Military Base Closures
Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property Gao ID: GAO-07-166 January 30, 2007The 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.
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.
RecommendationsOur recommendations from this work are listed below with a Contact for more information. Status will change from "In process" to "Open," "Closed - implemented," or "Closed - not implemented" based on our follow up work.
Director: Team: Phone:GAO-07-166, Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property
This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-07-166
entitled 'Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve
Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of
Unneeded Property' which was released on January 30, 2007.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
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. 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.
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:
GAO Highlights:
Highlights of GAO-07-166, a report to congressional committees
Why GAO Did This Study:
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.
What GAO Found:
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.
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.
[Hyperlink, http://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 leporeb@gao.gov.
[End of Section]
Contents:
Letter:
Results in Brief:
Background:
Conclusions:
Recommendations for Executive Action:
Agency Comments and Our Evaluation:
Appendix I: Scope and Methodology:
Appendix II: CERCLA Cleanup Requirements:
Appendix III: Environmental Cleanup Cost Information in Four Selected
Reports to Congress:
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Appendix V: Key Prior GAO Reports on DOD Environmental Cleanup:
Appendix VI: GAO Contacts and Staff Acknowledgments:
Tables:
Table 1: Comparison of BRAC 2005 Recommendations with Recommendations
from Prior Rounds:
Table 2: BRAC 2005 Major Closures' Estimated Environmental Cleanup
Costs from Fiscal Year 2006 to Completion (in millions):
Table 3: Total Expected Environmental Costs for Prior 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):
Table 5: Property Transfer Alternatives under the BRAC Process:
Table 6: Use of Early Transfer Authority at Prior BRAC Round Bases, as
of July 2006:
Figures:
Figure 1: Disposition of Unneeded BRAC Acreage from Prior Rounds, as of
September 30, 2006:
Figure 2: Workers Searching for UXO at the Former Fort Ord Using Hand-
Held Detection Devices:
Figure 3: Alternatives Used to Transfer Unneeded BRAC Acreage to
Nonfederal Entities in Prior BRAC Rounds, as of September 30, 2006:
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),[Footnote 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[Footnote 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[Footnote 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.
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[Footnote 4] consisting of about 102,000
acres[Footnote 5] of potentially transferable properties. The remaining
$360 million is attributable to DOD's estimated cleanup costs for minor
base closures.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
Although our analysis shows that DOD continues to make progress in
transferring[Footnote 8] the over 502,500 acres[Footnote 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,"[Footnote 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.
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[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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[Footnote 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.
Table 1: Comparison of BRAC 2005 Recommendations with Recommendations
from Prior Rounds:
Round: 1988;
Major base: Closures: 16;
Major base: Realignments: 4;
Minor base closures and realignments: 23.
Round: 1991;
Major base: Closures: 26;
Major base: Realignments: 17;
Minor base closures and realignments: 32.
Round: 1993;
Major base: Closures: 28;
Major base: Realignments: 12;
Minor base closures and realignments: 123.
Round: 1995;
Major base: Closures: 27;
Major base: Realignments: 22;
Minor base closures and realignments: 57.
Round: Total: prior BRAC rounds;
Major base: Closures: 97;
Major base: Realignments: 55;
Minor base closures and realignments: 235.
Round: Total: 2005 BRAC round;
Major base: Closures: 25;
Major base: Realignments: 32;
Minor base closures and realignments: 755[A].
Source: DOD.
[A] An individual base may be affected by more than one realignment.
[End of table]
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,[Footnote 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.
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,[Footnote 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[Footnote 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).[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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[Footnote 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.
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[Footnote 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[Footnote 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.
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[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
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.[Footnote 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.
Table 2: BRAC 2005 Major Closures' Estimated Environmental Cleanup
Costs from Fiscal Year 2006 to Completion (in millions):
Service: Army (12):
Installation: Fort Monroe, Virginia;
Estimated cost: $201.
