: Re.: Revised DQD Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment
L~ EHF69 (Document link: E. Holly Fitter)
attached are OJRA comments on the revised letter. We also support ~dna's
edits
~nd would like to see them incorporated.
thanks!
(See attached file: DoD revisionOIRAedit.doc)
Comments from Edna - sent over yesterday

From: E. Holly Fitter on 05/08/2003 04:23:47 PM
Record Type: Record
To: See the distribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: Revised 000 Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment LRM
EHF69
DOD has revised its letter to Boxer/Reid/Feinstein to address OIRA, DOE,

and EPA
comments. Attached is a clean copy and a copy that tracks the comments
and
explains DOD's reaction to them. DOD is reviewing additional comments
from Edna
and will respond on those shortly. (Several of them track comments
received
from other reviewers. So that everyone knows which comments are still
outstanding I am pasting Edna's comments below)
Please review the revised letter and provide comments by COB Friday 5/9.
Thanks.
4
--
Unknown

Sent: Monday, May 12,200310:32
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. 0,01., SAFIIE; 'Dan Kowalczyk'; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, 000 OGe i
SUbject: RE: Revised DoD Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency Comment LRM EHi=6S
All,
the text of the letter. There was onhe comment, however, from Edna \
Curtain about the Henderson cleanup t at I was not able to decide on a
possible.
Thanks,
Sandy
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; 'Dan Kowalczyk'
Comment LRM EHF69
Please see attached response from OMB, specifically comments from OMB on
subpopulations and are asking that we delete that portion of the
sentence.
sensitive subpopulations?
Thanks,
SC
From: D'Amato, Paul, Mr, 000 OGC
Comment LRM EHF69
Sandy,
Below and attached are OIRA's comments on your revised letter. EP~ will
provide comments on Monday. If I understand all of the attachments'
attachments are the Edna Curtin comments I. sent you yesterday.
1
-
Paul
CAUTION: This message may contain information protected by the

DoD General Counsel.
-----Original
From:
Sent:
To:
Cc:
Subject: Re: Revised
Comment LRM EHF69
Back at you Paul. Attached are OIRA comments on t'he revised DOD
perchlorate
indicates, I
from
Edna after you had already provide the revised letter. I would suggest
that
off on
sending any reyisions until I can provide all final (I hope) comments.
In the _
interim, however, Edna can be reached at 395- 3852 and Nancy at 395-3258
if your
Nancy Beck
05/08/2003 07:09:40 PM
Record Type: Record
To: E. Holly Fitter!OMB/EOP@EOP

cc: Paul R. Noe!OMB!EOP@EOP, Margo Schwab/OMB!EOP@EOP, James A.
Laity/OMB/EOP@EOP
bcc:
SUbject: Re: Revised DoD Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment
LRM EHF69 (Document link: E. Holly Fitter)
attached are OIRA comments on the revised letter. We also support Edna's
edits
and would like to see them incorporated.
thanks!
(See attached file: DoD revisionOlRAedit.docl
Comments from Edna - Sent over yesterday
2
From: E. Holly Fitter on US/OB/2003 04:23:47 PM
Record Type: Record
cc:
Subject: Revised 000 Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment LRM
EHF69

and EPA
and
from Edna
received
Thanks.
3
Unknown
From: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFflE
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 15:38
Cc: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL; Cohen, Ben, Mr, DoD OGC; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-Ai:... 'Dar.
Kowalczyk'; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
SUbject: RE: Revised DoD Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency Comment LRM EHF69
Dan - you just went through the indemnification issue in our last
meeting with Mr. Gibbs - can you help out on the Henderson question
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAFIIE; 'Dan Kowalczyk'; 'Richard B. Belzer
PhD'
Comment LRM EHF69
All,
Curtain about the Henderson cl~anup that I was not able to decide on a
possible.
Thanks,
.
.~
Sandy " 'i
~. t:'~..;
tl~~">
-----Original Message-----
.. ~ ~

Comment LRM EHF69
Please see attached response from OMB, specifically comments from OMB on
subpopu1ations and are asking that we delete that portion of the
sentence.
sensitive subpopulations?
Thanks,
SC
From: D'Arnato, Paul, Mr, DoD OGC
Comment LRM EHF69
Sandy,
Below and attached are OIRA's comments on your revised let~er. EPA will
provide comments on Monday. If I understand all of the attachments
1
~ -~
attachments are the Edna Curtin comments 1. sent you yesterday.
Paul

DoD General Counsel.
Back at you Paul. Attached are OIRA comments on the revised DOD
perchlorate
letter. I will not have ~PA comments until Monday. As the note
indicates, I
from
Edna after you had already provide the revised letter. I would suggest
that
off on
In the
interim, however, Edna can be reached at 395- 3852 and Nancy at 395-3258
if your
Nancy Beck
05/08/2003 07:09:40 PM
Record Type: Record
To: E. Holly Fitter/OMB/EOP@EOP

cc: Paul R. Noe/OMB/EOP@EOP, Margo Schwab/OMB/EOP@EOP, James A.
Laity/OMB/EOP@EOP
bcc:
Subject: Re: Revised DoD Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment
attached are O~RA comments on the revised letter. We also support Edna's
edits
2
, '1
'thah~!
(See attached file: DoD,revisionOlRAedit.doc)
Record Type: Record
cc:
Subject: Revised DoD Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment LRM
EHF69

and EPA
and
from Edna
received
Please review the revise~ letter and provide comments by COB Friday 5/9.
Thanks.
3
Unknown

Sent: Wednesday, May 14,200309:18
To: Ledbetter, George, COL, 000 OGC
Subject: RE: Revised 000 Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency Comment LRM EH~Sc
George,
Here's a clean copy of the response to the Feinstein, Boxer, and Reid
letter. Is this what you wanted?
From: Ledbetter, George, COL, 000 OGC
Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 8:55 AM
SubJect: RE: Revised 000 Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment LRM EHF69
Sandy, do you have the finished letter to Senator Boxer?

attorney-client, attorney work- product, deliberative process, or other
000 General Counsel.
To: Ledbetter, George, COL, 000 OGC
SubJect: FW: Revised 000 Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment LRM EHF69
To: Cornell, Jeff, Lt. Col., SAF/IE; 'Dan Kowalczyk'; 'Richard B. Belzer
PhD'
Comment LRM EHF69
All,
Curtain about the Henderson cleanup that I was not able to decide On a
possible.
Thanks,
Sandy
1
---~-Original Messaq6----
From.: Cotter, SC!ndra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Sent: FridAy, May 09, 2003 3:51 PM
Subject: FW: Revised DoD Letter on perchlorate and Responses ~o Agency
Comment LRM EHF69
Please see attached response from OMS, specifically comments from OHB on
assessment. OMS suggests that DoD did no research on sensitive
sUbpopulations and are asking that we delete that portion of the
sentence.
Please advise .•. is OMB correct, Or have we indeed funded research on
sensitive subpopulations7
Thanks,
SC
-----OriQinal Message----
from: D'Amato, Paul, Mr, DoD OGC
Sen~: Friday, May 09, 2003 10:53 AM
Subject: FW: Revised DOD L~tter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment LRM EHF69
Sandy,
Below and attached are OIRA'6 comments on your revised letter. EPA will
provide comments on Monday. It I understand all of the attachments
correctly, the only one you have to worry about 15 the one on the far
right side; the other Word tileS are your revised letter and the Text
attachments are the Edna Curtin comments I sent you yesterday.
Holly makes a good sU9ges~ion about not preparing ~nother revised letter
until we receive all of the additional comments. A~so, Holly included
Paul
CAUTION: This message may contain intormation pro~ected by the

at torney-client, attorney work product, dellbera~ive process, or ot-her
privilege. Do no~ dl~~erninate without the approval of the Office ot the
000 General Counsel.

Comment LRM EHF69
Back at you Paul, Attached are OIRA commencs on the revised DOD
perchlorate
indicates, I
also need DOD to incorporate the comments that were ~ent over yesterday
from
Edna ~fter you had already provide the revised letter, I would suggest
2
,
that
you pass these comments to the sUbstantive person, but tell them to hold
off on
In the
interim, however, Edna can be reached at and Nancy at
if your
Nancy Beck
05/08/2003 07:09:40 PM
Record Type: Record
To:
cc:
bcc:
Comment
attached are OIRA comments on the revised letter. We also support Edna's
edits
thanks!
(See attached file: DoD revisionOIRAedit.doc)
Record Type: Record
To: See the di~tribution list at the bottom of this message
cc:
Subject: Revised DoD Letter on Perchlorate and Responses to Agency
Comment LRM
EHF69

and EPA
and
from Edna
received
Thanks.
3
Dear Senator Reid.
Department of Defense' s (DoD' s) proposed Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative
various items. including missile and rocket propellants. munitions. fireworks. flares.
fertilizer. automobile airbags. and pharmaceuticals. We will revise the sentence as
follows "While it is clear that defense and space uses dominate perchlorate production. it
is not clear that the number of sites at which low levels of perchlorate are detected will be
associated with defense and space uses.
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 a'pplications
currently exists. but DoD is in the preliminary stages of evaluating possible sUbstitute.s.
Nothing in RRPI affects the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA), which gives the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency broad .authority to take such actions as it "may deem
endangennent" resulting from a contaminant that is present in, or is likely to enter, a
public water system or an underground source of drinking water. 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
intent of our proposal. EPA and DoD have developed revised legislative language
making this point unambiguously clear (Enclosure 1).
regulators, and Native American tribes, has worked aggressively to detennine whether
low·level perchlorate exposure poses a risk to the American public, and to infonn and
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 approximately $2 million on research into the potential
human health hazards and $2 million on ecological 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 ofwhether the chemical posed a risk.
DoD scientists and its consultants have significant concerns 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
(Enclosure 2). 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 ass~ssment when the NAS
scientific review is concluded and the NAS comments are addressed.
required for the NAS study to be completed. We understand this concern, and support
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 t6 the public.
EPA's interim assessment guidance for perchlorate originally transmitted on June 18,
1999 provides a provisional RID range of 0.0001 to 0.0005 mglkg-day for perchlorate
related assessment activities. In absence of site specific risk assessment factors, this
provisional RID range can be converted to a preliminary remediation goal of 4-18ppb,
and is a screening tool and/or point of departure in performing site-specific risk
assessment activities. The p'reliminary nature of the RID and the process for considering
perchlorate for regulation under the Safe Drinking Water Act leave uncertainty for
current response actions. Under these circumstances, at DoD cleanups conducted
pursuant to CERCLA, it is appropriate for remediation managers to carefully consider
focusing their efforts en cost-effective measures to disrupt human exposure pathways to
mitigate human health while development of regulatory standards proceeds.
know, existing laws provide well-established mechanisms by which private parties can
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
you of information we currently have on active installations by late May.
the applicable laws and regulations. We are committed to protecting, preserving, and,
treatment technology development and environmental research 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
research. Such a review will ensure that risk characterization and subsequent risk

