In light of the recently revealed financial stakes of further TCE regulation for the world's most powerful polluter and the LA Times series on TCE's politics and community impact, we found the following article, entitled "Pollution Cleanups Pit Pentagon Against Regulators," both interesting and disturbing. From everyone's favorite color newspaper, USA Today, in October 2004:

Across the nation, the Pentagon is taking extraordinary steps to limit the military's accountability for a 50-year legacy of pollution, a USA TODAY investigation finds...

Since 2001, Pentagon officials have stalled cleanups at scores of military sites where contamination from training and manufacturing has fouled soil and water. They've used their political clout to sidetrack new regulations that could force the services to spend hundreds of millions of dollars more to deal with pollution. And they've challenged state and federal regulators' power to make the military obey existing environmental laws...

Four years after President Bush campaigned on a pledge to make the military "comply with environmental laws by which all of us must live," the White House is the Pentagon's chief ally in pushing for relief from such laws.

Within the administration, "it's no secret that the EPA is running into this wall with the Pentagon," says Linda Fisher, who served two years as Bush's deputy EPA administrator — the agency's second-in- command — before returning to private work last year.

"Is the Department of Defense taking (regulatory disputes) to the White House more often? Absolutely," says Fisher, who has held environmental jobs in every Republican administration since Ronald Reagan's. "Is the Department of Defense more powerful than the EPA? Yes."

Defense officials say state and federal environmental agencies have too much power to demand costly and intrusive cleanups on military land. The Pentagon wants to cut its $4 billion a year in environmental costs — less than 1% of defense spending — by gaining more authority over where and how cleanups will be done.

"Some of these regulators are doing wrongheaded things based on poor scientific evidence," says Raymond DuBois, deputy undersecretary of Defense for installations and environment. "Shouldn't we, as stewards of the taxpayers' money, decide how we're going to clean up?"

Ummm. No.

The article goes on to highlight key findings of the USA Today investigation:

•The Pentagon is thwarting environmental agencies' efforts to set cleanup rules.

Since 2001, the armed services have delayed more than 70 federal cleanup agreements that would dictate the scope and timing of restoration at contaminated military sites...

The Pentagon also is fighting EPA efforts to set new pollution limits on two military contaminants: perchlorate, a munitions ingredient, and trichloroethylene (TCE), a solvent. After military officials complained to the White House that the EPA's studies overstated the chemicals' health risks, the agency opted to wait for years of additional study before making new rules.

State environmental regulators are facing military resistance, too. In Colorado, California, Ohio and Minnesota, the services are fighting state efforts to restrict the future use of contaminated military property. In California, Florida, Hawaii and Alaska, the military has challenged the authority of state officials to fine the armed forces for pollution problems.

•The EPA is cutting efforts to make the military comply with environmental laws.

•The Pentagon is spending less on cleanups.

If you check out the full article, you can read more about places like Lowry Air Force Base where AF appears to be deciding for itself whether toxic clean-up is really necessary. Or you can check out USA Today's nifty Flash presentation in which you can view the clean-up status of 130 military-owned Superfund sites in 39 states, state by state (OK, we cheated, you can launch it from here. <--- warning, must have flash installed to view).

note: If any readers have a ton of time on their hands, here's a project idea. We'd like to post a list of these 130 military EPA Superfund sites, by state. We'll make it a point to extract all the names and descriptions from the USA Today preso and will post it here when it's complete. It may be some time before we get to this. If anyone wants to get a jump on it in the meantime, we promise we will not complain. We might even be willing to publicly thank you for your effort. If you've got any interest in this project, please let us know.

