Recent articles in USA TODAY seriously distort the US. Defense Department's environmental record ("The Pentagon's environmental battle Pollution cleanups pit Pentagon against regulators," Cover story, News, Oct 14-, "Cleanup fights stall new uses for old bases." , Oct. 15).

They cite decreased spending for environmental cleanup since 2001 as proof of a decreased commitment to cleanup. By using taxpayer dollars more efficiently, the Department of Defense (DOD) continues cleanup at the same pace as the previous eight years - roughly 1, 150 sites completed annually. As of September 2003, the DOD had completed response actions at
more than 75% of active and closed bases.

The DOD requires that sound science support its decisions to spend taxpayers' dollars. This focus drives the remediation at the former Lowry Air Force Base, where the Air Force is shouldering all scientific-research expenses. In fact, the Air Force is continuing to remediate the portions of
Lowry that it retains. The DOD's extensive environmental-research program developed the very techniques that now can detect and remediate perchlorate and other chemicals at the minute levels now under discussion.

The DOD is not asking Congress for relief from the environmental laws and orders that curtailed training at Camp Edwards, an Army National Guard base on Cape Cod, Mass. We believe regulators
should be empowered to act when environmental problems on a range threaten local communities. Accordingly, the DOD has developed alternative drinking-water supplies and paid for new pipelines and a massive cleanup effort at Camp Edwards.

Finally, USA TODAY's articles fail to provide the overall context of the DOD's environmental efforts - a massive, nationwide conservation and restoration program that has made the department a leader in environmental stewardship with a $3.8 billion 2005 program to remediate environmental contamination and preserve environmental and cultural assets. For information , visit www.denix.osd.mil.


Compliance has increased

During the past decade, the US. Environmental Protection Agency has worked with the Pentagon as it has become a better environmental steward. USA TODAY's suggestion that the Pentagon has some
sort of amnesty from environmental regulation is based on a flawed analysis of enforcement statistics, and it ignores positive trends in compliance.

Pentagon compliance with environmental regulation has steadily increased since 1997. The Department of Defense (DOD) has been a leader in pollution prevention and implementing environmental-management systems that serve as models for other facilities.

Here is a look at the DOD's federal facility-compliance numbers for the last EPA reporting period:

> Compliance with the Clean Air Act in fiscal year 2002 was 95% - an increase of more than 6% since fiscal year 1997.

> Compliance with National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits under the Clean Water Act in 2002 was nearly 71 %, an increase of 2% since 1997.

> Compliance with the Resource Conservation Recovery Act - which regulates hazardous waste - in 2002 was nearly 97% - an increase of 16% since 1997.

These laudable compliance increases are not indicative of a federal agency dodging environmental responsibility.

The reduction in the number of EPA inspections of DOD facilities correlates directly with an increase in military sites following the law. A reduction in penalties would logically follow suit.

The EPA approaches federal facility enforcement as vigorously as it does enforcement in the private sector. Success cannot and should not be measured by the amount of money we collect, or the number of violations we discover. The primary goal of the EPA's enforcement program is universal compliance with environmental laws.

Problems exposed

Thanks, USA TODAY, for reporting on the issue of military cleanup. Much remains to be done in this area.

I am currently involved in a chemical-weapons-disposal issue in Indiana. The Army's record in destroying VX, a nerve agent, stored about 4 miles from my home is one of wasted time and money.

Of most concern to me, however, is the lack of information coming to citizens, and the Army's evasion-based policies.

Any time journalists investigate, the military is forced to make public statements and then, most of time, act on those statements. Thanks for being on the job.