manner that fully satisfies our military readiness mission, is protective of human health,
Sincerely,
Enclosures
Honorable Barbara Boxer
Washington, DC.' 20510
Dear Senator Boxer,
Department of Defense's (DoD's) proposed Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative
readiness mission, is protec~ive of public health both on our installations and in
neighboring communities, and provides exemplary stewardship of the lands and natural
Perchlorate regulation may impact the ability ofthe Defense Department, National
Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA), and other agencies to execute
various items, including missile and rocket propellants, munitions, fireworks, flares,
fertilizer, automobile airbags, and phannaceuticals. We will revise the sentence as
follows "While it is clear that defense and space uses dominate perchlorate production, it

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
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, but DoD is in the preliminary stages of evaluating possible substitutes.
endangerment" resulting from a contaminant that is present in, or is likely to enter. a
orders to address endangerment either on-range or off-range, and to address possible
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
foundation.
perchlorate, irrespective of-whether the chemical posed a risk.
official Reference Dose (RID). Enclosed, please find a copy of the teStimony that the
(Enclosure 2). The Department continues to work with EPA and other stakeholders to
cleanup.
informed us that it will complete and disseminate a final risk assessment when the NAS
1999 provides a provisional RID range of 0.0001 to 0.0005 mg/kg-day for perchlorate
assessment activities. The preliminary nature of the RID and the process for considering
focusing their efforts em cost-effective measures to disrupt human exposure pathways to
these provisions.

"

Department's commitment to protect the health of the American people. This

by Congress. A similar letter has been provided to Senator Feinstein and Senator Reid.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
Honorable Dianne Feinstein
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Military Construction,
Committee on Appropriations
Washington, DC. 20510
Dear Senator Feinstein,
Department of Defense's (DoD's) proposed Readiness and Range Preservation Initiative
perchlorate contamination iJ:1 drinking water supplies. The Department is committed to
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
various items, including missile and rocket propellants, munitions, fireworks, flares,
fertilizer, automobile airbags, and pharmaceuticals. We will revise the sentence as
follows "While it is clear that defense and space uses dominate perchlorate production, it

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
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, but DoD is in the preliminary stages of evaluating possible substitutes.
endangennent" resulting from a contaminant that is present in, or is likely to enter, a
orders to address endangennent either on-range or off-range, and to address possible
Since 1997, the Dep'!-rtment, in partnership with EPA, NASA, State and local
regulators, and Native American tribes, has worked aggressively to detennine whether
low-level perchlorate exposure poses a risk to the American public, and to infonn and
foundation.
perchlorate, irrespective of whether the chemical posed a risk.
official Reference Dose (RID). Enclosed, please find a copy of the testimony that the
(Enclosure 2). The Department continues to work w'ith EPA and other stakeholders to
cleanup.
informed us that it will complete and disseminate a final risk assessment when the NAS
1999 provides a provisional RID range of 0.000 1 to 0.0005 mg/kg-day for perchlorate
assessment activities. The preliminary nature of the RID and the process for considering
focusing their efforts en cost-effective measures to disrupt human exposure pathways to
these provisions.

Department's commitment to protect the health ofthe American people. This

manner that fully satisfies our military readiness mission, is protective of human health,
by Congress. A similar letter has been provided to Senator Boxer and Senator Reid.
Sincerely,
Enclosures
Pa~~ I of 1
Unknown

Sent: Tuesday, June 17. 2003 16:27
To: 'Selzer@RegulatoryCheckbook.Org'
SUbject: RE: WGA response.
Thanks so much Rick.
----~Original Message---·
From: RIchard B. Belzer PhD (mailto:rbbelzer@cox.net]
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 20034:21 PM
To: 'Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD·ATL'i 'Daniel Kowalczyk'
Cc:
Sub ect: R :
There are NO federal standards for perchlorate in drinking water. There are, however, FDA
standards for perchlorate In food contact surfaces and as an Indirect food additive, (I don't
think those are areas you are concerned about at this time, but feel free to let me know if you
are really interested in plastic food container gaskets!)
I am unaware of any state that has issued regulatory standards that drinking water systems
must meet. Many have Issued what are called "action levels," which technically are not
regulatory as they do not prescribe certain actions. However, they have clear regulatory
implications. For example, in California the action level for perchlorate is 4 ppb. A water system
discovering that It has 4 ppb or greater is required to send notices out to all customers telling
them they are about to die (more or less). Few water systems like doing this, so they either
blend water to get below the action level or they shut down the water source to avoid having to
send such a notice.
That said, WGA is not asking about public water systems, etc. They get water right from the
Colorado River, and their concern is irrigation water. For irrigation water what matters is Clean
Water Act "water quality crIteria". USEPA has not established a "numerical criterion" for
perchlorate (see here for a list) and so far as I can tell no State has established one, either.
(EPA reports data for Missouri and Mississippi only, for some reason, berg).
RBB
-----Original Message·····
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD·ATL [maHto:
sent: Tuesday, 17 June 03 13:34PM •
TO:.'.Da.n.ie.1Kowalczyk'; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Cc:,.
Subject: WGA response.
Mr. Cohen has SUbstantially edited previous version. One question he asked that I'm not able to
answer definitively is whether there are binding state standards. Please see the note in
parenthesis. Do either of you know? Please let me know.
SC
10/6/2005
Pi.lg-: 1 01' I
Unknown
From: Cotter. Sandra. Ms, OSD-ATL

Sent: Tuesday. June 17. 2003 16:27 ,S(7
To: 'Belzer@RegulatoryCheckbook. Org'
Subject: RE: WGA response.
Thanks so much Rick.
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [mailto:rbbelzer@cox.\1etJ
Sent: Tuesday, June 17, 2003 4:21 PM
To: 'Cotter Sandra Ms OSD-ATL'; 'Daniel Kowalczyk'

Cc:
Subject: RE:
There are NO federal standards for perchlorate In drinking water. There are, however, FDA
standards for perchlorate in food contact surfaces and as an indirect food additive. (1 don't
must meet. Many have issued what are called "action levels," which technically are not
implications. For example, in California the action level for perchlorate Is 4 ppb. A water system
discovering that it has 4 ppb or greater is required to send notices out to all customers telling
them they are about to die (more or less). Few water systems like doing this, so they either
send such a notice.
That said, WGA Is not asking about public water systems, etc. They get water right from the
Colorado River, and their concern is irrigation water. For irrigation water what matters is Clean
Water Act "water quality criteria". USEPA has not established a "numerical criterion" for
perchlorate (see heJ:§ for a list) and so far as I can tell no State has established one, either.
(EPA reports data for Missouri and Mississippi only, for some reason, here).
RBB
-----Original Message··--
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL [mailto:
Sent: Tuesday, 17 June 03 13:34PM
To: 'Daniel Kowalczyk'; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Ce:
Subject:
Mr. Cohen has SUbstantially edited previous version. One question he asked that I'm not able to
parenthesis. Do either of you know? Please let me know
SC
10/612005
Pa!!e 1 of 1
Unknown
From: Cotter, Sandra. Ms. OSD-ATL

