|
In our Endnote, “The Bear,” in
Vol. 5, No. 4, we described
contamination of Alaskan lands by nuclear and biological-weapons testing
– carried out chiefly by the military, among other federal agencies. In
a footnote, we mentioned a bill now before Congress that would require
the military to conform to the same environmental laws as municipalities
and ordinary citizens do. We asked the bill’s sponsor, Rep. Bob Filner (D-Ca.)
if he would explain his bill to our readers, and he sent us this reply.
–Ed. January 29, 2002
To the Editor:
Regarding a comment in your recent Endnotes, “The
Bear,” may I describe the bill for which I am responsible and believe in
strongly, the Military Environmental Responsibility Act (MERA),
H.R. 2154? MERA would require the military to comply with the
same rules and regulations as the private sector, because, I would
argue, military exemptions from requirements and enforcement under
environmental, public safety, and worker protection laws harm Americans.
At present, those of our citizens living or working on the borders of
military bases have fewer environmental protections than those
elsewhere, because the military is not subject to the same environmental
laws as municipalities and corporations are.
The problem is well documented. According to the
Department of Defense, military installations have created over
27,000 toxic hot spots on 8,500
military properties. Let me cite two instances (among too many):
Volatile organic compounds emitted from Tinker Air Force base in
Oklahoma caused low birth weights in babies born nearby. At the
Massachusetts Military Reservation, burning of artillery propellant was
linked to elevated rates of lung cancer in women.
Equal protection under the law for military neighbors,
civilian workers, and active duty personnel is a reasonable request, and
it deserves support. To that end, MERA would
accomplish the simple goal of requiring the military to comply with the
same rules and regulations as the private sector.
Clarification and strengthening of waivers of federal
sovereign immunity are desperately needed in the Clean Water Act,
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act
(CERCLA), and Clean Air Act. Military exemptions
must be removed from the Oil Pollution Act, Noise Act, the Atomic Energy
act, and an laws regulating nuclear activity.
I should point out that, during the present
mobilization, my bill will not compromise military readiness.
Environmental laws currently include exemptions for the military in the
event of "overriding public interest." They have been used only a few
times, and the President would retain that authority under
MERA.
Even in a loyal Navy town such as San Diego, where my
district is located, a large majority of residents strongly support
equal regulation of the Navy by environmental and emergency planning
laws. In a public opinion poll released by San Diego’s Environmental
Health Coalition, conducted by the S.D. State
Social Science Research Laboratory (April 2000),
city residents strongly supported holding the Navy to the same
environmental protection laws as other organizations
(66%).
An overwhelming 75% said they
would support a law requiring the emergency planning zones be created
around residential areas near nuclear-powered vessels in San Diego Bay
as are required for all commercial nuclear reactors. A majority of
respondents who had served in the armed forces (52%)
favored such protections, while those who had not served
(81%) favored them even more vigorously. I argue that this is
evidence of strong support for emergency planning, and, further, that
MERA addresses these issues.
The Military Environmental Responsibility Act says
clearly that we citizens support our military, but that the armed forces
must comply with the same rules and regulations that apply to the public
sector. It reminds us/I believe that there is no greater national
security interest or mission than the health and safety of our
communities.
Sincerely,
Bob Filner
Member of Congress
D-Ca. (50)
Note: On March 30, 2002, the New York
Times reported that the Pentagon will ask major exemptions from
environmental laws. The story, reported by Katharine Q. Seelye, began:
Washington, March 29 -
Concerned that several environmental
laws are interfering with the military's ability
to train
soldiers and develop weapons, the Pentagon is
seeking a
Congressional exemption from an array of measures
that have
protected endangered species and their habitats
for years.
A draft of the exemption bill, circulating in the Pentagon
and on Capitol Hill, seeks exemptions on national
security
grounds for bombing ranges, air bases and training
grounds
from sections of the Clean Air Act, Clean Water
Act, Marine
Mammal Protection Act, Noise Control Act,
Migratory Bird
Treaty Act and the Endangered Species Act.
We will follow developments.
|