Installation: Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah;
Estimated cost: $178.
Installation: Kansas Army Ammunition Plant, Kansas;
Estimated cost: $23.
Installation: Selfridge Army Activity, Michigan;
Estimated cost: $13.
Installation: Fort Gillem, Georgia;
Estimated cost: $10.
Installation: Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon[A];
Estimated cost: $9.
Installation: Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, Mississippi;
Estimated cost: $8.
Installation: Fort McPherson, Georgia;
Estimated cost: $.
Installation: Riverbank Army Ammunition Plant, California;
Estimated cost: $5.
Installation: Newport Chemical Depot, Indiana;
Estimated cost: $5.
Installation: Fort Monmouth, New Jersey;
Estimated cost: $5.
Installation: Lone Star Army Ammunition Plant, Texas;
Estimated cost: $1.
Service: Navy (7):
Installation: Naval Weapons Station Seal Beach, Concord Detachment,
California;
Estimated cost: $85.
Installation: Naval Air Station Brunswick, Maine;
Estimated cost: $16.
Installation: Naval Air Station Willow Grove, Pennsylvania;
Estimated cost: $6.
Installation: Broadway Complex, California[B];
Estimated cost: Not available[C].
Installation: Naval Air Station Atlanta, Georgia;
Estimated cost: Not available[C].
Installation: Naval Station Pascagoula, Mississippi;
Estimated cost: Not available[C].
Installation: Naval Station Ingleside, Texas;
Estimated cost: Not available[C].
Service: Air Force (6):
Installation: Galena Forward Operating Location, Alaska;
Estimated cost: $12.
Installation: Brooks City Base, Texas;
Estimated cost: $3.
Installation: Cannon Air Force Base, New Mexico[D];
Estimated cost: $2.
Installation: General Mitchell Air Reserve Station, Wisconsin;
Estimated cost: $1.
Installation: Onizuka Air Force Station, California;
Estimated cost: $0.
Installation: Kulis Guard Station, Alaska;
Estimated cost: 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.
[B] The BRAC Commission recommended that the Broadway Complex close if
the Navy could not enter into a long-term lease to redevelop the
property January 1, 2007. During the course of our review, the Navy
announced they had entered into such a lease on November 22, 2006.
[C] Cleanup estimates were unavailable for these installations in the
Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to
Congress because they received no DERP funds.
[D] The 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.
[End of table]
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[Footnote 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.
Congress annually receives the following four required reports[Footnote
28] from DOD that contain environmental cleanup costs and estimates for
BRAC bases, two of which also include costs for active bases.
* Annual BRAC Budget Appropriations Request[Footnote 29]
* Annual Government's Consolidated Financial Statement Report:
* Annual Defense Environmental Programs Report:
* Annual Section "2907" Report[Footnote 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.
Table 3: Total Expected Environmental Costs for Prior BRAC Rounds:
Dollars in billions.
Cost category: DERP eligible[A] cleanups (Installation Restoration
Program and Military Munitions Response Program);
Funds made available through fiscal year 2005: $ 9.0;
Estimated cost from fiscal year 2006 through completion: $ 3.8;
Total: $ 12.8.
Cost Category: Non-DERP cleanups (Compliance);
Funds made available through fiscal year 2005: Included in cleanup
amount;
Estimated cost from fiscal year 2006 through completion: 0.4;
Total: 0.4.
Cost Category: Program management and planning;
Funds made available through fiscal year 2005: Included in cleanup
amount;
Estimated cost from fiscal year 2006 through completion: Included in
compliance amount;
Total: Included in compliance amount.
Total;
Funds made available through fiscal year 2005: $9.0;
Estimated cost from fiscal year 2006 through completion: $ 4.2;
Total: $ 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.
[A] BRAC 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).
[End of table]
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.[Footnote 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[Footnote 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).
Figure 1: Disposition of Unneeded BRAC Acreage from Prior Rounds, as of
September 30, 2006:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
Note: Figures do not add due to rounding.
