CHILD POLICY This PDF document was made available CIVIL JUSTICE from www.rand.org as a public service of EDUCATION the RAND Corporation. ENERGY AND ENVIRONMENT HEALTH AND HEALTH CARE Jump down to document6 INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS NATIONAL SECURITY The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit POPULATION AND AGING research organization providing PUBLIC SAFETY SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY objective analysis and effective SUBSTANCE ABUSE solutions that address the challenges TERRORISM AND facing the public and private sectors HOMELAND SECURITY TRANSPORTATION AND around the world. INFRASTRUCTURE Support RAND Purchase this document Browse Books & Publications Make a charitable contribution For More Information Visit RAND at www.rand.org Explore RAND Arroyo Center View document details Limited Electronic Distribution Rights This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law as indicated in a notice appearing later in this work. This electronic representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for non- commercial use only. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of our research documents. This product is part of the RAND Corporation monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND mono- graphs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity. Transferring Army BRAC Lands Containing Unexploded Ordnance Lessons Learned and Future Options Jacqueline MacDonald Debra Knopman Noreen Clancy Jimmie McEver Henry Willis Prepared for the United States Army Approved for public release; distribution unlimited The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army under Contract No. DASW01-01-C-0003. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Transferring Army BRAC Lands Containing Unexploded Ordnance : Lessons Learned and Future Options / Jacqueline MacDonald ... [et al.]. p. cm. “MG-199.” Includes bibliographical references. ISBN 0-8330-3636-X (pbk.) 1. Military base closures—United States. 2. Unexploded ordnance—United States. 3. United States. Army—Facilities. I. MacDonald, Jacqueline. UA26.A2C38 2004 355.7'9'0973—dc22 2004014493 The RAND Corporation is a nonprofit research organization providing objective analysis and effective solutions that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors around the world. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors. R® is a registered trademark. © Copyright 2004 RAND Corporation All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reproduced in any form by any electronic or mechanical means (including photocopying, recording, or information storage and retrieval) without permission in writing from RAND. Published 2004 by the RAND Corporation 1776 Main Street, P.O. Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407-2138 1200 South Hayes Street, Arlington, VA 22202-5050 201 North Craig Street, Suite 202, Pittsburgh, PA 15213-1516 RAND URL: http://www.rand.org/ To order RAND documents or to obtain additional information, contact Distribution Services: Telephone: (310) 451-7002; Fax: (310) 451-6915; Email: [email protected] Preface The Department of Defense is now in the planning stages of the fifth round of Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) actions, known as BRAC 2005. The Army, along with the other services, is initiating its screening process to identify installations for possible realignment or closure. In the previous four rounds, the BRAC process has partially succeeded—albeit slowly—in transferring most lands on installations slated for disposal. However, lands containing unexploded ordnance left over from military training have proved particularly difficult and costly to transfer, and, with a few exceptions, little progress has been made. RAND Arroyo Center was asked by the Assistant Chief of Staff for Installation Management to undertake two tasks: (1) identify and assess obstacles to disposing of excess Army lands that contain unex- ploded ordnance, and (2) identify innovative options for the disposal of these lands. Using a case study approach and a survey of individu- als associated with selected BRAC installations contaminated with unexploded ordnance, Arroyo explored the probable sources of delay as well as sources of support in transferring land containing unex- ploded ordnance. We then considered actions the Army could take to overcome barriers to transfer. We also considered several alternative organizational approaches to dealing with these lands, based on our own findings and other published assessments. It is important to note that these data are current through May 2003. Additional land transfers have been executed by the Army BRAC office subsequent to that date. iii iv Transferring Army BRAC Lands Containing Unexploded Ordnance This research was carried out in RAND Arroyo Center’s Mili- tary Logistics program. RAND Arroyo Center, part of the RAND Corporation, is a federally funded research and development center sponsored by the United States Army. For more information on RAND Arroyo Center, contact the Director of Operations (telephone 310-393-0411, extension 6419; FAX 310-451-6952; e-mail [email protected]), or visit Ar- royo’s web site at http://www.rand.org/ard/. Contents Preface .................................................................iii Figures ................................................................. ix Tables .................................................................. xi Summary ..............................................................xiii Acknowledgments...................................................... xxi Abbreviations .........................................................xxiii CHAPTER ONE Introduction ........................................................... 1 BRAC Selection Process ................................................. 3 Current Army Process for Transferring Land ............................. 5 Liability Issues Associated with UXO .................................... 8 How This Report Is Organized .......................................... 9 CHAPTER TWO Fate of Army UXO Land from Previous BRAC Rounds ............... 11 Transfer Status of Army BRAC Land ................................... 12 Amount of Army BRAC Acreage Affected by UXO ...................... 15 Efficiency of Non-UXO Transfers ...................................... 16 Stalled UXO Transfers ................................................. 18 Case Studies: UXO Transfers Have Occurred in Special Circumstances.................................................... 19 Conclusions ........................................................... 25 v vi Transferring Army BRAC Lands Containing Unexploded Ordnance CHAPTER THREE Factors Affecting UXO Land Transfer in Previous BRAC Rounds..... 27 Installations Included in Analysis ....................................... 28 Possible Contributing Factors in UXO Land Transfer Delays ............ 29 Funding ............................................................ 29 UXO Information................................................... 30 Remediation Standards .............................................. 30 DoD Procedures .................................................... 31 Liability Concerns................................................... 32 Risk Concerns ...................................................... 32 Regulators’ Opinions About Risk .................................... 33 Performance of UXO Detection Technology ......................... 33 Multiple but Common Causes of Delays ................................ 34 Conclusions ........................................................... 37 CHAPTER FOUR Options for Improving Efficiency of Future UXO Land Transfers .... 41 Previous Actions Taken to Expedite Transfers ........................... 41 Privatization of Cleanup Using Early Transfer ........................ 42 Uses of Early Transfer Authority for Conveying UXO- Contaminated Property ........................................... 44 Privatization of Cleanup Using Conservation Conveyance............. 45 Three Options for Expediting UXO Land Transfers ..................... 47 Option 1: Incremental Improvements in the Current Army BRAC Process ........................................................... 49 Option 2: Consolidate Transactional Expertise in Army Headquarters .... 51 Option 3: Creation of a Federal Government Corporation (FGC) to Manage Disposition of All DoD Lands ............................ 53 Potential Disadvantages of an FGC Solution.......................... 58 How the FGC Option Would Resolve Land Transfer Barriers ......... 59 Summary .............................................................. 61 CHAPTER FIVE Summary of Findings and Recommendations ......................... 63 Findings ............................................................... 63 Recommendations ..................................................... 66 Contents vii APPENDIX A. Land Transfer Data for Selected Army BRAC Installations ........... 69 B. Exploring the Potential of the FGC Concept for BRAC Lands ....... 75 C. Installation Survey ................................................. 85 D. Fort Devens, Massachusetts: Low UXO Density, Single Redevelopment Agency, and Financial Incentives Facilitate Transfer ........................................................... 93 E. Fort McClellan, Alabama: Shifting Land-Use Decisions and Decisionmaker Involvement Delay Transfer