Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve
Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of
Unneeded Property (30-JAN-07, GAO-07-166).
The cleanup of environmental contamination on unneeded property
resulting from prior defense base realignment and closure (BRAC)
rounds has been a key impediment to the transfer of these
properties and could be an issue in the transfer and reuse of
unneeded property resulting from the 2005 BRAC round. GAO's
analysis of available data indicates that, when completed, the
cleanup for the four prior BRAC rounds is expected to cost about
$13.2 billion and additional costs will be needed for BRAC 2005
property. These costs reduce BRAC savings, especially in the
short term. Because of broad congressional interest in BRAC, GAO
prepared this report under the Comptroller General's authority to
conduct evaluations on his own initiative. GAO's objectives were
to examine costs to clean up 2005 BRAC properties, progress in
transferring prior BRAC rounds properties to other users, and
opportunities to expedite cleanups and transfers. To address
these issues, GAO analyzed cleanup cost estimates, interviewed
environmental officials and visited seven bases.
-------------------------Indexing Terms-------------------------
REPORTNUM: GAO-07-166
ACCNO: A65384
TITLE: Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve
Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of
Unneeded Property
DATE: 01/30/2007
SUBJECT: Base closures
Base realignments
Contaminants
Cost analysis
Environmental cleanups
Environmental law
Environmental protection
Military facilities
Transparency
DOD Defense Environmental Restoration
Program
DOD Installation Restoration Program
******************************************************************
** This file contains an ASCII representation of the text of a **
** GAO Product. **
** **
** No attempt has been made to display graphic images, although **
** figure captions are reproduced. Tables are included, but **
** may not resemble those in the printed version. **
** **
** Please see the PDF (Portable Document Format) file, when **
** available, for a complete electronic file of the printed **
** document's contents. **
** **
******************************************************************
GAO-07-166
* [1]Results in Brief
* [2]Background
* [3]Expected Environmental Cleanup Costs for the 2005 BRAC Round
* [4]Cleanup Cost Estimates for BRAC 2005 Round Bases Are Not Ful
* [5]DOD's Environmental Cleanup Reports Do Not Provide a Complet
* [6]DOD Continues to Make Progress in Transferring Unneeded Prop
* [7]DOD Continues to Make Progress in Transferring Unneeded Prop
* [8]Cleanup of Environmental Contamination Continues to Cause Pr
* [9]Opportunities Exist to Expedite Cleanup and Transfer of Unne
* [10]Many Property Disposal Alternatives Exist
* [11]Use of the Wide Range of Tools Has Been Limited in the Past,
* [12]Use of Early Transfer Authority May Facilitate Property Tran
* [13]Services Monitor Progress, but DOD Does Not Require Them to
* [14]Conclusions
* [15]Recommendations for Executive Action
* [16]Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
* [17]GAO Contacts
* [18]Acknowledgments
* [19]GAO's Mission
* [20]Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
* [21]Order by Mail or Phone
* [22]To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
* [23]Congressional Relations
* [24]Public Affairs
GAO
January 2007
Report to Congressional Committees
United States Government Accountability Office
MILITARY BASE CLOSURES
Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to
Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property
GAO-07-166
This report was amended on February 16, 2007,
to correct headers, which were changed from 2nd-
to 1st-level headers on pages 12, 19, and 24.
Contents
Letter 1
Results in Brief 3
Background 7
Expected Environmental Cleanup Costs for the 2005 BRAC Round Are Not Yet
Fully Known 12
DOD Continues to Make Progress in Transferring Unneeded Properties, but
Environmental Cleanup Continues to be a Key Impediment to Transfer of
Remaining Properties 19
Opportunities Exist to Expedite Cleanup and Transfer of Unneeded BRAC
Properties 24
Conclusions 32
Recommendations for Executive Action 33
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation 33
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology 38
Appendix II: CERCLA Cleanup Requirements 42
Appendix III: Environmental Cleanup Cost Information in Four Selected
Reports to Congress 44
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense 47
Appendix V: Key Prior GAO Reports on DOD Environmental Cleanup 50
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments 51
Tables
Table 1: Comparison of BRAC 2005 Recommendations with Recommendations from
Prior Rounds 8
Table 2: BRAC 2005 Major Closures' Estimated Environmental Cleanup Costs
from Fiscal Year 2006 to Completion (in millions) 14
Table 3: Total Expected Environmental Costs for Prior BRAC Rounds 18
Table 4: Top 10 Most Expensive Cost to Complete Cleanups at Prior Round
BRAC Installations for Fiscal Year 2006 and Beyond (dollars in millions)
23
Table 5: Property Transfer Alternatives under the BRAC Process 25
Table 6: Use of Early Transfer Authority at Prior BRAC Round Bases, as of
July 2006 30
Figures
Figure 1: Disposition of Unneeded BRAC Acreage from Prior Rounds, as of
September 30, 2006 20
Figure 2: Workers Searching for UXO at the Former Fort Ord Using Hand-Held
Detection Devices 22
Figure 3: Alternatives Used to Transfer Unneeded BRAC Acreage to
Nonfederal Entities in Prior BRAC Rounds, as of September 30, 2006 27
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed in
its entirety without further permission from GAO. However, because this
work may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this material
separately.
Abbreviations
BRAC base realignment and closure
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
Act
DERP Defense Environmental Restoration Program
DOD Department of Defense
OSD Office of the Secretary of Defense
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
UXO unexploded ordnance
United States Government Accountability Office
Washington, DC 20548
January 30, 2007
Congressional Committees
The cleanup of environmental contaminants, such as hazardous chemicals or
unexploded ordnance (UXO),^1 found on bases closed under the base
realignment and closure (BRAC) process has historically been a key
impediment to the expeditious transfer of unneeded property to other
federal and nonfederal parties who can put the property to new uses. While
the Department of Defense (DOD) is obligated to ensure that former base
property is cleaned up to a level that is protective of human health and
the environment, the cleanup process can delay redevelopment in
neighboring communities adversely impacted by the BRAC process. Our
analysis of DOD data indicates that the estimated total cost to clean up
environmental contaminants found on installations affected by the four
prior BRAC rounds^2 is approximately $13.2 billion, and while most of this
cost has already been incurred, the cleanup process is expected to
continue for many years at some closure sites. Environmental cleanup of
unneeded property arising from the 2005 BRAC round closures will add
additional costs. Cleanup costs, combined with additional caretaker costs
DOD continues to incur for untransferred properties, cause some offset to
projected net savings from BRAC with the greatest impact occurring in the
short term.
This report is one in a series of reports we have issued on DOD
environmental cleanup liabilities and property transfer issues that relate
to the BRAC process. (See app. V for a list of key prior GAO reports.) Our
prior work^3 showed that, as of September 30, 2004, DOD had transferred
about 72 percent of over 504,000 acres of unneeded BRAC property from the
prior rounds to other entities for reuse, but about 140,000 acres of
unneeded DOD property had not been transferred at that time, primarily
because of issues related to environmental cleanup. Further, we reported
that estimated costs for environmental cleanup at sites from the prior
BRAC rounds remained within the range of prior estimates, but those costs
could increase if unknown or undetermined future cleanup responsibilities,
such as additional unexploded ordnance or other harmful contaminants,
emerged.
^1UXO refers to ordnance that remains unexploded either through
malfunction or design and can injure personnel or damage material. Types
of UXO include bombs, missiles, rockets, artillery rounds, ammunition, or
mines and is sometimes referred to as munitions and explosives of concern.
^2BRAC rounds were conducted in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995.
^3GAO, Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base Realignments
and Closures, [25]GAO-05-138 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13, 2005).
Because of the broad congressional interest in the BRAC process, we
prepared this report under the Comptroller General's authority to conduct
evaluations on his own initiative to examine (1) potential environmental
cleanup costs for 2005 BRAC properties, including an examination of how
these costs are reported for all BRAC properties; (2) DOD's progress,
since our prior work in 2005, to transfer unneeded properties from the
four prior BRAC rounds; and (3) possible opportunities for DOD to expedite
the cleanup and transfer of unneeded BRAC properties. This report is
addressed to you because of your role in the oversight of DOD's
infrastructure and BRAC implementation actions.
To examine the potential cost to clean up unneeded properties resulting
from the 2005 BRAC round, we analyzed various DOD reports submitted to
Congress on the environmental cost of cleanups at military bases in
general, and interviewed DOD and military service officials familiar with
the environmental cleanup process at military bases for clarification of
these reports as well as the cleanup process as it affects BRAC bases. We
visited four bases identified for closure in the 2005 BRAC round that
reportedly have environmental cleanup needs--Fort Monroe, Hampton,
Virginia; Umatilla Chemical Depot, Hermiston, Oregon; Brunswick Naval Air
Station, Brunswick, Maine; and the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant,
Picayune, Mississippi. To assess DOD's progress in transferring properties
from the four prior BRAC rounds since our prior work in 2005, we analyzed
the Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to
Congress and collected property transfer information from the cognizant
offices in each of the military services. Although we found some
discrepancies, we concluded that overall the DOD data were sufficiently
reliable for the purposes of this report. To assess opportunities for DOD
to expedite cleanup and transfer of unneeded properties due to
environmental hazards, we reviewed the laws, regulations, and policies
governing the cleanup and transfer of properties. We also visited three
BRAC bases from the prior BRAC rounds--which represent the three bases
with the most expensive estimated costs to complete environmental
cleanup--and interviewed local community property reuse officials as well
as military environmental cleanup specialists to obtain their perspective
on cleanup and property transfer issues. The bases we visited were the
former Fort Ord, Marina, California; the former McClellan Air Force Base,
Sacramento, California; and the former Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda,
California. We also interviewed officials representing federal and state
environmental regulatory agencies for their perspective on DOD cleanup
activities and any opportunities for DOD to expedite the cleanup and
property transfer process while adhering to cleanup standards and
regulations. We conducted our work from January 2006 through November 2006
in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Further details on our scope and methodology can be found in appendix I.
Results in Brief
While expected environmental cleanup costs for bases scheduled for closure
as a result of the 2005 BRAC round are not yet fully known, DOD's data
indicate that about $950 million will be needed to complete these
cleanups, adding to the estimated $13.2 billion required for the prior
BRAC rounds. About $590 million of DOD's $950 million for the 2005 round
is attributable to estimated cleanup costs at 25 expected major base
closures^4 consisting of about 102,000 acres^5 of potentially transferable
properties. The remaining $360 million is attributable to DOD's estimated
cleanup costs for minor base closures.^6 However, these estimates should
be viewed as preliminary. Although DOD's cleanup program for known
environmental contamination has matured compared to that of prior BRAC
rounds, the full extent of cleanup requirements and associated costs for
the 2005 round is likely to increase as more intensive environmental
investigations are undertaken, additional hazardous conditions that may
exist are found, and future reuse plans are finalized. In addition, DOD's
munitions cleanup program is in its early stages, and the expected costs
at many cleanup sites are not well defined or included in DOD's estimates,
at this time. DOD is in the process of further identifying its cleanup
requirements, but it may be several more years before more precise cost
estimates are available. Furthermore, Congress does not have full
visibility over the total cost of DOD's BRAC cleanup efforts because DOD
does not, nor is it required to, present all types of costs--past and
future--needed to complete the environmental cleanup at each BRAC
installation in any one report, and because DOD does not fully explain the
scope and limitations of the costs it does report. Transparency and
accountability in financial reporting and budgeting are essential elements
for providing Congress a complete picture of the total cost of BRAC
environmental cleanups to make appropriate budgetary decisions. DOD
prepares at least four different reports for Congress on the status and
cost of environmental cleanup for each military base, including BRAC
bases. Each report is designed to serve a different purpose, such as
budgetary, financial, and program oversight, resulting in various
presentations of estimated and actual cleanup costs. However, none of the
reports provides the total expected cost--both the costs incurred to date
as well as expected future costs--for environmental cleanup by
installation. In order to get a more complete picture of cleanup costs,
our analysis involved an in-depth examination of multiple DOD reports.^7
In the absence of one report that presents all environmental cleanup costs
and estimates for each military base, Congress will continue to be
presented with a varying array of information. More complete and
transparent cost reports would assist Congress in carrying out its
oversight responsibilities for the multibillion dollar BRAC environmental
cleanup effort. In order to provide more complete and transparent cost
information for the environmental cleanup of unneeded properties from all
BRAC rounds, we are recommending that DOD report all types of cleanup
costs--past and expected future--required to complete environmental
cleanup at each BRAC installation and fully explain the scope and
limitations of the environmental cleanup costs it currently presents to
Congress.