[End of figure]
Nearly 22 percent (112,300 acres) [Footnote 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.
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.
* 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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: DOD.
[End of figure]
* 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.[Footnote 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.
* 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.
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: Air Force;
Former military base: McClellan Air Force Base, California;
Estimated future cleanup costs: $695.9.
Service: Army;
Former military base: Fort Ord, California;
Estimated future cleanup costs: 342.3.
Service: Navy;
Former military base: Alameda Naval Air Station, California;
Estimated future cleanup costs: 182.9.
Service: Army;
Former military base: Fort Wingate, New Mexico;
Estimated future cleanup costs: 182.2.
Service: Army;
Former military base: Fort McClellan, Alabama;
Estimated future cleanup costs: 152.7.
Service: Air Force;
Former military base: Kelly Air Force Base, Texas;
Estimated future cleanup costs: 131.1.
Service: Navy;
Former military base: Hunters Point Annex, California;
Estimated future cleanup costs: 127.7.
Service: Army;
Former military base: Savanna Army Depot Activity, Illinois;
Estimated future cleanup costs: 99.4.
Service: Army;
Former military base: Pueblo Chemical Depot, Colorado;
Estimated future cleanup costs: 88.0.
Service: Navy;
Former military base: Moffett Naval Air Station, California;
Estimated future cleanup costs: 78.6.
Service: Total;
Former military base: [Empty];
Estimated future cleanup costs: $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.
[End of table]
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,"[Footnote 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.[Footnote 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.
Table 5: Property Transfer Alternatives under the BRAC Process:
Property transfer alternatives: Public benefit conveyance;
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Authorizes real and personal
property transfers to 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.
Property transfer alternatives: Conservation conveyance;
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: 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.
Property transfer alternatives: Economic development conveyance;
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Authorizes a military
department to convey real and personal BRAC property to a local
redevelopment authority for the purposes of job generation on the
installation.
Property transfer alternatives: Negotiated sale;
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: 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.
Property transfer alternatives: Public sale;
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: 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.
Property transfer alternatives: Reversion;
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: 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.
Property transfer alternatives: Special legislation;
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Congressional action through
special legislation determining the terms and conditions for
transferring BRAC properties.
Property transfer alternatives: Disposal to depository institutions;
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Conveys the property and
improvements to a bank or 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.
Property transfer alternatives: Exchange for military construction;
Purpose of property transfer alternatives: Provides an alternative
authority for disposal of 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.
[End of table]
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:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of DOD data.
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.
[End of figure]
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[Footnote 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[Footnote 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[Footnote 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.
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: Fort McClellan, Alabama;
Acres: 4,692.
Installation: Naval Shipyard, Mare Island, California;
Acres: 3,486.
Installation: Fort Devens, Massachusetts;
Acres: 2,358.
Installation: Alabama Ammunition Plant, Alabama;
Acres: 2,235.
Installation: Naval Air Station Memphis, Tennessee;
Acres: 1,863.
Installation: Naval Air Station Agana, Guam;
Acres: 1,798.
Installation: Tooele Army Depot, Utah;
Acres: 1,621.
Installation: Naval Activities, Guam;
Acres: 1,482.
Installation: Fort Ord, California;
Acres: 1,401.
Installation: Fleet Industrial Supply Center, Oakland, California;
Acres: 676.
Installation: Naval Shipyard, Charleston, South Carolina;
Acres: 436.
Installation: Oakland Army Base, California;
Acres: 364.
Installation: Grissom Air Force Base, Indiana;
Acres: 201.
Installation: Bayonne Military Ocean Terminal, New Jersey;
Acres: 192.
Installation: Griffiss Air Force Base, New York;
Acres: 179.
Installation: Mather Air Force Base, California;
Acres: 165.
Installation: Wurtsmith Air Force Base, Michigan;
Acres: 149.