Sent: Tuesday. June 17. 200316:27
To: 'Belzer@RegulatoryCheckbook.Org'
Subject: RE: WGA response.
Thanks 50 much Rick.
··-·-Original Message----
From: Richard B. Belzer PhD [mailto:rbbelzer@cox.net]
sent: Tuesday, June 17, 20034:21 PM
To: 'Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL'; 'Daniel Kowalczyk'
Cc:
SUbJe :
There are NO federal standards for perchlorate in drinking water. There are, however, FDA
standards for perchlorate in food contact surfaces and as an indirect food additive. (I don't
must meet. Many have issued what are called "action leve/s," which technically are not
implications. For example, In California the action level for perchlorate Is 4 ppb. A water system
discovering that It has 4 ppb or greater Is required to send notices out to all customers telling
them they are about to die (more or less). Few water systems like dOing this, so they either
send such a notice. .
That said, WGA is not asking about public water systems, etc. They get water right from the
Colorado River, and their concern Is Irrigation water. For Irrigation water what matters is Clean
Water Act "water quality criteria". USEPA has not established a "numerical criterion" for
perchlorate (see here for a list) and so far as I can tell no State has established one, either.
(EPA reports data for Missouri and Mississippi only, for some reason, here).
RBB
-----Original Message---··
From: Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL [maHto
sent: Tuesday, 17 June 03 13:34PM
To: 'Daniel Kowalczyk'; 'Richard B. Belzer PhD'
Cc '
Subje :
Mr. Cohen has substantially edited previous versfon. One question he asked that I'm not able to
parenthesis. Do either of you know? Please let me know.
SC
10/6/2005
Unknown
From: Kowalczyk Daniel
Sent: Tuesday, June 03, 20
To: Kurt Kratz
Cc: Shah Choudhury; Sandra Cotter; Richard Belzer; Col Dan Rogers; Lt Col Jeff Cornell
Subject: Situational Awareness
Kurt,
I'm not sure if its too late for comments on the JCS Situational
Awareness summary, but Rick and I went over the proposed document (dated
late May 2003) and provide the following comments.
vIr
Dan
Daniel Kowalczyk
Booz Allen Hamilton
8283 Greensboro Dr
McLean, VA 22102
(ph)
( fax)
PERCHLORATE
TIMELINE
• Used Since 50's: Ordnance, Propulsion; Pharmaceuticals, fertilizer. Flares; Fireworks. etc.
Constituent in Some Fertilizers,
• Environmental Issue in 90's:
o 1992: Little Science. but EPA Issues Drinking Water Assessment/Remediation
Guidance setats 4-18 fflart~5 per Bbillion ~bP-PB) in Drinking WaterBased on
1952 Study of 8 Graves' Disease Patients Administered Over 600.000 ppb
Equivalent.
o DoDINASAlIndustry Object, Then Agree to Work Cooperatively and Proactively
with EPA to Perfonn Necessary Science for a "Credible" Standard
• 1998-99: EPA Releases 1sl Draft: Assessment - Recommends 32 ppb Drinking Water
Equivalent.
o External Peer Review Disagrees with EPA Science Rationale. Proposes More
Research to Enable Science-Based Increase in EPA Standards.
• 1999-01: Extensive New Scientific Infonnation Generated Showing No Risk at
Environmental Levels.
• 200~l: EPA Releases Draft Assessment - Recommends 1 pW1 per billion (Ppb1 Drinking ffi
Water Equivalent. .
• DoD / NASA I Industry / Some States & Academia Disagree with EPA Science
• Growing Concern and Media Attention; Enforcement Actions from Regulators
• 2002-03: DoDINAS~AlDoE Object; Work With Administration to Improve Analysis, Process
o EPA Agrees to National Academies of Science (NAS) Review of Science
Underlying EPA Draft: Risk Assessment.
o Overarching Review of FedGov Risk Analysis / Risk Management Processes
o EPA "Reaffinns" existing 4·18 ppb Standard, but with "focus on the low end"
• 2003: Media Treatment of Scientifically Flawed Lettuce Studies Raises Issue of Perchlorate
in Food Supply
• 2004 (PROJECTED): NAS Review Completed; EPA Proceeds with Standard Development
DEFENSE INDUSTRY
• Single Manufacturer of Perchlorate is a Small Business: American Pacific (Production
Facilitv in .,Cedar City UT1
• Reliance on Perchlorate: ~5-25% of War Reserve Materiel (Munitions/Ordnance); Nearly all
Solid Propulsion Systems~ -
DoD PROACTIVE INVESTMENT> $30M

• Treatment/Analytical Technologies
• Human Health / Eco-Toxicity Studies (designed with or by EPA, other stakeholders)
• DoD Survey to Detennine Contamination & High-Risk Sites ongoing (current info will be
provided to Hill by end of May 03)
LEGISLATIVE ACTIVITY
• Inti I World Health Organization I EU: No Known Standards
• State Legislation / Action Levels: 10 States Developing Standards; from 1-31 ppb
• California Legislative Activity: Would Effectively Ban e&-Perchlorate Use, Handling
• US Congress Legislative Activity (Sen:. Boxer): Accelerate Standard Setting
DoD / NASA / National Missile Defense COSTS & IMPACTS
• Encroachment:
o Loss Of Access & Use Of Military Lands; Decreased Realism in Training
o Unnecessary Condemnation of Water Supplies
• Weapons Systems AcquisitionlLogistics:
o $10-$SOB To'Replace Perchlorate, No Benign "Drop-In Replacement"
o Perchlorate a "Strategic Materiel" but Lone Supplier Means "Single Point Failure"
• Decreased OrdnancelMunitionslPropulsion System Safety
• Estimated DoD Cleanup Costs> $15B Without Appreciable Public Health Benefit
BOTTOM LINE: DoD Proactively Addressing Public Health Concern; Fighting for "Credible
Decisions from Credible Science"
REPORTED PERCHLORATE INDUSTRIAL USERS (USEPA- Apr 2003)
~
f)
.
L l~--~; ~_.JC~.'I'\
• ~. I I,---1 •. .-------,.
~ \"~-. . ,l~----·~
••
\\ t/• ,f.·. 1- --- _. . • \{
I •
• \ ~._-----~- ~- ------ I J_' ·'. ,

•
.
•
"/ '
I v· \.r/·~~w~\-
. If ~~
I·· L,i.~,~-- ----. . - - ..\.-.! JV\
• I· I
••• /
,
I .. •
--_.
•I .
,1' .'
. -,"
""'~.. ..•
1· I
. ,. . • .f,':'
"
'
\.
.
-',
{
J~~
\ •
~ N
~ \
~? \
,·'~'b;f'''''.J:,
t-"i
,of. ~
.. 0
c:- <=
i3r:;::)
• Perchlorate Manufacturers and Users
Major Rivers
- ~ j"-... o State does not contain a known manufacturer or user

'. rJ"
\v'"'> o State contains a known manufacturer or user
... ,
'\
!>-.,
!
\';,~
• •
, .,~'
i· .,,~
..
...1
,,-"-""'~
••
./
...,
"'"'-.
• •
• •
.....-. •
~-,.-,,--~
• • • •
.....~
• •
•
,.5
."-' .--
.Y'''',_ ...)
•••
.. /
.;
"\
:
&;!:~
~lll<lOla N E V A 0 A
... L_
.,.""*
~
O.
Sacn ,,'" 0ld0u3
t~t
~TIIq'
~"O.11lI
CALI FORNIA
ARIZONA
W." 1M" ~ Phoerix

~1i..A-•. . ,L
").{ ~ O"'Ultl
* PERCHLORAlE RELEASES
Drinking Water Contamination

JL Monitoring Wells Only MEXICO
TtEson.
.l. ~kUOl
D•• aoeO..
-I
.... Colorado River Contamination Janu.lfY, 2003
21SI1s
11 Suptffund
PERCHLORATE IN LAKE MEAD I COLORADO roVER
(NOTE: Former Perchlorate Manufacturing Plant at Henderson, NV + Unkgown Contribution
From Fertilizer Used in Agriculture Along Colorado River)
Lower Colorado River
2002 Average Perchlorate Concentrations
"
; ., (
LDS AnOHles
..-- 511(1 D1GgtJ
I
t, $~U';l'>
i \
Pnrlel1lX
I
, ... ~. :'
5ppb
. I
, ,f'
JAqlJC~CI
o EPA , ' ...........
[L :..,..
._-.-,.
'
Rlvct
im,han RcS(,~"'~ltnn
....
•
.;1lU
t
----~----'
.J ......
Unknown.
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 200410:54
To: Lt Col Jeff Cornell; Kurt Kratz; Shannon Cunniff
Cc: Salomon Roy; Wierman Hayes Kathryn; Richard Belzer; Col Dan Rogers
Subject: Draft Concept Document for EO 12866 Analysis of Perchlorate RfD
1!J
040322_E012866
RIA for RfD.pdL
Jeff,
As requested 6 Apr 04, find attached Rick's 22 Mar 04 draft document on

how it can be argued that EO 12866 applies to the perchlorate RfD.
Despite its appearance, this document is not intended to be sent out to
OIRA, but rather to generate internal 000 discussion of how it can be
argued that EO 12866 applies to draft RfD's. Feel free ~o contact me
with any questions or comments.
vir
Dan
Daniel Kowalczyk
Booz Allen Hamilton
8283 Greensboro Dr
McLean, VA 22102
1
PRE·DECISIONAL DRAFT
DO NOT QUOTE OR CITE
Dr. John D. Graham

Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Dr. Graham:
The Department of Defense (DoD) hereby requests that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) direct the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to submit for formal review its Reference Dose (RID)
for perchlorate, along with all related guidance documents concerning how
the RID may be used for assessment activities, site remediation, or any other
purpose. This RID is a regulatory action as that term is defined in Section
3(e) of the Order, andit is an economically significant regulatory action as
defined by Sections 3(f)(1), (2) and (4). The RID must be reviewed before it is
re-proposed, issued, disseminated or listed on EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS).
The RID for perchlorate also should be subject to regular rulemaking
procedures as set forth under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553. As indicated below, the issuance, dissemination or listing of the
RID will have substantial direct and indirect effects that are automatically
triggered by the operation of existmg federal law and regulation. There are
no other procedures under federal law to ensure due process. If necessary, the
Department respectfully requests that OIRA seek a written opinion from the
Department of Justice that makes an affirmative determination that this
action constitutes a rule or states clearly why it does not.
I. Executive order 12866 applies to EPA's ptoposed Reference Dose for

perchlorate and its generally applicable site remediation standards.
A. The perchlorate RID and generally applicable interim site

remediation standards are regulatory actions under EO 12866.
The RID for perchlorate is clearly covered by the express language of
Executive Order 12,866. Centralized review procedures apply to "regulatory
actIOns" that meet certain mimmum standards of scope, scale 01' effect.
Section 3(e) defines the term regulatory action as meaning
any substantive action by an agency (normally published in the
Federal Register that promulgates or is expected to lead to the
10f9
22 March 2004
800z I Allen I Hamilton

PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFT
promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry,

advanced notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed
rulemaking.
See 58 Fed. Reg. 51737-8.
The selection of an RID is not a mere scientific exercise, but rather a
substantive policy decision. EPA defines the RID as
[a]n estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.
See EPA IRIS Glossary, http://www.epa.gov/iris/gloss8.htm#r. EPA
specifies the magnitude of uncertainty as ten-fold ("an order of magnitude").
However, EPA does not specify whether this tenfold uncertainty lies above
the RID or below it, nor does it explain the scientific meaning of the qualifier
"perhaps". This imbues the RID with substantive policy judgment. More
significantly, the definition concerns an "appreciable" risk of"deleterious
effects"-terms for which there is no scientific meaning and therefore is
clearly a policy matter. The RID is especially rich in policy judgment
concerning the appropriate degree of precaution.
The RID for perchlorate is expected to lead to two types of regulations:
first, a primary drinking water standard for perchlorate under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) if EPA determines that such a standard is
warranted, and second, enforceable regulatory standards for site remediation
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of
1992 (FFCA).
Promulgation of the RID is an essential element of ascertaining
whether the magnitude of the hazard posed by perchlorate and the level of
environmental exposure are sufficient to warrant elevation of perchlorate
from the Contaminant Candidate List to formal regulatory development. A
primary drinking water standard for perchlorate is v~ry likely to be
"economically significant" under Executive order 12866 and "major" under
the Congressional Review Act. Further, the RID is almost certain to be
interpreted as an authoritative reference for determining the magnitude of
baseline human health risks (relevant for deciding whether regulation is
warranted under SDWA) and as the basis for estimating benefits pursuant to
OMB Circular A-4.
EPA has issued generally applicable site remediation standards for
perchlorate in 1992, 1995, 1999, and 2003. Although they are labeled merely
2of9
22 March 2004
BaOl I Allen I Hamilton
as assessment guidelines, they contain "provisional" RIDs and explicit

instructions concerning how to convert them into drinking water equivalent
levels (DWELs). EPA Regions and States routinely use DWELs derived from
RIDs as the basis for setting site-specific cleanup standards. Whether EPA
intended these documents to be interpreted as regulatory standards is
irrelevant; it was highly predictable that that they would have significant
regulatory impacts and such predictions have proved accurate.
B. EPA Eo draft RiD and generally applicable interim site remediation

standards are ripe for Executive order 12,866 review.
At such time as EPA decides that regulation under SDWA is

warranted, it will be extremely difficult for any affected party to reopen
consideration of the substantive policy judgments inherent in alternative RID
values as they relate to alternative drinking water standards. Similarly,
OMB is unlikely to be able to revisit the merits of policy choices embedded in
the RID once it is finalized. Therefore, Executive order review of EPA's
proposed RID for perchlorate is ripe now. Failure to review it now is likely to
irreparably harm OMB's capacity to fully review the significant policy
judgments embedded in a draft proposed drinking water standard.
Executive order 12,866 does not provide any other mechanism for the
review of generally applicable remediation standards. Such standards would
be generated almost automatically after the promulgation of the [mal RID.
EPA has implicitly promulgated interim remediation standards through its
assessment guidance, and has not submitted these documents to OMB for
review despite the likely magnitude of their implicit regulatory effects.
Procedures for judicial review are similarly lacking. CERCLA §
113(k)(2) denies potentially responsible parties an adjudicatory hearing, and
§ 113(h) delays judicial review until such time as the remedy has been
completed. Remedies that require perpetual groundwater treatment may
never be eligible for judicial review. As a federal agency, of course, DoD
cannot avail itself even of these limited remedies.
Therefore, review of both EPA's proposed RID and its generally
.applicable site remediation standards is ripe at this time.
30f9
22 March 2004
BOOl I Allen I Hamilton
PRE·DECISIONAL DRAFr
C. Through its regulatory impacts on generally applicable site

remediation standards, EPA s RID could obviate the need for a
national primary drinking water standard and thereby prevent
centralized review ofan economically significant regulatory
action.
To the extent that an RID leads to generally applicable site

remediation standards that are applied in numerous specific instances, the
extent of perchlorate contamination will decline. As the level of
contamination declines the likelihood that a national primary drinking water
standard is "warranted" also falls. Indirect regulation through the RID and
problematic guidance could cause perchlorate to be removed from the
Candidate Contaminant List. Should this happen, a number of undesirable
procedural outcomes would occur. First, a major, economically significant
regulatory action would escape OMB review and its social benefits and costs
would never be estimated. Second, controversial science policy issues would
never be aired and resolved. Third, decisions concerning the cost-effectiveness
of perchlorate regulation would not be subjected to any scrutiny before
extraordinary public resources were expended.
D. Reviewing EPA s RiD now enables OMB to ensure and maximize

the quality ofinf1uential information.
Delaying OMB review until the end of the regulatory process not only
severely handicaps its effectiveness, it would undermine important data
quality objectives. The RID is based in part on an extensive scientific
literature. However, the quality of this in1'ormation is highly variable and
heretofore has not been subject to review to ensure that applicable
information quality standards apply. Three of EPA's interim generally
applicable site remediation standards documents were disseminated prior to
the effective date for information quality guidelines, and the fourth such
document contained no evidence of pre-dissemination review.
OMB review at this time would enable these information quality issues
to be fully vetted and-addressed prior to the promulgation of a final RID.
Resolution of information quality issues now is fully consistent with OMB
guidelines on pre-dissemination review, but delaying resolution until some
future date forces these issues to be resolved through error correction
procedures. Ifinformation quality review were delayed until after a primary
drinking water standard had been promulgated, error correction claims
shown to be scientifically justified would be legally impermissible under
SDWA's anti-backsliding provisions.
40f9
22 March 2004
I I
BOOl Allen Hamilton
II. EPA's RID and generally applicable interim site remediation standards
have economically significant impacts.
The RID and site remediation guidance based on it have economically

significant effects. Whether the benefits of these standards justify the costs
(Executive Order 12,866, § 1(b)(6» or net benefits are maximized (Executive
Order 12,866, § l(a» cannot be ascertained without thorough review of
whether the RID accurately characterizes "the degree and nature of the risks
posed" (Executive Order 12,866, § 1(b) (4».
Generally applicable interim site remediation standards issued by EPA
in 1992, 1995, 1999 and 2003 would have economically significant impacts as
defined in Executive Order § 3(f). First, they would have annual effects
exceeding $100 million. Second, they "adversely effect in a material way" the
"sector of the economy" responsible for the production and testing of military
and space systems that utilize perchlorate (~ 1), Third, they "create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with" DoD;s mission, which includes
providing the training.needed to ensure combat readiness (~ 2). Fourth, these
generally applicable site remediation standards "raise novel ... policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set
forth in this Executive order" (~ 4)
A. The appropriate regulatory baseline includes zero prior effects.
The indirect effects of remediation standards are usually ignored in

EPA's regulatory analysis of the impacts of primary drinking water
standards. They are always ignored for setting RIDs and interim site
remediation standards.
The usual justification for excluding these impacts is that remediation
costs are attributable to the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and not to a
drinking water standard. The cost of the NCP is notoriously underestimated,
but even the best analytic effort could not account for effects that occur after
the NCP is revised. For regulatory accounting purposes, what matters is that
all regulatory costs are counted precisely once. For both simplicity and
concreteness, site remediation costs associated with newly finalized RIDs
should be counted at the time EPA takes action on the RID.
Therefore, in principle EPA should have estimated regulatory impacts
in 1992, 1995, 1999 and 2003 when it promulgated generally applicable site
remediation standards. Because it did not do so, no regulatory impacts have
been accounted for to date. If EPA were to decide not to promulgate a
national primary drinking water standard for perchlorate, there would be no
record of social costs and benefits even if a drinking water standard proved
50f9
22 March 2004
Baal I Allen I Hamilton

unwarranted precisely because billions of dollars had already been expended

on site remediation.
For these reasons, a zero-impact baseline is appropriate for estimating
the regulatory impacts of perchlorate regulation.
B. Perchlorate regulation has impacts exceeding $100 million per

year. .
EPA has not disseminated any estimate of regulatory impacts ~nd

ignores such information when choosing an RID. As EPA's definition makes
clear, the RID is intended to be an estimate of zero or near·zero risk to every
member of the population. EPA does not account for costs, technical
feasibility, or other impacts such as substitution risks in its selection of the
RID. At the same time, the RID has no statutory basis so the're are no
statutory restrictions governing the criteria EPA must use in choosing among
alternative RID values. Similarly, EPA's interim site remediation standards
do not include any consideration of these factors.
DoD has estimated a subset of the likely costs associated with
alternative perchlorate RID DWELs ranging from 1 ppb to 200 ppb, for a
subset of likely cleanup sites. Across 188 of ~ sites, estimated costs rise
exponentially as_the DWEL approaches 1 ppb, reaching approximately $14
billion for ion exchange and $3 billion for ex situ bioremediation. (Ion
exchange is likely to be required in any instance where the water being
remediated is drinking water.)
C. Incorporating uncertainty into cost estimates.

These cost estimates are necessarily uncertain, and in almost every
respect the likely effect of uncertainty is to understate likely costs. When
choosing an RID, EPA has an established procedure for applying several
uncertainty factors to a "point of departure" that itself was derived from
scientific evidence of risk (usually the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level,
or LOAEL). Analogous methods can be used to account for uncertainty on the
cost side.
1. Uncertainty with respect to the volume of groundwater
that must be treated at each specific site (UFv).
For each site in DoD's inventory for which perchlorate sampling data
are available, groundwater equal to one acre-foot per acre is assumed to
require treatment. The area of contamination is also uncertain due to limited
data, and perchlorate is highly mobile in groundwater. Based on the
experience of DoD engineers, uncertainty concerning the volume of
60f9
22 March 2004
Booz I Allen I Hamilton
DO NOT QUOTE OR CIT~
groundwater requiring treatment, defined as UFv, is likely to be factor of 3

