SASC SLASHES CLEANUP "ADMINISTRATION"

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@igc.org>]

SASC SLASHES CLEANUP "ADMINISTRATION"

In its June 17, 1997 report accompanying the Defense Authorization Act 
for 1998 - yet to be passed - the Senate Armed Services Committee 
targeted $60 million of its $90 million recommended cut in Defense 
Environmental Restoration accounts at program "administration." Since 
the proposed budget for "administration" totals only $148 million out 
of a $1.3 billion total active/former base cleanup program, this could 
have a devastating impact.

"Administration," as defined by the Department of Defense, not only 
includes supervision, management, and data collection, but this is 
where funds are found for work the Department does with the public and 
its representatives, including:

* Reimbursement for state oversight through the Defense State 
Memorandum of Agreement program

* Operation of Restoration Advisory Boards

* Support for the Agency for Toxic Substance and Disease Registry

In recommending the cuts, the Committee gave the following rationale:

(Section 336). "... the committee directs that the funds requested for 
the fiscal year 1998 administration of the Defense Environmental 
Restoration Account (DERA) be reduced by $30.0 million to reflect 
concerns regarding the management and use of relative risk site 
evaluation...."

(Section 337). "... funds associated with the administration of the 
Defense Environmental Restoration Account (DERA) should be reduced by 
$30.0 million to reflect the inefficiencies and mismanagement inherent 
to the Department's inaction on third party cost-recovery actions." 
Those include government-owned, contractor-operated (GOCO) facilities.

I think that the committee's position is unreasonable, for four reasons:

1. The cleanup programs are under attack, not for failure to protect 
public health nor for failure to use federal funds carefully, but for 
secondary program criteria.

2. Absent the committee's direction, the cleanup program has been 
looking for ways to improved its relative risk evaluation methodology.

3. Critics seems hung up on the absolute meanings of the terms used 
(high, medium, low), ignoring that the system is designed to rate 
RELATIVE risk.

4. Most obviously, the committee is attempting to correct perceived 
mismanagement at DOD by undermining the participation of state 
regulators and the affected public. That can only make things worse.

No one denies that there is room for improvement in the cleanup 
program. I probably share the committee's concern about GOCO cost 
recovery. But cutting budgets that are already down to their bare bones 
is not the way to solve the cleanup program's problems.

Lenny Siegel