Installation: Naval Ordnance Station, Louisville, Kentucky;
Acres: 142.
Installation: Fitzsimons Army Medical Center, Colorado;
Acres: 133.
Installation: Naval Training Center, San Diego, California;
Acres: 51.
Installation: Public Works Center, Guam;
Acres: 25.
Installation: Lowry Air Force Base, Colorado;
Acres: 12.
Installation: Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida;
Acres: 9.
Installation: Total acres;
Acres: 23,670.
Source: DOD.
[End of table]
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".[Footnote 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[Footnote 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[Footnote 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.
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 [Hyperlink,
http://www.gao.gov].
Please contact me on (202) 512-4523, leporeb@gao.gov, or my Assistant
Director, Jim Reifsnyder, at (202) 512-4166, reifsnyderj@gao.gov, 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.
Signed by:
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:
[End of section]
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:
* Office of the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Acquisition,
Technology and Logistics, Installations and Environment, Washington,
D.C.
* Office of the Secretary of Defense (Comptroller), Washington, D.C.
Army:
* Army Office of the Assistant Chief of Staff of Installation
Management, Base Realignment and Closure Division, Arlington, Virginia:
* Office of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Army, Environmental
Safety and Occupational Health, Washington, D.C.
* Army Installation Management Agency, Arlington, Virginia:
* Army Materiel Command, Fort Belvoir, Virginia:
* Army Environmental Center, Aberdeen, Maryland:
* Army Corps of Engineers, Environmental Office for Formerly Used
Defense Sites, Washington, D.C.
* Army National Guard, Arlington, Virginia:
Navy:
* Navy BRAC Program Management Office Northeast, Philadelphia,
Pennsylvania:
* Navy BRAC Program Management Office, West, San Diego, California:
* Navy BRAC Environmental Office, Arlington, Virginia:
Air Force:
* Air Force Real Property Agency, Arlington, Virginia:
* Air Force Audit Agency, Washington, D.C.
* Air National Guard, Arlington, Virginia:
* Air Force Office of the Civil Engineer, Environmental Division,
Arlington, Virginia:
Other agencies:
* Federal Environmental Protection Agency, Federal Facilities Branch,
Arlington, Virginia:
* Association of State and Territorial Solid Waste Management
Officials, Washington, D.C.
* State of California Environmental Protection Agency, Sacramento,
California:
* Fort Ord Reuse Authority, Marina, California:
* McClellan Local Reuse Authority, Sacramento, California:
* Alameda Reuse and Redevelopment Authority, Alameda, California:
* Umatilla Reuse Authority, Hermiston, Oregon:
* Brunswick Local Redevelopment Authority, Brunswick, Maine:
* 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:
* Fort Ord, Marina, California:
* McClellan Air Force Base, Sacramento, California:
* 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:
* Fort Monroe, Hampton, Virginia:
* Umatilla Chemical Depot, Hermiston, Oregon:
* Brunswick Naval Air Station, Brunswick, Maine:
* Mississippi Army Ammunition Plant, Picayune, Mississippi:
We conducted our work from January 2006 through November 2006 in
accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards.
[End of section]
Appendix II: CERCLA Cleanup Requirements:
The Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act of 1980 (CERCLA),[Footnote 43] 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:
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
* 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.
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.[Footnote 44] 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.
[End of section]
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[Footnote 45] 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.[Footnote 46] 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.
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.
[End of section]
Appendix IV: Comments from the Department of Defense:
Acquisition Technology And Logistics:
Office Of The Under Secretary Of Defense:
3000 Defense Pentagon:
Washington, DC 20301-3000:
Jan 08 2007:
Mr. Brian J. Lepore:
Acting Director, Defense Capabilities and Management:
U.S. Government Accountability Office:
441 G Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20548:
Dear Mr. Lepore:
This is the Department of Defense (DoD) response to the GAO draft
report, "Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve
Environmental Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of
Unneeded Property," dated November 17, 2006, (GAO Code 350792/GAO-07-
166).
