Second Thoughts on a Chemical: In Water, How Much Is Too Much?

[Guest guest]

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/03/02/science/earth/02FUEL.html?th= & pagewanted=print\

& position=

 

March 2, 2004Second Thoughts on a Chemical: In Water, How Much Is Too Much?By

JENNIFER 8. LEE

 

WASHINGTON, March 1 — The Defense Department and the Environmental Protection

Agency have squared off in a continuing dispute over the danger from a

widespread contaminant of groundwater. Billions of dollars in cleanup costs are

at stake.

 

The contaminant is ammonium perchlorate, an additive that NASA and the Pentagon

used for rocket fuel and munitions starting in the 1950's. For disposal,

perchlorate was often dissolved in water and poured on the ground because

officials did not consider low levels hazardous for people. Perchlorate remains

in use and is unregulated.

 

Traces of perchlorate have been found in groundwater from California to

Maryland. It has been detected in the Colorado River, which provides water to

more than 15 million people in the Southwest. In addition, low levels have been

found in some lettuce samples and milk around the country, the Food and Drug

Administration said. According to Pentagon documents, perchlorate was used in 49

states, with contamination found in 30; Vermont appears to be the sole state

where it was not used.

 

Perchlorate has medical and military uses. It is used to treat Graves' disease,

the thyroid disorder, because it suppresses certain hormones.

 

Officials and scientists dispute whether the amounts in groundwater, usually 4

to 100 parts per billion, are enough to suppress hormone levels in people, which

fluctuate slightly anyway.

 

Scientists at the E.P.A. say that although variations may have few effects on

healthy adults, they may hurt the development of fetuses and young children.

 

A study by the Arizona Department of Health Services found that newborns in

Yuma, which obtains its water from the perchlorate-contaminated Colorado River

at levels of about five parts per billion, were more likely to have abnormal

thyroid functions than the babies who were born in Flagstaff, which does not

have such water.

 

The environmental agency's findings on perchlorate have come under vigorous

attack from the Pentagon, the National Aeronautics and Space Administration and

the weapons industry.

 

" We have reviewed the E.P.A. risk assessment, and we think the document is

biased, unrealistic and scientifically imbalanced, " said Col. Dan Rogers of the

Air Force, chief of the environmental law and litigation division at the

Pentagon.

 

Olga M. Dominguez, a deputy assistant administrator at NASA, said, " We do not

believe the E.P.A. has used good science. "

 

The Pentagon and the industry say the environmental agency is being overly

conservative by not looking at the relevant physiological effects, but instead

at a precursor change in the body. Scientists at the agency, say they are

considering the most sensitive populations, including fetuses.

 

Dr. Paul Gilman, assistant administrator for science for the environmental

agency, said, " I've good confidence in the work that we have done. "

 

The environmental agency first raised concerns about perchlorate in 1985, when

it found high concentrations of chemicals linked to munitions, including

perchlorate, in the San Gabriel Valley in California.

 

The agency found perchlorate contamination ranging from 50 parts per billion to

2,600 parts per billion in its test samples. The tests were never finalized

because five of the six control samples, supposed to be perchlorate free, were

contaminated.

 

In one case, the control sample matched the highest contamination in the San

Gabriel Valley samples.

 

In 1993, the Pentagon teamed up with Kerr-McGee, Lockheed Martin and Aerojet, a

GenCorp subsidiary, and others to form the Perchlorate Study Group to show that

the environmental agency's science was wrong.

 

In December the group released a study that compared birth records from

California from 1983 to 1997 in Redlands, where perchlorate has been detected,

with communities in San Bernardino and Riverside counties, where perchlorate has

not been detected. The study found that there was no statistically valid

difference in levels of thyroid hormone between the groups.

 

The environmental agency has recommended no more than one part per billion in

drinking water, equivalent to a grain of salt in an Olympic-size pool. The

Pentagon and the industry are arguing for a human standard of 200 parts per

billion.

 

A standard of 200 parts per billion for people would probably exempt much of the

contamination from cleanup, because most such contamination in the United States

ranges from 4 to 100 parts per billion.

