THOMAS E. BACA

He

Mr. Thomas E. Baca assumed his duties as the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense (Environment) on August 1, 1990. In this position, he is responsible for the development, management, and coordination of environmental, safety and occupational health programs in the Department of Defense. directs the Defense Environmental Restoration Program and budget to clean up hazardous waste sites on current and former DoD activities; he is responsible for the overall coordination of the DOD natural resources conservation program and the supervision of the Armed Forces Pest Management Board and the Department of Defense Explosives Safety Board.

Mr. Baca brings a wide range of experience to his present position. He has over twenty-five years of experience in the environmental area. He comes to the federal government from the University of Arizona where, as the Associate Vice President for Administrative Services, he supervised several administrative departments. From 1986 to 1989, he was the City Manager for the City of Sante Fe, New Mexico, and from 1982 to 1986 he worked in private industry as an environmental management consultant. Mr. Baca served as Director of the Environmental Improvement Division for the State of New Mexico from 1976 to 1982.

Mr. Baca received his Bachelor of Science degree from the University of New Mexico in 1964 and a Master of Public Health from the University of Minnesota. He is active in numerous professional and civic organizations and has served as Chairman of the Section on Environment of the American Public Health Association and as Chairman of the Section on Administration of the National Environmental Health Association.

Mr. Baca resides with his wife, Patricia in Vienna, Virginia. They have a son, Rodger, and a daughter, Terri.

INTRODUCTION

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. Testimony today will cover the broad range of our environmental activities.

In 1989, Secretary of Defense, Dick Cheney, stated that he wanted DoD to become the Federal leader in environmental compliance and protection. He challenged us to eliminate the health and environmental risks at our installations and at the same time to help meet the nation's environmental goals. Department has subsequently developed a vision with its Components to ensure this future.

The

Enormous environmental challenges confront the Department. DOD must clean up hazardous and toxic wastes from past activities; DOD must comply with a complex array of current Federal, state and local laws and regulations; DoD must undertake actions to promote pollution prevention and prevent future environmental contamination; and DoD must be a good steward of the natural and cultural resources located on our lands. The Department of Defense is making progress on all four fronts. I have visited dozens of installations in the past several months and can tell you that environmental protection and public health are unquestionably a top priority at every installation. Before getting into the specifics of our Fiscal Year 1992 and 1993 budget proposals, the Department would like to discuss where we are today, and where we are going in major program areas.

DEFENSE ENVIRONMENTAL RESTORATION PROGRAM (DERP)

This past year has seen steady progress in the DERP. In FY 1991, DoD invested over $1 billion in cleanup efforts. This represented a 40 percent increase over the previous year.

Cleaning up toxic waste sites is our largest challenge over the next decade. The number of sites included in the Defense Environmental Restoration Program has steadily increased since the inception of the program. Consistent with the Department's clean up the worst site-first policy, emphasis initially was placed on contamination affecting public health. Efforts have expanded yearly to address smaller installations with lower hazard potential. The total cost for cleaning up these sites was estimated to be $9-14 billion in 1988. Our current estimate is approximately $25 billion (beginning with investments made in Fiscal Year 1991).

By the end of FY 1991, 17,660 potential sites at 1,877 installations had been identified. Currently, only 90 of these installations are on EPA's National Priorities List (NPL). These

NPL installations, however, represent our most serious cleanup challenges. Program growth in total sites is now leveling off and DoD is happy to report that 6,737 sites have been removed from our list. These include sites which have been remediated, or where a determination has been made that no further action is required.

DoD is making good progress in this program. The Department is concerned, however, that it is studying problems too much and not getting enough real cleanup for our investment. There are many aspects to this problem; some are within the Department's ability to do something about and some are not. One of the problems is that there is a tremendous ambiguity in the laws over which regulatory agency or cleanup process has primacy at DOD cleanup sites. A clear hierarchy of authority over our cleanup actions is needed. Ambiguity leads to confusion, delay, duplication and added cost. As DoD saw in Desert Storm, clear lines of authority are prerequisite to success. The Department is working with the states and EPA on these issues so we can move faster on our cleanup.

The Department is working hard to establish a more cooperative partnership with regulators. Formal agreements between DoD, EPA and the states at our NPL installations are intended to establish a mutually acceptable approach for conducting installation restoration activities and are an important milestone in the cleanup process. More importantly, it is our hope that the agreements serve to focus our efforts to actually cleaning up the sites rather than becoming an end unto themselves. The Department is looking for ways to make progress, not perpetuate process. DOD cannot emphasize enough the importance placed on working not only with Federal regulators but also with state regulators and the public.