^4DOD defines a major closure as one where the installation's plant
replacement value exceeds $100 million. Included in this figure is the
Navy's Broadway Complex in California, which was to be a major closure if
the Navy did not enter into a long-term lease to redevelop the Complex
before January 1, 2007. The Complex was leased to a private firm in
November 2006 and thus will not close.
^5This figure includes acreage at three chemical demilitarization bases
slated for closure--Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah; Newport Chemical Depot,
Indiana; and Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon.
^6DOD defines minor closures as those installations with plant replacement
values of less than or equal to $100 million.
^7Our analysis compiled from multiple DOD reports indicates that for the
first four BRAC rounds $9.0 billion has been made available for the
environmental cleanup--restoration and munitions cleanup, compliance, and
program management and planning--through fiscal year 2005, and that after
fiscal year 2005 an estimated $4.2 billion more would be required to
complete the cleanup, for an overall total of $13.2 billion. Similar
information has not been compiled as yet for cleanup costs for the 2005
BRAC round.
Although our analysis shows that DOD continues to make progress in
transferring^8 the over 502,500 acres^9 of unneeded property resulting
from the four prior BRAC rounds--78 percent (about 390,300 acres) has now
been transferred compared to 72 percent (about 364,000 acres) 2 years
ago--about 112,300 acres remain untransferred, and the cleanup of
environmental contamination remains a key impediment. Environmental
cleanup issues are unique to each site but cleanup delays, when they
occur, usually result from a variety of interrelated factors, including
limited available technology to address unexploded ordnance (UXO) cleanup
issues, prolonged negotiations over how to comply with environmental
regulations, and discovery of previously unknown and therefore unaddressed
environmental hazards.
Opportunities exist to expedite the cleanup and transfer of unneeded 2005
BRAC properties. Over the years, Congress has provided DOD with a wide
range of property transfer authorities to expedite the cleanup and
transfer of unneeded BRAC property, including public sales and the
so-called "Early Transfer Authority,"^10 which allows property to be
transferred under certain conditions before all necessary cleanup actions
have been completed. In prior BRAC rounds, DOD did not use some tools as
often as others, such as public and negotiated sales, because DOD wanted
to give a high priority to each community's property reuse plans when
disposing of unneeded BRAC properties. As of September 30, 2006, low or
no-cost transfer tools such as public benefit, conservation, and economic
development conveyances accounted for 65 percent of all acres transferred
to nonfederal entities, whereas public and negotiated sales accounted for
5 percent. However, DOD's guidance on implementing the 2005 BRAC round
suggests that more recent experience indicates that a broader range of
approaches may now succeed where they would not have worked in the past.
For example, at the former Alameda Naval Air Station, California,
agreement was reached in 2000 to transfer some of the installation's
property using a no-cost economic development conveyance, but because of a
subsequent decline in the economy, the local redevelopment authority could
not meet the terms of the conveyance method (i.e., to create employment),
and the Navy was reassessing its property transfer options, to include
public sales, at the time of our review.
^8For the purposes of this report, the term transfer refers to property
that has been deeded to another user; it does not include leased property.
Transfer data represent the best available data provided by each of the
services as of September 30, 2006.
^9In 2005, we reported approximately 72 percent of 504,000 unneeded acres
were disposed of by DOD. This unneeded acreage differs from the
approximate 502,500 acres currently reported because as property is
transferred, more accurate surveys are being completed, which changes the
amount of available acres from one year to another. Further, some acreage
initially declared excess has been retained by DOD, thus decreasing the
acreage available for transfer.
^10Pub. L. No. 104-201, S 334 (1996).
DOD's March 2006 Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual encourages the
services to make full use of all available property transfer tools for
both the 2005 BRAC as well as prior BRAC round bases. Each of the military
services has processes in place to monitor its progress to clean up and
transfer BRAC properties. For example, along with a system to track
property transfers, Army environmental personnel meet about every 6 months
to informally discuss cleanup funding requirements and property transfer
issues. However, the Office of the Secretary of Defense does not require
the services to periodically report on their progress and challenges in
transferring unneeded BRAC properties, or lessons learned in the
application of various tools available to them, which collectively might
provide more information and maximize the services' efforts to accelerate
the cleanup and transfer of remaining as well as new 2005 BRAC properties.
Without such a requirement, oversight of the services' compliance with the
new BRAC guidance could be more limited than is desirable if one objective
is to enhance opportunities for exploiting lessons learned from the
experience of other BRAC bases. Ultimately, as long as unneeded properties
remain in DOD possession, communities are denied the full economic benefit
of property reuse and DOD continues to incur ongoing caretaker costs. In
order to ensure that the military services are taking full advantage of
all property cleanup and transfer mechanisms, we are recommending that DOD
require the military services to periodically report to the Office of the
Secretary of Defense actions both planned and taken to make full use of
the transfer authorities available to them in the interest of expediting
the property transfer process and sharing lessons learned.
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the
fundamental aspects of both of our recommendations. DOD partially
concurred with our first recommendation because it did not agree with our
suggestion to include full cleanup cost information in the annual BRAC
budget justification documentation, but wanted to find another vehicle for
reporting the information. Nonetheless, DOD concurred with our basic
recommendation for DOD to report all costs required to complete
environmental cleanup at each BRAC installation and to fully explain the
scope and limitations of these costs to Congress. DOD concurred with our
second recommendation to require the military services to periodically
report to the Office of the Secretary of Defense on the status and
proposed strategy for transferring BRAC properties including an assessment
of the usefulness of all tools at their disposal.
Background
DOD has undergone five BRAC rounds with the most recent occurring in 2005.
Under the first four rounds in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995, DOD closed 97
major bases and had 55 major base realignments^11 and hundreds of minor
closures and realignments. DOD has reported that under the prior BRAC
rounds it had reduced the size of its domestic infrastructure by about 20
percent and had generated about $6.6 billion in net annual recurring
savings for those years following the completion of the 1995 round in
2001. As a result of the 2005 BRAC decisions, DOD was slated to close an
additional 25 major bases, complete 32 major realignments, and complete
755 minor base closures and realignments. At the time the BRAC decisions
were finalized in November 2005, the BRAC Commission projected that
implementation of these decisions would generate over $4 billion in annual
recurring net savings following the completion of implementing those
decisions in 2011. In accordance with BRAC statutory authority, DOD must
complete closure and realignment actions by September 15, 2011---6 years
following the date the President transmits his report on the BRAC
recommendations to Congress.^12 Environmental cleanup and property
transfer actions can exceed the 6-year time limit, having no deadline for
completion.
In addition to reducing unneeded infrastructure and generating savings,
DOD envisioned the 2005 BRAC round to be one that emphasized
transformation by aligning the infrastructure with the defense strategy
and fostered jointness by examining and implementing opportunities for
greater jointness across DOD. As such, there are a considerably higher
number of realignments to take place than in any of the four prior rounds,
which has resulted in far more individual BRAC actions, many of which
affect multiple bases. While the number of major closures and realignments
are somewhat similar to those of previous rounds (see table 1), the number
of minor closures and realignments is significantly greater than those in
all previous rounds combined. Available data indicate that despite the
larger number of actions associated with the 2005 BRAC round compared with
previous rounds, the amount of property potentially available for transfer
is likely to be much less than in prior BRAC rounds. Although the total
amount of acres available for transfer resulting from the 2005 BRAC round
is yet to be fully determined, the preliminary number of potentially
transferable acres for the 25 major bases is about 102,000 acres^13
compared with a total of about 502,500 acres from the prior BRAC rounds
combined. The extent of additional transferable acreage arising from the
hundreds of minor base closures and realignments was not available at the
time of our review, but is likely to be limited given the smaller size of
many of those locations.
^11DOD defines a "`major base closure" as one where plant replacement
value exceeds $100 million. DOD defines "plant replacement value" as the
cost to replace an existing facility with a facility of the same size at
the same location, using today's building standards. DOD defines a "major
base realignment" as one with a net loss of 400 or more military and
civilian personnel.
^12Pub. L. No. 101-510, S 2904 (1990).
Table 1: Comparison of BRAC 2005 Recommendations with Recommendations from
Prior Rounds
Major base Minor base closures and
Round Closures Realignments realignments
1988 16 4 23
1991 26 17 32
1993 28 12 123
1995 27 22 57
Total: prior BRAC
rounds 97 55 235
Total: 2005 BRAC
round 25 32 755 ^a
Source: DOD.
^a An individual base may be affected by more than one realignment.
A critical component to the process of transferring unneeded property
arising from BRAC actions is the need to address the environmental
contamination that has occurred over time due to military operations being
conducted when the bases were active installations. Types of environmental
contaminants found at military installations include solvents and
corrosives; fuels; paint strippers and thinners; metals, such as lead,
cadmium, and chromium; and unique military substances, such as nerve
agents and unexploded ordnance. According to DOD officials, while
environmental cleanup of these contaminants has been an ongoing process on
active military bases, the cleanups often receive greater attention once a
base has been selected for closure. Environmental cleanup is necessary for
the transfer of unneeded contaminated property, which becomes available as
a result of base closures and realignments. While addressing the
environmental cleanup of contaminated property is a requirement for
property transfer to other users, the sometimes decades-long cleanup
process is not bound by the 6-year limitation for implementing required
BRAC actions. As we have reported in the past,^14 addressing the cleanup
of contaminated properties has been a key factor related to delays in
transferring unneeded BRAC property to other parties for reuse. DOD
officials told us that they expect environmental cleanup to be less of an
impediment during the 2005 round since the Department now had a more
mature cleanup program in place to address environmental contamination on
its bases.
^13This figure includes acreage at three chemical demilitarization bases
slated for closure--Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah; Newport Chemical Depot,
Indiana; and Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon.
In conducting assessments of potential contamination and to determine the
degree of cleanup required (on both active and closed bases), DOD must
comply with cleanup standards and processes under all applicable
environmental laws, regulations, and executive orders. The Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended,^15 authorizes cleanup actions at federal facilities where
there is a release of hazardous substances or the threat of such a release
which can present a threat to public health and the environment. To clean
up potentially contaminated sites on both active and closed bases, DOD
generally follows the process that is required under CERCLA, which
generally includes the following phases and activities: preliminary
assessment, site investigation, remedial investigation and feasibility
study, remedial design and remedial action, and long-term monitoring. (An
explanation of these phases is provided in app. II.)
