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.