From: | Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org> |
Date: | Thu, 1 Jun 2000 01:42:56 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | [CPEO-MEF] More about Section 342 |
Section 342, the Fiscal Year 2001 Senate Defense Authorization bill's prohibition on the payment of environmental fines without Congressional approval, differs in some respects from Section 8149, the similar provision enacted in the Fiscal Year 2000 Defense Appropriations Act. First, as a policy provision in the Authorization act, the language, it appears, would become permanent law. Environmental fines and penalties, under a variety or statutes, whether imposed by state or federal environmental regulators, would be subject to environmental review indefinitely. Second, the prohibition is written to cover fines over $1.5 million or any fine or penalty "based on the application of economic benefit criteria or size-of-business criteria." That is, any use of the economic benefit approach will trigger Congressional intervention. I am not familiar yet with the precise meaning of "size-of-business" in this context, but "Economic benefit criteria" refers to the practice of levying penalties based upon the money that a polluter has saved by violating environmental laws - particularly when such savings give the polluter a competitive advantage. The Senate Armed Services Committee, in its report on the bill, says, "The terms economic benefit and 'size of business' suggest market-based activities, not government functions subject to congressional appropriations." It adds, "The committee is not aware that the DOD has competitors." Sources within EPA point out, on the other hand, that regulators apply economic benefit criteria to non-profit organizations and state and local governments. They also note that military organizations do in fact compete with the private sector in the provision of services - power generation, waste disposal, etc. - to military installations. Even if such competition were less common, military installations are indeed run as profit centers. That's generally a good thing. But when the public, military personnel and their families, and the environment are forced to absorb the consequences of illegal cost-saving measures (pollution), it makes sense for regulators to make the installation pay. Otherwise, commanders may choose to live with a fine because of the net cost savings. According to the Senate committee, this language, like Section 8149 last year, grows directly from Senatorial displeasure at U.S. EPA's attempts to penalize Fort Wainwright, a large Army base in Alaska, for continuing violations of the Clean Air Act. Of course, it casts a much wider net, but it is written to apply only to Defense Department installations, giving them a form of immunity not available to other federal facilities, as well as non-federal polluters. EPA staff have prepared an explanation of its actions at Fort Wainwright, and the Committee report contains a defense of the Army. I don't have a position, and I've decided not to disseminate the details of the case, because it should be resolved through the regulatory process, not in the court of public opinion. (Arguing the details of such a case reminds me of the practice of TV infotainment shows asking viewers to vote on the guilt or innocence of an accused murdered based upon snippets of televised evidence and legal information.) Unfortunately, the proposed law could put Congress in the same position, adjudicating a regulatory action that belongs in the other branches of government. Lenny Siegel -- Lenny Siegel Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041 Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545 Fax: 650/968-1126 lsiegel@cpeo.org http://www.cpeo.org ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ You can find archived listserve messages on the CPEO website at http://www.cpeo.org/lists/index.html. If this email has been forwarded to you and you'd like to subscribe, please send a message to: cpeo-military-subscribe@igc.topica.com ___________________________________________________________ T O P I C A The Email You Want. http://www.topica.com/t/16 Newsletters, Tips and Discussions on Your Favorite Topics | |
Prev by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Okinawa International Environmental NGO forum Next by Date: [CPEO-MEF] Alabama officials question Utah chemical agent release incident | |
Prev by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Okinawa International Environmental NGO forum Next by Thread: [CPEO-MEF] Alabama officials question Utah chemical agent release incident |