RE: [CPEO-MEF] Restriction on Fines

[rhugus@cape.com]

October 22, 1999

CPEO List:

Just at a time when the military is asking the community on Cape Cod to
entrust it with the care of a 15,000 acre watershed area of western Cape
Cod the Pentagon and its cohorts in the Senate have undercut all possibilty
of public trust by attaching the Section 1849 rider to the year 2000
Defense Appropriations Act. The rider illegally takes away the power of EPA
to impose penalties on the  of Department of Defense for such things as
missed deadlines. If EPA had been unable to do this at the Massachusetts
Military Reservation the investigation and cleanup of multiple toxic sites
and groundwater plumes would have been stalled years ago. As it is, the
military comes as close as it can to the point of incurring penalties
before it acts. Recently the National Guard Bureau intentionally incurred a
penalty at Camp Edwards in order to convince the DoD that it needed funding!

The Section 8149 rider is the work of thieves in Congress who would rob the
public of the right to environmental justice. It must be loudly denounced
so that Clinton vetos the bill.

Below is a copy of Congressman William Delahunt's letter to Clinton on the
issue.

Richard Hugus
Falmouth, MA
************************************************************************

					October 21, 1999

 Hon. William J. Clinton
 The White House
 Washington, DC 20500

 Dear Mr. President:

 I am writing to urge your veto of the FY2000 Department of Defense
 Appropriations measure because of a provision, slipped into the bill late
 in joint conference deliberations, which would undermine federal
 environmental enforcement efforts -- including at a military facility in
 southeastern Massachusetts.

 Throughout the appropriations process, you have shown admirable resolve
 against a wave of late-inning anti-environmental riders.  It is my hope
 that you will review carefully the consequences of Section 8149 of HR
 2561, which would prohibit the Pentagon from paying fines or penalties
 arising from violations of environmental safeguards at military
 installations.  It also would prevent the Defense Department from funding
 "supplemental environmental projects" in lieu of compliance penalties.

 At stake is the capacity of the Environmental Protection Agency and
 Justice Department to enforce environmental standards -- with the tools
 essential to back up their sanctions. If violators can ignore penalties,
 environmental standards become meaningless.  That this question involves
 environmental compliance at public facilities only underscores its
 importance.

 This provision is of particular urgency to me because of its potential
 impact at the Massachusetts Military Reservation, an installation spanning
 four communities on Cape Cod.  Because of federal activities at the base
 over many years, plumes of toxic pollution now constitute a direct threat
 to the area's public and economic health -- exacerbating already-serious
 water supply constraints.

 In the few minutes it takes to review this letter, thousands of gallons of
 water in the sole-source aquifer beneath Upper Cape Cod will be
 contaminated further.  The most serious impact at this Superfund site is
 the projected shortfall in the local drinking water supply -- an estimated
 13 million gallons daily by the year 2020.

 The Defense Department has made enormous progress over the last two years
 toward addressing the complex and expensive task of containing the
pollution;       and one catalyst for this momentum has been ongoing and
aggressive EP oversight.

 Over these years, EPA has considered assessing penalties only as a last
 resort -- and only after seeking cooperative alternatives.  But in 1997,
 for example, because of a clear threat to public health, the EPA invoked
 authority under the Safe Drinking Water Act to restrict Army National
 Guard training activities at the Military Reservation.  And currently
 pending is a compliance order -- with potential financial penalties --
 relating to missed DOD deadlines for 40 specific activities involving
 groundwater cleanup studies.

 An essential part of our collective momentum has been the consensus which
 derived from public confidence in the commitment and capacity of federal
 enforcement mechanisms.  A blanket exemption, as contained in the Defense
 Appropriations rider, would irresponsibly degrade that confidence -- and
 disrupt the pace of work toward understanding the scope of the remediation
 challenge.

 With the DOD measure now on your desk, I urge you to weigh the
 consequences of this rider on public health for Cape Cod and across the
 country.  For my own part, this provision made it impossible to support
 the overall appropriations bill on the House floor; if it becomes law, I
 will devote myself to its repeal next year.

 In my view, its prohibitions would cut the teeth -- and heart -- out of
 environmental enforcement, on the state as well as federal levels.  It
 would contravene the letter and spirit of the Federal Facilities
 Compliance Act and other relevant statutes.

 Moreover, it would send a message that we aspire to a lower, rather than
 higher, standard for dealing with pollution emanating from public
 facilities -- a message completely at odds with the Administration's
 record of commitment to environmental protection.

 					Sincerely,



 					William D. Delahunt




You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html.

_____________________________________________________________
Got a Favorite Topic to Discuss?  Start a List at Topica.
http://www.topica.com/t/4