Re: DSMOA PROGRAM

[Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org>]

From: Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org>

What follows is Sherri Wasserman-Goodman's answers to Senator McCain's 
questions regarding the funding limit set for state reimbursements 
under DSMOA in the 1996 Defense Authorization Act.

Aimee Houghton

Question For The Record
Senate Armed Services Committee, Readiness Subcommittee
Environmental Security Programs

April 5, 1996
_______________________________________

Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA) Program

 Senator McCain: The National Defense Authorization Act of 
Fiscal Year 1996, Section 321, established a funding limit for state 
reimbursement under the Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement 
(DSMOA) Program and allowed for reprogramming for amounts that exceeded 
that limit. The provision was the result of a concern about 
accountability for state reimbursements.
 (a) What types of state activities are currently eligible for 
reimbursements?
 (b) At what point in the cleanup process are the reimbursable 
state activities performed? Does the program make any distinction in 
this regard?
 (c) What is the federal statutory authority for reimbursing 
activities related to installations on the National Priorities List 
(NPL), on non-NPL installations, and on RCRA corrective action sites?
 (d) In relation to DSMOA reimbursement, please describe how the 
Department of Defense has taken into consideration the following 
factors: the statutory framework for cleanup; lead agency 
identification at NPL sites; potential Anti-Deficiency Act 
implications; whether similar fees are levied state-wide within the 
public and private sector at non-NPL sites; and whether the military 
installations are paying state licensing and disposal fees at RCRA 
corrective action sites, in addition to the DSMOA reimbursement.
 (e) Consistent with devolvement, should the DSMOA management 
responsibility shift from the Army Corps of Engineers to the individual 
military departments? Please describe the perspective of the military 
departments.
 (f) Taking into account the previous questions on the DSMOA 
program, how would the military departments propose to maintain 
reasonable accountability for state reimbursements?

 Ms. Goodman: (a) In general, eleven services qualify for reimbursement
1. Technical review of documents
2. Identification and explanation of State/Territorial applicable or 
relevent and appropriate requirements (ARARs)
3. Site visits
4. Technical Review Committee (TRC) or Restoration Advisory Board (RAB) 
participation
5. Public participation and community relations
6. Cooperative Agreement preparation and administration
7. DSMOA preparation, administration and amendments
8. Technical review and comment on DOD prioritization
9. Determination of scope and applicability of agreements, e.g., 
Federal Facility Agreements, and assurance of satisfactory performance 
of interagency agreements, excluding any litigation costs against the 
U.S. Government
10. Independent quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) samples
11. Other services (negotiated on a state-by-state basis)
I would like to include the following letters from the States of 
Alaska, California, the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and the States 
of Texas and Washington describing the balue of the DSMOA program and 
its impact on the cleanup program at military installations in those 
states. (INSERT LETTERS FOR THE RECORD HERE)
 (b) For active installations and at closing bases. state 
reimbursable activities commence at site identification and continue 
through construction and long-term monitoring of the selected remedial 
action. For Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS), the state reimbursable 
activities commence after the following criteria have been met: the 
FUDS must have a completed Inventory Project Review (IPR) determining 
that the site is eligible under the Defense Environmental Restoration 
Program (DERP); no litigation by the state is in the process against 
DOD; and state certification that no supplemental funds from other 
federal sources or DOD funding have been provided. Similar to the 
active installations and closing bases, state reimbursable activities 
at FUDS continue through construction and long=term monitoring.