Pentagon Appeals to White House on Pollution Limits

The Defense Department, having won exemptions from three major environmental laws in the last two years, now is seeking to be excused from three more.

Requirements of the Endangered Species Act, the Marine Mammal Act and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act already do not apply to the Pentagon. Now it wants exemptions from the Clean Air Act and two toxic waste laws, which Congress has refused to grant in each of the past two years.

So last month, the Pentagon asked the White House to let it fight those battles once more, according to documents obtained by The Times.

Congressional opponents say that the proposed exemptions would cause more damage than the previous ones because they would jeopardize human health.

The military, however, argues that it needs the three exemptions so that pollution laws do not get in the way of training exercises and other war preparations. “We think those three are the three initiatives that would probably go forward this year,” said Bruce Hill, a Defense Department contractor in the office of the deputy undersecretary for readiness.

Many state officials and congressional Democrats disagree.

“Once again, the Department of Defense is using the war on terrorism as an excuse and an opportunity to jam through Congress broad and unnecessary exemptions for itself from three of our most important public health and environmental protection laws,” said Rep. John D. Dingell (D-Mich.).

The Clean Air Act proposal would extend by three years various deadlines for the Pentagon to comply with health-based standards for ozone and fine particulates. These air pollutants aggravate asthma, intensify heart and lung ailments and cause early deaths in thousands of Americans.

The other proposals would make it harder for the Environmental Protection Agency and state officials to regulate toxic substances, such as perchlorate, that seep into ground or surface water.

Opponents in Congress and the states argue that the Pentagon has not shown any examples of how these laws have hindered readiness.

“As former EPA Administrator [Christie] Whitman and numerous state officials have testified, there is no evidence or examples where these three laws have ever adversely impacted military readiness,” said Dingell. “Never has a set of legislative proposals had so much audacity and so little merit.”

So far, Pentagon officials agreed, the Clean Air Act has not thwarted military preparedness, but there have been some close calls.

The Navy, they said, was able to add some F-14 fighters to the Naval Air Station Lemoore in the heavily polluted San Joaquin Valley only because nearby Castle Air Force Base had closed and its pollution allotments could be transferred to the aircraft at Lemoore. Similarly, the Navy sent aircraft to Naval Air Station Oceana in Virginia because the state was willing to shift industrial pollution allotments to the military.

“As these near-misses demonstrate, under the existing requirement there is limited flexibility to accommodate readiness needs,” Benedict S. Cohen, the Defense Department’s deputy general counsel, told a Senate committee in April.

Under the changes the military seeks to the toxic pollution laws, state, local and federal agencies would no longer be able to regulate military emissions, including unexploded ordnance, on operational training ranges.

Water agencies and state attorneys general, including California’s, argue that the exemptions would inhibit their ability to prevent the contamination and loss of drinking water.

“Our concern is that when we don’t have any authority, [military officials] tend not to listen to us,” said Dan Miller, an assistant attorney general in Colorado.

States are in the midst of wrestling with releases of perchlorate, a hazardous chemical used in rocket propellants and explosives, into the ground or surface water at 27 Defense Department facilities. In at least two cases -- the Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland and the Massachusetts Military Reservation -- drinking water supplies have been contaminated and state and federal officials are trying to force the military to clean up.

“This legislation could eliminate our ability to require them to investigate or clean up soil or groundwater contamination that has military munitions in it,” Miller said.

Waiting to address the problem until the pollutants flow outside of the boundaries of the ranges, some of which are massive, could mean that the states have much more expensive and health-threatening problems to deal with, state officials said.

“By the time it starts escaping off the military property, you’ve got a huge problem coming right after you, said Krista Clark, regulatory specialist for the Assn. of California Water Agencies. “You don’t wait until you have a huge problem and it’s about to impact someone before you take control.”

Perchlorate has turned up in drinking water across California, and some districts have shut off wells because of contamination. The military and its contractors are the largest perchlorate polluters in the state.

Brian Hembacher, a deputy California attorney general, said the military could already get exemptions on a case-by-case basis. State officials, he added, were eager to find solutions that do not impair military readiness.

“There is no justification,” he said, “for any of these changes.”