10.
2. Uncertainty with respect to the number of sites that
require treatment (UFs).
DoD has sampling data from 118 installations indicating 128 separate
contaminated sites. DoD is missing data from another ~ installations. In
some cases, no sampling was performed because perchlorate was not expected
to be detected. In other cases, however, perchlorate is likely to have been
detected if sampling had occurred. Based on the experience of DoD
remediation specialists, uncertainty concerning the number of installations
at which perchlorate is expected to be found once sampling is performed,
defined as UFs, is likely to be a factor of 3.
3. Uncertainty with respect to Formerly Used Defense Sites
(FUDS) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Sites
(UFF and UFB).
Typically, few data exist for FUDS and BRAC sites because
perchlorate was not a contaminant of concern when they were removed from
inventory. Of the 128 sites in DoD's sample with sampling data, 12 were
FUnS of which 5 were positive. One or more sites at 12 out of 13 BRAC
installations also were positive, Because there are thousands of FUDS at
which perchlorate might be detected, the potential for massive increases in
cost cannot be understated. The calculation below assumes that values for
UFF (uncertainty about the cost of perchlorate remediation at FUDS) and
UFB (uncertainty about the cost of perchlorate remediation at BRAC sites)
are each 3, but they could easily be much greater.
4. Uncertainty with respect to the cost of cleaning up other
media besides groundwater and ensuring source control
(UFoM).
DoD's cost estimates are based on remediating groundwater only.
Many sites have contaminated soils, and some have contaminated surface
waters, storm waters and sediments. In addition, all groundwater treatment
costs exclude the cost'ofsource controls that would be'needed to ensure that
no additional perchlorate enters the contaminated zone. This uncertainty"
defined as UFoM, is assumed to be a factor of 3 but could in fact be much
greater.
5. Summarizing the effects of uncertainty.
DoD's preliminary estimate of the cost of complying with EPA's
proposed RID for perchlorate (DWEL equals 1 ppb) at 118 installations
covering 128 sites for which sampling data is available is $3 billion to $14
7of9
22 March 2004

billion, depending on the technology applied. Methods analogous to what EPA

uses to derive the RID can be applied to derive a cost estimate that captures
most uncertainties. This method yields the following cost range based on a
composite uncertaj.nty factor of 243:
Cost rang~ = ($3 billion to $14 billion) x UFvx UFs x UFF x UFB X
UFOM.
=($3 billion to $14 billion) x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3.
= ($3 billion to $14 billion) x 243.
=$729 billion to $3,400 billion.
Removing excess precision by rounding 243 up to 300 yields
approximate cost estimates of $900 billion to $4,200 billion.
D. Unquantified costs.
DoD acknowledges that its preliminary cost estimates are highly
uncertain. However, ~o quantitative estimates of cost are available for a
number of significant categories of cost. Examples include, but are not
limited to:
• Complex remediation situations, such as treating plumes
with co-mingled contaminants
• Private sector remediation costs
• Litigation costs, including litigation for property damages
and personal injuries as permitted by law
• Regulatory permit costs
• The cost of treating or replacing drinking water on DoD
installations and offsite where DoD activities are responsible
for contamination
• The cost of treating all water in the Colorado River if EPA
selects an RID below levels found therein
• Operational costs associated with changes needed to
manufacture perchlorate and develop, test, qualify, and use
of weapon systems containing perchlorate compounds in
ways that do not yield new contamination
• Costs of fully characterizing the occupational, operational,
human health environmental risks of potential alternatives
prior to their adoption as replacement energetic compounds,
including the cost of securing prior EPA approval
8of9
22 March 2004

• The costs associated with the development, manufacture,

test, qualification, and use of alternatives to.perchlorate
compounds provided that the integrated, life-cycle risks of
one or more substitutes is proved to be less than that for
perchlorate
III. A comprehensive Regulatory Impact Analysis must be prepared prior
to agency decision making.
Executive Order 12,866 requires that a complete Regulatory Impact

Analysis be performed prior to making critical regulatory policy decisions,
including policy decisions such as those embedded in the choice among
alternative RID values. As we indicated at the outset, even if the choice of an
RID is informed by science a host of nonscientific policy choices is also
included in such a regulatory action. Given the magnitude of effects likely to
occur as the result of selecting an RID for perchlorate, a highly
comprehensive RIA including formal uncertainty analysis is warranted.
This RIA should use as its baseline for estimating effects the state of
the world prior to any material agency regulatory action, plan to develop such
action, or the issuance of any guidance that triggered action. To the extent
feasible, the costs and benefits of each of EPA's generally applicable interim
site remediation 'standard (including the internally referenced provisional
RID) should be assessed.
DoD proposes that an independent, external entity skilled in benefit,
cost analysis be contracted to develop the framework for this RIA. Included in
this framework should be all material elements of OMB Circular A-4. The
RIA development process ought to be conducted publicly in a way that
exceeds the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. From the
outset this framework should maximize adherence to the highest
government-wide information quality standards and incorporate early and
frequent peer review in accordance with OMB's government-wide guidelines.
Once consensus stakeholder agreement has been achieved on the
framework, the RIA should be performed (by the same or another
independent entity) in a transparent, reproducible, and objective manner.
IV. Conclusion
90f9
22 March 2004

Unknown

Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 13:59
To: WIlIging, Joseph Mr 000 OGC; Cotter, Sandra, Ms, OSD-ATL
Subject: FW: Draft Concept Document for EO 12866 Analysis of Perchlorate RID
~
040322_E012866
RIA for RfD.pdf...
Comments?
Kurt
From: Kowalczyk Daniel [mailto:
Sent: Wednesday, April 07, 2004 10:54 AM-
To: Lt Col Jeff Cornell; Kurt Kratz; Shannon Cunniff
Cc: Salomon Roy; Wierman Hayes Kathryn; Richard Belzer; Col Dan Rogers
Subject: Draft Concept Document for EO 12866 Analysis of Perchlorate RfD
Jeff,
As requested 6 Apr 04, find attached Rick's 22 Mar 04 draft document on

how it can be argued that EO 12866 applies to the perchlorate RfD.
Despite its appearance, this document is not intended to be sent out to
OIRA, but rather to generate internal 000 discussion of how it can be
argued that EO 12866 applies to draft RfD's. Feel free to contact me
with any questions or comments.
vir
Dan
Daniel Kowalczyk
Booz Allen Hamilton
8283 Greensboro Dr
McLean, VA 22102
1
Dr. John D. Graham

Administrator
Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs
Office of Management and Budget
Washington, DC 20503
Dear Dr. Graham:
The Department of Defense (DoD) hereby requests that the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) direct the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to submit for formal review its Reference Dose (RID)
for perchlorate, along with all related guidance documents concerning how
the RID may be used for assessment activities, site remediation, or any other
purpose. This RID is a regulatory action as that term is defined in Section
3(e) ofthe Order, and it is an economically significant regulatory action as
defined by Sections 3(£)(1), (2) and (4). The RID must be reviewed before it is
re-proposed, issued, disseminated or listed on EPA's Integrated Risk
Information System (IRIS).
The RID for perchlorate also should be subject to regular rulemaking
procedures as set forth under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5
U.S.C. 553. As indicated below, the issuance, dissemination or listing ofthe
RID will have substantial direct and indirect effects that are automatically
triggered by the operation of existing federal law and regulation. There are
no other procedures under federal law to ensure due process. If necessary, the
Department respectfully requests that aIRA seek a written opinion from the
Department of Justice that makes an affirmative determination that this
action constitutes a rule or states clearly why it does not.
I. Executive order 12866 applies to EPA's proposed Reference Dose for

perchlorate and its generally applicable site remediation standards.
A. The perchlorate Rfl) and generally applicable interim site

remediation standards are regulatory actions under EO 12866.
The RID for perchlorate is clearly covered by the express language of
Executive Order 12,866. Centralized review procedures apply to "regulatory
actlOns" that meet certain mirnmum standards of scope, scale or effect.
Section 3(e) defines the term regulatory action as meaning
any substantive action by an agency (normally published in the
Federal Register that promulgates or is expected to lead to the
10f9
22 March 2004

promulgation of a final rule or regulation, including notices of inquiry,

advanced notices of proposed rulemaking, and notices of proposed
rulemaking.
See 58 Fed. Reg. 51737-8.
The selection of an RID is not a mere scientific exercise, but rather a
substantive policy decision. EPA defines the RID as
[a]n estimate (with uncertainty spanning perhaps an order of
magnitude) of a daily oral exposure to the human population
(including sensitive subgroups) that is likely to be without an
appreciable risk of deleterious effects during a lifetime.
See EPA IRIS Glossary, http://www.epa.gov/iris/gloss8.htm#r. EPA
specifies the magnitude of uncertainty as ten-fold ("an order of magnitude").
However, EPA does not specify whether this tenfold uncertainty lies above
the RID or below it, nor does it explain the scientific meaning of the qualifier
"perhaps". This imbues the RID with substantive policy judgment. More
significantly, the definition concerns an "appreciable" risk of "deleterious
effects"-terms for which there is no scientific meaning and therefore is
clearly a policy matter. The RID is especially rich in policy judgment
concerning the appropriate degree of precaution.
The RID for perchlorate is expected to lead to two types of regulations:
first, a primary drinking water standard for perchlorate under the Safe
Drinking Water Act (SDWA) if EPA determines that such a standard is
warranted, and second, enforceable regulatory standards for site remediation
under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and
Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) and the Federal Facilities Compliance Act of
1992 (FFCA).
Promulgation of the RID is an essential element of ascertaining
whether the magnitude of the hazard posed by perchlorate and the level of
environmental exposure are sufficient to warrant elevation of perchlorate
from the Contaminant Candidate List to formal regulatory development. A
primary drinking water standard for perchlorate is v~ry likely to be
"economically significant" under Executive order 12866 and "major" under
the Congressional Review Act. Further, the RID is almost certain to be
interpreted as an authoritative reference for determining the magnitude of
baseline human health risks (relevant for deciding whether regulation is
warranted under SDWA) and as the basis for estimating benefits pursuant to
OMB Circular A-4.
EPA has issued generally applicable site remediation standards for
perchlorate in 1992, 1995, 1999, and 2003. Although they are labeled merely
20f9
22 March 2004
as assessment guidelines, they contain "provisional" RIDs and explicit

instructions concerning how to convert them into drinking water equivalent
levels (DWELs). EPA Regions and States routinely use DWELs derived from
RIDs as the basis for setting site-specific cleanup standards. Whether EPA
intended these documents to be interpreted as regulatory standards is
irrelevant; it was highly predictable that that they would have significant
regulatory impac~s and such predictions have proved accurate.
B. EPA $ draft RfD and generally applicable interim site remediation