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986^16 (SARA) added
provisions to CERCLA specifically governing the cleanup of federal
facilities, including active military bases and those that are slated for
closure under BRAC and, among other things, required the Secretary of
Defense to carry out the Defense Environmental Restoration Program
(DERP).^17 Following SARA's enactment, DOD established DERP, which now
consists of two subprograms: (1) the Installation Restoration Program,
which addresses the cleanup of hazardous substances that are primarily
controlled under CERCLA and were released into the environment prior to
October 17, 1986; and (2) the Military Munitions Response Program, which
addresses the cleanup of munitions including UXO and the contaminants and
metals related to munitions that were released into the environment prior
to September 30, 2002. Cleanups of hazardous substances released after
1986 and munitions released after 2002 are not eligible for DERP funds.
These cleanups are generally referred to as non-DERP or "compliance"
cleanups and often include activities that are regulated by the Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act. These cleanups involve the closure and
cleanup of operations associated with landfills, training ranges, and
underground storage tanks and are generally funded under base operations
and maintenance accounts for active bases. Once the property is determined
to be unneeded and transferable to other users under BRAC, the cleanups
are funded under the BRAC account.
^14GAO, Military Base Closures: Progress in Completing Actions from Prior
Realignments and Closures, [26]GAO-02-433 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5,
2002). See app. V for a list of key related prior GAO reports.
^1542 U.S.C. S 9601-9630; Pub. L. No. 99-499, (1986).
^16Pub. L. No. 99-499, S 120.
While SARA had originally required the government to warrant that all
necessary cleanup actions had been taken before transferring property to
nonfederal ownership, the act was amended in 1996 to expedite transfers of
contaminated property.^18 Now such property, under some circumstances, can
be transferred to nonfederal users before all remedial action has been
taken. However, certain conditions must exist before the department can
exercise this early transfer authority, such as the property must be
suitable for the intended reuse and the governor of the state must concur
with the transfer.
In addition to investigations into potential hazards, DOD is required to
follow National Environmental Policy Act requirements and consult with
local redevelopment authorities^19 during the process of property disposal
and during the process of relocating functions from one installation to
another. Although the decision to close or realign installations is not
subject to the National Environmental Policy Act, DOD is required to
follow the act's requirements during the process of property disposal and
during the process of relocating functions from one installation to
another. The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal agencies,
including DOD, to consult with and obtain the comments of other federal
agencies that have jurisdiction by law or special expertise with respect
to any environmental impact involved with the action.
^17Pub. L. No. 99-499, S 211.
^18The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Pub. L.
No. 104-201 S 334.
^19According to the Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual, dated March
1, 2006, a local redevelopment authority is any entity (including an
entity established by a state or local government) recognized by the
Secretary of Defense as the entity responsible for developing the
redevelopment plan with respect to the installation or for directing the
implementation of such a plan.
DOD's March 2006 Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual requires the
military services to prepare an Environmental Condition of Property Report
for closing BRAC bases. The report is used to evaluate the environmental
condition of all transferable property based on already available
information on contamination. It can be used to identify "gaps" in
information regarding environmental conditions and where more study is
required. Environmental Condition of Property reports have replaced the
former baseline surveys that were required when SARA was enacted in 1986.
According to Army officials, the Army plans to have a total of 183
Environmental Condition of Property reports completed for all of its 2005
major and minor base closures by January 31, 2007. With respect to Army
National Guard properties, the states will be responsible for their
Environmental Condition of Property reports except for the five bases
located on federal lands^20 for which the Army will prepare the reports,
if required. According to Navy officials, the Navy has completed all
reports for lands affected by 2005 closures. Air Force officials reported
that they will have the reports completed for all their bases, which
require one, by April 2007.
DOD has had a long-standing policy of not considering environmental
cleanup costs in its BRAC decision making. Accordingly, the estimates
using the Cost of Base Realignment Actions^21 model, which is used to
compare alternative actions during BRAC decision making, do not include
the cost of environmental cleanup for BRAC-affected bases. Historically,
we have agreed with DOD's position that such costs are a liability to DOD
regardless of its base closure recommendations. While such costs are not
included in the Cost of Base Realignment Actions model, they are included
in developing BRAC implementation budgets and recorded as a BRAC cost.
^20The five Army National Guard properties located on federal lands are
Fort Chaffee Maneuver Training Center, Arkansas; National Guard Bell,
California; Jackson Armory, Oregon; Oxford, Ohio; and the Army Aviation
Support Facility, Wyoming.
^21The Cost of Base Realignment Actions (COBRA) model is an analytical
tool used to calculate the costs, savings, and return on investment of
proposed realignment and closure actions.
Expected Environmental Cleanup Costs for the 2005 BRAC Round Are Not Yet Fully
Known
Expected environmental cleanup costs for the 2005 BRAC round are not yet
fully known, but they are likely to increase from current estimates. DOD's
available data^22 indicate that at least $950 million will be needed to
complete the cleanups now underway for known hazards on the major and
minor bases scheduled for closure for the 2005 BRAC round. However, our
prior work has indicated that as closures are implemented, more intensive
environmental investigations occur and additional hazardous contamination
may be uncovered resulting in higher cleanup costs. Also, the services'
estimates were based on cleanup standards that are applicable for the
current use of the property, but reuse plans developed by communities
sometimes lead to more stringent and thus more expensive cleanups.^23 In
addition, DOD is in the early phases of identifying and analyzing
munitions hazards that may require additional cleanup at both active and
BRAC bases. Furthermore, the manner in which DOD is required to report all
these costs to Congress is fragmented. Of the four reports DOD annually
provides to Congress on environmental cleanup costs and estimates for its
bases, none gives the entire cost picture by service or base.
Cleanup Cost Estimates for BRAC 2005 Round Bases Are Not Fully Known and Likely
to Increase
Although DOD data indicate that at least $950 million will be needed for
cleanup of the major and minor base closures resulting from the 2005 BRAC
round, this figure reflects preliminary amounts that are likely to
increase as more information is collected during BRAC implementation on
the extent of cleanup required to safely reuse property in communities
where future land use decisions have yet to be made. DOD's best available
data suggest that at least $590 million will be needed to complete the
cleanup of the 25 major base closures and about $360 million will be
needed for the minor closures. These amounts were developed from
information contained in the Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year
2005 Annual Report to Congress, and they do not include all costs, such as
program management costs and non-DERP costs.^24 In addition, the 2005 BRAC
round includes the closure of more than 100 reserve centers, the extent to
which cleanups will be required and at what cost is largely unknown.^25
Only 2 of these centers reported cleanup estimates in the Defense
Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress. Our
experience with prior BRAC round bases has shown that estimates tend to
increase significantly once more detailed studies and investigations are
completed.
^22Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to
Congress.
^23In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD officials emphasized that
the Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual states that DOD prefers that
military department cleanup decisions be based on the current use of the
property.
The following table provides DOD's estimated cost to complete the
environmental cleanup beyond fiscal year 2006 for the 25 major DOD base
closures resulting from the 2005 BRAC round as reported in the Defense
Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress. For
certain bases, conflicting cost estimates appear between this report and
those reported in the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment Commission
Report to the President.^26 According to DOD officials, the data provided
to the BRAC Commission is now outdated and estimates contained in the
Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress
provide more current data.
^24Non-DERP cleanups refer to those cleanups that are not eligible for
Defense Environmental Program funds, i.e., cleanups of hazardous waste
released after 1986 and cleanups of munitions released after 2002. DOD
uses the term compliance to refer to these cleanups.
^25In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD officials stated that the
majority of these facilities are small acreage, single buildings with
limited operations.
^26See Appendix P of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission Report to the President.
Table 2: BRAC 2005 Major Closures' Estimated Environmental Cleanup Costs
from Fiscal Year 2006 to Completion (in millions)
Service Installation Estimated cost
Army (12) Fort Monroe, Virginia $201
Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah 178
Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, Kansas 23
Selfridge Army Activity, Michigan 13
Fort Gillem, Georgia 10
Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon^a 9
Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant,
Mississippi 8
Fort McPherson, Georgia 7
Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, California 5
Newport Chemical Depot, Indiana 5
Fort Monmouth, New Jersey 5
Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texas 1
Navy (7) Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Concord
Detachment, California 85
Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine 16
Naval Air Station Willow Grove, Pennsylvania 6
Broadway Complex, California^b Not available^c
Naval Air Station Atlanta, Georgia Not available^c
Naval Station Pascagoula, Mississippi Not available^c
Naval Station Ingleside, Texas Not available^c
Air Force (6) Galena Forward Operating Location, Alaska 12
Brooks City Base, Texas 3
Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico^d 2
General Mitchell Air Reserve Station,
Wisconsin 1
Onizuka Air Force Station, California 0
Kulis Guard Station, Alaska Not available^c
Total $590
Source: GAO analysis of DOD Defense Environmental Restoration Program
(DERP) data.
^a The Army is funding a portion of the Umatilla Chemical Depot cleanup
with prior BRAC round dollars.
^bThe BRAC Commission recommended that the Broadway Complex close if the
Navy could not enter into a long-term lease to redevelop the property by
January 1, 2007. During the course of our review, the Navy announced they
had entered into such a lease on November 22, 2006.
^cCleanup estimates were unavailable for these installations in the
Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress
because they received no DERP funds.
^dThe Cannon Air Force Base closure recommendation becomes effective if
the Secretary of the Air Force does not designate a new mission for the
installation by December 31, 2009.
Table 2 shows that DOD estimates it will spend at least $590 million to
clean up the 25 major bases recommended for closure in 2005. However, we
believe that this figure is low for several reasons. First, the amounts in
table 2 only include the cost estimate for DERP eligible cleanups--those
cleanups associated with contamination occurring prior to 1986 for
hazardous waste and prior to 2002 for munitions. The cost for non-DERP
cleanups and program management costs are not included. These additional
costs could add millions to the overall cost estimate. Second, no cleanup
cost estimates were available in the Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal
Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress for 5 of the 25 major base closures
either because the cleanups were not eligible for DERP funding, or because
the bases had not been thoroughly assessed for environmental damage. As
the bases undergo more complete and in-depth environmental assessments, a
clearer picture of environmental cleanup costs will likely emerge.
Finally, these cost estimates will likely increase due to more in-depth
investigations that are expected to address all environmental cleanup
issues now that the bases have been scheduled for a BRAC closure. For
example, during our visit to the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant in June
2006, we noted that Army and contract officials were preparing an
environmental condition of property assessment to pull together all known
environmental issues. Army officials told us that the ammunition plant had
been closed and placed in standby status since 1990 and that no aggressive
environmental cleanup had taken place. When the plant was recommended for
closure in 2005, the Army estimated that $8.4 million would be required to
address environmental contamination caused by 2 inactive range munitions
sites. Since that time, according to Army plant officials, as many as 46
more sites have been identified as having environmental concerns which
will require further investigation and possible cleanup. Therefore, the
total eventual cleanup costs are likely to be much higher than the current
estimate of $8.4 million.
