THURSDAY, MAY 7, 1992. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION, DEFENSE WITNESSES THOMAS E. BACA, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF DEFENSE FOR ENVIRONMENT LEWIS D. WALKER, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE ARMY, ENVIRONMENT, SAFETY AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH ELSIE MUNSELL, DEPUTY ASSISTANT SECRETARY OF THE NAVY, ENVIRONMENT AND SAFETY COL. JIM JENKINS, STAFF DIRECTOR, INSTALLATIONS SERVICES AND ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION, DEFENSE LOGISTICS AGENCY COL. PETER WALSH, DIRECTOR FOR ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY, OFFICE OF CIVIL ENGINEERS, USAF INTRODUCTION Mr. Dicks. The Committee will come to order. This morning's hearing will address the Defense Environmental Program. The request for fiscal year 1993 is divided into two pieces: $1,513,200,000, which is $118,000,000 less than the fiscal year 1992 estimate for the Defense Environmental Restoration Program; and $1,694,000,000 for the Services' environmental compliance programs, which is an increase of $328,000,000. Testifying this morning is Mr. Thomas E. Baca, the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Environment. Secretary Baca, we welcome you. Mr. Secretary, I know you share my frustration with the glacial pace of progress in dealing with environmental restoration efforts both on existing bases and on bases slated for closure. The list of impediments to expeditious cleanup is a long one. As you know, this Committee has had a special investigation done because of our concern about the program and how it is proceeding. Some of the major issues that we see are overlap and duplication between various State and Federal laws and their enforcement agencies have produced a seemingly endless stream of studies, documentation requests and conflicting direction. Changing standards of what constitutes acceptable levels of remediation frequently send us back to the drawing board. Shoddy work by contractors who have an incentive to perpetuate the study phase has produced a situation where of the 6,736 sites which have been closed out, all but 73 of them required no remedial action. In other words, we spent hundreds of millions of dollars simply to remove from the list sites that never should have been there in the first place. Potential liability issues petrify contractors and the Federal Government with the result that frequently more time and effort is made trying to avoid anything that could assign legal responsibility (385) than there is trying to determine how to clean up sites. The Department has difficulty recruiting and retaining personnel with the expertise to deal with these issues, and especially to keep contractors honest. There is the suggestion that given the high cost of actual restoration efforts, at least some elements within the Department welcome the stagnation of endless studies because it avoids up-front investments that would squeeze other Department programs. While the various actors fiddle, the problem is only getting worse. For example, at Otis Air National Guard Base, since 1978, we have spent $21 million studying ground water contamination, but no cleanup. All the while, the contaminated ground water continues to migrate toward drinking water supplies. I know in my own district, it was like pulling teeth to get the Air Force to deal with ground water pollution that was poisoning private wells at American Lake Gardens, but what frustrates me the most is that rather than communicating to the Congress the very real problems that stand in the way of an expeditious and cost-effective restoration program, the word we seem to be getting is one of "everything is beautiful" and all we need to do is proceed as we have been. Dr. Baca, are you really satisfied with the way that the DERP is progressing? Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, no, I am not. Mr. DICKS. We need to know what changes need to be made, both within the Department and with respect to the way environmental laws are applied to the Department in order to get on with restoring these bases now. What steps does the Congress need to consider to make this possible? Mr. BACA. Mr. Chairman, if I might address that in my written and verbal statement. Mr. DICKS. That is fine. We can proceed to your statement. SUMMARY STATEMENT OF MR. BACA Mr. BACA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I am pleased to have this opportunity to tell you about the Department of Defense's environmental programs and hope you will find this hearing informative and helpful. With me today is Mr. Dee Walker, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army; Ms. Elsie Munsell, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Navy; representing Mr. Gary Vest, Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force is Colonel Peter Walsh; and Colonel Jim Jenkins from the Defense Logistics Agency. These people will serve as backup to help answer questions. My statement covers the broad range of our environmental activities, including the Defense Environmental Restoration Program, DERP; environmental compliance efforts; pollution prevention; and land management and natural and cultural resources programs. ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION FUNDING Now to budgets. While the overall DOD budget has been declining, the President has almost tripled annual DOD environmental investments from $1.4 billion to $3.7 billion in the 3 years ending with the fiscal year 1993 amended budget. If the fiscal year 1992 supplemental and the fiscal year 1993 amended budget requests are enacted, the Bush administration will have invested $11.7 billion in the environment at DOD since the beginning of fiscal year 1990. This investment covers both clean-up and ongoing operational activities to comply with regulatory standards, pollution prevention, and stewardship of natural and cultural resources. In fiscal year 1993, the Department proposes to invest $3.7 billion in environmental activities, an increase of almost $800 million over the fiscal year 1992 base level. Further, this step up in activity will be enhanced by the fiscal year 1992 supplemental request, under which the President has requested over $1 billion in additional funding for environmental compliance and clean-ups at DOD installations. These increased resources, at a time of diminishing defense budgets, demonstrate the commitment of the President and the Secretary of Defense to meet and exceed environmental standards and be true stewards of the natural and cultural resources entrusted to the Department. The current fiscal year 1992 funding levels will ensure our compliance with all applicable laws, provide for needed investments in pollution prevention activities, and support our high-priority cleanup efforts at non-closing bases. The Department is requesting supplemental funds in these areas, however, to accelerate these programs and avoid future environmental problems. For restoration, the supplemental will help us turn the corner on getting away from studies and to work on actual clean-ups. I know tht is a concern of yours, Mr. Chairman. As indicated earlier, the Department foresees a wave of costly clean-up projects coming due in the mid-1990s and it is cost effective to get a jump on this wave now to lower total costs and to allow us to better manage the total program. The old adage, time is money, is more true in this business than perhaps any other. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE For compliance, the Department's base-line amount in fiscal year 1992 is about $1.4 billion. The revised total for these activities, including the supplemental request, is slightly less than $1.9 billion. The supplemental provides funding to accelerate our pollution prevention efforts and environmental compliance projects such as underground storage tank replacements/upgrades, wastewater treatment systems, PCB phaseout, inventories to identify requirements driven by the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and other similar efforts. Mr. Chairman, these requirements will have to be done at some point-they are required by the law. I believe the Department, the environment and the taxpayer are well served if we set out doing them now. BASE CLOSURE ACCOUNT For base closure, a total of $231.7 million for the Base Closure Account, Part II is necessary to execute an effective environmental clean-up program at bases to be closed and ensure that schedules can be maintained. Lack of full funding for clean-up can severely impact the ability of local communities to place base properties scheduled for closure into timely and productive use. At this time, Mr. Chairman, I would like to note for the record a correction to page 9 of my prepared statement that makes reference to the fiscal year 1992 Defense Appropriations Act. Specifically, the statement should read that the fiscal year 1992 Military Construction Act did not appropriate sufficient funds for the Base Closure Account, Part II. The total fiscal year 1992 amended request represents the Department's best estimate of the minimum funding needed to meet all applicable environmental requirements in all of our program areas, including base closure needs. It reflects the President's and the Secretary's commitment to meeting increasingly important and stringent environmental requirements head on. SUMMARY In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, the Department of Defense has made significant headway toward institutionalizing an environmental ethic within DOD. The perseverance and commitment of DOD personnel, from the installation level to the Secretary, are enabling the Department to meet our environmental challenges. If there is only one message, I would like to leave with you today, it is that the Department needs for the Congress to quickly enact the President's $1 billion fiscal year 1992 environmental supplemental and fiscal year 1993 budgets. Thank you. We would be happy to answer any questions you may have. [The statement of Mr. Baca follows:] |