standards are ripe for Executive order 12, 866 review.
,

At such time as EPA decides that regulation under SDWA is
warranted, it will be extremely difficult for any affected party to reopen
consideration of the substantive policy judgments inherent in alternative RID
values as they relate to alternative drinking water standards. Similarly,
OMB is unlikely to be able to revisit the merits of policy choices embedded in
the RID once it is finalized. Therefore, Executive order review of EPA's
proposed RID for perchlorate is ripe now. Failure to review it now is likely to
irreparably harm OMB's capacity to fully review the significant policy
judgments embedded in a draft proposed drinking water standard.
Executive order 12,866 does not provide any other mechanism for the
review of generally applicable remediation standards. Such standards would
be generated almost automatically after the promulgation of the fmal RID.
EPA has implicitly promulgated interim remediation standards through its
assessment guidance, and has not submitted these documents to OMB for
review despite the likely magnitude of their implicit regulatory effects.
Procedures for judicial review are similarly lacking. CERCLA §
113(k)(2) denies potentially responsible parties an adjudicatory hearing, and
§ 113(h) delays judicial review until such time as the remedy has been
completed. Remedies that require perpetual groundwater treatment may
never be eligible for judicial review. As a federal agency, of course, DoD
cannot avail itself even of these limited remedies.
Therefore, review of both EPA's proposed RID and its generally
applicable site remediation standards is ripe at this time.
30f9
22 March 2004
PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFl'
C. Through its regulatory impacts on generally applicable site

remediation standards, EPA ~ RiD could obviate the need for a
national primary drinking water standard and thereby prevent
centralized review ofan economically significant regulatory
action.
To the extent that an RID leads to generally applicable site
remediation standards that are applied in numerous specific instances, the
extent of perchlorate contamination will decline. As the level of
contamination declines the likelihood that a national primary drinking water
standard is "warranted" also falls. Indirect regulation through the RID and
problematic guidance could cause perchlorate to be removed from the
Candidate Contaminant List. Should this happen, a number of undesirable
procedural outcomes would occur. First, a major, economically significant
regulatory action would escape OMB review and its social benefits and costs
would never be estimated. Second, controversial science poliey issues would
never be aired and resolved. Third, decisions concerning the cost-effectiveness
of perchlorate regulation would not be subjected to any scrutiny before
extraordinary public resources were expended.
D. Reviewing EPA ~ RiD now enables OMB to ensure and maximize

the quality ofinfluential information.
Delaying OMB review until the end of the regulatory process not only
severely handicaps its effectiveness, it would undermine important data
quality objectives. The RID is based in part on an extensive scientific
literature. However, the quality of this information is highly variable and
heretofore has not been subject to review to ensure that applicable
information quality standards apply. Three of EPA's interim generally
applicable site remediation standards documents were disseminated prior to
the effective date for information quality guidelines, and the fourth such
document contained no evidence of pre-dissemination review.
OMB review at this time would enable these information quality issues
to be fully vetted and addressed prior to the promulgation of a final RID.
Resolution of information quality issues now is fully consistent with OMB
guidelines on pre-dissemination review, but delaying resolution until some
future date forces these issues to be resolved through error correction
procedures. If information quality review were delayed until after a primary
drinking water standard had been promulgated, error correction claims
shown to be scientifically justified would be legally impermissible under
SDWA's anti-backsliding provisions.
40f9
22 March 2004
Bool I Allen I Hamilton

II. EPA's RID and generally applicable interim site remediation standards
have economically significant impacts.
The RID and site remediation guidance based on it have economically

significant effects. Whether the benefits of these standards justify the costs
(Executive Order 12,866, § 1(b)(6» or net benefits are maximized (Executive
Order 12,866, § l(a» cannot be ascertained without thorough review of
whether the RID accurately characterizes "the degree and nature of the risks
posed" (Executive Order 12,866, § 1(b)(4».
Generally applicable interim site remediation standards issued by EPA
in 1992, 1995, 1999 and 2003 would have economically significant impacts as
defined in Executive Order § 3(f). First, they would have annual effects
exceeding $100 million. Second, they "adversely effect in a material way" the
"sector of the economy" responsible for the production and testing of military
and space systems that utilize perchlorate (~ 1), Third, they "create a serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with" DoD;s mission, which includes
providing the training. needed to ensure combat readiness (~ 2). Fourth, these
generally applicable site remediation standards "raise novel ... policy issues
arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set
forth in this Executive order" (~ 4)
A. The appropriate regulatory baseline includes zero prior effects.
The indirect effects of remediation standards are usually ignored in

EPA's regulatory analysis of the impacts of primary drinking water
standards. They are always ignored for setting RIDs and interim site
remediation standards.
The usual justification for excluding these impacts is that remediation
costs are attributable to the National Contingency Plan (NCP) and not to a
drinking water standard. The cost of the NCP is notoriously underestimated,
but even the best analytic effort could not account for effects that occ~r after
the NCP is revised. For regulatory accounting purposes, what matters is that
all regulatory costs are counted precisely once. For both simplicity and
concreteness, site remediation costs associated with newly finalized RIDs
should be counted at the time EPA takes action o.n the RID.
Therefore, in principle EPA should have estimated regulatory impacts
in 1992, 1995, 1999 and 2003 when it promulgated generally applicable site
remediation standards. Because it did not do so, no regulatory impacts have
been accounted for to date. If EPA were to decide not to promulgate a
national primary drinking water standard for perchlorate, there would be no
record of social costs and benefits even if a drinking water standard proved
50f9
22 March 2004
unwarranted precisely because billions of dollars had already been expended

on site remediation.
For these reasons, a zero-impact baseline is appropriate for estimating
the regulatory impacts of perchlorate regulation.
B. Perchlorate regulation has impacts exceeding $100 million per

year.
EPA has not disseminated any estimate of regulatory impacts f:ind

ignores such information when choosing an RID. As EPA's definition makes
clear, the RID is intended to be an estimate of zero or near·zero risk to every
member of the population. EPA does not account for costs, technical
feasibility, or other impacts such as substitution risks in its selection of the
RID. At the same time, the RID has no statutory basis so there are no
statutory restrictions governing the criteria EPA must use in choosing among
alternative RID values. Similarly, EPA's interim site remediation standards
do not include any consideration of these factors.
DoD has estimated a subset of the likely costs associated with
alternative perchlorate RID DWELs ranging from 1 ppb to 200 ppb, for a
~ubset of likely cleanup sites. Across 188 of ~ sites, estimated costs rise
exponentially as~the DWEL approaches 1 ppb, reaching approximately $14
billion for ion exchange and $3 billion for ex situ bioremediation. (Ion
exchange is likely to be required in any instance where the water being
remediated is drinking water.)
C. Incorporating uncertainty into cost estimates.
These cost estimates are necessarily uncertain, and in almost every

respect the likely effect of uncertainty is to understate likely costs. When
choosing an RID, EPA has an established procedure for applying several
uncertainty factors to a "point of departure" that itself was derived from
scientific evidence of risk (usually the Lowest Observed Adverse Effect Level,
or LOAEL). Analogous methods can be used to account for uncertainty on the
cost side.
1. Uncertainty with respect to the volume of groundwater
that must be treated at each specific site (UFv).
For each site in DoD's inventory for which perchlorate sampling data
are available, groundwater equal to one acre-foot per acre is assumed to
require treatment. The area of contamination is also uncertain due to limited
data, and perchlorate is highly mobile in groundwater. Based on the
experience of DoD engineers. uncertainty concerning the volume of
60f9
22 March 2004
Booz I Allen 1 Hamilton
groundwater requiring treatment, defined as UFv, is likely to be factor of 3

10.
2. Uncertainty with respect to the number of sites that
require treatment (UFs).
DoD has sampling data from 118 installations indicating 128 separate
contaminated sites. DoD is missing data from another .4Jci installations. In
some cases, no sampling was performed because perchlorate was not expected
to be detected. In other cases, however, perchlorate is likely to have been
detected if sampling had occurred. Based on the experience of DoD
remediation specialists, uncertainty concerning the number of installations
at which perchlorate is expected to be found once sampling is performed,
defined as UFs, is likely to be a factor of 3.
3. Uncertainty with respect to Formerly Used Defense Sites
(FUDS) and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) Sites
(UFF and UFB).
Typically, few data exist for FUDS and BRAC sites because
perchlorate was not a contaminant of concern when they were removed from
inventory. Of the 128 sites in DoD's sample with sampling data. 12 were
FUDS of which 5 were positive. One or more sites at 12 out of 13 BRAC
installations also were positive, Because there are thousands of FUDS at
which perchlorate might be detected, the potential for massive increases in
cost cannot be understated. The calculation below assumes that values for
UFF (uncertainty about the cost of perchlorate remediation at FUDS) and
UFB (uncertainty about the cost of perchlorate remediation at BRAC sites)
are each 3, but they could easily be much greater.
4. Uncertainty with respect to the cost of cleaning up other
media besides groundwater and ensuring source control
(UFOM).
DoD's cost estimates are based on remediating groundwater only.
Many sites have contaminated soils, and some have contaminated surface
waters, storm waters and sediments. In addition, all groundwater treatment
costs exclude the cost' of source controls that would be needed to ensure that
no additional perchlorate enters the contaminated zone. This uncertainty"
defined as UFOM, is assumed to be a factor of 3 but could in fact be much
greater.
5. Summarizing the effects of uncertainty,
DoD's preliminary estimate of the cost of complying with EPA's
proposed RID for perchlorate (DWEL equals 1 ppb) at 118 installations
covering 128 sites for which sampling data is available is $3 billion to $14
7of9
22 March 2004

billion, depending on the technology applied. Methods analogous to what EPA

uses to derive the RID can be applied to derive a cost estimate that captures
most uncertainties. This method yields the following cost range based on a
composite uncertainty factor of 243:
Cost range =($3 billion to $14 billion) x UFvx UFs x UFF x UFB X
UFOM.
= ($3 billion to $14 billion) x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3 x 3.
= ($3 billion to $14 billion) x 243.
= $729 billion to $3,400 billion.
Removing excess precision by rounding 243 up to 300 yields
approximate cost estimates of $900 billion to $4,200 billion.
D. Unquantified costs.
DoD acknowledges that its preliminary cost estimates are highly
uncertain. However, ~o quantitative estimates of cost are available for a
number of significant categories of cost. Examples include, but are not
limited to:
• Complex remediation situations, such as treating plumes
-with co-mingled contaminants
• Private sector remediation costs
• Litigation costs, including litigation for property damages
and personal injuries as permitted by law
• Regulatory permit costs
• The cost of treating or replacing drinking water on DoD
installations and offsite where DoD activities are responsible
for contamination
• The cost of treating all water in the Colorado River if EPA
selects an RID below levels found therein
• Operational costs associated with changes needed to
manufacture perchlorate and develop, test, qualify, and use
of weapon systems containing perchlorate compounds in
ways that do not yield new contamination
• Costs of fully characterizing the occupational, operational,
human health environmental risks of potential alternatives
prior to their adoption as replacement energetic compounds,
including the cost of securing prior EPA approval
8of9
22 March 2004