DOD officials told us that the projected environmental cleanup cost
estimates are relatively lower for the 2005 BRAC bases than for those of
the prior rounds because the environmental conditions on the property of
today's bases are much better than those closed in previous rounds. These
officials told us that this is primarily due to ongoing actions associated
with DOD's Installation Restoration Program (cleanup program) and the
Military Munitions Response Program at active and BRAC bases. The
restoration program addresses hazardous substances, pollutants, and other
contaminants, and the munitions program addresses UXO and discarded
munitions. The officials stated that contaminated sites identified under
the installation restoration program are much farther along in the cleanup
process than sites identified under the munitions program, primarily
because the restoration program has been in existence since 1985 while the
munitions program was only initiated in 2001. Our analysis of DOD-provided
cleanup-phase^27 data for the identified contaminated sites at 20 of the
25 major BRAC 2005 closures supports this assertion. For example, DOD's
data show that, as of September 30, 2005, 89 percent of the 571
installation restoration sites (508 sites) either had their cleanup remedy
in place or had the remedy complete, and 91 percent (521 sites) had
completed investigation studies. Comparatively, of the 50 identified
munitions sites at the 20 bases, only 8 percent (4 sites) reported cleanup
action complete and only 10 percent (5 sites) had completed investigation
studies. However, federal cleanup officials as well as military
environmental specialists told us that many of these sites may require
further investigation and cleanup--and greater cleanup costs--if, as
expected, the future control and use of the property shifts from the
military to the private sector. Furthermore, DOD officials stated that
many munitions sites were not required to be cleaned when they were
operational ranges on active bases, but will require cleanup now that the
bases have been closed. The Army estimates that the cost to address active
ranges on their 2005 BRAC properties ranges from $37 million to $335
million and is not included in the $950 million estimate for cleanup of
2005 major and minor bases.
DOD's Environmental Cleanup Reports Do Not Provide a Complete Picture of
Environmental Cleanup Cost Information
Congress does not have complete visibility over the expected total cost of
DOD's cleanup efforts for the 2005 BRAC round or for the prior BRAC rounds
because of a variety of reports that individually are incomplete and which
collectively may present a confusing picture of costs. Although DOD
prepares multiple reports for Congress on various environmental cleanup
costs, none of them presents an overall total cost estimate per base, nor
is DOD required to present this information. DOD does not fully explain
the scope and limitations of the cost information presented. Transparency
and complete accountability in financial reporting and budgetary backup
documents are essential elements for providing Congress with a more
complete picture of the total cleanup costs so it can make appropriate
budgetary trade-off decisions to ensure the expeditious cleanup and
transfer of properties and ultimately realize savings for the U.S.
government. In order to provide a complete picture of the total cleanup
costs at BRAC bases, specific information must be extracted from various
reports, which we have done in order to present the total costs to clean
up properties resulting from prior BRAC round decisions.
^27See app. II for a description of DOD's environmental cleanup phases.
Congress annually receives the following four required reports^28 from DOD
that contain environmental cleanup costs and estimates for BRAC bases, two
of which also include costs for active bases.
o Annual BRAC Budget Appropriations Request^29
o Annual Government's Consolidated Financial Statement Report
o Annual Defense Environmental Programs Report
o Annual Section "2907" Report^30
A detailed description of the environmental cleanup costs and estimates
included in these reports is presented in appendix III.
Our review showed that none of these reports provides information in one
place on the total (spent plus estimated future environmental cleanup
costs) expected for all environmental cost categories (DERP, non-DERP, and
program management costs) by base. DOD officials told us that Congress
will often mistakenly assume that the cost data presented in the Annual
Defense Environmental Programs reports to Congress are the total expected
cost of the program. While these costs are typically the majority of the
overall total costs, the report excludes the cost of cleanups by base that
do not qualify for DERP funding. Although these non-DERP costs are
presented elsewhere in the report, they are only presented in aggregate
terms by service. From information contained in two of the reports, we
determined that the expected environmental costs for the first four BRAC
rounds will total $13.2 billion, as shown in table 3.
^28The report names listed are the names commonly used. The official
titles of these reports are, DOD Base Realignment and Closure Executive
Summary and Budget Justification, Department of Defense Performance and
Accountability Report, Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to
Congress, and Department of Defense Report on 2005 Defense Base Closure
and Realignment Implementation, respectively.
^29For the purposes of this report, we considered this information to be a
report since it provides support information for the annual budget
submission to Congress.
^30This reporting requirement refers to Section 2907 of Public Law
101-510.
Table 3: Total Expected Environmental Costs for Prior BRAC Rounds
Dollars in billions
Funds made Estimated cost
available from fiscal year
through fiscal 2006 through
Cost category year 2005 completion Total
DERP eligible^a cleanups $ 9.0 $ 3.8 $ 12.8
(Installation Restoration
Program and Military
Munitions Response Program)
Non-DERP cleanups Included in 0.4 0.4
(Compliance) cleanup amount
Program management and Included in Included in Included in
planning cleanup amount compliance amount compliance
amount
Total $9.0 $ 4.2 $ 13.2
Source: GAO analysis of DOD's budget documentation for fiscal year 2005
and The Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to
Congress.
^aBRAC cleanups are funded from BRAC accounts within DOD's Military
Construction appropriations. Cleanups of active bases are funded from DERP
accounts for DERP eligible cleanups and Operation and Maintenance accounts
for non-DERP cleanups. DOD continues to track DERP eligible cleanups by
base even after closure (when the funding source has shifted to the BRAC
accounts).
The $9.0 billion of funding made available for the four prior BRAC rounds
for all cost categories was obtained from DOD's BRAC Budget Appropriations
Request for fiscal year 2005. The budget request did not provide data on
the total cost to complete the environmental cleanup at the bases. The
$3.8 billion cost from fiscal year 2006 through completion for the DERP
eligible cleanups (Installation Restoration Program and Military Munitions
Response Program) came from one section (Appendix E, Restoration Budget
Summary) in the Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual
Report to Congress. On the basis of information in this report, the time
required to complete the cleanup for some bases will take decades. For
example, the estimated date to complete cleanup at the former Mather Air
Force Base, California, is reported as 2074, and the estimated date to
complete cleanup at the former Toole Army Depot, Utah, is reported as
2032. The $0.4 billion estimated cost from fiscal year 2006 through
completion for compliance (non-DERP) and program management and planning
was extracted from another section of the Defense Environmental Programs
Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress (specifically, Appendix J,
Installation Restoration Program and Military Munitions Response Program
Status Tables) for each of the services.
None of the environmental reports DOD submits to Congress provide
information in one place on the total costs and future cost estimates for
each of the environmental cost categories by service and by base. Further,
the environmental cleanup costs and estimates DOD reports to Congress vary
in their scope and limitations, but DOD does not fully explain their
differences. As a result, the cost of cleaning up BRAC property lacks
transparency and Congress does not have total visibility over this
multibillion dollar BRAC environmental cleanup effort.
DOD Continues to Make Progress in Transferring Unneeded Properties, but
Environmental Cleanup Continues to be a Key Impediment to Transfer of Remaining
Properties
DOD continues to make progress in transferring unneeded BRAC property
since our last report on this subject.^31 However, environmental cleanup
of contamination continues to be a key impediment to transferring the
remaining properties. Environmental cleanup issues are unique to each site
but usually result from a variety of interrelated factors such as
technological constraints, lengthy negotiations on regulatory compliance,
and the discovery of previously unknown and therefore unaddressed
environmental hazards.
DOD Continues to Make Progress in Transferring Unneeded Properties
Since our last report on this subject in January 2005, DOD has made some
progress in transferring remaining unneeded property, having transferred
78 percent, (about 390,300 acres) of the 502,500 total unneeded acres^32
from prior BRAC rounds to federal and nonfederal entities--up from 72
percent (about 364,000 acres of the estimated 504,000 acres DOD reported
at the end of fiscal year 2004) from 2 years ago. This represents an
increase of about 26,300 acres from what we reported in January 2005. A
breakdown of the current status of unneeded BRAC property shows that 63
percent had been transferred to nonfederal entities, 15 percent had been
transferred to other federal agencies, 15 percent had been leased but not
transferred, and 7 percent was untransferred and is awaiting future
disposition (see fig. 1).
^31In January 2005, we reported approximately 72 percent of 504,000
unneeded acres was transferred by DOD to other users. That acreage differs
from the approximate 502,500 acres currently reported because as property
is transferred, more accurate surveys are completed and acres figures
change. Further, some acreage initially declared excess has been retained
by DOD, thus decreasing the acreage available for transfer.
^32The unneeded acreage does not include over 23,000 acres at the Pueblo
Chemical Depot, Colorado, which, although designated as unneeded, will not
be available for further disposition until the chemical demilitarization
mission at these bases is completed.
Figure 1: Disposition of Unneeded BRAC Acreage from Prior Rounds, as of
September 30, 2006
Note: Figures do not add due to rounding.
Nearly 22 percent (112,300 acres) ^33 of the total acreage from prior BRAC
rounds--7 percent (35,700 acres) of untransferred property plus 15 percent
(76,600 acres) of untransferred but leased property--has not been
transferred. In other words, over 68 percent (76,600 acres) of the
approximate 112,300 acres of untransferred property is being leased,
leaving only 32 percent (35,700 acres) that is not in reuse. Leased
property, while not transferred to the user, can afford the user and DOD
some benefits. Communities, for example, can choose leasing while awaiting
final environmental cleanup as an interim measure to promote property
reuse and job creation. DOD also benefits, in some cases, as the
communities assume responsibility for costs of protecting and maintaining
these leased properties. By adding leased acres to the number of
transferred acres, the amount of unneeded BRAC property in reuse rises to
93 percent. However, while leasing can provide short-term reuse benefits
in terms of economic development opportunities, it may delay DOD's larger
goal to expedite property transfers.
^33Of this amount, approximately 16,600 acres belong to the Air Force,
11,600 acres belong to the Navy, and about 84,000 acres are owned by the
Army. Included in the Army acreage is about 50,000 untransferred acres at
Jefferson Proving Grounds, Indiana, which is currently being retained by
the Army and permitted to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Cleanup of Environmental Contamination Continues to Cause Property Transfer
Delays Due to a Variety of Interrelated Factors
As we have reported in the past, environmental cleanup issues have and
continue to delay the services from rapidly transferring unneeded BRAC
property. As of September 30, 2006, about 81 percent of the approximate
112,300 acres remaining to be transferred from the prior BRAC rounds
(about 91,200 acres), which is located on 44 installations, have
environmental contamination issues. Environmental cleanup issues are
unique to each site but usually result from interrelated issues such as
technological constraints, cleanup negotiations, and previously unknown
environmental hazards, as described in the following examples.
o Sometimes the available technology needed to detect and clean up
UXO is limited and not fully effective. For example, at the former
Naval Air Facility in Adak, Alaska, over 5,500 acres of
UXO-contaminated property have not been transferred because the
technology for economically cleaning up the UXO on this remote
Aleutian island does not currently exist. At the former Fort Ord
Army Base in Marina, California, about 11,800 acres contaminated
with UXO still require cleanup, and this effort is currently
expected to take until 2021 due to the labor-intensive nature of
current cleanup technology (see fig. 2). We were told by DOD
officials that the detection of UXO is not only labor intensive
but difficult because the technology often used for this purpose
cannot easily distinguish between UXO and waste scrap metals.
