THE STATE OF DEFENSE CLEANUP

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

THIS IS A LONG FILE.
This is the written version of the talk I gave yesterday (January 23, 1996) at the
Defense Cleanup Southwest Conference (Pasha PUblications) in Salt Lake City.

LS

The State of Federal Environmental Restoration Programs

by Lenny Siegel
SFSU CAREER/PRO and Pacific Studies Center
January, 1996

Last year, at about this time, it was not clear whether Defense and 
Energy Department environmental restoration programs would survive 
in credible form. The Republicans had taken over both House of 
Congress with a vengeance. The Heritage Foundation, the ideological 
oracle of much of the Republican right wing, had recommended that 
the Defense Department get out of the cleanup business. At the time, it 
wasn't clear which Congressional staff members would be covering 
these issues for the new majority, so there was no one even to talk to.

Now, after about a year, it appears that the cleanup budget will flatten 
at a lower level than anticipated under the Democrats. The programs, 
however, remain intact. Still their foothold is insecure. That insecurity 
is felt repeatedly as facilities across the country negotiate their 
programs with regulatory agencies and the public.

At the time of the Republican takeover, cleanup was threatened by 
several forces:

1. For ideological reasons, many Representatives and Senators 
believed that cleanup wasn't the military's business. That view did not 
prevail, but it wasn't because the majority believed in the fairness of 
the "polluter pays" principle. Nor did they recognize that "internalizing 
externalities" would promote pollution prevention. Rather, they chose 
to upheld that age-old Capitol principle: "Never give up jurisdiction to 
another committee!" If the Armed Services committees had shifted 
cleanup to another agency, they would have given up control of 
activities on military bases to other member of Congress.

2. Cleanup diverted money from other military programs. Even 
before the Republican victory, Congressional appropriators had staged 
last-minute (or later) raids on the cleanup accounts because they 
needed to find funds for pet military programs. This was probably the 
primary reason for the Congressional cut in the Fiscal Year 1996 
Defense Environmental Restoration Account - from $1,622 million to 
$1,411 million - but pressures for additional cuts were eased finally 
when the Republicans, on the eve of the Bosnian peace 
implementation mission, led the President to approve a higher overall 
Defense budget.

In this era of budget-balancing, these pressures will re-emerge each 
year. Those who support cleanup funding will not only have to 
demonstrate the value of those programs. We will have to challenge 
unneeded big-ticket weapons systems such as Star Wars and the B-2 
bomber.

3. Many members of Congress are unhappy with Federal cleanup 
laws, such as CERCLA (the "Superfund" law), in general. Some have 
ideological motivations. Some are beholden to companies that wish to 
avoid liability. But it's hard to win public sympathy for corporate 
polluters. So, as part of their strategy to weaken cleanup laws and 
standards, they pointed out how much those rules were costing the 
Federal taxpayer. If they were successful in reducing Federal cleanup 
liabilities, fairness would dictate that private polluters get a reprieve as 
well.

The Superfund debate is far from over, and equal treatment of Federal 
and private polluters is a two-edged sword. If non-Federal polluters 
are still forced to meet their obligations, then there will be continuing 
pressure for the military to meet the same obligations. This is 
essentially what happened in my home town, where the Navy was 
forced to upgrade its landfill capping technology at Moffett Field to 
match the methods used by local governments at their own, nearby 
landfills.

4. In general, with the Republican takeover environmental groups 
lost their direct lines to committee and subcommittee chairs and staff. 
It's ironic, because in many parts of the country Defense cleanup 
activists are conservatives and/or Republicans, but for people like me, 
the difference was between night and day. I knew and talked to 
Congressman Dellums' Environmental Counsel - at the House Armed 
Services Committee - before she was hired. I still haven't met the 
Republican staffers who have taken over her work.

This is where contractors have a key role to play. As the type of 
business that the Republicans claim they want to promote, 
environmental technology firms often have access to Republican 
leaders and staffers. Weapons manufacturers for decades have worked 
to keep their programs funded by showing how spending kept jobs 
and business moving in key Congressional districts and states. 
Cleanup contractors need to do the same. Like it or not, that's the way 
our version of democracy works.

