Re: Deferred cleanup/early transfer

[Lenny Siegel <lsiegel@cpeo.org>]

Marty Walters wrote:
> 
> Hi everyone, I'm looking for examples of the military completing early
> transfer and turning over the cleanup to the new land owner. I know this has
> been done for the Presidio Trust and the Port of Oakland. In fact, I'm told
> that the cost for cleanup at the Port of Oakland will be reduced from the
> Navy's estimated $100 million to less than $5 million.

Technically, I don't think the Presidio qualifies as an early transfer
because I believe the land is still owned by the federal government.
Other major Early Transfers include Tooele Army Deport (northern area)
and a portion of Mather Air Force Base.

I hope someone who knows more about FISCO (Fleet Industrial Supply
Center Oakland) will respond. I don't think procedural changes can save
that much money.
> 
> 1.    What kinds of cost savings can be realized by completing cleanup under
> state or voluntary cleanup laws (or other federal laws?) instead of under
> CERCLA?

As I understand it, the regulatory framework doesn't change. It's more
likely that contracting efficiencies will save money, or the combination
of development activity with cleanup expenditures.
> 
> 2.    What about turning over UXO cleanups to the new landowners?

That would make me very nervous, since we still don't have adequate
technologies, generally accepted risk management strategies, or an
agreed upon regulatory framework for UXO.
> 
> 3.    What is the tradeoff in terms of public participation?

The Army made a solid hand-off to the Presidio Trust, but no one has
been able to provide assurances that in general public participation
will continue, uninterrupted with early transfers.
> 
> 4.    How long does the process take?

It took two years to arrange the early transfer at Tooele. FISCO was
quicker. In the long run, the workability of this approach will depend
heavily upon where the agencies are in the CERCLA (Superfund) or other
cleanup process. I oppose transfers before characterization. In fact,
remedial decisions should be on the horizon before transfer is
negotiated.
> 
> I'd really appreciate any thoughts you can share that I can use to generate
> interest in this option in Hawaii, mostly at non-BRAC transferring land.

I'm willing to consider early transfers only if 1) contamination is
known to be minimal; 2) the transferee demonstrates that it can pay for
cleanup faster than the military, and 3) public and regulatory
involvement continues without reduction.
> 
> Aloha,
> Marty Walters

I'm interested in know how extensive non-BRAC transfers are these days,
nationally as well as Hawaii, in the wake of Congressional resistance to
the Defense Department's proposals for a new round of BRAC (base
realignment and closure).

Lenny Siegel

-- 


Lenny Siegel
Director, Center for Public Environmental Oversight
c/o PSC, 222B View St., Mountain View, CA 94041
Voice: 650/961-8918 or 650/969-1545
Fax: 650/968-1126
lsiegel@cpeo.org
http://www.cpeo.org