From: | Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org> |
Date: | Tue, 28 May 1996 20:04:10 -0700 (PDT) |
Reply: | cpeo-military |
Subject: | House Nat'l Security Committee ?'s for Record |
From: Aimee Houghton <aimeeh@igc.org> Subject: House Nat'l Security Committee ?'s for Record ****** WARNING: THIS IS A VERY LONG FILE ****** Sherri Goodman's Response to House Nat'l Security ?'s For The Record -------------- Enclosure number 1 ---------------- QUESTION FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 1 ____________________________________________________________________________ ROCKY MOUNTAIN ARSENAL Mr. Bateman: How will the anticipated cost of implementing the Record of Decision at the Rocky Mountain Arsenal impact the Army's ability to fund other DERA cleanups, including those at formerly used defense sites? Ms. Goodman: Funds expended on the Rocky Mountain Arsenal will not be available for other program requirements; consequently, implementing the Record of Decision may delay cleanups elsewhere and extend the life of the Army's cleanup program. It is not anticipated that funding the Rocky Mountain Arsenal cleanup will result in the Army's inability to perform cleanup requirements that are legally mandated or necessary to respond to imminent hazards. However, it may be necessary to re-negotiate some cleanup schedules associated with Federal Facility Agreements and corrective action permits if the Army's budget requests are not fully supported by Congress. Finally, funding of Rocky Mountain Arsenal requirements should have little or no impact on Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) cleanups, because requirements for FUDS are separately programmed by the Department of Defense and are not included in the budget requests for the Army active sites cleanup program. QUESTION FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 2 ________________________________________________________________________ FFERDC RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Bateman: Representatives of your department have signed on to the soon-to-be released Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee. Among its recommendations is a call for full disclosure of discrepancies between field-defined requirements and budgets proposed up through the military's organizational structure. Do you intend to implement this recommendation? Would it help if Congress endorsed this approach or modified applicable laws? Ms. Goodman: The recommendations in the Final Report of the Federal Facilities Environmental Restoration Dialogue Committee (FFERDC) focus strongly on building consensus on cleanup priorities and budgets at early stages of the budget process at the local installation level. The Committee believes that if the regulators and other stakeholders have made a good faith effort but have not succeeded in accommodating federal fiscal constraints in setting cleanup priorities, Executive Branch decision makers should request full funding. The process endorses full disclosure of any discrepancy between OMB budget targets and the funding needed to meet an agency's cleanup obligations. The Committee believes the Executive Branch should make every effort to prevent such a discrepancy. The Department of Defense intends to implement the recommendations of the FFERDC Final Report through policy issued by DUSD(ES) and the Components. Our principal focus will be to use the relative risk approach for sequencing work in conjunction with legal commitments and to plan and balance programs within a set of fiscally constrained criteria. Stable funding with devolvement will allow the Components to make funding choices since they will have responsibility, accountability and funding for their environmental restoration programs. If the Components identify shortfalls to meet legal agreements in their budget submissions to OSD, OSD's policy is to address funding through the normal budgeting process, to include asking the Components to identify offsets for any shortfalls. The Department of Defense is moving forward on the recommendations in the final report and modification of existing laws or Congressional endorsement is not necessary for our implementation of this approach. However, Congressional support of stable funding would help reduce concerns about DoD's restoration budget. QUESTION FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 3 ________________________________________________________________________ DOD RANGE RULE Mr. Bateman: The Defense Department is proposing to identify and develop presumptive responses for all domestic closed, transferred, and transferring military munitions ranges. How many properties is that likely to cover, and what acreage? Using current, proven technology, what is the likely range of costs for such a program? Ms. Goodman: First, let me define what is meant by "presumptive response." We used this term in the February 20, 1996 draft of the DoD Range Rule. A "presumptive response" will be an interim, safety based measure designed to minimize the explosives safety risk to the public and to any installation employees until a final determination is made on end-use and response measures. This interim measure would receive periodic recurring reviews to determine if it is still protective. For example, a presumptive response could involve controlling access to the site by installing a fence after a surface sweep. Following implementation of the presumptive response, additional evaluations will be carried out. These could include an evaluation of the technical feasibility of further remedial actions, a site specific risk assessment, and a site specific response evaluation. The intended end-use of the property would