The Department partially concurs with the GAO recommendation to report
all costs-past and future-required to complete environmental cleanup at
each Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installation and to fully
explain the scope and limitations of all the environmental cleanup
costs DoD reports to Congress. While DoD concurs with the basic
recommendation as stated above, DoD nonconcurs with the GAO suggestion
to include this information in the annual BRAC budget justification
documentation.
The Department concurs with the GAO recommendation to require the
military services to periodically report to the Office of the Secretary
of Defense (OSD) on the status and proposed strategy for transferring
BRAC properties and include an assessment of the usefulness of all
tools at their disposal.
The Department's comments on the recommendations and additional
technical comments are enclosed. Thank you for the opportunity to
comment on the Draft Report.
Sincerely,
Signed by:
Philip W. Grone:
Deputy Under Secretary of Defense:
(Installations and Environment):
Enclosures:
as stated:
GAO Draft Report - Dated November 17, 2006 GAO Code 350792/GAO-07-166:
"Military Base Closures: Opportunities Exist to Improve Environmental
Cleanup Cost Reporting and to Expedite Transfer of Unneeded Property"
Department Of Defense Comments To The Recommendations:
Recommendation 1: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment to report all costs (Defense Environmental Restoration
Program (DERP) and non-DERP) - past and future - required to complete
environmental cleanup at each Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC)
installation and to fully explain the scope and limitations of all the
environmental cleanup costs DoD reports to Congress. The GAO also
suggested DoD include this information in the annual BRAC budget
justification documentation since it would accompany information
Congress considers when making resource allocation decisions. (page 40/
GAO Draft Report):
DoD Response: The Department partially concurs with the recommendation
in the draft report. The Department concurs with the GAO recommendation
to report all costs-past and future-required to complete environmental
cleanup at each Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) installation and to
fully explain the scope and limitations of all the environmental
cleanup costs DoD reports to Congress. The Department does not concur
with the GAO suggestion to include this information in the annual BRAC
budget justification documentation. The Department believes that
including such information in the annual BRAC budget submission would
be counterproductive. The annual BRAC budget documentation is the
vehicle for justifying resources to implement BRAC actions for the
fiscal year that the request is being made. Congress has prescribed the
type of environmental information it wants presented in the budget
documentation and the Department is in full compliance with that
congressional direction. The Department will determine the best vehicle
for reporting all BRAC costs - past and future - required to complete
environmental cleanup at each BRAC installation.
Recommendation 2: The GAO recommended that the Secretary of Defense
direct the Deputy Under Secretary of Defense for Installations and
Environment to require that the Military Services periodically report
to the Office of the Secretary of Defense on the status and proposed
strategy for transferring BRAC properties and to include an assessment
of the usefulness of all the tools at their disposal. The GAO also
suggested DoD place this information in an easily shared location, such
as a Website, so that each Service, and even the local communities and
private sector, can share and benefit from lessons learned. (Page 40/
GAO Draft Report):
DoD Response: The Department concurs with the recommendation in the
draft report.
[End of section]
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. 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. GAO-05-785.
Washington, D.C.: July 1, 2005.
Military Base Closures: Observations on Prior and Current BRAC Rounds.
GAO-05-614. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2005.
Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base Realignments and
Closures. 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. GAO-04-601.
Washington, D.C.: May 28, 2004.
Military Munitions: DOD Needs to Develop a Comprehensive Approach for
Cleaning Up Contaminated Sites. GAO-04-147. Washington, D.C.: December
19, 2003.
Environmental Compliance: Better DOD Guidance Needed to Ensure That the
Most Important Activities Are Funded. 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. GAO-03-146. Washington, D.C.: March 28, 2003.
Military Base Closures: Progress Completing Actions from Prior
Realignments and Closures. GAO-02-433. Washington, D.C.: April 5, 2002.