The DoD policy is to enter into the agreements for NPL installations as early in the process as possible, well before the time they are required by law. DOD believes that the early involvement of EPA and state authorities increases the public's comfort with the cleanup actions undertaken. It can also provide a mechanism for resolving issues arising from overlapping or conflicting jurisdictions.

To facilitate state participation in the cleanup program, DOD now reimburses the states for up to one percent of the total cleanup costs through the Defense and State Memoranda of Agreement (DSMOA) program. The Department now has agreements in place with 36 states and has provided approximately $17 million last Fiscal Year to state environmental regulatory agencies to ensure their support and involvement in our program. The Department believes there are both near and long-term benefits associated with our partnership with the states. States are critical players in this program; DOD needs them and we think the DSMOA program is an effective way to help achieve quicker and higher quality cleanups.

The Department is finding ways to shorten the remediation process. Together, in a spirit of partnership with state and EPA regulators, we can achieve this goal. Here are just a few improvements we are making that can help us succeed:

ADMINISTRATIVE DELAYS: DoD is taking measures to minimize delays related to contracting, personnel availability, and other internal DoD factors.

REVIEW AND COORDINATION: The Department is encouraging all
reviewers, particularly regulators, to shorten their
turn-around times. We are working toward reducing the number
of iterations of report drafts.

SEQUENCING: Many more cleanup activities can be conducted simultaneously rather than sequentially. While this is already being done, I think we can do even more.

CLEANUP VERSUS STUDY ORIENTATION: DOD frequently studies a site with a goal of determining the nature and extent of contamination. That, however, is only an interim step in achieving the real goal of site cleanup. It is necessary to know when to stop studying and get on with the cleanup. The Department believes we must be more willing to take partial actions sooner than we perhaps have done in the past. It is very important, however, for us to move in concert with the public and the regulatory agencies as we undertake these actions.

PROCESS/CONCEPT CHANGES: The current National Contingency Plan process has often proven to be less than optimum for achieving rapid investigations and cleanups. The EPA is responsible for this plan and they are taking a hard look at these issues. DOD is also looking for ways to collapse the process which will bring us to cleanup action faster.

The

Mr. Chairman, the Conference Committee Report accompanying this year's Defense Appropriation Act, called for the Department to develop a pilot Expedited Environmental Cleanup Program. Department intends to use this pilot program to further develop improvements in some of the foregoing areas and will report the results in next year's Annual Report for the program. At this time, the Department would like to provide a copy of the FY 1991 DERP Annual Report for the record. This report shows the progress we are making.

Prioritization of our cleanups is an important consideration. DOD believes that as the bulk of the program reaches the actual remediation phase, that the funding requirements may outpace the available appropriations. The Department needs to have an objective and credible way to ensure we put our available dollars on the most important cleanup projects. The Defense Priority Model (DPM) is our tool to do this and the Department is working

with the National Academy of Sciences to obtain their review of the DPM. A study committee has been established, and the Department is looking forward to receiving results of their review this year. DOD is also continuing coordination with EPA and states on DPM. The DPM has been a topic of special interest at our DoD/State DERP workshops.

ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE EFFORTS

Another major element of the Department's overall environmental program is achieving compliance with current laws and regulations. In addition to regulations at the Federal level, many states have produced similar laws and regulations to implement Federal standards. Many states have gone much further, imposing stricter rules to protect their unique enviromental resources and address public concerns. The Department will fully address all notices of violation and citations issued by regulatory authorities. At the same time, however, DoD's own internal audits and inspections have been excellent tools in _identifying and eliminating many more would be violations.

The environmental compliance program encompasses a wide range of activities, programs, and appropriations in each of the DOD Components' budgets. Overall DoD investment for environmental compliance activities in FY 1991 was about $1.2 billion. These requirements will increase in FY 1993 to about $1.7 billion across all DoD Components. Compliance is an ongoing responsibility which is executed by nearly all organizations and activities throughout the Department. Under our budgeting structure, environmental compliance funds pay for such things as hazardous waste storage, treatment and disposal; facilities and equipment necessary to meet clean air and clean water requirements; environmental permits and fees; endangered species management, historical property preservation and myriad other "must do" requirements. Compliance requirements are being properly identified and budgeted by the DOD Components to meet the Department's environmental obligations.

One of the cornerstones of the Department's effort to be a leader in environmental compliance and protection involves monitoring, planning, and programming to meet new standards on or before their effective date. Each of the DoD Components has developed and implemented a comprehensive environmental audit program to highlight problems at each facility before they become violations. These audits help installations to plan and budget for necessary environmental projects. The Department cannot emphasize enough, however, that compliance requirements are very dynamic. Laws and standards are changing every day and invariably are becoming more stringent. Quite frankly, it taxes our programming and budgeting system to keep pace with the changing requirements.