be considered during these subsequent steps, and the public and the regulators will be fully involved during the process. The preliminary estimate for the number of properties that may be covered by presumptive responses is about 1300 sites (ranges), including formerly used Defense sites known or suspected to have unexploded ordnance (UXO). The size of these sites vary from a few acres to thousands of acres, with an estimated total of about 7.5 million acres. It is premature to establish a cost for the Range Rule because we have not yet determined which exact sites of those in the preliminary inventory would be subject to the requirements of the Rule. Although a cost impact analysis is being developed as part of the rulemaking process, the results are not available yet. Once the Range Rule is finalized, we will be better able to track requirements for its implementation. QUESTION FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 4 ____________________________________________________________________________ INITIATIVES TO STREAMLINE THE CLEANUP PROCESS Mr. Bateman: We have heard that the Department of Defense has sponsored or is taking part in numerous initiatives designed to respond the national frustration over the high cost and slow pace of cleanup. Could you describe some of those efforts, including but not limited to: a) The Air Combat Command's Streamlined Oversight project (piloted at Langley Air Force Base in Virginia); b) the Western Governors Association's Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation Working Group; and c) the California Military Environmental Coordination Committee's "Efficiency in Sampling" process action team. Ms. Goodman: (a) "Variable Oversight" is a partnering effort involving Headquarters Air Combat Command, Langley AFB, Region III EPA, State of Virginia environmental regulators, and the community through the Restoration Advisory Board (RAB). Earlier agreements focused on data-gathering requirements and methods. All sites requiring environmental cleanup were reviewed and assessed to determine the appropriate level of regulatory oversight. The variable oversight partners realized, however, that not every site presents the same risk to health or the environment, nor do they necessarily present a similar level of complexity. Consequently, under variable oversight, regulatory effort is targeted at priority high-concern sites and those requiring complex or innovative cleanup actions. This initiative is expected to reduce the time needed to institute cleanup actions at Langley AFB by 60%, and to reduce the cost by 10%. Air Combat Command is beginning a training course this summer to help other installations implement this initiative. (b) The Interstate Technology and Regulatory Cooperation workgroup was formed in December 1994 as a subgroup of the Federal Advisory Committee to Develop Innovative On-site Technologies (DOIT). The workgroup is made up of representatives of 22 states, tribal and public stakeholders, industry, and federal agencies. The focus of the workgroup has been on increasing interstate cooperation in the testing, demonstration, evaluation, verification and deployment of innovative environmental technologies. Agreements, protocols, and procedures have been established for interstate transfer and acceptance of data related to the performance and cost of demonstrated technologies. This cooperation eliminates repetitive efforts to gain acceptance of innovative technologies that are more effective, cost less, or faster than traditional cleanups. (c) In response to the demand for efficiencies in the cleanup process, the California Military Environmental Coordination Committee prepared a Remedial Project Manager's (RPM's) guidance document entitled "Field Analytical Measurement Technologies, Applications and Selection." The purpose of the document is to promote the application of field analytical measurement technologies to reduce the cost and time of cleanups by reducing the need for laboratory analysis and mobilization of equipment and contractors. Initial applications of this innovative approach are being used at closing bases to expedite base closure, as well as at active installations. Based on trial experience in California, DoD will determine whether the guidance has national application. The process action team that prepared the document included representatives from DOD, DOE, EPA Region 9, State of California regulatory agencies, and industry. QUESTION FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 5 ______________________________________________________________________________ PROGRESS IN ESTABLISHING RESTORATION ADVISORY BOARDS Mr. Bateman: Please summarize your progress in establishing Restoration Advisory Boards. How many are in place, by region, state, and Defense Component? Ms. Goodman: The Department is pleased to report that as of September 30, 1995, 251 installations were participating in Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs). The following tables provide breakouts by DoD Component and EPA Region. Several DoD installations that are located in close proximity to one another have decided to form joint RABs; as a result, the number of RABs formed is 221. On March 11, 1996, DoD provided the Restoration Advisory Board Report to Congress for Fiscal Year 1995. It describes DoD progress toward establishing RABs and details how RABs have contributed to the cleanup process. Installations Participating in a RAB DoD Component Number Participating Army 28 National Guard Bureau 1 Navy 101 Marine Corps 3 Air Force 107 Defense Logistics Agency 5 Formerly Used Defense Sites 6 TOTAL 251 Table Attached [Note: I have not attached the table in this electronic version. If