· ,
PRE-DECISIONAL DRAFr
• The costs associated with the development, manufacture,

test, qualification, and use of alternatives to perchlorate
compounds provided that the integrated, life-cycle risks of
one or more substitutes is proved to be less than that for
perchlorate
III. A comprehensive Regulatory Impact Analysis must be prepared prior
to agency decision making.
Executive Order 12,866 requires that a complete Regulatory Impact

Analysis be performed prior to niaking critical regulatory policy decisions,
including policy decisions such as those embedded in the choice among
alternative RID values. As we indicated at the outset, even if the choice of an
RID is informed by science a host of nonscientific policy choices is also
included in such a regulatory action. Given the magnitude of effects likely to
occur as the result of selecting an RID for perchlorate, a highly
comprehensive RIA including formal uncertainty analysis is warranted.
This RIA should use as its baseline for estimating effects the state of
the world prior to any material agency regulatory action, plan to develop such
action, or the issuance of any guidance that triggered action. To the extent
feasible, the costs and benefits of each of EPA's generally applicable interim
site remediation standard (including the internally referenced provisional
RID) should be assessed.
DoD proposes that an independent, external entity skilled in benefit
cost analysis be contracted to develop the framework for this RIA. Included in
this framework should be all material elements of OMB Circtilar A-4. The
RIA development process ought to be conducted publicly in a way that
exceeds the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act. From the
outset this framework should maximize adherence to the highest
government-wide information quality standards and incorporate early and
frequent peer review in accordance with OMB's government-wide guidelines.
Once consensus stakeholder agreement has been achieved on the
framework, the RIA should be performed (by the same or another
independent entity) in a transparent, reproducible, and objective manner.
IV. Conclusion
90f9
22 March 2004

• _<:Message
From: Richard B Belzer {rbbeIZer@cox.netJ

Sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 12:50
To: : 'Kratz. Kurt•. OSD·ATL'
Subject: RE: Please reply
You are a prince.
RBB
-···-Original Message-' w
, ;i ,.....
From: Kratz, Kurt, , OSD-ATL [mallto
sent: Friday, February 13, 20 12:4 ~
\.
To:' Izer@RegulatoryCheckbook.org'
\
CC COrnell Jeff Lt. COl SAFflE
Su ect: FW: Please reply
Importance: High
sensitivity: COnfidential
Rick,
Yes,Tapprove the letter.
Thx,
I Kurt
----Original Message-··:·
From: Richard B Belzer [mallto:rbbelzer@cox:net]
sent: Friday, February 13, 2004 11:56 AM
To: Kurt Kratz
SUbject: PleaSe reply
Importance: High
sensitivity: Confidential
\
I have been asked (again) to prepare a regulatory impact analysis of sorts arguing that
the perchlorate RfD is a major rule deserving OMB review. This time the project is a
letter rather than a more comprehensive document. No problem
I have asked (again) that this request be coordinated through you. That has not
happened (again). Please confirm by reply email that this is something that you want me
to do and It WIll Be Done.
Muchas gracias, el capitan! '"
'8
I
,Inoepenaent, r\'~npartls8n. and nonprofit
\ " . regulatory oversIght
Richard B Belzer
PreSident
Regu'.tory CheckboOk
P.O. Box 319
Mt. Vernon, VA ;/2121
tel: 703-780-18S0
9127/2005 .,~
~\
• -Message
fax:
Powered by Plaxo
9/27/2005
Treatment Technology Development

·DOD Perchlorate Investment Summary
-
Development, deployment, and transition to private sector of ex-situ anaerobic biological reactors for the treatment of FY93-9B $ B,BOO,OOC
!-.J
-------
process effluent from industrial operations associated with manufacture and maintenance of rocket motors.
V
Laboratory, bench and field research into improving the fundamental understanding of the chemical, physical, and FYOO-02
biological processes associated with the biological reduction of perchlorate across a wide range of hydrogeochemical
conditions. Identify perchlorate reducing bacteria, most effective substrates for growth, controlling environmental
parameters, reduction rates and kinetics, and means of stimulating naturally occurring perchlorate reducing bacteria.
Laboratory, pilot and field demonstrations of ex-situ anaerobic biological reactors for treating groundwater. FYOO-current
Laboratory and pilot scale investigations of in-situ bioremediation of groundwater, including the use of biologically active FYOO-current
permeable reactive barriers and phytoremediation.
Laboratory and pilot scale investigations of soil composting, phytoremediation, and other in-situ and ex-situ methods of FYO.O-current
reducing perchlorate concentrations in soil
laboratory and pilot scale and field demonstrations of ex-situ ion exchange for the treatment of groundwater, including FY01-current
investigations with a novel bi-functional exchange resin highly selective to perchlorate and associated resin regenerant
system.
• Total does not include the $B5M Congressional set-aside San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund administered by the U.S. Total· $ 24,975,000
Army Corps of Engineers for remediation of California and Texas water supplies or $1.5M NASA FY01-02 JPL investment.
.,. " ,.,..60
., Planned FY03 $ 7,158,000

Analtytical
Analytical method development - FY02 $ 380,000
Total $ 380,000
Planned FY03
Perchlorate Alternative Research
To Date 1111111111111
Planned FY03 11111111111111
Total DOD Perchlorate Investment i $ 25,355,000
Total DOD Perchlorate Investment + Planned FY031nvesfment $ 32,513,000
Pilot FBR for RDX/perchlorate

Pilo! for well head treatment - GAC and ion exchange
//qQ
. ,~
2003 PERCHLORATE GROUNDWATER
CONTAMINATION STUDY
Perchlorate is a salt, commonly used in a host of commercial and military

applications ranging from rocket fuels and fireworks to automobile airbags. High
levels of perchlorate are known to interfere with thyroid gland and mental acuit)·
functions and with the human body's ability to produce growth and fetal
development hormones. Though much is known about perchlorate, the specific long
term effects and the specific dosage levels at which perchlorate becomes hazardous
are still being debated in the environmental, scientific and medical communities.
In Southern California, growing groundwater perchlorate contamination is widely

attributed to Department of Defense activities and the commercial fuels and
explosives industry, though the specific causes of contamination have yet to be
rigorously established; the Department has refused to acknowledge a causal
relationship until an extensive study is completed.
The Committee is aware of the controversy surrounding the evaluation of

perchlorate contamination of groundwater in Southern California and other areas
across the country. The Committee directs the Department to conduct a joint stud~'
with the Environmental Protection Agency of perchlorate groundwater
contamination, to be completed within 180 days of the enactment of this Bill.
/;{/O
-.
This report will examine in detail perchlorate groundwater pollution in and around
the Colorado River, San Bernardino County, the Cochella Valle)', Santa Clara Rivcr
and the Imperial Valley that threatens drinking and irrigation water supplies in
Southern California, Arizona and Nevada. (DoD not only PRP. l\:Ion: appropriull'
for USGS, who ha!> *llready pcrformNI charadcrization studics in the San
Bcrmlrdino Basin as well as possihlc othcr arcas. to conduct chanlcteri7.ation
studies. In addition. City of Rialto had askcd DoD to tt·~, to innuence CSG~ '0
continut'/further t~h:Jractcrizt· groundwatcr in tht' Rialto hasin. Also suggt·S( LSl):\
bt taskNI in (~onducting produ,~c/fertilizt'r study and pt>rhaps nUlrk,·t baskt't study.
to define tht> extent of perchloratt· in foods, information that might ht· useful in the
devcloprnt'nt of an eventual standard.)
This report will assess the breadth and scope of contamination and make
preliminary recommendations that will, at a minimum, include:
1. Recommendations for the establishment of a national standard for

acceptable levels of perchlorate groundwater contamination; (I t is
onl~' appropriate for DoD to partidpate in rcgulatory re,ie\\ proces~
as paJ't of standard dCH'lopmcnt (E.O. 128M» HoD has rcqut'stcd
more meaningful participation in the rcyicw pro,'ess for pt'rdllorah:
through O!\lB.)
2. Determination of the military/defense industry sources that have
contributed to perchlorate contamination; and (Wt· could do thi".
although could prest'nt prohlems for' us at our PRP sites)
3. Outline appropriate steps to be taken to mitigate or clean up (DoD
polic~', outreach, development ~lnd demonstnltion of tremment
tcdlllologit's, OMB (WG, ~ AS rcvit·w funding. ft:rtilizt'r stud~, TERA
rrvicw, dt'velopmcnt of ahcrnativc~ to perchloratt') those areas that
are deemed to be the government's responsibilit)'. (Still heing defined
through smupling effort) (Do not recommend DoD conduct or fund
any further health studies. Suffkit'nt nork aln'ad:y undl'r'wa~ or
under dt'vt'Jopmcnt (Authorization Act St~ction 331 and Scnatl'
Appropriations llcport l'ctluircment to stud~' all BRAe sites)
Sent: Wednesday, July , 3
To: Kurt Kratz; Col Dan Rogers; Lt Col JeffComell; Sandra Cotter; Richard Belzer
Cc: AI Hurt; Walter Sandza
SUbject: Belzer Input on Draft CA Charter and Kowalczyk Absence
Good afternoon.
Wanted to touch base with you all on a couple of things.
First, after talking with Col. Rogers this afternoon, I was asked to
have Rick Belzer get in touch with the Navy RBC folks to offer insight
and possible suggestions for language/direction to use in the draft CA
Interagency working Group charter the REC office has been tasked with
providing to washington by Friday. Col. Rogers was of the opinion that
having Rick speak directly with Al and Walt would provide an opportunity
to work collaboratively on the draft charter, and minimize duplication
of efforts. Accordingly, I spoke with Al and Walt, provided them a
heads up that Rick would be contacting them, and per Al's sugges~ion,
provided Walt's phone number to Rick. They will be speaking this
afternoon.
Second, a' reminder that I am going out of town with my family and will
not be available tomorrow (lhursday July 17) or Friday (July 18.) In my
absence, please contact Rick Belzer if you are in need of immediate
assistance, or Fred Bauermeister should spreadsheets come back and haunt
us. 'l'he Friday morning phonecon is still scheduled with the same
confirmation number.
vIr
Dan
Daniel Kowalczyk
Booz Allen Hamilton
8283 Greensboro Dr
Lean, VA 22102
_ (ph)
(fax)

