The submarine Capital of the World The Case for Naval Submarine Base New London QW "The First and Finest " Supplemental Data Submission Table of Contents Executive Summary Military Value Arguments - Criteria 1 - 4 Supplemental Testimony 1. A Questioning of the Determination of Military Value 2.Talking Paper - BRAC 2005 Red Team Meeting with IEC on April 6,2005 Criteria 4 & 5 Supplemental Testimony 1.DON-0033B - Navy Base Case COBRA Run 'ClLV 2.DON-0033B - CT Corrected Scenario 3. DON-0033B - CT Revised Corrected + KB Housing & Environmental Costs 4.DON-0033B - CT Corrected Scenario + KB Housing, Environ. Costs & EB Overhead 5. DON-0004 - The Navy Base Case COBRA Run 6. DON-0004 - CT Corrected Scenario 7.DON-0004 - CT Revised Corrected + Reduction in Enlisted Transfers Criteria 6 & 7 Supplemental Testimony 1.Final Environmental Impact Study - Seawolf Class Homeporting 2.Demographic Detail 3. Northeast-Midwest Institute Report 4. Northeast-Midwest Institute 50 State Tables 5. Questions submitted to the Department of Navy Criterion 8 Supplemental Testimony 1. Significant Impacts of the Navy's Base Closure Scenario 2.Remediation Areas and Areas Requiring Land Use Restriction 3. Environmental Resource Impacts for BR4C's Ten Resource Areas * 4. Attorney General Memo on Environmental Issues and Federal Facilities Agreement The Submarhe Capital of the World The Case for Naval Submarine Base New London "The First and Finest" The Case for New London: Supplemental Data Submission Executive Summary At the Boston regional hearing on July 6, 2005, the State of Connecticut presented the case for SUBASE New London before the BRAC Commission. The State panel, which included elected officials and subject matter experts, presented the Commission with strategic arguments for removing SUBASE New London from the closure list along with numerous substantial deviations from the BRAC selection criteria. This document supplements the information presented at the hearing and provides additional detail on substantial deviations by the Department of Defense (DoD) in its evaluation. The data is presented in the order of the eight criteria, as it was on July 6. For easy reference, we have included a copy of the July 6 Connecticut briefing in the inside front pocket. Military value Criteria 1-3 are covered first. This section contains a supplemental statement by John Markowicz to his July 6 testimony, with the following attachments: (1) hrther rationale for questioning DoD's determination of military value, and (2) a Talking Paper from the BRAC Red Team raising questions about military value evaluation and pointing out weaknesses in the DoD analytical process. The materials all support the claim that measurements were inconsistent and inaccurate. The additional data amplifies the case that flaws in military value evaluation led to the systematic undervaluing of SUBASE New London. - The next section, on Criteria 4-5, provides the Commission with additional detail on understated costs, overstated savings and ignored expenses related to the proposed closure of SUBASE New London. COBRA runs for the Navy's proposal (DON-0033B) and three additional Connecticut corrected COBRA runs are included. For the reasons explained prior to each additional COBRA run, the Connecticut versions show the payback year extending from the Navy's 2014 to 2041 in Connecticut #1, 2057 in Connecticut #2, and to no payback in Connecticut #3 The latter COBRA analysis takes into account increased new construction costs for Electric Boat resulting from SUBASE New London closure, estimated at $50 million per year. Finally, the section on Criteria 4-5 includes an examination by Connecticut of the assumptions underlying the Navy's examination of the scenario @ON-0004) evaluating the potential savings of moving 11 attack submarines from Norfolk to New London. The revised scenarios include elimination of one-time military construction cost of $93 million for a new drydock at New London. The Navy overlooked the availability of a graving dock at nearby Electric Boat, currently under repair. Other revisions include the elimination of certain billets at Norfolk, to reflect the relocation of the SSNs. These revisions show 2025 savings ranging from $55 million in Revision 1 to $230 million in Revision 2. Only the COBRA summaries are provided in hard copy to save space. The full data runs are included on the accompanying CD. Substantial deviations from Criteria 6-7 are supported in the next section with facts and white papers developed by the Connecticut Department of Economic Development showing DoD's failure to properly The Ihrhmarhe Capital of the World The Case for Naval Submarine Base New London "The First and Finest " account for (i) the multiple and compounding economic impact on