you would like the table, please notify me and I will fax it to you directly.] QUESTION FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 6 ______________________________________________________________________________ DEFENSE AND STATE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT (DSMOA) PROGRAM Mr. Bateman: You are on the record opposing cuts in the Defense State Memorandum of Agreement program. What has been/is likely to be the impact of such cuts? Ms. Goodman: We expect that beginning later this fiscal year we will experience one or more of the following: * State and territorial technical support slowed. * Remedial action design, and construction, and initial operations delayed. * State participation in Restoration Advisory Boards reduced or curtailed. * Partnering and the trust that has been established between the states and the Military Departments jeopardized. * Near-term budgeting by states and territories disrupted. States and territories need to plan for their resource needs at least a year ahead. This situation could result in: - Loss of important institutional knowledge and a weakening of existing partnerships with the Military Departments due to transfer of state personnel to other programs where adequate funds are in-place; and - Termination of DSMOAs. I. Program costs to the Military Departments increased. States may withdraw from DSMOA and resort to enforcement and litigation or to a cost-recovery system to recoup costs for regulatory support. These less than desirable alternatives to cooperative decision making would likely delay cleanup and could increase oversight costs by as much as 25 percent. QUESTION FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 7 ____________________________________________________________________________ LEGAL OBLIGATIONS AND DEFENSE AND STATE MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT FUNDING Mr. Bateman: In FY96 DoD requested $1.622 billion for DERA. Congress appropriated $1.411 billion, $211 million below the amount the Defense Department and the Administration said was needed to meet minimal legal obligations and undertake an adequate cleanup including minimal new technology development. The estimated DERA request for FY97 is aggregate $1.333 billion. With requested funding for FY97 almost $300 million below that requested for FY96, what is DoD doing to guarantee that reduced DERA funding does not affect agreements made with the states under the Defense State Memorandum of Agreement and other obligations? Ms. Goodman: The decrease in the FY97 budget request for DERA results partly from shifting funds to the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) account for BRAC 95 bases. The Department is constantly striving to maximize environmental restoration efficiency. However, reductions in funding do not reduce the amount of work or associated cost required to meet legal obligations. It simply takes longer to meet legal obligations; potential exposure to environmental contamination is prolonged; and overall costs may actually increase due to inefficiencies resulting from funding reductions. Decreases in the FY96 funding, combined with the impact of reductions in prior years, slow the process and delay final completion of the cleanup program. Some sites will receive less funding than previously planned and others will be delayed to future years. In some cases projects at high relative risk sites scheduled for award in late FY96 were shifted to FY97. Also, projects that included medium and low risk sites were deferred. The Military Departments are working with state and federal regulators in several states to adjust schedules and delay work at sites where environmental commitments had previously been made. The Military Departments are emphasizing the results of the relative risk analyses completed in FY 1995 and seeking relief on low relative risk sites in most cases. Commitments of all types are being reviewed. We anticipate that the use of the relative risk model, combined with this review of commitments, will allow us to execute within the funds available and still provide protection of human health and the environment. The Military Departments are also working to renegotiate commitments made at Third Party Sites where they are just one of the responsible parties paying for the cleanup actions. These sites present a unique problem because the work is not controlled by DOD people and the commitments were made several years ago when the cleanup budget was expected to be much larger than it is today. With the significant reduction in the overall cleanup program, Third Party Sites commitments are being evaluated in the same manner as sites on our installations. Our FY 1997 DERA budget request includes sufficient funds to meet requirements in our legal agreements. Note that funding for cleanup at bases that were included in the fourth round of BRAC are now budgeted in that account. The Military Departments are following DOD guidance to implement relative risk within the context of legal agreements. Relative risk provides a basis for dialogue with regulatory agencies and public stakeholders on sequencing work at installations, recognizing that there are not sufficient funds available to fund all requirements in the same year. The relative risk approach provides for a structured approach and provides discipline in executing our program by focusing on "worst first." The Defense and State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA) and Cooperative Agreement (CA) Program was developed to enhance state and territory involvement in the cleanup of DoD installations, specifically through the environmental restoration and BRAC programs. It is a valuable tool for