House Hearings Friday on Envir Secu

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

 To the best of my knowledge, today's (March 24) hearing of 
two House National Security Committee subcommittees was the first 
full-fledged hearing on environmental security in the new Congress. 
I sat through most of the hearing, and here are the highlights, from 
my point of view.
Lenny Siegel

 The hearing was called by both the Readiness Subcommittee 
and the Installations and Facilities Subcommittee. Though the latter 
took the lead on environmental issues in the last Congress, the chair 
of the Readiness Subcommittee, Herbert Bateman (R-Virginia) 
chaired the hearing and played a leadership role. Overall, more 
Democratic members than Republicans participated.

 Most of the hearing was devoted to testimony of Deputy 
Undersecretary of Defense (Environmental Security), Sherri 
Wasserman Goodman, as well as questions, answers, and 
comments. She was accompanied by her counterparts from the armed 
services, Lewis D. Walker (Army), Cheryl Kandaras (Navy), and 
Tad McCall (Air Force).

 Goodman's testimony emphasized several points, including:

1) Environmental programs, such as compliance and pollution 
prevention, are essential to readiness. She illustrated how the 
environmental activity at the Norfolk Navy Yard is inseparable from 
its military mission.

2) The Defense Department is implementing a risk evaluation method 
designed to prioritize sites for cleanup.

3) Cleanup is necessary to protect the health and safety of military 
personnel and their dependents.

4) The Defense Department has reduced the share of the cleanup 
budget devoted to study, but further cuts would undermine actual 
cleanup. Goodman offered a battlefield analogy. Before a 
commander goes into battle, he conducts surveillance and analyzes 
the situation.

5) The proposed rescissions of fiscal year 1995 appropriations for 
the Defense Environmental Restoration Account would cause the 
armed services to fall out of compliance with cleanup agreements 
with the states and EPA. The proposed cuts are so severe that high 
priority actions could be put off. (During the question period, the 
Armed Service spokespersons mentioned the possible need to cut 
back activity at high risk sites at the Aberdeen Proving Ground, 
Longhorn Army Ammunition Plant, Rocky Mountain Arsenal, Pearl 
Harbor Naval Supply Center, and McClellan, Hill, and Tinker Air 
Force Bases.)

 Several committee member raised the issue of cleanup 
standards, and Congressman Bateman hammered it home. They 
would like to pass legislation that would prevent the states from 
imposing their own, higher standards on the Department of Defense. 
While Goodman repeated her view that planned future land uses 
should guide cleanup goals, more than they do now, she argued that 
Federal agencies should be held to the same standards as the private 
sector.

 Her office is considering recommending the elimination of 
provisions in CERCLA (the Superfund law) that prevent the transfer 
by deed of contaminated land from the Federal government to other 
parties. She pointed out that this provision does not apply to the 
private sector.

 Bateman also was receptive to Goodman's complaint that 
military bases are placed on the "Superfund" National Priorities List, 
they are usually listed fenceline to fenceline. He asked whether 
legislation would be necessary to correct the problem. I did not hear 
Goodman mention any non-legislative solutions, such as the Air 
Combat Command's Variable Oversight Initiative.

 Surprisingly, a few committee members (from both parties) 
questioned the high priority that is being placed upon the cleannup of 
closing bases. One suggested that giving away surplus Federal 
property and cleaning it too was a form of double dipping by local 
entities. Goodman and Walker highlighted the case of Hamilton Air 
Force Base, where under special legislation the recipient of a parcel 
of former base property, a residential developer is managing cleanup.

 All in all, the day could have gone worse, but it is clear that 
many members of the subcommittees are willing to support changes 
in regulatory laws to bring down the cost of cleanup.