How far back should the military's accountability extend?

The limits could be debated, but it seems reasonable to expect a cleanup of chemical munitions dumped offshore between World War II and the early 1970s.

So the current proposal by U.S. Sen. Daniel Akaka and Rep. Neil Abercrombie — to compel the Army to plan such a cleanup — should meet with no reasonable opposition on Capitol Hill.

The measure (which U.S. Rep. Ed Case said he will co-sponsor) would require the Army to conduct complete studies and recommend remediation of chemical weapon dumping sites.

The bill refers to more than 8,000 tons of chemical weapons, containing blister agents and nerve agents, at sites off south O'ahu and Wai'anae that still can't be precisely located.

What's most appalling is that it now leaves the environment vulnerable to leakage from the toxic weapons. That risk can't be tolerated on a long-term basis.

Although the military already is making progress along these lines, Abercrombie rightly insists on a legislative mandate, which would allow for speedier allotment of additional funding, if it is needed.

Ideally, it would be wise to expand that survey to include some other ocean sites, as some environmentalists suggest. For example, Life of the Land would favor surveying for submerged munitions off Kaho'olawe. The Conservation Council for Hawai'i wants to go even further, with a plan for land sites as well.

This makes sense, but budgetary constraints may weigh against the expansion. If so, Congress should proceed at least with the original scope as a first step in a critical public-safety effort.