DoD. However, in order for this tool to be effective the DSMOA and CA program must be adequately funded and not restricted by caps that are not related to the work effort. A basic premise of the DSMOA program is that states and territories are reimbursed for services they provide in support of DoD restoration activities. In addition to fostering improved relations between the states or territories and DoD, this program supports the DoD-wide goals of achieving more efficient cleanup and developing new partnerships to address environmental restoration problems specific to or typical at DoD sites. A limitation in the National Defense Authorization Act For Fiscal Year 1996 placed a ceiling on funds available for reimbursement under the DSMOA Program in FY96. Conference Report language in Section 321 of the Act limits reimbursable agreements to $10 million in FY96, subject to increase, however, upon certification by the Secretary of Defense to Congress that a higher limit is essential. The Department is in the process of certifying to Congress that $10.9 million from DERA funds already appropriated will be needed for the DSMOA Program in FY96. We are working to build long-term relationships with our stakeholders. With the prospect for stable funding, we are building a schedule to complete our entire program, based on reducing risk to public health and the environment. DoD is committed to completing cleanup at all sites that pose a threat to human health and the environment. A stabilized funding approach is the best way to demonstrate this commitment, making the relative risk approach more acceptable. QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 8 _____________________________________________________________________________ PLANS FOR DEVOLVEMENT Mr. Bateman: In the planning for devolvement how will DOD and the service branches insure that there is stakeholder input into the process? What are the plans for making the report on devolution public? Ms. Goodman: Devolvement is a change in account structure internal to the Department of Defense. Full integration of the environmental restoration program into the planning, programming, and budgeting system (PPBS) at the Component level will bring the institutional checks and balances of that system to bear. Including environmental restoration in Component program and budget reviews will allow restoration requirements to compete with other mission requirements, improve the planning and execution of the restoration program and lead to broader support within each Department for environmental restoration needs. Components build their plans for execution of the program based on goals to reduce risk to human health and the environment and to meet legal requirements. Other stakeholders, in addition to regulators, are now deeply involved in the process to cleanup military installations. Restoration Advisory Boards (RABs) are an integral part of the program. A RAB is a group comprised of DoD, regulators, and community members formed to act as a forum for discussion and exchange of information between agencies and the community and to provide an opportunity to review progress with decisionmakers at DoD installations. RABs are involved in reviewing and commenting on relative risk site evaluations and other program factors that are used to develop restoration program requirements. The Devolvement Report has been submitted to Congress and is available as a public document. It is also being added to our Home Page so it will be available to individuals with Internet capabilities. QUESTION FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 9 ____________________________________________________________________________ FENCED DERA APPROPRIATION Mr. Bateman: This year an attempt was made to transfer funds allocated for DERA to funds for the Bosnia mission. Will DOD guarantee that, given the reduced budget for environmental restoration, there will be no further attempts to "take down the fences" that currently protect DERA appropriations? Ms. Goodman: The Department has never permitted DERA funds to be used to pay for other than environmental cleanup activities, nor have we proposed reprogramming those funds for other purposes. On one occasion, however, Congress rescinded $300 million (Public Law 104-6 of April 10, 1995) from the FY 1995 Environmental Restoration, Defense appropriation to provide emergency supplemental funding "to preserve and enhance the military readiness of the Department of Defense for the fiscal year ending September 30, 1995, and for other purposes." DoD strongly supports a fenced account in the year of execution to ensure that the level of funding Congress authorizes and appropriates for DERA is spent only on environmental cleanup. QUESTIONS FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 10 ________________________________________________________________________ EFFECTS OF DEVOLVEMENT ON CLEANUP Mr. Bateman: DOD has gone ahead with its plan to devolve DERA appropriations for FY97, in advance of the report requested by the Authorization bill. What has been the effect of devolvement so far this year? What will the effects of devolvement be on the future of the cleanup? Ms. Goodman: The Military Departments have incorporated the environmental restoration requirements into the Planning, Programming and Budgeting System (PPBS) process, DoD's internal development and review process. The FY97 President's Budget has been developed in a devolved environment. With devolvement, the responsibility, accountability, and funding all lie with the individual Components. Each Component evaluates whether there is sufficient funding to support cleanup based on relative risk, or to meet the commitments in