Military Bases: Status of Prior Base Realignment and Closure Rounds.
GAO/NSIAD-99-36. Washington, D.C.: December 11, 1998.
Military Base Closures: Reducing High Costs of Environmental Cleanup
Requires Difficult Choices. GAO/NSIAD-96-172. Washington, D.C.:
September 5, 1996.
[End of section]
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.
FOOTNOTES
[1] UXO 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.
[2] BRAC rounds were conducted in 1988, 1991, 1993, and 1995.
[3] GAO, Military Base Closures: Updated Status of Prior Base
Realignments and Closures, GAO-05-138 (Washington, D.C.: Jan. 13,
2005).
[4] DOD 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.
[5] This figure includes acreage at three chemical demilitarization
bases slated for closure--Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah; Newport
Chemical Depot, Indiana; and Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon.
[6] DOD defines minor closures as those installations with plant
replacement values of less than or equal to $100 million.
[7] Our 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.
[8] For 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.
[9] In 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.
[10] Pub. L. No. 104-201, § 334 (1996).
[11] DOD 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.
[12] Pub. L. No. 101-510, § 2904 (1990).
[13] This figure includes acreage at three chemical demilitarization
bases slated for closure--Deseret Chemical Depot, Utah; Newport
Chemical Depot, Indiana; and Umatilla Chemical Depot, Oregon.
[14] GAO, Military Base Closures: Progress in Completing Actions from
Prior Realignments and Closures, GAO-02-433 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5,
2002). See app. V for a list of key related prior GAO reports.
[15] 42 U.S.C. § 9601-9630; Pub. L. No. 99-499, (1986).
[16] Pub. L. No. 99-499, § 120.
[17] Pub. L. No. 99-499, § 211.
[18] The National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 1997, Pub.
L. No. 104-201 § 334.
[19] According 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.
[20] The 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.
[21] The 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.
[22] Defense Environmental Programs Fiscal Year 2005 Annual Report to
Congress.
[23] In 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.
[24] Non-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.
[25] In commenting on a draft of this report, DOD officials stated that
the majority of these facilities are small acreage, single buildings
with limited operations.
[26] See Appendix P of the 2005 Defense Base Closure and Realignment
Commission Report to the President.
[27] See app. II for a description of DOD's environmental cleanup
phases.
[28] The 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.
[29] For 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.
[30] This reporting requirement refers to Section 2907 of Public Law
101-510.
[31] In 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.
[32] The 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.
[33] Of 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.
[34] The Resource Conservation and Recovery Act governs the generation,
transportation, and management of hazardous wastes in order to protect
human health and the environment.
[35] Pub. L. No. 104-201, § 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.
[37] Pub. L. No. 104-201, § 334.
[38] GAO, Military Base Closures: Progress in Completing Actions from
Prior Realignments and Closures, GAO-02-433 (Washington, D.C.: Apr. 5,
2002).
[39] DOD, Base Redevelopment and Realignment Manual, 4165.66-M, March
1, 2006.
[40] The 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.
[41] The 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.
[42] The Navy Program Management Office (PMO) regions are: PMO West
(San Diego, Calif.); PMO Southeast (Charleston, S.C.); and PMO
Northeast (Philadelphia, Pa.)
[43] Pub. L. No. 99-499 (1986).
[44] Pub. L. No. 104-201, § 334.
[45] 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.
[46] This reporting requirement refers to Section 2907 of Public Law
101-510.
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: fraudnet@gao.gov
Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470:
Congressional Relations:
Gloria Jarmon, Managing Director, JarmonG@gao.gov (202) 512-4400 U.S.
Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7125
Washington, D.C. 20548:
Public Affairs:
Paul Anderson, Managing Director, AndersonP1@gao.gov (202) 512-4800
U.S. Government Accountability Office, 441 G Street NW, Room 7149
Washington, D.C. 20548:
