Re: [CPEO-MEF] Aggregate Buy-Out of Base Closure Cleanup

[petestrauss1@home.com]

I like the idea of a trust fund for cleanup. However I'm not certain
that DOD will accept a base being split into two parts: 1) under a trust
agreement and 2) under the old annual appropriations basis.  Perhaps a
trust should be structured to include only those things that are known
at the time of closure.  Everything else would be funded through annual
appropriations.

I think that other public and community parties must be involved in
negotiating an amount for each base. I think that you meant this but it
needs to be clearly stated. The amount in the trust should include a
very healthy contingency factor to cover inflation, operating costs and
other unknowns. I would suggest 25%.  The trust should also include some
very limited re-openers, including new regulations regarding cleanup
levels, new discovery of contamination etc.  We should recognize that
many sites are not "well" characterized, and as remediation progresses
more contaminants will be discovered. Re-openers should really be
thought about before approval of the one-time trust concept.

I also think that someone should investigate how the one trust set aside
by the Federal government that I know about.  This would include how it
has worked up to now and what the public acceptance has been.  This was
at the Air Force 44 site in Tucson.  I believe that the AF put in $35
million for its contribution to remediation at the Tucson International
Airport Superfund site.  City and private PRPs were also involved.  The
AF's contribution was in addition to the already built groundwater
treatment system that was in place. 

This type of advanced payment is frequently used at private sites. In
most of these cases, funds are booked (not dispersed) up front under
some legal agreement between EPA and the PRPs. Problems with this type
of arrangement should also be investigated.  Within the settlement and
order for one of the sites that I am working on is a requirement for a
cost estimate to be developed by the PRPs and negotiated with the
agencies.  So far this has worked out, but negotiations were very
contentious.  

Peter Strauss

Lenny Siegel wrote:
> 
> I referred this paper in a message about federal-to-federal transfers
> earlier today, but it appears that I never sent it out when I drafted it
> in February. - Lenny

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~