signed legal agreements with regulators. The primary benefit of devolvement is that it will bring to bear all of the institutional controls of DoD's internal budget development and review process. We expect more rigor to be applied into the development and assembly of the program and budget. ODUSD(ES) will continue to provide active oversight to the program through policy making, goal setting, and performance measurement leading to a consistent program appropriately sized to deal with the environmental restoration problems resulting from past activities. QUESTION FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 11 ____________________________________________________________________________ FORMERLY USED DEFENSE SITES Mr. Bateman: The FY97 budget states that responsibility for environmental restoration at Formerly Used Defense Sites has been changed from the Army to the DoD. Why was this shift made and what does it mean? Ms. Goodman: The responsibility for the Formerly Used Defense Sites (FUDS) Program has always been and will continue to be the responsibility of DoD. The Army is our "Executive Agent" for the Program and the Army has assigned the Corps of Engineers responsibility for execution of the Program. All of this remains the same under the FY 1997 budget. QUESTION FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 12 _____________________________________________________________________________ IMPLEMENTING FEDERAL FACILITIES ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION DIALOGUE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS Mr. Bateman: What is the schedule and how does DoD plan to institutionalize the Consensus Recommendations and Principles for Improving Federal Facilities Cleanup developed by the Federal Facilities Restoration Dialogue Committee? Ms. Goodman: DoD strongly supports the fourteen Principles for Environmental Cleanup of Federal Facilities. I believe that we are already adhering to them in carrying out the restoration program. For example, Principle 9--Consideration of Human Health and Environmental Risk in Cleanup Decision Making, is a long-standing tenet of our program. The committee recommendations regarding advisory boards have largely been implemented. We recognize, however, that we may need to develop supplemental guidance in areas such as advisory board education and training and capacity building for stakeholders to ensure that the DoD Components are operating consistently. A Technical Assistance for Public Participation rule is now being developed by a DoD/EPA working group to provide funding to community members of Restoration Advisory Boards. Other committee recommendations, such as those regarding funding and priority setting, will require implementing guidance. We will work with the DoD Components to develop it. Because Army, Navy, and Air Force representatives were involved in developing the final report recommendations, I expect DoD to be able to make rapid progress. We would anticipate including these new procedures in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program Management Guidance, due later this year. QUESTION FOR THE RECORD HOUSE NATIONAL SECURITY COMMITTEE PROCUREMENT SUBCOMMITTEE AND READINESS SUBCOMMITTEE ENVIRONMENTAL SECURITY PROGRAMS MARCH 21, 1996 QUESTION NUMBER 13 ____________________________________________________________________________ FEDERAL ACQUISITION STREAMLINING ACT Mr. Bateman: Section 1004 of the Federal Acquisition Streamlining Act of 1994 created a statutory preference scheme for making multiple awards of delivery order contracts and subsequent competition of individual tasks or delivery orders. What impact has this preference for multiple awards had on environmental contracting within the Department of Defense? Ms. Goodman: Subpart 16.5 of the Federal Acquisition Regulations (FAR) implements Section 1004 of the FASA and expresses a preference for multiple awards when using indefinite-quantity contracts. FAR Subpart 16.504(c)(1) states further that multiple awards should not be made is one or more of six circumstances apply. Contracting officers are expected to exercise sound business judgement and use full flexibility the FAR provides when awarding contracts for environmental remediation. The multiple award method of contracting can be advantageous when acquiring products or services because there is a capable contractor available if the selected contractor cannot perform. No resolicitation is necessary and time and money are saved. Subsequent competition of individual trask or delivery orders can also be advantageous in terms of getting best price. These "competitions" are very limited in nature. They are not formal competitions subject to the rigors of FAR, nor are they subject to formal protest by the bidders. This limited competition costs very little in terms of time. Program managers may be required to put in a little more effort up front under a multiple award method, but it should result in better value overall. These are times when multiple award contracting is not advantageous. Because of the nature of environmental remediation, with its uncertainties and potentially staggering fines for noncompliance, contracting officers must determine, on a case-by-case basis, the appropriate contracting method suited to each individual set of circumstances. The Army, Navy and Air Force all feel that FAR Subpart 16.504(c)(1) provides adequate flexibility for their environmental remediation contracts within the multiple award requirement. | |
Prev by Date: EPA Federal Register ListServe Service Next by Date: DOD's Devolvement Report on Web | |
Prev by Thread: EPA Federal Register ListServe Service Next by Thread: DOD's Devolvement Report on Web |