...to keep people safer from TCE, please encourage them to contact:



Jody Milanese (millaneese) in Congresswoman Sue Kelly's office at 202-225-5441

More from the GAO Report, as promised. Please bear in mind:

· 85% of the sites below were discovered 15 yrs ago or more
· over 60% of the potentially eligible sites and over 35% of all sites below report no clean-up activities

---
Table IV.1: Sites Classified as Awaiting an NPL Decision in Each State, by Eligibility for Listing and Status of Cleanup Progress
+
Table VI.1: State Officials’ Assessments of States’ Financial Capabilities to Clean Up Potentially Eligible Sites

State	Number of sites classified as awaiting an NPL decision	Number of sites unlikely to become eligible for the NPL	Number of potentially eligible sites with some cleanup activities	Number of potentially eligible sites with no reported cleanup activities	Number of sites for which no surveys were received	State officials’ assessment of state’s financial capability to clean up potentially eligible sites
Alabama	25	10	7	8	0	Very poor
Alaska	28	14	8	6	0	Excellent
Arizona	34	16	10	8	0	Excellent
Arkansas	4	3	0	1	0	Good
California	a 189	64	51	74	0	Fair
Colorado	30	12	10	6	2	Very poor
Connecticut	290	74	98	118	0	Poor
Delaware	1	1	0	0	0	Excellent
District of Columbia	a 1	0	0	1	0
Florida	269	74	85	110	0	Fair
Georgia	74	39	8	27	0	Poor
Guam	2	2	0	0	0
Hawaii	17	12	4	1	0	Fair
Idaho	16	5	5	6	0	*
Illinois	207	95	43	69	0	Fair
Indiana	54	21	15	18	0	Very poor
Iowa	33	29	4	0	0	Very poor
Kansas	37	28	4	5	0	Very poor
Kentucky	20	15	2	3	0	Good
Louisiana	10	6	4	0	0	Poor
Maine	56	28	17	11	0	Poor
Maryland	20	8	4	8	0	Other b
Massachusetts	a 201	11	19	171	0	Fair
Michigan	50	22	18	10	0	Excellent
Midway Island	1	1	0	0	0
Minnesota	17	6	6	5	0	Good
Mississippi	9	4	1	2	2	Very poor
Missouri	91	73	7	11	0	*
Montana	11	2	7	2	0	Very poor
Navajo Nation	14	0	0	14	0
Nebraska	a 36	16	4	15	1	Very poor
Nevada	12	8	3	1	0	Poor
New Hampshire	42	24	9	9	0	Poor
New Jersey	172	60	49	63	0	Good
New Mexico	15	7	6	2	0	Very poor
New York	a 192	135	15	41	1	*
North Carolina	57	18	21	18	0	Poor
North Dakota	4	2	1	1	0	Poor
Northern Mariana Islands	1	0	1	0	0
Ohio	79	25	23	31	0	Very poor
Oklahoma	7	4	1	2	0	Very poor
Oregon	29	7	6	16	0	Fair
Pennsylvania	73	35	18	20	0	Excellent
Puerto Rico	16	3	4	9	0
Rhode Island	121	14	23	84	0	Poor
South Carolina	45	32	8	5	0	Good
South Dakota	8	6	2	0	0	Other b
Tennessee	102	51	19	32	0	Poor
Texas	21	18	1	2	0	Poor
Utah	48	17	8	16	7	*
Vermont	30	16	5	9	0	Poor
Virginia	22	8	2	12	0	*
Washington	28	11	8	9	0	Fair
West Virginia	11	7	4	0	0	Other b
Wisconsin	53	34	8	11	0	Excellent
Wyoming	1	1	0	0	0
Total	3,036	1,234	686	1,103	13

a California, the District of Columbia, Massachusetts, and Nebraska did not respond to surveys. For these states, the data in table IV.1 are based on EPA’s survey responses alone and, for that reason, may be less reliable than for states having responses from both EPA and states. New York provided responses to only a few questions in our survey.

b “Other” indicates that the respondent was uncertain about the state’s financial capability.

* State officials in Idaho, New York, Missouri, Utah, Virginia, and Wyoming declined to participate in [the] telephone survey.

U.S. EPA's Region 9 (serving Arizona, California, Hawaii, Nevada, and the Pacific Islands) recently clarified the health standard they are using for TCE in indoor air. You can read about it here. Thanks to CPEO for the tip.