ISSUES AND ALTERNATIVES FOR CLEANUP AND PROPERTY

0,23

MB

TRANSFER OF BASE REALIGNMENT AND CLOSURE (BRAC) SITES

78

stron

741

ID

Institute for Defense Analyses

2000

rok

CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION . 1

A. Status of the BRAC Program 1

1. Community Environmental Response Facilitation Act (CERFA) 1

2. Economic Development Conveyance. 2

3. No-Cost Economic Development Conveyance. 2

4. CERCLA Amendment. 3

B. BRAC Funding and Cleanup Status. 3

C. Changing OSD Objectives. 7

D. Objectives, Scope, and Approach of IDA Study 9

1. Objective of the Study . 10

2. Scope 10

3. Approach 11

SUMMARY. 13

A. Findings and Conclusions 14

1. Internal DoD Management, Organization, and Processes . 14

2. DoD Relationships with External Stakeholders 18

3. Use of Available Tools . 19

C. Recommendations 20

1. Baseline Recommendations 21

2. Baseline Plus recommendations 22

DISCUSSION OF FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS. 25

A. Internal DoD Organization, Management and Processes. 25

1. Approach of Choice . 25

2. Availability of Funding . 29

3. Need for More Consistent Policies and Better Integration ofthe Process. 30

4. Need for Integration of Functions. 32

5. Early Partnering of Stakeholders 33

6. Managing Divestiture and Development 34

7. Delays in Property Transfer 35

8. Portrayal of Availability and Condition of BRAC Properties . 37

B. DOD RELATIONSHIP WITH EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS . 40

9. Risk Management and Risk Communication . 40

10. Overlapping Responsibilities of the RABs and LRAs 41

11. Land Use Controls . 42

C. USE OF AVAILABLE TOOLS 42

12. Use of Environmental Insurance 42

a. Environmental Insurance 44

b. Level of Site Characterization 45

c. Inclusion of LRA When Obtaining Regulatory Buy-in 45

13. Use of Early Transfer Authority Aids Integration of DoD Functions 45

14. More Extensive Use of Early Transfer Authority Reduces Total BRAC Costs . 48

15. Firm-Fixed-Price Remediation Contracts 48

16. No Legal Barriers to Property Transfer 49

1. Section 330 of the FY93 Defense Authorization Act 49

2. Remedy Selection 50

3. Remedy Failure, Changed Environmental Standards, and Newly Discovered Contamination 50

4. Chain of Custody . 50

5. Housing on Military Base Falls Outside Job Creation

Category for Zero Cost EDC. 51

DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDATIONS 53

A. BASELINE OPTIONS FOR IMPROVEMENT 54

1. Develop Unified OSD Policy to Serve as the Primary BRAC Program Guidance Document 54

2. Develop a Cadre of Skilled Real Estate Negotiators Who Share an "End Use" Oriented,

Development-Driven Approach to Property Transfer and Who Use a Common Toolbox 56

3. Choose Pilot Sites and Test Concepts of Value Creation and Development Planning 58

4. Require Common Program Management Tools . 59

5. Create an Inventory or Clearinghouse of Available Military Properties for Marketing Purposes 60

6. Consolidate LRA and RAB Organizations and Funding. 60

7. Partner with LRAs To Maximize the Use of Available Tools To Expedite Property Redevelopment

and Transfer and Establish Mutual Expectations of Performance 61

8. Develop a Process To Enable a Number of Sites To Be "Bundled" or Transferred to a Non-DoD

Owner Under an Umbrella Agreement 62

B. "BASELINE PLUS" RECOMMENDATIONS 63

1. Request a CERCLA Amendment Granting LRAs Immunity From Liability Under Certain

Circumstances. 63

2. Give LRAs Explicit Timelines for Transfer . 63

3. Request a Legislative Amendment to Allow Conversion of Military Housing To Be Eligible for

Transfer Under the No-Cost EDC 64

4. Consider Creating a Separate Organization Outside of the Defense Department for the Disposal

of Military Base Closure Property . 64

Appendixes

A. Industry Approaches to Improving Cleanup Performance

B. Cost Savings and Improved Performance from DoD Initiatives

C. Marketing / Value Creation Strategies for BRAC Properties

D. Use of Developers / Financial Institutions for Property Transfer

E. Community Involvement and Public Participation in Cleanup

G. Legal, Administrative, Internal Government Management Issues and Barriers to Privatizing

Cleanup

H. BRAC Metrics Installation Property Transfer Status

I. Participants List, First Panel Meeting - February 2, 2000

J. Instructions for Concept Paper Chairs

K. Participants List, Second Panel Meeting – March 23-24, 2000

L. Concept Paper Contributors