Sent: Thursday, January ,
To: Shah Choudhury; Kurt Kratz: Sandra Cotter
Cc: Richard Belzer
SUbject: Draft Testimony
Draft
Testimony2.doc
Shah, et aI,
Find attached the draft testimony for the upcoming California Senate
meeting requested by Mr. DuBois.
vir
Dan
Daniel Kowalozyk
Booz Allen Hamilton
8283 Greensboro Dr
McLean, VA 22102·
(ph)
(fax)
1
DO NOT crTE OR QUOTE
January 29, 2003
INTRODUCTION

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. Makingremarks on their behalf is .
(Public Affairs Message~)
health is not put at.risk by military operations. Since 1997, DoD has been at the
perhlorate. 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 infonn public

any risks caused by perchlorate and has acted responsibly. DoD, in conjunction
conduct the studies using the mutually agreed upon protocols. While DoD helped
conclusions. The Department believes EPA's draft 1 ppb RfD/DWEL
technology aspects of perchlorate. When FY03 expenditures are considered, that

$85 million San Gabriel Basin Restoration Fund administered by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers for remediation of California and Texas water supplies.
In summary:

protected from any risks caused by perchlorate.
• DoD does not support all of the conclusions of EPA's draft perchlorate
risk assessment

compounds in their pure forms of white crystalline solids. Perchlorate is highly

is used in commercial applications including fireworks, airbags, road flares and
matches.
An EPA study investigating perchlorate in fertilizers found that until very.

areas of the world, in~luding the United States. This may be the explanation for
a source.


made possible the exploration of space and satellites that are used for everyday

DoD has had a long interest and involvement with perchlor~te ... 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 (17??) - need historical input from Lt Col Rogers
Despite scarce funding and competing demands, DoD has invested its
investments to:




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

ppb range. The new da~base was peer reviewed, with the conclusion being that
developing an RID.

initiated a partnership with regulatory agencies and industry stakeholders intended
fund the research and turn over the data to regulatory agencies.
As was the case previously, DoD agreed to work with regulatory agencies to
fund the research and turn over the data to regulatory agencies. This joint

The new studies were conducted, the requested inforination generated, and
assessment in January 2002 which proposed a perchlorate RiP equivalent to 1
factor from 100 to 300 despite the completion and analysis of the numerous
Compared to many environmental chemicals, much is known about how

hyperthyroidism and thYfotoxicosis at doses approaching gram levels, levels that
are more than 15,000 times higher than EPA's draft RID. The previously

notes that perchlorate is not a carcinogen, a mutagen, a reproductive toxicant, nor
excreted in a matter of hours. Because of this short half-life, perchlorate is no

Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS), as evidenced by estimations of overall
confidence, size of uncertainty factor, and types of available data. Furthermore,
(3-fold more toxic), and warfarin (lO-fold more toxic).

Greer study was constructed to take advantage of information about the

pharmacology of perchlorate generated by its long history of use as a therapeutic

concluded that a No Effect Level in the range of 180-220 ppb. Other clinical and

there is no "recommended safety level for perchlorate in drinking water of lppb."
released into the environment. For instance: .

• Perchlorate is not an "endocrine disruptor" that mimics a nonnal
honnone.
INLAND VALLEY
a lot of interest in perchlorate in the Inland Valley. Madame Chair, representing
the Inland Valley you may have a personal interest in perchlorate
I have been infonned there are on going and pending legal actions
I will not make as specific remarks regarding the situation there.
Background
The fonner Rialto Ammunition Supply Point (ASP) was begun in


land that wasn't needed for such an operation was leased out to local farmers for
farm buildings. None were disposed of and were used by DoD in addition to new
Farm Credit Administration in July 1946. The site is now divided into several
limited to:

• BROCO Expl~sives Company, later BROCO Environmental
Many of th~ users of the property originally known as Rialto ASP have

To determine whether this was an eligible FUDS site, an Inventory
identified, real estate records are searched to verify DoD ownership or control, and
eligible under the FUDS program and if potential projects exist.

present during the time of DoD ownership and control of the former Rialto ASP.
may have been indemnified for their adivities. Therefore, in regard to liability,
the site appears to have little FUDS interest. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

ordnance components or fillers on the site.
Since the INPR was done prior to the perchlorate issue, the U.S. Anny
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.

Army facilities. Fer example, October 1, 2002, an explosion and fire occurred at
site of the former Rialto A:SP. The explosion and fire occurred during an EPA
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
PREDECISIONAL D~FT - 9 January 2003

Conclusion
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 Fonnerly Used
Defense Site property during the time that United States government owned or
operated the facility
This is an area where DoD has done a lot. Rather than slow-roll by waiting
technically possible to do the treatment required by the standard, DoD decided
Bioreactors
bioreactor systems for treating process wastewater containing very high levels of
defense contractor facility near Brigham City, Utah. The frrst DoD facility to
groundwater was the fonner Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant (LHAAP) in
Karnack, Texas.
Ion Exchange

gathered as part of this effort indicate that perchlorate reducing bacteria are
devices.
Penneable Reactive Barriers

Penneable reactive barriers (PRBs) are a groundwater cleanup technology
the wall. NWIRP McGregor has successfully demonstrated the ability of PRBs to
substantially decrease th~ concentration of perchlorate in intercepted groundwater.
Phytoremediation
or degrade environmental contaminants in soil, sediment, and water. Research
funded by the Air Force Aeronautic Systems Center CASC) Engineering
Army Operations Support Command and conducted by the University of Iowa,
confinn the ability of phytoremediation to remove perchlorate from contaminated
water and soils.
Soil Biotreatment
and put into lined pits. DoD is conducting field studies llsing both soil
CONCLUSION


risk by military operations.
Weare committed to using the best available science to inform public

invested over $24 million for research into the analytical, toxicological, and
DoD's proactive position and role in addressing perchlorate issues has been

be1ieving'that it is the responsibility of regulatory' agencies to do so.
We value the validity and worth of the toxicological information generated

We also continue to believe that roper process and appropriate models and

taken by CalEPA10EHHA in its own review of potential perchlorate risks that

Message Page 1 of 1
"

Sent: Friday, January 10,200313:25
To: CoUer, 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
IL) 1CJ
Thx,
Kurt
10/18/2005
January 29, 2003
INTRODUCTION

to panicipate in this hearing and I am pleased to here to make these remarks.
Mr. DuBois, the DUSD(l&E) andMr. Woodley, the ADUSD(E) send their
regrets for being Uiillble to attend. Making remarks on their behalf is .
(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
envirorunental 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 imponance by the media.
activist groups, and in some cases environmental regulatory agencies.
I
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 we are


Recent media reports( may have led to some confusion or misunderstanding about
no "recommended safety level for perchlorate in drinking water of 1ppb." The

• Perchlorate do.es not cause Graves disease, and persons who have
hormone.

rocket fuel and military munitions, is the least hazardous of known substances that

CREW: Department of Defense: Department of The Air Force: Regarding Perchlorate: Scanned Perchlorate October 2008 M

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CREW: Department of Defense: Department of The Air Force: Regarding Perchlorate: Scanned Perchlorate October 2008 M

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

&./\..... .~. '.'.

• Correspondence to: EPA Region IX

• From: Superfund Health Risk !echnical Support Center (NCEA-

- intrahuman variability (10)

~ less than chronic data (10)

- database deficiencies (10)

• Drinkjng water equivalent level (DWEL) =

4 ppb based on 70 kg I 2 L water

• Revision based on PSG submission to Superfund Health

• Same principal study and NOAEL

~ intrahuman variability (10)

- less than chronic data (10)

- database deficiencies decreased (3)

• DWEL =18 ppb based on 70 kg /2 L water

-resulted in action level of 18 ppb for

1998 EPA Draft Risk

• 0.1 mg/kg-day as lowest observed adverse effect level

(LOAEL) for thyroid histology in PND5 pups in .

- LOAEL to NOAEL (3)

- intrahuman variability (3)

- experimental animal to human (3)

- database deficiencies (3)

• DWEL = 32 ppb based on 70 kg I 2 L water

• 10, 11 February 1999 in Ontar~o, CA

• Recommended additiona'i studies based on Major

~J 2002 EPA Draft Risk

• 0.01 mg/kg-day as lowest observed adverse effect I~vel

• DWEL =1 ppb based on 70 kg I 2 L water

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

We believe the conclusions about human health risk from perchlorate in

• Perchlorate does not cause cancer

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

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

An EPA study investigating perchlorate in fertilizers found that until very

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

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

or other similar pyrotechnic devices that commonly use perchlorates. Several

The proper way of determining liability among these owners is to , and

(Summarize oral remarks - full statement in record)

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

DoD is committed to using the best available science to inform public

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

conclusions. The Department believes EPA's draft I ppb RfDlDWEL

Perchlorate, which is used as a component of rocket fuel and military

An EPA study investigating perchlorate in fertilizers found that until very

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

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

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

WHAT IS DoD'S INTEREST?

• Improve analytical methods for detecting perchlorate and

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

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

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE

USE OF SOUND SCIENCE

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

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

PREDECISIONAL DRAFT - 9 January 2003

DO NOT CITE OR QUOTE