Senator Challenges EPA on Military Jet Fuel

[Guest guest]

Tue, 30 Aug 2005 13:02:10 GMT

" BushGreenwatch " <info

Senator Challenges EPA on Military Jet Fuel

 

 

BushGreenwatch

 

 

August 30, 2005 | Back Issues

 

Senator Challenges EPA on Military Jet Fuel

 

Arousing further concern about the influence of the Department of

Defense (DOD) over the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), Senate

Environment and Public Works Committee Chairman James Inhofe (R-OK)

has written a letter to the EPA urging the agency to reconsider its

classification of the chemical naphthalene as a " likely " carcinogen.

Naphthalene constitutes one to three percent of military jet fuel and

has contaminated military bases nationwide.

 

Industry and military sources say that classifying naphthalene as a

potential carcinogen would generate costly safety, health and cleanup

standards, as well as increasing their liability for contaminated sites.

 

Inhofe's letter to EPA Administrator Stephen Johnson asserts that

EPA's preliminary classification " has the potential for dramatic

effects on the thousands of everyday uses of naphthalene, which is a

component in most transportation fuels. I am concerned that this rush

to judgment will have a severe and significant impact on our

communities, industry and military. " [1]

 

Tara Thornton, executive director of the Military Toxics Project, told

BushGreenwatch that, " Inhofe's letter is another DOD-influenced

attempt to tie one of EPA's hands behind its back in its risk

assessment policies. "

 

Inhofe claims that the scientific data supporting the classification

of naphthalene as a probable carcinogen is inadequate. He further

claims that important regulatory decisions based on faulty science

occur all too often at EPA. Sen. Inhofe says he is " concerned that

making decisions before the science is adequately established is

becoming the norm for EPA, as evidenced by similar circumstances with

both formaldehyde in 2004 and perchlorate in 2002. " [2]

 

Inhofe was a key figure in pushing to exempt the military from

cleaning up perchlorate, a chemical found in rocket fuel. In his

effort to push exemption, Inhofe cited a National Academy of Sciences

(NAS) report which concluded that, " the outcomes selected by EPA

should [not] be used as the basis of the perchlorate risk assessment. "

Environmental experts charged that the DOD heavily influenced the NAS

study, and that in fact perchlorate protections established by EPA are

not stringent enough. [3]

 

In 2003 Inhofe wrote a last-minute amendment to the Senate Defense

Authorization Bill designed to exempt the military from hazardous

waste laws. Critics claim the amendment was written by the DOD. Lenny

Siegal of the Center for Public Environmental Oversight said of the

amendment, " it appears, from the actual language that Defense

Department attorneys crafted the Inhofe proposal. " [4]

 

Asserting that Inhofe is again trying to protect the DOD rather than

acknowledge the science, Military Toxics Project's Tara Thornton told

BushGreenwatch, " I don't think there is a problem with EPA's science.

But Senator Inhofe has fought very hard to protect the Pentagon from

environmental regulations. He argues that compliance would interfere

with training and readiness, which is not the case at all. "

 

Both the U.S. National Toxicology Program of the National Institutes

of Health, and the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry

have conducted studies that link naphthalene to cancer in mice and

other species. [5]

 

Tim Kropp, senior scientist at the Environmental Working Group, an

organization that conducted extensive research on the effects of

naphthalene, told BushGreenwatch, " The Inhofe letter, in a strange

way, is one of the clearest examples of what some opponents of the EPA

want: they want to prevent EPA from making any decisions ever. If you

require more evidence than what is already out there, you must want to

know everything-- which is just impossible, " said Kropp. " The letter

is completely unreasonable; there is no way anybody could come up with

more certainty. "

 

###

 

SOURCES:

[1] " Inhofe Threatens Confirmation Flap Over Naphthalene Risk Review, "

Risk Policy Report, Aug. 9, 2005.

[2] Ibid.

[3] " Dangers of Rocket Fuel Chemical Downplayed, " Washington Post,

Jan. 11, 2005.

[4] " The Inhofe Amendment: Still Unacceptable, " Center for Public

Environmental Oversight, May 21, 2003.

[5] ToxFAQs, Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry; and

" NTP Completes 500TH Two-Year Rodent Study and Report; Series is the

Gold Standard of Animal Toxicology, " NIEHS, Jan. 25, 2001.

 

Permanent link to this article

 

Spread the Word | Back Issues

 

BushGreenwatch | 1320 18th Street NW 5th Floor

Washington, DC 20036 | (202) 463-6670

Web site comments: info

Copyright 2003 Environmental Media Services