Figure 2: Workers Searching for UXO at the Former Fort Ord Using Hand-Held
Detection Devices
o Prolonged negotiations between environmental regulators and DOD
about compliance with environmental regulations and laws can delay
property transfers. For example, at the former Fort Wingate, New
Mexico, which was closed by the 1988 BRAC Commission and has about
8,800 acres of transferable property with environmental
impediments, it took years of active negotiation between the Army
and regulators to reach agreement for closure requirements
permitted under the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act.^34 At
the former Fort Ord, California, open burning of the coastal
chaparral is necessary before discovery and removal of UXO and
other munitions can begin. However, according to Army officials,
the number of acres that can be burned annually must be negotiated
with the state and is controlled by California's clean air
standards.
o Additional environmental contamination can be detected after a
base is recommended for closure. For example, the former McClellan
Air Force Base in Sacramento, California, was recommended for
closure in 1995 and traces of plutonium were found during a
routine cleanup in September 2000, causing a cost increase of $21
million, and extending the completion schedule beyond 2030.
^34The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act governs the generation,
transportation, and management of hazardous wastes in order to protect
human health and the environment.
Table 4 shows the most expensive "cost to complete" environmental cleanups
on prior BRAC round bases. The estimated costs to complete cleanups at
these 10 BRAC installations ($2.1 billion) account for more than half (55
percent) of DOD's $3.8 billion future BRAC environmental restoration and
munitions cleanup estimates for all unneeded properties on bases from the
previous BRAC rounds.
Table 4: Top 10 Most Expensive Cost to Complete Cleanups at Prior Round
BRAC Installations for Fiscal Year 2006 and Beyond (dollars in millions)
Service Former military base Estimated future cleanup
costs
Air Force McClellan Air Force Base, $695.9
California
Army Fort Ord, California 342.3
Navy Alameda Naval Air Station, 182.9
California
Army Fort Wingate, New Mexico 182.2
Army Fort McClellan, Alabama 152.7
Air Force Kelly Air Force Base, Texas 131.1
Navy Hunters Point Annex, California 127.7
Army Savanna Army Depot Activity, 99.4
Illinois
Army Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado 88.0
Navy Moffett Naval Air Station, 78.6
California
Total $2,080.8
Source: DOD data.
Note: These figures were extracted from the Defense Environmental Programs
Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to Congress and only include DERP-eligible
cleanups, which generally represent the majority, but not all, cleanup
costs. As previously noted, these estimates are not necessarily complete.
Opportunities Exist to Expedite Cleanup and Transfer of Unneeded BRAC Properties
Although opportunities exist to expedite the cleanup and transfer of
unneeded BRAC 2005 properties, as well as untransferred properties from
prior BRAC rounds, it is not clear to what extent each of these
opportunities are considered for BRAC properties nor what successes or
challenges were seen in their application since the services are not
required to report their strategies for addressing unclean and
untransferred properties to the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD).
Over the years, Congress has provided DOD with a wide range of property
transfer authorities to expedite the cleanup and transfer of unneeded BRAC
property, including public sales and the so-called "Early Transfer
Authority,"^35 which allows property to be transferred before all
necessary cleanup actions have been completed. In prior BRAC rounds, there
was more extensive use made of some tools than others, and as we
previously reported, DOD could have given greater attention to early
transfer authority. Each of the military services has processes in place
to monitor their progress to clean and transfer BRAC properties. Also,
DOD's March 2006 Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual, which provides
cleanup and disposal guidance for BRAC 2005 properties as well as
untransferred properties from prior BRAC rounds, encourages the services
to make wide use of all available property transfer tools. However, the
services are not required to report to OSD on the status of monitoring
their progress, their strategies for transferring BRAC properties, lessons
learned, or whether they are taking advantage of all available property
cleanup and transfer tools.
Many Property Disposal Alternatives Exist
Congress has, over time, provided DOD with a wide range of property
transfer mechanisms and tools to expedite the cleanup and transfer of
unneeded BRAC property, including public sales, early transfer authority,
and privatization.^36 The closure and realignment of individual
installations creates opportunities for those unneeded properties to be
made available to others for reuse. When an installation becomes a BRAC
action, the unneeded property is reported as excess. Federal property
disposal laws require DOD to first screen excess property for possible
reuse by defense and other federal agencies. If no federal agency needs
the property, it is declared surplus and is made available to nonfederal
parties, including state and local agencies, local redevelopment
authorities, and the public, using various transfer tools as shown in
table 5.
^35Pub. L. No. 104-201, S 334.
^36 "Privatization" is when property is transferred in connection with a
payment to the new owner for the cost to complete the environmental
cleanup.
Table 5: Property Transfer Alternatives under the BRAC Process
Property transfer Purpose of property transfer alternatives
alternatives
Public benefit Authorizes real and personal property transfers to
conveyance state and local governments and certain nonprofit
organizations for public purposes. Examples
include schools, parks, airports, ports, public
health facilities, historic monuments, and
wildlife conservation.
Conservation conveyance Authorizes a military department to convey surplus
property that is suitable for conservation
purposes to a state or local government, or to a
nonprofit organization that exists primarily for
the purpose of natural resource conservation.
Economic development Authorizes a military department to convey real
conveyance and personal BRAC property to a local
redevelopment authority for the purposes of job
generation on the installation.
Negotiated sale Disposes of property by negotiated sale only under
limited circumstances. Negotiated sales to public
bodies can only be conducted if a public benefit,
which would not be realized from competitive sale
or authorized public benefit conveyance, will
result from the negotiated sale. The grantee must
pay no less than fair market value based upon
highest and best use and an appraisal.
Public sale Allows the military department, in consultation
with the local redevelopment authority, to
determine when public sale is the best method to
dispose of a parcel. Public sale approaches
include sealed bids, Internet auctions, and
auction on the site to the highest bidder.
Reversion Property for military installations was sometimes
obtained from state and local governments at a
reduced price or at no cost. In these cases, the
deed or other instrument conveying the property to
the military may contain reversionary rights or
reverter clauses that provide for return of the
property to its former owner once the military
need has ended.
Special legislation Congressional action through special legislation
determining the terms and conditions for
transferring BRAC properties.
Disposal to depository Conveys the property and improvements to a bank or
institutions credit union that conducted business on a closed
installation and constructed or substantially
renovated the facility with its funds. The
military department must offer the land on which
the facility is located to the financial
institution before offering it to another entity;
however, the depository institution must agree to
pay fair market value.
Exchange for military Provides an alternative authority for disposal of
construction real property at a closing or realigning
installation. This authority allows any real
property at such an installation to be exchanged
for military construction at that or another
location.
Source: DOD.
Use of the Wide Range of Tools Has Been Limited in the Past, but Has Greater
Emphasis Now
Although prior DOD guidance to the military services promoted creativity
within applicable laws and regulations to successfully close and reuse
installations, DOD used some property transfer tools to a much greater
extent than others. In some cases, DOD's deference to community plans for
economic development led it to use low or no-cost transfer tools more
often than property sales. As BRAC has evolved, there have been differing
emphases placed on the approaches used to transfer unneeded property. For
example, following the 1988 round, DOD emphasized revenue generation
through the sale of unneeded properties. Following the BRAC rounds in the
1990s, however, DOD underscored economic development through direct,
no-cost transfers of property to the public sector. The emphasis during
the 2005 BRAC round appears to be headed towards a renewed importance on
achieving fair market value through various transfer authorities and the
consideration of all transfer tools available to quickly transfer unneeded
property to others for reuse.
The services have taken some steps to expand their use of the wide array
of transfer tools in recent years, most notably the Navy, which realized
over $850 million in revenues from the sale of unneeded BRAC properties at
two former Marine Corps air stations in California. Figure 3 illustrates
the alternatives used to transfer unneeded BRAC property from the prior
BRAC rounds to nonfederal entities as of September 30, 2006.
Figure 3: Alternatives Used to Transfer Unneeded BRAC Acreage to
Nonfederal Entities in Prior BRAC Rounds, as of September 30, 2006
Notes: Acreage is rounded to the nearest 100 acres and individual entries
do not total due to rounding. The "other" category refers to various other
transfers mechanisms, including special legislation, transfer for use by
depository institutions, and exchanges for military construction. See
table 5 for details on property transfer alternatives.
As shown in figure 3, low- and no-cost property conveyance mechanisms
accounted for 65 percent (205,400) of all acres transferred--public
benefit, conservation, and economic development conveyances were used in
17 percent, 19 percent, and 29 percent, respectively-whereas public and
negotiated sales accounted for 5 percent (13,300) of all acres
transferred. According to DOD officials, this trend reflected deference to
local community organizations and their preference for low- and no-cost
conveyances. Moreover, it also reflected the difficulty in using public
and negotiated sales at that time, because more time was often needed to
determine the nature and extent of environmental contamination and its
potential cleanup cost, to attract private property developers. However,
as more information is developed at these sites and as local economic
conditions change, a different approach to transferring property may now
be successful, an approach which would not have worked in the past. For
example, while an agreement was reached in 2000 on a no-cost economic
development conveyance at the former Alameda Naval Air Station,
California, the local redevelopment authority could not follow through on
the terms of this conveyance to create jobs because of a decline in the
local economy. Therefore, both the local redevelopment authority and the
Navy were reassessing other property transfer options, including public
sales, at the time of our review.
Use of Early Transfer Authority May Facilitate Property Transfers
Another tool for facilitating property transfers is the so-called "early
transfer authority," which is not actually a property transfer mechanism
but rather an amendment to SARA, allowing the services to transfer
property that has not been entirely cleaned under an authorized transfer
conveyance. Recognizing that environmental cleanup has often delayed the
transfer of BRAC property, Congress enacted the early transfer authority
provision^37 in 1996 which allows, under certain conditions, property to
be transferred before all necessary cleanup actions have been completed.
The transfer agreement identifies who will complete the cleanup and what
funding the service will provide, if any. In addition, the entity assuming
cleanup responsibilities will often purchase environmental insurance to
insure itself against possible cost overruns. We previously reported that
this tool should receive greater DOD attention^38 and DOD has increased
its use of this authority, transferring a total of about 23,700 acres
using this method as of July 2006.
There are typically two scenarios with which an early transfer is
requested. In the first scenario, the deed to the property is provided to
the new owner, such as a local redevelopment authority, and DOD continues
the cleanup. For the other scenario, the user takes the deed to the
property and as the new owner agrees to complete cleanup activities or to
control the implementation of an ongoing cleanup at the time of transfer.
Although this tool is officially called the "Transfer Authority in
Connection with Payment of Environmental Remediation Costs," it is
commonly referred to as "privatization." DOD's March 2006 Base
Redevelopment and Realignment Manual^39 states that if the fair market
value of the property is more than the cleanup cost, the purchaser must
pay the military departments the difference. However, if fair market value
is less than the cleanup costs, the military department may pay the
purchaser the difference. Because the purchaser will be responsible for
completing the cleanup, the services must confirm that the purchaser has
the technical expertise and financial capability to do so before
considering this approach. In terms of cost, DOD retains responsibility
for funding the environmental cleanup, regardless of whether it is
performed by DOD or the user.
^37Pub. L. No. 104-201, S 334.
^38GAO, Military Base Closures: Progress in Completing Actions from Prior
Realignments and Closures, [27]GAO-02-433 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5,
2002).
^39DOD, Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual, 4165.66-M, March 1,
2006.
