Proposed Pentagon changes might not affect perchlorate cleanup

Benjamin Grove

Tuesday, April 1, 2003 | 11:06 a.m.

WASHINGTON -- A sweeping Pentagon proposal that would exempt military bases from some environmental rules would not affect perchlorate cleanup in Las Vegas drinking water, an Environmental Protection Agency official told Congress today.

The Defense Department has asked Congress to approve a controversial proposal that would offer military bases broad exemptions from an array of federal laws -- from the Endangered Species Act to the Clean Air Act. Defense officials say lawsuits brought by environmental groups are limiting the use of their own bases and reducing troop readiness for war.

Pentagon officials say the proposal would apply only to testing and training at active bases, but environmentalists say the proposal is not necessary and that the language exempts the Pentagon from cleanups at other military installations.

Caught in the cross-fire is Sen. John Ensign, R-Nev., chairman of the Senate Armed Services subcommittee that is handling the issue. Today he and his panel heard from a number of government and environmental group officials.

Environmental activists argued that the proposal would offer military bases too much authority to harm the environment and that in some cases states could be left with the mess.

Ensign believes changes are needed to allow the military bases more flexibility but seeks compromises with green groups.

Ensign was specifically concerned that the proposal could excuse the Pentagon from cleanup of the toxic chemical perchlorate, tiny amounts of which have leaked into the Las Vegas Wash from the Kerr McGee rocket fuel plant in Henderson.

Kerr McGee is suing the Defense Department to contribute to ongoing cleanup, which could top nearly $100 million by some estimates.

Ensign sought assurances from government witnesses today that the Pentagon proposal would not excuse the Defense Department if it is liable.

John Peter Suarez, an EPA assistant administrator, assured Ensign that the proposal was designed to apply only to operational bases and that other existing federal laws would allow the EPA to hold the Pentagon liable, if necessary.

Ensign appeared grateful to hear that.

"As people have said, we don't want to let the Department of Defense off if indeed they should be part of the cleanup," Ensign said.

Later Ensign sought a commitment from Benedict Cohon, a Defense Department lawyer, that the Pentagon would tinker with the language of the proposal to assure that the proposal indeed was limited to operational bases and would not excuse the Pentagon from responsibilities at places like the Kerr McGee plant. Cohon told Ensign that department officials would make the changes.

Another Defense Department official on Monday said the Pentagon proposal was being misinterpreted.

"There has been a misconception that this would be some kind of broad, across-the-board exemption," Pentagon spokesman Glenn Flood said. "This only applies to active training ranges."

Many in Congress are not convinced. Among those who oppose the Pentagon proposal as drafted is Sen. Harry Reid, D-Nev., who sent a letter this month to Ensign outlining his objections. Environmental laws pertaining to military bases have stood the test of time, Reid, in his capacity as top Democrat on the Environment and Public Works Committee, wrote to Ensign. The Pentagon has the ability to get special exemptions under current laws, Reid wrote.

"To date, a need for these exemptions has not been demonstrated," Reid wrote. "Despite increased deployment of our armed forces, this is no reason to hastily and severely alter the laws that have protected our citizens and our troops for decades."

Reid and Ensign have an amicable relationship and chat frequently, but letter writing is common in Congress when lawmakers want to state formal positions on issues.