BRAC panel has questions for Rumsfeld Group asks why Pearl Harbor wasn’t considered for closure

PORTLAND – The base closing commission asked Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld on Friday why Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard wasn’t considered for closure and why the Pentagon proposed to scale back Brunswick Naval Station instead of closing the base.

Commissioners also inquired as to why the Pentagon chose to close 23 Defense Finance and Accounting Service centers – including one in Limestone – and how it settled on three consolidated locations: Indianapolis, Denver and Columbus, Ohio.

The Base Realignment and Closure Commission would need further explanation from the Pentagon before it can consider adding bases to the closure list, and the questions do not reflect how the commission is leaning, said Chairman Anthony Principi.

“We are in the early stages of a multistep process,” Principi wrote in a letter to Sen. Olympia Snowe. “Our request to the secretary is merely for additional data and analysis so that the commission will be more fully and broadly informed before deciding whether or not to formally consider adding installations to this list.”

Among the 12 questions posed to Rumsfeld was why the Pentagon did not choose to close the Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard and farm out its submarine overhaul functions among shipyards in Norfolk, Va., Puget Sound, Wash., and Kittery.

The commissioners noted that Pearl Harbor’s repair depot is less efficient than the Portsmouth Naval Shipyard. They also questioned the Pentagon’s previous statements about Pearl Harbor’s military value compared to the other yards.

Friday’s inquiry came a day after the Navy formally awarded its Meritorious Unit Commendation to the Portsmouth shipyard for its “phenomenal record” of refueling and overhauling nuclear submarines ahead of schedule.

“This is the best performing shipyard of its kind,” said Snowe, R-Maine, noting that the BRAC chairman is asking questions that go to the heart of the state’s defense of the shipyard. “The other shipyards are inefficient, and they will not be able to absorb the workload from Portsmouth.”

As for Brunswick, the commission asked why the Pentagon chose to retain an operational airfield while choosing to move its P-3 Orion and C-130 aircraft and half of its Navy personnel to a base in Jacksonville, Fla.

Commissioners noted that a complete closure would have saved more money and would have opened land to redevelopment to offset the economic impact.

Regarding the DFAS centers, the commission questioned why consolidating all work into three centers was the only scenario considered. “Why did [the Pentagon] not consider other options which could have avoided military construction costs and possibly produced a more cost-effective option?” the commissioners asked.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, said the commission’s questions show the panel has picked up on the Maine delegation’s arguments focusing on the efficiency and military value of the shipyard as well as the strategic value of the air base.

“The fact that they’re seeking additional information on all three of Maine’s sites demonstrates that they’re asking the hard questions,” Collins said.

The commission’s inquiry came on the same day the General Accounting Office released its analysis of the Pentagon’s base closing recommendations.

The GAO report said that closing the shipyard would hinder the fleet’s ability to make unanticipated repairs, and it also questioned the assumptions on which the Pentagon’s overall cost savings were determined.

Principi asked Rumsfeld to respond by July 18. The commission will meet a day later to consider whether to add bases to the list of those under consideration to be closed or realigned. That would require a vote of seven of the nine commissioners.

The panel has a Sept. 8 deadline to come up with its final list of recommendations and present it to President Bush.

AP’s Lolita Baldor in Washington contributed to this report.