WASHINGTON — After listening to a vigorous defense of Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard at a hearing yesterday, the chairman of the Base Realignment and Closure Commission cited the shipyard's low efficiency rating as an issue in whether to consider it for possible closure when the panel votes today.

Anthony J. Principi said he and other commissioners have been told the quality of the work at Pearl Harbor and the shipyard's efficiency is not as good as at Portsmouth Naval Shipyard in Kittery, Maine.

"That's an issue," Principi said. "I've talked with a lot of submarine commanders who would prefer not to have their subs overhauled in Pearl. The commissioners are going to have to deliberate on that very, very carefully before making their decision.

"I think cost and efficiency and quality are important issues, but the Navy has made a compelling argument that Pearl's strategic location is very, very important."

The BRAC chair's comments came after Pentagon officials told the base closure panel that closing Pearl Harbor shipyard with its nuclear repair operations could hurt Navy operations.

The independent panel votes today on whether to add Pearl and about a dozen other installations to a list of possible closures and realignments.

Michael W. Wynne, the Defense Department undersecretary who heads the base restructuring process, said the Pentagon favored keeping Pearl Harbor, with its nuclear repair operations, because of its strategic location and ability to work on a variety of ships.

"On a practical level, removing the capability of nuclear repairs almost 3,000 miles from an operational fleet base violates the Navy's tenet of 'follow the fleet' and may have some detrimental effect on operations," Wynne said.

During the hearing, at least some members of the panel seemed to lean toward adding Pearl to the list, with the aim of conducting further study and comparing it to Portsmouth, where ship overhauls are completed faster and at a lower cost.

Because of the law setting up this round of base closures and realignments, Pearl Harbor would have to be dropped from further consideration if the commission does not vote today to consider it for possible future action.

Seven of the nine commissioners would have to vote in favor in order for Pearl to be put on the list. If that happens, the commission would then visit the site, hold public hearings and collect data to make direct comparisons with other bases.

In addition to the Pentagon, Hawai'i's congressional delegation, Gov. Linda Lingle and Mayor Mufi Hannemann also tried yesterday to make the case for keeping Pearl open, meeting privately after the hearing with some of the commissioners, including Principi.

Afterward, Maj. Gen. Robert Lee, adjutant general for Hawai'i, said his conclusion was that the commission was set to add Pearl Harbor to its recommendations. "They pretty much said that they want to kick this can down the road and take a look at it some more," Lee said.

Lingle said she couldn't predict what would happen today but that the commissioners listened to the points raised at the meeting.

"They conceded that the emerging threats to our nation are in the East Asia area," she said. "Since that is the crux of what we're saying about military value, I think it was important for us to hear that."

The governor delivered a 17-page memo to the BRAC Commission in which she calls the shipyard a "crucial" part of America's defense.

"The Pacific Fleet's Area of Responsibility covers 100 million miles in the Pacific, Indian and Arctic Oceans from the West Coast of the United States to the East Coast of Africa. Located in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, Pearl Harbor Naval Shipyard is six days ship transit time from the West Coast of the United States, nine days ship transit time from the Territory of Guam and 16 days ship transit time from Singapore," Lingle wrote.

Having the shipyard work on the 17 attack submarines and 12 surface combat ships homeported at the adjacent Naval Station Pearl Harbor means preventing "operational, maintenance and family quality of life costs that would otherwise be generated if they had to deploy to Mainland shipyards," she wrote.

Sen. Dan Inouye, D-Hawai'i, and other delegation members argued that there was no excess Navy shipyard capacity and that even if there was, Pearl Harbor should not be considered in the same category as Portsmouth.

"If we are wise, instead of closing up Portsmouth or any other shipyard, we should maintain all of them," Inouye said. "If there is any time when we need stealthy weapons systems, now is the time and submarines are the best."

The commission also has raised questions about proposed consolidations of Air National Guard units. About 30 already are on the list.

Hawai'i public and private sectors, including politicians, labor heads, business leaders and retired military leaders, banded together in campaigning for Pearl Harbor.

The Chamber of Commerce of Hawai'i compiled a high-profile team that included retired Adm. Thomas Fargo, a former head of both the U.S. Pacific Command and the U.S. Pacific Fleet; retired Adm. Ron Hays, also a former commander of Pacific Command; and retired Adm. R.J. Zlatoper, a former commander of the Pacific Fleet.

The chamber also hired William J. Cassidy Jr., who served as deputy assistant secretary of the Navy for conversion and redevelopment from 1994 to 2001.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

DECISIONS AHEAD

The Base Realignment and Closure Commission votes today on whether to add the Pearl Harbor shipyard and certain other bases worldwide to the list of proposed base closings already submitted by the Pentagon.

The commission can decline to put either Pearl Harbor or the Portsmouth shipyard on its base-closing list or it could reduce the functions at Pearl Harbor but not close it, which BRAC Chairman Anthony Principi indicated may be an option.

Other key deadlines:

Sept. 8: The commission must give President Bush its findings and list.

Sept. 23: The president must give Congress a report approving or disapproving the commission's recommendations.

If Bush approves the list, it becomes binding 45 legislative days later, unless Congress enacts joint resolution of disapproval.

Oct. 20: If the president disapproves BRAC's recommendations, the commission must submit revised recommendations by this date.

Nov 7: The president must approve the revised list by this date or the process ends. Congress has 45 days to reject the list or it becomes binding.