A primary advantage of using the early transfer authority is that it makes
property available to the future user as soon as possible, thus allowing
environmental cleanup and redevelopment activities to proceed
concurrently. This can save time and costs and provide users with greater
control over both activities. Furthermore, it provides communities with
the means to quickly put property into productive use, create jobs, and
possibly create tax revenue. DOD reported that some reasons why the
services were not taking full advantage of this authority were due to a
lack of information on early transfer authority by communities, how to use
it, and how the process ensures the protection of public health, safety,
and the environment. In addition, DOD cites a lack of support from state
and local regulators as a reason for the previously limited use of this
authority. However, a local redevelopment authority can purchase
environmental insurance to transfer the risk of potential cost overruns
from the property owner to the contractor and the insurance provider. By
shifting the risk, contractors may be strongly motivated to complete the
environmental cleanups in a timely and cost-efficient manner. According to
one local redevelopment authority official, privatization of environmental
cleanup (one scenario for achieving an early transfer) is now seen as a
way to expedite the cleanup and transfer process significantly because
DOD's approach can be too methodical, while the private sector can
remediate the hazards more economically and in less time.
As of July 2006, the number of completed early property transfers had
increased from 12 (about 8,200 acres) as of September 30, 2001, to 23
(about 23,700 acres). According to DOD officials, 8 early transfer
authority actions are currently pending (in the process of being
transferred), and 5 are currently being considered for the future. Table 6
provides a list of locations where early transfer authority has been
completed, i.e., where a deeded transfer has been completed, as of July
2006.
Table 6: Use of Early Transfer Authority at Prior BRAC Round Bases, as of
July 2006
Installation Acres
Fort McClellan, Alabama 4,692
Naval Shipyard, Mare Island, California 3,486
Fort Devens, Massachusetts 2,358
Alabama Ammunition Plant, Alabama 2,235
Naval Air Station Memphis, Tennessee 1,863
Naval Air Station Agana, Guam 1,798
Tooele Army Depot, Utah 1,621
Naval Activities, Guam 1,482
Fort Ord, California 1,401
Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Oakland, California 676
Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina 436
Oakland Army Base, California 364
Grissom Air Force Base, Indiana 201
Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal, New Jersey 192
Griffiss Air Force Base, New York 179
Mather Air Force Base, California 165
Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan 149
Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky 142
Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Colorado 133
Naval Training Center, San Diego, California 51
Public Works Center, Guam 25
Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado 12
Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida 9
Total acres 23,670
Source: DOD.
Services Monitor Progress, but DOD Does Not Require Them to Report Property
Transfer Strategies and Progress
Although each of the military services has processes and procedures in
place to monitor environmental cleanup and property transfer progress, DOD
has not required the services to prepare and provide a BRAC property
cleanup and transfer strategy to OSD, which has overall responsibility for
overseeing the services' implementation of environmental cleanup on
unneeded BRAC properties. Without such a requirement, OSD cannot readily
monitor and track the transfer tools the services are using to expedite
the cleanup and transfer of BRAC properties. Further, there is less
likelihood of the sharing of lessons learned among the services, and
communities could be denied full economic benefits that may be possible
through expedited reuse of the property.
In March 2006 guidance, DOD encouraged the military services to use all
appropriate means to transfer unneeded property from the BRAC 2005 round
and prior BRAC rounds, and to dispose of property at the "highest and best
use".^40 As the disposing agency, the military department has the
authority to select the methods of disposing of unneeded properties. The
guidance states that DOD recognizes that federal law provides it with an
array of legal authorities by which to transfer property, but also
recognizes that the variety of installation types and the unique
circumstances of the surrounding communities do not lend themselves to a
single approach.
We found that each of the services monitors BRAC property cleanup and
disposal progress as part of their responsibility to dispose of unneeded
BRAC property. According to the Army, discussions within the Army
Conveyance Team^41 can focus on progress and problems being encountered
with a current property disposal method at an installation. The Army then
attempts to resolve the problem with the local redevelopment authority. In
addition, the Army has developed a system to track ongoing transfer
conveyances for BRAC properties so it can identify slippage and track
progress. Approximately every 6 months Army environmental personnel meet
to discuss funding requirements and property transfer issues. Within the
Air Force Real Property Agency, environmental program reviews are
performed at least twice a year to determine the extent of cleanup
progress at Air Force BRAC installations. In addition, the Air Force
conducts bimonthly reviews to identify potential problems and to confirm
that the transfer schedule is being maintained. We were told by a Navy
official that each Program Management Office regional director^42 meets
monthly with each of their BRAC teams to discuss cleanup and property
disposal progress at BRAC properties and, if needed, any potential
alternative approaches that could expedite cleanup and disposal.
^40The most likely use to which a property can be put, which will produce
the highest monetary return, promote its maximum value, or serve a public
or institutional purpose.
^41The Army Conveyance Team consists of the BRAC Program Manager; Base
Transition Coordinator; Base Environmental Coordinator; representatives
from the installation, Army Environmental Law Division, Corps of Engineers
and Army Office of General Counsel; and other Army personnel as necessary.
^42The Navy Program Management Office (PMO) regions are: PMO West (San
Diego, Calif.); PMO Southeast (Charleston, S.C.); and PMO Northeast
(Philadelphia, Pa.).
According to a key OSD official responsible for monitoring the services'
progress, the military services are not required to formally report their
strategy for cleaning up and transferring BRAC properties, including
sharing any challenges and successes they experienced in the use of
various property disposal tools or that they fully considered using all
the tools available to them. According to OSD and service officials in
charge of monitoring the services' progress in the cleanup and transfer of
unneeded properties, the services currently provide OSD with only
informal, ad hoc progress reports. Furthermore, these officials believe
that a more regular and formal process for periodically reporting and
sharing experiences with various transfer tools would be helpful to both
OSD (in tracking the use of these tools) and to the services (in learning
from others' successes and failures). One service official went on to
state that more is actually learned by the failures rather than the
successes and those experiences should be shared. We believe that sharing
information, possibly via the Internet, among and between the services,
communities, and the private sector, could facilitate the exchange of
ideas and the sharing of lessons learned which may in turn expedite the
cleanup and transfer of BRAC properties. Without such a requirement, OSD
is hampered in tracking the services' use of these tools to assure
Congress that they are taking full advantage of all opportunities to
expedite the cleanup and transfer of unneeded properties so that
communities can realize the full economic benefits of expeditious property
reuse.
Conclusions
An incomplete picture of environmental cleanup costs at the beginning of
the implementation of BRAC 2005 relates to a piecemeal reporting of
environmental cleanup costs for bases when they are in an active status,
coupled with the fact that environmental cleanup information evolves over
time. DOD can ensure that Congress has the most complete information
available by providing more clarification and explanation as to what is
included and excluded in the environmental cleanup costs it presents to
Congress and include the total expected cost--both incurred costs as well
as the most current estimate of expected future costs--for the cleanup at
BRAC bases. Without this information, Congress cannot ensure that scarce
federal resources are used in the most efficient manner to address
environmental cleanup issues at unneeded DOD properties so that productive
new uses for these properties can be more quickly realized.
Numerous tools have been made available to DOD to help expedite the
transfer of unneeded BRAC property to other users. As DOD seeks to use
these tools for 2005 BRAC round bases, OSD could more effectively conduct
its oversight responsibilities by requiring the services to periodically
report on their progress to transfer properties and plans to take full
advantage of the tools available to them. In addition, each of the
services may find it useful to learn and benefit from the property
transfer experiences gained with these tools within and among the
services. Delays in transferring unneeded properties result in additional
expense to DOD to care for and maintain these properties while the
affected community receives no benefit--economic or otherwise--as it waits
for the property to be redeveloped for productive use.
Recommendations for Executive Action
In order to provide more complete and transparent cost information for the
environmental cleanup of properties from all BRAC rounds, we recommend
that the Secretary of Defense direct the Under Secretary of Defense
(Acquisition, Technology, and Logistics) to report all costs (DERP and
non-DERP)--past and future--required to complete environmental cleanup at
each BRAC installation and to fully explain the scope and limitations of
all the environmental cleanup costs DOD reports to Congress. We suggest
including this information in the annual BRAC budget justification
documentation since it would accompany information Congress considers when
making resource allocation decisions.
In order to help ensure that the military services are taking full
advantage of all tools available to clean up and transfer unneeded BRAC
properties from the 2005 round, we recommend that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Under Secretary of Defense (Acquisition, Technology, and
Logistics) to require that the military services periodically report to
OSD on the status and proposed strategy for transferring these properties
and include an assessment of the usefulness of all tools at their
disposal. We suggest placing this information in an easily shared
location, such as a Web site, so that each service, and even the local
communities and private sector, can share and benefit from lessons
learned.
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation
In written comments on a draft of this report, DOD concurred with the
fundamental aspects of both of our recommendations to take actions to
improve its reporting of BRAC environmental cleanup costs to Congress and
to require the military services to periodically report to the Office of
the Secretary of Defense on the status and proposed strategy for
transferring unneeded BRAC properties. DOD's comments are reprinted in
appendix IV and addressed as appropriate in the body of the report. DOD
further provided technical comments, which we also incorporated as
appropriate into this report.
In order to provide more complete and transparent cost information on the
entire cost of environmental cleanup, DOD concurred with our basic
recommendation to report all costs--past and future--required to complete
environmental cleanup at each BRAC installation and to fully explain the
scope and limitations of all the environmental cleanup costs DOD reports
to Congress. However, DOD's comments reflect only a partial concurrence
because DOD did not agree with our suggestion to include this information
in the annual BRAC budget justification documentation. DOD stated its
belief that this would be counterproductive and that Congress has
prescribed the types of environmental information it wants presented in
the budget documentation, which DOD complies with. In making our
suggestion, it was not our intent that it be considered as part of the
recommendation. However, we continue to believe that the annual BRAC
budget justification documentation would be the most useful place for this
cost-reporting information, since this documentation is referred to by
Congress when deliberating BRAC environmental cleanup funding.
Nonetheless, if the Department can meet the intent of our recommendation
by submitting this information in another report, we defer to the
Department on how best to report this information to Congress.
In order to help ensure that the military services are taking full
advantage of all tools available to clean up and transfer unneeded BRAC
properties from the 2005 round, DOD concurred with our recommendation to
require the military services to periodically report to the Office of the
Secretary of Defense on the status and proposed strategy for transferring
BRAC properties and include an assessment of the usefulness of all tools
at their disposal. Although DOD did not comment on our suggestion to
accomplish this through a shared Web site in order to maximize the lessons
learned, DOD officials embraced the idea as something easily doable in
comments made during our exit interview with the agency.
We are sending copies of this report to interested congressional
committees; the Secretaries of Defense, the Army, Navy, and Air Force; and
the Director, Office of Management and Budget. We will also make copies
available to others upon request. In addition, the report will be
available at no charge on GAO's Web site on http://www.gao.gov .
Please contact me on (202) 512-4523, [email protected] , or my Assistant
Director, Jim Reifsnyder, at (202) 512-4166, [email protected] , if
you or your staff has any questions concerning this report. Contact points
for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found
on the last page of this report. GAO staff that made major contributions
to this report are listed in appendix VI.