5. The emphasis - in general, a correct one - on protecting public 
health has led to narrow policies designed to protect the public by 
limiting public access to contamination sites. In particular, the 
approach of "cleanup to reuse" is being used to justify future uses 
based upon existing contamination. Extremely toxic areas - such as the 
Rocky Mountain Arsenal - as well as explosive-laden former impact 
ranges - Fort Ord, Fort Meade, the Jefferson Proving Ground - are 
being called wildlife refuges. Ammunition plants are dedicated to 
similar uses in perpetuity. Military airfields are turned into civilian 
airports without considering other, better uses.

I recognize that there are certain locations - for example, much of and 
the Jefferson Proving Ground - that cannot be cleaned for unrestricted 
future use, at least with today's technology. And there may be other 
areas - perhaps nuclear-hardened SAC bases or the Long Beach Naval 
Shipyard, which has a huge dry-dock - where for other reasons 
industrial uses are the only foreseeable options. 

But we must not buy the notion that we can save money by using 
future use restrictions to avoid cleanup, unless we can show that in the 
long run contaminants will naturally degrade without spreading or 
causing harm. We are devaluing the property and passing on the 
expense to future generations.

It's like lending your lawnmower to a neighbor who breaks the 
blades. When it's returned, he warns you not to use it. You're safe, 
but the lawnmower has lost its value. The same is true of the vast 
acreages that the military has taken - sometimes involuntarily - from 
Americans and our indigenous populations. This land is economically 
and culturally valuable. Deed restrictions and fences - if indeed those 
are built - don't satisfy those values.

It's hard to know where this issue will go. On the one hand, there 
appears to be strong policy support, from the military and Energy 
Department, as well as Congress, to link cleanup standards to reuse. 
On the other hand Congress has shown that it understands the impact 
of inadequate cleanup of closing bases - at least in key states and 
districts - by significantly boosting the President's request for 
environmental funds at closing bases.

6. Finally, Republicans on Capitol Hill share a frustration with 
many of us - responsible parties, regulators, and communities. 
Billions of dollars have been spent through the environmental 
restoration budgets, but few properties have been declared clean. This 
is what led to the short-sighted limitations, proposed by the Senate, on 
support for Restoration Advisory Boards and state regulatory agencies 
- through the Defense State Memoranda of Agreement. Key Senators 
want to move dirt, and they think too much money is being spent on 
bells and whistles.

Perhaps more serious, Congress is threatening to arbitrarily cap 
studies and administrative expenses at one fifth of the Defense 
Environmental Restoration Account. I believe this seemingly 
progressive, or at least innocuous, proposal could devastate the 
cleanup program, because it is likely to:
* recreate conflict between the military and regulatory agencies 
by cutting funds for legally required investigations.
* limit funds for public participation and state oversight.
* lead the military to focus on low priority sites that do not 
require much study.
* force the selection of remedies without enough data on the 
extent and nature of contami-nation. This could lead to the spread of 
contamination. For example, without adequate study, the operation of 
a groundwater extraction system with improperly placed wells can 
spread pollution over a much wider area.

Instead of imposing an arbitrary cap, it is important instead to develop 
and promote approaches to cleanup that streamline the process by 
prioritizing oversight, cutting paperwork, eliminating superfluous 
studies, and developing better ways to measure success. Many of you 
are already doing such work, but Congress appears unaware of the 
recent progress that has be made. Therefore, I believe that most 
significant thing that we all can do is to tell Congress that we are 
indeed aware of the shortcomings of traditional cleanup programs. 
Then we need to show them what we are doing to overcome those 
shortcomings.

If we don't, they'll put a blunt ax to the program, over and over again. 
Eventually, a new Congress will be forced to recognize that such 
attacks were shortsighted, but only after increasing risk - to public 
health, natural ecosystems, and local economies where closing bases 
are located - and forcing the cost of cleanup to rise.

If, however, the new Congress realizes that all of the stakeholders are 
indeed working to make cleanup better, safer, faster, and cheaper, 
then funding will be sustained and may even be increased as the 
positive results come in.