Re: House Hearings Friday on Envir Secu

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

Below is a statement I prepared for the House National Security 
Committee hearings on Environmental Security. At the request of 
Congressman Underwood (D-Guam), it was entered into the record. 
But I don't know that anyone noticed or read it.
Lenny

WRITTEN STATEMENT OF LENNY SIEGEL SUBMITTED TO 
THE HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
MARCH 24, 1995.

 My name is Lenny Siegel and I am a neighbor of Moffett 
Field, California. I work with community groups, across the country, 
concerned about the impact of military hazardous waste contamination 
on the health of their families, the integrity of their natural 
environment, and particularly where bases are closing or downsizing, 
their economic future. I am asking that this written statement be 
included in the hearing record because I think it is essential for 
Congress to hear from the people whose lives are directly affected by 
its decisions. I hope that state and community representatives will be 
invited to testify at all future hearings on environmental security.

 Today I offer six simple principles for you to consider as you 
review progress in Defense environmental programs. I focus on 
cleanup, not because I believe compliance, pollution prevention, or 
conservation are unimportant. Rather, it is environmental restoration 
that is testing the commitment of the White House and Congress to 
meet its obligations to the American people.

* The Federal government has a moral and legal obligation to 
clean up its own messes. Cleanup budgets may be subject to change, 
but environmental restoration itself is not discretionary. I recognize 
that federal fiscal realities are forcing cutbacks in a large number of 
programs, and I expect cleanup to absorb its share. However, 
rumored, disproportionately large reductions would indicate that 
Congress thinks the Federal government is above the law. 

* Given current budgetary realities, I support the Defense 
Department's proposal to annualize the cost of cleanup at active bases. 
That is, estimate the long-term cost of cleanup. Set a goal for program 
completion. And provide a steady budget to meet that goal. Without 
such a mechanism, neither the public nor their state governments will 
believe that the federal government is prepared to meets its 
obligations.

* At closing bases, funds should be fast-tracked so cleanup is 
completed, or - for contaminated groundwater - remedies are in place 
by the time the bases are slated for closure. That is, budgets should be 
annualized over a much shorter period. Presently, funding shortfalls 
are delaying proposed accelerated actions at some closing bases, such 
as the Hunters Point Naval Shipyard in San Francisco.

* Translating the annualized budget approach into viable 
numbers at hundreds of installations requires close consultation with 
the states, Indian nations, and local communities. Despite cuts in 
overall funding, programs which facilitate those partnerships should 
receive continued support. These include the Defense State 
Memoranda of Agreement (DSMOA's), which fund state oversight, 
technical assistance to Indian nations funneled through the 
Administration for Native Americans, and support for community-
based Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs), which are still awaiting 
the technical assistance promised in legislation last fall. 

 I applaud the Department of Defense's efforts to involve local 
stakeholders in the cleanup process through RABs, and I invite 
members of Congress to visit RAB meetings in their home areas to 
experience, first-hand, the new spirit of cooperation. We are 
concerned, however, that the Defense Department has thus far been 
unable to offer technical assistance for RAB participants, so we ask 
Congress to work with the Defense Department and the public to 
clarify the FY95 Underwood-Kohl Amendment, which is supposed to 
offer independent technical support to community members of RAB's.

* Cleanup at most Defense Department facilities is feasible with 
existing technologies, but new technologies may make cleanup better, 
faster, safer, or cheaper. I ask that technology development and 
demonstration funding, particularly for unique military environmental 
problems, be retained as an investment in long-term cost reduction.

* One of the Environmental Security office's greatest challenges 
is to demonstrate that cleanup expenditures are making a difference. I 
don't think the problem is too much study, but an entire approach to 
cleanup - inherited from intrinsically adversarial civilian cleanup 
programs - based upon paperwork. Success is measured by the 
acceptance of "deliverable" documents, not the completion of real 
world actions. I have proposed an activity-based system, in which:

1. Instead of ranking the relative risk of sites, government 
agencies and outside stakeholders evaluate the risk reduction 
effectiveness of proposed activities.

2. In setting priorities at the local and national level, risk 
reduction and other factors for each activity should be considered.

3. In determining how clean a site should become, all parties 
should consider the marginal cost and effectiveness of each activity.