Brian Lepore, Acting Director
Defense Capabilities and Management
List of Congressional Committees
The Honorable Carl Levin
Chairman
The Honorable John McCain
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
United States Senate
The Honorable Daniel K. Inouye
Chairman
The Honorable Ted Stevens
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Tim Johnson
Chairman
The Honorable Kay Bailey Hutchinson
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Administration, and
Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
United States Senate
The Honorable Ike Skelton
Chairman
The Honorable Duncan Hunter
Ranking Minority Member
Committee on Armed Services
House of Representatives
The Honorable John P. Murtha
Chairman
The Honorable C.W. Bill Young
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Defense
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
The Honorable Chet Edwards
Chairman
The Honorable Roger F. Wicker
Ranking Minority Member
Subcommittee on Military Construction, Veterans Affairs
and Related Agencies
Committee on Appropriations
House of Representatives
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology
To address our first objective to examine potential cleanup costs
associated with the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) process, we
collected and analyzed relevant documentation generated by the Office of
the Secretary of Defense and the military departments, and we interviewed
key officials with knowledge of BRAC cost reports and estimates. We
collected and analyzed environmental cleanup cost estimates for the 25
major base closures and similar estimates for the minor closures and
realignments for the 2005 BRAC round, as well as costs for the prior BRAC
rounds. To gain a sense of the models used to estimate cleanup costs, we
viewed a demonstration of the Remedial Action Cost Engineering
Requirements System cost estimating tool used by the Army and the Air
Force, and the Normalized Data cost estimating tool used by the Navy. We
interviewed knowledgeable officials about BRAC environmental cleanup costs
from the Army Environmental Center, the Air Force Real Property Agency,
and the Navy's Northeast BRAC Program Management Office. In addition, we
visited four BRAC 2005 locations--Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia; Umatilla
Chemical Depot, Hermiston, Oregon; Brunswick Naval Air Station, Brunswick,
Maine; and the Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, Picayune,
Mississippi--to gain a better understanding of the environmental cleanup
requirements facing these installations and the processes that base
officials are following to estimate cleanup costs. We also interviewed
Office of the Secretary of Defense and the services' officials to gain an
understanding of how the estimates derived from the services'
environmental cost estimating models are reported in various Department of
Defense (DOD) environmental reports to Congress. In so doing, we analyzed
the cost information contained in each report in order to derive estimated
cleanup costs for the prior BRAC rounds. We also compared the cost
estimates projected at the installation level with estimates that were
reported to Congress to verify that the data were consistent. Although we
found some discrepancies, we concluded that, overall, the DOD data were
sufficiently reliable for the purposes of this report.
To address our second objective to examine DOD's progress in transferring
unneeded properties from the four prior BRAC rounds, we reviewed our prior
BRAC reports and reports prepared by the Congressional Research Service
and DOD on this subject. Using property transfer information on the four
prior BRAC rounds provided by the Office of the Secretary of Defense and
the services, we updated the transfer acreage data reported in our January
2005 report in order to determine the extent of progress made in the
transfer of unneeded property. We assessed the reliability of the reported
transferred property acreage by interviewing knowledgeable officials and
comparing acreage totals to GAO reports from prior years. Although the
acreage totals change as property is transferred and more accurate land
surveys are completed, we determined that the data were sufficiently
reliable to provide overall comparisons. We interviewed officials from the
Environmental Protection Agency's Office of Federal Facilities and
consulted with them about their concerns regarding environmental cleanup
at prior BRAC round bases. We interviewed DOD and military service
officials responsible for environmental cleanup at BRAC and active bases
at both the headquarters and field level to clarify reasons for property
transfer delays, such as technology and regulations. We visited the three
BRAC bases from the four prior BRAC rounds with the most expensive
estimated cost to complete for cleanups--the former McClellan Air Force
Base, Sacramento, California; the former Fort Ord, Marina, California; and
the former Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda, California. During these
visits, we spoke not only with military officials but also with officials
from local redevelopment authorities at these installations, as well as
officials from the California State Environmental Protection Agency, to
determine the major impediments to property transfers. To supplement these
discussions we collected data from the services on the extent that
environmental issues were impeding property transfer.
To address our third objective to assess possible opportunities for DOD to
expedite the cleanup and transfer of unneeded BRAC properties, we reviewed
relevant laws, regulations, and policies governing the cleanup and
transfer of properties, and we also reviewed prior GAO and DOD reports on
this subject. We also reviewed DOD's 2006 Base Redevelopment and
Realignment Manual for an assessment of tools available to the services
for expediting the cleanup and property transfer. We analyzed the use of
these tools to date at selected BRAC installations and compiled overall
statistics on the use of these authorities in the prior BRAC rounds. We
interviewed officials representing federal and state environmental
regulatory agencies for their perspective on DOD cleanup activities and
any opportunities for DOD to expedite the cleanup process while adhering
to legal cleanup standards. In addition, during our visits to the seven
installations mentioned earlier, we interviewed community officials for
their perspective on the speed and quality of environmental cleanups and
property transfers, and opportunities for speeding up the process. We
spoke with cognizant from the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) and
service officials to ascertain their views as to the extent of oversight
of the services' use of existing transfer tools and the sharing of lessons
learned from the property transfer process.
During the course of our review, we contacted the following offices with
responsibility for oversight, management, and implementation of the
environmental cleanup of military and specifically, BRAC bases:
Office of the Secretary of Defense
o Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics, Installations and Environment,
Washington, D.C.
o Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Washington,
D.C.
Army
o Army Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff of Installation
Management, Base Realignment and Closure Division, Arlington,
Virginia
o Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army,
Environmental Safety and Occupational Health, Washington, D.C.
o Army Installation Management Agency, Arlington, Virginia
o Army Materiel Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia
o Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen, Maryland
o Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Office for Formerly Used
Defense Sites, Washington, D.C.
o Army National Guard, Arlington, Virginia
Navy
o Navy BRAC Program Management Office Northeast, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania
o Navy BRAC Program Management Office, West, San Diego, California
o Navy BRAC Environmental Office, Arlington, Virginia
Air Force
o Air Force Real Property Agency, Arlington, Virginia
o Air Force Audit Agency, Washington, D.C.
o Air National Guard, Arlington, Virginia
o Air Force Office of the Civil Engineer, Environmental Division,
Arlington, Virginia
Other agencies
o Federal Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Facilities
Branch, Arlington, Virginia
o Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials, Washington, D.C.
o State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento,
California
o Fort Ord Reuse Authority, Marina, California
o McClellan Local Reuse Authority, Sacramento, California
o Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Alameda, California
o Umatilla Reuse Authority, Hermiston, Oregon
o Brunswick Local Redevelopment Authority, Brunswick, Maine
o Fort Monroe Reuse Authority, Hampton, Virginia
We visited three bases closed during the prior BRAC rounds--chosen because
they represent each of the three services and also have the three most
expensive estimated costs to complete cleanups for sites currently
undergoing cleanup:
o Fort Ord, Marina, California
o McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, California
o Alameda Naval Air Station, Alameda, California
We also visited four bases scheduled for closure under the 2005 BRAC
round--chosen to represent a variety of missions as well as geographic
diversity:
o Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia
o Umatilla Chemical Depot, Hermiston, Oregon
o Brunswick Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine
o Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, Picayune, Mississippi
We conducted our work from January 2006 through November 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
Appendix II: CERCLA Cleanup Requirements
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act
of 1980 (CERCLA),^1 as amended, authorizes cleanup actions at federal
facilities where there is a release of hazardous substances or threat of
such a release. CERCLA section 120(h) contains provisions that establish
requirements for the transfer or lease of federally owned property based
on storage, disposal, or known release of hazardous substances. All
contracts for transfer or lease must include notice of this storage,
disposal, or release. Except as noted below, CERCLA section 120(h)(3)
requires that transfers of federal real property by deed must also
include: (a) a covenant by the United States that all remedial action
necessary to protect human health and the environment has been taken prior
to transfer, (b) a covenant by the United States to undertake any further
remedial action found to be necessary after transfer, and (c) a clause
granting access to the transferred property in case remedial action or
corrective action is found to be necessary after transfer.
To clean up potentially contaminated sites on both active and closed
bases, the Department of Defense (DOD) generally follows the process that
is required under CERCLA, which generally includes the following phases
and activities:
o Preliminary Assessment--Available information is collected
regarding contamination, including a search of historical records,
to confirm whether a potential environmental contamination or
military munitions hazard could be present and to determine
whether further action is needed.
o Site Investigation--This step usually involves a walk around the
site by an environmental engineer and may involve some limited
soil and water sampling including an analysis to determine the
extent and source(s) of the hazards.
o Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study--More rigorous
statistical sampling and analysis is conducted to determine the
exact nature and extent of contamination and whether cleanup
action is needed and, if so, select alternative cleanup
approaches. This could include removal, limiting public contact,
determining no further action is warranted, or cleaning of the
hazardous media (soil, air, or water) on site.
o Remedial Design/Remedial Action--This phase involves designing
and constructing the actual cleanup remedy, such as a pump and
treat system for underground water, or the removal of munitions.
o Long-term Monitoring--At this phase, parties responsible for the
cleanup periodically review the remedy in place to ensure its
continued effectiveness, including checking for unexploded
ordnance and conducting public education.
^1 Pub. L. No. 99-499 (1986).
While the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 had
originally required the government to warrant that all necessary cleanup
action had been taken before transferring property to nonfederal
ownership, the act was amended in 1996 to expedite transfers of
contaminated property.^2 Now such property, under some circumstances, can
be transferred to nonfederal users before all remedial action has been
taken. However, certain conditions must exist before the department can
exercise this "early transfer authority." For example, the property must
be suitable for transfer for the intended use; transfer of the property
must not delay any cleanup actions; and the governor of the state where
the property is located must approve the transfer. The advantage of an
early transfer is that property is made available under a transfer
authority to the future user as soon as possible to allow for concurrent
environmental cleanup and redevelopment. The law still requires that
contaminated sites must be cleaned up to ensure that past environmental
hazards due to former DOD activity on transferred BRAC property are not
harmful to human health or to the environment and that the property can
support new use; however, the early transfer authority does allow for the
concurrent cleanup and reuse of the property.
^2 Pub. L. No. 104-201, S 334.
Appendix III: Environmental Cleanup Cost Information in Four Selected
Reports to Congress
The Department of Defense (DOD) annually provides Congress with four
required reports that include information on environmental cleanup costs
and estimates at active and Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
installations. Each report is prepared for a different purpose, such as
budgetary, financial, or program oversight, resulting in various
presentations of estimated and actual cleanup costs. None of the reports,
however, provides the total environmental program costs and estimates for
each service and their bases. The types of environmental program costs
include restoration and munitions cleanup, compliance, and program
management and planning.
The four annual reports are^1 the (1) Annual BRAC Budget Appropriations
Request, (2) Annual Defense Environmental Programs Report to Congress, (3)
Annual Government's Consolidated Financial Statement Report, and (4)
Annual Section 2907 report.^2 The following provides a description of the
reports' mandates, when they are issued, and the information they contain.
Annual BRAC Budget Appropriations Request: Section 206 of the Defense
Authorization Amendments and Base Closure and Realignment Act, Public Law
100-526, specifies the type of information required in DOD's annual budget
appropriation request for BRAC funding. DOD and the services prepare
separate budget justification books that provide details for each BRAC
round on funds made available for environmental cleanup and the budget
request estimate for the fiscal year that the request is being made for.
The environmental funded amounts and the estimate include information on
all environmental costs, including restoration and munitions cleanup,
compliance, and program management and planning.
The information in DOD's fiscal year 2006 budget request indicates that
$9.0 billion had been made available for DERP (environmental restoration
and munitions) cleanup and non-DERP (compliance and program management and
planning) through fiscal year 2005 for the prior four BRAC rounds. The
fiscal year 2006 budget request estimate for the environmental cleanup
costs was about $378 million. DOD also presented Congress with information
on the 2005 BRAC closures and realignments, which shows that DOD and the
services plan to spend about $426 million on the environmental cleanup
cost categories between fiscal year 2006 and 2011. The estimated amounts
were presented in current or inflated dollars.