 

The environmental agency's recommendation is largely based on a study of rats

published in 2001 and financed in part by the Perchlorate Study Group. The study

found crude effects on rats' brains from exposure to perchlorate. Parts of the

brains were enlarged.

 

Using a standard safety margin for people, the agency scientists arrived at the

1 part per billion.

 

In the same study, benign tumors were spotted on two 19-week-old baby rats out

of a group of 30 whose mothers had been exposed to high levels of perchlorate.

Scientists from the environmental agency say it is unusual to see tumors in baby

rats that young, leading them to believe that something must have occurred in

the womb.

 

The Pentagon and the industry say that the study was flawed because just one

slice was taken per rat brain and that the baby rats' benign tumors are common

enough to be a statistical anomaly.

 

The level that the Pentagon wants is largely based on a 14-day study that

exposed human adults to perchlorate. The Pentagon says the lowest level that

showed an effect on the adults translates into 200 parts per billion, though the

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and other agencies using that study

arrived at much lower levels.

 

Ms. Dominguez of NASA said a program to clean up water contaminated with 1 part

per billion would cost four times as much as a program for 32 parts per billion,

though the differences in health risks are minimal. For the Colorado River

alone, the Soil Water Air Protection Enterprise, an environmental consulting

firm, estimated that a cleanup mounted to meet the E.P.A. standard would cost

$40 billion over 10 years.

 

Other jurisdictions are establishing safety levels similar to the environmental

agency's. California has set an interim safety level of 2 to 6 parts per billion

for drinking water, telling water systems not to go higher than 40 parts per

billion. The toxicology branch of the disease control centers has a draft risk

assessment that puts the safety level for medium-term exposure at three parts

per billion.

 

At least some Pentagon scientists have advocated safety levels similar to the

environmental agency's. A study of rats in December 1995 by researchers at the

Air Force Institute of Technology found that the level where no negative effects

were observed, a standard in toxicology, was " consistent with the assumptions

made by the E.P.A. "

 

The deputy for cleanup, munitions and environmental technology at the Pentagon,

Lt. Col. Jeff Cornell of the Air Force, said the study was important though

" there was not a consensus position developed. "

 

In 2003 the White House referred the debate to the National Academy of Sciences

which set up a panel to study the issue. The original chairman of the panel, Dr.

Gilbert S. Omenn, a professor at University of Michigan, resigned after he

learned that he served on the board of a company that had started developing a

technology to clean up perchlorate.

 

Two scientists on the panel, Dr. Richard Bull, an adjunct professor at

Washington State University, and Dr. Charles Capen of Ohio State University,

have consulted for Lockheed Martin on perchlorate. The National Academy of

Sciences says the previous work does not constitute a conflict of interest. " We

eliminate conflicts of interest, " said Dr. James J. Reisa, director of

environmental studies and toxicology at the academy. " We don't try to eliminate

bias. We try to balance it. "

 

Even as the battle continues, the Pentagon has begun exploring legal options to

delay or avoid cleanups, in part because states are starting to set their own

standards.

 

In 2003, the Pentagon lobbied Congress for several exemptions from federal

environmental laws, including one that covers cleanups of explosive residue at

operational sites, a legal description that could be used to include

perchlorate. Though the perchlorate exemption was not one of the two exemptions

attached to other legislation, the Pentagon has said it will push for it again.

 

In addition, a perchlorate policy distributed in June by a deputy assistant

secretary of defense, John P. Woodley Jr., hints at its next strategy, claiming

legal immunity as part of the federal government. The policy said the Pentagon

would comply with state legal requirements to respond to perchlorate only " to

the extent that Congress has clearly and unambiguously authorized a waiver " of

immunity from lawsuits, hinting that the Pentagon will act only if there is a

regulation, not just a recommendation.

 

" They've retreated to the next trench, which is to fight a legal battle either

in the courts or in Congress to wipe out their liability, " Erik Olson, a lawyer

at the Natural Resources Defense Council, said. " It's clear they are not going

to voluntarily fix this problem. They are going to be forced to fix it. "

 

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

 

 

 

 

Search - Find what you’re looking for faster.