GovernmentExecutive.com

Members of the Base Closure and Realignment Commission on Thursday questioned the Pentagon's $949 million estimate to clean up the 33 major military installations it has recommended for closure.

Several commissioners expressed concern that environmental restoration price tags might far exceed the department's estimates, substantially cutting the savings projected for this base-closure round and potentially eating into dollars reserved for military transformation.

For instance, Defense officials have said it will cost $23 million to scrub the massive New London Submarine Base of nuclear and other hazardous materials. But Connecticut lawmakers, in an effort to shield the base from closure, estimate environmental cleanup at $125 million, while the Navy expects to spend $154 million for all environmental costs.

"Twenty-three million dollars doesn't seem realistic to me to clean up that base even to an industrial standard," said Commission Chairman Anthony Principi. "My only concern is if it's $230 million or higher, who bears the cost of that?"

The New London base, home to several nuclear submarines, contains six Superfund sites, a factor that could drive up closure costs dramatically.

A senior Defense official countered that the department's $2.6 billion estimate for environmental cleanup costs for the 1995 base-closure round was short by $600 million. Since then, the department has improved the environmental state of military installations and its processes for projecting cleanup costs.

"Those estimates are pretty solid," said Philip Grone, deputy undersecretary of Defense for installations and environment. Grone added that the numbers could change if unexpected work arises at one of the sites, but there is not a "huge swath of things we don't know."

The Defense Department does not directly consider environmental cleanup costs when making base-closure recommendations, largely because doing so would provide a "perverse incentive that would reward through retention polluted sites," Grone said.

Under base-closure law, the independent commission must factor in environmental costs when it makes its own recommendations, which are due to the president Sept. 8. The military must restore bases to a "current-use" or industrial standard. In many cases, it is then up to communities or private developers to cover additional cleanup costs required when turning an installation into an office park, residential area or some other civilian use.

COMMENTS

• Robert M is absolutely correct! However, the decision point does not concern the timing of cash outlays! The DoD arguement is that the cleanup costs will have to be faced at some point so they are not important in the determination of base closure. This is totally wrong but it has stood through all the closure rounds since 1980. The DoD has to begin looking at present value and not simply anytime cash flows. Even in booking environmental liabilities to financial statements the DoD direction is book cost as if they all happened today even though many of them would be over 50 years in the future (almost no value on a present value basis). Also, the environmental closure costs will fall under BRAC and Congress funds BRAC apaert from DoD operations. Therefore, anything I can get under BRAC does not reduce DoD budgets! The entire idea of savings revolves around savings for DoD and not the American public. taxpayer Posted August 16, 2005 6:49 AM
• Here is the reason Rummy wants to get rid of environmental requirements for the DOD. He wants to pollute the planet and then walk away from it. Leaving a waste land for someone else to clean up. One more thing on how Rummy gets the price of a clean up. Hey, you over there sleeping, go find me someone that will give us a phony bid for cleaning up a nuclear (or is it nucular?) submarine base. Just bring it in it doesn't matter if its any good, just get it. GovExec.com reader Posted August 12, 2005 7:16 AM
• Back in WWII, a very large area in the county where I live was taken by the military for munitions manufacturing and storage. After the war, it was returned to civilian uses. Farmers planted crops there. Homes and a school were built back in the 1960s. The main depot, nearly a mile long is still there and is used for various commercial ventures. Just few years ago, toxic chemicals were found in the school's soil. There turned out be an area right behind the school where the military dumped barrels of solvent. Generations of children were exposed to this chemical and no one is sure what may happen. The school was closed and has been rebuilt elsewhere. Millions have been spent on cleaning up the chemicals. But, they will never be completely gone. The chemicals may end up in the aquifer. There may be other dumps that haven't been found yet. It's not something that can be simply rectified. There are many other dumps at other facilities. Contractors may remove thousands of tons of dirt and build shopping malls and homes where the facilities were. But, are people really safe? No one can accurately predict just how expensive it will be to clean up the mess because the military does a very poor job of keeping records. To spot the expert, look for the person who estimates the highest cost and longest time for completion of the clean up. Robert M. Posted August 12, 2005 11:13 AM