^1 The report titles listed are the titles commonly used. The official
titles of these reports are, DOD Base Realignment and Closure Executive
Summary and Budget Justification, Department of Defense Performance and
Accountability Report, The Defense Environmental Programs Annual Report to
Congress, and the Department of Defense Report on 2005 Defense Base
Closure and Realignment Implementation, respectively.
^2 This reporting requirement refers to Section 2907 of Public Law
101-510.
Although the Annual BRAC Budget Appropriations Request report includes all
categories of costs, it does not include--nor is DOD required to
report--the total estimated cost to complete the environmental cleanup
(past and future costs) for the BRAC bases.
Annual Government's Consolidated Financial Statement Report: As required
by the Chief Financial Officer Act of 1990 and the Government Management
Reform Act of 1994, DOD is required to report on its estimated
environmental liabilities in the federal government's annual fiscal year
consolidated financial statements, and does so each year in its
performance and accountability report to Congress. The environmental
liability information for active and BRAC bases is contained in note 14 of
the financial statements for fiscal year 2005 and the information contains
separate line item amounts for the restoration and compliance categories.
The environmental program management and planning cost amounts were
included in the restoration amount and DOD uses the installations' defense
environmental programs data to compile a large portion of its
environmental liabilities for financial statement reporting.
The November 15, 2005, report for fiscal year 2005 activity indicates that
the total BRAC restoration liability amount, or future cost to complete,
was $3.5 billion. The BRAC environmental liability for compliance and
program management and planning was reported as $206.5 million. The data
are not inflated and are stated in current dollars.
The government's annual consolidated financial statement report presents
the most complete information on the environmental cost categories for the
cost to compete the cleanup. The information is reported in total for DOD
and summarized for each service. However, the report does not provide
information on how much has been made available for BRAC environmental
cleanup, and there is no detailed information presented for individual
bases.
Annual Defense Environmental Programs Report to Congress: As required by
section 2706 of Title 10, DOD annually submits this report to Congress.
The latest report, which covered fiscal year 2005, was issued to Congress
in March 2006. Different sections of the report discuss and provide
planning and funding costs and cost estimate information for the various
DOD environmental programs at active and BRAC bases. These sections have
information on active and BRAC bases' restoration and munitions cleanup
expenditures for fiscal years 2004 and 2005 and the cost to complete the
environmental cleanup from 2006 to completion. The report also presents
information on non-DERP and program management and planning costs and
estimates for BRAC activities in the aggregate (but not by base).
The information on the expected cost to complete the restoration and
munitions environmental cleanup at BRAC bases for the first four rounds
shows that DOD estimates this cost at about $3.8 billion from 2006 to
completion. From the section of the report that reconciles the services'
cost to complete with the reported environmental liability, we were able
to sum the services' compliance and management and support costs and
determine that the total cost to complete from fiscal year 2006 for these
categories totaled about $0.4 billion. The dollar amounts for cost to
complete from 2006 through 2011 were inflated and the dollar amounts from
fiscal year 2012 to completion were in constant 2011 dollars.
While the defense environmental programs report provides ample information
on environmental cleanup costs and estimates, it does not consolidate the
information to obtain an overall or total environmental cleanup cost
amount for each service and base.
Annual Section 2907 Report: This report addresses reporting requirements
specified in section 2907 of Public Law 101-510, commonly referred to as
the BRAC Act, for all BRAC 2005 installations. Among other things, the
2907 report includes details on the known environmental remediation
restoration and munitions cleanup issues at each base affected by the 2005
BRAC recommendation. The information provides details on the estimate to
complete the cleanup at each identified site, and plans and time lines to
address the cleanup. According to DOD officials, the first report issued
for the 2005 BRAC was in March 2006 and the estimates are based on the
restoration and munitions cleanup data contained in the defense
environmental programs report.
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense
Appendix V: Key Prior GAO Reports on DOD Environmental Cleanup
Environmental Liabilities: Long-Term Planning Hampered by Control
Weaknesses and Uncertainties in the Federal Government's Estimates.
[31]GAO-06-427 . Washington, D.C.: March 31, 2006.
Military Bases: Analysis of DOD's 2005 Selection Process and
Recommendations for Base Closures and Realignments. [32]GAO-05-785 .
Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005.
Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior and Current BRAC Rounds.
[33]GAO-05-614 . Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2005.
Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base Realignments and
Closures. [34]GAO-05-138 . Washington, D.C.: January 13, 2005.
DOD Operational Ranges: More Reliable Cleanup Cost Estimates and a
Proactive Approach to Identifying Contamination Are Needed. [35]GAO-04-601
. Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004.
Military Munitions: DOD Needs to Develop a Comprehensive Approach for
Cleaning Up Contaminated Sites. [36]GAO-04-147 . Washington, D.C.:
December 19, 2003.
Environmental Compliance: Better DOD Guidance Needed to Ensure That the
Most Important Activities Are Funded. [37]GAO-03-639 . Washington, D.C.:
June 17, 2003.
Environmental Contamination: DOD Has Taken Steps to Improve Cleanup
Coordination at Former Defense Sites but Clearer Guidance Is Needed to
Ensure Consistency. [38]GAO-03-146 . Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2003.
Military Base Closures: Progress Completing Actions from Prior
Realignments and Closures. [39]GAO-02-433 . Washington, D.C.: April 5,
2002.
Military Bases: Status of Prior Base Realignment and Closure Rounds.
[40]GAO/NSIAD-99-36 . Washington, D.C.: December 11, 1998.
Military Base Closures: Reducing High Costs of Environmental Cleanup
Requires Difficult Choices. [41]GAO/NSIAD-96-172 . Washington, D.C.:
September 5, 1996.
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments
GAO Contacts
Brian Lepore, Acting Director (202) 512-4523
Jim Reifsnyder, Assistant Director (202) 512-4166
Acknowledgments
In addition to the individuals named above, Barry Holman, Karen Kemper,
Andy Marek, Bob Poetta, and Angie Zeidan made significant contributions to
this report.
Other individuals also contributing to this report include Susan Ditto,
Ron La Due Lake, Steve Lipscomb, Ken Patton, Charles Perdue, and Ed
Zadjura.
(350792)
GAO's Mission
The Government Accountability Office, the audit, evaluation and
investigative arm of Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its
constitutional responsibilities and to help improve the performance and
accountability of the federal government for the American people. GAO
examines the use of public funds; evaluates federal programs and policies;
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of
accountability, integrity, and reliability.
Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony
The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no cost
is through GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ). Each weekday, GAO posts
newly released reports, testimony, and correspondence on its Web site. To
have GAO e-mail you a list of newly posted products every afternoon, go to
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to Updates."
Order by Mail or Phone
The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent of
Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or more
copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. Orders should
be sent to:
U.S. Government Accountability Office 441 G Street NW, Room LM Washington,
D.C. 20548
To order by Phone: Voice: (202) 512-6000 TDD: (202) 512-2537 Fax: (202)
512-6061
To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs
Contact:
Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm E-mail:
[email protected] Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202)
512-7470
Congressional Relations
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125 Washington,
D.C. 20548
Public Affairs
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, [email protected] (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548
www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-07-166 .
To view the full product, including the scope
and methodology, click on the link above.
For more information, contact Brian Lepore (202) 512-4523 or
[email protected].
Highlights of GAO-07-166 a report to congressional committees
January 2007
MILITARY BASE CLOSURES
Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to
Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property
The cleanup of environmental contamination on unneeded property resulting
from prior defense base realignment and closure (BRAC) rounds has been a
key impediment to the transfer of these properties and could be an issue
in the transfer and reuse of unneeded property resulting from the 2005
BRAC round. GAO's analysis of available data indicates that, when
completed, the cleanup for the four prior BRAC rounds is expected to cost
about $13.2 billion and additional costs will be needed for BRAC 2005
property. These costs reduce BRAC savings, especially in the short term.
Because of broad congressional interest in BRAC, GAO prepared this report
under the Comptroller General's authority to conduct evaluations on his
own initiative. GAO's objectives were to examine costs to clean up 2005
BRAC properties, progress in transferring prior BRAC rounds properties to
other users, and opportunities to expedite cleanups and transfers. To
address these issues, GAO analyzed cleanup cost estimates, interviewed
environmental officials and visited seven bases.
[50]What GAO Recommends
GAO is recommending that DOD improve its reporting of BRAC environmental
cleanup costs to Congress and share lessons learned in the use of all
available tools to clean up and transfer property. DOD partially concurred
with GAO's recommendations.
While expected environmental cleanup costs for unneeded property arising
from the 2005 BRAC round are not yet fully known, Department of Defense
(DOD) data indicate that about $950 million will be needed to clean up
these bases, adding to the estimated $13.2 billion total cleanup cost for
the prior rounds. Although DOD's cleanup program has matured compared to
prior BRAC rounds, there are still many unknowns and the cleanup estimate
for the 2005 round should be considered preliminary. In fact,
environmental cleanup costs are likely to increase as more intensive
environmental investigations are undertaken, additional hazardous
conditions are discovered, and future reuse plans are finalized.
Furthermore, Congress does not have full visibility over the total cost of
DOD's BRAC cleanup efforts because none of the four reports DOD prepares
on various aspects of environmental cleanup present all types of
costs--past and future--to complete cleanup at each base. Compiling a
complete picture of all costs requires extracting information from
multiple reports, as GAO has done to estimate the total cleanup cost for
the four prior BRAC rounds. More complete and transparent cost information
would assist Congress in conducting its oversight responsibilities for
this multibillion dollar effort.
While GAO's analysis shows that DOD continues to make progress in
transferring over 502,500 acres of unneeded property from the four prior
BRAC rounds--78 percent of the acres have now been transferred compared to
72 percent 2 years ago--over 112,300 acres remain untransferred.
Comparatively, a total of about 102,000 acres are potentially transferable
as a result of the 2005 BRAC round. Impediments to transfer continue to be
related primarily to a variety of interrelated environmental cleanup
issues, including limited technology to address unexploded ordnance and
prolonged negotiations on compliance with environmental regulations.
Opportunities exist to expedite the cleanup and transfer of unneeded 2005
BRAC properties compared with other BRAC rounds. Congress provided DOD
with a wide range of property transfer authorities for prior BRAC rounds.
In the past DOD did not use some tools as much as others out of deference
to community land reuse plans. For example, low- and no-cost transfer
tools accounted for 65 percent of all acres transferred, whereas public
and negotiated sales accounted for 5 percent. DOD's March 2006 guidance
now encourages the services to make full use of all tools for transferring
properties resulting from both the 2005 and prior-year BRAC rounds. The
services have processes in place to monitor their progress to clean up and
transfer BRAC properties, but they are not required to report periodically
to the Office of the Secretary of Defense on their successes and
challenges in using various transfer authorities. Collectively, such
lessons learned could help others expedite the cleanup and transfer of
unneeded properties by maximizing the use of all available tools, thereby
accelerating the economic benefits of property reuse to communities while
also saving the ongoing caretaker costs being incurred by DOD for unneeded
properties.
References
Visible links
25. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-138
26. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-433
27. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-433
31. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-427
32. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-785
33. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-614
34. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-05-138
35. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-601
36. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-04-147
37. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-639
38. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-03-146
39. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-02-433
40. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/NSIAD-99-36
41. http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO/NSIAD-96-172
*** End of document. ***