Connecticut and (ii) the limited ability of the existing infrastructure in the receiving communities to support the proposed moves. Appendices consist of- (1) 1995 Seawolf Class Homeporting Final Environmental Impact Statement, (2) demographic overviews of the existing and receiving communities, (3) an April 2005 update by the Northeast-Midwest Institute on the depleted military presence in the northeast United States, and (4) questions posed to the Navy by Connecticut representatives, which have not yet been answered. Environmental costs of the proposed closure are addressed in the final section, on Criterion 8. An in- depth analysis by the Connecticut Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) shows that the Navy failed to account for some $162 million in short- and long-term environmental cleanup costs that would necessarily follow closure. This section includes considerable detail contrasting the Navy's estimated of closure and remediation costs with those of DEP. Among the attachments to this section are comparisons of the environmental attributes of the existing and receiving locations and a report from the Connecticut Attorney General concluding that: (i) DoD's projections for the cost of radiological waste cleanup are unreliable, (ii) DoD failed to consider the legal reqhements of its Federal ~acilitiesAgreement @FA) in computing cleanup costs, and (iii) because of such failure, DoD has grossly underestimated the cost of closure to the economy of southeastern Connecticut. Because of the cited flaws, the Attorney General concludes that DoD has no realistic idea of the cost of hll cleanup of SUBASE New London. The report notes that the FFA - which governs w cleanup of the 20+ Supefind sites on the base -- requires cleanup before any transfer of the property. The Navy's assumes that the property will be transferred within six years and thus does not include the financial impact beyond 201 1. This is inconsistent with the FFA. The voluminous information provided in this supplemental submission hrther supports the removal of SUBASE New London from the closure list. The materials demonstrate the weakness of DoD's military value and other arguments for closing the base, particularly those involving costs/savings. The Connecticut team deeply appreciates the Commission's fair consideration of its hearing testimony on July 6 and the materials presented in this submission. We stand ready to respond to questions or hrther explain the information conveyed in this submission. SouthEastern Connecticut Enterprise Region 190 Governor Winthrop Blvd., Suite 300 New London, CT 06320 Telephone: 1-888-6-SECTER (888-673-2837) or 860- 437-4659 SECT Facsimile: 860-437-4662 E-mail: [email protected] BRAC COMMISSION JULY 6, 2005 PUBLIC HEARING TESTIMONY ( SUPPLEMENTAL) I submit this document and attachment thereto, as additional and supplemental testimony to my statements to the BRAC Commission on July 6, 2005 in Boston, MA. Attachment 1, A Questioning of the Determination of Military Value, Revision 1, 14 July 2005, is submitted as additional material that challenges the Military Value data gathering and analysis presented in Department of the Navy Analysis and Recommendations, Volume IV and Appendix A thereto. Changes and revisions, as well as several new questions, are identified by italics. In particular, it is noted that '(v we have performed a Configuration Analysis run (as suggested in Additional Question 3) with SUBASE New London set at 100 Military Value Points, the Maximum Value. The "constraints" discussed in my July 6th testimony result in SUBASE New London being closed. Attachment 2, BRAC 2005 Red Team Meeting with the IEC on April 6, 2005 is also submitted for the record. We note the Red Team comments regarding Military Value and Potential Weaknesses in support of our July 6th Testimony. In amplification of our testimony regarding the Naval Undersea Medical Institute (NUMI), we submit the following extract from the 10 pages of SUBASE NEW LONDON MILVAL "Unique Capabilities or Missions" deleted from consideration by the Department of the Navy Analysis Group (DAG). "NUMI houses the only Naval Training Schools for: Submarine Independent Duty Corpsmen (IDC), Radiation Health Officer, Radiation Health Indoctrination, Radiation Health Technician, and Undersea Medical Officer. NUMI is the center of Excellence for all consultative services in respect to Undersea Medicine and radiation health issues. A public-private partnership for economic development serving southeastern Connecticut The Submarine Medical Research Laboratory is DOD's Center for Undersea 'w Biomedical Research. The laboratory's mission is to protect the health and enhance the performance of our warfighters through focused submarine diving and surface research